October 7,

1974—Pages 35999—36105

MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974WASHINGTON, D.C.

A?- |«7,™Volume 39 ■ Number 195 miPages 35999-36105

PART 1

HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS ISSUEThis listing does not affect the legal status of any document published in this issue. Detailed table of contents appears inside.NOISE CONTROL— EPA procedures for giving prior notice of citizen suits; effective 11-6-74.......................................... 36010RENTAL PROJECTS— HUD amends maximum per unit mortgage amounts; effective 10—7—74...... .— ...........— .. 36009DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY SYSTEMS— HEW/FDA amends per­formance standards; effective 10—17—74........ ..................... 36008SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME— HEW/SSA regula­tions relating to representation of parties; effective 10-7-74 ...._______ .....______________ ___ ________..___ _ 36003SECURITIES— SEC adopts exemption from OTC trades and changes in annual report form; effective 11—1 and 12-31-74 ....___ ...____________ _______________________________ _ 36002PESTICIDE CHEMICALS— EPA proposed tolerance for 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; comments by 11—6—74........ 36031COTTON TEXTILES— CITA amendment of visa systemfor products from Republic of China..................... ........ - 36040

MEETINGS—HEW/OE: National Advisory Council on Adult Educa­

tion, 11—1 through .11—3—74........ ....... ............ .— ... 36036HEW/NIE: National Council on Educational Re­

search, 10-17—74.................. ’..... - ............................ 36036HEW: Board of Advisors to the Fund for the Improve­

ment of Postsecondary Education, 11-4-74....... . 36036Interior/NPS: Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake-

Shore Advisory Commission, 11—1—74...................... 36035EPA: Water and Hazardous Materials, 10-21 through

10-23-74 ............................. ...........................-.........— 36044NSF: Advisory Panel Meetings, 10—23 and 10-r24—74.. 36069 SBA: District Advisory Council meetings for month

of October and November_________________________ ... 36074DOD: Defense Science Board Task Force on Export of

U.S. Technology; Implications to U.S. Defense,10-22—74 ______ ... --___ 36034

DOD/ NAVY: Naval Research Advisory Committee,10-24 and 10-25-74 .......... ..... ......______________— 36034

DOD/AIR: USAF Scientific Advisory Board,10-24-74 ____________________ 1___ ________- ...... .......... 36034

National Endowment for the Humanities: NationalCouncil on the Humanities, 10-24 and 10—25—74.. 36069

PART II:FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY— EPA proposes effluent limitations andguidelines; comments by 11-6-74_______________ ... 36093PART III:EMISSION STANDARDS— EPA proposes^ require­ments for State plans for designated facilities; comments by 11-21-74___________._________________ 36101

rem inders(The Items In this list were editorially compiled as an aid to Federal Register users. Inclusion or exclusion from this list has no legal

significance. Since this list is intended as a reminder, it does not include effective dates that occur within 14 days of publication.)

Rules Going Into Effect Today This list Includes only rules that were pub­

lished In the Federal Register after Octo­ber 1,1972.

page no.and date

DOT/NHTSA— Pneumatic tires; six-posi­tion test wheels................. 32321; 9-6-74EPA— Approval and promulgation of im­plementation plans; revisions to Utah plan.

32113; 9-5-74Arizona transportation control plans.

32111a; 9-5-74 SApproval of South Carolina implemen­

tation plan revision; new emissionlimits........ ................. 32329; 9-6-74

HEW/FDA— Color additives, chromium- cobalt-aluminum oxide pigment......28421;

8-7-74

ATTENTION; Questions, corrections, or requests for information regarding the contents of this issue only may be made by dialing 202-523-5283. For information on obtaining extra copies, please call 202-523-5240.

Published daily, Monday through Friday (no publication on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official Federal holidays), by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. 20408, under the Federal Register Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.O., Oh. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I ) . Distribution

S3* ^ is made only by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issue by Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Executive orders and Federal agency documents hav g general applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by Act of Congress and other Federal agen y documents of public interest.

The F ederal R egister will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, for $5.00 per month or $45 per year, P®S®k in advance. The charge for individual copies is 75 cents for each issue, or 75 cents for each group of pages as actually b • Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing D.C. 20402.

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

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

contentsa g r ic u lt u r a l m a r k et in g s e r v ic eRulesWalnut marketing order:

Calii., Oreg., and Wash.; cor­rection ______________________ 35999

a g r ic u lt u r e d ep a r t m en tSee also Agricultural Marketing

Service; Animal and Plant ; Health Inspection Service;

Commodity Credit Corporation;Rural Electrification Adminis­tration.

AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT RulesAir Force Junior Reserve Officers’

Training Corps—w,-------------— 36010NoticesMeeting: -

Scientific Advisory Board------- 36034

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTIONSERVICE

RulesInspection services:

Commuted traveltime allow­ances ______________________ 35999

Meat and Poultry inspection: Miscellaneous amendments;

correction _!______________ — 36000

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION NoticesApplications, etc.:

Duke Power Co---------------- — 36037Jersey Central Power & Light

C o _________________________ 36038Tennessee Valley Authority— - 36039

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION NoticesFacility Location Supplements;

F Y 1976:Portland Area Transmission Re­

inforcement et al___________ 36035

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD NoticesHearings, etc.:

Air Manila, Inc_________ ___ ___ 36039Priority and nonpriority domes­

tic mail service rates _____ 36039

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NoticesAnnual reports :

Private Voluntary Agency Eligi­bility Committee and Presi­dent’s Commission on White House Fellows______________ 36040

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS

NoticesCotton textiles:

Republic of China __________ 36040

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION RulesLoan and purchase program:

Flaxseed ______— _.-------— - 35999CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION NoticesFirework devices; hearing------— 36041

CUSTOMS SERVICE NoticesTariff classification:

Synthetic single-crystal quartz. 36034

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT See Air Force Department; Navy

Department.NoticesMeeting:

Defense Science Board Task Force on “Export of U.S. Technology; Implications to U.S. Defense”_______ ;______ 36034

DISEASE CONTROL CENTER NoticesCertification applications:

Gas detector tube units--------- 36035

EDUCATION OFFICENoticesMeeting:

National Advisory Council onAdult Education---------------- 36036

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RulesNoise control:

Prior notice of citizen suits------ 36010Proposed RulesAir quality implementation plans:

C a lifo rn ia--- ------- 36031Idaho ______________________ _— 36018

Effluent guidelines etc.:Fertilizer manufacturing point

source category---------— — 36093Performance standards for new

stationary sources:State plans for controlling ex­

isting facilities------------- -—- 36101Pesticide chemicals; tolerances

2 , 4 D___________________— 36031NoticesEnvironmental statement; availa­

bility -------------- ------------ 36041Meeting:

Office of Water and HazardousM aterials_________________ — 36044

Pesticide registration:Diamond Shamrock Chemical

C o _____ _____________________ 36043Elanco Products Co -----.------ 36043

Waste treatment management planning: .

Area and agency designations— 36041

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Proposed RulesGround proximity warning sys­

tem; turbine powered airplanes. 36017

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

RulesFM broadcast stations; table of as­

signments:New York___________ ._________ 36013O regon_______ ______ _— ------ 36013T e x a s ____.____ 36012

Interference to Space Radiocom­munication Services___________ 36014

Proposed RulesFM broadcast stations; table of

assignments:Illin o is _______ ____ -__________ 36032

NoticesCommon carrier services informa­

tion; domestic radio servicesapplications___________________ 36044

Hearings, etc.:CPI Microwave, Inc. and Mid­

western Relay Co_____________ 36046Prairieland Broadcasters et al— 36048 U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. and

Telecorpus, Inc____ t_________ 36049United Video, Inc______________ 36051

FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE OFFICE

NoticesAffirmative Action Plan:

University of Washington-------- 36076Hearing:

Board of Education in City of D e tro it______ _______________ 36076

FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

NoticesDisaster areas:

American Samoa------------------- 36037

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION Proposed Rules Small producers :

GHK Co. and Gasanadarko,Ltd ____________ 36032

NoticesHearings, etc.:

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co_.__ 36053Boston Edison Co. et al_______ 36053Cascade Natural Gas Corp------ 36054Chattanooga Gas Co------------- 36054Cities Service Gas Co. (2 docu­

ments) —____________ 36054, 36055Columbia Gulf Transmission

C o _________ 36055El Paso Natural Gas Co________ 36055El Paso Natural Gas Co. and

Northwest Pipeline Corp____ 36055Florida Gas Exploration Co. et

a l ____—;___ 36061Florida Gas Transmission Co.

et al____£____—___.___;_______36056(Continued on next page)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39» NO. 19&— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974 Ui

CONTENTSGulf Energy & Development

Corp _______________________ 36056High Plains Natural Gas Co___ 36056Interstate Power Co__________ 36057Jurisdictional sales of natural

gas (2 documents)_______ 36061Lewis, M. H_______ 36057Lundvall, Arthur Eugene, Jr____ 36053Montana-Dakota Utilities Co_ 36057Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of

Am erica____________________ 36058Northern States Power Co____ 36058Orange & Rockland Utilities,

Inc ______ __________________ 36058Pacific Power & Light Co______ 36060Pennzoil Producing Co________ 36060Rockland Electric Co_____ 36058Texas Eastern Transmission

C o rp ------------- -----------„ _ _ 36059Vermont Public Service Board

and Power Authority of the State of New York___ ______ _ 36060

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION NoticesTrack safety standards; exemp­

tion:Duluth & Northeastern Railroad

Co ------------------ 36037

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM NoticesApplications, etc.: v

AIB _______________ 36063Ameribanc, Inc_____________ __ 36063Ameribank, Inc_______ .________ 36063Drummond Bancshares, Inc____ 36063Fidelity American Bankshares,

In c---------- :_______________ , 36064First Bancshares of Florida, Inc_ 36065First Union Inc__________ 36066Independent Bank Corp_______ 36067Peoples Banking Corp_.___ ____ 36067Provident National Corp______ 36067Shepherd Mall State Corp_____ 36067Southeast Banking Corp_l____ 36068

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Rules

Prohibited trade practicesNagler, Sam__ ________________ 36001Pay ’N Save Corp_________ 36000

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICERulesHunting :

Oregon and Washington; cer­tain national wildlife ref-uges--------------------------_---- 36014

Seney National Wildlife Refuge,M ich ---------------------------- _ 36015

Sherburne National WildlifeRefuge, Minn____________ 36015

Shiawasse National WildlifeRefuge, Mich__.________ 36015

Tamarac National Wildlife Ref­uge, Minn— -------------------- 36016

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION RulesDiagnostic X-Ray Systems; re­

vised performance standards.. 36008

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION RulesProcurement regulations:

Clarification__________________ 36011

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT

See also Disease Control Center; Education Office; Food and Drug Administration; National Insti­tute of Education; Public Health Service; Social Security Administration.

NoticesMeeting:

Board of Advisory to the Fund for the Improvement of Post­secondary Education_______ 36036

Organization and functions:National Institutes of Health— 36036

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

See Federal Disaster Assistance Administration.

RulesMortgage and loan insurance pro­

grams:Interest reduction payments for

rental projects___________ _ 36009

INTERIM COMPLIANCE PANEL (COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY)

NoticesElectric face equipment stand­

ard; hearing:Lane Hollow Coal Co. and Belibe

Coal Corp__ .___________ .____ 36068

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTSee also Bonneville Power Ad­

ministration; Fish and Wildlife Service; Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration; Na­tional Park Service.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RulesIncome tax:

Requirements of a Domestic In­ternational Sales Corporation;correction ________. . . ______ 36009

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION NoticesHearinL assignments_______ :_____ 36078Motor carriers:

Irregular route property car­riers; gateway elimination__ 36078

Temporary authority termina­tion _______________________ 36077

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RulesOrganization and functions:

District of Columbia correc­tional institutions__________ 36009

LABOR DEPARTMENTSee Federal Contract Compliance

Office.

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE NoticesClearance of reports; lists of re­

quests _________ i_______________ 36070

MINING ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

RulesHealth and safety tandards:

Noise control standards; cor­rection ---------------- ---------- 35999

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

NoticesMeeting:

National Council on the Hu­manities Advisory Commit­tee __________ _____ _ 36069

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

RulesMotor vehicle safety standards:

Retreaded pneumatic tires ; cor­rection _,______ :____________ 36016

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION NoticesMeeting: *

National Council on Educa­tional Research—_____ 36036

NATIONAL PARK SERVICENoticesMeetings:

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Advisory Commis­sion ____ _ ____ 36035

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION »NoticesFEA/NSF Incentive Preference

Project/Phase I I SimulationExperiment __.r — _________ 36070

Meetings:■ Economics Advisory Panel— — 36069

Environmental Biology AdvisoryPanel ________________ 36069

Oceanography Advisory ’’anel. 36069

NAVY DEPARTMENT Notices - Meeting:

Naval Research Advisory Com­mittee ______ ________________ 36034

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NoticesAuthority delegations:

Regional Health Administra­tors _________;_______________ 36037

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ■ ADMINISTRATION

Proposed RulesRural telephone program:

Procedures for postloan engi­neering design requirements— 36017

NoticesEnvironmental statement:

Arizona Electric Power Coopera­tive, Inc___________________ — 36035

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

RulesSecurities; exemption:

Over-the-counter market change in Form N -IR --

and___ 36002

iv FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

CONTENTS

N oticesHearings, e tc .:

Connecticut Light & Power Co__ 36070 Consolidated Natural Gas Co— 36071 D elm arva Power & Light Ço—u-. 36071 Eauity Funding Corp. of Amer­

ica 36072Industries International, In c .. . 36072 Southwestern Electric Power

Co __________________— 36072Westgate California Corp-------- 36073Zenith Development Corp-------- 36073

Meeting:SEC Report Coordinating Group

(Advisory)------------------ 36072Proposed termination of fixed

commission rates; correction—_ 36072

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION NoticesApplications, etc.:

Hanover Capital Corp--------— 36074North American Investment

Corp __________ 36075

Disaster areas:Louisiana_____________36075

Meetings:Albuquerque District Advisory

Council___ .— --------.---------- 36074Atlanta District Advisory Coun­

cil — _____________ 36074Baltimore District Advisory

Council___________— .— — 36074Fargo District Advisory Coun­

cil ___________________________ 36074Lubbock District Advisory Coun­

cil 36074New Orleans District Advisory

Council_____________________ 36074Philadelphia District Advisory- Council_____________:--------— 36074Syracuse District A d v i s o r y

Council--------- 36074

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION RulesSupplemental Security Income:

Representation of parties— . . . 36003

TARIFF COMMISSION NoticesImport investigations:

Antenna rotator systems_______ 36075Workers determination petitions:

Gettysburg Shoe Co--------------- 36075

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTSee also Federal Aviation Admin­

istration; Federal Railroad Ad­ministration; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

TREASURY DEPARTMENTSee also Customs Service; Internal

Revenue Service.

list of cfr ports affectedThe following numerical guide is a list of the parts of each title of the Code of Federal Regulations affected by documents published In today s

issue. A cumulative list of parts affected, covering the current month to date, follows beginning with the second issue of the month.A cumulative guide is published separately at the end of each month. The guide lists the parts and sections affected by documents published

since January 1, 1974, and specifies how they are affected.

7 CFR354_________ — ... ___________ 35999984______ _______________________ 359991421 ... _ ___________ 35999Proposed R u l e s :1701_______ ____— ______. . . — 36017

9 CFR301 _________ __36000309.................... — ____36000312 ___________ 36000314— 36000316______ 36000329_____ __381....... __ __36000

14 CFRProposed R u l e s :121_____

16 CFR13 (2 documents) _____ 36000, 3600117 CFR270____274.__

18 CFRP r o po se d R u l e s :157__________________________________. . .3 6 0 3 2

20 CFR416___ __ ________- ________________- _____36003

21 CFR1020. ________ 36008

24 CFR236— — ______ — __________ - _____ - 36000

26 CFR1______ 36009

28 CFR0..... ...................— ______________________ 36009

30 CFR57— __________________ _____ ____________35999

32 CFR872__________ 36010

40 CFR210— ________________ ___________ 36010P roposed Rules:52 (2 documents)______60_________________ -180___________ .418_____________ _____

. . . 36018,36031 36101

________ ___36031___________ 36093

41 CFR5A-1__________________5A-7______ :--------------5A-74_________________

___________ 36011___________ 36012

36012

47 CFR73 (3 documents)_____78---------------- ---------

____ 36012, 36013___________ 36014

P roposed Rules:73____________________ ___________ 36032

49 CFR571------------------------ ..................36016

50 CFR32 (4 documents)_____ .____ 36014, 36015

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY,- OCTOBER 7 , 1974 V

FEDERAL REGISTER

CUMULATIVE LIST OF PARTS AFFECTED— OCTOBER

The following numerical guide is a list of parts of each title of the Code of Federal Regulations affected by documents published to date during October.

3 CFR PageExecutive Orders:

Oct. 2?, 1920 (revoked in partby PLO 5435)______________ 35797

11269 (amended by EO 11808) _ 35563 11612 (superseded by EO

11807)_____________________ 3555911789 (amended by EO 11808) _ 3556311807 _______-______________ 3555911808 _______________________ 3556311809 __ ____________________3556511810—______ _________ -_____ 35567

Proclamations r4318___________ 353154319 _______________________ 353174320 _______________________ 357994321 ___________________:______ 35781

4 CFRProposed Rules:

10______________________ 35820409______________ 35678

5 CFR213________________________ 35367, 35799

7 CFR240___I _________________________— 35783245_______________________________ 35569354_____ 35999908__________________ 35647910_______________________________ 35783931____________________________ 35784966_______________________________ 35569984________ 35327, 359991421__________ —____ ____________ 35999Proposed Rules:

52____________________________ 35670250________________ 35380272________ 35381711________ 35807Chapter IX ___________ —_ _358 01981________________ 35576984_____ 355771231________________ 35373, 358011464__________________________ 358081701______________„ _____— 36017

9 CFR301_______________________________ 36000309______________________________ 36000312______________ 36000314________________________________86000316 _____________________________ 36000317 _____________________________ 35784329____ 36000381_____—_________________ 35784, 36000

10 CFR2_________________________________ 3533251_________________________________35647202 _____________________ 1_______ 35472203 _____________________________ 35475204 ______________ .______________ 35489205 ___ 35489210 _______ 35509211 ___________________ ____——_ 35511215______________ 35558Proposed Rules:

20------------------------------------ 35820

14 CFR Page1___________ _____________________ 3545221________________________________ 3545223_________________________ 3545225 _____ — 3545227____ 3545433_________ 3545439________— 35332, 35647, 35784, 3578571_.__________ 35569, 35570, 35648, 3578597________________________________ 35786221______________j ________________ 35570288._________ 35333384— ____________________________ 35786P r o po se d R u l e s :

71____— _____ _ 35385, 35386, 35675121___ — 36017231— _______________________ 35676, 35677

15 CFR30_________________________ — — 35648

16 CFR13_____— __________ 35570, 36000, 36001

17 CFR240_______________________________ 35343, 35570270___________________ 36002274_______ 36002

18 CFR157_________ — __________________ 35787P r o po se d R u l e s :157_______r______________1___ _____ 36032

20 CFR405____________ 35774416___________________________;____ 36003P r o po se d R u l e s :405— ________*_________ _ 35774, 35814

21 CFR431______________________ — 35346452_______________________________ 356481020_____._______________ - _______ 36008P r o po se d R u l e s :

32______________ —— .r— 35809310___________________________ 35675610___ 35814700____ — 35675940___________________________ 35438

22 CFR42_________________ 3557323 CFR630_____________________________ 35347637_______________ 35649655__________________________________ — 35650

24 CFR201_______________________________ 35334236_________________________ i ____360091914________________________ 35654-35656

26 CFR1__________________________ 35353, 3600920________________________________ 35354

28 CFR Page

0_______________ ______ -------------------- 36009

29 CFR1601_____— ____________ s~____ _________353561910_______ _____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ 35890P roposed R u le s :

516__________ — --------------- _ 35382552 ______________ _______ ___ 353821907_______________ _______________ 35381

30 CFR57 _____________________ — _________ 35999

32 CFR872_____________ _ _____ _______________ 36010

33 CFRP roposed R u l e s :

209_________________ _______________ 35369

34 CFR256_______ ___________ ■ _____— — _ 35787

36 CFR

601______________________ _______________ 35573P roposed R u l e s :

7______________ _____ / 35670

14_______________________ . _ 3 5 6 5 61 7 ______________________ ____ 35356,35796

39 CFR

601_______ ___________ ____ - - 35574

P roposed R u le s :

111_________________ .. 35387

40 CFR

35— _ _ ________ 3533452— — ___ 3533580— _ _ ______ __ 35653210 .... 36010

P roposed R u l e s :5 2 _________________ ___ 35386,

35681, 35685--35687, 36018, 3603160_______________ ___ 36101

41 CFR1_1 ___ -r ___________________ _____ 356575A-1—— — — __________ 35796, 360115A—3____________ ______ -________ 357975A-7_____________________________ 360125A-14_____ 357975A-74____________________________ 3601251_1_________________________ 3536551-2___I_____ ________ 3536551-3_______________ 3536551-5_________ 35365

42 CFRP r o po se d R u l e s :

72____________________________ 35438

43 CFRP r o po se d R u l e s :

7_____________25__________ 35354

P u b l ic L a n d O r d e r s :PLO 5435_______PLO 5436_____—

3579735797

vl FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY1, OCTOBER 7, 1974

FEDERAL REGISTER

43 CFR— Continued PaeeProposed Rules:

1780__________________________ 358002800___________ - __________________ 35801

45 CFR250______________ 35778

46 CFRijg ________________________________ 357987 5 I I I I ” _______ _________________ - _____ 3579877 3579878~"~___________________________________ 35798

46 CFR— Continued PaseP r o po se d R u l e s :

42_____________________________35820

47 CFR2__________ 3565821____ ___________________________ 3565873_________________ _______ 36012, 3601378_______ ________________________ 36014P r o po se d R u l e s :

73____________ _________ 35687, 36032

49 CFR Page1____________ -_____________35367,35666571------------------------------ 360161003__________________ _____ 35366,353671033___ 35573, 35574, 35666, 35667, 357981047________ 353671115-__________________ _ 35366, 35367P r o po se d R u l e s :

571___________________ 35676

50 CFR32------ 35365, 35574, 35798, 36014, 36015

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES— OCTOBER

Pages Date35315-35558____________________ Oct. 135559-35646____________________ 235647-35778_____ 335779-35998____________________ 435999-36105__________ 7

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974 vii

35999

rules and regulationsThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect most of which are

keyed to and codified In the Code of Federal Regulations, which Is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each month.

Title 30— Mineral ResourcesCHAPTER I— MINING ENFORCEMENT

AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DE­PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SUBCHAPTER N— METAL AND NONMETALLIC MINE SAFETY

PART 57— HEALTH AND SAFETY STAND­ARDS— METAL AND NONMETALLIC UNDERGROUND MINES

354.2, as amended, July 26, 1974 <39 FR 27299), prescribing the commuted travel- time that shall be included in each period of overtime or holiday duty are further amended by adding (in appropriate alphabetical sequence (or deleting the information as shown below:§ 354.2 Administrative instructions pre­

scribing commuted traveltime.

Noise Control Standards; CorrectionIn FR Doc. 74-17963 appearing at

page 28434 in the issue of Wednesday, August 7, 1974, the following correction is made as set forth below:

In § 57.5-50(b), the second sentence is corrected to read “ I f such controls fail to reduce exposure to within permissible levels, personal protection equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels to within the levels of the table.”

Jack W . C arlso n , Assistant Secretary

of the Interior.October 2,1974.[FR Doc.74-23309 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am)

Title 7— AgricultureCHAPTER III— ANIMAL AND PLANT

HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, DE­PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PART 354— OVERTIME SERVICES RELATING TO IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Commuted Traveltime AllowancesThe purpose of this amendment is to

establish commuted traveltime periods as nearly as may be practicable to cover the time necessarily spent in reporting to and returning from the place at which an employee of the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs performs overtime or holiday duty when such travel is per­formed solely on account of such over­time or holiday duty. Such establishment depends upon facts within the knowledge of the Animal and Plant Health Inspec­tion Service.

Also included in this statement is the allowance of 1 hour commuted travel- tune, within the metropolitan area, for any inspection point to which such em­ployee may be temporarily detailed to cover travel between temporary base quarters, such as a motel, and the point of inspection.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Deputy Administra­tor, Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs, by 7 CFR 354.1 of the regula­tors concerning overtime services re- jatìng to imports and exports, the admin­istrative instructions appearing at 7 CFR

* * * * *

Commuted T eaveltime Allowances (In hottes)

Locationcovered

Metropolitan Served areafrom ■----------- -------

- Within Outside

Delete:a a a a

Connecticut:Warwick, ILL

and Windsor Locks.

_ Seattle_____ —.

Undesignatedports.

Washington:Bellingham____Cherry Point—Femdale______

Seattle (except SEA TAC Air­port and Point Wells).

1

_ McChord AFB-.a a a a

Add:a • a a

Connecticut: Groton (in­

cluding New London).

TJndesignated ports.

Washington:

1

Seattle________Bangor NSD— ........ do___ _____

do_______ -Cherry Point.—........ de.............

2Tacoma......... . MeChord AFB—

a a a aAdd the following

at the end of the commuted traveltime allow­ances listing:

Temporary Detail: „Any inspection i ---- ;— - - «J I

point to which an employee may may be tem­porarily detailed.

8

4 6 65

1

8

5 4 «6 6 32

(64 Stat. 561; (UJS.C. 2260))Effective date. The foregoing amend­

ment shall become effective on October 7, 1974.

It is to the benefit of the public that this instruction be made effective at the earliest practicable date. Accordingly, it is found upon good cause, under the ad­ministrative procedure provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, that notice and other public procedure with respect to the foregoing amendment are impracticable and un­necessary and good cause is found for

making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the F ederal R egister .

Done at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of September 1974.

T . G. D a r lin g ,Acting Deputy Administrator,

Plant Protection and Quaran­tine Programs.

[FR Doc.74—23075 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

CHAPTER IX— AGRICULTURAL MARKET­ING SERVICE (MARKETING AGREE­MENTS ANr ORDERS; FRUITS, VEGE­TABLES, NUTS), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE[Walnut Order 934 Docket No. AO-192 A5]

PART 984— WALNUTS GROWN IN CALI­FORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON

CorrectionIn FR Doc.74-22710, appearing at page

35327, in the issue for Tuesday, Octo­ber 1, 1974, make the following correc­tions:

1. In § 984.40(a), the word "vent” in the sixth line should be changed to read "event” .

2. In 5 984.48(a)(5), the word "each” in the third line should be changed to read "such” .

CHAPTER XIV— COMMODITY CREDIT COR­PORATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL­TURE

SUBCHAPTER B— LOANS, PURCHASES, AND OTHER OPERATIONS

[CCC Grain Price Support Regs.— 1974 Crops. Texas Flaxseed Purchase Program Supple­ment, Arndt. 1)

PART 1421— GRAINS AND SIMILARLY HANDLED COMMODITIES

Subpart— 1974 Crop Texas Flaxseed Purchase Program

P urchase P rices , P r e m iu m s , and D isc o u n t s

The regulations issued by Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) published in the F ederal R egister at 39 F R 23240, as amended, containing provisions for a purchase program for 1974 crop flaxseed in designated Texas counties are hereby amended as follows:

Section 1421.643(b) (2) is amended to provide for a truck receiving rate of 7 cents to the Corpus Christi terminal mar­ket. A new paragraph <b) (3) is being added to reflect the rate for deliveries by rail.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36000 RULES AND REGULATIONS§ 1421.643 Purchase prices, premiums,

and discounts.• • » * •

(b) * * *(2 ) Deliveries by truck to Corpus

Christi terminal market. The basic pur­chase price for flaxseed delivered' by truck to an authorized dealer located within the switching limits of the Corpus Christi, Texas, terminal market shall be determined by adding 7 cents per bushel to the basic purchase price established for Nueces County, Texas.

(3) Deliveries "by rail to Corpus Christi terminal market. The basic purchase price for flaxseed delivered by rail to an authorized dealer located within the switching limits of the Corpus Christi, Texas, terminal market shall be deter­mined by adding to the basic purchase price for the coirnty from which the flax­seed was shipped, the amount of freight per bushel actually paid in plus the cur­rent uniform grain storage agreement truck receiving and rail loading out charges of 10 cents per bushel.

Since 1974 crop flaxseed is being har­vested in parts of the flaxseed-producing area and the provisions of this amend­ment are needed to carry out the loan program more effectively, compliance with the notice of proposed rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, this amendment is issued without following such procedure.(Sec. 4, 62 Stat. 1070, as amended (15 US.C. 714b). Interpret or apply sec. 5, 62 Stat. 1072 (15 U.S.C. 714c); secs. 301, 401, 63 Stat. 1053, 1054 (7 US.C. 1447,1421) )

Effective date: October 7, 1974.Signed at Washington, D.C., on Oc­

tober 1,1974.

G l e n n A. W eir ,Acting Executive Vice President,

Commodity Credit Corpora- . tion.

[PR Doc.74-23322 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 amj

Title 9— Animals and Animal ProductsCHAPTER III— ANIMAL AND PLANT

HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPEC­TION), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE^

SUBCHAPTER A— MANDATORY MEAT INSPECTION

SUBCHAPTER C— MANDATORY POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION

MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION Miscellaneous Amendments; CorrectionStatement of considerations. Pursu­

ant to the authority contained in the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended (21 • U.S.C. 451 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is amending certain provisions of the federal meat in­spection regulations (9 CFR Parts 301, 309, 312, 314, 316, 329) and the poultry products inspection regulations (9 CFR Part 381) to reflect organizational changes and make certain corrections.

In changing the designation of the

nonveterinary poultry inspector from “ lay" inspector to “ food” inspector, one reference to such inspector in § 381.108(a) in the poultry products inspection regulations was inadvertently omitted. This is hereby corrected.

Two of the changes, those in I 301.2 of the federal meat inspection regulations and in § 381.169 of the poultry products inspection regulations, make corrections in codified references. Other changes indicate the current designation of sev­eral Meat and Poultry Inspection Pro­gram forms which have been revised since the reorganization of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, formerly in the Consumer and Marketing Service, into the Animal and Plant Health Inspec­tion Service in 1972. During the time that the Meat and Poultry Inspection Pro­gram was under the Consumer and Mar­keting Service, some of the official forms required to be submitted for recordkeep­ing purposes bore the designation of CP and C&MS. Since these forms have been revised because of changing require­ments, the designation of these forms has also been changed from C&MS to APHIS or from CP to MP. These amendments will bring our inspection regulations up to date in the interest of accuracy.

Accordingly, the federal meat inspec­tion regulations are amended as follows:

PART 301— DEFINITIONS1. In §301.2(i), a period is inserted

after the word “subchapter” where it first appears in that section and the phrase reading “except as otherwise pro­vided in Part 330 of this subchapter” is deleted.

PART 309— ANTE-MORTE INSPECTION2. In § 309.2 (o ), the designation “CP

402t 2” I s amended to read “MP 402-2.”

PART 312— OFFICIAL MARKS, DEVICES AND CERTIFICATES

3. In both paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 312.5, the designation “ CP 408-3” is amended to read “MP 408-3.”

4. In § 312.6(a) (1), the designation “ CP 427” is amended to read “MP 427.” Also, in §312.6(a)(2) and (a )(3 ), the designation “C&MS 510” is amended to read “MP 35.”

PART 314— HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OF CONDEMNED OR OTHER INEDIBLE PRODUCTS AT OFFICIAL ESTABLISH­MENTS5. In § 314.9(a), the designation “CP

403-10” is amended to read “MP 403-10.”

PART 316— MARKING PRODUCTS AND THEIR CONTAINERS

6. In § 316.10(b), the designation "CP 408-1” is amended to read “MP 408.”

PART 329— DETENTION, SEIZURE AND CONDEMNATION; CRIMINAL OFFENSES

7. In § 329.2, the designation “CP 483” is amended to read “MP 483.”

8. In § 329.3, the designation “ CP 479'* is amended to read “MP 479" in both places; and the designation “ CP 484” is amended to read “MP 484” in both places.

9. In § 329.5, the designation “CP 487” is amended to read “MP 487.”

Further, the poultry products inspec­tion regulations are amended as follows:

PART 381— POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

1. In § 381.169(a), the reference to § 381.130(a) (3) is amended to read “ § 381.121(b).”

2. In § 381.99, the designation “C&MS 510” is amended to read “MP 35” in both places.

3. In the third sentence of § 381.108(a), the word “ lay” is amended to read “ food.”(Sec. 21, 34 Stat. 1260, as amened (21 UJ3.C. 621); sec. 14, 71 Stat. 441, as amended (21 U.S.C. 463); 37 PR 28464, 28477)

These amendments make corrections and reflect organizational changes which involve no change in policy. They do not substantially affect any member of the public. Accordingly, under the adminis­trative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found upon good cause that no­tice and other public rulemaking proce­dures concerning the amendments are impracticable and unnecessary and good cause is. found for making these amend­ments effective in less than 30 days after publication hereof in the F ederal R egister .

These amendments shall become effec­tive October 7,1974.

Done at Washington, D.C. on Septem­ber 30, 1974.

F. J. MOTíHERN,Administrator, Animal arid Plant

Health Inspection Service.[PR Doc.74-23140 FUed 10-4-74;8:45 amj

Title 16— Commercial PracticesCHAPTER I— FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION[Docket No. C—2526]

PART 13— PROHIBITED TRADE PRACTICES

Pay’N Save Corp.Subpart—Advertising falsely or mis­

leadingly: § 13.10 Advertising falsely or misleading; 13.10-1 Availability of merchandise;* § 13.155 Prices; 13.155—93 Special or test offers; § 13.240 Special or limited offer. Subpart—Misrepresenting oneself and> goods—Goods: § 13.1572 Availability of advertised merchandise. Subpart—Offering unfair, improper and deceptive inducements to purchase or deal: § 13.2070 Special or trial offers, savings and discounts.(Sec. 6. 38 Stat. 721; 15 US.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45.) [Cease and desist order, Pay« Save Corporation, Seattle, Washington, Docket C-2526, August 6, 1974.]

»New.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

In the Matter of Pay’N Save Corpora­tion, a corporation.

Consent order requiring a Seattle, Wash., owner and operator of retail drug, general merchandise, retail de­partment and hardware stores, among other things to cease failing to have ad­vertised specials readily available for sale at or below the advertised prices. Further, respondent is required to hire an independent testing company to check on its compliance with the order for a period of two years.

The Decision and Order, including further order requiring report of com­pliance therewith is as follows.2

It is ordered, That Pay’N Save Corpo­ration, a corporation, its successors and assigns, its officers, agents, representa­tives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, do forthwith cease and de­sist from representing orally, in writing, visually or in any other manner, directly or by implication, that any product is available for sale to the public at its stores at any price unless:

1. Each advertised item is clearly and conspicuously available for sale to the public at or below the advertised price in each store covered by the advertise­ment;

2. At each location where an advertised item is displayed for sale, there is a sign or other conspicuous marking clearly disclosing that the item is “ as adver­tised” or “on sale” or words of similar import and meaning; and

3. Each advertised item, which is indi-, vidually marked with a price, is individ- usually and clearly marked with a price which is at or below the advertised price: Provided however,

1. A product shall be deemed clearly and conspicuously available if a clear and conspicuous notice is displayed stat­ing that said product is in stock and may be obtained upon request, and such prod­uct is furnished immediately upon request.

2. A product shall not be deemed un­available if respondent maintains such records as will clearly and convincingly disclose (a) that the advertised products were ordered in adequate time for deliv­ery and were delivered to its stores in quantities sufficient to meet reasonably anticipated demands; or (b) that or­dered items were not delivered due to circumstances beyond respondent’s con­trol; and (c) furthermore, respondent offers a rain check to customers which allows them to purchase the product in the near future at or below the adver­tised price or respondent immediately offers a similar product of equal or better quality at or below the advertised price.

3. If an advertisement includes two or juore stores, a product shall not be deemed unavailable or mispriced if such advertisement contains a specific exemp­tion or limitation with respect to each Product and each store in which the Product is unavailable.

’ Copies of the complaint, decision and oraer’ *hed with the original document.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

4. I f an advertised item is placed for sale in a large stack, pyramid or other special display containing a great num­ber of such items all of the items need not be individually marked at or below the advertised price, if the items not marked individually at or below the ad­vertised price are so situated that it would be difficult or impossible for a cus­tomer to select that unmarked item.

I t is further ordered, That for a period of two (2 ) years from the date this order becomes final respondent shall place no­tices during the effective period of each advertisement which represents that any product is available at respondent’s stores (a) at or near each door offering entrance to the public in each retail store; and Cb) at or near each cash regis­ter or place where customers pay for merchandise. The notice shall contain the following information:

Notice

1. A copy of the advertisement.2. A statement that: “A ir items listed in

the above advertisement are required to be readily available for sale at or below the advertised price.”

3. I f any advertised item that you wish to purchase is unavailable either (a ) you wiU be given a rain check which will enable you to purchase the item at or below the adver­tised price in the near future; or (b ) you will be aUowed to immediately purchase a similar product of equal or better quality at or below the advertised price.

4. A statement that: “I f you have any questions please speak to the store manager.”

I t is further ordered, That for a period of two (2 ) years from the date this order becomes final, in each advertisement which represents that products are avail­able at any of its stores, respondent shall place the following statement:

Each of these advertised products are re­quired to be readily available for sale at orbelow the advertised price in e a c h -------------____ (name of store) store, except as specifi­cally noted in this ad.

I t is further ordered, That:1. Respondent shall deliver a copy of

the complaint and this order to each of its present and future officers and other personnel in its organization down to the level of and including Assistant Store Managers who, directly or indirectly, have any supervisory responsibilities as to individual retail stores of respondent.

2. Respondent shall institute a pro­gram of continuing surveillance adequate to reveal whether the business practices of each of its retail stores conform with this order; and

3. Respondent shall hire under writ­ten contract an independent testing com­pany to be approved by authorized rep­resentatives of the Federal Trade Com­mission. Such contract shall provide that the testing company shall randomly select four of respondent’s retail stores every four months for a period of two years from the date this order becomes final, and survey such stores for compli­ance with this order; that respondent shall not receive prior notification of which stores will be surveyed; that the testing company shall submit its pro­posed testing procedure for approval by

86001

authorized representatives of the Federal Trade Commission prior to testing; that the Federal Trade Commission reserves the right to require changes in the test­ing procedure during the course o f the testing program; and that upon comple­tion of each survey the testing company shall send the survey results to the Fed- ral Trade Commission and to respond­ent.

I t is further ordered, That respondent shall notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any proposed change in the respondent, such as dis­solution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corpora­tion, the creation or dissolution of sub­sidiaries or any other change in the respondent which may affect compliance obligations arising out of this order.

I t is further ordered, That respondent shall, within sixty (60) days after serv­ice upon it of this, order, file with the Commission a written report setting forth in detail the manner and form of its compliance with this order.

Decision and order issued by the Com­mission August 6,1974.

V ir g in ia M . H arding , Acting Secretary.

[PR Doc.74-23247 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

[Docket No. C-2527]PART 13— PROHIBITED TRADE

PRACTICESSam Nagler

Subpart—Advertising falsely or mis­leadingly: § 13.15 Business status, ad­vantages or connections; 13.15-235 Pro­ducer status of dealer or seller; 13.15- 235(m) Manufacturer; § 13.30 Composi­tion of goods; 13.30-30 Fur Products Labeling Act; § 13.73 Formal regulatory and statutory requirements; 13.73-10 Fur Products Labeling Act; § 13.130 Manu­facture pr preparation; 13.130-20 Fur Products Labeling Act. Subpart—Fur­nishing false guaranties: § 13.1053 Fur­nishing false guaranties; 13.1053-35 Fur Products Labeling Act. Subpart—In­voicing products falsely: § 13.1108 In ­voicing products falsely; 13.1108-45 Fur Products Labeling Act. Subpart—Mis­branding or mislabeling: § 13.1185 Com­position; 13.1185-30 Fur Products Label­ing Act; § 13.1212 Formal regulatory and statutory requirements; 13.1212-30 Fur Products Act; § 13.1255 Manufacture or preparation; 13.1255-30 Fur Products Labeling Act. Subpart—Misrepresenting oneself and goods—Business status, ad­vantages or connections: § 13.1485 Manufacturer’s operations—Goods:§ 13.1590 Composition; 13.1590-30 Fur Products Labeling Act; § 13.1623 Formal regulatory and statutory requirements; 13.1623-30 Fur Products Labeling Act. Subpart—Neglecting, unfairly or decep­tively, to make material disclosure : § 13.1852 Formal regulatory and statu­tory requirements; 13.1852-35 Fur Prod­ucts Labeling Act.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36002(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, sec. 8, 65 Stat. 179; 15 UJS.C. 45, 69f.) [Cease and desist order, Sam Nagler, New York City, Docket C-2527, August 16,1974.]

In the Matter of Sam Nagler, an individ­ual. •

Consent order requiring a New York City wholesaler of furs and fur products, among other things to cease misrepre­senting his business as being a manufac­turer of fur products; misbranding, mis­labeling, and falsely invoicing his fur products; and furnishing false guaran­ties as to his fur products.

H ie Decision and Order, including fur­ther order requiring report of compliance therewith is as follows:1

I t is ordered, That respondent, Sam Nagler, an individual trading as Sam Nagler, or under any other name or names, his successors and assigns, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any cor­poration, subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the introduc­tion, or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in com­merce, of any fur product; or in connec­tion with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transporta­tion or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce,” “ fur” and “ fur product” are defined in the Pur Products Labeling Act, do forth­with cease and desist from;

A. Misbranding fur products by:_ 1. Representing directly or by implica­tion, on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

2. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of section 4(2) of the Pur Products Labeling Act.

3. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark to be assigned to each fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by:

1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term “ invoice” is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the infor­mation required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Representing, directly or by im­plication, on invoices that the fur con­tained in the fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip- dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Describing fur products which have been bleached, dyed or otherwise arti­ficially colored by the name of mink or any other animal name or names with-

1 Copies of the complaint, decision and order, filed with the original document.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

out disclosing that the said fur products are bleached, dyed or otherwise artifi­cially colored.

4. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark required to be as­signed to such fur products.

5. Representing directly or indirectly on invoices the word “manufacturers” or any other word of similar import or meaning implying that the respondent manufactures the fur products sold by him, unless and until respondent actu­ally owns and operates, or directly and absolutely controls the manufacturing plant wherein his fur products are made.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is in­tended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of any such fur product, which im­plies that the respondent manufactures the fur products sold by him, unless and until respondent actually owns and operates, or directly and absolutely con­trols the manufacturing plant wherein his fur products are made.

D. Furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when the- respondent has reason to be­lieve that such fur product may be in­troduced, sold, transported, or distrib­uted in commerce.

I t is further ordered, That the re­spondent herein promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present business or employment and of his affiliation with a new business or em­ployment. Such notice shall include re­spondent’s current business and address, the nature of the business or employ­ment in which he is engaged,' as well as a description of his duties and responsi­bilities.

I t is further order, That respondent shall, within sixty (60) days after serv­ice upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist contained herein.

Decision and Order issued by the Com­mission August 16,1974.

V ir g in ia M . H arding , Acting Secretary.

[PR Doc.74-23248 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Title 17— Commodity and Securities Exchanges

CHAPTER II— SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION *

[Release No. IC-8494]

PART 270— RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

PART 274— FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

Exemption for Securities Traded in Over- the-Counter Market and Change in An­nual Report Form N-1ROn February 13, 1974, there was pub­

lished in the F ederal R egister (39 FR 5506) a notice of proposed rulemaking

with a proposed amendment to Rule 17a-7 (17 CFR 270.17a~7) under the In­vestment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act” ) pursuant to authority granted to the Commission in sections 6(c) and 38(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c), 80a-37 (a ) ) and the revision of Item2.07 of Form N-1R and of the EDP At­tachment to Form N-1R (17 CFR 274.101, 274.101a-l, 274.101a-2) formanagement investment companies pursuant to authority granted to the Commission in section 30 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80ar-29) and in sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m, 78o(d) ) ) (the “ 1934 Act” ) . The proposed amendment to Rule 17a-7 would have qualified for the Rule’s exemptive relief purchase or sale trans­actions between affiliated investment companies in securities which are in­cluded in an inter-dealer quotation sys­tem which is sponsored and governed by the rules of a national securities asso­ciation registered pursuant to section 15A of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-3), provided (i) the transaction is effected at the average of the highest last inde­pendent bid and the lowest last inde­pendent offer for such security as quoted on such quotation system on such day and (ii) on such day such quotation sys­tem carries at least two independent bids and offers furnished or submitted by at least two brokers or dealers with respect to such security. The proposed amend­ment to Item 2.07 of Form N-1R would have required the registrant to state the reasons why a Rule 17a-7 transaction was engaged in. The proposed amend­ment to Item 2.07 of the EDP Attach­ment to Form N-1R would have reouired the registrant to state, affirmatively or negatively, whether it reported in Item2.07 of Form N-1R anv transaction which was exempted by Rule 17a-7 under the Act.

As a result of comments received, the following changes are made:

1. The word “last” which appeared twice in proposed paragraph (c) of Rule 17a-7 has been changed to “current” in order to correlate the type of quotation with its respective quotation system.

2. The word “current” has been added to sub-part (3) of proposed paragraph(c) of Rule 17a-7 to further emphasize this clarification.

3. The language “and which displays quotations for such security on a current and continuous basis” has been added to sub-part (1) of proposed paragraph (c) of Rule 17a-7 to describe more precisely the auotation system which can be used to effect the transaction.

4. The language “at the time of such transaction” has been added to the be­ginning of sub-part (3) of proposed para­graph (c) of Rule 17a-7 to emphasize the fact that the quotes being used must be those which are being displayed by the system at the time of execution.

5. The language “on such day” has been deleted from sub-parts (2) and (3) of proposed paragraph (c) of Rule 17ar-7 to make these clauses consistent with the change described in No. 4 above.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

Commission ActionI. Pursuant to the authority in sections

6 and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Securities and Exchange Commission hereby amends § 270.17a-7 of Part 270 of Chapter n of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations to be- côme effective on November 1, 1974, and to read as follows:§ 270.17a-7 Exemption o f certain pur­

chase or sale transactions betweenaffiliated registered investment com­panies.

A purchase or sale transaction be­tween registered investment companies, which are affiliated persons, or affiliated persons of affiliated persons, of each other, or between separate series of a registered investment company, shall be exempt from section 17(a) of the Act: Provided:

(a) The transaction is a purchase or sale, for no consideration other than cash payment against prompt delivery, of a security traded on a national securi­ties exchange or of a security traded in the over-the-counter market;

(b) If the principal market for such security is a national securities ex­change, the transaction is effected at the independent current market price of such security on such principal mar­ket. For the purposes of this paragraph, the “current market price” shall be the last independent sale price of such security on such exchange if such security was traded on such exchange on such day, or the average of the highest current independent bid and the lowest current independent offer for such security on such exchange if it was not traded on such exchange on such day;

(c) If the principal market for such security is the over-the-counter market,(1) the security is entered in an inter­dealer quotation system which is spon­sored and governed by the rules of a national securities association registered pursuant to section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and which dis­plays quotations for such security on a current and continuous basis, (2) the transaction is effected at the average of the highest current independent bid and the lowest current independent offer for such security as quoted on such quota­tion system, and (3) at the time of such transaction, such quotation system car­ries at least two independent current bids and offers furnished or submitted by at least two brokers or dealers with respect to such security;

(d) The transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company, or of separate series of a regis­tered investment company, as recited in

registration statement and. reports Sled ' nder the Act; and

(e) No brokerage commission, fee (ex- cept for customary transfer fees), or other remuneration is paid in connection With the transaction.

o /Îî'>rile Proposed amendments to Item f '"J °* Form N-1R are adopted as set ™ below and will become effective for au fiscal years ending on or after Decem­ber 31,1974,

RULES AND REGULATIONSItem 2.07 Transactions "between registrant

or controlled company and affiliated or certain other persons (sections 17(a), 17(b), 17 (c), and 21).* * * *

(b ) I f during the fiscal year any of the persons specified below, acting as principal, sold to the registrant, or to any company controlled by the registrant, any security or other property, other than pursuant to any of the exemptions specified in section 17(a) (1 j or 17(c) of the Act, cite the specific order, if any, of the Commission pursuant to sec­tion 17(b) of the Act relied upon for exemp­tion, or, in the absense of such an order, de­scribe the transaction, identify the persons and the nature of the affiliation with the registrant, and cite the rule, if any, under the Act relied upon for exemption. If Rule 17a-7 was relied upon for exemption, also state the reasons why the registrant purchased and the persons sold such security or property.

(c) I f during the fiscal year any of the persons specified in paragraph (b ) above, act­ing as principal, purchased from the regis­trant, or from any company controUed by the registrant, any security or other property, other than pursuant to any of the excep­tions specified in section 17(a) (2) or 17(c) of the Act, furnish the information required in paragraph (b ) above, including, if Rule 17a-7 was relied upon for exemption, the rea­sons why the persons purchased and the registrant sold such security or property.

• * * • *

I I I . The proposed amendments to Item2.07 of the EDP Attachment to Form N-1R are adopted sus set forth below and will become effective for all fiscal years ending on or after December 31, 1974.

Item 2.07(a) Transactions between regis­trant or controlled company and affiliated or certain other persons (Sections 17(a), 15 (b ), 17(c) and 21). State whether registrant reported in Item 2.07 of its annual report on Form N-1R for fiscal year any transaction which was not exempted by an order of the Commission or exempted or excepted by any provision of sections 17 or 21 of the Act or any Rule thereunder.

_______ t (Yes or No)Item 2.07(b) Certain Purchase or Sale

Transactions Between Certain Registered In ­vestment Companies (Rule 17a-7). State whether registrant reported in Item 2.07 of its annual report on Form N-1R for fiscal year any transaction which was exempted by Rule 17a-7 under the Act.

_________ (Yes or No)(Sec. 6 (c ), 30, 38(a), Pub. L. 76-768, 54 Stat. 800, 836, 841 (15 U.S.C. 80ar-6(c), 80a-29, 80a- 37(a); sec. 13, 15(d), Pub. L. 73-291, 48 Stat. 894, 895 (15 U.S.C. 78m, 78o(d) )

By the Commission.[ seal ] G eorge A. F it z s im m o n s ,

Secretary.S eptem ber 13, 1974.[FR Doc.74-23220 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

Title 20— Employees’ BenefitsCHAPTER III— SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN­

ISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

[Regs. 16]

PART 416— SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLEDSubpart O— Representation of PartiesOn December 14, 1973, there was pub­

lished in the F ederal R egister (38 FR

36003,34469) a notice of proposed rulemaking with a proposed new subpart (Subpart O) of Regulations No. 16. The proposed regulations were designed to implement the provisions of title XV I of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-603), relating to representation of parties in proceedings under the supple­mental security income program. They provide the rules and procedures govern­ing the representation of parties in pro­ceedings as provided in section 1631(d)(3) of the Social Security Act. The pro­posed provisions parallel the provisions of 20 CFR 404.971 through 404.990, deal­ing with the representation of parties in proceedings under titles n and X V III of the Social Security Act, except that there is no provision in these proposed regula­tions for the direct payment by the Social Security Administration of fees to attorneys out of the past-due benefits of claimants. Interested parties were given 30 days within which to submit their data, views, and arguments.

Only two letters of comment have been received in response to the proposal.

In the proposed § 416.1503(b) (1) there is a provision that any person (other than an attorney) who “ is of good char­acter, is in good repute, and has the necessary qualifications to enable him to render valuable assistance to an in­dividual in connection with his claim” may be appointed a representative. It was suggested that this provision is too vague and would render arbitrary the ac­ceptance or preclusion of a represent­ative. The provision paraphrases the reg­ulation governing the representation of parties under titles n and X V m and is intended to be the uniform criterion ap­plied for the appointment of all repre­sentatives before the Social Security Ad­ministration. It is purposely patterned af er the language of the statute (sec­tion 1631(d) (3) ) so as not to restrict the acceptance of appointments to any set of limited qualifications. Rather than pre­venting the selection of various types or classes, such language provides discre­tion to select individuals meeting the basic fundamental qualifications for sound representation.

In the proposed § 416.1503(b) (3) there appears as a condition under which a person other than an attorney may rep­resent a claimant in a proceeding before the Social Security Administration, that he is “not, pursuant to any provision of law, otherwise prohibited from acting as a representative.” The comment was made that in some States individuals who are not attorneys would be precluded from representing claimants before the Social Security Administration. This has not been, the case in the past with re­spect to representation under titles I I and X V in . The statute governing repre­sentation of parties before the Social Security Administrp *ion is a Federal statute and supersedes State statute with respect to representation before the Social Security Administration. There­fore, it would not be necessary to con­strue a State statute as precluding such representation. Rather, this provision was intended to preclude representation

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36004 RULES AND REGULATIONSnot permissible under Federal law, e.g., a provision prohibiting Federal employees from representing individuals in claims against the Government.

Another comment suggested that a dis­tinction be made between non-lawyers who seek a fee and those who do not seek a fee, and that those who do not seek a fee be exempted from the regula­tions. Unfortunately, this would not be consistent with the statutory provision governing representation of parties. The provision governing the appointment of representatives is separate and distinct from that governing approval of fees. The first is to assure, to the extent possible, that a claimant will have adequate and competent representation. The latter is to assure that he is no charged unreason- able fees. The criteria in determining whether or not the proposed representa­tive will adequately represent the inter­ests of the individual are equally as im­portant when the representative is not seeking a fee as when he is. These cri­teria do not preclude the use of para­legal personnel or individuals participat­ing in legal training. The regulation merely requires that the appointment by the individual be submitted in writing. No writing is required for attorneys as there is a presumption, in light of his position in the legal profession, that his services have been requested.

As a practical matter, in the past ap­pointments have rarely been refused un­less the proposed representative was shown to be blatantly inadequate.

There was a further comment express­ing concern that, because the proposed regulations are more stringent than those issued by the Social and Rehabilitation Service, there would be dual standards for representation of claimants for Aid to Families with Dependent Children and for representation of claimants for Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled. How­ever, the respective regulations are de­signed to implement separate and dis­tinct titles of the Social Security Act. It is desirable, from a procedural stand­point, to have standards with respect to the representation of claimants before the Social Security Administration as uniform as possible with respect to all the titles of the Act which it administers.

Accordingly, the proposed regulations are adopted with only an editorial change and are set forth below.

Effective date. These regulations will be effective on October 7,1974.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Pro­gram No. 13.807. Supplemental Security In ­come Program.)

Dated: August 19,1974.J. B. C a r d w e ll ,

Commissioner of Social Security.Approved: October 1,1974.

C aspar W . W einberger ,Secretary of Health, Education,

and Welfare.Chapter I I I of Title 20 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended by add­ing new Subpart O to Part 416 to read as follows:

Subpart O— Representation of PartiesSec.416.1501416.1l>03416.1505416.1507

416.1510

416.1515416.1525

416.1530

,416-1540

416.1545416.1550416.1555

416.1560416.1565416.1570

416.1575

416.1580416.1585

416.1590416.1595

Appointment of representative.Qualifications of representative.Authority of representative.Proceedings before a State or Fed­

eral courtFee for services performed for an

individual before the Adminis­tration.

Petition for approval of fee.Services rendered for an individual

in a proceeding before the Ad­ministration under title XVI of the Act.

Rules governing the representation and advising of claimants and parties.

Disqualification or suspension of an individual from acting as a representative in proceedings be­fore the Administration.

Notice of charges.Withdrawal of charges.Referral to Bureau of Hearings and

Appeals for hearing and decision.Hearing on charges.Decision by hearing officer.Right to request review of the

hearing officer’s decision.Procedure before Appeals Council

on review of hearing officer’s decision.

Evidence admissible on review.Decision by Appeals Council cm re­

view of hearing officer’s decision.Dismissal by Appeals Council.Reinstatement after suspension or

disqualification.Authority : Secs. 1102 and 1631(d)(3), 49

Stat. 647, as amended, 86 Stat. 1475 (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1383).

Subpart O— Representation of Parties§’416.1501 Appointment of representa­

tive.Any individual who is or claims to be

an eligible individual or ah eligible spouse in any proceeding before the Ad­ministration, may appoint as his repre­sentative in any such proceeding only an individual who is qualified under § 416.1503 to act as a representative. Where the individual appointed by a party to represent him is not an attor­ney, written notice of the appointment must be given, signed by the party ap­pointing the representative, and accepted by the representative appointed. The no­tice of appointment shall be filed at an office of the Administration, with an ad­ministrative law judge, with a hearing examiner—SSI, or with the Appeals Council of the Administration, as the case may be. Where the representa­tive appointed is an attorney, in the ab­sence of information to the contrary, his representation that he has such author­ity shall be accepted as evidence of the attorney’s authority to represent a party.§ 416.1503 Qualifications o f represent­

ative.(a) Attorney. Any attorney in good

standing who (1) is admitted to practice before a court of a State, Territory, Dis­trict, or insular possession or before the Supreme Court of the United States or an inferior Federal court, (2) has not been disqualified or suspended from act­ing as a representative'in proceedings

before the Administration, and (3) is not, pursuant to any provision of law, other­wise prohibited from acting as a repre­sentative, may be appointed as a repre­sentative in accordance with § 416.1501.

(b) Person other than attorney. Any person (other than an attorney described in paragraph (a) of this section) who(1) is of good character, in good repute, and has the necessary qualifications to enable him to render valuable assistance to an individual in connection with his claim, (2) has not been disqualified or suspended from acting as a representa­tive in proceedings before the Adminis­tration, and (3) is not, pursuant to any provision of law, otherwise prohibited from acting as a representative, may be appointed as a representative in accord­ance with § 416.1501.§ 416.1505 Authority o f representative.

A representative, appointed and quali­fied as provided in §§ 416.1501 and 416.1503, may make or give, on behalf of the party he represents, any request or notice relative to any proceeding before the Administration under title XVI of the Act, including reconsideration, hear­ing, and review, except that such repre­sentative may not execute an applica­tion for benefits unless he is a person designated in § 416.315 as authorized to execute an application for benefits. A representative shall be entitled to pre­sent or elicit evidence and allegations as to facts and law in any proceeding affect­ing the party he represents and to obtain information with respect to the claim of such party to the same extent as such party. Notice to any party of any admin­istrative action, determination, or deci­sion, or request to any party for the pro­duction of evidence may be sent to the representative of such party, and such notice or request shall have the same force and effect as if it had been sent to the party represented. (For fees to rep­resentatives for services performed be­fore the Administration for an individ­ual, see § 416.1510.)§ 416.1507 Proceedings befo-e a Stale

or Federal court.Any service rendered by any repre­

sentative in any proceeding before any State or Federal court shall not be con­sidered services in any proceeding before the Administration for purposes of §§ 416.1503 and 4? 6.1510. However, if the representative has also rendered services in connection with the claim in any pro­ceeding before the Administration, as defined in §416.1525, he must specify what, if any, amount of the fee he desires to charge is for services performed be­fore the Administration, and if be charges any fee for such services, he must file the petition and furnish all of the information required by § 416.1515(a ).§ 416.1510 Fee fo r services performed

fo r an individual before the Admin­istration.

(a) General. A fee for services per­formed for an individual before the Ad­ministration in any proceeding under

FEDERAL REGISTER,. VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

title XVI of the Act may be charged and received only as provided in paragraph(b) of this section.

(b) Charging and receiving fee. An in­dividual who desires to charge or receive a fee for services rendered for an indi­vidual in any proceeding under title XVI of the Act before the Administration (see §416.1525), and who is qualified under §416.1503, must file a written petition therefor in accordance with § 416.1515(a). The amount of the fee he may charge or receive, if any, shall be author­ized on the basis of the factors described in § 416.1515(b) by an authorized official of the appropriate component of the Ad­ministration, where the services were concluded by an initial, reconsidered, or revised determination, or by the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals where there is a decision or action by an administrative law judge or the Appeals Council of the Administration, as the case may be. Every such fee which is charged or re­ceived must be approved as provided in this section and no fee shall be charged or received which is in excess of the amount so approved: This rule shall be applicable whether the fee is charged to or received from a party to the proceed­ing or someone else.

(c) Notice of fee authorization. Writ­ten notice of a fee authorization made in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section shall be mailed to the representa­tive and the claimant at their last known addresses.-Such notice shall inform the parties of the amount of the fee author­ized, the basis of the authorization, the fact that the Administration assumes no responsibility for payment, and that each party may request an administrative re­view of the authorization within 30 days of the date of the notice.

(d) Administrative review of fee au­thorization. Administrative review of a fee authorization will be granted only if a request is filed by either the repre­sentative or the claimant within 30 days of the date of the notice of the fee au­thorization. The request for administra­tive review shall be in writing and filed at an office of the Administration and a copy sent to the other party. Uponrthe fiiipg of such request for review of a fee authorization, an authorized official of the Administration who did not partici­pate in the fee authorization in question will review the authorization.§ 416.1515 Petition for approval o f fee.

(a) Filing of petition. In accordance with § 416.1510, to obtain approval of a lee for services performed before the Ad­ministration in any proceeding under the Ai:t’ a representative, upon completion oi the proceedings in which he rendered services, must file at an office of the Ad­ministration a written petition which snail contain the following information: ended,Tlle ^a es services began and

hJ'V. An itemization of services renderedL In a Proceeding under the Act,

nr !re amount of time spent in hours, Parts thereof, on each type of service;

"r*le amount of the fee he desires charge for services performed;

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(4) The amount of fee requested or charged for services rendered in the same matter before any State or Federal court;

(5) The amount and itemization of ex­penses incurred for which reimburse­ment has been made or is expected;

(6) The special qualifications which enabled him to render valuable services to the claimant (this requirement does not apply where the representative is an attorney); and

(7) A statemeht showing that a copy of the petition was sent to the person represented.

(b) Factors considered in evaluating a petition for fee. In evaluating a request for approval of a fee, the purpose of the supplemental security income program— to assure a minimum level of income for people who are age 65 or over, or who are blind or disabled and who do not have sufficient income or resources to main­tain a standard of living at the estab­lished minimum income level—will be considered, together with the following factors:

(1) The services performed (including type of service);

(2) The complexity of the case;(3) The level of skill and competence

required in rendition of the services;(4) The amount of time spent on the

case;(5) The results achieved. (While con­

sideration is always to be given to the amount of benefits, if any, which are payable in a case, the amount of fee will not be based on the amount of such bene­fits alone but on a consideration of all of the factors listed in this section. The benefits payable in a given claim are governed by specific statutory provisions and by the occurrence of termination, suspension, or nonpayment events speci­fied in the law, factors which are unre­lated to efforts of the representative. In addition, the amount of accrued benefits payable in a given claim is affected by the length of time that has elapsed since the claimant became entitled to benefits.);

(6) The level of administrative review to which the claim was carried within the Administration and the level of such review at which the representative en­tered the proceedings; and

(7) The amount of the fee requested for services rendered, excluding the amount of any expenses incurred but including any amount previously author­ized or requested.§ 416.1525 Services rendered for an in­

dividual in a proceeding before the Administration under title XV I of the Act.

Services rendered for an individual in a proceeding before the Administration under title X V I of the Act consist of services performed for an individual in connection with any claim before the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under title X V I of the Act, in­cluding any services in connection with any asserted right calling for an initial or reconsidered determination by the Ad­ministration, and a decision or action by

36005an administrative law judge or by the Appeals Council of the Bureau of Hear­ings and Appeals of the Administration, whether such determination, decision, or action is rendered before or after remand of a claim by a court. Such services in­clude, but are not limited to, services in connection with an application for bene­fits, a request for modification of the amount of benefits, and the reinstate­ment of benefits.§ 416.1530 Rules governing the repre­

sentation and advising o f claimants and parties.

No attorney or other person shall:(a) With intent to defraud, in any

matter willfully and knowingly deceive, mislead, or threaten by word, circular, letter, or advertisement, either oral or written, any claimant or prospective claimant or beneficiary with respect to benefits under title XVI, or any other ini­tial or continued right under the Act; or

(b) Knowingly charge or collect, or make any agreement to charge or col­lect, directly or indirectly, any fee in connection with any claim except under the circumstances prescribed in § 416.- 1510, or knowingly charge, demand, re­ceive, or collect for services rendered before a Federal court in connection with a claim under title X V I of the Act, any amount in excess of that allowed by the court; or

(c) Knowingly make or participate in the making or presentation of any false statement, representation, or claim as to any material fact affecting the right of any person to benefits under title XVI of the Act, or as to the amount of any benefit; or

(d) Divulge, except as may be author­ized by regulations now or hereafter pre­scribed by the Secretary, any informa­tion furnished or disclosed to him by the Administration relating to the claim or prospective claim of another person.§ 416.1540 Disqualification or suspen­

sion o f an individual from acting as a representative in proceedings be­fore the Administration.

Whenever it appears that an individ­ual has violated any of the rules in § 416.1530, or has been convicted of a violation under section 1631(d) (3) of the Act, or has otherwise refused to comply with the Secretary’s rules and regula­tions governing representation of claim­ants before the Administration, the Deputy Commissioner, or the Director (or Deputy Director) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance may institute proceedings as herein provided to suspend or disqualify such individual from acting as a representatvie in pro­ceedings before the Administration.§ 416.1545 Notice of charges.

The Deputy Commissioner, or the Director (or Deputy Director) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors In­surance will prepare a notice containing a statement of charges that constitutes the basis for the proceeding against the individual. This notice will be delivered

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36006

to the individual charged, either by cer­tified or registered mail to his last known address or by personal delivery, and will advise the individual charged to file an answer, within 30 days from the date the notice was mailed, or was delivered to him personally, indicating why he should not be suspended or disqualified from acting as a representative before the Administration. This 30-day period may be extended for good cause shown by the Deputy Commissioner, or the Director (or Deputy Director) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance. The answer must be in writing under oath (or affirmation) and filed with the Social Security Administration, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, P.O. Box 2518, Washington, D.C. 20013, with a copy to the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Bal­timore, Maryland 21235, within the pre­scribed time limitation. I f an individual charged does not file an answer within the time prescribed, he shall not have the right to present evidence. However, see 1416.1560(f) relating to statements with respect to sufficiency of the evidence upon which the charges are based or challenging the validity of the proceed­ings.§ 416.1550 Withdrawal o f charges.

I f an answer is filed or evidence is ob­tained that establishes, to the satisfac­tion of the Deputy Commissioner, or the Director (or Deputy Director) o f the Bu­reau of Retirement and Survivors In­surance, that reasonable doubt exists about whether the individual charged should be suspended or disqualified from acting as a representative before the Administration, the charges may be withdrawn. The notice of withdrawal shall be mailed to the individual charged at his last known address.§ 416.1555 Referral (o Bureau o f Hear­

ings and Appeals for hearing and de­cision.

I f action is not taken to withdraw the charges before the expiration of 15 days after the time within which an answer may be filed, the record of the evidence in support of the charges shall be re­ferred to the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals with a request for a hearing and a decision on the charges.§ 416.1560 Hearing on charges.

(a) Hearing officer. Upon receipt of the notice of charges, the record, and the request for hearing (see § 416.1555), the Director, Bureau of Hearings and Ap­peals, or his delegate shall designate an administrative law judge to act as a hearing officer to hold a hearing on the charges. No hearing officer shall conduct a hearing in a case in which he is prej­udiced or partial with respect to any party, or where he has any interest in the matter pending for decision before him. Notice of any objection which a party to the hearing may have to the hearing officer who has been designated to conduct the hearing shall be made at the earliest opportunity. The hearing of­ficer shall consider the objection Cs) and

RULES AND REGULATIONS

shall, in his discretion, either proceed with the hearing or withdraw. I f the hearing officer withdraws, another hear­ing officer shall be designated as pro­vided in this section to conduct the hear­ing. I f the hearing officer does not with­draw, the objecting party may, after the hearing, present his objections to the Appeals Council as reason why he be­lieves the hearing officer's decision should be revised or a new hearing held before another hearing officer.

(b) Time and place of hearing. Thé hearing officer shall notify the individual charged and the Deputy Commissioner, or the Director (or Deputy Director) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, of the time and place for a hearing on the charges. The notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the individual charged at his last known address and to the Deputy Commissioner, or the Direc­tor (or Deputy Director) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, not less than 20 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing.

(c) Change of time and place for hear­ing. The hearing officer may change the time and place for the hearing (see para­graph (b) of this section) either on his own motion or at the request of a party for good cause shown. The hearing offi­cer may adjourn or postpone the hear­ing, or he may reopen the hearing for the receipt of additional evidence at any time prior to the mailing of notice of the decision in the case (see § 416.1565). Reasonable notice shall be given to the parties of any change in the time or place of hearing or of an adjournment or reopening of the hearing.

(d) Parties. A person against whom charges have been preferred under the provisions of § 416.1540 shall be a parly to the hearing. The Deputy Commis­sioner, or the Director (or Deputy Di­rector) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, shall also be a party to the hearing.

(e) Subpoenas. Any party to the hear­ing may request the hearing officer or a member of the Appeals Council to issue subpoenas for the attendance and testi­mony of witnesses and for the production of books, records, correspondence, pa­pers, or other documents which are rele­vant and material to any matter in issue at the hearing. The hearing officer may on his own motion issue subpoenas for the same purposes when he deems such action reasonably necessary for the full presentation of the facts. Any party who desires the issuance of a subpoena shall, not less than 5 days prior to the time fixed for the hearing, file with the hear­ing officer a written request therefor, designating the witnesses or documents to be produced, and describing the ad­dress or location thereof with sufficient particularity to permit such witnesses or documents to be found. The request for a subpoena shall state the pertinent facts which the party expects to establish by such witness or document and whether such facts could be established by other evidence without the use of a subpoena. Subpoenas, as provided for above, shall

be issued in the name o f the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Administration shall pay the cost of the issuance and the fees and mileage of any witness so subpoenaed, as provided in section 205(d) o f the Act.

( f ) Conduct of the hearing. The hear­ing shall be open to the parties and to such other persons as the hearing offi­cer or the individual charged deems necessary or proper. The hearing offi­cer shall inquire fully into the matters at issue and shall receive in evidence the testimony of witnesses and any docu­ments which are relevant and material to such matters : Provided, however, That i f the individual charged has filed no answer he shall have no right to pre­sent evidence but in the discretion of the hearing officer may appear for the purpose of presenting a statement of his contentions with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence or the validity of the proceedings upon which his suspension or disqualification, i f it occurred, would be predicated or, in his discretion, the hearing officer may make or recommend a decision (see § 416.1565) on the basis of the record referred in accordance with § 416.1555. I f the individual has filed an answer and if the hearing officer believes that there is relevant and material evi­dence available which has not been pre­sented at the hearing, the hearing officer may at any time prior to the mailing of notice of the decision, or submittal of a recommended decision, reopen the hearing for the receipt of such evidence. The order in which the evidence and the allegations shall be presented and the conduct of the hearing shall be at the discretion of the hearing officer.

(g) Evidence. Evidence may be re­ceived at the hearing, subject to the pro­vision herein, even though inadmissible under the rules of evidence applicable to court procedure. The hearing officer shall rule on the admissibility of evidence.

(h ) Witnesses. Witnesses at the hear­ing shall testify under oath or affirma­tion. The witnesses of a party may be examined by such party or by his rep­resentative, subject to interrogation by the other party or by his representative. The hearing officer may ask such ques­tions as he deems necessary. He shall rule upon any objection made by either party as to the propriety of any question.

(i) Oral and written summation. The parties shall be given, upon request, a reasonable time for the presentation of an oral summation and for the filing of briefs or other written statements of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Copies of such briefs or other written statements shall be filed m sufficient number that they may be made available to any party in interest re­questing a copy and to any other party designated by the Appeals Council.

( j ) Record of hearing. A complete rec­ord o f the proceedings at the hearing shall be made and transcribed in au cases.

(k) Representation. The individua charged may appear in person and ne

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

RULES AND REGULATIONS

may be represented by counsel or other representative.

(l) Failure to appear. I f after d r » no­tice of the time and place for the hear­ing, a party to the hearing fails to ap­pear and fails to show good cause as to why he could not appear, such party shall be considered to have waived his right to be present at the hearing. The hearing officer may hold the hearing so that the party present may offer evidence to sustain or rebut the charges.

(m) Dismissal of charges. The hearing officer may dismiss the charges in the event of the death o f the individual charged.

(n) Cost of transcript. On the request of a party, a transcript of the hearing before the hearing officer will bq pre­pared and sent to the requesting party upon the payment of cost, or i f the cost is not readily determinable, the esti­mated amount thereof, unless for good cause such payment is waived.§ 416.1565 Decision by hearing officer.

(a) General. As soon as practicable after the close of the hearing, the hear­ing officer shall issue a decision (or certify the case with a recommended decision to the Appeals Council for de­cision under the rules and procedures described in § § 404.942 through 404.944 of this chapter) which shall be in writing and contain findings of fact and conclu­sions of law. The decision shall be based upon the evidence of record. I f the hear­ing officer finds that the charges have been sustained, he shall either:

(1) Suspend the individual for a specified period of not less than 1 year, nor more than 5 years, from the date of the decision, or

(2) Disqualify the individual from further practice before the Administra­tion until such time as the individual may be reinstated under § 416.1595.A copy of the decision shall be mailed to the individual charged at his last known address and to the Deputy Com­missioner, or the Director (or Deputy Director) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, together with notice of the right of either party to re­quest the Appeals Council to review the decision of the hearing officer.

(b) Effect of hearing officer's deci­sion. The hearing officer’s decision shall be final and binding unless reversed or modified by the Appeals Council upon review (see § 416.1585).

(1) If the final decision is that the individual is disqualified from practice before the Administration, he shall not be permitted to represent an individual m a proceeding before the Administra­tion until authorized to do so under the Provisions of § 416.1595., ^ .T f tile final decision suspends the individual for a specified period of time,

fball not be permitted to represent an “ «imdual in a proceeding before the Auministration during the period of sus­pension unless authorized to do so under “ ie provisions of § 416.1595.

§ 416.1570 Right to request review of the hearing officer’s decision.

(a ) General. After the hearing of­ficer has issued a decision either o f the parties (see § 416.1560) may request the Appeals Council to review the decision.

(b) Time and place of filing request for review. The request for review shall be made in writing and filed with the Ap­peals Council within 30 days from the date of mailing the notice of the hearing officer’s decision, except where the time is extended for good cause. The request­ing party shall certify that a copy of the request for review and of any documents that are submitted therewith (see § 416.1575) have been mailed to the op­posing party.§ 416.1575 Procedure before Appeals

Council on review of hearing officer’s decision.

The parties shall be given, upon re­quest, a reasonable time to file briefs or other written statements as to fact and law and to appear before the Appeals Council for the purpose of presenting oral argument. Any brief or other writ­ten statement of contentions shall be filed with the Appeals Council, and the presenting party shall certify that a copy has been mailed to the opposing party.§ 416.1580 Evidence admissible on re­

view.(a ) General. Evidence in addition to

that introduced at the hearing before the hearing officer may not be admitted except where it appears to the Appeals Council that the evidence is relevant and material to an issue before it and subject to the provisions in this section.

(b) Individual charged filed answer. Where it appears to the Appeals Council that additional relevant material is available and the individual charged filed an answer to the charges (see §416.1545), the Appeals Council shall require the production of such evidence and may designate a hearing officer or member of the Appeals Council to re­ceive such evidence. Before additional evidence is admitted into the record, no­tice that evidence will be received with respect to certain issues shall be mailed to the parties unless such notice is waived, and each party shall be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on such evidence and to present other evi­dence which is relevant and material to the Issues.

(c) Individual charged did not file answer. Where the individual charged filed no answer to the charges (see § 416.1545), evidence in addition to that introduced at the hearing before the hearing officer may not be admitted by the Appeals Council.§ 416.1585 Decision by Appeals Council

on review of hearing officer’s decision.H ie decision of the Appeals Council

shall be based upon evidence received into the hearing record (see § 416.1560( f ) ) and such further evidence as the

36007

Appeals Council may receive (see § 416.1580) and shall either affirm, re­verse, or modify the hearing officer’s de­cision. The Appeals Council, in modify­ing a hearing officer’s decision suspend­ing the individual for a specified period shall in no event reduce a period of suspension to less than 1 year, or in modifying a hearing officer’s decision to disqualify an individual shall in no event impose a period of suspension of less than 1 year. Where the Appeals Council affirms or modifies a hearing of­ficer's decision, the period of suspension or disqualification shall be effective from the date of the Appeals Council’s decision. Where a period of suspension or disqualification is initially imposed by the Appeals Council, such suspension or disqualification shall be effective from the date of the Appeals Council’s deci­sion. The decision of the Appeals Coun­cil will be in writing and a copy of the decision will be mailed to the indi­vidual at his last known address and to the Deputy Commissioner, or the Di­rector (or Deputy Director) of the Bu­reau of Retirement and Survivors In ­surance.§ 416.1590 Dismissal by Appeals Coun­

cil.The Appeals Council may dismiss a

request for the review of any proceedings instituted under § 416.1540 pending be­fore it in any of the following circum­stances:

(a ) Upon request of party. Proceed­ings pending before the Appeals Coun­cil may be discontinued and dismissed upon written application of the party or parties who filed the request for review provided there is no party who objects to discontinuance and dismissal.

(b) Death of party. Proceedings be­fore the Appeals Council may be dis­missed upon death of a party against whom charges have been preferred.

(c ) Request for review not timely filed. A request for review of a hearing officer’s decision shall be dismissed when the party has failed to file a request for review within the time specified in § 416.1570(b) and such time is not ex­tended for good cause.§ 416.1595 Reinstatement after suspen­

sion or disqualification.(a) General. An Individual shall be

automatically reinstated to serve as a representative before the Administra­tion at the expiration of any period of suspension. In addition, after 1 year from the effective date of any suspen­sion or disqualification, an individual who has been suspended or disqualified from acting as a representative in pro­ceedings before the Administration may petition the Appeals Council for rein­statement prior to the expiration of a period of suspension or following a dis­qualification order. The petition for re­instatement shall be accompanied by any evidence the individual wishes to submit. H ie Appeals Council shall notify the Deputy Commissioner, or the Direc­tor (or Deputy Director) o f the Bureau

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36008 RULES AND REGULATIONSof Retirement and Survivors Insurance, of the receipt of the petition and grant him 30 days in which to present a writ­ten report of any experiences which the Administration may have had with the suspended or disqualified individual dur­ing the period subsequent to the suspen­sion or disqualification. A copy of any such report shall be made available to the suspended or disqualified individual.

(b) Basis of action. A request for revocation of a suspension or a disquali­fication shall not be granted unless the Appeals Council is reasonably satisfied that the petitioner is not likely in the future to conduct himself contrary to the provisions of section 1631(d)(3) of the Act or the rules and regulations of the Administration.

(c) Notice. Notice of the decision on the request for reinstatement shall be mailed to the petitioner and a . copy shall be mailed to the Deputy Commis­sioner, or the Director (or Deputy Di­rector) of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance.

(d) Effect of denial. I f a petition for reinstatement is denied, a subsequent petition for reinstatement shall not be considered prior to the expiration of 1 year from the date of notice of the previous denial.

[FR Doc.74-23242 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

Title 21— Food and DrugsCHAPTER I— FOOD AND DRUG ADMINIS­

TRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE SUBCHAPTER J— RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH

PART 1020— DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY SYS­TEMS AND THEIR MAJOR COMPONENTS

Radiation Therapy Simulation SystemsIn a notice of proposed rulemaking

published in the F ederal R egister of July 22, 1974 (39 FR 26651), the Com­missioner of Food and Drugs proposed to amend the performance standard for diagnostic x-ray systems and their major components (21 CFR 1020.30, 1020.31, and 1020.32) by changing the applicabil­ity of specific provisions of the standard with respect to those x-ray systems in­tended for radiation therapy simulation.

The proposed amendments would add a new subparagraph (50) to § 1020.30(b) to define “radiation therapy simulation system.” Radiation therapy simulation systems would be exempt from the re­quirements of §§ 1020.31(g) and 1020.32(b) (2) regarding beam limitation and alignment on fluoroscopic x-ray systems equipped with spot-film devices and image intensifiers. These systems would also be exempt from the requirements of 5 1020.32(a)(1), regarding primary protective barriers, if they are intended only for remote control operation and the manufacturer sets forth instructions to assemblers with respect to control location and precautions to users con­cerning the importance of remote con­trol operation, in addition to the infor­mation presently required in § 1020.9(g) and (h) (1) (i). Finally, 5 1020.32(g) would be amended to permit alternative performance requirements for the fluoro­

scopic timer of radiation therapy simula­tion systems so that these systems would provide a means to measure the total cumulative exposure time and would be capable of being reset between x-ray examinations. This action was initiated to avoid the necessity of issuing an in­dividual variance to each manufacturer of the equipment.

Interested persons were given until August 21,1974, to file written comments with the Hearing Clerk, Food and Drug Administration, regarding the proposal. Three letters commenting on the pro­posed amendments were received from manufacturers of diagnostic x-ray equip­ment. All letters expressed agreement with and support of thp proposed amend­ments as published. One letter urged final action on the amendments at the earliest possible date.

The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 263f) states that each regulation prescribing, amending, or revoking a standard shall specify the date on which it shall take effect which, in the case of any regula­tion prescribing, or amending any stand­ard, may not be sooner that 1 year or not later than 2 years after the date on which such regulation is issued, unless the Secretary finds, for good cause shown, that an earlier or later effective date is in the public interest and publishes in the F ederal R egister his reason for such finding, in which case such earlier or later date shall apply. In addition, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d) (3) ) states that the required pub­lication of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise pro­vided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.

The Commissioner has determined that an earlier effective date is in the public interest to permit the uninterrupted availability of therapy simulation sys­tems to the health-care community. The early effective date will not impose a burden on manufacturers of these sys­tems. On the contrary, manufacturers would be burdened by a delay in the effective date.

A minor change in structure is being made in the last sentence of 5 1020.32(g). This change is for clarity only and does not affect the substance or the intent of the amendment.

Pursuant to provisions of 5 6.1(b) (21 CFR 6.1(b) ), the possible environmental consequences of these amendments have been carefully considered. In accordance with the guidelines o f the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500.6 (a ) ) , concerning the identification of actions which may cumulatively have a significant effect upon the environment, the possible environmental consequences of these amendments have been evalu­ated. It has been concluded that this action will not have a significant effect upon the environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement pur­suant to section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act is not required.

Data and information supporting the Commissioner's conclusions with respect

to this order and a copy of the environ­mental assessment report are available for public review in the office of the Hearing Clerk, Food and Drug Adminis­tration, Rm. 4-65, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.

Therefore, pursuant to provisions of the Public Health Service Act as amended by the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (sec. 358, 82 Stat. 1177-1179; 42 U.S.C. 263f) and under au­thority delegated to the Commissioner (21 CFR 2.120), Part 1020 is amended as follows: ,

1. In 5 1020.30 by adding a new para­graph (b) (50) to read as follows:§ 1020.30 Diagnostic x-ray systems and

their major components.* * * * *

(b) * * *(50) “Radiation therapy simulation

system” means a fluoroscopic x-ray sys­tem intended for localizing the volume to be exposed during radiation therapy and confirming the position and size of the therapeutic irradiation field.

* * * * *

2. In 5 1020.31 by revising the intro­ductory text of paragraph (g) to read as follows:§ 1020.31 Radiographic equipment.

* * * * *(g ) Field limitation and alignment for

spot-film devices. The following require­ments shall apply to spot-film devices, except when the spot-film device is pro­vided for use with a radiation therapy simulation system:

3. In 5 1020.32 by revising paragraphs(a )(1 ), (b )(2 ), and (g) to read as follows:§ 1020.32 Fluoroscopic equipment.

(a) Primary protective barrier—(1) Limitation of useful beam. The entire cross section of the useful beam shall be intercepted by the primary protective barrier of the fluoroscopic image as­sembly at any SID. The fluoroscopic tube shall not produce x rays unless the bar­rier is in position to intercept the entire useful beam. The exposure rate due to transmission through the barrier with the attenuation block in the useful beam combined with radiation from the image intensifier, i f provided, shall not exceed 2 milliroentgens per hour at 10 centi­meters from any accessible surface of the fluoroscopic imaging assembly beyond the plane of the image receptor for each roentgen per minute of entrance expo­sure rate. Radiation therapy simulation systems shall be exempt from this re­quirement provided the systems are in­tended only for remote control operation and the manufacturer sets forth instruc­tions for assemblers with respect to con­trol location as part of the information required in 5 1020.30(g). Additionally» the manufacturer shall provide to users, pursuant to 5 1020.30(h) (1) (i), Pr®pa^ tions concerning the importance of re­mote control operation.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

(2) Image-intensified fluoroscopy. For image-intensified fluoroscopic equipment other than radiation therapy simulation systems, the total misalignment of the edges of the x-ray field with the respec­tive edges of the visible area of the image receptor along any dimension of the visu­ally defined field in the plane of the image receptor shall not exceed 3 percent of the SID. The sum, without regard to sign, of the misalignment along any two or­thogonal dimensions intersecting at the center of the visible area of the image receptor shall not exceed 4 percent of the SID. For rectangular x-ray fields used with circular image receptors, the error in alignment shall be determined along the length and width dimensions of the x-ray field which pass through the cen­ter of the' visible area of the image re­ceptor. Means shall be provided to permit further limitation of the field. The mini­mum field size, at the greatest SID, shall be equal to or less than 5x5 centimeters.

* * * * *(g) Fluoroscopic timer. Means shall be

provided to preset the cumulative on- time of the fluoroscopic tube. The maxi­mum cumulative time of the timing de­vice shall not exceed 5 minutes without resetting. A signal audible to the fluoro- scopist shall indicate the completion of any preset cumulative on-time. Such signal shall continue to sound while x rays are produced until the timing de­vice is reset. As an alternative to the requirements of this paragraph, radia­tion therapy simulation systems may be provided with a means to indicate the total cumulative exposure time during which x rays were produced, and which is capable of being reset between x-ray examinations.

Effective date. This order shall become effective on October 17, 1974.(Sec. 358, 82 Stat. 1177-1179; 42 UJ3.C. 263f)

Dated: September 30, 1974.S a m D . F in e ,

Associate Commissioner for Compliance.

[PEDoc.74-23243 Piled 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

Title 26— Internal Revenuechapter i— in t er n a l r e v e n u e SERV­ICE, d epa r tm en t OF THE TREASURY

SUBCHAPTER A— INCOME TAX[ID . 7323J

J X l — INCOME TAX; TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1953Requirements of a Domestic International

Sales Corporation (DISC)Correction

In PR Doc. 74-22294 appearing at page 34400 in the issue of Wednesday, Sep­tember 25, 1974, paragraph (d) (1) Oil) end (iv) on page 34409 should be inserted immediately following paragraph (c) (3) hi) on page 34408.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 24— Housing and Urban DevelopmentCHAPTER II— OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SEC­

RETARY FOR HOUSING PRODUCTION AND MORTGAGE CREDIT— FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER (FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION), DEPART­MENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DE­VELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER B— MORTGAGE AND LOAN INSUR­ANCE PROGRAMS UNDER NATIONAL HOUS­ING ACT

[Docket No. R-74-288]

PART 236— MORTGAGE INSURANCE AND INTEREST REDUCTION PAYMENTS FOR RENTAL PROJECTSSubpart A— Eligibility Requirements for

Mortgage InsuranceM aximum M ortgage Amounts

Section 236.12 is being amended to increase the maximum per unit mort­gage amounts to those authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. In the amendments to Chapter H of this title, implementing the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, published in the F ederal R egister on September 6, 1974, Part 236 was amended at 39 FR 32437 to limit the maximum per unit mortgage amounts to those in effect for that part prior to Au­gust 22, 1974, the date of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Since the publication of the amendment to Part 236, the Secretary has determined that limiting the maxi­mum per unit mortgage amounts to those in effect before August 22, 1974 would result in a hardship to participants in the Section 236 program who are in­volved in projects which are in various stages of processing.

Since this amendment is implementing the Housing and Community Develop­ment Act of 1974, advance notice and public procedure are not necessary and good cause exists for making this amendment effective on October 7, 1974.

Accordingly, Part 236 is amended as follows:

Section 236.12(a) (1) (1) through <v) and (b )(1 ) through (5) are revised as follows:§ 236.12 Maximum mortgage amounts.

(a ) * * *(1) • * *(i) $11,240 without a bedroom.(ii) $15,540 with one bedroom.(iii) $18,630 with two bedrooms.(iv ) $23,460 with three bedrooms.(v) $26,570 with four or more bed­

rooms.* * * * «

(b) • * *(1) $13,120 per family unit without a

bedroom.(2) $16,200 per family unit with one

bedroom.(3) $22,080 per family unit with two

bedrooms.(4) $27,600 per family unit with three

bedrooms.(5) $32,000 per family unit with four

or more bedrooms.* * * •

(See. 7 (d ), Department of Housing and Ur­ban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)))

Effective date. This amendment will be effective on October 7,1974.

S h e ld o n B . L ubar , Assistant Secretary for Housing

Production and Mortgage C r e d i t—Federal HousingCommission.

[PR Doc.74-23254 Piled 10-4-74; 8:45 ami

Title 28— Judicial Administration CHAPTER I— DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE „ [Order No. 578-741

PART O— ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Subpart Q—-Bureau of PrisonsC o n f in e m e n t o f P ersons i n D istrict

o f Co l u m b ia C orrectional I n s t it u ­t io n s

This order revises the regulations au­thorizing transfer of prisoners from Dis­trict of Columbia correctional institu­tions to other appropriate institutions or facilities within the District of Colum­bia. The Appendix of Subpart Q is revised to read as follows:Confinement of Persons in District of

Columbia Correctional I nstitutions

By virtue of the authority vested In me by the Act of September 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 711 (D.C. Code section 24-402), by section 11 of the Act of July 15, 1932, as added by the Act of June 6, 1940, 54 Stat. 244 (D.C. Code section 24-425), and by the Act of Septem­ber 10, 1965 (18 U.S.C. 4082), (a ) the Mayor of the District of Columbia or his author­ized representative is hereby authorized to transfer such prisoners as may be in his custody and supervision, by virtue of having been placed in a correctional institution of the District of Columbia pursuant to the authority of the Attorney General, from such institution to any available, suitable, or appropriate institution or facility (includ­ing a residential community treatment cen­ter) within the District of Columbia, and the Mayor or his authorized representative is further authorized to extend the limits of the place of confinement of such pris­oners for the purposes specified, and within the limits established, by the Act of Septem­ber 10, 1965 (18 U.S.C. 4082).

(b ) With respect to a prisoner convicted of a crime of violence who is not within six months of a firm date of release from confinement, the authority conferred by subsection (a ) shall be exercised only in ex­ceptional circumstances and only upon writ­ten Justification and approval of the Director of the District o f Columbia Department of Corrections personally. Prior to the exercise of authority under this subsection, notice and Justification of transfers or extensions of the limits of confinement shall be pro­vided to the Mayor.

(c) With respect to all other prisoners, the authority conferred by subsection (a ) may be exercised by an authorized rep­resentative designated by the Mayor.

(d ) As used in this Order “crime of vio­lence“ means murder manslaughter, rape* kidnapping, robbery, burglary, assault with

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36010 RULES AND REGULATIONSintent to kill, assault with Intent to rape, or assault with Intent to rob.

Dated: October 1, 1974.W il l ia m B . S axbe,

Attorney General. [FR Doc.74-23290 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Title 32— National DefenseCHAPTER VII— DEPARTMENT OF THE

AIR FORCESUBCHAPTER H— AIR FORCE RESERVE

OFFICERS’ TRAINING CORPS

PART 872- —AIR FORCE JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING CORPSEstablishment, Probation, and Disestablishment Procedures

This change implements new Depart­ment of Defense procedures for estab­lishment, probation, and disestablish­ment of Junior Reserve Officers’ Train­ing Corps units, and makes other minor changes to increase clarity.

Part 872, Subchapter H of Chapter V II of Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows :§ 872.8 [Amended]

1. Section 872.8 is amended by delet­ing the last sentence, in parenthesis, of paragraph (a) and by deleting the phrase “ at established units” from the first sentence of paragraph (b ).

2. Section 872.9 is amended by revis­ing paragraph (b) to read as follows:§ 872.9 Procedures for establishment.

* * * * *(b) Each fall, Air University will for­

ward to HQ USAF/DPPE, Washington, DC 20330, rank-ordered nominations of schools recommended to host units. I f a request is made by a school system, Air University will include recommenda­tions stating the advantages and disad­vantages of organizing the AFJROTC program as a multiple unit. Upon ap­proval by HQ USAF, Air University will notify the schools selected for establish­ment and any applicants not selected.

3. Section 872.10 is revised to read as follows:§ 872.10 Conditions for retaining units.

(a ) Each school must constantly meet the requirements in § 872.8 and will be visited periodically to determine whether the requirements are being met. The Commandant, AFROTC, will notify school officials, in writing, of the specific nature of the deficiency when a visit (or a report) reveals that the school is not meeting required standards, and will in­form them that the unit is on official probation. AFROTC will visit each unit during the period of probation to evalu­ate progress toward correcting the de­ficiency and offer all possible assistance in correcting it.

(1) Any unit in the second or subse­quent year of existence that does not meet enrollment standards as of Septem­ber 30 will be placed in a 1-year proba­tionary status. The unit will be evaluated

carefully by AFROTC during the aca­demic year it is placed on probation.

(1) I f the evaluation indicates that the unit is unlikely to achieve the required enrollment standard by September 30 of the year following its placement on pro­bation, school officials will be encouraged to concur in disestablishment at the end of the academic year the unit went on probation.

(ii) I f the evaluation indicates that the unit is likely to enroll at least 100 students by September 30, probation should be continued for the full year.

(2) Any unit with a deficiency other than enrollment will be placed in a pro­bationary status until the beginning of the next academic year. In justifiable cases, the probation may be extended by Air University on a year-by-year basis.

(b) Units that do not correct defi­ciencies by the end of the probationary period will be identified for disestablish­ment. The Commander, Air University, will notify school officials in writing of the scheduled withdrawal of the unit.

(c) Copies of all correspondence con­cerning probation and disestablishment will be forwarded to HQ USAF/DPPE, Washington, D.C. 20330.

(d) HQ USAF/DPPE will be requested to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Air Force before a disestablish­ment letter is dispatched to any school hosting an AFJROTC unit, unless the disestablishment has been requested by the host school officials or is the result of continued low enrollment.

4. Section 872.11 is amended by revis­ing paragraph (b) to read as follows:§ 872.11 Disestablishment of units.

* * * * ' .*(b) Phase out. Upon notification of

scheduled disestablishment, the unit will be phased out and the equipment re­moved in an orderly manner. No new enrollments will be accepted. The total removal of the unit will be accomplished within a maximum of 1 academic year following notification of scheduled dis­establishment. Earlier phase out is encouraged.

5. Section 872.12 is amended by revis­ing paragraph (g) to read as follows:§ 872.12 Eligibility requirements.

♦ * * * *(g ) Be selected by the AEI with the

approval of the principal or a representa­tive of the principal.

6. Section 872.14 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:§ 872.14 Special students.

* * * * *(c) I f the applicant is a citizen of a

foreign country recognized by the United States, the national interest of which is compatible with that of the United States, the applicant must obtain a let­ter fro ma representative of his or her government stating that there is no ob­jection to the student’s receiving AFJROTC instruction. The AEI will re­

tain the original of the letter in the student’s personnel records and send a copy of the letter to AFJROTC. I f the AEI is in doubt about relations between the United States and another country* the AEI will send a request for review through channels for decision.

* * * * »(10 U.S.C. 8012)

By order of the Secretary of the Air Force.

W alter G . F e n e r ty , Acting Chief, Legislative Divi­

sion Office of The Judge Ad­vocate General.

[FR Doc.74-23276 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Title 40— Protection of EnvironmentCHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER G— NOISE ABATEMENT

PROGRAMS[FRL 265-2]

PART 210— PRIOR NOTICE OF CITIZEN SUITS

On March 8, 1974 (39 F.R. 9200), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the addition of a new Part 210 to subchapter G, Chap­ter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regula­tions establishing procedures for giving notice of civil actions initiated by citi­zens pursuant to section 12 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (sec. 12, PUb. L. 92- 574, 86 Stat. 1234) (42 U.S.C. 4911)). Public comments on the proposed rule were received and reviewed. Due consid­eration has been given to these com­ments and, as a result, the following changes have been made in the rules as proposed:

(1) Section 210.2(a) has been re­drafted to provide that in the case of an alleged violation of a noise control re­quirement of section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1431), a copy of the notice of intent to commence a civil action shall be sent to the Re­gional Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the region in which the violation is alleged to have occurred as well as to the Administra­tor of the FAA. The purpose of this change is to facilitate action by the FAA to determine whether a violation of sec­tion 611 has. occurred and, if so, to ini­tiate abatement or enforcement action.

(2) Sections 210.2(a)(1), 210.2(a)(2) and 210.2(aM3) have been redrafted to provide that service of notice by man shall be accomplished “by registered mail, return receipt requested” rather than “by certified mail.” In addition, § 210.2(d) has been revised to provide that notice of intent to commence a civilaction shall be deemed to have beenac- complished on the date of receipt. That section further provides that the date oi receipt will be deemed to be the date noted on the return receipt card if serv­ice was accomplished by mail.

The effect of these revisions is w change the date of service for computing

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

the commencement of thé 60 day notice period required by section 12(b) of the Noise Control Act from the postmark date to the date of receipt. This change will insure that the alleged violator will actually have 60 days notice of the pro­posed civil action since the notice period will not begin to run until the notice has been delivered to the alleged violator. Use of the date indicated on the return receipt card will also permit both par­ties to determine when the 60 day notice period will expire.

Another comment suggested that § 210.3(a) of the proposed regulations should be revised to provide that the notice of intent should specify the exact time of the alleged violation. This com­ment was considered but rejected by the Administrator as imposing too difficult a burden on the individual giving notice of intent to commence a civil action. The Administrator believes that § 210.3(a) of the proposed regulations adequately pro­tects an alleged violator since the notice must include the dates on which the vio­lation is alleged to have occurred.

Accordingly, the regulations establish­ing procedures for giving prior notice of citizen suits pursuant to section 12 of the Noise Control Act are hereby promul­gated and will become effective 30 days after promulgation.

Dated: September 27, 1974.Jo h n Q uarles ,

Acting Administrator.A new Part 210 is added to Chapter I,

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:See.210.1 Purpose.210.2 Service of notice.210.3 Contents of notice.

Authority : Sec. 12, Noise Control Act, (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234)

§ 210.1 Purpose.Section 12 of the Noise Control Act au­

thorizes any person to commence a civil action on his own behalf to enforce the Act or to enforce certain requirements promulgated pursuant to the Act. The Purpose of this part is to prescribe pro­cedures governing the manner of giving notices as required by subsection 12(b) of the Act (Pub. L. 92-574), 86 Stat. 1234) as a prerequisite to the commence­ment of such actions.§ 210.2 , Service o f notice.

(a) Notice of intent to file suit pur­suant to section 12(a) (1) of the Act shall Pe served upon an alleged violator of a noise control requirement issued under Ule Act in the following manner:

K the alleged violator is a private maividual or a corporation, service of otice shall be accomplished by regis-

Jr^jnail, return receipt requested, ad- ^°’ or personal service upon,

f . owner or managing agent of the plant, facility, vehicle, or ac-

uft? a^eged be in violation. A copy ® notice shall be mailed to the Ad-

™n|strator of the Environmental Pro- ^ Uon Agency, the Regional Adminis-

RUtES AND REGULATIONS

tràtor of the Environmental Protection Agency for the region in which such violation is alleged to have occurred; and in the case of a violation of a noise con­trol requirement under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, to the Administra­tor of the Federal Aviation Administra­tion, and the Regional Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the region in which such violation is alleged to have occurred. I f the alleged violator is a corporation, a copy of such notice also shall be mailed to the regis­tered agent, if any, of such corporation in the State in which such violation is alleged to have occurred.

(2) I f the alleged violator is a State or local government entity, service o f notice shall be accomplished by registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to, or by personal service upon, the head of such agency. A copy of such, notice shall be mailed to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Regional Administrator of the Environ­mental Protection Agency for the region in which such violation is alleged to have occurred ; and in the case of a violation of a noise control requirement under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, to the Administrator of the Federal Avi­ation Administration, and the Regional Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the region in which such violation is alleged to have oc­curred.

(3) I f the alleged violator is a Federal agency, service of notice shall be ac­complished by registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to, or by personal service upon, the head of such agency. A copy of such notice shall be mailed to the Administrator of the En­vironmental Protection Agency, the Re­gional Administrator of the Environ­mental Protection Agency for the region in which such Violation is alleged to have occurred, the Attorney General of the United States; and in the case of a viola­tion of a noise control requirement under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, to the Administrator of the Federal Avi­ation Administration, and the Regional Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the region in which such violation is alleged to have occurred.

(b) Service of notice of intent to file suit pursuant to section 12(a) (2) (A ) of the Act shall be accomplished by regis­tered mail, return receipt requested, ad­dressed to, or by personal service upon, the Administrator, Environmental Pro­tection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. A copy of such notice shall be mailed to the Attorney General o f the United States.

(c) Service of notice of intent to file suit pursuant to section 12(a) (2) (B) of the Act shall be accomplished by regis­tered mail, return receipt requested, ad­dressed to, or by personal service upon, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Ad­ministration, Washington, D.C. A copy of such notice shall be mailed to the Attorney General Of the United States, and to the Administrator of the Environ­mental Protection Agency.

36011• (d) Notice given #in accordance with the provisions of 'this part shall be deemed to have been served on the date of receipt. I f service was accomplished by mail, the date of receipt will be deemed to be the date noted on the re­turn receipt card.§ 210.3 Contents o f notice.

(a ) Violation of noise control require­ment. Notice regarding an alleged vio­lation of a noise control requirement ment shall include sufficient informa­tion to permit the recipient to identify the specific standard or regulation al­leged to have been violated, the activity alleged to constitute a violation, the person or persons responsible for the alleged violation, the location of the al­leged violation, the date or dates of such violation and the full name, address, and telephone number of the person giving notice.

(b) Failure to act. Notice regarding an alleged failure of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to perform any act or duty under the Noise Control Act which is not. discretionary with such Administrator or notice re­garding an alleged failure of the Admin­istrator of the Federal Aviation Admin­istration to perform any act or duty un­der section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act which is not discretionary with such Administrator shall identify the statu­tory provision which requires such act or creates such duty, shall describe with reasonable specificity the action taken or not taken by such Administrator which is alleged to constitute a failure to perform such act or duty, and shall state the full name, address, and tele­phone number of the person giving the notice.

(c) Identification of Counsel. The no­tice shall state the name, address, and telephone number of the legal counsel, if any, representing the person giving the notice.. [PR Doc.74-23228 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 amj

Title 41— Public Contracts and Property Management

CHAPTER 5A— FEDERAL SUPPLY SERV­ICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRA­TION

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTSThis change to the General Services

Administration Procurement Regulations (GSPR) clarifies the responsibility for determining adequacy of funds on purchase requests originating from agencies other than GSA, and prescribes revised Scope of Contract clauses.

PART 5A-1— GENERALSubpart 5A-1.4— Procurement

Responsibility and AuthoritySection 5A -l.402-71 is amended as

follows:§ 5A—1.44)2—71 Responsibility for assur­

ing the availability of funds.• * * * * '

(c) On purchases for direct delivery to Federal agencies other than GSA, the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

RULES AND REÔULÂfIONS56012receipt of a properly authenticated pur­chase request shall be considered as suf­ficient evidence that fluids are available. Where, however, the agency’s purchase request indicates that a specific dollar amount has been set aside for the pro­curement, as in the case of a PIO/C from the Agency for International De­velopment, the buying activity shall not exceed the fund limitation except to the extent authorized in supply support agreements. When the funds stated on the purchase request appear to be or are insufficient to cover all applicable costs for the procurement, transportation, ex­port . surcharge, and any other ex­pense involved in the delivery of material to designated consignees, additional funds shall be requested from the requir­ing agency by the activity indicated below:

(1) Requirements submitted by agencies directly to a procurement divi­sion in the Central Office (whether the procurement is actually made by the appropriate procurement division in the Central Office or subsequently trans­mitted, in whole or in part, to one or more regions for procurement) the re­quest for additional funds shall be made by the appropriate Central Office pro­curement division.

(2) Requirements submitted to a re­gional procurement division (whether procurement is made by the region, for­warded in whole or in part to another regional procurement division or to a procurement division in the Central Of­fice) the request for additional funds shall be made by the order processing and control activity in the region initially receiving the requirement.

(d) In requesting additional funds, GSA Form 1774, Request for Additional Funds and/or Information, shall be used where time permits. Where time does not permit, the request may be made by a more expeditious means of communica­tion. GSA Form 1774 may also be used to obtain information concerning specifica­tions, inadequate purchase descriptions, or other data necessary to prepare a solicitation.

PART 5A-7— CONTRACT CLAUSESSubpart 5A-7.1— Fixed-Price Supply

ContractsSection 5A-7.103-82 is amended as

follows:§ 5A—7.103—82 Scope o f contract

clauses.* * * * *

(a) * * *Scope of Requirements Contract (No

Guaranteed Min im u m Quantity )This contract provides for the General

Services Administration normal supply re­quirements during the period specified else­where in this solicitation. The General Serv­ices Administration is obligated, except in cases of public exigencies or as may be other­wise provided herein, to purchase such quan­tities as may he needed from time to time to fill any requirements determined in accord­ance with current applicable procurement regulations and supply procedures. Except as

otherwise provided herein, the Contractor is obligated to deliver hereunder all such quan­tities as may be so ordered from time to time. As to estimates, note the following! H ie quantities shown herein as estimated re­quirements are based upon Information made available to the General Services Adminis­tration. Since, however, such estimates are being furnished to the bidder solely for gen­eral informational purposes, no guarantee is given that any quantities will be pur­chased, but assurance is accorded that such bona-fide needs as may arise will be obtained subject to any provisions elsewhere set forth in this contract. If during the contract pe­riod significant changes in the estimated quantities occur, the Government will, where feasible, notify the Contractor of such changes. However, such notification is fur­nished exclusively for the Contractor’s in­formation and has no bearing on the con­tractual obligations of either party.

(b) Clause to be used for a require­ments contract with a guaranteed mini­mum quantity.Scope of Requirements Contract (W ith

Guaranteed Min im u m Quality )

During the period specified elsewhere in this solicitation the General Services Ad­ministration agrees to purchase, and the Contractor agrees to deliver quantities as may be required from time to time, in ac­cordance with the terms of this contract as ordered by the Government. The quantities shown herein as estimated requirements for each item during the contract period are furnished for the information of bidders. The quantities shown as guaranteed mini­mum quantities will be ordered under this contract, but no guarantee is given that any additional quantity beyond the minimum quantity will be purchased, nor that the Contractor wiU be relieved of his obligation to fill all orders which may be placed pur­suant to this contract.

PART 5A—74— SPECIAL PURCHASE PROGRAMS

Subpart 5A—74.4— Overseas Supply Support Program

Section 5A-74.407-2 is amended as fol­lows:§ 5A74.407—2 Agency for International

Development (A ID ).• • * * *

( f ) Availability of funds. (1) Con­tracting officers shall observe the fund limitation on each requisition. At time of procurement, when it appears that the amount cited is not adequate to cover all costs including the estimated cost of transportation, export surcharge, and any other expense involved in the de­livery of material to designated consign­ees, the contracting officer shall request the necessary additional funds through the same channels through which, the re­quirement was originally received.

* v * * *(3) Items extracted to Central Office

or regional offices for procurement action shall be supported by a citation of funds sufficient to cover the procurement, transportation, export surcharge, and any other expense involved in the de­livery of material to designated consign­ees.(Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390; 40 U.S.C. 486(c))

Effective date. This regulation is effec­tive on the date shown below.

Dated: September 23, 1974.M . J. T im bers ,

Commissioner, Federal Supply Service.[PR Doc.74-23244 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Title 47— Telecommunication [Docket No. 19942; FCC 74-1021]

CHAPTER I— FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 73— RADIO BROADCAST SERVICESFM Broadcast Stations, Palestine, TexasReport and order—proceeding termi­

nated. In the matter of amehdment of § 73.202(b), Table of Assignments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Palestine, Texas), Docket No. 19942, RM-2118.

1. The Commission has under con­sideration its notice of proposed rule- making adopted February 26, 1974, 39 FR 9552, inviting comments on a pro­posal to assign Channel 252A as a second assignment to Palestine, Texas, and to. substitute Channel 285A for Channel 252A which is unoccupied at Mexia, Texas. This proceeding was instituted on the basis of a petition filed by KNET, Inc., licensee of Station KNET(AM), Palestine, Texas. There were no oppo­sitions to the proposal. Supporting com­ments were filed by the petitioner.

2. Palestine has a population of 14,525 \ is located approximately mid­way between Dallas and Houston in the Piney Woods area o f East Texas and Is the seat of Anderson County which has a population of 27,789. Existing broad­cast facilities at Palestine are Class IV AM Station KNET (operated by the peti­tioner herein) and a first FM-only station (Station K U S (F M )) operating on Channel 232A.

3. Petitioner stated, in a profile of Palestine and Anderson County, that the National Center for Atmospheric Re­search, located in Palestine, launches high altitude balloons carrying research equipment for institutions all over the world, and that the legislature of the State of Texas allocated one million dol­lars to establish a technical-vocational school under the guidance of nearby Henderson County Junior College. Also located within 25 miles of Palestine is Lake Palestine with a 1973 shoreline of 135 miles which offers sportsmen ideal fishing and boating conditions, as well as furnishing many municipalities with water supplies. Station K N E T (AM) does not reach this area at night, but an FM. station, petitioner claims, would serv® this lake area expected to have a 1980 population of 20,000 to 30,000,

4. Petitioner’s extensive demographic data showed significant increase in POP1** lation of the city of Palestine (14,525 m 1970 as opposed to 12,445 iri 1950), thou& the population of Anderson County de­clined from 31,875 in 1950 to 27,789 in

i All population figures are taken hom the 1970 U 3 . Census unless otherwise indicate

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36013

1970. However, total income rose to $45,186,000 in 1968-69 up 16.6 percent from $38,774,000 in 1963-63. Retail sales in the comity rose from $31,575,000 in1963- 64 to $43,542,000 in 1972 and whole­sale trade sales rose from $14,645,000 to $16,695,000 in the same period. In the1964- 72 period, public utility connections showed an approximate 10 percent in­crease. The Palestine Chamber of Com­merce figures show a population increase for East Texas from 2,898,687 in 1950 to 4,003,481 in 1970 with a 1980 projected population of 4,684,073. Also assisting in the development of industry in the area is the construction of a large channel with lakes and reservoirs (located within 5 or 6 miles of Palestine) on the Trinity River connecting the Gulf of Mexico with the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

5. Petitioner contends that although Station KNET provides daytime AM service to the surrounding communities of Palestine, these communities cannot receive the KNET signal at night and therefore are denied news coverage pro­vided by Texas State Network and the station’s local news operation. It also states that a second FM station at Pales­tine could be used to program for the tastes of persons above the median age of 36.8 years (which is ten years older than the state’s median age), as both KNET (AM) and KLIS(FM ) program on a country and western and top-40 music program format which appeals to a younger age group.

6. The assignment of Channel 252A to Palestine and the substitution of Chan­nel 285A for 252A at Mexia complies with the minimum mileage separation rule: Provided, The site for an FM station at Mexia is located at least six miles north­west of the community.

7. Hie proposed assignment would foreclose future assignment" only on Channel 252A. There are two communi­ties located within the precluded area where a channel could be assigned (Luf­kin and Crockett, Texas), but these two communities have FM assignments and do not appear to warrant an additional channel assignment. Petitioner, in sup­porting comments, has reaffirmed its in­tention to apply for the channel if it is assigned and, if authorized, to construct the station promptly.

8. We believe that Channel 252A should be assigned to Palestine, Texas. Since it has been shown that there is a' demand for its use, that assignment of the additional channel could make avail­able another local broadcast service to Palestine and a number of other sur­rounding communities, especially at “ ght, and that there is another channel available for Mexia, Texas, the public interest would be served by the assign­ment.

9. Authority for the adoption of the amendments contained herein appears in sections 4(i), 303, and 307(b) of the communications Act of 1934, as amended.

10. In view of the foregoing: I t is ordered, That effective November 8,1974,

§ 73.202(b) of the Commission’s rules, the FM Table of Assignments is amended to read as follows:City: Channel No.

Palestine, Tex_________________ 232A, 252AMexia, Tex________________ 285A

11. I t is further ordered, That thisproceeding is terminated.(Secs. 4, 303, 307, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1082, 1083; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307)

Adopted: September 24,1974.Released: October 1,1974.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,

[ seal ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

[PR Doc.74-23265 PUed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. 19959; FCG 74-1022]

PART 73— RADIO BROADCAST SERVICESFM Broadcast Stations in Hornell,

New YorkReport and Order—Proceeding Ter­

minated. In the matter of amendment of § 73.202(b), Table of assignments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Homeli, New York ), Docket No. 19959, RM-2129.

1. The Commission has before it a notice of proposed rulemaking adopted March 5, 1974, 39 F.R. 9676, inviting comments on a proposal to assign Chan­nel 221A to Homeli, New York. The pro­ceeding was instituted on the basis of a petition filed by Patricus Enterprises, Inc. (petitioner). Supporting comments were filed by petitioner. There were no oppositions to the proposal.

2. Hornell (population 12,144)1 is the second largest city in Steuben County, population 99,456. It is the economic and trade center for the surrounding area of farm land and small communi­ties (both incorporated and unincor­porated). Petitioner submitted infor­mation and data about the history of Hornell, population, education, recrea­tion, public organizations, medical and religious facilities, transportation, the form of government and a profile of the local economy. That information is ac­cepted as being substantially correct and will not be repeated here. Hornell has two daytime-only AM stations (WHHO and WLEA) and an FM station (WHHO- FM, Channel 287). Channel 221A could be assigned to Hornell without affecting any of the other FM assignments.

3. Since the proposed assignment would foreclose future assignment on Channel 221 A, we requested further in­formation in our Notice as to whether another FM channel is available for assignment at Wayland, New York, a community without a local broadcast facility and located about 15 miles from HomelL Petitioner in an engineering statement attached to his supporting comments stated it was found by com­puter search that Channel 261A could be

1 Population figures are from the 1970 U.S. Census.

assigned to Wayland with no problems other than selection of a site.

4. The Canadian Government has no objection to the assignment of Channel 221A to Hornell, New York.

5. Petitioner asserts that the proposed assignment would provide the second nighttime competitive service; and that two local FM services will be able to pro­vide a variety of news, views and enter­tainment. It reaffirms its intention to apply for the channel i f assigned, and if authorized will promptly construct the station.

6. We note that such an assignment would intermix a Class A with a Class B channel in Hornell. However, it appears that petitioner was unable to find a Class B channel available for the community and is willing to operate on a Class A channel in competition with WHHO-FM

• which operates on Class B Channel 287. Although in some circumstances we are hesitant to intermix channels, in others we have done so. Under our assignment criteria Hornell has a population the size of which would warrant its being as­signed a second FM channel. It would provide for a second local aural broad­cast station at night in Hornell. After consideration of the pertinent facts in this proceeding, we are of the view that the subject proposal has merit and that its adoption would serve the public in­terest.

7. Authority for the action taken herein is contained in sections 4(i), 303(g) and (r ), and 307(b) of the Com­munications Act of 1934, as amended.

8. Accordingly, It is ordered, That e f­fective November 8, 1974, the Table of Assignments (§ 73.202(b)) is amended with respect to the city listed below as follows:City: v Channel No.

Hornell, N .Y_____ ___________ _ 221A.287

9. I t is further ordered, That this pro­ceeding is terminated.(Secs. 4, 303, 307, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1082, 1083; (47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307.))

Adopted: September 24, 1974.Released: October 1, 1974.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,

[ se a l ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

[PR Doc.74-23264 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. 19960; FCC 74-1023]

PART 73— RADIO BROADCAST STATIONS FM Broadcast Stations in Newport, Oregon

Report and order—Proceeding Ter­minated. In the matter of amendment of § 73.202(b), Table of assignments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Newport, Oregon), Docket No. 19960, RM-2135.

1. The Commission has under consid­eration its notice of proposed rulemak­ing (39 FR 9676) proposing the substi­tution of Channel 273 for Channel 274 at Newport, Oregon. The rulemaking was instituted on the basis of a petition filed

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36014

by Yaquina Radio, Inc. There were no oppositions to the proposal. Supporting comments were filed by petitioner.

2. Newport (population 5,280) in Lin­coln County (population 25,755) is lo­cated about 90 miles southwest of Port­land, Oregon.1 It has one Class C FM channel assignment (274) which is un­occupied.

3. On May 26, 1972, Yaquina Radio, Inc., tendered for filing with the Com­mission an application for authority to construct on Channel 274 at Newport but the application was returned because the proposed operation from a specified site did not meet a required minimum mileage separation (150 miles). I t added that a diligent search was made for an alternate site at least 150 miles from the transmitter site of Station KELA-FM, Centralia, Washington (Channel 275), but was unable to find a suitable site in- the Newport area.

4. Petitioner’s proposal was supported by an engineering statement which in­cluded a study on the availability of a substitute Class C channel for Newport. This statement asserted that Channel273 at Newport, Oregon would meet ail the requirements of the Commission’s minimum mileage separation rules since petitioner wished to operate from a site eight miles north of Newport. A site lo­cated at least four miles north of New­port is required to meet the spacing re­quirement (105 miles) to Channel 272A at Coquille, Oregon. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner’s request to substitute Channel 273 for Channel274 at Newport appears to be in the pub­lic interest. Since petitioner has mani­fested his intent to apply for Channel 273 if it is assigned and since this change would permit a maximum utilization of the said channel, providing improved FM service to the central Oregon coastal area, the substitution of Channel 273 for Channel 274 is warranted.

5. Authority for the adoption of the amendment contained herein appears in sections 4 (i ) , 303 and 307(b) of the Com­munications Act of 1934, as amended.

6. In view of the foregoing: I t is or­dered, That effective November 8, 1974,§ 73.202(b) o f the Commission’s rules, the FM Table of Assignments, is amended to read as follows:City: Channel No.

Newport, Oreg__________________ ___ ___ 273

7. I t is further ordered, That this pro­ceeding is terminated.(Sees. 4, 5, 303, 307, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082, 1083; 47 U.S.C. 164, 155, 303, 807)

Adopted: September 24, 1974.Released: October 1, 1974.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,

[ seal ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23268 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

1 Population figures are taken from 1970 UJ3. Census.

RULES AND REGULATIONS|FCC 74-987]

PART 78— CABLE TELEVISION RELAY SERVICES

Interference to Space Radiocommuni­cation Services

Order. In the matter of amendment of §1 78.18, 78.101, and 78.105 of the rules and regulations regarding interference to Space Radiocommunication Services.

1. A Partial Revision of the Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1959) relating to space telecommunications, with a Final Protocol, was signed at Geneva on July 17, 1971, by the respective plenipotenti­aries of the United States and certain other countries. The U.S. Senate by its resolution of June 13, 1972, gave its ad­vice and consent to the ratification of the said Partial Revision with Final Proto­col. The said Partial revision and Final Protocol were duly ratified by the Presi­dent of the United States .on July 14, 1972, and the instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary-Gen­eral of the International Telecommuni­cation Union on July 28, 1972, and Pro­claimed by the President on September 4, 1972, that every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled on and after January 1, 1973, by the United States. 23 U.S.T. 1527, T.I.A.S. No. 7435.

2. Chapter n , Article 7, Section VU, section 18.(2), section 19.(1), section 19.(2A), and section 19.(4) of the Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1959), as amended (Rule Nos. 470AB, 470B, 470CA, and 470 DA of the Final Acts of the World Ad­ministrative Radio Conference for Space Telecommunications, Geneva, 1971) set forth certain special rules which affect the Cable Television Relay Service be­tween 12.70 and 12.75 GHz. These spe­cial rules are intended to prevent inter­ference to Space Radiocommunication Services (earth-to-space) and are incor­porated into §§ 78.18, 78.101, and 78.105 of the Commission’s rules as set forth below.

3. Authority for the attached amend­ments is contained in the Communica­tions Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154«), 155(d ), 301, 303, and 307(b) (1970). Inas­much as the amendments hereby ordered involve a foreign affairs function of the United States and incorporate regula­tions proclaimed by the President, the notice, effective date, and public proce­dure requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533 (1970), are inapplicable.

Accordingly, it is ordered, That, effec­tive October 9, 1974, the modification in Part 78 of the Commission’s rules and regulations that are set out below.(Secs. 4, 5,301, 303, 307; 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1081, 1082, 1083, 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 801,303, 307)

. Adopted: September 19,1974.Released: September 27,1974.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,

[ seal ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

Part 78 of Chapter I o f Title 47 CPR is amended in the following manner:

1. Section 78.18(a) is amended to read as follows:§ 78.18 Frequency assignments.

(a) The Cable Television Relay Serv­ice is assigned the band of frequencies from 12,70 to 12.95 GHz. This band is shared with the Fixed-Satellite Service (earth-to-space) from 12.70 to 12.75 GHz, and the Television Inter-City Relay, Television Pickup, and Television STL Services from 12.70 to 12.95 rtn7, The following channels may be assigned to cable television relay stations for the propagation of radio waves with the in­dicated polarization:

* • • • *2. Section 78.101 is amended to add a

new paragraph (c) to read as follows:§ 78.101 Power limitations.

(c) Notwithstanding provisions else­where in this part, the power delivered by a transmitter to the antenna system in the frequency band between 12.70 and 12.75 GHz shall not exceed -f-10 dBW. Additionally, the maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power of a station shall not exceed +55 dBW.1

3. Section 78.105 is amended to add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:§ 78.105 Antennas.

* * * • *

(c) The transmitting antenna system of stations employing maximum equiva­lent isotropically radiated power exceed­ing +45 dBW in the frequency band be­tween 12.70 and 12.75 GHz shall be orientated so that the direction of maxi­mum radiation of any antenna shall be at least 1.5° away from the geostationary satellite orbit, taking into account the effect of atmospheric refraction.*

[FR Doc.74-28263 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Title 50— Wildlife and FisheriesCHAPTER I— FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV­

ICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORPART 32— HUNTING

Certain National Wildlife Refuges in Oregon and Washington

The following regulations are issued and are effective October 12, 1974. These

1 Se© Chapter I, Article 1, Section in of the [International] Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1959), as amended, for Technical Character­istics Terms and Definitions.

* See Chapter I, Article 1, Section H I of the [International] Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1959), as amended, for Technical Character­istics Terms and Definitions. Additional in­formation and methods for calculating azi­muths to be avoided may be found in the following: Report 393, International Radio, Consultative Committee (C.C.IR .); stationary Orbit Avoidance Computer Program,” Report CC-7202, Federal Commu­nications Commission, available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22151, In printed form (PB- 211 600) or source card deck (PB-211 501).

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

[ regulations apply to public hunting on certain National Wildlife Refuges in Ore- gym and Washington.

General Conditions. Hunting shall he in accordance with applicable Slate and Federal regulations. Portions o f refuges which are open to hunting are designated by signs and/or delineated ran maps. No vehicle travel is permitted except on maintained roads and trails. Special con­ditions applying to individual refuges are listed on the reverse side of maps avail­able from the Refuge Manager, Colum­bian White-Tailed Deer National Wild­life Refuge, Route 1, Box 376C, Cathla- met, Washington 98612 and from the Re­gional Director, Fish and Wildlife Serv­ice, PO. Box 3737, Portland, Oregon 97208.§ 32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife refuge areas.

Migratory birds, except pigeons and doves, may be hunted on the following refuge areas:Columbian White-tailed Deer National Wild­

life Refuge, Washington.Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge,

Oregon. ■

The provisions of these special regula­tions supplement the regulations which govern hunting on wildlife refuge areas generally, and which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32. Following careful consideration, and pursuant to the Departmental policy set forth at 36 FR 8336 (May 4, 1971), it has been determined that it would be im­practicable, contrary to the public in­terest* and unnecessary to publish a pro­posed rulemaking with regard to these regulations. Further, if this regulation were not to become effective until 30 days following its publication, the waterfowl seasons for these national wildlife ref­uges would not open in conjunction with the State seasons. The confusion which would be caused to the public by estab­lishing waterfowl seasons of different duration than the seasons otherwise in effect in Oregon and Washington is deemed to be of sufficient magnitude and consequence to warrant a finding of “good cause” within the terms of 5 UJS.C. 553 (d)(3). Accordingly, the effective date of this amendment shall be Octo- ber 12,1974.

Lynn A. G reenwalt, Director,

Fish and Wildlife Service, [PR Doc.74-23181 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

PART 32— HUNTING Seney National Wildlife Refuge, MichiganThe following special regulation is is­

sued and is effective on October 7,1974.§32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife •rouge areas.

M ichigan

seney national wildlife refuge public hunting of Woodcock and W il­

son s Snipe (Jacksnipe) on the Seney

RULES AND REGULATIONS

National Wildlife Refuge is permitted only on the area designated as open to hunting. This open area, comprising 33,525 acres, is delineated on maps avail­able at refuge headquarters, Seney, Michigan and from the Regional Direc­tor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Fort Sneliing, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111.

Hunting shall be in accordance with all applicable State regulations covering the hunting of Woodcock and Wilson’s Snipe (Jacksnipe) subject to the follow­ing special conditions:

(1) All motorized conveyances are pro­hibited from traveling on dikes or off established roads and trails. Motorized bikes, All-Terrain Vehicles and snow­mobiles are not permitted on the refuge.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplements the regulations which govern hunting on wildlife refuge areas generally, which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32, and are effective through November 14, 1974.

Charles A. Hughlett, Acting Regional Director.

[PR Doc.74-23321 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

PART 32— HUNTINGSherburne National Wildlife Refuge,

MinnesotaThe following special regulation is

issued and is effective on October 7,1974.§ 32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife refuge areas.

M innesota

SHERBURNE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Public hunting o f ducks, coots, rails, Wilson snipe and woodcock on the Sher­burne National Wildlife Refuge is per­mitted only on the areas designated by signs as open to hunting. These open areas, comprising approximately 7,510 acres for ducks, coots, rails, Wilson snipe and woodcock (designated area B on map); and approximately 10,850 acres for Wilson snipe and woodcock (desig­nated area A on map), are delineated on a map available at refuge headquarters, Route 2, Zimmerman, Minnesota 55398, and from the office of the Regional Di­rector, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Fort Sneliing, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111.

Hunting shall be in accordance with all applicable State regulations covering the hunting of these species subject to the following special conditions:

(1) All motorized conveyances are prohibited from traveling off of estab­lished roads and parking areas open to such travels.

(2) Parking of vehicles is restricted to designated parking areas.

(3) Practice and target shooting, overnight camping and open fires are prohibited.

(4) Boats, without motors, may be used on the St. Francis River only from designated river access sites.

(5) Construction of any permanent artificial scaffold, platform, blind or other construction is prohibited.

mvs(6) Boats and decoys must be removed

from the refuge at completion of days hunt.

(7) Field possession of ducks and coots in area of refuge closed to hunting of ducks and coots is prohibited.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplements the regulation which govern hunting on wildlife refuge areas generally, which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32, and are effective through Novem­ber 15,1974.

Charles A. H uglett.Acting Regional Director, Fish

and Wildlife Service.A u g u s t 19,1974.

[FR Doc.74-23320 Filed. 10-4-74:8:45]

PART 32— HUNTINGShiawassee National Wildlife Refuge,

Michigan§32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife ref uge areas.

M ichigan

SHIAWASSEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGEPublic hunting of geese on the Shia­

wassee National Wildlife Refuge, Michi­gan, is permitted from waterfowl open­ing hour to 12 noon each odd numbered day from October 3, through Novem­ber 29, 1974, excluding October 9, 21 and November 15. The hunting area compris­ing approximately 1,200 acres is delin-. eated on maps located at the refuge headquarters, Saginaw, Michigan, and at the office of the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Fort Sneliing, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111.

Hunting shall be in accordance with all applicable State and Federal regula­tions covering the hunting of geese sub­ject to the following special conditions:

(1) Hunting shall be by Federal per­mit and only from assigned blinds and pits. Blind assignments will be deter­mined by legal drawings.

(2) Certain designated blinds will be restricted to the^ use of 12 gauge shot­guns.

(3) A fee of two dollars per hunter will be charged for the privilege of hunting.

(4) Two or three hunters will be per­mitted in each blind or pit.

(5) Hunter application cards must be postmarked on or before September 15, 1974, and only successful applicants will be notified.

(6) After completion of the days hunt, all hunters must proceed to refuge head­quarters for check-out and the submis­sion of geese for examination.

The provision of these special regula­tions supplement the regulations which govern hunting on wildlife refuges gen­erally which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32, and are effective through November 29, 1974.

Charles A. Hughlett, Acting Regional Director.

September 30,1974.[FR Doc.74-23288 Filed 10-4-74:8:45 am]

{SOCIAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36016 RULES AND REGULATIONSPART 32— HUNTING

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota

The following special regulation is is­sued and is effective October 7,1974.§ 32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife refuge areas.

M in n e s o t a

TAMARAC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Public hunting of ducks, geese and coots on the Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota, is permitted only on the area designated by “Public Hunting Area” signs. This open area, comprising 12,500 acres, is delineated on a map avail­able at the refuge headquarters, Rochert, Minnesota 56578, and from the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv­ice, Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111. Hunting shall be in accordance with all appli­cable State and Federal regulations sub­

ject to the following special conditions:(1) Ducks and coots may be taken

from October 2, 1974 through Novem­ber 15, 1974. Hunting of Canada geese will be permitted from October 2, 1974 through October 31,1974. All other geese may be hunted from October 1, 1974 through November 15, 1974.

(2) No persons shall, for the purpose of hunting, enter or leave the refuge except by access roads so designated.

(3) Use of iron shot is required for hunting waterfowl and coots. Possession of lead shot shells while hunting water- fowl and coots is prohibited.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplement the regulations which govern hunting on wildlife refuges gen­erally which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32, and are effective through November 15, 1974.

C h a r le s A. H u g h l e t t , Acting Regional Director.

S epte m b e r 30,1974.

[FR Doc.74-23289 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Title 49— TransportationCHAPTER V— NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAF­

FIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DE- PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. 1-8; Notice 14]

PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

Retreaded Pneumatic Tires; CorrectionIn FR Doc. 74-708, .appearing in the

issue of Wednesday, January 9, 1974, at page 1443, the reference in revised S5.1.2 to “S4.2.2” should read “S4.2.2.2.”(Sec. 103, 112, 113, 114, 119, 201 Pub. L. 89- 563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 UJS.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1407, 1421); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.51)

Issued on October 1, 1974..

J am es B . G regory , Administrator.

[FR Doc.74-23262 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36017

proposed rulesThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of

these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking prior to the adoption of the final rules.

d e pa r tm e n t o f a g r ic u l t u r e

Rural Electrification Administration [ 7 CFR Part 1701]

RURAL TELEPHONE PROGRAMProposed Changes in Procedures for Post*

loan Engineering Design RequirementsNotice is hereby given that, pursuant

to the Rural Electrification Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), REA proposes to revise REA Bulletin 383-4 to Require an Outside Plant Layout only where the proposed construction, in par­ticular central office areas, will involve substantial new construction. It will also provide for notification to the borrower by the REA Telephone Area Office as to whether an Outside Plant Layout is re­quired at the time a Supplemental Loan Proposal is approved. On issuance of re­vised REA Bulletin 383-4, Appendix A to Part 1701 will be modified accordingly.

Persons interested in the revised bul­letin may submit written data, views or comment to the Director, Telephone Op­erations and Standards Division, Rural Electrification Administration, Room 1355, South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, on or before November 6, 1974. All writ­ten submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Director, Telephone Operations and Standards Division, during regular business hours.

The text of the proposed revision of REA Bulletin 383-4 is as follows:

[REA Bulletin 383-4]Postloan Engineering Design Requirements

for Supplemental Loans

I. Purpose. This bulletin presents postloan engineering design requirements and pro­cedures for loans to existing telephone bor­rowers (supplemental loans).

IT. General. A. An Area Coverage Design (ACD) is a preloan requirement for loans to new borrowers or supplemental loans to existing borrowers for exchanges in new areas. A Supplemental Loan Proposal (SLP) specifies the preloan “ engineering require­ment for supplemental loans to finance con­struction In areas already served by REA- financed facilities. (See REA Bulletin 320-14, Loans for Telephone System Improvements

and Extensions.” )B. Where an AGD is not a preloan require­

ment, the detailed engineering required by tne SLP should be completed and submitted lor approval by REA in time to meet the bor­rower’s construction needs. Generally, this wiU be after approval of the loan.

,**°r central office equipment, the engi­neering design in connection with SLP may Jr in the form of plans and specifications

offices and large addition». For small editions the design may be a list of the

equipment to be purchased. These should for used as the basis

fom> buildings. the design may be In the cpni t ®na* Plans anfi specifications for and ra* °® oe buildings and preliminary plans

specifications for headquarters bulld-

neprtn°r.,ou*side Plan*> facilities, an engi- wui h aesign In connection with the SLP

’oe required in the form of an Outside

Plant Layout prepared in accordance with TE & CM—205, “Assembly and Arrangement of an Area Coverage Design,” where the pro­posed construction, in particular central office areas, will involve substantial new con­struction. Borrowers will be notified by the Area Office as to whether an outside plant layout is required at the time the SLP is approved.

III. Postloan procedures. A. After the ap­proval of a supplemental loan, the borrower, REA field engineer, REA loans and operations field representative and the borrower’s engi­neer will review the Area Coverage Survey Re­ports (REA Form 589) submitted in the Sup­plemental Loan Proposal. (See procedures in REA Bulletin 322-1, “Area Coverage Survey.”) Plans will be made for a field survey and, if necessary, a canvas of subscribers and un­served establishments to determine needed revisionfe in the preloan forecast of service requirements. (See Appendix A o f REA Bulletin 322-1.) Upon completion of the field survey and canvas, the results will be re­viewed by all parties and an agreement reached as to projected service requirements.

B. When an Outside Plant Layout is re­quired, the procedures to be followed are:

1. Agreement should be reached as to the basis for the outside plant design including alternate studies to be made at the time the results of the ACS field survey are reviewed and approved.

2. The borrower’s engineer will proceed with the preparation o f an Outside Plant Layout and any alternate studies, a tabula­tion of facilities to be constructed and a cost estimate substantially in accordance with Exhibit Q of TE & CM-205. After approval of this information by the borrower, two copies will be submitted through the REA field engi­neer to REA for approval.

3. The borrower’s engineer will then stake the project and prepare the outside plant plans and specifications based on the ap­proved Outside Plant Layout.

C. When the submission of an Outside Plant Layout to REA is not required the pro­cedures to be followed are:

1. Generally, the procedure in in A, above is followed.

2. All parties will agree on the method of construction and the extent of design work necessary at the time the results of the REA field survey are reviewed and approved.

3. I f the construction is to be performed by the work order method, the procedures outlined in REA Bulletin 382-2, “Telephone System Improvements and Extensions,” will be followed.

4. I f the construction is to he performed by contract, all parties will agree on the scope of the proposed project. The borrower's engineer will proceed with staking a-nri after completion of staking, prepare the outside plant plans and specifications and a cost estimate of the project based on current prices. When completed, the plans and spec­ifications and cost estimate will be submitted to the borrower and the REA field engineer for review and approval. I f the estimated cost is within the loan budget, the plans and specifications, after being approved, will be released for bids in accordance with estab­lished procedures. If the cost estimates ex­ceed the loan budget, a determination should be made on the source of the additional funds required. I f another loan is required, plans should be made to obtain approval at Interim construction, subm&i a loan application, and a SLP.

D. For those exchange areas for which an ACD was submitted and approved in the

preloan stage, the ACS Report and the ACD will be reviewed by representatives of the borrower and REA. I f the ACD is considered acceptable, staking and preparation of plans and specifications may proceed. If substantial design changes are needed, an amendment to the ACD should be submitted through the REA field personnel for REA approval prior to staking.

E. If, as a result of the field survey or other development ’ subseqeunt to preparation of the SLP, substantial changes are indicated in the loan project as described tn that pro­posal, a revision to the proposal should be prepared and submitted to REA through the REA loans and operations field representative and the REA field engineer. Such revisions should be prepared if there are substantial changes in the number of subscribers to be served, changes in EAS or toll trunking plans, changes in grades of service to be provided, etc. The revised proposal needs to cover only those exchange areas in which the changes occur. Approval of this revision may be necessary before the Outside Plant Layout is completed. The REA field engineer and REA loans and operations field representative will provide guidance on this matter.

Dated: October 1,1974.C. R . B allard ,

Assistant Administrator, Telephone.

[F R Doc.74-23251 Filed 10-4-74:8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration [1 4 CFR Part 121]

[Docket No. 12762; Notice No. 74-32A]

GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEMS

Turbine-Powered Airplanes; Reduction oT . Comment Period

On Monday, September 16, 1974, a notice of proposed rulemaking was pub­lished in the F ederal R egister <Notice 74-32; 39 FR 33234), in which the FAA proposed to amend Part 121, of the Fed­eral Aviation Regulations to require in­stallation of an approved ground prox­imity warning system on each large turbine-powered airplane used in opera­tions under Part 121. The proposed amendments would also apply to air travel clubs certificated under Part 123 and to air taxi operators certificated un­der Part 135, when conducting opera­tions governed by those parts with large turbine-powered airplanes.

Notice 74-32 invited public participa­tion in the making of the proposed rule, and provided for a 90-day comment pe­riod within which interested persons could submit such written data, views, or arguments as they desired.

Since the issue of that notice, the FAA has continued to review the subject mat­ter of the notice, and, after further con­sideration, the FAA has determined that it is in the public interest to reduce the comment period from 90 days to 60 days. The FAA believes that this will avoid delay in providing the air traveling public

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36018 PROPOSED RULES

with thé benefit of the additional safety which would be provided by a ground proximity warning system. The PAA con­siders this reduced period to be suffici­ent time for the submission of comments.

In consideration of the foregoing, the deadline for comments in response to Notice 74-32 is changed from December 16, 1974, to November 16, 1974. All com­ments received in response to Notice 74- 32 on or before November 16,1974, will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on the proposed rule. In ­terested persons should submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire to: Federal Aviation Admin­istration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket, AGC-24, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591. Communications should iden­tify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate. The proposal contained in Notice 74-32 may be changed in the light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the clos­ing date for comments, in the Rule Docket for examination by interested persons.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on Oc­tober l, 1974.

R. P . S k u l l y,Acting Director,

Flight Standards Service.[PR Doc.74r-23327 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ 40 CFR Part 52 ][FRL 257-3]

APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Sulfur Oxides Control Strategy— IdahoOn May 31, 1972 (37 PR 10842),

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51, the Adminis­trator approved, with specified excep­tions, state plans for implementation of the national ambient air quality stand­ards. Where the Administrator deter­mines that a state plan or portion there­of does not fulfill the requirements of the Act and/or 40 CFR Part 51, he is re­quired, under section 110(c) of the Act, to propose and subsequently promulgate regulations setting forth a substitute im­plementation plan or portion thereof.

Background. The Eastern Washington- Northern Idaho Interstate Air Quality Control Region is classified Priority IA for sulfur oxides because of emissions from the Bunker Hill smelter complex located near Kellogg, Idaho. The Ad­ministrator, in the May 31, 1972 F ederal R egister , disapproved the sulfur oxides control strategy and compliance schedule sections of the Idaho Air Implementa­tion Plan for the Interstate Region. In addition, the administrator granted an 18-month extension for submission of that portion of the Plan for attainment and maintenance of the sulfur oxides secondary standards in the Region. On July 27,1972, the Administrator proposed rules and regulations for the control of sulfur oxides emission from the Bunker

Hill smelter complex and granted a two- year extension for attainment of the pri­mary sulfur oxides standards in the In­terstate Region. This proposed regulation called for 96 percent permanent control of sulfur oxide emissions from the Bunker Hill smelter complex.

On September 14, 1972, EPA held a joint public hearing with the State of Idaho on the proposed Federal régula­tion. At this hearing the State of Idaho proposed two regulations. The first pro­posed regulation was identical to the pro­posed Federal regulation. The second proposed regulation called for 85 percent permanent control of sulfur oxide emis­sions on an annual basis and thé use of an intermittent control system (ICS) to attain the primary standards by 1975. The Bunker Hill Company and the State of Idaho both strongly supported this latter proposal. It was EPA’s position at that time that the use of ICS was not a reliable means of ensuring attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.

On October 25,1972, the State of Idaho Board of Environmental Protection and Health adopted the regulation which called for an annual average of 85 per­cent permanent sulfur oxides emissions control and the use of an ICS to provide attainment of the primary national standards. This regulation called for compliance with both the 85 percent overall emissions control and the primary ambient standards by July 1975. EPA has not approved this regulation because it is not legally enforceable; for technical reasons, EPA feels this regulation is in­adequate to provide for attainment and maintenance of the sulfur oxide ambient air quality standards.

On September 14, 1973, EPA proposed a new policy of supplemental control systems (SCS) as an addition to reason­ably available permanent control tech­nology for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality stand­ards. Therefore, EPA is reproposing regulations for the control of sulfur oxides from the Bunker Hill smelter complex.

Ambient sulfur dioxide levels in the vicinity of the Bunker H ill smelter com­plex. EPA has performed a statistical analysis of available ambient sulfur dioxide data taken by the Bunker Hill Company owned monitoring stations. The data have been analyzed to deter­mine: (1) The degree of permanent sul­fur oxides control required to achieve national ambient air quality standards in the vicinity of the complex, (2) the prog­ress made by the Company during the last three years toward attainment of the national ambient air quality standards through application of existing sulfur oxides control equipment and the prac­tice of SCS, and (3) the additional meas­ures which should be taken by the Com­pany to assure the attainment and main­tenance of national standards.

Frequency distributions of the 24-hour sulfur dioxide concentrations recorded at three stations were computed for three time periods. During the first period (fall, 1970 to fall, 1971) no SCS was used and the sulfuric acid plant was in operation

at the zinc plant. During the second period (fall, 1971 to fall, 1972) an acid plant was operating intermittently at the lead smelter as well as the zinc plant, and some use of SCS was employed. Dur­ing the third period (fall, 1972 to fall, 1973) the frequency of operation of the lead smelter acid plant was increased and the use of SCS was increased and further refined.

The validity of the EPA statistical analysis of the fall, 1970 to fall, 1972 air quality data is substantiated by an in­dependent analysis of the same data by the Bunker Hill Company. The degree of sulfur oxides control during this period varied considerably, but did not approach the 85 percent level predicted under maximum utilization of the existing acid plants. The analysis shows that had 85 percent control been practiced during September 1970 to August 1971, there would have been approximately ten to twenty-five days on which the 24-hour average sulfur dioxide . concentration would have exceeded the 24-hour pri­mary sulfur oxide standard of 0.14 parts per million (ppm) at one or more of the monitoring stations. A smiliar independ­ent estimate was made by a consultant for the Bunker Hill Company based on data for the period January 1971 to July 1972. Statistically, these data indicate that 96 percent permanent control of sul­fur oxide emissions would be required to achieve the 24-hour primary sulfur oxide standard.

The annual arithmetic mean at each Bunker Hill monitoring station decreased significantly when the lead smelter acid plant was placed on line in the fall of 1971. However, little reduction in the an­nual arithmetic mean has occurred since that time.

In general, the geometric standard de­viation has decreased over the last three years indicating that some of the higher short-term concentrations are being re­duced through practice of SCS. The Company has been successful in reduc­ing the number of 24-hour sulfur dioxide concentrations above 0.30 ppm, the “Alert” level contained in the Idaho epi­sode avoidance plan. Some progress has been made toward reducing the number of days that the monitor readings ex­ceed the 24-hour primary standard. How­ever, it should be noted that concentra­tions in excess of the standard still occur­red twelve to twenty percent of the time (40-70 days per year) during the period from fall, 1972 to fall, 1973.

These data indicate that the attain­ment and maintenance of the primary annual sulfur oxides standard Will be difficult even if 24-hour concentrations are kept below the 24-hour primary standard. In order to balance the 24-hour concentrations close to the standard, a majority of the 24-hour concentrations will need to be less than 0.03 ppm. At present, the data indicate that ten to twenty percent of the 24-hour concentra­tions are less than or equal to 0.03 ppm. Little progress toward increasing this percentage has been made in the last three years. This analysis of available ambient air quality data shows that 96 percent permanent control of sulfur oxide emissions would be required to assure the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

attainment and maintenance of the na­tional ambient air quality standards in the Kellogg Valley.

Status of permanent sulfur oxides con­trol at the Bunker Hill Smelter Company. The Bunker Hill Company presently op­erates single contact sulfuric acid plants on the “strong stream sulfur oxide gases" from their lead plant sinter machine and from their zinc plant roasters. No control equipment is used on the weak stream gases from the lead plant sinter machine. This existing configuration of acid plants has a design capability of controlling an average of 85 percent of the total sulfur oxides emissions from the smelter com­plex and is considered to be reasonably available permanent control technology by EPA. In order to minimize the viola­tions of the national ambient air quality standards, all acid plants must operate continuously at maximum capacity and efficiency. As mentioned above, the Bunker Hill Company has been practic­ing a form of SCS since 1971. The per­formance of this system has made steady improvement. However, it is EPA's opinion that considerable improvement to the existing performance of the acid plants and the SCS is necessary to achieve the primary and secondary ambi- -ent air quality standards.. Proposed regulations. EPA feels that two different regulatory approaches can ensure attainment and maintenance of the ambient sulfur oxide standards in the vicinity of the Bunker Hill smelter com­plex. These two regulations are being proposed for public comment. Regula­tion (b) requires the use of best engi­neering techniques to control and cap­ture fugitive sulfur oxide emissions. Regulation (b) will be applicable not­withstanding which other regulation— Regulation (c) or Regulation (d )—is •applicable to the source.

Regulation (c) would require the Bunker Hill Company to use permanent control systems to limit sulfur oxide emissions to 1900 pounds per hour by 1977. This is equivalent to 96 percent overall control of sulfur oxide emissions from the Bunker Hill smelter complex. In addition, the Company would be re­quired as an interim control measure to limit sulfur oxide emissions to 570 tons per seven consecutive days, by July, 1975 (this is equivalent to 85 percent overall control) and to continue using an SCS system to minimize the impact of emis­sions on ambient air quality.

Rather than meet the requirements of Regulation (c), the Bunker Hill Com­pany could apply to EPA for a permit to ffleet the requirements of Regulation (d ). Regulation (d) would define the proce­dures which must be followed by the Bunker Hill Company in order to prac­tice SCS. Under this regulation, SCS, to­gether with maximum utilization of existing control equipment, would be used until such time as permanent emis­sion control systems can be installed which are capable of removing 96 per­cent of all sulfur oxides emissions. Regu­lation (d) would require the development 01 an operational manual for the SCS

PROPOSED RULES

which would set forth very specific cri­teria by which the SCS would be operated. Permanent emission limita­tions are included to ensure a minimum of 85 percent control of sulfur oxide emissions. The regulation would further require that the Company conduct an ex­tensive research program to develop a permanent control system capable of re­moving 96 percent of all sulfur oxide emissions. Failure to comply with the re­quirements of Regulation (d) would sub­ject the Bunker Hill Company to the re­quirements of Regulation ( c ) .

Both Regulations (c) and (d) require installation of a system capable of con­tinuous measurement of sulfur oxide emissions in each stack emitting greater than 50 tons of sulfur oxides per year. The Bunker Hill Company would be re­quired to report the hourly sulfur oxide emissions from each of these stacks to EPA on a regular basis.

To allow for compliance with Regula­tion (c), the Administrator would ex­tend to July 31, 1977, the attainment date for national primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide. Regulation (c) would also require the at­tainment of the national secondary 3- hour 'ambient air quality standard by July 31, 1977 since the degree of perma­nent sulfur oxides emissions control re­quired to achieve the secondary ambient standard is less than that required to achieve the primary annual ambient standard.

To allow for compliance with Regula­tion (d ), the Administrator would extend the attainment date for the national an­nual primary ambient air quality stand­ard to July 31, 1977. Regulation (d) would require the attainment of the na­tional primary 24 hour and secondary 3 hour ambient air quality standards by July 31, 1975 and July 31, 1976, respec­tively. This phased schedule should pro­vide the Company with sufficient flexi­bility while still providing that the statu­tory requirements for attainment of primary standards are met.

Should the State of Idaho following publication of these proposed regula­tions, adopt and submit regulations iden­tical or equivalent to the ones proposed below, the Administrator will make an appropriate modification to his approva- bility determination of the affected por­tions of the State’s plan and will with­draw the proposed regulation. I f ade­quate State action is taken after the Ad­ministrator’s promulgation of such regu­lations, the Administrator will rescind the regulations.

It is the Administrator’s intent to hold a public hearing on these proposed regu­lations in order to provide the general public ample opportunity to comment. An EPA public hearing will be held in Kellogg, Idaho on or before November 6, 1974. The exact dates, times, and places of such hearings will be announced in a subsequent issue of the F ed er al R e g is t e r . Copies of these proposed regulations are now available during normal business hours at the Agency’s regional office in Seattle and at the Freedom of Informa-

36019taon Center, 401 M Street SW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20460.

Interested persons may also participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments to the Regional Administrator, Region X, Environmental Protection t Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, ’Washington 98101, Attention: L. Smith. All comments received on or before No­vember 6,1974, will be acknowledged. All comments will be available for public in­spection during normal business hours at the regional office.

This notice of proposed rulemaking is issued under the authority of section 110(c) of the Clean Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857e-5 (c ) .

Dated: September 20,1974.J o h n Q u a r l e s ,

Acting Administrator.It is proposed to amend Part 52 of

Chapter I, Title 40, of the Code of Fed­eral Regulations as follows:

Subpart I— IdahoSection 52.676 is amended by adding

paragraphs (b ) , ( c ) , and (d ) , as follows:§ 52.676 Control strategy: Sulfur ox­

ides— Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate Region.* * * * *

(b) Regulation for control of fugitive sulfur dioxide («SO«) emissions: Zinc/ Lead smelter complex. (1) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Com­pany located in Shoshone County, Idaho (hereinafter referred to as the Bunker Hill Company) in the Eastern Washing­ton-Northern Idaho Interstate Air Qual­ity Control Region shall utilize best engi­neering techniques to capture and vent fugitive S02 emissions through a stack or stacks. Such techniques shall include, but need not be limited to:

(1) Operating and maintaining all ducts, flues, and stacks in a leakfree condition.

(ii) Operating and maintaining all process equipment and gas collection sys­tems in such a fashion that leakage of S02 gases will be prevented to the maxi­mum extent possible.

(iii) Wherever possible, using gas col­lection systems and/or ducting emissions through the tallest stack or stacks serv­ing the facility.

(2) (i) Compliance with subparagraph(1) of this paragraph shall be achieved as expeditiously as practicable but not later than 6 months following date of publication of these requirements as a final regulation in the F e d er al R e g is t e r .

(ii) The owner(s) and operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company may submit to the Administrator, no later than 30 days following the date of publication of these requirements as a final regulation in the F e d er al R e g is t e r , a proposed compliance schedule as an alternate to that con­tained in subparagraph (2) (i) of this paragraph. No such compliance schedule may provide for final compliance after July 31,1975. I f approved by the Admin­istrator, such schedule shall satisfy the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36020 PROPOSED RULEScompliance schedule requirements of this subparagraph.

(c) Regulation for control of sulfur di­oxide (.SOz) emissions: Zinc/Lead Smelt­er Complex. (1) The owner (s) or opera­tor (s) of the Bunker Hill Company lo ­cated in Shoshone County, Idaho (here­inafter referred to as the Bunker Hiil Company) in the Eastern Washington- Northern Idaho Interstate Air Quality Control Region shall comply with all the requirements of this paragraph, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall not dis­charge or cause the discharge of SO* into the* atmosphere in excess of 1900 pounds per hour (860 kg/hr)—maximum 2-hour average. Such limitation shall apply to the sum total of SO* emissions from the Bunker Hill Company premises, but not including uncaptured fugitive emissions and those emissions from fuel used solely for space heating or steam genera­tion. Compliance shah be determined by the methods specified in subparagraph(6) of this paragraph. Compliance with this subparagraph shall be achieved as expeditiously as practicable but not later than July 31,1977.

(3) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall provide interim measures of control, including, but not limited to, maximum practicable use of existing SOa control equipment and the application of supplemental control systems, together with an ade­quate ambient air and meterological monitoring network.

(4) (i) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall com-, ply with the compliance schedule speci­fied below.

(o) Effective immediately apply sup­plemental control systems and other ap­propriate interim measures to reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, ground level ambient S02 concentrations.

(b) Effective immediately, limit the discharge of SO2 into the atmosphere by utilizing to the maximum extent prac­ticable all existing SO* control equip­ment for both the lead and zinc plants.

(c) November 1, 1974—Submit a final plan to the Administrator for meeting the requirements of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph. Such plan shall be subject to approval by the Administra­tor and shall, as a minimum, include dates for letting necessary contracts or purchase orders and initiating and com­pleting on site construction and/or in­stallation of emission control system or process changes.

(d) July 31, 1975—Limit SOa dis­charge to a maximum of 570 tons per any consecutive 7-day period (midnight to midnight). Such limitation shall apply to the sum total of SO, emissions from the Bunker Hill Company premises, but not including uncaptured fugitive emis­sions and those emissions due solely to use of fuel for space heating or steam generation, as measured by the methods specified in subparagraph (7) of this paragraph.

(e) July 31, 1975—Certify measure­ment systems and commence reporting as required by subparagraph (5) , of this paragraph.

(/) July 31, 1977—Achieve compli­ance with the emission limitation re­quirements of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph.

(ii) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall notify the Administrator in writing within 5 days after the deadline for each incre­ment of progress, whether or not the re­quired increment of progress has been met.

(iii) Where a performance test is necessary to determine whether compli­ance has been achieved, such a test must be completed by the final compliance date in the applicable regulation. Notice must be given to the Administrator at least 10 days prior to such a test to afford him the opportunity to have an observer present.

(iv) I f the owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company are pres­ently in compliance with the require­ments of subparagraph (2) of this para­graph or achieve compliance prior to July 31, 1977, such compliance shall be certified to the Administrator within 30 days following the date of publication of these requirements as a final regula­tion in the F ederal R egister or upon achieving compliance. I f such certifica­tion is acceptable to the Administrator, the applicable requirements of this sub- paragraph shall not apply to the certified sources. The Administrator may request whatever supporting information he considers necessary to determine the validity of the certification.

(v) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company may submit to the Administrator, no later than 30 days following the date of publication of these requirements as a final regulation in the F ederal R egister , a proposed alternate compliance schedule. No such compliance schedule may provide for final compli­ance after* July 31, i977, I f approved by the Administrator such schedule shall satisfy the compliance schedule require­ments of this paragraph.

(5) Theowner(s) or operator (s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall install, calib­rate, maintain and operate measure­ment system (s) for continuously moni­toring and recording S02 emission rates in each stack capable of emitting greater than 50 tons SOa per year. For the pur­pose of this paragraph, “continuous monitoring” means the taking and re­cording of at least one measurement of S02 concentration and stack gas flow rate reading from the effluent of each af­fected stack, in each 15-minute period.

(i) By no later than July 31,1975, and at such other times following this date as the Administrator may specify, the SO* concentration measurement system (s) and stack gas volumetric flow rate sys­tem (s) installed and used pursuant to this paragraph shall be demonstrated to meet the measurement system perform­ance specifications prescribed in Appen­dix D and E to this part, respectively;

The Administrator shall be notified at least 10 days prior to the start of this field test period to afford the Adminis­trator the opportunity to have an ob­server present.

(ii) The sampling point for monitor­ing the concentration of SO* emissions shall, be in the duct at the centroid of the cross section if the cross sectional area is less than 4.657 m 2 (50 f t 3) or at a point no closer to the wall than0.914 m (3 ft ) if the cross sectional area is 4.657 m 3 (50 f t 2) or more. The monitor sample point shall be in an area of small spatial concentration gradient and shall be representative of the average con­centration in the duct.

(iii) The measurement system(s) in­stalled and used pursuant to this sub- paragraph shall be maintained, operated and calibrated in accordance with the methods prescribed by the manufactur­ers. Records of maintenance and/or calibration shall be kept and submitted to the Administrator upon request. These records shall clearly show instrument readings before and after such calibra­tion and/or maintenance.

(iv) The owner(s) and operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall main­tain a daily record of all measurements required by this subparagraph. For each day beginning at midnight, 2-hour aver­age SO2 emission rates shall be calculated and recorded daily per the method speci­fied in subparagraph (6) of this para­graph. The results of these calculations for each month shall be submitted to the Administrator within 15 days following the end of each month. The records of such measurements shall be retained for a minimum of 2 years following the date of such measurements.

(v ) The continuous monitoring and record keeping requirements of this sub- paragraph shall become applicable July 31, 1975.

(6) Compliance with the requirements set forth in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph shall be determined using the continuous measurement system (g) in­stalled, calibrated, maintained and op­erated in accordance with the require­ments of subparagraph (5) of this paragraph. __

(i) For each stack equipped with the measurement systems required by sub- paragraph (5) of this paragraph, 2-hour average SO, emission in rates shall be calculated as follows:

(a) Divide the 2-hour period into eight distinct 15-minute segments.

(b) Determine on a compatible mois­ture basis SO2 concentration and stack gas flow rate measurements for each 15- minute period. These measurements may be obtained either by continuous inte­gration of S02 concentrations and stack gas flow rate measurements recorded during the 15-minute period or from the arithmetic averages of any reasonable number of SOa concentration and stack gas flow rate measurements equally spaced over the 15-minute period. In the latter case the same number of con­centration readings shall be taken lor each 15-minute period and shall oe

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36021

similarly spaced within each 15-minute period.

(C) For the 2-hour period, calculate the arithmetic average S02 emission rate in pounds SO* per hour for each stack. Total the average S02 emission rates for all affected stacks.

(ii)' Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraph (6) (i) of this para­graph,-compliance with the requirements of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph shall also be determined by using the methods described below at such times as may be specified by the Administrator. For each stack equipped with the meas­urement system(s) required by subpara­graph (5) of this paragraph, a 2-hour average SO* emission rate in pounds SOi per hour shall be determined as follows:

(a) The test of each stack emission rate ftVin.il be conducted while the processing units vented through such stack are op­erating at or above the maximum rate at which the processing unit will be op­erated and under such other relevant conditions as the Administrator shall specify based on representative perform­ance of the processing units. A minimum of three such tests shall be conducted for each stack.

(b) Concentrations of S02 in emissions shall be determined by using Method 8 as described in Part 60 of this chapter. The analytical and computational por­tions of Method 8 as they relate to deter­mination of sulfuric acid mist and sulfur trioxide as well as isokinetic sampling may be omitted from the over-all test procedure. The gas sample shall be ex­tracted at a rate proportional to gas velocity at the sampling point.

(c) In using Method 8, traversing shall be conducted according to Method 1 as described in Part 60 of this chapter. The minimum sampling volume for the 2- hour test shall be 40 cubic feet (ft3) cor­rected to standard conditions, dry basis.

(d) The volumetric flow rate of the total effluent from each stack evaluated shall be determined by using Method 2 as describing in Part 60 of this chapter and traversing according to Method 1. Gas analysis shall be performed by using the integrated sample technique of Method 3 as described in Part 60 of this chapter. Moisture content shall be determined by using of Method 4 as de­scribed in Part 60 of this chapter except that stack gases arising only from a sul­furic acid production unit may be con­sidered to have zero moisture content.

(e) For each 2-hour test period, the S02 emission rate for each stack shall be determined by multiplying the stack eas volumetric flow rate and SOa concen­tration (standard conditions, dry basis and equivalent units). The emission rate for a two hour test period is determined by calculating the arithmetic average of a minimum of three 2-hour tests for each stack. The emission rate shall be ex­pressed in pounds per hour—maximum ¿-hour average for each stack.

(/) The sum total of SO* emissions irom the smelter premises in pounds per nour is determined by adding together t ® ernission rates in pounds per hour

from all stacks equipped with the meas­urement system required by subpara­graph (5) of this paragraph.

(iii) A violation of the requirements of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph shall occur whenever the total SO* emis­sion rate determined according to sub- paragraph (6) (i) or (ii) of this para­graph exceeds the SO. emission rate spec­ified in subparagraph (2) of this para­graph.

(7) (i) Compliance with the require­ments set forth in subparagraph (4) (i)(d). of this paragraph shall be determined using the continuous measurement sys­tem (s) installed, calibrated, maintained and operated in accordance with the re­quirements of subparagraph (5) of this paragraph. For all stacks equipped with the measurement systems required by subparagraph (5) of this paragraph, the average S02 emission rate for a seven day period shall be calculated on a daily basis (midnight to midnight) as follows:

(a) . Divide each two-hour period into eight distinct fifteen-minute segments.

(b) Determine on a compatible mois­ture basis a SOa concentration and stack gas flow rate measurement for each fif­teen-minute period. These measurements may be obtained either by continuous in­tegration of SO. concentrations and stack gas flow rate measurements recorded during the fifteen-minute period or from the arithmetic average of any reasonable number of compatible S02 concentration and gas flow rate readings equally spaced over the fifteen minutes. In the latter case, the same number of S02 concen­tration and stack gas flow rate measure­ments shall be taken for each fifteen- minute period and shall be similarly spacedrWithin each fifteen-minute period.

(c) For the two hour period, calculate the arithmetic average SO. emission rate (expressed in lbs. S02/hour) for each stack. Total the average SOa emission rates for all affected stacks for the two hour period.

(d) Calculate the SOs emission rate for each consecutive seven day period (midnight to midnight) by summing the

. average SO. emission rates for each 2 hour period calculated per subparagraph(7) (i) (c) of this paragraph.

(ii) A violation of the requirements of subparagraph (4) (i) (d) of this para­graph shall occur whenever the total S02 emission rate determined according to subparagraph (6) (i) of this para­graph exceeds the S02 emission rate spec­ified in subparagraph (4) (i) (.d) of this paragraph.

(d) Alternate regulation for control of sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions: Zinc/ Lead Smelter Complex. (1) The owner or operator of the BunkerHili Company lo­cated in Shoshone County, Idaho (here­inafter referred to as the Blinker Hill Company) in the Eastern Washington- Northern Idaho Interstate Air Quality Control Region may apply to the Admin­istrator for approval to meet the re­quirements of this paragraph. Upon such approval, granted pursuant to subpara­graph (3) of this paragraph, the require­ments of paragraph (c) of this section

shall not be applicable and all require­ments of this paragraph shall apply dur­ing the period of such approval.

(2) All terms used in this paragraph, but not specifically defined below shall have the meaning given them in the Act, or Part 51 or Part 52 of this chapter.

(i) The term “supplementary control system” (hereinafter referred to as SCS) means any system which limits the amount of pollutant emissions during periods when meteorological conditions conducive to ground-level concentrations in excess of national ambient air quality standards exist or are anticipated.

(ii) The term “ambient air quality vi­olation” means any single ambient con­centration of S02 that exceeds any na­tional ambient air quality standard at any point in a designated liability area, as specified in subparagraph (10) of this paragraph.

(iii) The term “ isolated source” means a source that can and will assume legal responsibility for all violations of the ap­plicable national standards in its des­ignated liability area, as specified in sub- paragraph (10) of this paragraph.

(3) (i) The application for permission to comply with this paragraph shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 15 days following the date of pub­lication of these requirements as a final regulation in the F ederal R egister and shall include the following:

(a) A short description of the type and location of the smelter complex; the processes, equipment, raw materials and fuels used; the stacks employed; and emissions to the atmosphere from vari­ous points on the premises of the smelter complex.

(b) A general description of the to­pography and the location of the smelter complex of any other S02 sources within the vicinity of the smelter complex.

(c) A summary of any ambient air quality data collected in the vicinity of the smelter complex that the owner or operator may have.

(d) A description of the methods of constant emission reduction that are or will be applied and the degree of emis­sion reduction and the dates for such re­duction which are achieved or expected due to their application.

(e) A description of the investigations that the owner or operator has made, and the results thereof, as to the avail­ability of constant emission reduction methods that would meet the require­ments of paragraph (c) (2) of this sec­tion and a discussion of the reasons why any potentially available methods can­not reasonably be used.

(/) A general description of the re­search, investigations, or demonstrations that the owner or operator will conduct or support for the purpose of developing constant emission reduction technology applicable to the smelter complex. Such description shall include the resources to the committed and qualifications of the participants and a description of the facilities to be utilized.

(g) A description of the other meas­ures the owner (s) or operator (s) will

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36022 PROPOSED RULES

apply, In addition to those described in (d> of this subdivision, to provide for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards. In addi­tion to SCS, such measures may include, but need not be limited to, tall stacks; permanent production curtailment; and/ or process changes.

(7i) A written commitment by the owner (s) or operator (s) of the Bunker Hill Company to assume liability for all violations of the appropriate national standard (s) within its designated liabil­ity area (as specified in subparagraph (10) of this paragraph), as of the date(s) specified in subparagraph (17) of this paragraph.

(i) Such other pertinent information as the AriminiRt.rn.tnr may require.

<ii) Upon receipt of the information specified in subdivision (i) of this sub- paragraph, and a determination of its adequacy, the Administrator promptly shall, after 30 days’ notice, conduct a public hearing on the application sub­mitted by the owner or operator. The A riminiRt.rn.tnr shall make available to the public, the information contained in the application and his preliminary evaluation and findings thereon. Within 30 days after the hearing, the Adminis­trator will notify the owner(s) or opera- torts) of the Bunker Hill Company and other interested parties of his decision as to whether to grant or deny the ap­plication. I f denied, he will set forth his reasons. I f the application is approved, the owner(s) or operator (s) shall com­ply with all the provisions of this para— graph of this section and need not com­ply with provisions of paragraph (c) of this section except as provided in sub- paragraph (16) of this paragraph.

(4) (i) The owner (s) or operator (s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall not cause or allow the discharge of gases into the atmosphere in excess o f:

(a) 2000 parts per million (by volume) SOa from the lead plant acid plant— maximum 2 hour average.

(b) 2000 parts per million (by vol­ume) SOa from each of the zinc plant acid plants or zinc plant roasters—maxi­mum 2 hour average.

(c) 1100 parts per million (by volume) SOa from the lead plant mam stack— maximum 2 hour average.

(d ) 570 tons SOa per any consecutive 7 day period (midnight to midnight) (517,560 kilograms/7 consecutive days) (collectively from all sources within the lead/zinc complex, but not including un­captured fugitive emissions and those emissions due solely to use of fuel for space heating or steam feneration).

(ii) Gases shall not be combined with those arising from the process(es) served by the stack(s) subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (4) (i) (a ) , (5 ), and (c) o f this paragraph for the purposes of decreasing the concentration of SO* in such stack (s).

(ill) Compliance with this subpara­graph shall be achieved as expeditiously as practicable but not later than July 31, 1975.

(5) (i) Compliance with the require­ments set forth in subparagraphs (4) (i)

(a ) , (b) and (c) of this paragraph shall be determined using the continuous measurement system (s) installed, cali­brated, maintained and operated in ac­cordance with the requirements of suh- paragraph (7) of this paragraph. Two- hour average concentrations of SO* shall be calculated for each affected stack as follows:

(a) Divide the two-hour period into eight distinct fifteen-minute segments.

(b ) Determine on a compatible mois­ture basis a S02 concentration and stack gas flow rate measurement for each fifteen-minute period. This measure­ment may be obtained either by continu­ous integration of all measurements re­corded during the fifteen-minute period or from the arithmetic average of any reasonable number of concentration readings equally spaced over the fifteen minutes. In the latter case, the same number of concentration readings shall be taken for each fifteen-minute period and shall be similarly spaced within each fifteen-minute period.

(c) Calculate the arithmetic average o f all 8 concentration measurements for the two hour period for each stack.

(ii) Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraph (5) (i) of this para­graph, compliance with the requirements of subparagraphs (4) (i) (a ) , (b ) and(c) of this paragraph shall also be de­termined by using the methods described below at such times as may be specified by the Administrator. For each affected stack a two hour average SO» concen­tration shall be determined as follows:

(a) The test of each stack emission concentration shall be conducted while the processing units vented through such stack are operating at or above the maxi­mum rate at which the processing unit will be operated and under such other relevant conditions as the Administra­tor shall specify based on representative performance of the smelter units. A minimum of three such tests shall be conducted for each stack.

(b) Concentrations of SOa in emis­sions shall be determined by using Meth­od 8 as described in Part 60 of this chap­ter. The analytical and computational portions of Method 8 as they relate to determination of sulfuric acid mist and sulfur trioxide as well as isokinetic sampling may be omitted from the over­all test procedure.

(c) In using Method 8, traversing shall be conducted according to Method 1 as described in Part 60 of this chapter. The minimum sampling volume for the 2 hour test shall be 40 ft.8 corrected to standard conditions, dry basis.

(d ) The velocity of the total effluent from each stack evaluated shall be deter­mined by using Method 2 as described in Part 60 of this chapter and traversing according to Method 1. Gas analysis shall be performed by using the inte­grated sample technique o f Method 3 as described in Part 60 of this chapter. Moisture content shall be determined by using Method 4 as described in Part 60 of this chapter. Moisture content of acid plant exhaust gases can be considered to be zero.

(e) The gas sample shall be extracted at a rate proportional to gas velocity at the sampling point.

(/) The SOa concentration in parts per million—maximum 2-hour average shall be determined for each affected stack by calculating the arithmetic average of the three tests.

(iii) A violation of the requirements of subparagraphs (4) (i) (a ) , (6) and (c) shall occur whenever the average con­centration for a two-hour period cal­culated per subparagraph (5) (i) or (5) (ii) of this paragraph for any stack exceeds the SOa concentrations specified in subparagraph (4) (i) ( a ) , (b) and (c) respectively.

(6>(i)» Compliance with the require­ments set forth in subparagraph (4)(i)(d ) of this paragraph shall be deter­mined using the continuous measure­ment system (s) installed, calibrated, maintained and operated in accordance with the requirements o f subparagraph(7) of this paragraph. For all stacks equipped with the measurement systems required by subparagraph (7) of this paragraph, the average SOa emission rate for a 7 day period shall be cal­culated on a daily basis (midnight to midnight) as follows:

(a) Divide each two-hour period into eight distinct fifteen-minute segments.

(b) Determine on a compatible mois­ture basis a SOa concentration and stack gas flow rate measurement for each fif­teen-minute period. These measure­ments may be obtained either by con­tinuous integration of SOz concentra­tions and stack flow rate measurements recorded during the fifteen-minute pe­riod or from the arithmetic average of any reasonable number of compatible SOa concentration and stack gas flow rate readings equally spaced over the fifteen minutes. In the latter case, the same number of SOa concentration and stack gas flow rate measurements shall be taken for each fifteen-minute period and shall be similarly spaced within each fifteen-minute period.

(c) For the two-hour period, calculate the arithmetic average SOa emission rate (expressed in lbs. SOa/hour) for each stack. Total the average SOa emission rates for all affected stacks for the two hour period.

(d) Calculate the average daily SO» emission rate for each consecutive 7-day period (midnight to midnight) by sum­ming the average SO2 emission rates for each 2-hour period calculated per sub- paragraph (6) (i) (c) of this paragraph.

(ii) A vioíation o f the requirements of subparagraph (4) (i) (d) shall occur whenever the total SOa emission rate for any consecutive 7-day period (midnight to midnight) calculated per subpara­graph (6) (i) of this paragraph exceeds the SO¿ emission rate specified in sud- paragraph (4) (i) (d) of this paragraph.

(7) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall instan, calibrate, maintain and operate meas­urement systems for continuously mon“ itoring and recording SO» emission con­centrations and emission rates in eac

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 197»

PROPOSED RULES 36023stack capable of emitting greater than 50 tons SOj/year. For the purpose of this paragraph, “ continuous monitoring” means the taking and recording of at least one measurement of SO, concen­tration and stack gas how rate from the effluent of each affected stack in each fifteen-minute period.

(i) By no later than July 31,1975, and at such other times after this date as the Administrator may specify the SO, con­centration measurement system (s) and stack gas volumetric flow rate system (s) installed and used pursuant to this para­graph shall be demonstrated to meet the measurement system performance speci­fications prescribed in Appendix D and E to this part respectively. The Admin­istrator shall be potified at least 10 days prior to the start of this field test period to afford the Administrator the oppor­tunity to have an observer present.

(ii) The sampling point for monitor­ing the concentration of SO, emissions shall be in the duct at the centroid of the cross section if the cross sectional area is less than 4.647 m2 (50 ft.2) or at a point no closer to the wall than 0.914 m (3 ft.) if the cross sectional area is 4.647 m2 (50 ft.2) or more. The monitor sample point shall be in an area of small spatial concentration gradient and shall be rep­resentative of the average concentration in the duct.

(iii) The measurement system(s) in­stalled and used pursuant to this sub- paragraph shall be maintained, operated and calibrated in accordance with the methods prescribed by the manufactur­ers. Records of maintenance and/or cali­bration shall be kept and upon request submitted to the Administrator. These records shall clearly show instrument readings before and after such calibra­tion and/or maintenance.

(iv) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall maintain a daily record of all measurements and calculations required by subparagraphs (5) and (6) of this paragraph. Calcula­tion results shall be expressed in the units prescribed by each emission limi­tation in subparagraph (4) of this para­graph. The results shall be summarized monthly for each hour and shall be sub­mitted to the Administrator within 15 days after the end of each month. A rec­ord of such measurements shall be re­tained for two years following the date of such measurements.

(v) The continuous monitoring and record keeping requirements of this sub- paragraph shall become applicable July 31,1975.

(8) The owner(s) or operator(s) of *he Bunker Hill Company, in addition to meeting the requirements of subpara­graph (4) of this paragraph, shall effi- Woy additional control measures as may do necessary to assure the attainment m i Î^Htenance of national ambient air Waaity standards for SO* by the dates specified in. subparagraph (17) of this Paragraph.nom) measures may include, but need not be limited to the following tech- mques: process changes;" SCS and tall

stacks; production reduction; or any other techniques approved by the Ad­ministrator.

(ii) SO* emissions shall be curtailed whenever the potential for violating any national ambient air quality standard for SO* is indicated at any point in a des­ignated liability area by air quality measurements and/or air quality predic­tions.

(9) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall submit to the Administrator, no later than Jan­uary 15, 1975, a plan for implementing SCS. Such plan shall be reviewed during the test period required by subparagraph (17) of this paragraph and shall be sub­ject to the Administrator’s approval by June 1, 19.75. The plan shall include the following:

(i) Describe and substantiate the emission monitoring system and the air quality monitoring network that will be used in the SCS.

(ii) Describe and substantiate the meteorological sensing network and the meteorological prediction program that will be used in the SCS.

(iii) Identify the frequency, charac­teristics, times of occurrence and dura­tions of meteorological conditions asso­ciated with high ground-level ambient concentrations.

(iv) Describe the methodology (e.g., dispersion modeling and measured air quality data) by which the source deter­mines the degree of control needed un­der each meteorological situation.

(v ) Describe the method chosen to vary the emission rate, the basis for the choice, and the time required to effect a sufficient reduction in the emission rate to avoid violations of national ambient air quality standards.

(vi) Contain an estimate of the fre­quency that emission rate reduction is required to prevent national ambient air quality standards from being exceeded and the basis for the above estimate.

(vii) Describe the general plan of in­vestigations to be followed in developing the SCS and the operations manual re­quired by subparagraph (12) of this paragraph.

(viii) Identify a responsible and knowledgeable person (and alternates) on site who is authorized to curtail emis­sions and who can apprise the Adminis­trator as to the status of the supplemen­tary control system at any time.

(ix) Include an affidavit signed by a responsible company official stating that the owner(s) or operator(s) assume lia­bility by the dates specified in subpara­graph (17) of this paragraph for all ground-level ambient sulfur dioxide con­centrations which exceed the national ambient air quality standards in the designated liability area defined in sub- paragraph (10) of this paragraph. .

(10) (i) For the purposes of this para­graph the designated liability area shall be a circle with a radius of 10 statute miles (16 km) with the center point of such circle coinciding with the main stack serving the zinc plant. The own­e r s ) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill

Company may submit a detailed report which justifies redefining the designated liability area specified by the Adminis­trator. Such a justification shall be sub­mitted with the application submitted pursuant to subparagraph (3) of this paragraph and shall describe and delin­eate the recommended designated liabil­ity area and discuss in detail the method used and the factors taken into account in the development of such area. Upon receipt and evaluation of such report, and after the public hearing described in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue his final determination.

(ii) I f new information becomes avail­able which demonstrates that the desig­nated liability area should be redefined, the Administrator shall consider such and if appropriate, redefine the desig­nated liability area.

(11) The owner(s) and operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall:

(i) Test the SCS described in sub- paragraph (9) of this paragraph to demonstrate that such system is capable of attaining the primary 24 hour SO* ambient air quality standard. Such test shall be a minimum of 90 days duration and shall begin no later than January 15,1975. (ii) Submit to later than May 1, 1975 a report summarizing results ob­tained from the testing program. Such report shall evaluate the reliability of the SCS plan submitted pursuant to sub- paragraph (9) of this paragraph and designate the necessary changes to this plan to ensure achievement of ambient air quality standards by the dates speci­fied in subparagraph (17) of this para­graph.

(12) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall submit to the Administrator an operational man­ual for SCS. Such manual shall be sub­mitted no later than June 1, 1975 and is subject to the approval of the Ad­ministrator. Prior to making his final de­cision, the Administrator shall, after rea­sonable notice, provide an opportunity of not less than 45 days for public in­spection and comment on the manual. Such manual shall:

(i) Specify the number, type, and loca­tion of ambient air quality monitors, in­stack monitors and meteorological in­struments to be used.

(ii) Describe techniques, methods, and criteria to be used to anticipate the onset of meteorological situations associ­ated with ground-level concentrations in excess of national ambient air quality standards and to systematically evaluate and, as needed, improve the reliability o f the supplementary control system.

(iii) Describe the criteria and proce­dures that will be used to determine the degree of control needed for each class of meteorological and air quality situa­tion.

(iv) Specify maximum emission rates which may prevail during all probable meteorological and air quality situations. These rates shall be such that national ambient air quality standards will not be exceeded in the designated liability

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 3V, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36024

area. Such emission rates shall be deter­mined by in-stack monitors and shall be the basis for determining whether pro­visions of the approved operational manual are adhered to.

(v) Describe the specific actions that will be taken to adjust emission rates to those levels specified per the require­ments of subdivision (iv) of this sub- paragraph.

(vi) Identify the company personnel responsible for initiating and supervis­ing the actions that will be taken to cur­tail emissions. Such personnel must be responsible, knowledgeable and able to apprise the Administrator as to the sta­tus of the supplementary control system at any time the source is operating.

Cvii) Be modified, subject to approval by the Administrator, upon request of the owner or operator of the smelter or, after appropriate negotiation, by the Ad­ministrator.

(13) (i) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall :

(a) Maintain, in a useable manner, records of all measurements and reports prepared as part of the approved SCS. Such records shall be retained for at least two years.

(b) Submit to the Administrator, on a monthly basis, all hourly measurements made of air quality, emissions and me­teorological parameters and all other measurements made on a periodic basis, that are a part o f the approved SCS.

(c) Submit to * the Administrator a monthly summary report describing and analyzing how the SCS operated as re­lated to the operations manual approved by the Administrator: Such report shall describe how the system will be improved, if necessary, to prevent violations of the national ambient air quality standards for S02 or to prevent any others condi­tions which are not in accordance with the operations manual approved by the Administrator.

(d) Submit to the Administrator a monthly summary indicating all dates and times when national ambient air quality standards for SOa were exceeded and the concentrations of SO* at such times.

(ii) The requirements of this subpara­graph shall become applicable July 31, 1975.

(14) (i) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall par­ticipate in a research program to de­velop and apply constant emission re­duction technology adequate to attain and maintain the national ambient standards. Such program shall be docu­mented and submitted to the Adminis­trator for his approval no later than June 1, 1975. Such description must in­clude schedules and resources to be com­mitted and anticipated dates when ade­quate emission reduction technology can be applied to the source.

(ii) The owner (s) or operator (s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall submit annual reports on the progress of the re­search and development program re­quired by this subparagraph. Each report shall include, but not be limited to, a de­scription of the projects underway, in-

PROPOSED RULES

formation on the qualification of the personnel involved, information on the funds and manpower that have been committed, and an estimated date for the installation of the constant emission re­duction technology necessary to attain and maintain the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards.

(15) (i) The Administrator shall an­nually review the SCS dnd shall deny permission for continued use of the SCS if he determines that:

(a) The review indicates that constant emission control technology has become available, that continued relative isola­tion of the facility has changed, or that .other factors which mav bear on the conditions for use of a SCS have changed to the extent that continued use of the SCS would no longer be deemed approv- able within the intent of subparagraph(3) of this paragraph; or

(b) The source owner or operator has not demonstrated good faith efforts to follow the stated program for develop­ing constant emission .reduction proce­dures; or

(c) The source owner or operator has not developed and employed a control program that is effective in preventing violations of national ambient air qual­ity standards.

(ii) Prior to denying the continued use of a SCS pursuant to subparagraph (16) (i) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall notify the owner (s) or operators (s) of the Bunker Hill Company of his in­tent to deny such continued use, together with:

(a) The information and findings on which such intended denial is based, and

(b) Notice of opportunity for such owner(s) or operator(s) to present, within 30 days, additional information or arguments to the Administrator prior to his final determination.

(iii) The Administrator shall notify the owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company of his final deter­mination within 30 days after the pres­entation of additional information or arguments, or 30. days after the final date specified for such presentation if no presentation is made. I f the continued use of the SCS is denied, the final deter­mination shall set forth the specific grounds for such denial.

(16) Upon denial of the use of a SCS pursuant to subparagraph (15) of this paragraph, all the requirements of par­agraph (c) of this section shall be im­mediately applicable to the owner(s) or operator (s) of the Bunker Hill Company and compliance therewith shall be achieved in such reasonable time as the Administrator shall prescribe.

(17) (i) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall com­ply with the compliance schedule speci­fied below for implementing the require­ments of this paragraph:

(a) Effective immediately, limit the discharge of SOs into the atmosphere by utilizing to the maximum extent prac­ticable all existing sulfuric acid plant controls for both the lead and zinc plants.

(b) Within 15 days following the date of publication of these requirements as a final regulation in the F ederal R egis­ter , submit to the Administrator an ap­plication for permission to comply in accordance with subparagraph (3) of this paragraph.

(c) January 15, 1975—Submit to the Administrator, a detailed plan for es­tablishment and implementation of the SCS in accordance with subparagraph(9) of this paragraph.

(d) January 15,1975—Let contracts or issue purchase orders for any stack ex­tensions, emission and ambient air qual­ity monitors, meteorological instruments, and other component parts necessary to complete the SCS.

(e) May 1, 1975—Submit to the Ad­ministrator the comprehensive test re­port on the SCS required by subpara­graph (11) of this paragraph.

(?) June 1, 1975—Complete installa­tion of air quality and emission moni­tors and meteorological equipment neces­sary to complete the SCS.

(fir) June 1, 1975—Submit to the Ad­ministrator for his approval, the oper­ational manual and research program required by subparagraphs (12) and (14) respectively of this paragraph.

(h ) July 31,1975—Assume liability for all violations of the primary 24 hour na­tional ambient air quality standard for SOa in the designated liability area.- (i) July 31, 1975—Achieve compliance with the emission limitation require ments of subparagraph (4) of this para­graph.■ ( j ) July 31, 1975— Certify measure­ment systems and commence reporting as required by subparagraphs (7) and (13) of this paragraph.

(fc) July 31, 1976—Assume liability for all violations of the secondary three hour national ambient air quality standard for SOa in the designated liability area.

(I) July 31, 1977—Assume liability for all violations of the primary annual na­tional ambient air quality standard for SOa in the designated liability area.

(ii) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall notify the Administrator in writing within five days after the deadline for each incre­ment of progress, whether or not the required increment of progess has been met.

(iii) Where a performance test isdeemed necessary by the Adminis­trator in order to determine whether compliance has been achieved, such a test must be completed by the final compliance date in the applicable com­pliance schedule. Notice must be given to the Administrator at least two weexs prior to conducting a performance test to afford him the opportunity to have an observer present. .

(iv) I f the owner(s) or operators of the Bunker Hill Company are pres­ently in compliance with any of the to* crements of progress set forth in t subparagraph such owner (s) or °Per^‘ tor(s) shall certify such compliance the Administrator within 30 days of t

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36025- « : July 1977, except that in the event the source subject to § 52.676(c) Is granted per­mission to comply with § 52.676(d) the attainment date for the national 3-hour secondary standard shall be July 1976.

Appendix-—Determination op Sulfur Dioxide \ Emissions prom Stationary Sources by

Continuous Monitors

1. Definitions.1.1 Concentration Measurement System.

The total equipment required for' the con­tinuous determination of SOa gas concentra­tion in a given source effluent.

1.2 Span. The value of pollutant con­centration at which the measurement system is set to produce the maximum data display output. For the purposés of this method, the span shall be set at the expected maximum, sulfur dioxide concentration ex­cept as specified under section 5.2, Field Test for Accuracy.

1.3 Accuracy (Relative). The degree of correctness with which the measurement sys­tem yields the value of gas concentration of a sample relative to the value given by a de­fined reference method. This accuracy is ex­pressed in terms of error which is the dif­férence between the paired concentration measurements expressed as a percentage of the mean reference value.

1.4 Calibration error. The difference between the pollutant concentration indi­cated by the measurement system and the known concentration of the test gas mixture.

1.5 Zero drift. The change in measure­ment system output over a stated period of time of normal continuous operation when the pollutant concentration at the time for the measurements is zero.

1.6 Calibration drift. The change in meas­urement system output over a stated period of ttnnft of normal continuous operation when the pollutant concentration at the time of the measurements is the same known up­scale value.

1.7 Response time. The time Interval from a step change in pollutant concentration at the input to the measurement system to the time at which 95 percent of the corre­sponding final value is reached as displayed on the measurement system data presenta­tion device.

1.8 Operational period. A minimum period of time over which a measurement system is

expected to operate within certain perform­ance specifications without unscheduled maintenance, repair or adjustment.

1.9 Reference method. The reference method for determination of SOa emissions shall be Method 8 as delineated in Part 60 of this chapter. The analytical and com­putational portions of Method 8 as they relate to determination of sulfuric acid mist and sulfur trloxide, as well as Isokinetic sampling, may be omitted from the overall test procedure.

2. Principle and Applicability.2.1 Principle. Gases are sampled con­

tinuously in the stack emissions and the sulfur dioxide concentration analyzed con­tinuously as a function of time. Performance specifications for the continuous measure­ment systems are given. Test procedures are given to test the capability of the measure­ment systems to conform to the performance specifications. Sampling may Include either the extractive or non-extractive (in-situ) approach.

2.2 Applicability. The performance speci­fications are given for continuous sulfur dioxide measurement systems applied to non- ferrous smelters.

3. Apparatus.3.1 Calibration gas mixture. Mixture of

a known concentration of sulfur dioxide in air or nitrogen. Nominal volumetric concen­trations of 20 percent, 40 percent, and 90 percent of span are recommended. The mix­ture of 90 percent of span is to be used to set and to check the span and is referred to as the span gas. The gas mixtures shall be analyzed by the Reference Method at least two weeks prior to use.

3.2 Zero Gas. A gas containing less than 1 ppm sulfur dioxide.

3.3 Equipment for measurement of sul­fur dioxide concentration using the Refer­ence Method.

3.4 Chart recorder. Analog chart recorder, input voltage range compatible with analyzer system output, full scale (per travel) in two seconds or less.

3.5 Continuous measurement system for sulfur dioxide.

4. Precision and accuracy. The following performance specifications shall be met in order that a measurement system shall be considered acceptable under this method.

T able I— Performance Specifications

effective date of this paragraph. The Ad­ministrator may request whatever sup­porting information he considers neces­sary to determine the validity of the certification.

(v) The owner(s) or operator (s) of the Bunker Hill Company may submit to the Administrator a proposed alterna­tive compliance schedule. Such pro­posed compliance schedule shall be sub­mitted with the application submitted pursuant to subparagraph (3) (i) of this paragraph. No such compliance sched­ule may provide for final compliance with national ambient air quality stand­ards later than those dates specified in subparagraph (17) (i) of this paragraph, jf approved by the Administrator, such schedule shall replace the com­pliance schedule set forth in this subparagraph.

(18) The owner(s) or operator(s) of the Bunker Hill Company shall be in vio­lation of section 113 of the Clean Air Act and subject to the penalties speci­fied therein if any of the following occur:

(i) An increment of the compliance schedule set forth in subparagraph (17) of this paragraph is not met; or ‘ (ii) The emission limitations set forth in subparagraph (4) is exceeded; or

(iii) Any national ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides is violated after the applicable dates specified in subparagraph (17) of this paragraph in the designated liability area; or

(iv) Operations of the SCS are not conducted in accordance with the ap­proved operational manual.

(v) The reporting requirements of subparagraph (7) and (13) of this para­graph are not met.

2. In § 52.672, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:§ 52.672 Extensions.

* * * * ■ *

(b) The Administrator hereby extends to July 31, 1977 the attainment date for the primary standards for sulfur oxides in the Idaho portion of the Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate Region. In the event that the source sub­ject to § 52.676(c) is granted permission to comply with § 52.676(d) the above granted extension shall apply only to the national annual primary ambient air Quality standard.§ 52.680 [Amended]

3. In § 52.680, footnote (d) beneath the table setting forth dates of attainment of national standards is amended to read as follows:d: July 1977, except that In the event the soui-ce subject to § 52.676(c) is granted per­mission to comply with § 52.676(d) the

attainment date for the national 24-hour primary standard shall be July 1975.. *• 1x1 § 52.680, the letter “b” indicating the date for attainment of the national secondary ambient atr quality standard j^ b ifu r dioxide in the Eastern Wash- jhpon-Northern Idaho Interstate Air quality Control Region is amended to no+u6'’ anc* footnote (e) is added be- «eath the table to read as follows: "

Parameter *1. Accuracy » --------- -------------------2. Calibration Error*____________

3. Zero Drift (2-hours)*________4. Zero Drift (24-hour) *_:_______5. Calibration Draft (2-hours)*.6. Calibration Draft (24-hour)*.7. Response Time_______________8. Operational Period___________

5. Test Procedures.5.1 Calibration error.5.1.1 Analyze the three calibration gas

mixtures by the Reference method and re­cord the results on the example sheet' shown in Figure D -l. This step may be omitted for non-extractive monitors where dynamic cali­bration gas mixtures are not used (see 5.1.2).

5.1.2 Set up and calibrate the complete measurement system according to the manu­facturer’s written instructions. This may be accomplished either in the laboratory or in the field. Make a series of five nonconsecutive readings at each concentration ex xmple, low, high, mid, high, low, high, mid-range, etc.). For non-extractive measurement systems,

Specification^20% of reference mean value.S5% of each (low, mid, and high range)

calibration gas mixture.£2% of emission standard.£4% of emission standard.¿2% of emission standard.¿5 % of emission standard.10 minutes maximum.168 hours minimum.

this test may be performed using procedures and one or more calibration gas cells certified by the manufacturer. Convert the measure­ment system output readings to ppm and record the results « n the example sheet shown in Figure D-2.

5.2 Field Test for Accuracy (Relative), Zero Drift, Calibration Draft, and Operational Period.

5.2.1 Set up and Operate the measurement system in accordance with the manufac­turer’s written instructions and drawings. Offset the zero setting at least 10 percent of span so that negative zero drift may be quantified. Operate the system for an initial 168-hour conditioning period. During this

* Expressed as sum of absolute mean value plus 95 percent confidence Interval of a series of tests.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195—-MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36026 PROPOSED RULESperiod the system should measure the SOa content of the effluent in a normal opera­tional manner.

5.2.2 After completion of this condition­ing period, the formal 168-hour performance and operational test period snail begin. The analyzer output for the following test shall be maintained between 20 percent and 90 percent of span. It is recommended that a calibrated gas mixture be used to verify the span setting utilized. The system shall be monitoring the source effluent at all times when not being zeroed, calibrated, or Y ,ck- purged. During this 168-hour test period, make a minimum of nine (9) S02 concentra­tion measurements using the Reference Method with a sampling period of one hour. I f a measurement system operates across the stack or portion of it, the Reference Method test shall make a four-point traverse over the measurement system operating path. For measurement systems employing extrac­tive sampling, place the measurement system and the Reference Method probe tips adja­cent to each other in the duct. One test will consist of two simultaneous samples with not less than two analyses on each sample. Record the test data and measurement sys­tem concentrations on the example sheet shown in Figure D-3.

5.2.3 Determine the values given by zero and span gas SOa concentrations at two-hour intervals until 15 sets of data are obtained. Alternatively, for non-extractive measure­ment systems, determine the values given by an electrically or mechanically produced zero condition, and by inserting a certified cali­bration gas cell equivalent to not less than 20 percent of span, into the measurement system. Record these readings on the example sheet shown in Figure D-4. These two-hour periods need not be consecutive but may not overlap. If the analyzer span is set at the expected maximum concentration for the tests performed under. 5.2.2, then the zero and span determinations to be made under this paragraph may be made concurrent with the tests under 5.2.2. Zero and calibration corrections and adjustments are allowed only at 24-hour intervals (except as required un­der 5.2.2) or at such shorter intervals as the manufacturer’s written instructions specify. Automatic corrections made by the measure­ment system without operator intervention or initiation are allowable at any time. Dur­ing the entire 163-hour test period, record the values given by zero and span gas S02 concentrations before and a f t «1 adjustment at 24-hour intervals in the example sheet shown in Figure D-5.

5.3 Field Test for Response Time.5.3.1 This test shall be accomplished using

the entire measurement system as installed including sample transport lines if used. Flow rates, line diameters, pumping rates, pres­sures (do not allow the pressurized calibra­tion gas to change the normal operating pres­sure in the sample line ), etc., shall be at the nominal values for normal operation as speci­fied in the manufacturer’s written instruc­tions. In the case of cyclic analyzers, the response time test shall include one cycle.

5.3.2 Introduce a zero concentration of SOa into the measurement system sampling interface or as close to the sampling inter­face as possible. When the system output reading has stabilized switch quickly to a known concentration of S02 to 70 to 90% of span. Record the time from concentration switching to final stable response. After the system response has stabilized at the upper level, switch quickly to a zero concentration of SOa. Record the time from concentration switching to final stable response. Alterna­tively, for non-extractive monitors, a calibra­

tion gas cell equivalent to 20% of span or more may be switched into and out of the sample path and response times recorded. Perform this test sequence three (3) times. For each test record the results on the ex­ample sheet shown in Figure D-6.

The values in this table are already cor­rected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of samples as data points.

6.2 Data analysis and reporting.6.2.1 Accuracy (relative). This calcula­

tion uses the Reference Method test data and the measurement system concentrations re­corded at the times the Reference Method tests were run. (See Figure D -3 ). Calculate the average ppm S02 concentration for each one-hour Reference Method test period. The corresponding measurement system S02 con­centration reading may be obtained by con­tinuous integration of the measurement sys­tem signal over the test interval. Integration may be by use of mechanical integration of electrical units on the chart recorder or by use of a planimeter on the strip chart re­corder. Subtract the Reference Method test average concentration from the measurement system average concentration. Repeat for all nine test pairs. Using this data, compute the mean difference and the 95 percent-confi­dence interval using Equations D - l and D-2. Accuracy is reported as the sum of the abso­lute value of the mean difference and the 95 percent confidence interval expressed as a percentage of the mean reference method value. Use the example sheet shown in Fig­ure D-3.

6.2.2 Calibration error. Using the data from section 5.1 of this Appendix, subtract the measured SOa value determined under5.1.1 (Figure D - l ) from the value shown by the measurement system for each of the 5 readings at each concentration measured under 5.1.2 (Figure D -2 ). Calculate the mean of these difference values and the 95 percent confidence intervals according to equations D -l and D-2. The calibration error is re­ported as the sum of absolute value of the mean difference and the 95 percent confidence interval as a percentage of each respective calibration gas concentration. Use example sheet shown in Figure D-2.

6.2.3 Zero drift (2 -hour). Using the zero concentration values measured each two hours during the field test, calculate the dif­ferences between consecutive two-hour read-

6. Calculations, data analysis and report­ing.

6.1 Procedure for determination of mean Values and confidence intervals.

6.1.1 The mean value of a data set is calculated according to equation D -l.

ings expressed in ppm. Calculate the mean difference and the confidence interval using Equations D - l and D-2. Report the zero drift as the sum of the absolute mean value and the confidence interval as a percentage of the emission standard. Use example sheet shown in Figure D-4.

6.2.4 Zero drift (24 -hour). Using the zero concentration values measured every 24 hours during the field test, calculate the differences between the zero point after zero adjustment and the zero value 24 hours later just prior to zero adjustment. Calculate the mean value of these points and the confidence interval using Equations D - l and D-2. Report the zero drift as the sum of the absolute mean and confidence interval as a percentage of the emission standard. Use example sheet shown in Figure D-5.

6.2.5 Calibration drift (2 -h ou r). Using the calibration values obtained at two-hour intervals during the field test, calculate the differences between consecutive two-hour readings expressed as ppm. These values should be» corrected for the corresponding zero drift during that two-hour period. Cal­culate the mean and confidence interval of these corrected difference values using Equa­tions D - l and D-2. Do not use differences between non-consecutive readings. Report the calibration drift as the sum of the abso­lute mean and confidence interval as a per­centage of the emission standard. Use the example sheet shown in Figure D-4.

6.2.6 Calibration drift (24-hour). Using the calibration values measured every 24 hours during the field test, calculate the dif­ferences between the calibration concentra­tion reading after zero and calibration ad­justment and the calibration concentration reading 24 hours later after zero adjustment but before calibration adjustment. Calculate the mean value of these differences and the confidence interval using equations D -l and D-2. Report the sum of the absolute mean and confidence interval as a percentage of the emission standard. Use the example sheet shown In Figure D-6.

6.2.7 Response time. Using the charts from section 5.3 of this appendix, calculate

Equation D-l

wh re

— __i = l

nn =individual values 2=sum of the individual values i=mean value n=number of data points. ■

6.1.2 The 96 percent confidence interval (two sided) is calculated according to Equation D-2.Equation D-2

‘l - o c / 2 » ( 2 > 2i) —(Ea:<>2C.I.06=where

■yfn n ( n — 1 )

2rj=sum of all data points 72 = square root of the number of data points

‘1—oc/2=<.975 for » samples from a table' of percentages of the t distribution C.I.»6=95 percent confidence interval estimated of the average mean value.

Typical Values for *1 oq/2n * .m n * .m n ‘.9752 12.706 7 2.447 12 2.2013 4.303 8 2.365 13 2.1794 3.182 9 2.306 14 2.1605 2.776 10 2.262 15 2. 1456 2.571 11 2.228 16 2.131

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36027the time interval from concentration switch­ing to 95 percent to the final stable value for all upscale and downscale tests. Beport the mean of the three upscale test times and the mean of the three downscale test times. For non-extractive Instruments using a cali­bration gas cell to determine response time, the observed times shall be extrapolated to 90 percent of full scale response time. For example, if the observed time for a 20 per­cent of span gas cell is one minute, this would be equivalent to a 4 ^ minute re­sponse time when extrapolated to 90 percent of span. The two average times should not differ by more than 15 percent of the slower time. Report the slower time as the system response time. Use the example sheet shown in Figure D-6.

6.2.8 Operational period. During the 168- hour performance and operational test period, the measurement system shall not require any corrective maintenance or repair or re­placement or adjustment other than that clearly specified as required in the operation and maintenance manuals as routine and expected during a one-week period. If the measurement system operates within the specified performance parameters and does not require corrective maintenance, repair, replacement or adjustment other than speci­fied above, during the 168-hour test period, the operational period will be successfully

concluded. Failure of the measurement to meet this requirement shall call for a repeti­tion of the 168-hour test period. Portions of the test which were satisfactorily completed need not be repeated. Failure to meet any performance specifications shall call for a repetition of the one-week performance test period and that portion of the testing which is related to the failed specification. All maintenance and adjustments required shall be recorded. Output readings shall be re­corded before and after all adjustments.

6.2.9 Performance specification testing frequency. In the event that significant repair work is performed in the system, the com­pany shall demonstrate to the Administrator that the system still meets the performance specifications listed in Table I of this ap­pendix. The Administrator may require a performance test at any time he determines that such test is necessary to verify the per­formance of the measurement system.

7. References.1. EPA Report EPA-R2-73-163.2. EPA Report “Instrumentation for the

Determination of Nitrogen Oxides” Contract of Stationary Sources, APTD 9847, Vol. I, APTD 0942, Vol. II.

3. Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of Standards, Handbook 91, 1963, p. 3—31, paragraphs 3-3.1.4.

Reference Method Used•Date Low Range Calibration Gas Mixture

Sample 1 PPRlSamp!e 2 PPmSample 3 __ ppmAverage ppm

Mid Range Calibration Gas MixtureSample 1 ppmSample 2 _ ppmSample 3 J ppmAverage ppm

High Range (span) Calibration Gas MixtureSample 1 ppmSample 2 PPmSample 3 ppmAverage PPm

Figure D -lt Analysis of Calibration Gas Mixtures

, FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

Figu

re 0

-2.

Cal

ibra

tion

Err

or D

eter

min

atio

n

Cal

ibra

tion

Gas

Mix

ture

Dat

a (F

rom

Fig

ure

D-l

)

Low

Ave

rage

____

___

ppm

Mid

Ave

rage

pp

m H

igh

Ave

rage

pp

m

Run

#C

alib

ratio

n Ga

s C

once

ntra

tion

(1)

Mea

sure

men

t Sy

stem

R

eadi

ng,

ppm

(2) D

iffer

ence

s pp

m

4 T

T

T

T

"T

ÎÔ"

TT

7T

7T

7T

7T%

of f

ull

sçal

^ re

adin

g20%

Low

m Mid

•90« Hig

hM

ean

diff

eren

ce

Con

fiden

ce i

nter

val

Cal

ibra

tion

erro

r «[•

(3)

____

_M

ean

Dif

fere

nce

Ave

rage

Cal

ibra

tion

Gas

H)

Low,

mid

or

high

(2)

Cal

ibra

tion

gas

conc

entr

atio

n -

mea

sure

men

t sys

tem

rea

ding

(3)

Abs

olut

e va

lue

'

+___

i__

_ i_

_

Con

cent

ratio

n! »

100

—

* —

‘ ’

FED

ER

AL

RE

GIS

TER

, V

OL.

3

9,

NO

.

Analy

zer

yate

Re

fere

nce

Meth

od S

ampl

es

1-ho

ur'an

d Te

st

Samp

le 1

Samp

le 2

Aver

age

Ti«»

H

o.

(ppm

) (p

pm)

(ppm

) V

f(S

£)C

*

2 -

- —

——

——

—

4 “

- .

' ’

6 1 8 9

Mea

n di

ffer

ence

*

com.

95*

Con

fiden

ce i

nter

val

* ♦

na

n.

Mea

n R

efer

ence

met

hod

valu

e *

____

___

ppm

.

Accu

racy

■

I Mean

diff

eren

ce (

abso

lute

val

ue)

f 95

* co

nfid

ence

int

erva

l 1

u Me

an r

efer

ence

meth

o.cli.v

alue

* E

xpla

in m

etho

d us

ed t

o de

term

iné

aver

age.

** D

iffe

renc

e «

the

1-ho

ur a

vera

ge m

inus

the

ref

eren

ce m

etho

d av

erág

t»

Fij

urt

0-4

. Z

ero

and

Cal

ibra

tion

Dri

ft (

2 H

ours

)

---

MO

ND

AY

, O

CTO

BE

R

7,

19

74

36028 PROPOSED RULES

PROPOSED RULES 36029

Dateand ZeroTime Reading

Zero Span C alibrationD rift Reading D rif t

(¿Zero) (After zero adjustment) (¿Span)

Zero D rift * [Mean Zero D rift* •• Cl (Zero) ______♦ Emission Standard] x 100 ** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

Calibration D rift * [Mean Span D rift* _ _ _ _ _ _ + Cl (Span)

* Emission Standard] x 100 «

♦Absolute value

Figurej)-5. Zero and Calibration D rift (24 Hours)

Date of TestSpan 6as Concentration ppmAnalvzer Span Setting ....... ppm

1 __ seconds

Upscale 2 seconds3 seconds

Average upscale response _ seconds

7 seconds'

Downscale 2 _ _ seconds3 seconds

Average downscale response . seconds

System response time ** slower time seconds.t deviation from slowest time average upscale minus average downscale X 1002

slower time

Figure 9 -6 . Response Time

Appendix E— Performance Specificationsand Specification T est Procedures forMonitoring Systems for Effluent StreamGas Velocity

j. Principle and applicability.1.1 Principle. Effluent stream gas velocity

Is continuously measured. Velocities may be determined by single or multiple point meas­urements.

1.2 Applicability. This method is appli­cable to subparts which require continuous gas velocity measurement. Specifications are given in terms of performance. Test proce­dures are given for determining compliance with performance specifications.

2. Apparatus.2.1 Continuous measurement system for

velocity.2.2 Pressure indicator. Capable of indi­

cating the pressure differential to within ±0.25 cm H20 [±0.01 in. H2OJ from a stand­ard pitot tube or a calibrated type S pitot tube.

2.3 Calibration p ito t tube. A standard pitot tube or a type S pitot tube whose cali­bration factor is known, according to refer­ence Method 2.

2.4 Temperature indicator. Thermocoupleof appropriate range for the gas temperature of interest; able to measure gas temperature to ±2°C . ,

3. Definitions.3.1 Measurement system. The total equip­

ment required for the determination of the gas velocity in a duct or stack. The system consists of three major subsystems:

3.1.1 Sampling Interface. That portion of the measurement system that performs one or more of the following operations : Delineation, acquisition, transportation, and conditioning of a signal from the stack gas and protection of the analyzer from any hpstile aspects of the source environment.

3.1.2 Analyzer. That portion of the meas­urement system which senses the stack gas velocity and generates a signal output that is a function of the velocity of the gases.

3.1.3 Data presentation. That portion of the measurement system that provides a dis­play of the output signal in terms of velocity units, or other units which are convertible to velocity units.

3.2 Span. The value of gas velocity at which the measurement system is set to produce the maximum data display output. For the purposes of this method, the span gv»n.u be set at 1.5 times the maximum veloc­ity .measured under varying operating condi­tions.

3.3 Zero drift. The change in measure­ment system output over a stated period of t.imn of normal continuous operation when the gas velocity at the time of the measure­ments is zero.

3.4 Calibration drift. The change in meas­urement system output over a stated time period of normal continuous operation when the gas velocity at the time of the measure­ment is 67 percent of the span value.

8.5 Operation period. A minimum period of time over which a measurement system is expected to operate within certain perform­ance specifications without unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment.

3.6 Orientation sensitivity. The angular tolerance to which the sensor can be mis­aligned to the mean flow velocity vector before a specified velocity error occurs.

4. Measurement system performance speci­fications

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 3 9 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36030 PROPOSED RU1ESA measurement system must meet the

performance specifications In Table E - l to be considered acceptable under this method.

T able E -lParameter

Accuracy {relative)__________Orientation sensitivity for ±4% accuracy___Zero drift (24 hours)__________________________Calibration drift (84 hours)___________________Operational period________;___________ ________

Specifications^10% of mean reference value (para. 6.3.1). ±10 degrees (para. 5.2.2 & 6.3.2).^3% of span (para. 6.3.8). .¿3% of span (para. 6.3.4).168 hours minimum.

5. Test procedures5.1 Installation. With a calibrated type S

pitot tube and readout device make at least four traverses through each available test port. Use Method 2 criteria to determine average velocity in the test duct. Locate the points of maximum and average velocity. At a point of average velocity, determine the direction of the flow with respect to the longitudinal axis of the stack. Note the pres­sure side of the pitot to determine the gen­eral, direction of flow. Slowly rotate the pitot until zero AP occurs. The indicated direction of flow is perpendicular to the planar orien­tation described by the two pitot tube open­ings when the pitot AP is zero. Repeat this location and orientation test under the range of expected operating conditions. These tests will indicate if the sampling locations are adequate for volumetric flow measurements. Note: This test and subsequent sample loca­tion are more critical for single point meas­urements than for multipoint or Integrated measurements across a complete diameter.

5.2 Field test for accuracy, orientation sensitivity, zero drift, calibration drift and operation period.

5.2.1 System conditioning. Set up and op­erate the measurement system in accordance with the manufacturer’s written instruc­tions and drawings. Offset the zero point of the chart recorder so that negative values up to 5 percent of the span value may be registered. Operate the system for an initial 168-hour conditioning period. Adjust the sample location and sensor orientation to the values located in section 5.1. During this initial period, the system should measure the gas stream velocity in a normal opera­tional manner. After completion of this con­ditioning period, the formal 168-hour per­formance and operational test period b*»«h begin,

5.2.2 Field test for accuracy and orienta­tion sensitivity and operational period— Dur­ing the 168-hour test period make a series of fourteen velocity determinations using Method 2 and the measurement system.

Make two determinations per day and the time interval between any two consecutive determinations shall be no less than 4 hours. The location and orientation of the pitot tube and the measurement system sample point should be as close as practical without inter­ference, but no closer than 1.3 cm (0.5 Inch) to each other. Be careful not to put the pitot tube directly up or down stream of the meas­urement system sample point. During a peri­od of relatively steady state gas flow, per­form the following orientation test using the measurement system. The system should be continuously measuring gas velocity at all times. Rotate the measurement 10° on each side of the direction of flow determined In Step 5.1 in increments of 5°. Perform this test three times each at (1) maximum operat­ing velocity (±15 percent) and (2) % of the maximum operating velocity (±7,5 per­cent) and (3) % of the maximum operating velocity ( ± 7.5 percent) if (2) and (3) are normal operating practices.

5.2.3 Field test for calibration drift and zero drift. At 24-hour intervals or more fre­quently as recommended by the manufac­turer, subject the measurement system to the manufacturer’s specified zero and cali­bration procedures. Record the measurement system output readings before and after adjustment. Automatic corrections made by the system without operator intervention are allowable at anytime. •

6. Calculations, data analysis, and report­ing.

6.1 Procedure for determination o f stack gas velocity. Calculate the reference stack gas velocity with the calibrated type S pitot tube measurements by EPA Method 2. Calculate the measurement system stack gas velocity as specified by the manufacturer’s written instructions. Record the velocities in the appropriate tables.

6.2 Procedure for determination of mean values and 95 percent confidence intervals.

6.2.1 Mean value. The mean value o f a data set is calculated according to equation E -l.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36031

E q u a t io n E - l

1 n n Equation E - l

»«individual values S«sum of the Individual values §=mean value n= number of data points.

$<> <x gs percent confidence level. The 95 percent confidence level (two sided) is calculated according to Equation

E~2, Equation E-2

nyn— 12 »= sum of all data points

(Sn) «sum of squares of all data pointsC.1.85=95 percent confidence interval estimate of the average mean value;

Values for ‘.975

where:

n •A7S n •J975 n •JB752 12.706 7 2.447 12 2.2018 4.303 8 2.365 13 2.1794 3.182 9 2.306 14 2.1605 2.776 10 2.262 15 2.1458 2.571 11 2.228 16 2.131

The values- in this table are already cor­rected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of samples as data points.

6.3 Data analysis and reporting.6.3.1 Accuracy (relative). First, calculate

the mean reference value (equation E - l ) of the fourteen average velocities calculated by Method 2. Second, from the fourteen pairs of average velocities calculated by Method 2 and measurement system velocity readings, calculate the mean value (equation E - l ) of the differences of the fourteen paired read­ings. Calculate the 95 percent confidence in­terval (equation E-2) of the differences of the fourteen paired readings. To calculate the values in the second part of this section sub­stitute di for xi and d for x in équations E-l and E-2 where dt equals the difference of each paired reading and d equals the mean value of the fourteen paired differences. Third, report the sum of the absolute mean value of the differences of the fourteen paired leadings and the 95 percent confidence In­terval of the differences of value calculated in the first part of the section. This per­centage is the relative accuracy.

6.3.2 Orientation sensitivity. Calculate the ratio of each measurement system reading divided by the reference pitot tube readings. Graph the ratio vs. angle of deflection on each side of center. Report the points at which tiie ratio differs by more than ± 4 percent from unity (1.00).

6.3.3 Zero drift (24 h o u r). From the zero values measured each 24 hours during the field test, calculate the differences between successive readings expressed In velocity units. Calculate the mean value of these dif­ferences and the confidence interval of these differences using equations E -l and E-2. Re­port the sum of the absolute value of the niean difference and the. confidence Interval as a percentage of the measurement system span. This percentage is the zero drift.

6.3.4 Calibration d rift (24 hour). From the calibration values measured every 24 hours during the field test calculate the dif- *®tences between (1) the calibration reading "ter zero and calibration adjustment and v«) the calibration reading 24 hours later

adjustment but before calibration »djustment. Calculate the mean value of these differences and the confidence interval «r « ^ i o n s E-2. Report the sum^ the absolute value of the mean difference »hd confidence interval as a percentage of «he measurement system span. This percent­a l is the calibration drift, cl« : ®Peroi:on period. Other than tb$t

any specified as required in the operation° maihtenance manual, the measurement

system shall not require any corrective main­tenance or repair or replacement or adjust­ment during the 168-hour performance and operational test period. I f the measurement system operates within the specified per­formance parameters and does not require corrective maintenance, repair, replacement or adjustment other than as specified above during the 168-hour test period, the opera­tional period will be sucessfully concluded. Failure of the measurement to meet this requirement shall call for a repetition of the 168-hour test period. Portions of the test, except for the 168-hour field test period, which were satisfactorily completed need not he repeated. Failure to meet any perform­ance specifications shall call for a repetition of the one-week performance test period and that portion of the testing which is related to the failed specification. All main­tenance and adjustments required shall be recorded. Output readings shall be recorded before and after all adjustments.

[FR Doc.74-23058 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[ 40 CFR Part 52 ][FRL 274-3]

STATE OF CALIFORNIAIMPLEMENTATION PLANNotice of Acknowledgment

This notice is to acknowledge that the Executive Officer of the State o f Califor­nia Air Resources Board submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Assembly Bill 2670 (1974) as a revision to the State of Cali­fornia Implementation Plan for attain­ing and maintaining the National Ambi­ent Air Quality Standards. This revision was signed into law by the Governor on April 17, 1974. The Administrator now requests public comment on the revision prior to determining its approvability under EPA regulations. In order to facilitate the public comment process, a summary of the revision is included below.

AB2670 revises provisions governing the conduct of hearings antT~notices regarding variances from air pollution control regulations of air pollution con­trol districts. The revision permits vari­ances which include schedules of incre­ments of progress. Where a source emits

pollutants for which there are rules or regulations limiting emissions at a future date, the compliance schedule shall show increments of progress leading to compli­ance. The revision provides that the rule or regulation limiting emissions may it­self contain a schedule of increments of progress and that, in such event, only persons who cannot comply with such a schedule shall submit the required sched­ule or application for a variance to the hearing board. The revision prohibits the operation of any device subject to a variance, if there is a failure to achieve any scheduled increment of progress.

The revision permits the State Air Resources Board to modify, as well as revoke, variances granted by air pollu­tion control districts if the variance is of excessive duration or does not comply with specified laws governing such dis­tricts. The revision requires the State Air Resources Board to hold a hearing before so revoking or modifying such a variance. Interim variances are also provided for.

Preliminary review indicates that AB2670 will clarify several issues where the State variance procedure was not in conformance with* Federal regulations. The revision now provides for: (1) Pub­lication of 30-day public notice prior to issuance of variance, (2) establishment of increments of progress for schedules In excess of one year and, (3) authority to issue schedules for future effective regu­lations. It is of concern that there are other areas that still appear to be incon­sistent with Federal regulations. For ex­ample, the revision does not require:. (D! Publication of 30-day notice for variances or combination of variances not exceed­ing 90 days; (2) consistency between compliance schedules and attainment dates for National Ambient Air Quality Standards as specified by Federal regula­tion; or (3) identification of the specific regulation for which a compliance sched­ule has been adopted.

These remaining problems are rather minor in comparison to the progress evidenced by AB2670. Preliminary analy­sis indicates that approval of this revision to the SIP will be consistent with EPA regulations. Public comment will be re­ceived on or before November 6, 1974, and should be addressed to the Environmental Protection Agency, Re­gion IX, 100 California Street, San Fran­cisco, California 94111.

Dated: September 26,1974.R. L. O ’C o n n e l l ,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX .

[FR Doc.74-23325 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

[ 40 CFR Part 180 ][FRL 273-8]

2,4—DTolerances and Exemptions From Toler­

ances for Pesticide Chemicals in or on Raw Agricultural CommoditiesDr. C. C. Compton; Coordinator, Inter­

regional Research Project No. 4, State Agricultural1 Experiment Station, Rut­gers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, on behalf of the IR-4 Technical

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36032 PROPOSED RULESCommittee and the Agricultural Experi­ment Stations of Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota sub­mitted a petition (PP 1E1122) proposing establishment of a tolerance for negligi­ble residues of the herbicide and plant regulator 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxya- cetic acid) in or on the raw agricultural commodity potatoes at 0.2 part per mil­lion.

Based on consideration given data in the petition and other relevant material, it is concluded that:

1. The pesticide is useful for the pur­pose for which the tolerance is proposed.

2. The proposed tolerance would result in residues in meat and milk which would be insignificant compared to residues from established tolerances on feed items (§ 180.6(a)(2) applies). A petition PP 8F0670 is pending proposing meat and milk tolerances for residues of the pesti­cide. Egg and poultry tolerances, if nec­essary, will also be considered in con­junction with PP 8P0670.

3. The proposed tolerance will protect the public health.

4. The proposed tolerance is not con­sidered to be a negligible residue level.

5. The listing of an interim tolerance for residues of 2,4-D in or on potatoes at0.1 part per million would not be neces­sary upon establishment of the proposed tolerance.

Therefore, pursuant to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 408(e), 68 Stat. 514; 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)), it is proposed that Part 180 be amended as follows:

1. By revising § 180.142(a) to read as follows:§ 180.142 '2,4-D; tolerances for resi­

dues.(a) Tolerances are established for res­

idues of the herbicide and plant regu­lator 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in or on raw agricultural commodi­ties as follows:

5 parts per million in or on apples, cit­rus fruits, pears, and quinces. The toler­ance on citrus fruits also includes resi­dues of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyace­tic acid) from the preharvest application of 2,4-D isopropyl ester and 2,4-D butox- yefchyl ester to citrus fruits and from the postharvest application of the 2,4-D isopropyl ester to lemons.

0.2 part per million in or on potatoes. * ■ * # * *

§ 180.319 [Amended]2. By deleting the word “Potatoes”

from the list of raw agricultural com­modities for the item “2,4-D * * * ” in the table in § 180.319 Interim tolerances.

Any person who has registered or sub­mitted an application for the registra­tion of a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act containing any of the ingredients listed herein may request, on or before November 6, 1974, that this proposal be referred to an advisory committee in ac­cordance with section 406(e) of the Fed­eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Interested persons are invited to sub­mit written comments with reference to this notice to the Federal Register Sec­tion, Technical Services Division (W H- 569), Office of Pesticide Programs, Envi­ronmental Protection Agency, Room B -l, East Tower, 401 M Street SW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20460. Three copies of the com­ments should be submitted to facilitate the work of the Environmental Protec­tion Agency and others interested in in­specting the documents. The comments must be received on or before Novem­ber 6, 1974, and should bear a notation indicating the subject. All written com­ments filed pursuant to this notice will be available for public inspection in the office of the Federal Register Section from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Dated: September 24,1974.John B. R itch, Jr.,

Director, Registration Division.[PR Doc.74-23232 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION[ 18 CFR Part 157 ][Docket No. R-393]

SMALL PRODUCERSProposal Relating to Sales for Resale onInterstate Commerce; Extension of Time

September 30, 1974.On September 20, 1974, the G H K

Company and Gasanadarko, Ltd. filled a motion to extend the time in which to respond as permitted by notice issued September 19, 1974, and published in the issue of Monday, September 16, 1974 (39 FR 33241), in the above-designated matter.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the time for responding to this proposed rulemaking is extended to and including October 22,1974. The date for responding to any such submittals is likewise extended to and including No­vember 1,1974.

K enneth F. Plumb, Secretary.

[PR Doc.74-23192 Piled 10-4-74:8:45 am]

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[ 47 CFR Part 73 ][Docket No. 19841; FCC 74-1024]

FM BROADCAST STATIONS IN PRINCETON, ILLINOIS

Proposed Table of AssignmentsReport and order—Proceeding Termi­

nated. In the matter of amendment of § 73.202(b), Table of assignments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Princeton, Illinois), Docket No. 19841, RM-2087.

1. The Commission has before it a notice of proposed rulemaking adopted Octobr 3, 1973 (FCC 73-1034, 38 FR 28840), inviting comments on a proposal to assign Channel 252A to Princeton, Illinois. The proceeding was instituted on

the basis of a petition filed by James W. Yeazel. No comments or oppositions to the proposal were filed.

2. Princeton, with a population of 6,959 \ the seat of Bureau County, popu­lation 38,541, is located 50 miles east of Moline, Illinois. It has one Class IV AM station and the requested channel would be the first FM assignment to Princeton and Bureau County. Channel 252A could be assigned to this community in con? formance with the Commission's mini, mum mileage separation rule.

3. In support of its request petitioner had stated that Princetoh had a steady population growth of 2.5 percent be­tween 1960 and 1970, that this growth will continue especially since the com­munity lies within the Illinois Valley in­dustrial complex which developed con­siderably over the last 10 years. He asserted that four major industries em­ploy over 1,000 persons in addition to those employed in the many other busi­ness establishments and that a full-time station as proposed could provide adequ­ate coverage in matters of civil defense, severe weather warnings, and in other times of emergency.

4. The Notice pointed out that when the petition herein was filled, it was con­tingent on the outcome of a pending FM rule making proceeding in Docket No. i9550 which, among other things, pro­posed that Channel 237A be substituted for Channel 252A at Ottawa, Illinois. The Notice also stated that if Channel 252A were assigned to Princeton, the assignment would be contingent on a change by Station WOLI at Ottawa from operation on Channel 252A to operation on Channel 237A. In a Report and Order adopted in Docket No. 19550 on August 2, 1973 (FCC 73-842; 42 F.C.C. 2d 553), Channel 252A was assigned to Crest Hill, Illinois, and Channel 237A was substi­tuted for Channel 252A at Ottawa. (Both assignments became effective Septem­ber 14,1973.) In a Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted November 28, 1973, in that docket (FCC 73-1252; 44 F.C.C. 2d 32), it was ordered that effective De­cember 1, 1973 (the expiration date for its license) the license of WOLI was terminated insofar as it specified opera­tion on Channel 252A, and that any re­newal of the license would specify op­eration on Channel 237A. However, this order was subject to the condition that W OLI could continue to operate on Channel 252A until such time as a new Ucensee at Crest Hill was ready to op­erate cm Channel 252A. Two applications for use of Channel 252A at Crest Hill have been filed (BPH-8857 and BPH- 8956) but no grant has yet been made and WOLI is still operating on Channel 252A. Thus, if we were inclined to assign Channel 252A to Princeton, the statusof the assignments at Crest Hill and Ot­tawa would have to be taken into ac­count. However, for the reasons set forth

»Population figures cited are from to* 1970 UJS. Census.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36033

below, we are not making the requested Princeton assignment.

5. As is customary in such cases, the notice, in order to ascertain the exist­ence of a continuing interest in the pro­posed assignment, stated that the pro­ponent would be expected to file com­ments (even if nothing more than to in­corporate by reference its petition) and would be expecte’d to state his intention to apply for the channel if assigned, and, if authorized, to build a station promptly. No such filings were submitted. Since the transmitter site for use of Channel 252A

at Princeton is limited to a very small area because of the minimum mileage separation requirements from three op­erating stations; since no continuing interest in use of the channel has been evidenced; and since if the channel were assigned to Princeton and never utilized it would unfairly restrict the possible im­provement or change in the facilities of those stations, it does not appear to be in the public interest to adopt the pro­posed assignment.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered, That the petition filed September 22, 1972, by

James W. Yeazel for assignment of PM Channel 252A to Princeton, Illinois, is denied.

7. I t is further ordered, That this proceeding is terminated.

Adopted; September 24,1974. Released: October 1,1974.

F ederal Communications Commission,

[seal] Vincent J. Mullins,Secretary.

[FR DOC.74-23267 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOt. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36034

noticesThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices

of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Customs Service

[T.D. 74-260J

AMERICAN MANUFACTURER’S PETITION

Tariff Classification of Single-Crystal Quartz and Articles Thereof

October 1,1974.On April 15,1974, the Customs Service

published a notice in the F ederal R egis­ter (39 FR 13564) of a petition filed by an American manufacturer pursuant to section 516, Tariff Act o f 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), requesting that the Customs Service change its previous ruling holding that synthetic single crystal quartz and articles thereof are classifiable under the provision for glass in the mass, containing over 95 percent silica by weight, in item 540.11, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSU S). Written submission of relevant data, views, or arguments pertaining to the subject petition was invited.

After due consideration o f the petition and written submissions, it has been found that the classification of synthetic single-crystal quartz as grown; synthetic single-crystal quartz cut into lumbered bars; and synthetic single-crystal quartz cut into wafers but not lapped to fre­quency, in item 540.11, TSUS, as glass in the mass, is not correct.

Synthetic single-crystal quartz is manufactured by depositing extremely pure silicon dioxide which has been dis­solved in an aqueous solution on a solid quartz seed in an autoclave maintained at high temperature and pressure. Syn­thetic single-crystal quartz has the same general chemical composition and crys­talline molecular structure as natural quartz. As distinguished from glass, fused silica, or fused quartz, its molecules are in a fixed and regular pattern with re­spect to each other. Accordingly, syn­thetic single-crystal quartz is not re­garded as glass, fused silica, or fused quartz, within the meaning of Headnote 1, Part 3, Schedule 5, TSUS, which pro­vides that “for the purposes of the tariff schedules, fused quartz and fused silica shall be regarded as glass.”

Synthetic single-crystal quartz is pri­marily used in the manufacture of elec­tronic circuit components. When of a quality suitable for such use, it is trans­lucent and free of visible internal im­perfections. Its hardness and dispersion qualities are substantially the same as found in clear natural quartz.

The petitioner has been notified that synthetic single-crystal quartz, of a qual­ity suitable for use in the manufacture of electronic components, whether im­

ported in the form of single crystals as grown, or cut into so-called lumbered bars, and synthetic single-crystal quartz wafers not lapped to frequency, are prop­erly classifiable under the provision for synthetic materials of gemstone quality, in item 520.75, TSUS. This ruling will result in a higher rate of duty for this merchandise than would be assessed un­der item 540.11, TSUS.

In accordance with section 516, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), all merchandise of this kind entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for con­sumption on or before November 6, 1974, in the weekly Customs Bulletin shall be classified in accordance with this determination.

[seal] Vernon D. Acree,Commissioner of Customs.

Approved: September 27,1974.David R. Macdonald,

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc.74-23305 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEDepartment of the Air Force

USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Meeting

October 1, 1974.The Air Force Systems Command

Aeronautical Systems Division Advisory Group Landing Gear Subcommittee will hold an open meeting on October 24,1974 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., in Room 113, Building 15, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

The meeting will consist of hearings and discussions on landing gear require­ments and their impact on aircraft de­sign. Past history as well as future plans in research and development on United States Air Force landing gear systems will be discussed.

For further information on this meet­ing, contact the Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat at 202-697-4648.

Walter G. F enertt, Deputy Chief, Legislative D i- . vision, Office of The Judge

Advocate General. \[FR Doc.74-23275 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Department of the NavyNAVAL RESEARCH ADVISORY

COMMITTEENotice of Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the Fed­eral Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L.

92-463 (1972)), notice is hereby given that the Naval Research Advisory Com­mittee will have a closed meeting on October 24 and 25, 1974, at the Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Carderock, Maryland.

In accordance with a determination made by the Secretary of the Navy, the meeting will be closed to the public as the agenda consists of matters classified in the interests of national security.

Dated; September 30, 1974.H. B. R obertson, Jr.,

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Acting Judge Advocate General.

[FR Doc.74-23274 Filed 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

Office of the SecretaryDEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD TASK FORCE

ON “EXPORT OF U.S. TECHNOLOGY;IMPLICATIONS TO U.S. DEFENSE”

Notice of Advisory Committee MeetingThe Semiconductor Subcommittee of

a special advisory committee to the De­fense Science Board on “Export of U.S. Technology ; Implications to U.S. De­fense” will meet in closed session on October 22,1974 in the Pentagon, Wash­ington, D.C.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of De­fense and the Director of Defense Re­search and Engineering on overall re­search and engineering and to provide long range guidance in these areas to the Department of Defense. The special ad­visory committee will provide an assess­ment of the implications to U.S. defense of current and impending exports of U.S. technology to serve as a basis for deter­mination of Defense policy.

In accordance with Pub. L. 92-463, section 10, paragraph (d ), it has been de­termined that Defense Science Board meetings concern matters listed in sec­tion 552(b) of Title 5 of the United States Code, particularly subparagraph (1) thereof, and that the public interest re­quires such meetings to be closed insofar as the requirements of subsections (a) (1) and (a) (3) of section 10, Pub. L. 92-463 are concerned.

Dated: October 2,1974.M aurice W. R oche,

Director, Correspondence ana, Directives OASD (.Comp­troller) .

[FR Doc.74-23302 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 »*»1

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

J NOTICES 36035

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBonneville Power AdministrationFY 1976 FACILITY LOCATION

SUPPLEMENTSIntent To File

Notice of intent to file FY 1976 Facility Location Supplements is hereby given by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1002 NE Holladay Street, Portland, Ore­gon 97232.

hi addition to the draft program state­ment (notice of which was placed 39 PR 23282), the following draft facility location supplements will be issued on FY 1976 proposals:

Portland area transmission reinforce­ment. This proposal involves the addition of a new transformer bank in one of three existing substations in the Portland area.

Satsop integrating transmission. This proposal calls for construction of a 39- mile 500-kV transmission line between a new BPA substation at Satsop and BPA’s existing substation at Olympia, Wash­ington, as well as a 40-mile 500-kV trans­mission line between the proposed Satsop Substation and BPA’s existing C. W. Paul Substation.

Hot Springs-BeU. The proposed plan of service involves construction of ap­proximately 165 miles of 500-kV trans­mission line between Hot Springs Sub­station in Montana and Bell Substation in Washington.

Cheney-Four Lakes Area Service. The proposed plan calls for the construction of a 26-mile 230-kV tap line from Four Mounds to the Cheney Substation out­side Spokane, Washington., Hangman Creek Area Service. The

proposed plan requires the construction of a new substation and related facili­ties near Hangman Creek, Washington.

Your suggestions, comments, and ob­servations are solicited for consideration at this stage of preparation of the above facility location supplements. Further opportunity for public and agency re­view and comment will be provided when the facility location supplements themselves are circulated in draft form. Tentatively, these supplements are scheduled for filing with the CEQ during November 1974.

Dated: September 27,1974.C. R a y F o leen ,

Acting Administrator. [PR Doc.74-23261 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

National Park ServiceSLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL

lakesh o re ADVISORY COMMISSIONNotice of Meeting

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Sleeping Beai

National Lakeshore Advisorj commission will be held at 1:30 p.m. November l, 1974, at the City-Countjivr-!ng> 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit Micnigan.

The Commission was established by Pub. L. 91-479 to meet and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on general policies and specific matters related to the administration and development of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake- shore.

The members are as follows:Mr. John B. Daugherty (Chairman)Mr. Noble D. Travis (Vice Chairman)Mr. William B. Bolton Mr. Verrol Conklin Mr. Carl T. Johnson Mr. John D. Stanz Mr. Louis F. Twardzik Mrs. Charles R. Williams Mr. Charles H. Yeates

The meeting is being held in Detroit to make it possible for more persons from that major metropolitan area to appear before the Commission and express themselves on matters related to Sleep­ing Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

The concept and history of the Lake- shore will be discussed and the Commis­sion will hear a report on its current status. Those wishing to comment or ask questions will be given an opportunity to do so within the limits of the time available.

The meeting will be open to the public. It is expected that between 100 and 200 members of the public will be able to attend the session, and persons will be accommodated on a first-come, first- served basis. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed.

Persons wishing further information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written statements, may contact J. S. Martinek, Superintendent, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Frank­fort, Michigan at Area Code 616, 352- 9611. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection four weeks after the meeting at the office of the Superintendent, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, 400 Main Street, Frankfort, Michigan 49635.

Dated: September 30, 1974.M e r r ill D. B eal,

Acting Regional Director, Mid­west Region, National Park Service.

1FR Doc.74-23259 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURERural Electrification Administration

ARIZONA ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.

Final Environmental StatementNotice is hereby given that the Rural

Electrification Administration has pre­pared a Final Environmental Statement in accordance with section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with a proposed loan application from Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., of Benson, Arizona. This loan application will pro­

vide financing for a 65 MW combustion turbine, to be installed at the existing Apache generating station. No additional transmission facilities will be required. The proposed unit will be used primarily for emergency and peaking power.

Additional information may be secured on request, submitted to Mr. David H. Askegaard, Assistant Administrator— Electric, Rural Electrification Adminis­tration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. Comments are particularly invited from State and local agencies which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, and from Federal agencies having juris­diction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved from which comments have not been requested specifically.

Copies of the REA Final Environmen­tal Statement have been sent to various Federal, State and local agencies, as outlined in the Council on Environmen­tal Quality Guidelines. The Final En­vironmental Statement may be exam­ined during regular business hours at the offices of REA in the South Agri­culture Building, 12th Street and Inde­pendence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C., Room 4310, or at the borrower ad­dress indicated above.

Comments concerning the environ­mental impact of the construction pro­posed should be addressed to Mr. Aske­gaard at the address given above. Comments must be received on or before November 6, 1974, to be considered in connection with the proposed action.

Final REA action with respect to this matter (including any release of funds) will be taken only after REA has reached satisfactory conclusions with respect to its environmental effects and after pro­cedural requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 have been met.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of September 1974.

D avid A. H a m il , Administrator,

Rural Electrification Administration.[FR Doc.74-23250 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Center for Disease Control CERTAIN GAS DETECTOR TUBE UNITS

Applications for Certification In the F ederal R egister of May 8,

1973 (38 FR 11458; 42 CFR Part 84), the Department adopted regulations which set forth the requirements and proce­dures for the évaluation and certifica­tion of gas detector tube units. In accordance with § 84.3(a) of the regula­tions, notice is hereby given that the Na­tional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health will accept applications for

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36036 NOTICES

certification o f gas detector tube units pursuant to the following schedule:

Gas Dates for submittal Teststandard

1. Hydrogen Cyanide Oct. 15 to Nov. 15, 10 ppm.(HCN). 1974.

2. Toluene (CrHt)..„. Nov. 1 to Nov. 30, 1974.

100 ppm.

All applications and any questions concerning the certification program, should be submitted to the Institute's Testing and Certification Laboratory, 944 Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.

Dated October 2,1974.Edward J. B aier ,

Acting Director, National Insti­tute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc.?4-23304 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

National institute of EducationNATIONAL COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL

RESEARCHNotice of Meeting

Notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the National Council on Edu­cational Research will be held on Octo­ber 17, 1974, in Room 1700, Van Hise Hall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. The meeting will begin with a public session at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 4 p.m. The agenda will be published shortly in the F ederal R egister.

The National Council on Educational Research is established Under section 405 (b) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e(b)). Its statutory duties include:

(a ) Establishing general policies for, and reviewing the conduct of the Institute;

(b) Advising the Assistant Secretary for Education and the Director of the Institute on development of programs to be carried out by the Institute;

(c) Recommending to the Assistant Secretary and the Director ways to strengthen educational research, to im­prove the collection and dissemination of research findings, and to insure the im­plementation of educational renewal and reform based upon the findings of educa­tional research.

The chairman of the Council is Patrick Haggerty, Chairman of the Board, Texas Instruments, Incorporated, Dallas, Texas.

The pubUe is invited to attend the open session. Written statements relevant to an agenda item may be sub­mitted at any time and should be sent to the Chairman and the Executive Sec­retary of the Council at the address below. Requests to address the Council meeting should be submitted in writing to the Chairman and the Executive Sec­retary in advance of the meeting. The Chairman will determine whether a presentation should be scheduled.

In order to verify the agenda, assure adequate seating arrangements, or to obtain summaries of this meeting and copies of any resolutions adopted by the Council at this meeting, interested persons are requested to contact Mrs. Caroline Phillips, Executive Secretary, National Council on Educational Re­search, Office of Planning and Manage­ment National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C. 20208 202-254-7900.

T hom as K. G le n n an , Jr., Director.

[FR Doc.74-23472 Filed 10-4-74; 11:08 am]

Office of EducationNATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON

ADULT EDUCATIONNotice of Public Meeting

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advi­sory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), that the next meeting of the National Advisory Council on Adult Education will be held on November 1-2,1974, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on November 3, 1974, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m, at the Ameri­cana Hotel, 9701 Collins Avenue, Bal Harbour, Miami Beach, Florida

The National Advisory Council on Adult Education is established under section 311 of the Adult Education Act (80 Stat. 1216, 20 U.S.C. 1201). The Council is directed to :

Advise the Commissioner in the prepara­tion of general regulations and with respect to policy matters arising in the administra­tion of thl3 title, including policies and procedures governing the approval of State plans under section 306 and policies to elim­inate duplication, and to effectuate the co­ordination of programs under this title and other programs offering adult education activities and services.

The Council shall review the administra­tion and effectiveness of programs under this title, make recommendations with respect thereto, and make annual reports to the President of its findings and recommenda­tions (including recommendations for changes in this title and other Federal laws relating to adult education activities and services). The President shall transmit each such report to the Congress together with his comments and recommendations.

The meeting of the Council shall be open to the public. The proposed agenda includes:

Orientation of five new Council members.Format for the Annual Report.Reports and meetings of Governmental

Relations and Legislation Committee, Pro­gram Effectiveness Committee, Research and Studies Committee, and Executive Commit­tee.

Discussion of Task Force on Adult Edu­cation of the Corporation for Public Broad­casting.

Results o f 309 Adult Education Project of Columbia University.

USOE Report.

Records shall be kept of all Council proceedings (and shall be available for public inspection at the Office of the Na­tional Advisory Council on Adult Educa­tion located in Room 323, Pennsylvania

Bldg., 425 13th Street NW., Washington D.C. 20004).

Signed at Washington, D.C., on Sep­tember 30, 1974.

G ar y A . Eyre ,Executive Director, National

Advisory Council on Adult Education.

[FR Doc.74-23277 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

Office of the SecretaryBOARD OF ADVISORS TO THE FUND FOR

THE IMPROVEMENT OF POSTSECOND­ARY EDUCATION

Notice of Public MeetingNotice is hereby given, pursuant to

section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), that the next meeting of the Board of Advisors to the Fund for the Improvement of Post­secondary Education will be held on No­vember 4, 1974, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and extending to 3:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the New York Public Library, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10018.

The purpose of the meeting is to review program plans for the Fund in FY 1975 and FY 1976, and to consider approaches to the evaluation and dissemination of Fund activities.

The meeting shall be open to the pub­lic. Records shall be kept of all proceed­ings and shall be available for public in­spection at the Fund for the Improve­ment of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3141, Washington, D.C. 20202, telephone num­ber, 202-245-8101.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on Sep­tember 30,1974.

V ir g in ia B. Sm ith , Director, Fund for the Im­

provement of Postsecondary Education.

[FR Doc.74-23241 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTHStatement of Organization, Functions, and

Delegations of AuthorityPart 8 of the Statement of Organiza­

tion, Functions, and Delegations of Au­thority of the Department of Health, Ed­ucation, and Welfare is hereby amended as follows:

With regard to the Section on Orga­nization and Functions (8B) of the aforementioned statement; (1) insert the following after the National Insti­tute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Di­gestive Diseases (8 L ):

National Institute on Aging (8M): Conducts, fosters, and supports biomed­ical, social, and behavioral research and training pertaining to the aging process and related health fields through: (D research performed in its own labora­tories sind through contracts; (2) a pro­gram of research grants and individual and institutional research training awards; (3) cooperation and collabora­tion with other Departmental agencies,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36037

voluntary organizations and other in­stitutions; and (4) collection and dis­semination of the findings of aging re­search and studies and other informa­tion about the process of aging.

(2) Delete the functional statement for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (8N) and substitute the following heading and paragraph:

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (8 N ). Conducts, fosters, and supports research and re­search training relating to the reproduc­tive process (including population re­search), the prenatal and perinatal pe­riod of human development« child health, human growth and development, includ­ing mental retardation, and adult de­velopment through: (1) Research per­formed in its own laboratories and through contracts; (2) research grants to scientific institutions and individuals;(3) individual and institutional research training awards; and (4) collection and dissemination of information on re­search and findings in these areas.

Dated: October 1,1974.J o hn O t t in a ,

Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management.,

[FR Doc.74-23239 FUed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

Public Health Service REGIONAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATORS

Delegations of AuthorityNotice is hereby given that the follow­

ing redelegations of authority have been made under the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93- 222) .

Redelegation from the Assistant Sec­retary for Health to the officials noted below to exercise the following authori­ties under the Health Maintenance Or­ganization Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-222) which were delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health by the Secretary on July 29, 1974. Unless otherwise noted, the citations below refer to sections of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by Pub. L. 93-222 :

To the Regional Health Administra­tors, with authority to redelegate, the authority to award grants and contracts for approved projects under section 1303 and section 1304 for feasibility surveys, planning projects and initial develop­ment costs.

All delegations are effective immedi­ately.

Dated: September 30, 1974.Jo hn O t t in a ,

Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management.

[FR Doc.74-23240 FUed 10-4-74;8:45 ami

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Federal Disaster Assistance Administration[FDAA-449—DR, Docket No. NFD-234]

AMERICAN SAMOAMajor Disaster and Related Determinations

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Housing and Urban Devel­opment by the President under Execu­tive Order 11795 of July 11, 1974, and delegated to me by the Secretary under Department of Housing and Urban De­velopment Delegation of Authority, Doc­ket No. D-74-285; and by virtue of the Act of May 22, 1974, entitled "Disaster Relief Act of 1974” (88 Stat. 143); no­tice is hereby given that on Septem­ber 30, the President declared a major disaster as follows:

I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Territory of American Samoa resulting from the impact of, a drought beginning about September 7, 1974, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under Public Law 93-288. I therefore declare that such a major disaster exists in the Territory of American Samoa.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Executive Order 11795, and delegated to me by the Secretary under Department of Housing and Urban Development Delegation of Authority, Docket No. D- 74-285, I hereby appoint Mr. Robert C. Stevens, HUD Region IX, to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this de­clared major disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the Territory of American Samoa to have been adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

The Islands o f:Aunuu TauOfu TutuilaOlosega(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 14.701, Disaster Assistance).

Dated: October 1,1974.T hom as P . D u n n e ,

Administrator, Federal DisasterAssistance Administration.

[FR Doc.74-23252 FUed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Railroad Administration (FRA) for ex­emption from § 213.109(e) of the FRA Track Safety Standards (49 CFR 213.- 109(e)), to permit use of interlaced cross ties in place o f switch ties on 14 shop track switches pending their replace­ment during the next four years under its regular tie replacement program. Inter­ested persons were invited to participate by submitting written data, views or comments. The notice also indicated that opportunity to present oral comments would be provided if requested. One com­ment was received opposing granting of the petition. No requests for opportunity to present oral comments were received.

After carefully reviewing the petition and accompanying data, the field in­vestigation report prepared by the Office of Safety and the single comment re­ceived, the Railroad Safety Board has determined that granting of the subject petition subject to certain conditions, is in the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety. An average of six locomotive movements per day are made over these switches. The carrier’s maxi­mum permissible speed over these turn­outs is five (5) miles per hour.

Accordingly, the Railroad Safety Board has voted to grant the requested exemption from 49 CFR 213.109(e) to permit use of interlaced crossties in place of switch ties on 14 shop track switches on Dunlop Island at Cloquet, Minnesota, subject to the following con­ditions :

(1) Speed over turnouts having interlaced cross ties may not exceed 5 miles per hour;

(2) Existing Interlaced crossties which become defective must be replaced with switch ties; and

(3) All interlaced crossties must be re­placed with switch ties by July 1, 1978.

This exemption is issued under Sec­tions 202 and 209, 84 Stat. 971, 975; (45 U.S.C. 431 and 438); § 1.49 of the regula­tions of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation; 49 U.S.C. 1.49(n).

Issued in Washington, D.C., on October 1,1974.

M ac E. R ogers, Chairman,

Railroad Safety Board.[FR Doc.74-23238 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION[Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370]

DUKE POWER CO.Federal Railroad Administration

[FRA Docket No. RST-1, Waiver Petition No. 14]

DULUTH & NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY

Petition for Exemption From Track Safety Standards

On July 25, 1973, notice was published in the F ederal R egister (38 FR 19921) that the Duluth & Northeastern Railroad Company had petitioned the Federal

Hearing on Application for Facility Operating License

In the matter of Duke Power Com­pany (William B. McGuire Nuclear Sta­tion, Units 1 and 2).

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the A ct), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the regulations in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 50, Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Part 51, Licensing

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36038 NOTICESand Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection, and Part 2, Rules of Practice, notice is hereby given that a hearing will be held con­cerning the William B. McGuire Nu­clear Station, Units 1 and 2 (the facility), of the applicant Duke Power Company.

The hearing will consider the issuance or denial of facility operating licenses which would authorize the applicant to possess, use and operate the William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, or their appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values. I t will be held at a time and place to be set in the future by the atomic safety and licensing board (board) named in this notice, to begin in the vicinity of the facility, which is located on the shore of Lake Norman in Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, approximately 17 miles north-northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina. Construc­tion of Unit 1 was authorized by con­struction permit No. CPPR-83, and con­struction of Unit 2 was authorized by construction permit No. CPFR-84, both issued on February 28,1973.

The board, designated by the Chair­man of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will consist of Robert M. Lazo, chairman, Cadet H. Hand, Jr., and Emmeth A. Luebke.

On June 14, 1974, a notice was pub­lished in the Federal Register (39 FR 20833). The notice provided among other things that on or before July 15, 1974, any person whose interest may be af­fected by this proceeding might file a petition for leave to intervene in ac­cordance with the Commission’s rules of practice, 10 CFR Part 2. A petition for leave to intervene was filed by The Caro­lina Environmental Study Group. A pub­lic hearing will be held. The Carolina Environmental Study Group has been admitted as a party to the proceeding.

A prehearing conference will be held by the board, at a date and place to be set by it, to consider pertinent matters in accordance with the Commission’s rules of practice. The date and place of the hearing will be set by the board at or after the prehearing conference. Notices as to the dates and places qf the prehearing conference and the hearing will be published in the Federal Regis­ter. The specific issues to be considered at the hearing will be determined by the board.

For further details, see the applicant’s application for a facility operating license dated May 30, 1974, and the ap­plicant’s environmental report dated May 30, 1974, which are available for public inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C., and at the local public document room at the public library of Charlotte and Meck­lenberg County, 310 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. The environmental report may also be inspected at the Metropolitan Clearing­house, PO. Box 4168, Charlotte, North Carolina 28204, and at the State Clear­inghouse and Information Center, 116

West Jones Street, Raleigh, North Caro­lina 27603. As they become available, the following documents may also be ex­amined at the Commission’s Public Document Room and the local public document room: (1) The safety evalua­tion prepared by the Directorate of Licensing; (2) the final environmental statement prepared by the Directorate of Licensing; (3) the report of the Ad­visory Committee on Reactor Safe­guards on the application for facility operating licenses; (4) the proposed op­erating licenses; and (5) the proposed technical specifications, which will be attached to the proposed facility operat­ing licenses. Copies of items (1), (2 ), (3), and (4) may be obtained when they be­come available by request addressed to the Deputy Director for Reactor Projects, Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545.

Any person who wishes to make an oral or written statement in this proceed­ing, but who has not filed a petition for leave to intervene, may request permis­sion to make a limited appearance pur­suant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.715 of the Commission’s rules o f practice. Limited appearances will be permitted at the time of the hearing in the discre­tion of the board, within such limits and on such conditions as may be determined by it. A person desiring to make a lim­ited appearance is requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washing­ton, D.C. 20545, on or before November 6, 1974. A person permitted to make a lim­ited appearance does not become a party, but may state his position and raise questions within the scope of the hear­ing as specified above which he would like to have answered. A member of the public does not have the right to partic­ipate unless he has been granted the right to intervene as a party or the right of limited appearance.

Papers required to be filed in this pro­ceeding may be filed by mail or by tele­gram addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Atomic Energy Com­mission, Washington, D.C. 20545, At­tention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, or may be filed by delivery to the Commission’s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

Pending further order o f the hearing board designated for this proceeding, parties are required to file with the Com­mission, pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.708 of the Commission’s rules of practice an original and twenty (20) Conformed copies of each paper.

Issued at Bethesda, Md., this 1st day of October 1974.

It is so ordered.The Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board, designated to rule on petitions for leave to intervene.

Sidney G. K ingsley, Chairman.

[FR Doc.74-23213 Filed 10-4-74;8:46 am]

(Docket No. 50-219)JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO.

Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License

The Atomic Energy Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 issued to Jersey Central Power & Light Company (the licensee) for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (the facilityX, a boiling water reactor located in Lacey Township, Ocean County, New Jersey, and currently authorized for op­eration at power levels up to 1930 MWt.

The license amendment would revise the Technical Specifications for the fa­cility to incorporate increased interim surveillance requirements for the high energy fluid piping outside containment pending completion and acceptance of certain modifications to the facility to assure that it will withstand the con­sequences of postulated ruptures in the high energy fluid piping outside con­tainment without loss of capability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown of the facUity as required by the Commis­sion’s regulations.

By November 6,1974, the licensee may file a request for a hearing and any per­son whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a petition-for leave to intervene. Requests for a hear-' ing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission’s rules of practice in 10 CFR Part 2 (§ 2.714). I f a request for a hear­ing or petition for leave to Intervene is filed within the time prescribed in this notice, the Commission will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

For further details with respect to this action, see the Commission’s letters to the licensee dated December 18,1972, and the licensee’s report on pipe failures dated July 1,1974. These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. and at the Ocean County Library, 15 Hooper Avenue, Toms River, New Jersey. As the Safety Evaluation Report to be prepared by the Directorate of licensing on the subject of pipe failures and the li­cense amendment become available, they may be inspected at the above locations and a copy of each may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Atomic En­ergy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545, Attention: Deputy Director for Reactor Projects, Directorate of. Licens­ing—Regulation.

Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 1st day of October 1974.

For the Atomic Energy Commission.G eorgs Lear,

Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 3, Directorate of Licensing.

[FRDoc.74-232iO Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

[Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-4391

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITYSupplemental Order Relative to Health and

Safety HearingT ake notice, the evidentiary hearing

on health and safety matters will com­mence at 10 a.m. (local time) on October 16, 1974, in the Auditorium, Municipal Building, 916 South Broad Street, Scottsboro, Alabama.

The hearing was originally scheduled by the Board’s Order of September 23, 1974, at another time and location. All other information stated in the order remains unchanged.

Issued at Bethesda, MdL, this 1st day of October 1974.

It is so ordered.A t o m ic S afety and L ic e n s ­

in g B oard,E lizabeth S. B ow ers,

C hairm an .[FR Doc.74-23214 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD[Dooket No. 26985]

AIR MANILA, INC.Notice of Postponement of Hearing Re­

garding Charter Permit ApplicationPhilippines— United StatesNotice is hereby given that, at the

request of Pan American World Airways, Inc., to which the applicant has stated it does not object, the hearing in the above-captioned case which was sched­uled to be held immediately following the prehearing conference on October 8, 1974 (39 FR 33818, September 20, 1974) has been further postponed to Tuesday, October 15, 1974, at 10:00 ajn. (local time) in Room 911, Universal Building, 1825 Connecticut Avenue NW., Wash­ington, D.C.

The prehearing conference will be held on October 8, 1974, as previously noticed, but will be held in Room 911.

Dated at Washington, D.C., October 2, 1974.

[seal] F r a n k M . W h it in g ,Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc.74-23400 Filed 10-4-74;« :45 am]

[Docket No. 23080-2; Order 74-9-100]

PRIORITY AND NONPRIORITY DOMESTIC SERVICE MAH. ^

Rates— Phase 2Adopted by the Civil Aeronautics

Board at its office in Washington, DjC. on the 27th day of September, 1974.

On June 13, 1974, the Board issued Order 74-6-73 directing all interested Persons and particularly the Postmaster General and all certificated air carrier parties to the above-entitled investiga­tion to show cause why the Board should

add temporary fuel surcharges to the line-haul element o f the several temporary domestic sendee mail rates, effective February 2, 1974, The sur-

NOTICES

charges proposed, which equated to a 4.7 percent increase in the overall cost of domestic mail transportation, re­flected the flow through of a 51.6 per­cent increase in the cost per gallon of aviation fuel experienced by the trunk­line carriers and Flying Tiger since cal­endar 1972, the base period used in de­veloping the current temporary rates.

The Postmaster General has filed an objection and answer to the show cause order. As in his earlier filed answer to the original petition of Tiger for fuel cost adjustments, the PMG does not ob­ject to accepting fuel-related increases in the several temporary rates, but op­poses basing such increases on the in­creased cost of fuel per gallon, as was proposed. Instead, the PMG urges the establishment of surcharges which re­flect experienced increases in the costs of aviation fuel per revenue ton-mile. In addition, Tiger has filed another peti­tion requesting a further increase in the proposed surcharges effective April 1,

. 1974, so as to reflect the additional fuel cost increases experienced by the car­riers during the month of May 1974. Answers in support of this petition have been filed by Northwest Airlines, Inc., and Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Advancing a number of contentions, the PMG argues, inter alia, that the Board used weighted revenue ton-miles to allocate belly capacity costs (includ­ing fuel expenditures) to mail in cal­culating the present temporary rates and that the failure of the Board to now adopt a revenue ton-mile approach in identifying escalated fuel costs con­stitutes a complete abandonment of its temporary costing methodology which will inevitably result in burdening the mail with an excessive share of such costs. This potential cost overstatement is also said to flow from a recent reduc­tion in mail traffic as a percentage of total cargo traffic, the alleged effect of which is to reduce the share of fuel and other airline capacity costs properly allocable to mail. The answer concludes that the only reasonable fuel surcharges that can be adopted for temporary rate purposes are those calculated on the rev­enue ton-mile basis proposed by the PMG.

Upon further consideration, the Board has determined to withdraw the fuel sur­charges proposed in Order 74-6-73 and substitute instead new proposed sur­charges calculated on the basis of the revenue ton-mile approach advocated by the PMG. Using this same technique, we are also proposing to grant Tiger’s re­quest for an increase in the proposed sur­charge to reflect May 1974 fuel price in­creases. This adjustment, however, is to become effective on and after April 27, 1974, the first day of the second postal accounting quarter, instead of on April 1, 1974, as the carrier had proposed. The new fuel surcharges reflect the equiva­lent of a 3 percent Increase in overall mail transportation costs for the period February 2 through April 27, 1974, and thereafter a 5.37 percent increase in such costs.

3GC39In making these determinations, we

do not accept the contention that the substituted ton-mile technique is the only correct way of measuring mail-re­lated fuel cost escalations occurring since the base period. Neither can we find any inconsistency between the technique underlying the surcharges proposed in the show cause order and the costing methodology employed by the Board in developing the current temporary rates, as is also contended. Rather, we believe that, under present circumstances, the PMG’s revenue ton-mile approach pro­vides a more accurate measurement of fuel-cost increases apportionable to mail than the technique which underlay our initial surcharge proposals.

Our belief that the surcharge calcula­tion technique used in the show cause order would produce reasonable results was based largely on the assumption that the cargo traffic mix,1 which is a major factor in the allocation of cargo capacity costs, had remained relatively unchanged since the base period used in construct­ing the several temporary rates. How­ever, a recent analysis of 1973 industry operating data suggests that our under­lying assumption is no longer valid. These show a perceptible realignment in the cargo mix attributable to a decline in mail ton-miles as a percentage of total cargo volume.1 Thus, whereas mail con­stituted 12.8 percent of the total 1972 domestic scheduled revenue cargo ton- miles, it comprised only 11.7 percent of the total revenue cargo tonnage (exclu­sive of allowed baggage) transported in calendar 1973.

In light of this unquestioned change in the cargo traffic mix, updating our tem­porary mail costing methodology to re­flect 1973 data would undoubtedly re­sult in apportionment of a commensur- ately smaller portion of cargo capacity costs to mail than under the distribu­tional patterns which obtained during the base period. And while non-fuel ca­pacity costs have admittedly escalated since the base year, it is not clear at this point whether these increases would offset the impact o f the new cargo traf­fic mix, since changes in other cost-in­fluencing factors—such as implementa­tion of the Board’s long-term load-fac­tor standard o f 55 percent instead of 52.5 percent—have also occurred which would tend toward reducing the costs al­locable to the various belly traffic. The Board, therefore, believes it appropriate at this time to rely on the PMG’s revenue ton-mile methodology to calculate tem­porary fuel surcharges for mail.

Appendix A * sets forth the adjusted computations we have made to construct

* The percentage o f each type of cargo traffic In the total cargo volume as measured by the revenue ton-miles of baggage, freight, express, and mail operated in domestic mixed and all-cargo services.

•The decline is apparently related to the fact that mail revenue ton-miles for cal­endar 1973 remained constant while the total revenue ton-miles of non-mail cargo increased over calendar 1972 levels.

* Filed as part of the original document.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36040 NOTICES

service mail rate fuel surcharges on a ton-mile basis for the period February 2 through April 27, 1974. As indicated therein, the linehaul rate increment of 4.62 percent is equivalent to the overall surcharge of 3.00 percent, or a surcharge o f 0.80 cent per mail ton-mile for sack mail. By maintaining the present per­centage relationships between the line- haul elements of the various temporary rates, we have also recomputed the sur­charges for standard and daylight con­tainer mail and for PAL. These new sur­charges are set out in Appendix C,3 and we tentatively propose to add them to the existing temporary domestic service mail rates for the period February 2 through April 26, 1974.

As previously indicated, we find that the added fuel price increases experi­enced during May 1974 warrant a fur­ther increase in the temporary mail sur­charges. The computation of the appro­priate sack rate surcharge is set forth in Appendix B 8 and follows the pre-v viously described calculations for Feb­ruary 1974 fuel-cost increases. The over­all rate increment of 5.37 percent is equivalent to a linehaul rate increase of 8.26 percent, or 1.43 cents per mail ton- mile. The related surcharges for each class of mail are also shown in AppendixC. The Board is tentatively proposing to add these increased surcharges to the current temporary service mail rates ef­fective April 27, 1974/

Based an the foregoing, the Board tentatively finds and concludes that: Order 74-1-89, January 16, 1974,should be amended by incorporating therein the rates set forth in Appendix C of this order as the fair and reasonable temporary rates of mail compensation to be paid effective February 2, 1974through April 26, 1974, and on and after April 27, 1974, to the carriers specified in the above order and in Order 74-7-91, July 19, 1974, for the services covered therein.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, particularly sec­tions 204(a) and 406 thereof, and the regulations promulgated in 14 CFR Part 302,

I t is ordered, That: 1. All interested persons and particularly the Postmaster General and all carrier parties of record in Docket 23080-2, are directed to show cause why the Board should not amend Order 74-1-89, January 16,1974, so as to adopt the following linehaul charges per nonstop great-circle ton-mile to be paid by the Postmaster General:

(a) From February 2 through April 26, 1974,18.12 cents for sack mail and stand­ard container mail, 10.29 cents for day­light container mail, and 13.21 cents for parcel air lift (PAL) mail.

* While May 1974 fuel prices would be in­dicative of prospective fuel surcharge re­quirements effective on and after May 1, we will, for administrative purposes, make it effective April 27 to coincide with the start of U.S. Postal Service accounting period.

(b) On and after April 27, 1974, 18.75 cents for sack mail and standard con­tainer mail, 10.65 cents for daylight con­tainer mail, and 13.67 cents for parcel air lift (PAL) mail.

2. Further procedures herein shall be in accordance with the rules of practice, 14 CFR Part 302, and if there is any ob­jection to the rates and charges or to the other findings and conclusions proposed herein, notice thereof shall be filed with­in 8 days, and, if notice is filed, written answer and supporting documents shall be filed within 15 days, after the date of service of this order.

3. I f notice of objection is not filed within 8 days, or if notice is filed and answer is not filed within 15 days, after service of this order, or i f an answer timely filed raises no material issue of fact, all persons shall be deemed to have waived the right to a hearing and all other procedural steps short of an order fixing temporary service mail rates and the Board may enter an order incorpo­rating the findings and conclusions pro­posed herein and fix and determine the temporary rates herein specified.

4. I f notice of objection and answer are filed presenting issues for hearing, issues going to the establishment of the fair and reasonable temporary rates herein shall be limited to those specifi-' cally raised by such answers except as otherwise provided in 14 CFR 302.307.

5. This order shall be served upon all parties to Docket 23080-2.

This order will be published in the F ederal R egister.

By the Civil Aeronautics Board.[ seal] E d w in Z. H olland ,

Secretary.[FR Doc.74-23399 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL

REPORTSPublic Availability

Pursuant to section 10(b) of the Fed­eral Advisory Committee Act, (PL 92- 463) and OMB Circular A-63 of March 27, 1974, the following advisory com­mittees which have held closed meetings have prepared annual reports on their activities: The Committee on Private Voluntary Agency Eligibility and the President’s Commission on White House Fellows.Copies of the reports are available for public inspection and copying at the fol­lowing location:Office of Management Analysis and Audits U.S. Civil Service Commisison Room 7558 1900 E Street, NW.Washington, D.C. 20415

D onald J. B ig l in , Advisory Committee Manage­

ment Officer, U.S. Civil Serv­ice Commission.

[FRDoc.74-23256 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMEN­TATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTSCERTAIN MAN-MADE FIBER TEXTILE

PRODUCTS PRODUCED OR MANU­FACTURED IN THE REPUBLIC OFCHINACircumvention of Licensing System

O ctober, 4, 1974.On October 3,1972, there was published

in the F ederal R egister (37 FR 20745) a letter of September 27, 1972 from the Chairman of the Committee for the Im­plementation of Textile Agreements to the Commissioner of Customs announc­ing implementation of an administrative mechanism intended to preclude circum­vention of the licensing system for ex­ports to the United States of cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles produced or manufactured in the Republic of China. The purpose of this notice is to announce a further amendment of the administra­tive mechanism, which has been amended previously on April 19, May 9, and July 30, 1973 and on May 31,1974. (38 FR 10132, 12640, 21324 and 39 FR 19565)

The present amendment provides, ef­fective as soon as possible and until further notice, that rainwear classified in man-made fiber textile Category 240 (T.S.U.S.A. Number 376.5600), produced or manufactured in the Republic of China, shall henceforth be reported oil the accompanying visa in dozens, instead of in pounds. For the period extending through January 5, 1974, shipments of rainwear in man-made fiber textile Cate­gory 240 (T.S.U.S:A. Number 376.5600) which are reported in pounds will be per­mitted entry, provided the number of pounds recorded on the accompanying visa equals the number of units included in the shipment.

Accordingly, there is published below a letter of October 4, 1974, from the Chairman of the Committee for the Im­plementation of Textile Agreements to the Commissioner of Customs imple­menting this amendment.

Seth M. Bodner, Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements, and Deputy As­sistant Secretary for Re­sources and Trade Assistance, U.S. Department of Com­merce.

COMMITTEÉ FOB THE IMPLEMENTATION OFT extile Agreements

Commissioner of Customs,Department of the Treasury,Washington, D.C. 20229

October 4, 1974.Dear Mr. Commissioner: This directive

further aménds, but does not cancel, the di­rective of September 27, 1972 from the Chair­man, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, which directed you to prohibit, effective on the date of publication and until further notice, entry into the United States for consumption, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of cotton

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36041textiles and cotton textile products in Cate­gories 1-64; wool textile products in Cate­gories 101-126, 128, and 131-132; and man­made fiber textile products in Categories 200- 243, produced or manufactured in the Re­public of China, for which the Republic of China had not issued an appropriate visa. The directive of September 27, 1972 was pre­viously amended on April 19, May 9 and July 30,1973 and on May 31, 1974.

Under the provisions of the Bilateral Wool and Man-Made Fiber Textile Agreement of December 30, 1971, as amended, between the Governments of the United States and the Republic of China, and in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, you are directed, effective as soon as possible and until further notice, to permit entry of products in Category 240 (T.S.U.S.A. Number 376.5600) for which the reporting unit recorded on the accompanying visa is in dozens, instead of pounds. You are further directed, for the period extending through January 5, 1975, to permit entry of products in Category 240 (T.S.U.S.A. Number 376.5600) for which the reporting unit is re­corded in pounds on the accompanying visa, provided the total number of pounds is equal to the total number of units included in the entry.

The actions taken with respect to the Government of the Republic of China and with respect to imports of man-made fiber textile products from the Republic of China have been determined by the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements to involve foreign affairs functions of the United States. Therefore, the directions to the Com­missioner of Customs, being necessary to the implementation of such actions, fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rule- making provisions of 5 U.S.C. 558. This letter will be published in the Federal Register.

Sincerely,Seth M. Bodner,

Chairman, Committee for the Im ­plementation of Textile Agree­ments, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resources and Trade Assistance, U.S. Department o f Commerce.

[FR Doc.74-23435 Filed 10-4r-74; 10:04 am]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[Docket No. CPSC 74-3]

FIREWORK DEVICESOrder Denying an Interlocutory AppealOrder denying an interlocutory ap­

peal filed by the American Public Health Association, Catherine Cook, and Professor Joseph Page.

On September 18, 1974, the American Public Health Association, Catherine Cook and Professor Joseph Page (here­after referred to as “APHA” ) filed an interlocutory appeal requesting the Com­mission to issue an order (1) directing the Presiding Officer to conduct the en­tire hearing in Washington, D C., and not to transfer the proceedings to Kan­sas City, Missouri, or Honolulu, Hawaii; and (2) directing the Presiding Officer to confine the rulemaking hearing to the five (5) issues set forth by the Com­mission in its Notice of Hearing and Prehearing Conference published in the federal R egister of August 1, 1974 (39 PR 27828).

Commission has considered thePPeal and has determined it is not the

Proper subject for interlocutory review

because the Commission believes that the order requested is not clearly necessary to prevent exceptional delay, expense or prejudice to any party, or substantial detriment to the public interest.

In addition, the Commission notes that the question of location of the hearing and the convenience of the parties is an appropriate subject for the discretion of the presiding officer. However, should the Presiding Officer consider it neces­sary for a full and complete hearing to have the Commission provide for a rep­resentative of those parties in favor of the proposed rule or a stricter rule to appear at Commission expense in Kan­sas City and Honolulu then he may so rule.

With regard to the question of limit­ing the issues to the five (5) noted in the Notice of Hearing and Prehearing Con­ference, while the appeal is denied the Commission suggests that the Presiding Officer’s findings and report made at the termination of the hearing be organized so that findings pertaining to issues six(6) and seven (7), as stated in the Pre­siding Officer’s Prehearing Order of Sep­tember 23, 1974, be separated, or that separate findings and an order on these issues be submitted to the Commission.

Accordingly, it is ordered, That APHA’s interlocutory appeal submitted Septem­ber 18, 1974 be denied.

Dated: October 1, 1974.S a d ye E. D u n n ,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[FR Doc.74-23255 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACENCY

[273-5]

AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING APPROVALS

Area and Agency DesignationsPursuant to section 208 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amend­ments of 1972, notice is hereby given of approvals of designation of areawide waste treatment management planning areas and agencies for the period July 1, 1974 thru September 27, 1974.

The following area and agency desig­nations have been approved by the En­vironmental Protection Agency:

Sotjtherî» Maine

(Southern Maine Regional Planning Com­mission)

Northern Maine

(Northern Maine Regional Planning Com­mission)

Lake T ahoe

(Tahoe Regional Planning Agency)T ulsa, Oklahoma

(Indian Nations Council of Governments) Pueblo Countt, Oklahoma

(Pueblo Area- Council of Governments) Jam es L. A gee,

Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials.

O cto ber 1,1974.

[FR Doc.74—23229 Filed 10-4-74; 8:15 am]

{FRL 272-4]

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTSAND OTHER ACTIONS IMPACTING THEENVIRONMENTAvailability of Environmental Protection

Agency CommentsPursuant to the requirements of sec­

tion 102(2) (C) of the National Environ­mental Policy Act of 1969, and section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed and commented in writing on Federal agency actions impacting the environment contained in the following appendices during the period of Sep­tember 1, 1974 and September 15, 1974.

Appendix I contains a listing of draft environmental impact statements re­viewed and commented upon in writing during this review period. The list in­cludes the Federal agency responsible for the statement, the number and title of the statement, the classification of the nature of EPA’s comments as defined in Appendix I I below, and the EPA source for copies of the comments as set forth in Appendix V below.

Appendix I I below contains the defini­tions of the classifications of EPA’s com­ments on the draft environmental impact statements as set forth in Appendix I below.

Appendix I I I below contains a listing of final environmental impact state­ments reviewed and commented upon in writing during this reviewing period. The listing will include the Federal agency responsible for the statement, the number and title of the statement, a summary of the nature of EPA’s com­ments, and the EPA source for copies of the comments as set forth in Appendix V below.

Appendix TV below contains a listing of proposed Federal agency regulations, legislation proposed by Federal agencies, and any other proposed actions reviewed and commented upon in writing pursu­ant to section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, during the referenced reviewing period. The listing includes the Federal agency responsible for the proposed action, the title of the action, a summary of the nature of EPA's com­ments, and the source for copies of the comments as set forth in Appendix V below.

Appendix V below contains a listing of the names and addresses of the sources for copies of EPA’s comments listed in Appendices I, H I, and IV below.

Copies of the EPA Manual setting forth the policies and procedures for EPA’s review of agency actions may be obtained by writing the Public Inquiries Branch, Office of Public Affairs, Environ­mental Protection Agency, Washington,D.C. 20460. Copies of the draft and final environmental impact statements refer­enced herein are available from the originating Federal department or agency.

Dated: September 25,1974.R obert C. B artlett,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Activities.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36042 NOTICESA ppe n d ix I.—Draft environmental impact statements for which comments were issued between Sept. 1,1974, nnd

Sept. 16,1974

General Source forIdentifying No. Title nature of copies of

comments commentsDepartment of Agriculture:

D-AFS-E61003-TN.........

D-AFS-L61004-ID.».......Atomic Energy Commission:

D-AE C-A06139-IL.........

D-AE C-A06140-TX.

Corps of Engineers: D-COE-A36412-00....

D-COE-A32509-AK.. D-COE-E30001-FL. ;

D-COE-F30002-OH..

D-COE-H36000-IA.. D-COE-H36001-00. ..

Department of Defense: D-UAF-KJ101-00. . ..

Federal Power Commission: D-FPC-C03001-NJ....___....

D-FPC-F08001-MI....__.....General Services Administration:

D-GSA-B80001-CT....... ......

Department of the Interior: D-DOI-A86062-00..............

D-NP S-F61001-IN............D-NP S-K61001-AZ............D-NP S-K61002-AZ . .......

Department of Transportation:D-FAA-F51001-MN..........D-FH W-K40003-HI. ..........

D-FHW-A42271-AK..........D S-FHW-A4160&-NB ...... .DS-FHW-A41661-00........ .’.

D-FHW-A42236-MI.D-FHW-A42286-CA.

D-FHW-C40001-P R. D-FHW-F40003-OH.

D-FHW-F40004-WI..

D-FHW- G40003-NM.

D-FHW- G40004-LA.

D-FHW- G40005-NM.

D-FHW-L40003-ID

10-year management for upper Hiwassee unit, Cherokee National Forest, Polk and Monroe Counties, Tenn.

Silverlead planning unit, Salmon National Forest, Idaho.

Clinton Power Station, units 1 and 2, Dewitt County, Illinois Power Co., Dockets Nos. 60-461 and 50-462, Illinois.

Allens Creek nuclear generating station, units 1 and 2, Austin County, Houston Lighting & Power Co., Dockets Nos. 50-466 and 50-467, Texas.

Wallkill River, flood control project, New York and New Jersey.

Humboldt small boat harbor, Sand Point, Alaska____...Beach erosion control and hurricane protection, Govern­

ment Cut and Bakers Haulover Inlet, Fla.Cooperative beach erosion control project, Lakeview

Park, lorain County, Ohio.Burlington, Local protection project, Iowa________ ....Big Sioux River flood and erosion protection project,

Sioux City, Iowa, and South Dakota.

Proposed continental operations range, Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.; Hill, Wendover, Dugway, Salt Lake City, Fallon Naval Air Station, Reno, Nev.Utah;

LNG import terminal at Raccoon Island, Gloucester County, N.J.

St. Clair River interconnection, St. Clair County, Mich..

Construction-of post office and Federal building conver­sion of existing post office-courthouse, New Haven, New Haven County, Conn.

Use of steel shot for hunting waterfowl in the United States.

Proposed comprehensive design plan, West Beach Unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Ind.

Proposed master plan, Grand Canyon Complex, Ariz___Development concept plan, » Grand Canyon Village,

Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz.

Cloquet-Carlton County Airport, Cloquet, Minn__ ....Pillani Highway, Kihei to Makena Rd., Eula Highway,

Maui, Maui County, Hawaii.Steese Highway, Farmers Loop to Fox, Alaska_______27th St. Improvement, Lincoln, Nebr___ _______ _____Public Lands Highway, Tellico Plains-Robbinsville

from Rock Creek Knob to Beech Gap, Graham County, N.C., and Monroe County, Tenn.

U.S. 31 relocation, Oceana County, Mich____________Route 380, Portola Freeway and alternatives, San Mated

County, Calif.Jesus T. Pinero Ave., P.R____ ____________________Relocation of State Route 7 between Martins Ferry and

Little Rush Run, Belmont and Jefferson Counties, Ohio.

Delafield, Oconomowoc Rd., STH 67, Waukesha County, Wis.

1-25 from near Algogones north approximately 21.5 miles in Sandoval and Santa Fe Counties, N. Mex.

Baton Rouge Interstate Route 1-110, Harding Blvd., Junction Scenic Highway, East Baton Rouge Parish, La.

Improvement of SR 37 from junction with SR 48 at Angus north to end of pavement south of Nogal, Lin­coln County, N. Mex.

Project SU-3786(7), Overland Rd., Cole Rd. to Orchard St., Idaho.

LO-2

LO-2

EU-2

ER-2

LO-2

LO-1ER-2

LO-2

3ER-2

LO-2

ER-2

LO-1

ER-2

LO-2

LO-2

LO-1LO-1

LO-1LO-1

LO-1LO-2LO-1

LO-2ER-2

LO-2LO-2

LO-2

LO-2

ER-2

LO-2

LO-1

E

E

A

A

C

KE

F

HH

J

C

FB

A

F

JJ

FJKHE

FJCF

F

G

G

G

E

Appendix I I—Definition of Codes foe the General Nature of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION

LO—Lack of objection. EPA has no objec­tions to the proposed action as described in the draft impact statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.

ER— Environmental reservations. EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of suggested alternatives or modifications is re­quired and has asked the originating Federal agency to reassess these impacts.

EU—Environmentally unsatisfactory. EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatis­factory because of its potentially harmful effect on the environment. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the potential safeguards which might be utilized may not adequately protect the environment from hazards aris­ing from this action. The Agency recom­mends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further (Including the possibility of no action at a l l) .

ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT

Category 1— Adequate.¡ The draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environ­mental impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives reasonably available to the projeot or action.

Category 2-—Insufficient information. EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not contain sufficient Information to assess fully the environmental impact of the proposed project or action. However, from the information submitted, the Agency is able to make a preliminary determination of the impact on the environment. EPA has requested that the originator provide the information that was not included in the draft statement.

Category 3—Inadequate. EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not ade­quately assess the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that the statement inadequately analyzes reasonable available alternatives. The Agency has re­quested more information and analysis con­cerning the potential environmental hazards and has asked that substantial revision be made to the impact statement.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36043

A ppen d ix HL- -F in a l enekonm enta l im pact »ta tém ente fo t which com m ents viere ism ed between Sep t. 1,1974, and Sep t. 16,1974

Identifying N». Title General nature of commentsSource for copies of

comments

Federal Power Commission:

F-FPC-A03045-NY.

General Services Administration:

F-GSA-A81159-PA..

Department of the Interior:

F-B LM-A612ÖI-C A .

Department of Transportation:

F-C GD-A11049-HI _

F-DOT-A414S1-OH.

F-FAA-A5181Ä-MN.

Construction and operation of an LN G import termi­nal at Staten Island, N.Y., Easogas LNG, Inc., and Distrigas Corp.

EPA expressed concern respecting the pubiio safety aspect of the proposed project and suggested that new pipelines be constructed rather than resorting to barge shipment.

U.S. Courthouse and Fed- EPA had no objections to the project as pro- end Building, Williams- posed, port, Pa.

King Range National Con- ____do.servation Area proposed management program, Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, Calif.

Waterfront redevelopment, U.S. Coast Guard Base, Honolulu, Hawaii.

State Routes 43 and 0, bypass of Carrollton, Carroll County, Ohio.

Roseau Municipal Airport, Roseau, Minn.

.do.

do.

U.S. SO, Loogootee to Bryantsville, Davies, Martin, and Lawrence Counties, Ind.

FA Route 45, Mannheim Rd, sections 464-Y and 465-Y, W. & R.8. Lake St. to Irving Park, Cook County, 111.

F-FHW-A41844-WI.. West County line, Green Bay Rd. STH 29 and 32, Brown, Shawano, and Outagamie Counties, Wis.

FA Route 142. Menard and Sangamon Counties, m.

Corridor H. Elkins bypass, Elkins, W. Va.

F8-FHW-A4Ö253-

IN;F-FHW-A4Q818-IL.

F-FHW-A42830-IL..

F-FHW-A41770-WV

EPA generally had no objections to the pro­posed project. However, EPA provided in­formation on the potential increased airport sewage.

EPA had no objections to the project as pro­posed.

EPA generally had no objections to the pro­posed projeot, but requested additional in­formation to assess more fully the project’s environmental impacts.

EPA had no objections to the project as pro­posed.

.do.

.do.

Appendix IV .—Regulations, legislation, and other Federal agency actions for which comments were issued betweenSept. 1,1974, end Sept. 16,1974

Identifying No. Title General nature a t commentsSource for copies of comments

Atomic Energy Commission:

R-AEC-A990I9-Ô0.. 10 CFR Part 20: Standards for Protection Against Ra­diation, concentration value for radon-222 daugh­ters and its use when uranium we dust is present.

Corps of Engineers'.R-COB-A89145-00-. 33 CFR Part 264: Urban

Studies Program, pro­posed policies and procedures.

EPA is in general agreement with the proposed rule. However, we suggested that the AEC consider, in their final rule, the jjoncentration of radon and radon daughters in unrestricted areas.

In EPA’s view, the proposed regulations are generally adequate; however, modifications have been recommended for several sections of the regulations in an effort to strengthen them from an environmental point of view. More emphasis should be placed on the capa­bility of looal agencies to develop and main­tain their own continuing planning prooess. The final authority for selecting alternatives should be retained at the local leveL

Appendix V—Source for Copies of EPA Comments

A. Director, Office of Public Affairs, En­vironmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

B. Director of Public Affairs, Region I, Boom 2303, John P. Kennedy Federal Build- tog. Boston, Massachusetts 02203.

C. Director of Public Affairs, Region II, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 847, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007.D- Director of Public Affairs, Region m , Environmental Protection Agency, Curtis Building, 6th and Walnut Streets, "Phila­delphia, Pennsylvania 19106.*

E. Director of Public Affairs, Region IV, Environmental Protection Agency, Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

F. Director of Public Affairs, Region V, En­vironmental Protection Agency, 1 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

G. Director of Public Affairs, Region VI, Environmental Protection Agency, 1600 Pat­terson Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.

H. Director of Public Affairs, Region VII, Environmental Protection Agency, 1735 Bal­timore Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64108.

I. Director of Public Affairs, Region VIII, Environmental Protection Agency, Lincoln Tower, Room 916, 1860 Lincoln Street, Den­ver, Colorado 80203.

J. Director of Public Affairs, Region EX, Environmental Protection Agency, 100 Cali­fornia Street, San Francisco, California 94111.

K. Director of Public Affairs, Region X, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

[FR Doc.74-23059 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[FRL 273-7]

DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICAL CO.Withdrawal of Petition Regarding Pesticide

ChemicalPursuant to provisions of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 408 (d )(1 ), 68 Stat. 512; 21 U.S.C. 346a(d) (1 )) , the following notice is issued:

In accordance with § 180.8 Withdrawal of petitions without prejudice of the pesticide procedural regulations (40 CFR 180.8) the Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 1100 Superior Avenue (formerly at 300 Union Commerce Building), Cleve­land, OH 44114, has withdrawn its peti­tion (PP 2F1230), notice of which was published in the F ederal R egister of February 25, 1972, proposing establish­ment of tolerances for combined residues of the fungicide chlorothalonil (tetra- chloroisophthalonitrile) and its metab­olite 4-hydroxy-2,5,6-trichloroisophthal- onitrile in or on the raw agricultural commodities lima and snap bean vines at 50 parts per million; peanut vine hay, sugarbeet tops, and sweet corn forage at 20 parts per million; lima beans at 15 parts per million; meat, fat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep, milk, and sugarbeets at 0.2 part per million.

Dated: September 23,1974.D r . M a r tin H. R ogoff ,

Acting Director, Registration Division.

[FR Doc.74-23231 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[FRL 273-6]

ELANCO PRODUCTS CO.Filing of Petition Regarding Pesticide

ChemicalPursuant to provisions of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 408(d )(1 ), 68 Stat. 512; 21 U.S.C. 346a(d) (1 )), notice is given that a petition (PP 5F1542) has been filed by Elanco Prod­ucts Co., Division of Eli Lilly and Co., Post Office Box 1750, Indiariapolis, IN 46206, proposing establishment of a tol­erance (40 CFR Part 180) for negligible residues of the herbicide oryzalin (3,5- dinitro-JVSAP-dipropylsulfanilamide) in or on the raw agricultural commodity cottonseed at 0.1 part per million.

The analytical method proposed in the petition for determining residues of the herbicide involves formation of the di­methyl derivative of oryzalin and anal­ysis of the derivative by a gas-liquid chromatographic technique using an electron capture detector.

Dated: September 24,1974.John B. R itch, Jr.,

Director, Registration Division.[FR Doc.74-23230 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 . 1974

36044[PR L 274-1]

OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Notice of Public MeetingH ie Environmental Protection Agency

will sponsor a public meeting to be held on October 21-23, 1974, at 9:00 a.m. in the auditorium of the Institute for De­fense Analysis, 400 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. The purpose of the meeting is to hold open discussion con­cerning regulations required by section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Con­trol Act Amendments of 1972 (the A ct). No registration fee will be charged.

On Thursday, August 22, 1974, the Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials,- Ü.S. Environment­al Protection Agency, published advance notice of intent to propose a list of sub­stances to be designated as hazardous and a determination of the removability of those substances pursuant to the au­thority contained in sections 311(b)(2) (A ) and 311(b) (2) (B ) (i) of the A ct The purpose of this advance notice was to solicit public comments on the list as presently constituted. The Agency is con­sidering the determination that all of the substances listed are not actually removable.

Following publication of the advance notice a workshop was held in San Fran­cisco August 26-28,1974, to receive initial public comment regarding EPA’s ap­proach to hazardous materials spill con­trol regulations and to elicit and receive pertinent information to strengthen the scientific and technical data base for these regulations. Attendees at the work­shop were representative of public utilities, all levels of government, af­fected industries and academia.

Efforts toward implementation of two other requirements of Section 311 have been conducted concomitantly with those concerning designation and deter­mination of removability. First, section 311(b) (2) (B ) (ii-iv) requires the estab­lishment of a unit of measurement and a rate of penalty for spilling any desig­nated non-removable hazardous sub­stances into navigable U.S. waters. Second, section 311(b)(4) requires the determination of quantities of each of these designated substances which, when spilled, represent harmful quantities.

Open discussion at the subject public meeting will pertain to the determina­tion of harmful quantities and the estab­lishment of rates of penalty. Several methodologies will be discussed including their advantages and limitations as viewed by various Federal, State and in­dustrial interests.

Additional inf ormation concerning the meeting may be obtained by writing Dr. C. Hugh Thompson, Chief, Hazardous and Toxic Substances Branch, WH-445, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Dated: September 30, 1974.Jam es L . A gee,

Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials.

[FR Doc.74-23233 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

NOTICES

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION[Report No. 721]

COMMON CARRIER SERVICES INFORMATION1

Domestic Public Radio ServicesApplications Accepted for Filing1

September 30, 1974. Pursuant to §§ 1.227(b) (3) and 21.30

(b) of the Commission’s rules, an appli­cation, in order to be considered with any domestic public radio services applica­tion appearing on the attached list, must be substantially complete and tendered for filing by whichever date is earlier: (a) The close of business one business day preceding the day on which the Commission takes action on the pre­viously filed application; or (b) within 60 day§ after the date of the public notice listing the first prior filed application (with which subsequent applications are in conflict) as having been accepted for filing. An application which is subse­quently amended by a major change will be considered to be a newly filed appli­cation. It is to be noted that the cut-off dates are set forth in the alternative— applications will be entitled to con­sideration with those listed in the ap­pendix below if filed by the end of the 60 day period, only if the Commission has not acted upon the application by that time pursuant to the first alterna­tive earlier date. The mutual exclusivity rights of a new application are governed by the earliest action with respect to any one of the earlier filed conflicting appli­cations.

The attention of any party in interest desiring to file pleadings pursuant to section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, concerning any domestic public radio services applica­tion accepted for filing, is directed to § 21.27 of the Commission’s rules for pro­visions governing the time for filing and other requirements relating to such pleadings.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n

[ seal ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

Applications Accepted For Filing domestic public land mobile radio service

20372—CD-P—75, Public Communications, Inc. (KLB761). C.P. to replace transmitters op­erating on 152.06 MHz located Off Hwy. #59, 2 miles S. of Lufkin, Texas.

20418-CD-P— (8 )—'75, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (KIG288). C.P. to change antenna system operating on 152.54, 152.69, 152,81, 454.475, 454.525, 454.575, 454.625, and 454.650 MHz located at 115 NE. Third Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

1 All applications listed in the appendix are subject to further consideration and review and may be returned and/or dismissed if not found to be in accordance with the Commission’s Rules, regulations and other requirements.

•The above alternative cut-off rules apply to those applications listed in the appendix as having been accepted in Domestic Public Land Mobile Radio, Rural Radio, Point-to- Point Microwave Radio and Local Television Transmission Services (Part 21 of the rules).

20437- CD -P—{13) -75, South Central Ben Telephone Company (KKD292). C.P. to re­locate facilities operating on 152.51, 152.63, & 152.81 MHz at Loc. #1 : 820 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, to 3951 Erato Street, New Orleans, Louisiana; change antenna system operating on 152.51,152.63, 152.72, & 152.81; replace transmit­ters operating on 152.51, 152.63, 152.72, & 152.81 MHz and for additional facilities to operate on 152.57, 454.400, 454.450, 454.500, 454.550, 454.600, & 454.650 MHz located at 3951 Erato Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

20438- CD -P -(3 )-75, South Central Bell Tele­phone Company (KIY591). C.P. to change base frequencies from 152.51 and 152.69 MHz to 152.54 and 152.66 MHz, replace transmitter and change antenna system located approximately 4.7 miles WNW. of Bowling Green, Kentucky; and change test frequencies from 157.77 and 157.95 MHz to 157.80 and 157.92 MHz, change antenna lo­cation and replace transmitter located at 1150 State Street, Bowling Green, Ken­tucky.

20439- CD -P—75, Milltown Mutual Telephone Company (new). C.P. for a new 1-way sta­tion to operate on 158.10 MHz to be located at comer of Berring Street and Milltown Avenue, Milltown, Wisconsin. -

20440- C D -P - (3) -75, Mobile Radio Communi­cations, Inc. (KTTC882). C.P. to add three new antenna sites operating on 35.58 MHz to be located at Loc. #2 : Dodgin and Gudgell Streets, Independence; Missouri; Loc. #3 : 6500 Tower Drive, Platte Woods, Missouri; and Loc. #4: Water Tower, Lee’s Summitt, Missouri.

20441- CD-P-75, The Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph Company (KAI933). C.P. for ad­ditional facilities to operate on 152.72 MHz located at 321 N. St. Joseph Avenue, Hast­ings, Nebraska.

20442- OD-P-75, Northfleld Telephone Com­pany (new ). CP . for a new 1-way station to operate on 158.10 MHz to be located 1.5 miles East of Northfleld, Vermont.

20443- CD-P-75, Charles Rotkin, dba North­east Communications (n ew ). C.P. for a new 2-way station, to operate on 152.09 MHz to be located at Quarter Line Road, Rutland, Vermont.

20144 CD-P-75, Charles Rotkin, dba North­east Communications (new ). C.p. for a new 1-way station to operate on 43.22 MHz to be located at Quarter Line Rd., Rutland, Vermont.

20446- CD -P—(7) —75, New York Telephone Company (KEA772). C.P. to change an­tenna system and replace transmitter op­erating on 152.51, 152.63, & 152.75 MHz at Loc. #1 : Near Higby Rd., 4.7 miles SSE. of Utica, New York; replace transmitter oper­ating on 152.51, 152.63, & 152.75 MHz at Loc. #2 : 0.2 mile’ w . of Griffen Rd., 2.7 miles SE. of Mohawk, New York; and addi­tional test faculties to operate on 157.77, 157.89, and 158.01 MHz located at 1750 Genesee Street, Utica, New York.

20447- CD -P—(10)—75, New York Telephone Company (KEA770). C.P. replace trans­mitters operating on 152.51, 152.57, 152.63, & 152.69 MHz at Loc. #2 : 1.9 mUes SW. of Rotterdam Junction, New York; replace transmitters operating on 152.51, 152.57,152.63, and 152.69 MHz at Loc. #3: 5 miles NE. of Troy, New York; replace test trans­mitters operating on 157.77, 157.83, 157.89, and 157.95 MHz located at 158 State Street, Albany, New York; and add test facilities to operate on 157.77, 157.83, 157.89, and 157.95 MHz to be located at 120 WatervUet Avenue, Industrial Park, Albany, New York.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 3604520448- O D -P -(5 ) - 75, New York Telephone

Company (KEA773). C.P. to change an­tenna system and replace transmitter op­erating on 152.57, 152.63, 152.69, and 152.81 urn?! at Loc. #2: Onondaga Hill Rd., 6 miles SSW. of Syracuse, New York; and replace test transmitter operating on 157.83, 157.89, 157.95, and 158.07 MHz located at 219 South State Street, Syracuse, New York.

20449- C D -P -(3 ) -75, New York Telephone Company (KED356). C.P. to replace trans­mitter operating on 152.57 and 152.63 MHz located at Jackson Hill, Miller Road, 3.3 miles ESE. of Newark, New York and re­place test transmitter operating on 157.83 and 157.89 MHz located aft 116 W. Miller Street, Newark, New York.

20450- CD-P—(3 )—75, David R. Williams, dba Industrial Communications (KWH302).

• C.P. for additional facilities to operate on 43.58 MHz at three new sites to be located at Loc. #3 : 325 Eighth Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah; Loc. #4 : 0.4 mile SE. of 4600 South Street, and Harrison Blvd., Ogden, Utah; and Loc. #5 : 1060 N. 1800 East, Provo, Utah.

20451- CD -AL-75, W. M. Russell. Consent to Assignment of License from W. M. Russell, Assignor, to L & L Services, Inc., dba Metro Communications, Assignee. Station: K IY - 519, Florence, Alabama.

20452- CD-P-75, Charles H. Beard, dba Gran- bury Communications Company (N ew ). C.P. for a new 2-way station to operate on 454.200 MHz to be located at City Water Tower, Glen Rose, Texas.

20453- CD-P-75, Charles H. Beard, dba Gran- bury Communications Company (N ew ). C.P. for a new 2-way station to opeate on

. 454.100 MHz to be located at NW. side of city limits, Stephenville, Texas.

20454- CD-AL-75, John G. Boyqp, dba Boyce Electronics and Radio Dispatch Service. Consent to Assignment of License from John G. Boyce, Assignor, to Caprock Com­munications, Inc., dba Caprock Radio Dis­patch, Assignee. Station: KLB613, Carls­bad, New Mexico.

20455- CD-P—(3) —75, South Central Bell Tele­phone Company (KIY510). C.P. to change antenna system and replace transmitter operating on 152.57 & 152.69 MHz located approximately 2 miles NW. of Frankfort, Kentucky.

20456- CD-75, Mobilfone of Leoti, Inc. (new). C.P. for a new 2-way station to operate on 152.15 MHz to be located 1.5 miles SSE. of Colby, Kansas.

20457- CD-P-75, Mobilfone of Leoti, Inc. (new). C.P. for a new 2-way station to operate on 152.21 MHz to be located South of State Hwy. 96 on Electric Co-op Radio Tower, Scott City, Kansas

20458- CD-P-75, Mobilfone of Leoti, Inc. (new). C.P. for a new 2-way station to operate on 152.12 MHz to be located at 17th & Broadway Ave., Goodland, Kansas.

20445-CD-TC-(2)-75, Southern Communi­cations, Inc., dba Mobilfone erf Tyler. Con­sent to Transfer of Control from Aubrey E. Irby, et al, Transferors, to Ken R. Law­ler, Transferee. Stations: KLB493 & KRS710, Tyler, Texas.

Major amendments20199-C2-P-74, Arvig Telephone Company

(new). Amend its base frequency to be 152.78 MHz and mobile frequency to be 158.04 MHz. All other particulars are to re­main as reported on PN #663 dated Au­gust 27,1973.

RUBAI, RADIO SERVICE

60037-CR-p—75, South Central Bell Tele­phone Company (new ). C P . for a new ™ral subscriber station to operate on _59.65 MHz to be located at Delta-Breton national Wildlife Refuge, Pilottown, Louis-

60038- CR-TC-75, Southern Communications, Inc., dba Mobilfone of Tylor. Consent to Transfer of Control from Aubrey E. Irby, et al, Transferor, to Ken R. Lawler, Trans­feree. Station: KLU92, Temp-fixed.

60039- CR-AL-75, John G. Boyce, dba Boyce Electronics and Radio Dispatch Service. Consent to Assignment of License from John G. Boyce, Assignor, to Caprock Com­munications Inc., dba Caprock Radio Dis­patch, Assignee, Station: KLU56, Temp- fixed.

Major amendment60045-C6-P-74, Arvig Telephone Company

(n ew ). Amend frequency 157.77 MHz to read 158.04 MHz. All other particulars are to remain as reported on PN #663 dated August 27, 1973.POINT-TO -PO INT MICROWAVE RADIO SERVICE

687- CF-P-75, General Telephone Company of Michigan (KQO20), NE. Corner of Grover Avenue & Van Buren Road, Alma, Michi­gan. Lat. 43“21'57" N„ Long. 84“38'41" W. C.P. to change frequency, power; add fre­quency and transmitter on 10775H, 6034.2V, and 6152.8V MHz towards Mt. Pleasant, Michigan on azimuth 338”0'; 3710V, 3790V, and 3870V MHz towards St. Johns, Michigan on azimuth 171 °20\

688— CF—P—75, Same (KQN87), 860 West State Street, St. Johns, Michigan Lat. 43 “00'10" N., Long. 84“34'10' W. C.P. to change pt. of communication, frequency, power and re­place transmitters to 3770H, 3850H, and 3930H MHz towards Lansing, Michigan, on azimuth 177° 19'; 3750V, 38300V, 39J0V, and 4150V MHz towards Alma, Michigan, on azimuth 351 °23'.

691- CF-P-75, Navajo Communications Co., Inc. (new ), 2.7 miles SE. of Teec Nos Pos, Arizona. Lat. 38“53'04" N., Long. 109“03'55" W. C.P. for a new station on frequencies 2175.2H MHz towards Shiprock, New Mexico, on azimuth 107“49'; 2167.2V MHz towards Aneth, Utah, via passive reflector on azi­muth 352“11'.

692- CF—P—75, Same (n ew ), 2.15 miles SE. of Aneth, Utah. Lat. 37°11'43" N., Long. 109“- 09'18" W. C.P. for a new station on freqs. 2117.2V MHz towards Teec Nos Pos, Ari­zona» via passive reflector on azimuth 71“- 14'.

693- CF—P—75, Same (WHB54), 2 Blocks West of the Junction of Hwy 666 & 550, Shiprock, New Mexico. Lat. 36“47'10" N., Long. 108“- 41'14" W. C.P. to add frequency 2125.2H MHz towards a new pt. of communication at Teec Nos Pos, Arizona, on azimuth 288“03'.

694- CF-ML-75, American Telephone and Telegraph Company (KAS37), 2.5 miles South of Lawrenceton, Missouri. Lat. 37“- 55'44" N„ Long. 90“18'21" W. Mod of Lie. to change polarity on freqs. 3750,3830, 3910, 4070, 4150, and 4198 from Horizontal to Vertical and from Vertical to Horizontal on freqs. 3770, 3850, 3930, 4010, and 4170 MHz towards Hillsboro, Missouri, on azimuth 336° 17'.

695- CF-M L-75, Sdme (KAQ78), 6.5 miles NNE. of Hillsboro, Missouri. Lat. 38°19'36" N., Long. 90°31'40" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity on freqs. 3730, 3810, 3890, 3970, 4050, and 4130 MHz from Vertical to Horizontal and from Horizontal to Vertical on freqs. 3710, 3790, 3870, 4030, 4110, & 4190 MHz towards Lawrenceton, Missouri, on azimuth 156“09',

696- CF—ML-75, Same (KTF75), Crawfords- ville, 0.6 mile East of Vincent, Arkansas. Lat. 35“12'48" N., Long. 90“17'24" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity on freqs. 3730, 3810, 3890, 3970, 4050, and 4130 MHz from Vertical to Horizontal and from Horizontal to Vertical on freqs. 3750, 3830, 3910, 3990, 4070, and 4150 MHz towards Memphis, Ten­nessee, on azimuth 109°04'.

697— CF-ML-75, American Telephone and Telegraph Company (KIN95), 201 Court Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee. Lat. 35°08' 41" N., Long. 90"02'57" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity from H to V on freqs. 3710 and 4110 MHz., and from V to H on freqs. 3770, 3850, 3930, 4010, 4090, and 4170 MHz towards Crawfordsville, Arkansas, on azi­muth 289 “12'.

698— CF-ML-75, Same (KKK33), 0.5 mile East of Cedar Springs, Texas. Lat. 31“10'41" N., Long. 96°55'04" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity from V to H on freqs. 3710, 3790, and 4110 MHz and from H to V on freqs. 3730, 3810, 3890, and 3970 MHz towards Kirk, Texas, on azimuth 23“44'.

699— CF-M L-75, Same (KKK32), 1.4 miles South of Kirk, Texas. Lat. 31“33'47" N., Long. 96“43'12" W. Mod. of Lie. -to change polarity from V to H on freqs. 3750, 3830, and 4150 MHz and from H to V on freqs. 3770, 3850, 3930, and 4010, and 4170 MHz towards Cedar Springs, Texas, on azimuth. 203°50'.

700— CF-ML-75, Same (KAM64), 2 miles SSW. of Bluff City, Kansas. Lat. 37“02'36" N., Long. 97“53'48" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity from H to V on freqs. 3710, 3790, 3870, 3950, 4030, 4110 MHz and from V te H on freqs. 3730, 3890, 3970, 4050, and 4130 MHz towards South Haven, Kansas, on azi­muth 95 “10'.

701— CF-ML-75, Same (KAM65), 5.5 Miles SE. of South Haven, Kansas. Lat. 37“00'00" N., Long. 97“19'05" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity from H to V on freqs. 3750, 3830, 3910, 3990, 4070, 4150 MHz; and from V to H on freqs. 3770, 3930, 4010, 4090, and 4170 MHz towards Bluff City, Kansas, on azi­muth 275“31'.

702— CF-ML-75, Same (KK024), 2 miles NE. of Sweetwater, Texas. Lat. 32“30'30" N„ Long. 100°22'45" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity from V to H on freqs. 3750, 3830, 3910, 3990, 4070, and 4150 MHz, from H to V on freqs. 3850 and 4170 MHz towards McCaulley, Texas, on azimuth 31°34\

703— CF—ML—75, Same (KLS99), 2.2 miles South of McCaulley, Texas. Lat. 32“45'00" N., Long. 100“12'12" W. Mod. of Lie. to change polarity from V to H on freqs. 3710, 3790, 3870, 3950, 4030, 4110 MHz and from H to V oh freqs. 3810, 3890, 4050, and 4130 MHz towards Sweetwater, Texas, on azi­muth 211°40'.

704— CF-P-75, Continental Telephone Com­pany of California (new), Pine Creek Cen­tral Office, Pine Creek, California. Lat. 37°24'53" N., Long. 118“36'28" W. C.P. for a new station (Developmental) op freqs. 2178 V & H MHz towards Bishop, California, on azimuth 108“09'.

705— CF—P—75, Same (KMQ70), 350 Lagoon Street, Bishop, California. Lat. 37°21'33" N„ Long. 118°23'46” W. C.P. to add freq. 2128 V & H MHz towards a new point of communications at Pine Creek, California, on azimuth 288“ 16'.

706— CF-P—75, Michigan Bell Telephone Com­pany (KQM36), 221 North Washington Street, Lansing, Michigan. Lat. 42 “44'08" N., Long. 084 “33'09" W. C.P. to ad^ 3730H, 3810H, 3890H, and 4130H MHz towards St. Johns, Michigan, on azimuth 357°20'.

707— CF-P-75, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (K3N55), 5.5 miles North of Kershaw, South Carolina. Lat. 34°37'40" N., Long. 80“33'15" W. C.P. t » add freq. 11285V MHz towards Pageland, South Carolina, on azimuth 41°53'.

708— CF—P—75, Same (KIY59), 1645 Hampton St. Columbia, South Carolina. Lat. 34“- 00*29" N., Long. 81“01'42" W. CJ>. to add freq. 6004.5H MHz towards Swansea, South Carolina, on azimuth 188° 11'.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36046709- CF—P—75, Same (K IY60), 3.5 miles North­

west of Chapin, South Carolina. Lat. 34®- l l ' l l " N., Long. 81°24'49'' W. C.P. to add freqs. 11405H and 11565H MHz towards Newberry, South Carolina, on azimuth 298°41'.

710- CP-P—75, Same (KIY61), 208 Broad Street, Clinton, South Carolina. Lat. 34°- 28'13" N., Long. 81°52'55'' W. C.P. to add freq. 6123.1H MHz towards Greenwood, South Carolina, on azimuth 215°58'.

711- CF-P-75, Same (KIY63), 218 College Street, Greenville, South Carolina. Lat. 34 °- 51'19" N., Long. 82°24'00" W. C.P. to add freq. 6063.8V MHz towards Glassy Moun­tain, South Carolina, on azimuth 281 °52'.

712- CF—P—75, Same (KJA71), 1208 Broad Street, Camden, South Carolina. Lat. 34®- 14'57" N., Long. 80®36'26" W. CJP. to add freqs. 6123.1V MHz towards Pleasant Hill, South Carolina, on azimuth 349° 59'; and 6152.8H MHz towards Spring Hill, South Carolina, on azimuth 127°32'.

713- CF—P—75, Same (KJA97), 213 South Coit Street, Florence, South Carolina. Lat. 34®- 11'39” N., Long. 79 *46'17" W. C.P. to add freq. 6034.2V MHz towards Marion, South Carolina, on azimuth 92®34'.

714- CF—P—75, Same (KJA98), Pine at Harlee, Marion, South Carolina. Lat. 34°10'47” N., Long. 79°23'53” W. C.P. to add 6197.2V MHz towards Gurley, South Carolina, on azimuth 121°40'.

715- CF—P-75, Same (KJB48), 2 miles SE. of Intersection of S.C. County Roads No. 7 and No. 37, Spring Hill, South Carolina. Lat. 34°07'26” N„ Long. 80°24'41" W. C.P. to add freq. 6404.8H MHz towards Sumter, South Carolina, on azimuth 163*49'; change freq. 6286.2V MHz to 6404.8V MHz towards Bishopville, South Carolina, on azimuth 54°31' via power split.

716- CF-P-75, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (KJB49), 15 South Harvin Street, Sumter, South Carolina. Lat. 33°55'08” N., Long. 80°20'24” W. C.P. to delete frequency 5974.8V MHz towards Spring Hill, South Carolina, and add 5974.8H MHz towards Manning, South Carolina, on azimuth 155°03'.

717- CF—P—75, Same (KJC87), 1.7 miles East of Swansea, South Carolina. Lat. 33°44'42” N., Long. 81°04'25” W. C.P. tfr add freq. 6197.2H MHz towards Orangeburg, South Carolina, on azimuth 144® 29'.

718- CF—P—75, Same (KJC88), 4 miles NNW. of Blackville, South Carolina. Lat. 33° 24' 65" N., Long. 81®17'02" W. C.P. to add 6034.2H MHz towards Montmorenci, South Carolina, via power split on azimuth 289° 04'; add freq. 6034.2V MHz towards Al­lendale, South Carolina, via power split on azimuth 188°02'.

719- CF—P-75, Same (KJC89), 3 miles NW. of Allendale, South Carolina. Lat. S3®01' 56" -N., Long. 81°20'53" W. C.P. to add 4130V MHz towards Walterboro, South Carolina, on azimuth 107°30\

720- CF—P—75, Same (KJC90), 8.5 miles West of Walterboro, South Carolina. Lat. 32®53' 16" N., Long. 80°48'34" W. C.P. to add freq. 4170V MHz towards Summerville, South Carolina, on azimuth 91°49'; freq. 6034.2H MHz towards Lobeco, South Caro­lina, on azimuth 171 °22'.

721- CF-P-75, Same (KJC91), 10 Miles SW. of Summerville, South Carolina. Lat. 32° 52'20" N„ Long. 80°16'22" W. C.P. to add 4130V MHz towards Charleston, South Carolina, on azimuth 106°59'.

722- CF—P—75, Same (KJD26), 280 Summers Avenue, Orangeburg, South Carolina. Lat. 83°29'41" N., Long. 80°51'38" W. C.P. to add 5945.2V MHz towards St. George, South Carolina, on azimuth 142*13'.

NOTICES728-CF—75, Same (KJG26). On Glassy

Mountain, Approx. 3 miles ENE. of Pickens, South Carolina. Lat. 34°54’00" N., Long. 82°39'36" W. C.P. to add 6315.9H via power split towards Anderson, South Carolina, on azimuth 179*03'; add 6315.9V MHz via power split towards Clemson, South Caro­lina, on azimuth 214*00'.

724— CF—P—75, Same (KJH35), 1.5 Miles West of Montmorenci, South Carolina. Lat. 33* 31'26" N., Long. 81*39'40" W. C.P. to add freq. 11115H MHz towards Aiken, South Carolina, on azimuth 302*47'.

725— CF—P—75, Same (KJH36), Laurens Street, Aiken, South Carolina. Lat. 33*33' 30" N„ Long. 81°43'30" W. C.P. to add freq. 5974.8H MHz towards Johnston, South Carolina, on azimuth 347*09'.

726— CF-P—75, Same (KJH41), 7 miles West of Hartsville, South Carolina. Lat. 34'2i' 15" N., Long. 80°12'03" W. C.P. to add 6404.8V MHz towards Kershaw, South Carolina, on azimuth 313*11' freq. 6286 211 MHz towards Society Hill.

727— CF—P—75, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (KJH42), 2.2 miles SW. of Society Hill, South Carolina. Lat. 34°28'51" N„ Long. 79*51'37" W. C.P. to add 6034.2H MHz towards Bennettsville, South Carolina, .on azimuth 47® 16'.

728— CF—P-75, Same (KJH51), 461 East Main Street, Sp&rtanburg, South Carolina. Lat. 34®57'07" N„ Long. 81°55'12" W. C.P. to add freq. 6093.5H MHz via power split to­ward West Springs, South Carolina, on azimuth 148*09'. freq. 6093.5 MHz via power split towards Gaffney, South Caro­lina, on azimuth 67*22'.

729— CF—P—75, Same (KJH52), 0.7 miles SE. of West Springs, South Carolina. Lat. 34“ 45'40" N., Long. 81*46'35" W. C.P. to add 11115H MHz towards Union, South Caro­lina, on azimuth 108*48'.

730- CF—P—75, Same (KJW86), 1 mile NW. of Lane, South Carolina. Lat. 33°32'08" N., Long. 79“53'12" W. C.P. to add 3870H MHz towards Moncks Corner, South Carolina on azimuth 198®24'; 5945.2V, 6063.8V, 6123.1V MHz towards Andrews, South Carolina, on azimuth 107®13'.

731- CF—P—75, Same (KJW87), 2 miles NW. of Lake City, South Carolina. Lat. 33°53'38" N., Long. 79°46'02" W. C.P. to add 3910H and 3990H MHz towards Lane, South Car­olina, on azimuth 195*36'.

732- CF—P-75, Same (KJX36), 2 miles South of Gaffney, South Carolina. Lat. 35*02'55" N., Long. 81“38'14" W. CJ».'to add freq. 6345.5H MHz towards Filbert, South Caro­lina, on azimuth 90*15'.

733- CF—P—75, Same (K IA47), 121 West Mor­gan Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. Lat. 35°46'44" N., Long. 78*38'30" W. C.P. to change freq. 6212.0V MHz to 6315.9H MHz and add freqs. 6197.2H, 6256.5H, and 6375.- 2H MHz towards Holly Springs, North Car­olina, on azimuth 226*45'.

734- CF—P—75, Same (WAN52), 2 miles East of Hamlet, North Carolina, Lat. 34°52'45" N., Long. 79°39'28" W. CJP. to add freq. 6063.8H MHz towards West End, North Carolina, on azimuth 7*0'.

735- CF—P-75, Same (WGH98), 0.8 mileSouth of Holly Springs on State Rd. #1395, North Carolina, Lat. 35°38'29" N., Long. 78®49'14" W. C.P. to change freq. 5989.7V MHz to 6063.8V MHz and add 5945.2V, 6004.5V, and 6123.1V MHz towards Raleigh, North Carolina, on azimuth 46°39'; add freqs. 5945.2H, 6004.5H, and 6123.1H MHz towards a new point of communication at Pittsboro, North Carolina, on azimuth 272°53'.

736- CF-P-75, Southern Bell Telephone and, Telegraph Company (new ), 4.5 miles South of Pittsboro, North Carolina. Lat. 35®39'19" N., Long..79°10'17" W. C.P. for a new sta­tion on freqs. 6197.2H, 6256.5H, and 6375.- 2H MHz towards Siler City, North Caro­lina, on azimuth 280°09'; freq. 6197.2V, 6256.5V, and 6375.2V MHz towards Holly Springs, North Carolina, on azimuth 92*40'.

737- CF-P-75, Same (new), 0.6 miles SW. of Siler City, North Carolina. Lat. 35°42'01' N., Long. 79°28'56" W. C.P. for a new sta­tion on freq. 6063.8H MHz towards West End; North Carolina, on azimuth 192*33'; and 5945.2V, 6004.5V, and 6123.1V MHz to­wards Pittsboro, North Carolina, on azi­muth 99*58'-.

738- CF—P—75, Same (new ), 3 miles NW. of West End, North Carolina. Lat. 35*16'06" N„ Long. 79°35'58" W. C.P. for a new sta­tion on freq. 6315.9V MHz towards Hamlet, North Carolina, on azimuth 187*02'; and add freq. 6315.9V MHz towards Siler City, North Carolina, on azimuth 12*29'.

Major Amendments282—CF—AP— (11) —75, KHC Microwave Corpo­

ration. Application amended to, add the following authorizations to the referenced application for consent to assignment to United Video, Inc.: WAH542— Donaldson- ville, La.; WAH543— Lafayette, La.; WQR 29— Catahoula, La.; and WQR28— Bayou Sorrel, La., bringing the total number of stations involved to eleven (11).

3428-C1-P-74, RCA Alaska Communications, Inc. (W GF58), 200 Gaffney Rd., Fairbanks, Alaska. Add frequency 2117.2H MHz to­wards new point of communication at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, on azimuth 84*08'. (All other particulars same as reported in Public Notice dated March 18, 1974.)

Corrections510- CF-P-75, Pacific Telephone and Tele­

graph Company (KNL78), Corona Del Mar, California. Correct to read: C.P. to change 6315.9 and 6197.2 to 6256.5V & 6375.2V MHz towards San Clemente, California.

511— CF—P—75, Same (KNL79), San Clemente, California. Correct to read: C.P. to change 11345 & 11665V MHz to 6004.5V & 6123.1V MHz towards San Marcos, California; change 5945.2 & 6063.8 MHz to 6004.5V & 6123.1V MHz towards Corona Del Mar, California.

612—CF—P—75, Same (KNL80), San Marcos, California. Correct to add: C.P. to change 6197.2 & 6315.9 MHz to 10775H and 10935H MHz towards Julian, California, on azimuth 93*14'. (All other particulars same as re­ported on Public Notice #717, dated 9/3/74.)

[FR Doc.74-23269 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. 20199; FCO 74-1029]

CPI MICROWAVE, INC. AND MIDWESTERN RELAY CO.

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Investigation and Hearing

In the matter of joint petition of CPI Microwave, Inc. and Midwestern Relay Company for an Order to Show Cause with respect to American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Tele­phone Company and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. .

1. We have before us the (a) Joim- Petition of CPI Microwave, Inc. and Midwestern Relay Company (MRC) for an order to show cause why tne

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 3604*7

American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Com­pany and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (hereinafter “AT&T*) should not be ordered to establish reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for phys­ical interconnection with the interstate program transmission facilities of CPI and MRC; (b) comments of the major commercial television networks, Amer­ican Broadcasting Company, Inc. (ABC), Columbia Broadcasting Company Sys­tem, Inc. (CBS), and National Broad­casting Company, Inc. (NBC) in support of such petition; (c) AT&T’s opposition to the joint petition and comments, and(d) the petitioners’ Reply to AT&T's opposition.

2. CPI and MRC are miscellaneous common carriers1 providing program video transmission service to, among others, the major commercial television networks. The essence of this controversy concerns alleged unreasonable and re­strictive conditions imposed by AT&T in providing local exchange facilities to interconnect AT&T’s interstate program transmission facilities with similar fa­cilities offered by CPI and MRC.* Peti­tioners claim, among other things, that AT&T’s conduct violates Section 201(a) of tiie Act * and that our April 23, 1974 decision in Docket No. 19896, wherein, among other things, we ordered AT&T to furnish specialized common carriers essential interconnection facilities and to cease and desist from engaging in any conduct resulting in a denial or unrea­sonable delay in such interconnection,* sharply underscores the clearly unlawful character of AT&T's conduct towards petitioners. Petitioners therefore request issuance of an appropriate show cause order with respect to AT&T’s alleged un­lawful conduct.

1Such carriers are defined as “ {cjommu- aicatlons common carriers which are not en­gaged in the business of providing either a public landline message telephone service or public message telegraph service.” 47 CFR 21.1.

•For example, petitioners challenge the lawfulness of AT&T's “intermediate link re­strictions” which appear in AT&T's* inter­connection agreements and its Tariff F.C.C. No. 260, Section 3.2.7B(2) (h ) (1) (b ); AT&T’s refusal to deal with petitioners on a car- rier-to-carrier basis in both interconnection and rate matters; and AT&T’s practice of filing interconnection agreements with state utility commissions for approval in apparent contravention of the Commission’s Jurisdic­tion.

Section 201(a) provides as follows: “It j®all be the duty of every common carrier ngaged in Interstate or foreign communi­

cation by wire or radio to furnish such com- “ »caticns service upon reasonable request « fo r ; and, in accordance with the orders the Commission, in cases where the Com-

^ MSion, after opportunity for hearing, finds nuKn aftion necessary or desirable in the ti 110 Interest, to establish physical connec- rcnif8 other carriers, to establish through the an<* charges applicable thereto and ann Vlsions 01 such charges, and to establish on« Pr°vide facilities and regulations for 201(a) 80011 throuKfa routes.” 47 UB.O.

triw,,!? System Tariff Offerings o f Lo< button Facilities, 46 F.C.C. 2d 413

3. ABC, CBS and NBC in their joint comments supporting the joint petition, stress, among other tilings, the strong public interest in assuring a minimum of restriction and a maximum of flexi­bility in television program distribution.

4. AT&T claims that the prerequisites for issuance of a show cause order do not exist in this controversy since there has been no interconnection order by this Commission with respect to miscellane­ous common carriers or an opportunity for hearing under section 201(a) of the Act on issues relating to interconnection of miscellaneous common carriers. In support of its position opposing issuance of a show cause order, and in support of its refusal to interconnect in certain cases, AT&T argues that Docket No. 19896 addressed issues of interconnection with respect to specialized common car­riers, domestic satellite common carriers, and Western Union Telegraph Company but did not address such issues with re­spect to miscellaneous common carriers, and that none of our past proceedings, including our Specialized Common Car­rier Services proceeding • (which we noted, among other proceedings, satis­fied the hearing requirement of section 201(a) in Docket No. 19896)* considered miscellaneous common carriers to the extent that the hearing requirement of section 201(a) has been satisfied. AT&T claims that it is connecting its inter­state facilities with those provided by petitioners on reasonable and non-dis­criminatory terms and conditions in ac­cordance with its tariffs and intercon­nection agreements and alleges that, among other things, the conditions that do exist are necessary to insure adequate quality of service to the public.

5. The pleading filed by CPI and MRC constitutes a petition for interconnection under section 201(a) of the Act. We con­clude that sufficient grounds exist for the institution of an investigation and hearing into the complained of matter pursuant to section 201(a) of the Act. Under such section the Commission has tiie authority, after hearing, to order the establishment of physical connection be­tween common carriers, and to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the division of such charges. The interconnection contemplated would allow MRC and CPI to connect their interstate program transmission facili­ties with similar facilities of AT&T.

6. Because of the significant public in­terest factors that may be involved in assuring timely program transmission services to the public, we believe the mat­ters complained of herein should be re­solved as expeditiously as possible. Based on the record before us, there appears to be no material disputed fact except possibly in relation to AT&T’s claim that technical problems are likely to result from the requested interconnection and lead to a lowering of the quality of pro­gram transmission service provided to

■Specialized Common Carrier Services, Docket No. 18920,29 F.C.C. 2d 871 <1971).

• Bell System Tariffs, 46 F.C.C. 2d at 423.

the public. Under such circumstances, it appears that this controversy can be resolved upon submission of written com­ments and reply comments without necessity for evidentiary hearings, rec­ommended decision, initial decision, or tentative decision. However, if any party should be of the opinion after comments and reply comments are filed that dis­puted facts of decisional significance exist in gelation to the quality of service question raised by AT&T or in relation to other questions, we are providing herein that such party may file an ap­propriate request for further proceedings within 10 days after the final date for filing reply comments. Such requests should be specific as to the issues and facts to be considered, the nature of the proceedings required and the reasons why prejudice will result if such further proceedings are not held. Our final de­cision will take into account, and be limited to, materials submitted herein for the record or incorporated into the record of this proceeding by the Com­mission. We believe the employment of the above procedures will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and the ends of justice and promote the ob­jectives of the Act for expeditious resolu­tion of this controversy. 47 U.S.C. 154(j) and 204. Finally, since this is a restricted rulemaking proceeding, we shall order that a Trial Staff of the Common Carrier Bureau participate.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered, That, pur­suant to Section 201(a) of the Act, an investigation and hearing shall be held in the form and manner herein provided.

8. I t is further ordered, That without in anyway limiting the scope o f the in­vestigation, it shall include inquiry into the following;

a. Whether it is necessary or desirable in the public interest to establish physi­cal connections between CPI and MRC facilities on the one hand, and AT&T facilities on the other hand, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the division of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes, within the meaning of section 201(a) of the Act; and, if so, what connections, through routes, charges, divisions, facilities, and regula­tions should be established.

9. I t is further ordered, That the parties shall file written comments on the matters noted herein within 45 days of the release date of this order.

10. I t is further ordered, That parties shall file reply comments within 20 days after the final date for filing comments.

11. I t is further ordered, That the par­ties shall file requests for further pro­ceedings, i f any, within 10 days after the final date for filing reply comments.

12. I t is further ordered, That AT&T, Illinois Beil Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company jointly and severally are named Re­spondents herein.

13. I t is further ordered, That CPI Microwave, Inc., Midwestern Relay Com­pany, and Western Telecommunications,

FEDERAI REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36048 NOTICESInc. (W TCI) 7 are made parties to this proceeding and that a Trial Staff of the Common Carrier Bureau shall partici­pate and be separated to the extent indi­cated in § 1.1209(d) of the Commission’s rules.

14. I t is further ordered, That upon the closing of the record, the Commission shall issue a final decision herein.

15. I t is further ordered, That, the Secretary of the Commission shall send copies of this order by certified mail, re­turn receipt requested, to AT&T, Southwestern Bell, Illinois Bell, CPI, MRC, and WTCI.

Adopted: September 25, 1974.Released: October 3, 1974.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,8

[ seal ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23272 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket Nos. 20055-20059; FCC 74Rr-360]

PRAIRIELAND BROADCASTERS, ET A LMemorandum Opinion and Order Enlarging

IssuesIn regards Applications of Stephen P.

Bellinger, Joel W. Townsend, Ben H. Townsend and Reynold Fischman, d/b as Prairieland Broadcasters Decatur, I l­linois, Docket No. 20055, File No. BPH- 8066; WBIZ, Incorporated, Decatur, I l­linois, Docket No. 20056, File No. BPH- 8267; Superior Media, Inc., Decatur, I l­linois, Docket No. 20057, pile No. BPH- 8351; L.E.G., Inc. and John G. Cheeks, d/b as Soy Communications Company, A Joint Venture, Decatur, Illinois, Docket No. 20059, File No. BPH-8682 for con­struction permits.

1. Before the Review Board is a motion to enlarge issues, filed on June 19, 1974, published at 39 FR 19804, June 4,1974, by Stephen P. Bellinger, Joel W. Townsend, Ben H. Townsend and Reynold Fisch­man, d/b as Prairieland Broadcasters (Prairieland), requesting the addition of the following issue against WBIZ, In­corporated (W B IZ ):

1. To determine whether the applicant, W BIZ, Incorporated, has adequate funds available to meet construction costs and first year costs of operation, and whether, in light of the evidence adduced, the applicant is

7 Western Telecommunications, Inc. re­quested by letter dated July 16, 1974 that it be made a party to any proceeding arising in connection with this controversy.

8 Commissioners Reid and Hooks concur­ring in the result.

1Also before the Board for consideration arè the following related pleadings: (a ) Op- ptìsition, filed July 9, 1974, by WBIZ; (b ) opposition, filed July 9, 1974, by the Broad­cast Bureau; (c) reply, filed July 19, 1974, by Prairieland; (d ) motion to strike portions of reply to opposition motion to enlarge is­sues, filed July 31, 1974, by the Broadcast Bureau; (e) opposition to Broadcast Bureau’s motion to strike, filed August 6, 1974, by Prairieland; ( f ) reply to opposition to motion to strike, filed August 14, 1974, by WBIZ.

financially qualified to construct and oper­ate its proposed station.1

2. Prairieland initially questions the availability of proposed loan commit­ments from (a) Northwestern National Bank of Rochester, Minnesota (North­western) ($34,000) ; (b) American Na­tional and Trust Company, Eau Claire, Wisconsin (American) (up to $110,000) ; and (c) Olmstead County Broadcasting Company, licensee of stations KOLM and KOLM-FM (Olmstead) ($23,500) .a With respect to the Northwestern loan, movant alleges that the collateral requirement outlined in Northwestern’s letter of com­mitment— cash surrender value of life insurance or other collateral—is insuffi­cient to support the loan. Turning next to the American loan, petitioner, after noting that this loan is to be secured by a pledge of both Mr. Bill’s WBIZ stock and a lien against all of WBIZ’s assets, as­serts that this collateral requirement is so all-encompassing that WBIZ will be unable to meet the collateral require­ments of both bank loans. Prairieland also questions the availability o f the American loan in light of (1) Mr. Bill’s alleged failure to supply the Commis­sion with evidence of his willingness to pledge his WBIZ stock as security for the loan, and, (2) the alleged likelihood of American’s reluctance to accept a col­lateral arrangement that conforms to the Commission’s restrictive stock pledge re­quirements.3 With regard to the avail­ability of the Olmstead loan, movant asserts that an examination of Olm- stead’s balance sheet and net income statement shows that it is financially in­capable of providing WBIZ with the $23,500 loan from its cash flow, as pro­posed. In addition to its contentions regarding the alleged unavailability of the three loans, petitioner also asserts that an inquiry is necessary to determine the amount of funds available to WBIZ from its savings account with First Fed­eral Savings and Loan Association of Eau Claire (First Federal), upon which it relies for $21,500. Petitioner maintains that First Federal may be treating WBIZ’s savings account as security for an existing $4,800 note of WBIZ held by the bank; therefore, movant seeks to de­termine whether the availability of WBIZ’s savings account at First Federal is impeded by WBIZ’s pre-existing debt.

3. Both the Broadcast Bureau and WBIZ oppose Prairieland’s petition. In support of its opposition, WBIZ submits letters from Northwestern, American and First Federal. The American and North­western letters, dated July 1, 1974, state that each bank (1) possesses full knowl­edge of the other bank’s loan arrange­ments, and, (2) is satisfied with the pro­posed collateral. Furthermore, the American letter states that the bank’s

2 Olmstead is wholly owned by Mr. Howard Bill, who is also the President and 95.34 per­cent owner of WBIZ.

* Also with respect to the American loan, petitioner argues that an evidentiary hear­ing is necessary to determine whether the American loan Includes an existing $14,776.21 debt owed to American by WBIZ.

letter of credit is completely separate from WBIZ’s note payable to American, and also that American is aware of the Commission’s stock pledge restrictions. The First Federal letter, dated June 28, 1974, recites that the bank asserts no claim of any kind against the balance in WBIZ’s savings account with it. Finally, with regard to the Olmstead loan, the applicant states that the Commission’s staff previously analyzed Olmstead’s financial status and uncovered no reason to designate an issue pertaining to the availability of this loan. In its opposition, the Broadcast Bureau argues that Prairieland’s motion is premised upon surmise and conjecture, and, therefore, fails to comply with the specificity re­quirement of Rule 1.229/

4. The Review Board is of the view that WBIZ has adequately responded to some, but not all, of petitioner’s alle­gations regarding its financial proposal. Thus, with respect to (1) the adequacy of the collateral for the Northwestern loan; (2) the amount of funds available to WBIZ from the American loan and WBIZ’s First Federal savings account;(3) American’s awareness of the Com­mission’s stock pledge requirements; and, (4) whether American and North­western are aware of each other’s loan arrangements with WBIZ, it is our con­clusion that the questions raised have been satisfactorily answered in WBIZ’s opposition and the letters accompanying WBIZ’s pleading. See WWKY, Inc., 44 FCC 2d 239, 28 RR 2d 1551 (1973). How­ever, the Board will enlarge the issues to encompass an inquiry into the avail­ability of the American and Olmstead loans. With respect to the American loan, the Board believes that absent an ex­press statement by Mr. Bill evidencing his willingness to pledge his WBIZ stock as collateral for the loan, the availability of the loan is open to question. Cf. KALT-FM Inc., 38 FR 19283, published July 19, 1973. As to the Olmstead loan, the Board is of the opinion that Olm­stead’s August, 1973, balance sheet and 1971 and 197? net income figures do not show adequate liquidity or cash flow from whiclvit can fulfill its $23,500 commit­ment to WBIZ. Cf. Duncan Broadcasting Co., 40 FCC 2d 302, 26 RR 1737. There­fore, an appropriate issue will be added.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered, That the petition to enlarge issues, filed on June 19, 1974, by Stephen P. Bellinger, Joel W. Townsend, Ben H. Townsend and Reynold Fischman, d/b as Prairieland Broadcasters, is granted to the extent herein indicated, and is denied in all other respects; and

* In its reply, Prairieland raises additional factual allegations and also requests that a misrepresentation issue be added against WBIZ. The Board agrees with the Bureaus assertion that § 1.294(c) prohibits the intro­duction of new factual allegations and/or Issues in responsive pleadings, and, there­fore, will grant the Bureau’s motion to striae those portions of Prairieland’s reply whic raise new matters. See Industrial Business Corp., 40 P.C.O. 2d 69, 26 RR 2d 1447 (1973).

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36049

6. It is further ordered,, That the issues in this proceeding are enlarged by the addition of the following issue:

(a) To determine whether loans from Olrostead County Broadcasting Com­pany and American National and Trust Company will be available to WBIZ, In­corporated, to finance the construction and first year’s operating expenses for its proposed station, and whether, in light of the evidence adduced, the ap­plicant is financially qualified.

7. It is further ordered. That the bur­dens of proceeding and proof under the foregoing issue SHALL BE on WBIZ, Incorporated; and

8. It is further ordered, That the Broadcast Bureau’s motion to strike por­tions of reply to opposition to motion to enlarge issues, filed on July 31, 1974, Is granted.

Adopted: September 25, 1974.Released: October 2, 1974.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,6

[ seal! t V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23271 Filed 10-4-74:8:45 am]

{Docket Nos. 19915, 19916; FCC74R-362]

U-ANCHOR ADVERTISING INC. AND TELECORPUS, INC.

Memorandum Opinion and Order Enlarging Issues

In the matter of applications of U-Anchor Broadcasting, a division of U-Anchor Advertising, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas, Docket No. 19915, File No. BPCT-4560; Telecorpus, Inc., Carpus Christi, Texas. Docket No. 19916, File No. BPCT-4577: for construction permits for a new television broadcast station.

1. The mutually exclusive applications of U-Anchor Broadcasting (U-Anchor) and Telecorpus, Inc. (Telecorpus) for a construction permit for a new UHF, tele­vision broadcast facility in Corpus Christi, Texas, were designated for hearing by Commission Order, 44 FCC 2d 870, released January 9, 1974 (39 FR 1797) . Now before the Review Board are a petition to enlarge issues, filed Janu­ary 29, 1974, by Telecorpus,1 a petition for enlargement of issues, filed Janu- wy 30,1974, by U-Anchor,* and a joint re-

6 Board member Kessler absent.‘ Also before the Board are errata to petl-

to enlarge issues, filed January 80, 1974, by Telecorpus, Inc., comments, filed April 10, 1974, by the Broadcast Bureau, and reply to Broadcast Bureau’s comments, filed May 8, 1974. by Telecorpus.

Also before the Board are the following related pleadings: (a ) Statement of Tele- CMpiuj regarding petition, filed July 18, 1974; L ' Broadcast Bureau’s comments regarding “Wtement of Telecorpus, filed July 29, 1974; T.l Eao on t° accept late filed petition, filed to 1! 74, by U-Anchor; (d ) motionsi in « 6 ^ 'Anchor*s petition to enlarge is-

es, filed February 7, 1974, by Telecorpus; '¿opposition to motion to strike, filed Feb- “Av 19, 1974, by the Broadcast Bureau;

quest for withdrawal of petitions to en­large issues, filed April 8, 1974, by Tele­corpus and U-Anchor.3 Subsequent to the filing of these pleadings with the Board, the Administrative Law Judge, by Memorandum Opinion and Order 74M- 822, released July 12, 1974, granted an amendment to Telecorpus’ application and, in partially granting a joint request for approval of agreement, dismissed U- Anchor’s application with prejudice. As a consequence, the Board’s action at this juncture of the proceeding will deter­mine note only the scope of the issues to be resolved with respect to thé remain­ing applicant, Telecorpus, but also whether the dismissing applicant, U- Anchor, is entitled to reimbursement.*

2. In its petition for enlargement of issues,6 U-Ahchor requests inquiries into the effect of a grant of Teiecorpus’ ap­plication on competition in the broadcast industry in general, and on competition among television stations in southern Texas in particular, inquiry into the character qualifications of two Tele- corpus principals and an inquiry into the failure of two Telecorpus principals to reveal all of their broadcast and other business interests in Telecorpus’ applica­tion. The basis for the first area of re­quests—i.e., the competitive effectsissues—is the alleged interest of two Telecorpus principals, Daniel Villanueva and Emilo Nicolas, in the Spanish Inter­national Communications Corporation (SICC) and the Spanish International Network (SIN ) .* The :*equested char­acter issue is also predicated on SICC financial activities, which petitioner at­tributes to Teiecorpus through the par­ticipation of Villanueva and Nicolas in both enterprises, while the requested non-disclosure issue rests on the alleged failure of Teiecorpus to report in its ap­plication that Nicolas was an officer of a previous applicant for a television sta­tion and that Villanueva and Nicolas are currently vice-presidents of SIN.

( f ) opposition to petition to strike, filed Feb­ruary 19, 1974, by U-Anchor; (g ) petition for acceptance of affidavit, filed February 6, 1974, by U-Anchor; and (h ) comments on petition for enlargement, filed April 15, 1974, by the Broadcast Bureau.

»Also before the Board are an opposition, filed April 17, 1974, by the Broadcast Bureau, and a supplement to Joint request, filed July 9, 1974, by U-Anchor.

«The Presiding Judge concluded that U - Anchor is entitled to reimbursement of ex­penses in the amount of $18,590, but that such reimbursement shall be held in abey­ance pending Review Board action on Teie­corpus’ petition to enlarge Issues and, given any consequent enlargement, favorable res­olution of such issues.

® U-Anchor’s petition is untimely, but in view of the substantial public Interest ques­tions which it raises, the Board will consider it on the merits. See The Edgefield-Saluda Radio Co., 5 FCC 2d 148, 8 RR 2d 611 (1966).

•SICC is the license of five UHF Spanlsh- language television stations in various mar­kets throughout the United States; SIN is a United States Spanish-language program syndicator and television sales representa­tive.

3. As an initial matter, we note that U-Anchor’s requests for concentration o f control and character qualifications issues are unwarranted. Thus, petitioner has not shown that the ownership of facilities by SICC in widely scattered markets (in addition to Telecorpus pro­posal) would violate any multiple owner­ship rules or derivative cross-ownership policies of the Commission. Second, since Villanueva and Nicolas were not asso­ciated with SICC during the time the conduct upon which petitioner predicates its character qualifications request oc­curred, there is no basis for attributing such conduct (even if it were deemed sufficient to support the addition of an issue) to the two principals.

4. With respect to the non-disclosure issue, the Board notes that by Memo­randum Opinion and Order, 74M-822, released July 12, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Fitzpatrick granted a petition for leave to amend, whereby Telecorpus amended its appli­cation to remove Nicolas and Villanueva as officers and stockholders in the cor­poration. Although such an amendment may not serve to moot a request for a non-disclosure issue, the Board believes that the single incident shown does not warrant an inquiry.1 The instance of non-disclosure cited by U-Anchor in­volves Telecorpus’ failure to report Nico­las’ involvement in a 1966 application for a Corpus Christi television station which application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to any Commis­sion action. While we agree that this failure does constitute a technical lack of compliance with Section 1.514 of the Commission’s Rules, we also believe that the circumstances here (Le. Nicolas’ ex­planation that he considered this infor­mation too insignificant to be required on the application is not unreasonable, no motive for deception is apparent in view of Telecorpus’ disclosure of Nicolas' other broadcast interests, and the appli­cation in question was filed eight years ago) do not justify the addition of the requested issue. See Payne of -Virginia, Inc., 28 FCC 2d 66, 21 RR 2d 535 (1971) ; Western Communications Inc., 39 FCC 2d 1094, 26 RR 2d 1535 (1973).

5. Telecorpus, in its petition to en­large issues, requests addition of the fol­lowing issues against U-Anchor: an in­quiry into the identity of the officers and directors of U-Anchor and a non-dis­closure and misrepresentation issue with respect thereto, a Section 1.65 issue, a cross-interest issue, a Suburban issue, and a misrepresentation issue with re­spect to U-Anchor’s Suburban showing.

6. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Telecorpus* petition for leave to amend, supra, paragraph 4,

•Teiecorpus has countered one aspect of U-Anchor’s allegations by submitting affi­davits from Villanueva, Nicolas and two SIN principals, all o f whom state that neither Villanueva nor Nicolas Is now, or ever has been, an officer, director or shareholder of SIN.

FEDERAI REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36050 NOTICES

Judge Fitzpatrick also granted a joint request for approval of agreement and grant of Telecorpus’ application under which Telecorpus would reimburse U- Anchor for its expenses in prosecuting its application and U-Anchor, in turn, would withdraw its application.8 To the extent that this agreement eliminates U-Anchor as an applicant in this pro­ceeding, the Board believes that it moots the requested basic qualifications in­quiries into the adequacy of U-Anchor’s Suburban showing and the possible con­flicts of interest which might arise be­cause of the other business activities of U-Anchor’s parent corporation, U- Anchor Advertising, Inc.8 At the same time, however, we do not believe that the joint agreement can serve to moot the necessity for considering the requested non-disclosure, Section 1.65 and misrep­resentation issues. Accordingly, since U-Anchor cannot be reimbursed for its expenses under its agreement with Tele­corpus until all questions concerning its character have been resolved in a satis­factory manner (see St. Cross Broadcast­ing Co., 39 FCC 2d 512, 26 RR 2d 939 (1973)), we do not feel it appropriate to dismiss Telecorpus* petition to enlarge Issues. Rather, it is necessary to resolve all issues raised by Telecorpus which might bear on U-Anchor’s character qualifications to be a Commission licensee so that U-Anchor’s right to reimburse­ment under its agreement with Tele­corpus can be determined.

7. In support of its requested inquiry into U-Anchor’s true principals, Tele­corpus alleges that U-Anchor’s applica­tion lists the following principals “ of the parent corporation of the applicant: Ray A. Snead, Eugene McCartt, m , Joseph Robert McCartt, and Robert W. Manley, Jr. However, in an amendment to its application filed with the Commis­sion on December 7, 1973, the applicant submitted a certified resolution of the Board of Directors which also lists Eugene J. McCartt, Jr. as a director of the corporation, petitioner contends. Further, it continues, there is good rea­son to believe that this failure to list Eugene J. McCartt, Jr. as a director was not merely a harmless mistake, since a review of Commission files indicates that

»U-Anchor’s reimbursement has expressly been held in abeyance pending the Board’s action on Telecorpus* petition to enlarge.

• In its petition, Telecorpus alleges that U-Anchor Advertising, Inc.’s business activ­ities include acting as a sales and marketing agency for television stations. While the Board believes that U-Anchor’s withdrawal from the proceeding eliminates the need to decide whether this kind of activity could lead to conflicts of interest, we note that U-Anchor, through the affidavit of Robert W. Manley, its vice-president, has established that its parent corporation does not operate an advertising agency dealing with television stations, but Instead operates an outdoor ad­vertising company which has no properties or clients in the Corpus Christ! market.

10 U-Anchor Broadcasting is a division of U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. Telecorpus’ alle­gations concern the principals of U-Anchor Enterprises which owns 89 percent of U - Anchor Advertising, Inc.

Eugene J. McCartt, Jr. is an elector of the trustees of the Ed Fagg Beneficial Trust, which controls radio station KFYO in Lubbock, Texas.“ With respect to the two acknowledged principals of the Ed Fagg Beneficial Trust, Telecorpus argues that while U-Anchor’s application does state that an application to transfer KFYO to the direct control o f the Ed Fagg Trust was filed on November 3, 1972, it does not reveal that this applica­tion was dismissed by the Commission or that a subsequent filing for transfer was made and granted. In addition, peti­tioner argues, U-Anchor’s application does not disclose that the Ed Fagg Trust was involved in an unauthorized trans­fer of control of station KFYO "in Sep­tember, 1972,“ or that the applications of a company controlled by ita beneficial owners (Plains Radio) for extension of time and assignment of construction permits for five radio stations were de­nied by the Commission. These latter omissions are particularly significant, petitioner asserts, since the reasons for the denials included findings of a lack of good faith intent to construct and trafficking in construction permits, and since the record of that proceeding in­dicates that the decisions in questions were made by members of a family group which included Eugene J. McCartt, Jr. See Plains Radio Broadcasting Co., 23 RR 221 (1962). In view of Eugene J. Mc­Cartt, Jr.’s position as an elector of the Ed Fagg Trust, U-Anchor was obligated to list these past broadcast activities of the Trust in its application, Telecorpus contends, and its failure to do so con­stitutes a violation of §§ 1.65 and 1.514 of the Commission’s rules. Finally, peti­tioner concludes that a misrepresenta­tion issue is also warranted, reasoning that given the adverse inferences that might be drawn from these activities, a motive to conceal Eugene J. McCartt,

11 U-Anchor’s application also shows that Eugene J. McCartt, in and Joseph Robert McCartt each have a 2.4 percent interest in the Ed Fagg Beneficial Trust.

“ Prior to September, 1972, the Ed Fagg Trust owned 54.2 percent of the Globe-News Publishing Company which in turn owned 81 percent of Plains Radio Broadcasting Com­pany (Plains Radio), licensee of radio sta­tion KFYO. The other 19 percent of Plains Radio was owned directly by the Trust. On September 1, 1972, the Globe-News news­paper interests were sold and its remaining assets traded to the Ed Fagg Trust and the Spool Trust. At the same time, the Ed Fagg Trust and the Spool Trust exchanged ad­ditional shares of Plains Radio stock and, as a result, the Spool Trust emerged with a 49 percent Interest in Plains Radio and the Ed Fagg Trust emerged with a 51 percent interest. According to the principals of the Ed Fagg Trust, these transactions were not reported to the Commission for its approval because of the mistaken belief of the Globe- News principals that the change from in­direct control by the Ed Fagg Trust to direct control by the Trust did not constitute a transfer requiring Commission approval, par­ticularly since all of the beneficiaries of the Ed Fagg and Spool Trusts, as weU as most of the stockholders of Globe-News, belonged to the same family, and since no changes in the management, policies or operations of station KFYO resulted from the transfer.

Jr.’s association with U-Anchor and thereby avoid any association with the Ed Fagg Trust is readily apparent.

8. In reply,“ U-Anchor asserts that its omission of Eugene J. McCartt, Jr. from its application was inadvertent, rather than willful; and that its lack of any motive to conceal is evident from its voluntary disclosure of his position in its December, 1973 amendment. As for Eu­gene J. McCartt, Jr.’s association with the Ed Fagg Trust, U-Anchor contends that its voluntary disclosure of the bene­ficial interests of Eugene J. McCartt, m and Joseph Robert McCartt in the Trust eliminates any possible motive it might have for concealing Eugene J. McCartt, Jr.’s interest, and that, in any event, the elder McCartt has had no practical in­volvement in the Trust’s affairs. With respect to U-Anchor’s alleged failure to report all of the details of the Station KFYO transfer of control request, the applicant maintains that the original request was dismissed because it was filed on an incorrect form and, subse­quently, a new request on the proper form was then filed and granted by the Commission. Since its application re­vealed the substance of this transaction,i.e. that a transfer application was on file at the Commission, the fact that some underlying details concerning the requests were not included is of no real significance, U-Anchor urges. Turning to the broadcast dealings of the Ed Fagg Trust, U-Anchor argues that none of its principals are privy to information in­volving the Trust and that the unauthor­ized transfer of control of KFYO was voluntarily reported to the Commission and involved no intent to deceive or mis­represent. Moreover, in ultimately ap­proving the transfer of control of KFYO to the Ed Fagg Trust, U-Anchor asserts, the Commission also indicated a belief that there was no improper motivation underlving the incident.

9. The Board does not believe that U- Anchor’s failure to report that Eugene J. McCartt, Jr. is a director of the corpora­tion or its failure to disclose all of the broadcast activities of the Ed Fagg Trust constitute grounds for adding non-dis­closure or misrepresentation issues. Like the Bureau, we consider it significant that U-Anchor voluntarily revealed Mc- Cartt’s position in an amendment to its application and, in addition, we note that U-Anchor had no motive to conceal this information since it had already revealed that two of its other principals had a beneficial Interest in the Trust. With re­spect to the broadcast activities of the Ed Fagg Trust, we agree with the Bureau that Eugene J. McCartt, Jr.’s position as one of 58 electors of the trust, even when combined with the 2.4 percent beneficial interest of two other U-Anchor princi­pals, constitutes a very slender relation­ship between the applicant and the Trust. For this reason alone, we would probably not consider it unreasonable for U-An- chor to conclude that it was not require

“ The Joint request for withdrawal of P itions for enlargement of issues 1°® ach party’s reply to its opponent s pet

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36051

to report the Trust’s activities. There are, however, additional reasons for conclud­ing that character issues against U-An- chor in this regard are not warranted. In particular, we note that the unau­thorized transfer of control of radio sta­tion KFYO to the Trust was voluntarily reported to the Commission which chose to take no action against the parties in­volved, that U-Anchor’s explanation for its failure to report the dismissal of its November, 1972 transfer application is not unreasonable (especially in view of the fact that a similar transfer was later filed and granted) , and that Telecorpus has failed to demonstrate that any U- Anchor principals were involved in the conduct which resulted in the denial of Great Plains’ requests for extensions of time and assignment of construction per­mits. Under these circumstances, we do not consider misrepresentation or non­disclosure issues appropriate and will therefore not specify them.

10. In support of its allegation that U-Afichor’s Suburban showing includes misrepresentations by the applicant, Telecorpus submits the affidavits of Ernesto Lira and Thomas Gonzales, both of whom are listed by U-Anchor as com­munity leaders interviewed for its sur­vey, who state that they were never in­terviewed by any U-Anchor principal in regard to a license application. U- Anchor, in reply, claims that Robert W. Manley, Jr., its vice-president, inter­viewed Lira and Gonzales for its 1972 survey, but, in updating the survey in October, 1973, was unable to confer with them again. While admitting that its in­clusion of Lira and Gonzales as com­munity leaders interviewed for its sec­ond survey was a mistake under the cir­cumstances. U-Anchor contends that it did not act out of an intent to deceive the Commission, but instead made an innocent error resulting in part from the large number of persons included in the survey.u

11. The Review Board will add the re­quested issued against U-Anchor. While the affidavits of Lira and Gonzales, alone, might not be sufficient to support a charge of misrepresentation in light of the two years that have elapsed since the original survey was conducted, U- Anchor’s supplement to the joint request for withdrawal of petitions to enlarge issues indicates that only 22 persons were contacted during the October, 1973 sur­vey of community leaders as opposed to

' me 29 persons originally reported to the Commission. Since U-Anchor has offered no justification for the substantial dis­crepancy between the two reports, the Board is of the view that further inquiry into the matter is required, p 1?.\ Accordingly it is ordered, That the Petition to Enlarge Issues, filed Janu- *vy 29, 1974, by Telecorpus, Inc. is srqnted to the extent indicated herein, uu is denied in all other respects; and

telnnif ®ci'°ber. 1973 survey involved 346 as calls to the general public, as well In th118 , community leaders contacted

e original survey, U-Anchor contends.

13. I t is further ordered, That the Petition for Enlargement of Issues, filed January 30, 1974, by U-Anchor Broad­casting, is denied; and

14. I t is further ordered, That the Mo­tion to Accept Late Filed Petition, filed January 30, 1974, by U-Anchor Broad­casting, is granted; and

15. I t is further ordered, That the Mo­tion for Acceptance of Affidavit in Sup­port of Petition for Enlargement of Is­sues, filed February 6,1974, by U-Anchor Broadcasting, is granted; and

16. I t is further ordered, That the Mo­tion to Strike U-Anchor’s Petition to Enlarge Issues, filed February 7, 1974, by Telecorpus, Inc. is denied; and

17. I t is further ordered, That the Joint Request for Withdrawal of Peti­tions for Enlargement of Issues, filed April 8, 1974, by U-Anchor Broadcasting and Telecorpus, Inc., is denied; and

18. I t is further ordered, That the is­sues in this proceeding are enlarged to include the following issue:

To determine whether U-Anchor Broad­casting has misrepresented certain facts concerning its consultations with commu­nity leaders and, if so, the effect of such conduct on its qualifications to be a licensee of the Commission.

19. I t is further ordered, That the burden of proceeding with the introduc­tion of the evidence under the issue added herein shall be on Telecorpus, Inc.

. and the burden of proof shall be on U- Anchor Broadcasting.

Adopted: September 25,1974.Released: October 2,1974.

F ederal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,“

[ seal ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23270 Filed 10-4-74;8:46 am]

[Docket No. 20198; FCC 74-1016] UNITED VIDEO, INC.

Memorandum Opinion and Order Instituting Investigation

In the matter of United Video, Inc. Revised Rates for Microwave Service; Tariff F.C.C. No. 4, Transmittal Nos. 44 and 45.

1. The Commission has before it (a) Transmittal Letters Nos. 44 and 45 of United Video, Inc. (United), and the accompanying revised tariff pages filed July 31, 1974 to become effective Oc­tober 1, 1974; (b) Petitions by Liberty TV Cable, Inc. (Liberty) and Quint- Cities Cablevision, Inc. (Quint) to sus­pend and investigate the proposed tariff revisions; (c) Liberty’s Petition to Re­ject1 the proposed tariff revisions and

1 Although the Chief, Common Carrier Bu­reau generally acts pursuant to delegated authority on such petitions we shall con­sider this petition herein.

its reply to United’s opposition thereto and; (d) United’s Opposition to the sus­pension petitions.

“ Board member Kessler absent.

2. These revised tariffs constitute a major revision in United’s rate structure applicable to the delivery of the signals of seven Chicago, Illinois, television sta­tions to cable television systems in Illi­nois and Iowa. All fourteen cable tele­vision system customers’ monthly rates will be increased by the proposed tariffs. The increases vary in amounts ranging up to about 140 percent in the case of service to Moline, Illinois where the in­crease is from $1950 to $4600 a month. . The overall effect of the tariff submissionis to increase United’s revenues from $20,800 to $28,057 a month or about 35 percent.

3. United has submitted cost and other supporting data in response to the re­quirements of § 61.38 of our rules, in­cluding a statement describing United’s decision to make a re-evaluation of its services and pricing policies in the light of current and future expected market conditions. Among other things, United has decided to divide its service points into two geographical zones and to vary the charges not only to distance but also, in part, by the “population” of the areas being served. The revised tariffs reflect the results of United’s new pricing meth­od. Accordingly to United’s data, its re­turn on a net investment of $1.12 million was 2.3 percent in fiscal 1974 (ending May 31, 1974) and it projects a return of 6.9 percent in 1975, 11.2 percent in 1976, and 11.1 percent in 1977, assuming the new rates become effective on Octo­ber 1,1974:

4. For the reasons to follow we shall deny Liberty’s petition to reject, suspend the rate increases for the maximum nine­ty-day statutory period, set these pro­posed revisions for investigation, but shall defer adopting specific procedures therefor until such time as the issues in In the Matter of ATR ’s Revised Rates for Microwave Service, Docket No. 19609, 37 FCC 2d 751 (1972) ,* are resolved or until further order of the Commission.

5. Liberty alleges two grounds for re­jection. First, Liberty alleges that United’s proposal to increase its rate to $1,325 monthly is a breach of a previ­ously executed 1971 contract between the parties wherein a monthly rate of $950 was specified for a ten year period. Liberty claims that United may not uni­laterally abrogate such contract by the device of a tariff filing and cites in sup­port of its argument the Commission’s Bell System Tariff Offering Decision wherein the Commission stated that “ neither common law nor the Act au­thorizes Bell unilaterally to alter its con­tracts with Western Union” and that Bell’s ‘‘act of filing tariffs which seek

»American Television Relay, Inc. (ATR) filed increases in its rates for microwave serv­ice, averaging 35 percent, to cable operators in the southwestern United States. We sus­pended the increases and instituted an in­vestigation into such rates due to the unique rate structure employed by ATR which based rates, in part, upon the population of the communities served by the operators and also upon which particular geographic zone an operator might be located in.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36052 NOTICES

to change and modify the terms of a con­tract is a nullity.” 8 Liberty also contends that the public interest, as well as basic morality, requires that the contract in question be enforced by thé Commission. Liberty’s second ground for rejection is that United has failed to comply with § 61.38 of the Commission’s Rules. In this regard Liberty alleges, among other things, that (a) United has failed to clearly show how its rate-making phi­losophy has been applied to produce the proposed rates; (b) United has unrea­sonably allocated various corporate xe- penses such as general and administra­tive costs to the Northern Ulinois-Iowa portion of its total operations and; (c) United has failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of its depreciation and amortization charges and allocated interest expense. In its opposition,' United alleges, among other things, that the Bell System Tariff Offering Deci­sion, which, in part, concerned exchange of facilities contracts between two com­mon carriers, does not apply to contracts between'a common carrier and its non­common carrier customer as is the case here. Further, United alleges that the same contract which Liberty claims was breached contains a provision* which placed Liberty on notice that the con­tract was subject to the effective tariff on file with the Commission. In response to Liberty’s second ground United al­leges, among other things, that it has fully complied with the requirements of § 61.38 and that Liberty’s arguments for rejection do not demonstrate that cru­cial information is lacking but merely question the information that was pre­sented.

6. In our opinion, Liberty has not made a showing to justify rejection of this tariff. The grounds upon which we may reject and return tariffs submitted to us for filing are <1> failure to publish an effective date that meets the require­ments of section 203 of the Act or our rules thereunder; (2) lack of required authority to implement a proposed tariff offering (Matter of Press Wireless, Inc., 25 F.C.C. 1466 (1958), Matter o f RCA C om m u n ic a tio n s , 34 F.C.C. 171 (1963), and Western Telephone System Inc., F.C.C. 64-974, released October 29, 1964) ; and (3) prima facie unlawfulness such as demonstrably conflicts with the Communications Act or a Commission rule, regulation or order. (Associated Press v. F.C.C., 448 F.2d 1095 and In the Matter of American Telephone and Tele­graph Company, 487 F.2d 865 at 880).

3 Bell System Tariff Offerings of Local Dis­tribution Facilities to Other Common Car­riers, Docket No. 19896, 46 F.C.C. 2d 413, 433— 434 (1974).

* Paragraph 21 of the Liberty-United service agreement provides in pertinent part that “ * * * CARRIER and CUSTOMER agree that all service rendered by the CARRIER will be subject to the provisions of its effec­tive Tariff as filed with the Federal Commu­nications Commission. All provisions of this Agreement are to be construed in light of the then-effective Tariff • •

Liberty’s claim that we should reject this tariff because the filed rate increase con­stitutes a breach of a previously exe­cuted contract between it and United set­ting forth a lower rate is without merit since the same contract put liberty on notice that the service and rates were governed by the tariff, not the contract.5 Moreover, in any event, with respect to common carrier service offerings to non­carrier customers, the effective rates, practices, and regulations are those which appear in the carrier’s tariff on file with the Commission and such tariff, the Commission’s rules, and the Act itself, are applicable as a matter of law, notwith­standing any conflicting provision ap­pearing in an agreement executed by the carrier with its customer. Our view in this regard is In accord with (he appellate decision of the court of appeals on our Bell System Tariff Offering Decision wherein the court made clear the distinction between contracts between carriers, which were before it, and con­tracts between carriers and non-car­rier customers, which were not before it.® With respect to Liberty’s argument that United has failed to ¿omply with § 61.38 o f our rules we note that the purpose of such section is * * * to elicit information and data which will facilitate the Com­mission’s judgment as to whether such proposed tariffs present questions of law­fulness which warrant our investigation and hearing” (40 F.C.C. 2d 149 at 153). In the present case United is in sub­stantial compliance with § 61.38 and its showing suffices for an appropriate Commission disposition of this filing. To the extent Liberty claims that United’s tariff is unlawful upon its face, and it appears it does, we note that although the proposed tariff raises questions of lawfulness that should be resolved by further investigation and hearing, that is quite different from concluding that the tariffs are unlawful on their face so as to warrant summary rejection and return to United. Accordingly, we shall deny Liberty’s petition to reject.

7. Liberty makes essentially the same arguments in its suspension petition as it does in its petition for rejection. The essence of Quint’s petition for suspension is that the proposed tariffs are unlawful under sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act because, among other things, (a) United has failed to demonstrate what would be a just and reasonbale rate of return for its service; (b) United’s pro­posed rate structure unduly discrimi­nates against larger communities; (c) United has failed to satisfy the require­ments of § 61.38 in that it is impossible to make a judgment from United’s § 61.38 data whether the costs which United claims are, or will be, necessary and prudently incurred and; (d) United is contractually bound not to increase its rates to its customers. In its responsive

8 Supra, note 3.• The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsyl­

vania v. F.C.C., F.2d (1974), Slip Opinion of September 11,1974, Case No. 74—1386.

pleading United (a) denies the allega­tions o f Liberty and Quint; (b) alleges that it has fully complied with § 61.38;(c) alleges that its projected average return of 9.7 percent over the next three years is fair and reasonable; (d) alleges that its various allocations of costs are fair, rational and consistent and; (e) alleges that Liberty and Quint both agreed that the tariff would be para­mount and controlling.

8. Upon consideration of the previous tariff rates, the proposed tariff rates, United’s § 61.38 material, and the plead­ings of the parties we are of the opinion that questions of lawfulness are raised as to whether the proposed tariffs are lawful within the meaning of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act. The ques­tions of lawfulness raised by this tariff filing are generally the same as those under consideration in Docket No. 19609.* United’s rate structure, like the one under investigation in Docket No. 19609, is based, in part, upon novel rate­making theories that appear to depart from cost of service including the imposi­tion of charges based upon potential market penetration but without regard to the actual market development by any particular cable system. Moreover, United’s rate structure utilizes popula­tion and geographic zones in much the same manner as does the rate structure subject to investigation in Docket No. 19609. Although we believe that United is in substantial comnliance with the requirements of § 61.38 we do find that some questions of lawfulness are raised by the material submitted. For example, a question is raised as to whether it is proper for United to include in its rate base a dollar amount, some $26,000, rep-

' resenting a covenant not to compete and to amortize such amount as an expense borne by the ratepayors. Further, a ques­tion exists as to whether the rate of return claimed by United Is just and reasonable. In view of the foregoing, we shall suspend the effectiveness of the proposed tariff changes for the maximum ninety-day statutory suspension period, order an investigation into the lawful­ness of such tariff changes, and impose an accounting order providing for pos­sible refunds. However, we shall defer establishing procedures for such investi­gation during the pendency of the pro­ceeding in Docket No. 19609 because a resolution of the issues in that Docket will undoubtedly lead to resolution of many similar issues before us herein.* Such deferral will enable, the parties to avoid wasteful and duplicative efforts and allow for more efficient use of limited

t Questions of lawfulness before us in Docket No. 19609 include, among others, W whether, and, if so, to what extent is it ’aT" ful to charge higher microwave rates ~ cable operators serving larger commun while charging lower rates to operator? serv­ing smaller communities and; (b ) W” f «id , if so, to what extent, is it lawful to charge higher rates to operators loca m e geographic zone while charging rates to operators located in another g graphic zone.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36053

Commission resources. When the pro­ceedings in Docket No. 19609 are con­cluded the parties herein may file plead­ings with the Commission setting forth .what procedures or relief they believe may be appropriate in light of the reso­lution of issues in Docket No. 19609.

9. Accordingly, it is ordered, That, pur­suant to sections 4 (i), 4 (j), 201, 202, 204, 205, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, an investigation is instituted into the lawfulness of the tariff schedules filed by United Video, Inc. with Transmittal Nos. 44 and 45, in­cluding any cancellations, amendments or re-issues thereof.

10. It is further ordered, That, pursu­ant to the provisions of Section 204 of the Act, the revised tariff Schedules filed by United Video, Inc. and submitted with Transmittal Nos. 44 and 45 are hereby suspended until December 30, 1974 and that United Video, Inc., as to the opera­tion of such tariff schedules shall, in the case of all increased charges and until further order of the Commission, keep accurate account of all amounts received by reason of such increases, specifying by whom and in whose behalf such amounts were paid, and upon completion of the hearing and decision therein, the Commission may by further order, re­quire the refund thereof, with interest, pursuant to section 204 of the Act, and the carrier shall file such reports on the amounts accounted for as the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau shall require.

11. It is further ordered, That, without in any way limiting the scope of the in­vestigation, it shall include consideration of the following:

(1) Whether the charges, classifica­tions, practices and regulations published in the aforesaid tariffs are or will be un­just and unreasonable within the mean­ing of Section 201(b) of the Act;

(2) Whether such charges, classifica­tions, practices and regulations will, or could be applied to, subject any person or class of persons to unjust or unrea­sonable discrimination or give any undue or unreasonable preference or prejudice to any person, class of persons, or locality, within the meaning of section 202(a) of the Act;

(3) If any such charges, classifications, practices, or regulations are found to be unlawful, whether the Commission, pur­suant to section 205 of the Act, should Prescribe charges, classifications, prac­tices and regulations for the service gov­erned by the tariffs, and if so, what should be prescribed.

12. It is further ordered, That, pursu­ant to section 4(j) of the Act hearings in this investigation are deferred during the Pendency of the proceeding in Docket No. 19609 or until further Commission order.

13. It is further ordered, That, United Video, Inc. is made a party Respondent »erern and that Liberty T.V. Cable, Inc. “Pd Quint-Cities Cablevision, Inc. are ™ade parties pursuant to § 1.221(d) of

"PPHdission rules, and that all other mo j ec* Persons wishing to participate ‘Pay do so by filing a notice of intention

to participate within 20 days of the re­lease date of this order.

14. I t is further ordered, That, Liberty T.V. Cable, Inc.’s petition to reject is denied, and that the suspension petitions of Liberty T.V. Cable, Inc. and Quint- Cities Cablevision, Inc. are granted to the extent indicated herein and are otherwise denied.

Adopted: September 25,1974.Released: October 1,1974.

.Federal C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,

[ se al ] V in c e n t J. M u l l in s ,Secretary,

[FR Doc.74-23273 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 ami

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION[Docket No. RP71-122]

ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO.Extension of Time

S eptem ber 30, 1974.On September 27,1974, Arkansas Lou-

isana Gas Company, pursuant to § 1.31 of the Commission rules of practice and procedure, filed a motion for an exten­sion of time in which to file their Brief Opposing Exceptions. The motion states that the parties that have filed briefs on exceptions have no objections to this motion.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the date for filing Briefs Op­posing Exceptions is extended to and in­cluding October 25, 1974.

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23205 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. ID-17431

ARTHUR EUGENE LUNDVALL, JR.Initial Application

S eptem ber 19,1974.Take notice that on September 9,1974,

Arthur Eugene Lundvall, Jr. (Applicant) filed an initial application with the Fed­eral Power Commission. Pursuant to sec­tion 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, Applicant seeks authority to hold the following positions:

Vice President, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Public Utility.

Director, Safe Harbor Water Power Cor­poration, Public Utility.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. This Company was incorporated on June 20, 1906, under the laws of the State of Maryland. It has its principal places of business at Gas and Electric Building, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21203. The Company is primarily en­gaged in the business of producing purchasing, and selling electricity, and purchasing and selling natural gas with­in the State of Maryland where all its properties are located, except that the Company is an owner as a tenant in com­mon with other utilities of the Keystone and Conemaugh mine-mouth electric generating stations located in the coal­

fields of western Pennsylvania together with related facilities. The Company also interchanges electric energy with utili­ties in other states. Other business of the Company includes sale of gas and elec­tric appliances and the production and sale of steam in downtown Baltimore City.

Safe Harbor Water Power Corpora­tion. This Company was incorporated on January 6, 1930, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It has its principal place of business at R.D. 2, Conestoga, Lancaster County, Pennsyl­vania 17516. Safe Harbor owns and operates a hydroelectric powerplant lo­cated in the Susquehanna River in Penn­sylvania. The output of the plant is sold to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and Pennsylvania Power & Light Com­pany in the proportions of % and y3, re­spectively.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before October 8, 1974 file with the Federal Power Com­mission, Washington, D.C. 20426, peti­tions to intervene or protests in accord­ance with the requirements of the Com­mission’s rules ot practice and procedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate ac­tion to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the pro­ceeding. Persons wishing to become par­ties to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file petitions to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules. The application is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23312 Filed 10-4-74:8:45 am]

[Docket No. E-9022]

BOSTON EDISON CO. ET AL.Application

S eptem ber 19,1974.Take notice that on September 16,

1974, Boston Edison Company (Boston Edison) and New Bedford Gas and Edi­son Light Company (New Bedford) filed a joint application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for ap­proval of an authority for the purchase by New Bedford and the sale by Boston Edison of a 20 percent undivided interest in the latter’s electric transmission facil­ities extending from a connection with the transmission lines of Blackstone Valley Electric Company at the Rhode Island/Massachusetts state line (BurriU- ville, Rhode Island-Uxbridge, Massachu­setts) to Boston Edison’s West Medway substation #446 in the Town of Medway, Massachusetts.

The Applicants are incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massa­chusetts, Boston Edison being engaged in the electric utility business and New Bedford being engaged in the electric

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36054 NOTICESutility business and the gas utility busi­ness.

Boston Edison serves 40 cities and towns in the greater Boston area. New Bedford serves 41 communities in south­eastern Massachusetts.

Boston Edison and New Bedford have entered into a Joint Ownership Agree­ment approved by their respective stock­holders and directors, under which Boston Edison will sell and New Bedford will purchase 20 percent undivided in­terest in the said transmission line seg­ment, its land rights and associated facil­ities.

The purchase price will be 20 percent of the cost of constructing said line seg­ment, plus 20 percent of the cost of its land rights and associated facilities, or approximately $900,000. Boston Edison will operate and maintain said assets for the benefit of both Applicants and New Bedford will pay 20 percent of the cost thereof.

Applicants have received approval of the proposed purchase and sale from the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before October 11, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, petitions to intervene or protests in ac­cordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure <18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10). All pro­tests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the ap­propriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Persons wishing to be­come parties to a proceeding or to par­ticipate as a party in any hearing therein must file petitions to intervene in ac­cordance with the Commission’s rules. The application is on file with the Com­mission and is available for public in­spection.

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23311 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am}

1 Docket No. RP 74-99}

CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORP. Extension of Procedural Dates

S epte m b e r 30. 1974. On September 23, 1974, Staff Counsel

filed a motion to extend the procedural dates fixed by order issued August 1,1974, as modified by notice issued Septem­ber 5,1974, in the above-designated mat­ter. Counsel stated that all parties had been notified and had no objection.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the procedural dates in the above matter are modified as follows:Service of Staff’s Testimony, November 1,

1974.Service o f Intervenor’s Testimony, Novem­

ber 18, 1974.Service of Company’s Testimony, Decem­

ber 6, 1974.

Hearing, December 18, 1974 (10:00 aon4 e.d.t.).

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23197 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am}

[Docket No. CP73-329]

CHATTANOOGA GAS CO., INC.Proposed PGA Rate Adjustment

S eptem ber 30,1974.Take notice that on September 13,

1974, Chattanooga Gas Company (Chat­tanooga) tendered for filing proposed changes to Original Volume No. 1 of its FPC Gas Tariff to be effective on Octo­ber 11, 1974, consisting of the following revised tariff sheet:

S e v e n th R evised S heet No. 6Chattanooga states that the sole pur­

pose of this revised tariff sheet is to ad­just Chattanooga’s LNG rates pursuant to the PGA provision in § 5 of the general terms and conditions of its FPC Tariff to reflect the underlying rate decrease filed for by Southern Natural Gas Com­pany on August 27, 1974 pursuant to Ar­ticle m of the Stipulation and Agree­ment approved by the Commission’s order dated July 23; 1973 in Southern’s Docket No. RP72-91 (Phase I I ) , et al. Chattanooga states that the proposed change would decrease the commodity and one-part rates of Southern by .2130 per MCF resulting from reductions in the levels of advance payments of $10,129,248 below the advance payment levels presently reflected in Southern’s rates, and that the reduction in jurisdic­tional cost due to net increases and de­creases in advance payments is $1,276,- 387. Southern Natural Gas Company states that the proposed effective date of the underlying decrease is October 11, 1974.

Chattanooga requests that its Seventh Revised Sheet No. 6 be made effective on October 11, 1974, the same effective date of a proposed decrease by South­ern Natural Gas Company.

Chattanooga states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all of its juris­dictional customers.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Power Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with §§ 1.8 and 1.10 of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such peti­tions or protests should be filed on or before October 7, 1974. Protests will be considered by the Commission in deter­mining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make pro­testants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23194 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. CP75-91]CITIES SERVICE GAS CO.

ApplicationO cto ber 1,1974.

Take notice that on September 20, 1974, Cities Service Gas Company (Ap­plicant) , P.O. Box 25128, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125, filed in Docket No. CP75-91 an application pursuant to sec­tion 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and § 157.7(e) of the regulations thereunder for permission and approval to abandon service to unspecified direct sale cus­tomers and to remove direct sales meas­uring, regulating, and related minor facilities no longer required for deliveries to Applicant’s customers during the cal­endar year 1975, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Applicant states that the purpose of this budget-type application is to enable applicant to act with reasonable dispatch in abandoning service and removing di­rect sales measuring, regulating and re­lated minor facilities no longer required for deliveries to Applicant’s customers.

Applicant states that under the au­thorization requested in this application it will not abandon any direct sale serv­ice unless it has received a written re­quest, or written permission, from the customer to terminate service, and that deliveries to any one direct sale customer through sales measuring facilities to be abandoned will not have exceeded100,000 Mcf annually during the last year of service.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before Octo­ber 23, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in ac­cordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and the regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a petition to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority-contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Power Commission by §§ 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Com­mission’s rules of practice and procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission on this application if no petition to intervene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter finds that permission and ap­proval for the proposed abandonment are required by the public convenience and necessity. I f a petition for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Com" mission on its own motion believes that

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36055a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for applicant to appear or be represented at thè hearing.

K enneth F. Plumb, Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23201 Filed 10-4-74;8:46 am]

¡Docket No. CP75-98]

CITIES SERVICE GAS CO.Application

October 1, 1974.Take notice that on September 24,

1974, Cities Service Gas Company (Ap­plicant) , P.O. Box 25128, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125, filed in Docket No. CP75-98 an application pursuant to sec­tion 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, as im­plemented by § 157.7(b) of the regula­tions thereunder (18 CFR 157.7(b)), for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction during the calendar year 1975 and opera­tion of certain natural gas facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

The stated purpose of this budget-type application is to augment applicant’s ability to act with reasonable dispatch in contracting for and connecting to its pipeline system supplies of natural gas in various producing areas generally co­extensive with said system.

Applicant states that the total cost of the proposed facilities will not exceed $4,000,000, with not single project to exceed $1,000,000. Applicant states that the proposed facilities will be financed from treasury cash.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before Octo­ber 24, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C., 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in ac­cordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro-cedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and the regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the Protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a Party in any hearing therein must file a petition to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject t? the jurisdiction conferred upon the federal Power Commission by §§ 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Com­mission’s rules of practice and procedure, a bearing will be held without further notice before the Commission on this application if no petition to intervene is hied within the time required herein, if "ie Commission on its own review of the

matter finds that a grant of the certifi­cate is required by the public conven­ience and necessity. I f a petition for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Com­mission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.

Under the procedine herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for applicant to appear or be represented at the hearing.

K enneth F. P lumb,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23202 Filed 10-4r-74;8:45 ami

[Docket No. CP75-88]

COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION CO.Application

September 30, 1974.Take notice that on September 19,

1974, Columbia Gulf Transmission Com­pany (Applicant), P.O. 683, Houston, Texas 77001, filed in Docket No. CP75-88 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon approximately 1,575 feet of 12-inch supply line and a measuring statiop, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Applicant proposes to abandon facili­ties used to receive gas produced by Shell Oil Company (Shell) in the East Cam­eron Block 17 and East Cameron Block 17 (South) Fields, offshore Louisiana. Applicant states that the subject facili­ties were constructed to take gas for the account of Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), successor in interest to United Fuel Gas Supply Com­pany, from properties in Louisiana. Ap­plicant further states that the wells con­nected to the subject facilities are no longer capable of producing gas, that the reservoirs in which they were com­pleted are fully depleted, that the gas purchase contracts relating to sales by the producer from the subject fields have been terminated by a cancellation agree­ment executed by Columbia and Shell, and that Shell has filed for permission and approval to abandon said sales in Docket Nos. CI75-17 and CI75-18.

Applicant intends to abandon the field lines in place, but to attempt to salvage certain valves and other above-ground facilities, which will result in an esti­mated salvage value of $11,860.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before Octo­ber 21, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in ac­cordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and the regu­lations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the pro­

testants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a petition to intervene in accordance with the Com­mission’s rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Power Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission on this application if no petition to inter­vene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own re­view of the matter finds that permission and approval for the proposed aban­donment are required by the public con­venience and necessity. I f a petition for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion be­lieves that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Applicant to appear or be represented at the hearing.

K enneth F. P lumb, Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23193 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket Nos. RP74-22; RP74-23]

EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. AND NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP.

Extension of TimeSeptember 27, 1974.

On September 24, 1974, El Paso Natu­ral Gas Company filed a motion to ex­tend the dates for filing briefs on excep­tions and briefs opposing exceptions as prescribed by § 1.31 of the Commission’s rules o f ' practice and procedure. Staff Counsel and Northwest Pipeline concur in the motion .

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the dates for all parties filing briefs on exceptions is extended to Octo­ber 29,1974, and the date for filing briefs opposing exceptions is extended to No­vember 18,1974.

K enneth F. P lumb, Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23207 Filed 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

[Docket Nos. CP73-334; CP74-289]EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO.

Amendment to Application■ September 19, 1974.

Take notice that dn August 30, 1974, El Paso Natural Gas Company (Appli­cant), P.O. Box 1492, El Paso, Texas 79978, filed in Docket No. CP73-334 a third supplement to a petition to amend the order of the Commission heretofore issued irf said docket, pursuant to sec­tion 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, onOctober 10, 1973 (50 FPC ----- ), so asto provide additional data necessary to

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36056 NOTICES

support Applicant’s request for author­ization to permit the withdrawal of gas and utilization of Rhodes Reservoir as necessary for the protection of Appli­cant’s east-of-California customers' Priority 1 and 2 requirements (Priority Customers) commencing with the 1974- 75 heating season. Take further notice that, concurrently, Applicant filed in Docket No. CP74—289 an amendment to its application filed in said docket pur­suant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, so as to reflect certain changes in the proposed special operating arrange­ments among Applicant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE) and South­ern California Gas Company (SoCal) necessary to enable Applicant to protect said Priority Customers. Applicant’s proposals are fully set forth in the sup­plement and amendment which are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Applicant states that by order issued in Docket No. CP74-289,1 it was granted a temporary certificate so as to permit implementation of special operation ar­rangements with PGandE and SoCal designed to assist Applicant in maintain­ing reliable service to its priority cus­tomers during the 1974-75 heating season. Generally, the special operating arrangements provided that Applicant, by reducing daily deliveries of gas to its low priority of service east-of-Califomia customers, could obtain and deliver up to25.000 Mcf of gas (advance sale gas) to PGandE, above those quantities of gas which PGandE would otherwise receive from Applicant. Applicant then had the right, subject to PGand E’s consent, to reduce, by a maximum of 300,000 Mcf, daily deliveries to PGandE below the volumes PGandE would otherwise re­ceive. In addition, SoCal had agreed to an operating arrangement whereby in the event the special operating arrange­ments were not possible with PGandE, Applicant would divert a portion of deliveries to SoCal by a maximum of300.000 Mcf per day, below the quanti­ties of gas which SoCal would otherwise receive, during the period November 1, 1974, through April 30, 1975, provided that the outstanding accumulative total reduction in deliveries at any one time did not exceed 1,500,000 Mcf.

Applicant states that, subsequent to the execution of such special operating arrangements, it has been informed by PGandE that certain unforeseen opera­tional restraints exist on PGandE’s sys­tem which reduce the forecasted storage capacity available for use in conjunc­tion with said special operating arrange­ments and, consequently, PGandE can now only accept a quantity of advance sale gas of up to 14,800,000 Mcf. Applicant states that in consideration of the re­straints on PGandE’s system, Applicant has entered into letter agreements with PGandE and SoCal dated August 16, 1974, and August 20, 1974, respectively, to provide for the modification of the

1 By letter from the Commission dated June 21, 1974.

special operating arrangements to re­flect the required reduction in deliveries of advance sale gas to PGandE and to change the operational requirement of SoCal’s diverted deliveries for utilization as needed for the protection of Appli­cant’s priority customers’ requirements. Accordingly, Applicant amends its ap­plication in Docket No. CP74-289 to pro­vide for modification of the special op­erating arrangements.

To augment the reduced deliveries of advance sale gas to PGandE, Applicant requests the Commission, by petition filed June 11, 1974, to amend the order issued October 10, 1973, in Docket No. CP73- 334 so as to extend the authorizations thereby granted to permit Applicant to extend the withdrawal period and to withdraw gas stored in Rhodes Reservoir as may be required during the 1974-75 heating season to protect its Priority Customers. Pursuant to Applicant’s first and second supplements to said petition to amend, Applicant was granted a tem­porary certificate to increase the author­ized maximum inventory of gas in the Rhodes Reservoir to 25,866,000 Mcf and to increase its present maximum daily deliverability from 63,000 Mcf to 123,000 Mcf. Applicant points out, however, that such temporary certificate did not au­thorize the withdrawal of gas from Rhodes Reservoir or the delivery and sale of such gas in interstate commerce. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Commission permit Applicant to with­draw gas from and to use the Rhodes Reservoir as necessary, for the protection of Applicant’s priority customers during the 1974-75 heating season.

Applicant now estimates that with­drawal operations of the Rhodes Reser­voir, together with peaking service to be provided by Total, will be sufficient to protect Applicant’s Priority Customers. Applicant proposes to apply a surcharge amount of 0.66 cent per Mcf to the Priority 1 and 2 scheduled requirements of its east-of-California distributor and direct sale customers to recover the costs associated with making the stor­age supply available for the 1974-75 heating season.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said supplement to petition to amend or amendment to application should on or before October 10,1974 file with the Fed­eral Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in accordance with the require­ments of the Commission’s rules of prac­tice and procedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and the regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be con­sidered by it in determining the appro­priate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a petition to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules. Any person who has heretofore

filed a protest or petition to intervene need not file again.

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23314 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. RP74—50-1; Docket No. RP74-50-2; Docket No. RP74-50—3; Docket No.RP74—50—4]

FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO. ET AL Extension of Time

S eptem ber 30,1974.On September 26, 1974, Basic Mag­

nesia, Incorporated filed a motion to ex­tend the date for Briefs Opposing Excep­tions beyond that allowed by § 1.31(a) of the rules of practice and procedure of the Commission.

Upon Consideration, notice is hereby given that the date for filing Briefs op­posing Exceptions is extended to and in­cluding October 16,1974.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23196 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. RP74-86] .

GULF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.Extension of Time

S eptem ber 30,1974.On September 24, 1974, Gulf Energy

and Development Corporation filed a motion to extend the date for serving re­buttal evidence as fixed by notice issued August 9, 1974. The motion states that all parties were notified and do not ob­ject.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the date for serving rebuttal evidence in the above matter is extended to and including October 7, 1974. The hearing date will remain October 15, 1974.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23191 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. CP73-191]

HIGH PLAINS NATURAL GAS CO. Petition To Amend

S eptem ber 20, 1974.Take notice that on September 12,

1974, High Plains Natural Gas Company (Petitioner), P.O. Box 2263, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501, filed in Docket No. CP73-191 a petition to amend the order Issued in said docket on April 13, 1973 (49 FPC 1000), pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act by authorizingPetitioner to exchange natural gas vith Transwestem Pipeline Company [ Trans western) during the 1974-75 and 1975-76 winter heating seasons, all as nore fully set forth in the petition to amend which is on file with the Com- nission and open to public inspection.

By the order of April 13, 1973, Peti­tioner was authorized to exchange latural gas with Transwestem pursuant

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36057to an exchange agreement dated Janu­ary 15, 1973. Under this agreement, Transwestern delivered up to 1,000 Mcf of gas per day to Petitioner at a point near Spearman, Texas, and Petitioner redelivered within 30 days 105 percent of the amount actually received to Trans­western at a point near Magic City, Texas. Petitioner relates that this agree­ment was intended to meet emergency winter peaking demands and covered only the 1972-73 and 1973-74 winter heating seasons as Petitioner planned to meet its future emergency needs by con­structing a butane peak shaving plant. Petitioner states that plans for such a plant are no longer practical in light of the radically altered supply of butane. Petitioner, therefore, proposes to renew its winter season gas exchange with Transwestern pursuant to an amend­ment dated August 1, 1974, to the ex­change agreement, which amendment provides for the exchange o f up to 1,500 Mcf of gas per day on a best efforts basis for a term from November 1, 1974, to April 1, 1975, and from November 1, 1975, to April 1,1976.

Petitioner submits that this proposal will not require construction of new pipeline facilities. Petitioner requests that the authority sought herein be con­ditioned consistent with the April 13, 1974, order except: (1) The proposed exchange will terminate April 1, 1976, and (2) the certificate shall not apply to the facilities used in receiving the de­liveries from Transwestem.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said petition to amend should on or before October 15, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washing­ton, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in accordance with the re­quirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and the regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to Participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a petition to intervene m accordance with the Commission’s rules.

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23318 Filed 10-4-74;8 :45 am]

[Docket No. E-9023]

INTERSTATE POWER CO. Proposed Rate Change

September 30, 1974. Take notice that on September 19,

Riot ’1 /^erstate Power Company (Inter- *fndered for filing a proposed

^s wholesale electric rate to ar« ^CUsi°mers. All of such customers M i « ™ clpalities *n Illinois, Iowa, and

nnes°ta. According to the Company,

the proposed change would increase revenues by $197,001.51, based on the 12- month period ending July 31,1974.

Interstate states that the increase is proposed in order to compensate for the decline in its rate of return due to in­creased costs of operation and to the general effects of inflation. The Company seeks an effective date of October 20, 1974, requesting that the proposed rate be permitted to become effective follow­ing a one day suspension.

Interstate states that copies of this filing have been mailed to the mayors of each of the municipalities involved and to the Iowa and Illinois State Commerce Commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Power Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with §§ 1.8 and 1.10 of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such peti­tions or protests should be filed on or before October 7, 1974. Protests will be considered by the Commission in deter­mining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protest­ants parties to the proceeding. Any per­son wishing to become a party must file a petition to intervene. Copies of this fil­ing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23195 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. ID-1742]

M. H. LEWIS Initial Application

S eptem ber 19, 1974.Take notice that on August 29, 1974,

M. H. Lewis (Applicant) filed an initial application with the Federal Power Commission. Pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, Applicant seeks authority to hold the following positions:Vice President, Kentucky Utilities Co., Public

Utility.Vice President and Director, Old Dominion

Power Co., Public Utility.

Kentucky Utilities Company ( “Ken­tucky” ) has its principal place of busi­ness at 120 South Limestone Street, Lex­ington, Kentucky.

It is an operating public utility com­pany supplying electric service in 78 counties located in central, southeastern and western Kentucky and one adjoin­ing county in northwestern Tennessee.

Old Dominion Power Company ( “Do­minion” ) has its principal place of business in Norton, Virginia.

It is an operating public utility com­pany supplying electric service in five counties located in southwestern Virginia.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before

October 8, 1974 file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, petitions to intervene or protests in accordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10). All pro­tests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Persons wishing to be­come parties to a proceeding or to par­ticipate as a party in any hearing therein must file petitions to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules. The application is on file with the Commission and available for public inspection.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23313 Filed 10-4-74:8:45 am]

[Docket No. CP75-92]

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES CO.Application

O ctober 1,1974.Take notice that on September 20,

1974, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (Ap­plicant) , 400 North Fourth Street, Bis­marck, North Dakota 58501, filed in Docket No. CP75-92 an application pur­suant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to aban­don certain facilities and for a certifi­cate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and opera­tion of certain facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Applicant proposes the construction and operation, of the following facilities:

(1) In 1975, one Solar 1200 HP com­pressor set and one Solar 3,500 HP com­pressor set at the existing Cabin Creek Compressor Plant, Fallon County, Mon­tana;

(2) In 1976, approximately 25.4 miles of 16-inch O.D. natural gas transmis­sion main on the Cabin Creek-to- Bismarck line to replace a like amount of 12%-inch O.D. main in Morton County, North Dakota;

(3) L i 1976, one Solar 1,200 HP com­pressor set at the existing Dickinson Compressor Plant, Stark County, North Dakota; \and the abandoment, by removing and retiring, of the following facilities:

(1) In 1976, approximately 25.4 miles of 12%-inch OD. natural gas transmis­sion main on the Cabin Creek-to- Bismarck line in Morton County, North Dakota.

(2) In 1975, three Ingersoll-Rand 10XG, 180-HP compressors at the exist­ing Cabin Creek Compressor Plant, Fal­lon County, Montana.

Applicant states that the purpose of the facilities proposed herein is to pro­vide for operating at higher pressures and to provide system capacity to meet the need for increased gas flows to serve

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36058 NOTSC^S

1976-77 existing market firm require­ments. The estimated cost of the facili­ties to be constructed is $3,164,600. The estimated net charge to accumulated provision for depreciation of gas plant in service for removal and retirement is $439,423. Applicant states that the cost of said facilities will be financed by in­ternally generated funds and/or short­term bank loans.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before Octo­ber 21, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in ac­cordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and the regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10) . All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the Protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a peti­tion to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Power Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's rules of practice and pro­cedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission on this application if no petition to inter­vene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own re­view of the matter finds that a grant of the certificate and permission and ap­proval for the proposed abandonment are required by the public convenience and necessity. I f a petition for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Com­mission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further no­tice of such hearing will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Applicant to appear or be represented at the hearing.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b ,Secretary.

[FR Doc. 74-23200 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. CP75-59]NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF

AMERICAApplication

S eptem ber 20, 1974.Take notice that on August 28, 1974,

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Applicant), 122 South Mich­igan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60603, filed in Docket No. CP75-59 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate o f public con­venience and necessity authorizing Ap­plicant to construct and operate facili­ties for the receipt into its system of nat­ural gas to be produced from reserves located in the Big Eddy Area, Eddy

County, New Mexico, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Applicant proposes to construct ap­proximately 31 miles of pipeline (23.5 miles of 10-inch line and 7.6 miles of 8- inch line), measuring facilities and a tap connection to receive the gas committed to it under two gas purchase contracts with Perry R. Bass and Bass Enterprises Company in the Big Eddy Area. A l­though Applicant estimates the proved natural gas reserves committed to it by these two contracts to be approximately 22,000,000 Mcf with a deliverability of11,000 Mcf' per day, Applicant has de­signed the proposed line with sufficient capacity (46,000 Mcf per day) to allow for the anticipated acquisition of re­serves in the corridor of the pipeline.

Applicant states that the construction and operation of the proposed line will place Applicant in a position to compete favorably with the intrastate market for new gas reserves and will enable Appli­cant expeditiously to connect newly ac­quired reserves directly to its system. Applicant estimates the total cost of constructing the facilities to be $1,903,- 200 which is to be financed from funds on hand.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before Octo­ber 15, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in ac­cordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and the regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the Protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a-proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a peti­tion to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Fed­eral Power Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Com­mission’s rules of practice and procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission on this ap­plication if no petition to intervene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter finds that a grant of the certifi­cate is required by the public conven­ience and necessity. I f a petition for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Com­mission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further no­tice of such hearing will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Applicant to appear or be represented at the hearing.

K e n n e t h E. P l u m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23317 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. E-9025]

NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.First Revised Fuel Clause Filing

Septem ber 30,1974.Take notice that Northern States

Power Company on September 19, 1974, tendered for filing a First Revised Fuel Clause for the Cities of Delano, Fairfax, Glencoe, Janesville, Kenyon, Lake Cry­stal, Le Sueur, Madelia, Marshall, Mel­rose, New Ulm, Redwood Falls, and Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The First Revised Fuel Clause revises the Fuel Clause to comply with Section 35.14 of the Commission’s regulations and applies only to energy supplies from fossil fuel generation and the system heat rate reflects present conditions on North­ern States’ system. The proposed effec­tive date is October 21,1974.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said application should file a peti­tion to intervene or protest with the Fed­eral Power Commission, 825 North Cap­itol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with § § 1.8 and 1.10 of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such peti­tions and protests should be filed on or before October 8, 1974. Protests will be considered by the Commission in deter­mining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make pro­testants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition to intervene. Copies of this application are on file with the Com­mission and are available for public in­spection.

K e n n e t h F. P lu m b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23204 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. E-8999]

ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. New Power Supply Contract; Correction

S eptem ber 17,1974.In the notice of new power supply con­

tract issued September 11,1974 and pub­lished in the F ederal R egister on Sep­tember 19, 1974, 39 FR 33739, please change the requested effective date in the above notice from October 1, 1974, to November 1, 1974.

K e n n e th F. P lum b , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23198 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. E-9001]

ROCKLAND ELECTRIC CO.Order Accepting for Filing and Suspending

Proposed Rate Increase, Rejecting Pro* posed Fuel Adjustment Clause, Estab* lishing Procdures and Granting Inter­ventions

S eptem ber 27,1974.On August 30, 1974, Rockland Electric

Company (REC) filed proposed changes

1 “Supplement No. 3 to Rate Schedul® FPC No. 6 (supersedes supplement No. 2) .

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36059in its rates and charges for wholesale service to the Borough of Park Ridge, New Jersey. The proposed changes in­clude both an increase in fixed rates and a fuel adjustment clause. In its initial filing, REC requested that the effective date of the changes be November 1,1974,. and that the fuel adjustment clause be permitted to go into effect following a one day suspension. On September 4, 1974, REC amended its filing to change the proposed effective date to October 1, 1974.

REC’s proposed changes would add $486,107 to its total revenues,2 yielding a realized rate of return of 9.00%, ac­cording to the Company.

In support of its proposed changes, REC states that it is presently serving the Borough of Park Ridge at a negative rate of return. The increase is necessary, REC contends, in order to provide it with increased revenue needed to meet its in­creased cost of purchased power and to permit it to earn a compensatory return upon its property devoted to serving Park Ridge.

Notice of REC’s filing was issued on September 10,1974, with comments, pro­tests, or petitions to intervene due on or before September 19, 1974. On Septem­ber 4, 1974, a petition to intervene was filed by the Board of Public Works in the Borough of Park Ridge (Park R idge). Park Ridge states that if REC’s proposed rate change is permitted to become effec­tive on October 1, 1974, or following a one day suspension, then Park Ridge will not have sufficient lead time to collect revenues from its customers to meet the increased payments due to REC. Park Ridge also challenges REC’s proposed fuel adjustment clause on grounds that the base cost of fuel, as submitted in the clause, is improperly calculated. For these reasons, Park Ridge prays that REC’s proposed rate change be suspended for five months and that Park Ridge be permitted to intervene in and be made a party to this proceeding.

On September 9,1974, Park Ridge filed an amendment to its petition to inter­vene, requesting that the Commission reject REC’s tendered filing for alleged noncompliance with notice requirements of the Commission’s regulations. Specifi­cally, Park Ridge contends that REC violated the “posting” 3 requirements set forth in § 35.3(a) in failing to mail to Park Ridge a copy of the proposed rate schedule on the same date that REC submitted the schedule for filing with the Commission.* We find that good cause does not exist to reject REC’s filing since Park Ridge has timely filed a peti-,°h to suspend and intervene and its

rights have not been prejudiced by REC's honcompliance with this regulation. Ac­cordingly, we shall deny Park Ridge’s re­quest to reject REC’s filing.

1974 ° n year ending October 81,

“See § 35.3(d) of the regulations. s ° n September 17, 1974, REC filed a re- P nse to Park Ridge’s amendment in which

denied the allegations raised by Park RWge m its pleading.

On September 9,1974, a petition to in­tervene was also filed in Docket No. E- 9001 by the Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey (Public Advocate). The petition contends that REC’s proposed filing is discriminatory, unreasonable, unlawful, and not in the public interest, and prays for a five month suspension of- the filing. The Public Advocate further requests leave to intervene and that he be made a party to this proceeding.

Our review of REC’s filing indicates that certain issues are raised which may require development in evidentiary pro­ceedings. The proposed increases in rates and charges have not been shown to be just and reasonable and may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, preferential or otherwise unlawful. Ac­cordingly, we shall suspend the proposed filing for 45 days until November 15, 1974. Hearing procedures will be estab­lished to determine the justness and reasonableness of said filings/

With regard to REC’s proposed fuel clause, § 35.14(a) (1) of the Commission’s regulations states that the intent of the fuel clause is “ to reflect changes in the fuel component (and fuel only) per kil­owatt hour of delivered energy cost.” The proposed clause, however, would reflect the total cost of economy energy pur­chases rather than reflecting only the cost of fuel included in such purchases. For this reason, we shall reject the fuel clause without prejudice to REC’s right to file a revised fuel clause conforming with the regulations as set forth in § 35.14(a) (1).

The Commission finds.(1) It is necessary and proper in the

public interest and to aid in the enforce­ment of the Federal Power Act that the Commission enter upon a hearing con­cerning the lawfulness of the rate filing in Docket No. E-9001; the proposed filing be accepted for filing and suspended as hereinafter ordered and conditioned.

(2) Participation in this proceeding by the Board of Public Works in the Borough of Park Ridge and the Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey may be in the public interest.

(3) Good cause does not exist to re­ject REC’s filing, as requested by Park Ridge.

(4> Good cause exists to reject REC’s proposed fuel adjustment clause as here­inafter ordered.

The Commission orders.(A ) Pending a hearing and a decision

thereon, REC’s proposed rate increase, exclusive of the fuel adjustment clause, tendered on August 30, 1974, is accepted for filing, suspended for 45 days and the use thereof deferred until November 15, 1974, subject to refund.

(B) Pursuant to the authority of the Federal Power Act, particularly sections 205 and 206 thereof, the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure, and the regulations under thè Federal Power Act (18 CFR Ch. I ) , a public hearing shall be held on February 25, 1975, at 10:00 a.m., e.d.t., in a hearing room of the Federal Power Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, con­

cerning the lawfulness of REC’s rate in­crease, exclusive of the fuel adjustment clause.

(C) On or before January 14,1975, the Commission Staff shall serve its pre­pared testimony and exhibits. Any inter- venor evidence will be filed on or before January 28, 1975. Any rebuttal evidence by Company shall be served on or before February 11, 1975.

(D) Park Ridge’s request that REC’s filing be rejected is hereby denied.

(E) REC’s proposed fuel clause is hereby rejected without prejudice to REC’s right to file a revised fuel clause reflecting only changes in the fuel com­ponent' per kilowatt hour of delivered energy cost, as prescribed by § 35.14(a) (1).

(F) The above-named petitioners are hereby permitted to intervene in this pro­ceeding, subject to the rules and regu­lations of the Commission: Provided, however, That the participation of such intervenors shall be limited to matters affecting rights and interests specifically set forth in their respective petitions to intervene, And provided, further, That the admission of such intervenors shall not be construed as recognition by the Commission that they, or any of them, might be aggrieved because of any order or orders issued by the Commission in this proceeding.

(G ) A Presiding Administrative Law Judge to be designated by the Chief Ad­ministrative Law Judge for that purpose (See Delegation of Authority, 18 CFR 3.5(d)), shall preside at the hearing in this proceeding, shall prescribe relevant procedural matters not herein provided, and shall control this proceeding in ac­cordance with the policies expressed in the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure.

(H ) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the rights of parties to this proceeding regarding the convening of conferences or offers of settlement pursuant to § 1.18 of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure.

(I ) The Secretary shall cause prompt publication of this order in the F ederal R egister .

By the Commission.K e n n e t h F. P l u m b ,

Secretary.[FR Doc.74-23208 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. RP74-41]

TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORP. Proposed Changes in FPC Gas Tariff

September 30, 1974. Take notice that Texas Eastern

Transmission Corporation (Texas East­ern) on September 17, 1974, tendered for filing proposed changes in its FPC Gas Tariff, fourth revised volume No. 1, the following sheets:Third Revised Sheet No. 14.Third Revised Sheet No. 14A.Third Revised Sheet No. 14B.Third Revised Sheet No. 14G.Third Revised Sheet No. 14D.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36060 NOTICES

Texas Eastern states that the sheets are being filed pursuant to the purchased gas cost adjustment provision contained in § 23 of the general terms and con­ditions of Texas Eastern’s FPC Gas Tariff, fourth revised volume No. 1. Texas Eastern further states that the change in Texas Eastern rates proposed by this filing reflects a change in the cost of gas purchased by two of Texas Eastern’s pipeline suppliers, United Gas Pipe Line Company and Southern Natural Gas Company. The proposed ef­fective date of the above tariff sheets is November 1, 1974.

Finally, Texas Eastern states that should the rates of Texas Eastern’s pipe­line suppliers as reflected in this filing be revised, Texas Eastern will file revised substitute tariff sheets in order to prop­erly reflect its November 1, 1974 pipeline supplier rates.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Power Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with §§1.8 and 1.10 of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such petitions or protests should be filed on or before October 10, 1974. Protests will be considered by the Commission in deter­mining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make pro­testants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b , Secretary.

[PB Doc.74-23203 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. E-8746]VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD AND

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Revised Hearing DateS eptem ber 30,1974.

On September 23, 1974, Staff Counsel filed a motion to revise the hearing date fixed by a notice issued September 16, 1974 ‘ in the above-designated matter. The motion states that the participants in the proceedings were notified and agreed.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the hearing date in the above matter is rescheduled for October 30, 1974, at 1 pm., edt.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b ,Secretary.

[PR Doc.74-23199 Filed 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

[Docket No. E-8931]PACIFIC POWER & UGHT CO.

ApplicationS eptem ber 20,1974.

Take notice that on September 16, 1974, Pacific Power & Light Company

(Applicant), a corporation organized un­der the laws of the State of Maine and qualified to transact business in the States of Oregon, Wycaning, Washington, California, Montana and Idaho, with its principal business office at Portland, Ore­gon, filed an application with the Federal Power Commission, pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act, seeking an order authorizing the issuance of $70,- 000,000 in principal amount of its First Mortgage Bonds (New Bonds) and ex­emption from the competitive bidding re­quirements of § 34.1a of the Commission’s regulations.

The New Bonds are to be issued under and pursuant to Applicant’s presently existing Mortgage and Deed of Trust dated as of July 1,1947, to Morgan Guar­anty Trust Company of New York and R. E. Sparrow, as Trustees, as supple­mented and as proposed to be supple­mented by a Twenty-seventh Supple­mental Indenture. The New Bonds will bear interest from October 1, 1974, at a rate'per annum to be fixed and will ma­ture on such date or dates as may be determined after discussions with under­writers.

Applicant has applied to the Commis­sion for exemption from the competitive bidding requirements of § 34.1a of the Commission’s regulations under the Fed­eral Power Act. I f such exemption is granted, Applicant proposes to sell the New Bonds to one or more underwriters upon terms and conditions, including the underwriting spread, to be arrived at subject to Commission approval. I f the application for exemption is denied, Applicant proposes to sell the New Bonds at competitive bidding in accordance with the Applicable requirements of § 34.1a of the Commission’s regulations.

Proceeds from the issuance and sale of the New Bonds will be used to refund $11.43 million of First Mortgage Bonds, 3% percent Series due November 1, 1974, and to retire short-term notes prior to or as they mature.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should, on or before October 16, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, petitions to intervene or protests in ac­cordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and pro­cedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be con­sidered by it in determining the appro­priate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Persons wishing to be­come parties to a proceeding or.to par­ticipate as a party in any hearing therein must file petitions to intervene in ac­cordance with the Commission’s rules. The application is on file with the Com­mission and is available for public in­spection.

K e n n e t h F. P l u m b , Secretary.

[PB Doc.74-23316 Piled 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

[Docket No. CI74—244]

PENNZOIL PRODUCING CO.Petition To Amend Application

S eptem ber 20, 1974.Take notice that on September 3,1974,

Pennzoil Producing Company, 900 South­west Tower, Houston, Texas 77002, filed pursuant to Section 1.11 of the rules of practice and procedure in Docket No. CI74-244 for permission to amend its application which was filed on October 12, 1973, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and § 2.75 of the Com­mission’s general policy interpretations (18 CFR 2.75). The amendment to its application Pennzoil seeks to make, is to reflect a contract amendment which pro­vides (inter alia) for a rate of 80 cents per Mcf for the sale and delivery to United Gas Pipe Line Company (United) for gas produced and delivered offshore Louisiana.

The original application proposed, un­der the optional gas pricing procedure, to sell natural gas to United from Block 186 in the Ship Shoal Area, offshore Lou­isiana, at an initial rate of 47.0 cents per Mcf at 15.025 psia, subject to upward and downward Btu adjustment, pursuant to the terms of a 20-year contract dated August 28, 1973. Said contract provided for fixed escalations of 2.0 cents per Mcf each year. Estimate sales are 110,000 Mcf of gas per month. Additionally, Appli­cant requested pregranted abandonment authorization for said sale.. On December 26,1973, the Commission

issued an order in Docket No. CI74-244 granting interventions to United, the American Public Gas Association, Asso­ciated Gas Distributors, and the Public Service Commission of the State of New York and set the proceeding for hearing. On January 29, 1974, the Commission is­sued an order consolidating-Docket No. CI74-244 with similar applications filed by Tenneco Oil Company in Docket No. CI74-132 and Texaco Inc. in Docket No. CI74-82. Hearing was held in this con­solidated proceeding February 20 and 21, 1974, and an initial decision was rendered by the Presiding Judge April 5, 1974. On .Tilly 3, 1974, the Commission remanded the consolidated proceeding for further hearing which is to commence on Octo­ber 9, 1974.

In its proposed amendment Pennzoil states that on May 25, 1974, it began charging and collecting the initial: con­tract rate of 47 cents per Mcf pursuant to § 2.75 (o) of the Commission’s regula­tions.

All parties heretofore permitted to intervene in Docket No. CI74-244 are, of course, parties for all further proceedings in this docket for the purpose of the dis­position of this contract amendment. Any other person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before October 4,1974, file with the Federal Power Com­mission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a peti­tion to intervene or a protest in accord­ance with the requirements of the Com­mission’s rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) . All protests filed with the Commission will be considered

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES Ox&>0JL

by it in determining the appropriate ac­tion to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the pro­ceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a petition to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules.

K enneth P. P lumb,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23310 Filed 10-4-T4;8:45 am]

[Docket No. C l74-509]

CERTIFICATES, ABANDONMENT OF SERV­ICE, AND PETITIONS TO AMEND CER­TIFICATES1

Notice of ApplicationsS eptember 27,1974.

Take notice that each of the Appli­cants listed herein has filed an applica­tion or petition pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for authorization to sell natural gas in interstate commerce or to abandon service as described herein, all as more fully described in the respec­tive applications and amendments which are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said applications should on or before October 23, 1974, file with the Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, petitions to intervene or protests in accordance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10). A ll pro­tests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the ap­propriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Persons wishing to be­come parties to a proceeding or to par­ticipate as a party in any hearing therein must file petitions to intervene in ac­cordance with the Commission’s rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Power Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the commission's rules of practice and pro- cedure a hearing will be held without urtner notice before the Commission on

au applications in which no petition to intervene is filed within the time required nerem if the Commission on its own re­view of the matter believes that a grant f “ je certificates or the authorization

* *9®. Proposed abandonment is re- 2«. ..by Public convenience and necessity. Where a petition for leave to S ® ® timely filed, or where the

on its own motion believes t w a i?rmal hearing is required, fur- givena°tlCe ° f SUCh hearing will be duly

the procedure herein provided i m « » ess otherwise advised, it will bebeipnSSar3i Applicants to appear or

^Presented at the hearing.K enneth P. P lumb,

Secretary.

solirtoi? n° tice does not provide for con- covered°herer hearlng of the several matters

Docket No. ; Pres-, end , Applicant Purchaser and location P r ice par Mcf suredate filed basa

C174-509.--- - Florida Gas Exploration Co. (oper- Florida Gas Transmission Co.,A 9-18-74» ator) et al., P.O. Box 44, Winter Unknown Pass Field, Orleans

Park, Fla. 32789. Parish, La.CI75-156........ General American Oil Co. of Texas Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line(CI63-886) (Operator) et al., Meadows Bldg., Corp., Southeast Rayne Field,

B 9-10-74 Dallas, Tex. 75206. Lafayette Parish, La.CI75-157—-ir.. Delta Gulf Drilling Co., P.O. Box Texas Gas Transmission Co., South- (G-6331) 2012, Tyler, Tex. 75701. east Carthage Field, Panola

B 9-13-74 County, Tex.CI75-158-------Delta Gulf Drilling Co............ ...... Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Divi-(G-4117) ' sion of Tenneeo Inc., East Alice

B 9-13-74 Field, Jim Wells County, Tex.CI75-159.............. do— .................... ........ . Trunkline Gas Co., Batson Field,(G-g298) Hardin County, Tex.

B 9-13-74CI75-160— ------- ..do.._______________________ Trunkline Gas Co., Lakeside Field,(G-4017) " Jefferson Davis Parish, La.

B 9-13-74CI75-162—......Atlantic Richfield Co., P.O. Box Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Divl-

A 9-16-74 8 2819, Dallas, Tex. 75221. sion of Tenneeo Inc., Bay LizetteArea, Lafourche Parish, La.

CI75-164........ Amarex Funds of Delaware, Inc., Northern Natural Gas Co., Milder(CS7I-870) and Amarko Co., Suite 200, 200 Area, Ellis County, Okla.(CS72-497) North Harvey, Oklahoma City,(CS71-647) Okla. 73102

B 9-16-74Woods Petroleum Carp., 3555 North-

west 58th, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73102

CI75-165.........Chevron Oil Co., Western Division, Mississippi River TransmissionA 9-18-74 « P.O. Box 599, Denver, Colo. 80201. Corp., Mills Ranch (Hunton)

Field, Wheeler County, Tex.C175-166_____ Aztee Oil & Gas Co.,' 2000 First Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

A 9-18-74 National Bank Bldg., Dallas, Tex. Corp., Block 1X8 Field, East75202. Cameron Area, offshore Louisiana.

CI75-167.____Monsanto Co., 5051 Westheimer, United Gas Pipe Line Co., BearA 9-19-74 1300 Post Oak Tower, Houston, Creek Field, Bienville'Parish, La.

Tex. 77027. ^CI75-168_____ Edwin L. Cox et al., 3800 First Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

A 9-16-74 National Bank Bldg., Dallas, Tex. Corp., Mosquito Bay Field, Terre-75202. bonne Parish, La.

CI75-169_____ Edwin L. Cox (successor to Mobil Cities Service Gas Co., Acreage in(CI61-1327) Oil Corp.). Texas County, Okla.

F 9-16-74CI75-170_____ Gulf Oil Corp., P.O. Box 1589, Northern Natural Gas Co., Bass(CI69-923) Tulsa, Okla. 74102. Devonian Field, Pecos County,

B 9-19-74 Tex.CI75-171____ . Atlantic Richfield Co., P.O. Box Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Divi-

A 9-19-747 2819, Dallas, Tex. 75221. sion of Tenneeo Inc., East Guey-dan Field, Vermilion and Acadia Parishes, La.

»»43.86 15.025

Depleted........ .

Depleted___ _„j

Depleted.........3

Depleted_____ 3

Wells plugged and abandoned

> 50.86 15.025

Depleted.........3

»42.76 14.65

»»45.0 15.025

««50.86 15.025

*51.0 15.025

*19.5 14.65

Depleted

*«50.86 15.025

» Being renoticed, because by amendment to application filed Sept. 18, 1974, Applicant requests a higher price in accordance with Opinion No. 699.

* Subject to upward and downward Btu adjustment.* Applicant requests a certificate authorizing the sale of gas from its net interests and not of the volume of gas at­

tributable to the royalty interests.* Applicant proposes to continue the sale of gas authorized in Docket No- CI74-187 to be made at 30.0 cents per

Mcf at 14.65 psia within the contemplation of sec. 2.70 of the Commission’s General Policy and Interpretations (18 CFR 2.70).

* Applicant is willing to accept a certificate in accordance with Opinion No. 699.* Subject to downward Btu adjustment.7 Applicant states that the volume of gas reserves attributable to the royalty interest has been committed to another

pipeline purchaser and Applicant requests a certificate authorizing the sale of gas only from its net interests.Filing code: A—Initial service.

B—Abandonment.C—Amendment to add acreage.D—Amendment to delete acreage.E—Succession.F—Partial succession.

[FR Doc.74-23090 Filed 10-4-74;8:49 am]

[Docket Nos. RI75-34 etc.]

JURISDICTIONAL SALES OF NATURAL GAS

Order Providing for Hearing on and Suspen­sion of Proposed Changes in Rates, and Allowing Rate Changes To Become Ef­fective Subject to Refund1

September 26,1974.Respondents have filed proposed

changes in rates and charges for jurisdic­tional sales of natural gas, as set forth in Appendix A below.

The proposed changed rates and charges may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.

The Commission finds. It is in the public interest and consistent with the

»Does not consolate for hearing or dis­pose of the several matters herein.

Natural Gas Act that the Commission enter upon hearings regarding the law­fulness of the proposed changes, and that the supplements herein be suspended ahd their use be deferred as ordered below.

The Commission orders. (A ) Under the Natural Gas Act, particularly sections 4 and 15, the regulations pertaining thereto (18 CFR Ch. I ) , and the Com­mission’s rules of practice and procedure, public hearings shall be held concerning the lawfulness of the proposed changes.

(B ) Pending hearings and decisions thereon, the rate supplements herein are suspended and their use deferred until date shown in the “Date Suspended Un­til” column. Each of these supplements shall become effective, subject to refund, as of the expiration of the suspension period without any further action by

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36062 NOTICESthe Respondent or by the Commission. Each Respondent shall comply with the refunding procedure required by the Natural Gas Act and § 154.102 of the regulations thereunder.

(C ) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, neither the suspended sup­plements, nor the rate schedules sought to be altered, shall be changed until dis­position of these proceedings or expira­

A p p e n d ix A

tion of the suspension period, which­ever is earlier.

By the Commission.[ seal ] K e n n e t h F . P l u m b ,

Secretary.

DocketNo.

RespondentRate

sched­uleNo.

Sup­ple­mentNo.

Purchaser and producing areaAmount

ofannualincrease

Datefiling

tendered

Effectivedate

unlesssuspended

Date Cents per Mcf*Rate in

effect sub­ject to

refund in docket Nos.

until— Rate in effect

Proposedincreased

rate

RI75-34... Union Oil Co. of Califor­nia.

117 10 El Paso Natural Gas Co. (Aneth Field, San Juan County, Utah) (Rocky Mountain Area).

$337 8-27-74 . 4-19-75 i 26.9714 > 28.0952

RI75-35... Exxon Corp..... .......a 212 22 El Paso Natural Gas Co. (Aneth Area. San Juan County, Utah) (Rocky Mountain Area).

6,761 8-30-74 . 4-20-75 »27.634 »28.785

RI75-36... Amerada Hess Corp------ 95 12 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (Nesson Anticline Area, Wil­liams County, N. Dak., Mon­tana-Dakota Subarea) (Rocky Mountain Area).

370,639 9- 3-74 . 3- 4-75 26.0680 * 32.3508 RI74-180.

l$I75-37... Texaco, Inc..r________ _ 467 3 Colorado Interstate Gas Co. (Oregon Basin Field, Park County, Wyo., Montana-Wyo- ming Sub Area) (Rocky Moun­tain Area).

710 8-30-74 10-31-74 » 27.456 »■*.»30.0529

•Unless otherwise stated, the pressure base is 14.73 lb/ln*a. * Includes a double amount of the contractually due increase in the Wyoming Sever-1 Includes upward Btu adjustment. ance Tax so that taxes on past production may be recovered.2 Increase based on increase in Bureau of Labor Statistics wholesale price index. » The pressure base is 14.65 lb/in’fc.

Texaco’s proposal rate increase exceeds the applicable area ceUing rate in Order No. 435, and it is suspended for one day from the expiration of thé required sixty day notice period. The other rate increases exceed the applicable ceiling rate established by Opinion No. 658, and they are suspended for five months.

Texaco In its filing includes a double amount of the contractually due tax reim­bursement so as to collect tax reimburse­ment On past production as well as on future production. It shall file a rate decrease re­flecting only contractually due tax reim­bursement for future production after tax reimbursement on past production has been recovered.

In regard to any sale of natural gas for which the proposed increased rate is filed under the provisions of Opinion No. 699, is­sued June 21, 1974, in Docket No. R-389-B, no part of the proposed rate increase above the prior applicable area ceiling rate may be made effetcive until the seller submits a statement in writing demonstrating that Opinion No. 699 is applicable to the par­ticular increased rate filing, in whole or in part. The proposed increased rates for which such support shall have been satisfactorily demonstrated prior to September 23, 1974, will be made effective as of June 21, 1974.

[FR Doc.74-23077 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Docket Nos. RI75-38, etc.]JURISDICTIONAL SALES OF NATURAL

GASOrder Providing for Hearing on and Suspen­

sion of Proposed Changes in Rates, and Allowing Rate Changes To Become Ef­fective Subject to Refund1

S eptem ber 27,1974.Respondents have filed proposed

changes in rates and charges for juris­dictional sales of natural gas,, as set forth in Appendix A below.

The proposed changed rates and charges may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.

The Commission finds. It is in the pub­lic interest and consistent with the Nat­ural Gas Act that the Commission enter upon hearings regarding the lawfulness of the proposed changes, and that the supplements herein be suspended and their use be deferred as ordered below.

The Commission orders. (A ) Under the Natural Gas Act, particularly sections 4 and 15, the regulations pertaining

1 Does not consolidate for hearing or dis­pose-of the several matters herein.

thereto (18 CFR Ch. I ) , and the Com­mission’s rules of practice and proce­dure, public hearings shall be held con­cerning the lawfulness of the proposed changes.

(B) Pending hearings and decisions thereon, the rate supplements herein are suspended and their used deferred until date shown in the “Date Suspended Un­til” column. Each of these supplements shall become effective, subject to refund, as of the expiration of the suspension period without any further action by the Respondent or by the Commission. Each Respondent shall comply with the re­funding procedure required by the Nat­ural Gas Act and § 154.102 of the regula­tions thereunder.

(C) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, neither the suspended sup­plements, nor the rate schedules sought to be altered, shall be changed until dis­position of these proceedings or expira­tion of the suspension period, whichever is earlier.By the Commission.

[ seal ! K e n n e t h F. P lu m b ,Secretary.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36063

Appendix A

DocketNo.

RespondentRate

— sched­ule No.

Sup­ple­

mentNo.

Purchaser and producing areaAmount

ofannualincrease

Datefiling

tendered

Effectivedate

unlesssuspended

Date Cents per Mei* effect sub­ject to

refund in docket No.

until— Rateineffect

Proposedincreased

rate

BI75-38.-. Texaco, Inc...___...... 603 2 Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co., Inc. (Alkali Butte Field, Fremont County, Wyo.).

$286,051 8-16-74 6-21-74 (*) 1 • 23.4022 1 49.8884

183 19 El Paso Natural Gas Co. (Aneth Field, San Juan County, Utah, and Flodine Park Field, Monte­zuma County, Colo.).

159,900 8-28-74 6-21-74 (*) •29.8024•28.8870

*«57.8319««55.1324

RI74-94.RI74-94.

183 20 2203,900

8-30-74 4-1-75 *29.8024*28.8870

* 7 32.0216 « 7 30.5270

RI74-94.RI74-94.

RI75-39... Terra Resources In c.... 33 3 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (Poison Creek Field, Fremont County, Wyo.).

1,892 9- 4-74 6-21-74 0 28.6332 « 53.3617

•Unless otherwise stated, the pressure base is 15.025 lb/in2a.* Pressure base is 14.65 lb/in?a.2 Increase to contract rate of 52.75 cents suspended until Nov. 24,1974, in Docket

to. It174-257.• Accepted effective as of date set forth in “Effective Date Unless Suspended”

column in accordance with Opinion No. 699, as amended. 1• Applicable to acreage added by Supplement No. 7 (Colorado sales).• Applicable to all acreage except that added by Supplement No. 7 (Utah sales),• Applies to sales from wells commenced on or after Jan. 1, 1973.7 Applies to gas from wells commenced prior to Jan. 1,1973.

All of the proposed increases involved here include ad valorem taxes. The inclusion of such a tax is permissible under both Opinion Nos. 658 and 699 in determining the appli­cable ceiling. The subject sales, except for those relating to Supplement No. 20 to Tex­aco’s PPC Gas Bate Schedule No. 183, are covered by Opinion No. 699, and since the proposed rates do not exceed the ceiling established in that opinion, they are accepted as of the date provided therein. Supplement No. 20 to Texaco’s PPO Gas Rate Schedule No. 183, however, is suspended for - five months because the proposed rate exceeds the applicable ceiling under Opinion No. 658.

In regard to any sale of natural gas for which the proposed increased rate is filed under the provisions of Opinion No. 699, Issued June 21, 1974, in Docket No. R-389-B, no part of the proposed rate increase above the prior applicable' area ceiling rate may be made effective until the seller submits a statement in writing demonstrating that Opinion No. 699 is applicable to the particu­lar increased rate filing, in whole or in part. The proposed increased rates for which such support shall have been satisfactorily dem­onstrated prior to September 23, 1974, will be made effective as of June 21, 1974.

[PR Doc.74—23078 Piled 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEMAIB BANK

Application for Consolidation of BanksAIB Bank, Mount Pleasant, Michigan,

a proposed State member bank of the Federal Reserve System, has applied for the Board’s approval pursuant to the Bank Merger Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)), of the consolidation of that bank with American Security Bank, Mount Pleas­ant, Michigan, under the name of Amer­ican Security Bank.

As required by the Act, notice of the Proposed transaction, in form approved hy the Board, has been published, and reports on competitive factors have been requested from the Attorney General, wie Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This Reserve Bank has considered the application in light of the factors set forth in the Act.

On the basis pf the record, the applica­tion is approved for the reasons sum­

marized in the order of this date by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, relat­ing to the application of Peoples Bank­ing Corporation for acquisition of 100 percent of the voting shares of the suc­cessor by consolidation with American Security Bank, provided that said trans­action shall not be consummated (a) before the thirtieth calendar day follow­ing the date of this order or (b) later than three months after the date of this order, unless such period is extended for good cause by the Board, or by the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Chicago, pursuant to delegated authority.

By order of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago acting pursuant to delegated authority for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System effective September 19, 1974.

[ se al ] E rnest T . B a u g h m a n ,.First Vice President.

[PR Doc.74-23287 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

AMËRIBANC, INC.Acquisition of Bank

Ameribanc, Inc., St. Joseph, Missouri, has applied for the Board’s approval un­der section 3(a) (3) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a) (3 )) to acquire 90 percent or more of the voting shares of The First National Bank of Tarkio, Tarkio, Missouri. The factors that are considered in acting on the ap­plication are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c) ).

The application may be inspected at the office of the Board of Governors or at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Any person wishing to comment on the application should submit views in writing to the Secretary, Board of Gov­ernors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551 to be received not later than October 23, 1974.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 25, 1974.

[ seal ] ; T heodore E. A l l is o n , Secretary of thé Board.

[PR Doc.74-23279 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

AMERIBANK, INC.Merger of Bank Holding CompaniesAmeribank, Inc., St. Joseph, Missouri,

has applied for the Board’s approval un­der section 3(a) (5) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a) (5 )) to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of First American Bancshares, Inc., St. Joseph, Missouri, a bank holding com­pany, and thereby acquire 80 percent or more of the voting shares of First Na­tional Bank, Plattsburg, Missouri, First National Bank, Trimble, Missouri, First National Bank, Stewartsville, Missouri, Bank of Edgerton, Edgerton, Missouri, First American Bank, Union Star, Mis­souri, and First American Bank, Skid­more, Missouri. The factors that are con­sidered in acting on the application are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 UJS.C. 1842(c)).

The application may be inspected at the office of the Board of Governors or at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Any person wishing to comment on the application should submit views in writing to the Secretary, Board of Gov­ernors of the .Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551, to be received not later than October 24, 1974.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 27, 1974.

[ seal ] T heodore E. A l l is o n ,Secretary of the Board.

[PR Doc.74-23,278 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

DRUMMOND BANCSHARES, INC.Formation of Bank Holding CompanyDrummond Bancshares, Inc., Drum­

mond, Oklahoma, has applied for the Board’s approval under section 3(a) (1) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a)(1)) of formation of a bank holding company through acquisi­tion of 80 percent or more of the voting shares of Bank of Drummond, Drum­mond, Oklahoma (“Bank” ).

Notice of the application, affording op­portunity for interested persons to sub­mit comments and views, has been given

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36064 NOTICES

in accordance with section 3(b) of the Act. The time for filing comments and views has expired, and the application and all comments received have been considered by the Board in light of the factors set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Applicant was recently organized for the purpose of becoming a bank holding cpmpany through the acquisition of Bank. Bank, with deposits of 4.1 million,1 is the only commercial bank in Drum­mond and the sixth largest of ten banks in the Enid banking market (approxi­mated by Garfield County), and controls approximately 2.6 percent of the total commercial bank deposits therein. Upon acquisition of Bank, Applicant would con­trol the 326th ranking bank, out of 448 banks, in Oklahoma, and .05 of 1 percent of total deposits in commercial banks in the State. Since the purpose of the pro­posed transaction is essentially a reor­ganization to effect a transfer of the ownership of Bank from individuals to a corporation owned by the same in­dividuals, consummation of the proposal herein would not eliminate existing or potential competition, nor have an ad­verse effect on other area banks.

The financial and managerial re­sources and future prospects of Appli­cant, which are dependent upon those of Bank, are considered to be satisfac­tory. The projected earnings for Bank provide Applicant with the. necessary financial flexibility to service the debt in­curred as a result of the present proposal as well as to augment Bank’s capital if the need arises. Accordingly, financial and managerial considerations are con­sistent with approval of the application. As indicated above, the proposed acquisi­tion represents a change in the form of ownership of Bank, and there are no significant proposed changes in the op­eration or services of Bank. Considera­tions relating to the convenience and needs of the community to be served are consistent with approval. It is the Board’s judgment that the acquisition would be in the public interest and that the ap­plication should be approved.

On the basis of the record, the appli­cation is approved for the reasons sum­marized above, provided that the transac­tion shall not bé made (a) before the thirtieth calendar day following the ef­fective date of this order or (b) later than three months after the effective date of this order unless such period is extended for good cause by the Board, or by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kan­sas City pursuant to delegated authority.

By order of the Board of Governors,2 effective September 26, 1974.

[ seal ] T heodore E. A l l is o n , Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.74-23283 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

i All banking data are as of December 31, 1973.

•Voting for this action: Governors Shee­han, Holland, and Wallich. Voting against this action: Vice Chairman Mitchell. Absent and not voting: Chairman Burns and Gov­ernor Bucher.

FIDELITY AMERICAN BANKSHARES, INC.Order Approving Acquisition of Security

Finance Corporation of SpartanburgFidelity American Bankshares, Inc.,

Lynchburg, Virginia, a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act, has applied for the Board’s approval under section 4(c) (8) of the Act and § 225.4(b) (2) of the Board’s Regulation Y, to acquire the successor by merger to Security Finance Corporation of Spartanburg, Spartan­burg, South Carolina (“Security Fi­nance” ). The company into which Sectirity Finance is to be merged has no significance except as a means to facili­tate the acquisition of the voting shares of Security Finance. Accordingly, the •proposed acquisition of shares of the successor organization is treated herein as the proposed acquisition of the shares of Security Finance.

Security Finance engages in the activi­ties of making or acquiring personal in­stalment loans and other extensions of credit, acting as insurance agent or broker for the sale of credit life and credit accident and health insurance and property insurance on collateral, all inci­dent to extensions of credit by Security Finance and the underwriting, as rein­surer, of credit life insurance so sold. The underwriting function is performed by Old Spartan Life Insurance Company, Phoenix, Arizona, a wholly-owned sub­sidiary of Security Finance.1 Such activi­ties have been determined by the Board to be closely related to banking (12 CFR 225.4(a)(1) (9) and (10)).

Notice of the application, affording opportunity for interested persons to submit comments and views on the pub­lic interest factors has been duly pub­lished (39 FR 20103). The time for filing comments and views has expired, and the Board has considered the application and all comments received in light of the public interest factors sét forth in section 4(c) (8) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)).

Applicant controls 16 banks with ag­gregate deposits of $668 million, repre­senting about 5.5 percent of total deposits in commercial banks in Vir­ginia.2 Applicant’s nonbanking sub­sidiaries include a mortgage company, a leasing company, an investment ad­visory firm, and a small consumer finance company. The consumer finance company operates only in Virginia and had outstanding receivables of $527,000 as of year-end 1973.

Security Finance, with outstanding re­ceivables of $10.1 million as of year-end 1973, operates in the six States of South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Missis­sippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. Security Finance’s primary business is the making of personal instalment loans, though it

1 Old Spartan Life Insurance Company also underwrites group life and group accident and health insurance on employees of Security Finance, an activity that Applicant has agreed to discontinue.

•A ll banking data are as of December 31, 1973.

also makes some second mortgage loans and, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, purchases instalment sales contracts and rediscounts notes receivable from inde­pendent small loan companies. The mak­ing of personal instalment loans is the principal product market in which to gauge the competitive effects of this pro­posal. Although Applicant makes such loans through its subsidiary banks and its consumer finance company, these are all restricted to the State of Virginia where Security Finance has no offices. Due to this factor, consummation of this transaction will not have an adverse effect on existing competition. Applicant could be considered a potential entrant into the geographic markets presently served by Security Finance; however, these markets appear in general to be relatively unconcentrated with numer­ous competitors. Given these factors, the elimination of Applicant as a potential entrant would not result in adverse ef­fects on future competition. Similarly, though Security Finance could possibly be considered a potential entrant into the geographic markets served by Appli­cant, an elimination of Security Finance as such a potential entrant would not have an adverse effect on future compe­tition given the large number of com­petitors in Applicant’s markets.

Security Finance is also engaged in the sale of credit life and credit accident and health insurance, as well as property insurance, directly related to loans it originates. Due to the limited nature of these insurance activities, it does not ap­pear that Applicant’s performance of such activities would have any signifi­cant effect on either existing or future Competition. Rather, the public would be served by the greater convenience de­rived from the continued availability of such credit insurance at the locations where the credit is extended.

Applicant proposes to increase the lehding capabilities of Security Finance by providing it with a cheaper access to capital funds through issuance of com­mercial paper. This should enable Secu­rity Finance to become an even more ef­fective competitor. There is no evidence in the record indicating that consumma­tion of the proposed transaction would result in any undue concentration^ re­sources, unfair competition, conflicts of interests, unsound banking practices, or other adverse effects on the public inter-

Old Spartan Life Insurance Company nderwrites, as reinsurer, credit life in- urance related to extensions of credit y Security Finance. Such underwriting tas been found by the Board to be closely elated to banking. In this connection,

to assure that engaging in the underwrit­ing of credit life and credit accident a health insurance can reasonably be expec to be in the public interest, the Board w only approve applications in which an P plicant demonstrates that approval win d fit the consumer or result in other pu benefits. Normally, such a showing wouiau made by projected reduction of rate® 0 crease in policy benefits due to bank ing company performance of the service.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36065Applicant has stated that it will pro­

vide credit life insurance at rates rang­ing from 6.7 to 15 percent below the maximum rates provided for by the laws in those States in which Old Spartan Life Insurance Company operates. The Board believes that these reductions in the price'of credit life insurance pro­posed by Applicant are considerations favorable to the public interest. The Board concludes, therefore, that such public benefits, in the absence of any evidence in the record indicating the presence of any adverse statutory fac­tors, provides support for approval of this portion of the application.

Security Finance has engaged in the activities of operating a health spa and a printing and office supply firm. Appli­cant has firmly committed to divest itself of the health spa within six months from the date of the acquisition of Security Finance, and also to discontinue the business of printing and selling office sup­plies to and for outsiders within six months from the date of acquisition of Security Finance. Accordingly, the Board’s action in this matter is condi­tioned upon Applicant’s full compliance with these commitments. Finally, Secu­rity Finance operates a consumer finance office in the Republic of Panama which is the subject of a separate application under section 4(c) (13) of the Bank Hold­ing Company Act which application the Board has approved as of this date.

Based upon the foregoing and other considerations reflected in the record; the Board has determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 (c )(8 ), that consummation of this proposal can reasonably be expected to result in bene­fits to the public that outweigh possible adverse effects. Accordingly, the applica­tion is hereby approved. This determina­tion is subject to the conditions set forth in § 225.4(c) of Regulation Y and is also conditioned upon Applicant’s full compli­ance with its commitments noted above and further subject to the Board’s au­thority to require such modification or termination of the activities of a holding company or any other subsidiaries as the Board finds necessary to assure com­pliance with the provisions and purposes of the Act and the Board’s regulations and orders issued thereunder or to pre­vent evasion thereof.

The transaction shall be made not later than three months after the effective date of this order unless such period is extended for good cause by the Board or by the Federal Reserve Bank of Rich­mond.

By order of the Board of Governors,® effective September 25,1974.

[seal] T heodore E. A l l is o n , Secretary of the Board.

\ [PR Doc.74-23246 Filed 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

“V°*ing for this action: Chairman Burns rT,, Governors Mitchell, Sheehan, Bucher, Holland, and Wallich.

FIRST BANCSHARES OF FLORIDA, INC.Acquisition of One Bank and Denying

Acquisition of Another BankFirst Bancshares of Florida, Inc., Boca

Raton, Florida, a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Hold­ing Company Act, has applied in two separate applications for the Board’s ap­proval under section 3(a) (3) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a) (3 )) to acquire 90 per­cent or more of the voting shares of (1) First National Bank of Sebring, Sebring, Florida ( “Sebring Bank” ) , and (2) Avon Citrus Bank, Avon Park, Florida (“Avon Bank” ) .

Notice of the applications, affording opportunity for interested persons to submit comments and views, has been given in accordance with section 3 (b) of the Act. The time for filing comments and views has expired. The Board has con­sidered the applications and all com­ments received in light of the factors set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Applicant, the thirteenth largest com­mercial banking organization in Florida, controls 13 subsidiary banks with aggre­gate deposits of $445 million, represent­ing 2.2 percent of the total deposits in commercial banks in the State.1 Appli­cant’s acquisition of both Sebring Bank and Avon Bank would increase Appli­cant’s shares of State deposits by 0.22 percent and would not result in a sig­nificant increase in the concentration of banking resources in Florida.

Sebring Bank (deposits of $26.3 mil­lion) and Avon Bank (deposits of $19.7 million) are each located in the Sebring banking market (which is approximated by Highlands County plus the commun­ity of Wauchula) and control approxi­mately 19 and 14 percent, respectively, of the total deposits in commercial banks in the market. Applicant’s subsidiary bank closest to this market is located approximately ninety miles away in Fort Pierce, and there is no meaningful ex­isting competition between any of Appli­cant’s banking subsidiaries and the sub­ject banks; nor does it appear likely that such competition would develop in the future in view of the distances in­volved and Florida’s restrictive branch­ing law. Although Applicant could enter the market de novo, this does not appear to be a significant adverse factor with respect to this Applicant in view of the fact that three applications for new bank charters are presently pending.

There are, on the other hand, further competitive considerations involved in the instant proposals. It appears that consummation of the acquisition of both banks would tend to solidify the existing level of concentration of banking re­sources within the market and to dimi-

1 All banking data are as of June 30, 1973, and reflect bank holding company formations and acquisitions approved through Janu­ary 31,1974.

nish significant possibility of a less con­centrated and more competitive market developing in the future. Sebring Bank and Avon Bank are the second and fourth largest, respectively, of six bank­ing organizations in the market. The two largest banking organizations2 in the market control approximately 63 per cent of the total commercial bank deposits therein. Acquistion of both banks by Ap­plicant would result in Applicant be­coming the largest banking organization in the market, and would eliminate the possibility of the competition that would develop in the future if Applicant were permitted to acquire only one of the banks. Other considerations reflected in the record tend to favor the proposal in­volving the Sebring Bank over the Avon Bank proposal. Thus, approval of the ac­quistion of Sebring Bank and denial of the acquisition of Avon Bank would not only enable Applicant to enter the market and provide increased competition for the other banks in the market, but would also preserve a viable entry vehicle for another bank holding company not now represented in the market. In addition, approval of only the Sebring Bank ap­plication would, in the Board’s view, en­hance competition in the market by eliminating the common ownership of the two subject banks. Accordingly, on the basis of the record before it, the Board concludes that competitive con­siderations are consistent with approval of the acquisition of Sebring Bank, but consummation of the acquisition of Avon Bank by the same bank holding company would have substantially adverse effects on competition in the relevant market.

The financial and managerial re­sources and future prospects of Applicant and its subsidiaries are regarded as satis­factory; those of Sebring Bank and Avon Bank are regarded as generally satisfac­tory. Applicant has made a commitment to increase the capital of the subject banks within six months after approval of the applications. These factors lend some support for approval of the applica­tion to acquire Sebring Bank but do not outweigh the substantially adverse com­petitive effects associated with the con­current acquisition of Avon Bank.

Considerations relating to the conveni­ence and needs of the community to be served lend some weight toward approval of the acquisition of Sebring Bank in view of Applicant’s plans to expand banking hours, offer maximum rates on time and “savings deposits, and make available certificates of deposit. Although Applicant proposes to offer similar serv­ices through Avon Bank, these consid­erations do not, in the Board’s view outweigh the substantially adverse com­petitive effects associated with the acqui­sition of both banks. Accordingly, it is

2 Sebring Bank and Avon Bank are aflftl- lated through common ownership, manage­ment, and directors, and are regarded as a single banking organization for purposes of analyzing concentration levels.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36066 NOTICES

the Board’s judgment that consumma­tion of the transaction to acquire Sebring Bank is in the public interest and should be approved; however, consummation of Applicant’s concurrent proposal to ac­quire Avon Bank would not be in the public interest and should be denied.

On the basis of the record, the applica­tion to acquire Sebring Bank is approved for the reasons summarized above while the application to acquire Avon Bank is denied for the reasons summarized above. The transaction to acquire Sebring Bank shall not be made (a) before the thirtieth calendar day following the effective date of this order or (b) later than three months after the effective date of this order unless such period is extended for good cause by the Board or by the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Atlanta pursuant to delegated authority.

By order of the Board of Governors,3 effective September 35,1974.

[seal] Theodore E. Allison,4Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.74-23245 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FIRST UNION INC.Acquisition of Union Finance Co. and

Union Agency, Inc.First Union Incorporated, St. Louis,

Missouri, a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Com­pany Act, has applied for the Board’s approval under section 4(c) (8) of the Act and § 225.4(b) (2) of the Board’s Regulation Y to acquire all of the voting shares of the successor by merger to Union Finance Company ( “Company” ) and Union Agency, Inc. (“Agency” ), both located in Kansas City, Missouri. Company engages in the loan and finance business and Agency acts as agent or broker in the sale o f credit life, credit accident and health, and physical dam­age and fire insurance protecting the collateral in which Company has a se­curity interest as a result of an extension of credit. Such activities have been de­termined by the Board to be closely re­lated to banking (12 CFR 225.4(a) (1) and (9) ).

Notice of the application, affording op­portunity for interested persons to sub­mit comments and views on the public interest factors, has been duly published (39 FR 26319). The time for filing com­ments and views has expired, and the Board has considered the application and all comments received in light of the public interest factors set forth in section 4(c) (8) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c) (8 )).

3 Approval of the acquisition of First Na­tional Bank of Sebring. Voting for this ac­tion: Vice Chairman Mitchell and. Governors Sheehan, Holland, and Wallich. Absent and not voting: Chairman Burns and Governor Bucher.4 Denial of the acquisition of Avon Citrus Bank. Voting for this action: Vice Chairman Mitchell and Governors Sheehan, Holland, and Wallich. Absent and not voting: Chair­man Burns and Governor Bucher.

Applicant, the second largest bank holding company in Missouri, controls 16 banks1 with aggregate deposits of $1.4 billion, representing approximately 9.2 percent of the total deposits in com­mercial banks in the State.2 Applicant controls four nonbanking subsidiaries which are engaged in the provision of trust services, marketing research,3 hold­ing premises of Applicant’s subsidiary banks, and acting as reinsurer of credit insurance related to extensions of credit by Applicant’s banking subsidiaries.

Company (assets of $7.7 million) operates six offices in Missouri and one office in Kansas each of which is en­gaged in making or acquiring loans or other extensions of credit for personal, family, or household use.4 Applicant is committeed to move Company’s office in Kansas to the Missouri portion of the Kansas City SMSA prior to consumma­tion of the proposal in recognition of a Kansas statute which prohibits the operation by multibank holding com­panies of offices of a nonbanking sub­sidiary in that State. Company’s six offices in the Kansas City SMSA hold an aggregate volume of $6.7 million in direct cash loans to individuals, repre­senting approximately 3 percent of all such loans in that market. Applicant’s three banking subsidiaries located in the Kansas City market area hold an aggregate volume of approximately $1.6 million in direct personal loans, repre­senting approximately 1 percent of all such loans in this market. There are 108 other commercial banks in the Kansas City market as well as 85 other con­sumer finance companies and more than 131 credit unions that compete for in­stallment loans in this area. In view of the small size of Company and the number of other competitors in the Kan­sas City market, the Board concludes that consummation of the proposal would not have significant adverse effects on existing or future competi­tion in this market.

Company’s other office and a banking subsidiary of Applicant are located in the Springfield market where they hold, respectively, $732,000 and $476,000 in personal loans, representing 3.8 percent and 2.5 percent of all such loans out­standing in that market. There are 11 other commercial banks in the Spring- field market together with 31 consumer finance companies and over 23 credit unions engaged in the making of per­sonal loans. In view of the relatively small size of the Springfield office of

1 Applicant has an application pending before the Board to acquire an additional bank, the Florissant Bank, Florissant, Mis­souri.»All banking data are as of December 31, 1973.»Such marketing research is confined to feasibility studies for bank locations of the holding company and its subsidiaries.‘Company is committed to terminate its leasing activity upon consummation of the proposal. This activity presently consists of one lease contract on an airplane. (See application, p. 25)

Company as well as the number of con­venient alternative sources for con­sumer loans in the market, it does not appear that consummation of this pro­posal would have any significant adverse effect on existing competition. Nor does it appear that consummation of the pro­posed transaction would have a signifi­cant adverse effect on future competi­tion in view of the relatively low bar­riers to entry and the number of competitive alternatives.

Due to the limited scope of Agency’s sale of credit life, credit accident and health, and physical damage and fire insurance relating to extensions of credit by Company, it does not appear that Applicant’s acquisition of these activities would have any adverse effects on exist­ing or future competition. Nor is there any evidence in the record indicating that consummation of the proposed transaction would'result in any undue concentration of resources, unfair com­petition, conflicts of interest, unsound banking practices, or other adverse ef­fects upon the public interest.

Approval of the proposed transaction would give Company access to the finan­cial resources of Applicant and allow it to compete more effectively in each of the markets It services. In addition, Ap­plicant plans to expand the number of offices operated by Company and there­by bring added convenience to bor­rowers in these markets. It is the Board’s judgment that consummation of the proposed transaction can reasonably be expected to bring benefits to the public and that such benefits outweigh any pos­sible adverse effects of the proposal.

Based upon the foregoing and other considerations reflected in the record, the Board has determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 4(c)(8), that consummation of this proposal can reasonably be expected to produce bene­fits to the public that outweigh possible adverse effects. Accordingly, the applica­tion is hereby approved. This determina­tion is subject to the conditions set forth in § 225.4(c) of Regulation Y and to the Board’s authority to require such modifi­cation or termination of the activities of a holding company or any of its sub­sidiaries as the Board finds necessary to assure compliance with the provisions and purpose^ of the Act and the Board’s regulations and orders issued thereunder or to prevent evasion thereof.

The transaction shall be made not later than three months after the effec­tive date of this order unless such period is extended for good cause by the Board or by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

By order of the Board of Governors, effective September 23, 1974.

[seal] Theodore E. Allison,Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.74-23284 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

B Voting for this action: Chairman Burns and Governors Mitchell, Sheehan, Hollan , and Wallich! Absent and not voting: gov­ernor Bucher.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36067

INDEPENDENT BANK CORP.Acquisition of Bank

Independent Bank Corporation, Ionia, Michigan, has applied for the Board’s approval under section 3(a) (3) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a) (3 )) to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of First State Bank of Newaygo, Newaygo, Michigan. The fac­tors that are considered in acting on the application are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

The application may be inspected at the office of the Board of Governors or at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Any person wishing to comment on the application should submit views in writ­ing to the Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Wash­ington, D.C. 20551 to be received not later than October 24, 1974.

Board of Governors of the Federal Re­serve System, September 26,1974.

[seal] T heodore E. A l l is o n , Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.74-23281 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

PEOPLES BANKING CORP.Acquisition on Bank

Peoples Banking Corporation, Bay City, Michigan, a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Hold­ing Company Act, has applied for the Board’s approval under section 3(a) (3) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a)(3)) to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of the successor by consolidation to American Security Bank, Mount Pleas­ant, Michigan^ (“Bank” ) . The bank into which Bank is to bè consolidated has no significance except as a means to facili­tate the acquisition of the voting shares of Bank. Accordingly, the proposed acqui­sition of shares of the successor organi­zation is treated herein as the proposed acquisition of the shares of Bank.

Notice of the application, affording op­portunity for interested persons to sub­mit comments and views, has been given in accordance with section 3(b) o f theAct. The time for filing comments and views has expired, and none has been timely received. The Federal Reserve Bank has considered the application in light of the facts set forth in section 3(0 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).. Applicant, the nineteenth largest bank­ing organization in Michigan presently controls two banks with combined de­posits of $193.4 million, accounting for 0 *2 percent of total State commercial oank deposits.1 In addition, this Federal Reserve Bank has approved Applicant’s Proposal to acquire The Oscoda State wings Bank (deposits $11 million), Oscoda, Michigan. Acquisition of the oscoda bank and Bank (deposits $24.2 million), would increase Applicant’s ™mre of total State deposits to 0.85 per- cent and would not significantly increase ^concentration banking resources m the state.

197311 dep06it da^a are 80 of December 31,

Bank ranks as third largest of six banks in the relevant banking market2 with about 19.7 percent of total commer­cial bank deposits. Applicant’s present and proposed subsidiaries are each in different banking markets, and consum­mation of the transaction would not eliminate any significant amount of existing competition between them. The prospect of competition developing in the future between Applicant’s subsidiaries and Bank is lessened by the distances separating them and the restriction placed on branching by State law. More­over, the relevant market area is re­garded as presently having a sufficient number of banks in relation to market growth, and de novo entry by Applicant is considered unlikely at this time. Ac­cordingly, it is concluded that competi­tive considerations are consistent with approval of the application.

The financial and managerial resources and future prospects of Applicant, its subsidiary banks, and Bank are consid­ered to be generally satisfactory. Bank­ing factors are consistent with approval.

Applicant plans many improvements in Bank’s services, such as the extension of week-day banking hours and new Saturday hours, increases in savings and time deposit interest rates to maximum allowable by law, new trust services, branch facility improvements,v and ex­panded services at branches. The many proposed improvements in Bank’s oper­ations will enhance both the quality and quantity of services to the public. Con­siderations of convenience and needs lend substantial weight toward approval o f the application. It is this Reserve Bank’s judgment that the proposed transaction is in the public interest and should be approved.

On the basis of the record as sum­marized above, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago approves the application, provided the transaction shall not be consummated (a) before the thirtieth calendar day following the effective date of this order or (b) later than three months after the effective date of this order, unless such period is extended for good cause by the Board, or by the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Chicago, pursuant to delegated authority.

By order of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, acting pursuant to delegated authority for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System effective, September 19, 1974.

[s e a l ! E rnest T. B au g h m a n ,First Vice President.

[FR Doc.74-23286 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

PROVIDENT NATIONAL CORP.Acquisition of CF International, Inc.Provident National Corporation, Phil­

adelphia, Pennsylvania, has applied, pur­suant to section 4(c) (8) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843

1 The relevant market is approximated by Isabella County plus the south five miles of the county to Its north (Clare County) and the west five miles of the county to its east (Midland County).

(c) (8 )) and § 225.4(b) (2) of the Board’s Regulation Y, for permission to engage, indirectly through its subsidiary John P. Maguire & Co., Inc., New York, New York, in a joint venture with Credit Factoring International Limited, London, England, a subsidiary of National Westminster Bank Limited, London, England, and thereby to acquire voting shares of CF International, Inc., New York, New York, which is currently a wholly-owned sub­sidiary of Credit Factoring International Limited. Notice of the application was published on August 13, 1974 in The New York Times, a newspaper circulated in New York, New York, and on August 14, 1974 in The Wall Street Journal, a news­paper circulated in New York, New York.

Applicant states that the proposed sub­sidiary would engage in the following ac­tivities: International factoring, that is, the purchase on a non-recourse basis of accounts receivable generated in import or export transactions; domestic factor­ing, that is, the purchase on a non-re­course basis of accounts receivable gen­erated in domestic commerce; and com­mercial lending by making loans to clients either unsecured or secured by accounts receivable, inventory, equip­ment and/or real estate. Such activities have been specified by the Board in § 225.4(a) of Regulation Y as permissible for bank holding companies, subject to Board approval of individual proposals in accordance with the procedures of § 225.4(b).

Interested persons may express their views on the question whether consum­mation of the proposal can “reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, in­creased competition, or gains in effi­ciency/ that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competi­tion, conflicts of interests, or unsound banking practices.” Any request for a hearing on this question should be ac­companied by a statement summarizing the evidence the person requesting the hearing proposes to submit or to elicit at the hearing and a statement of the reasons why this matter should not be resolved without a hearing.

The application may be inspected at the offices of the Board of Governors or at the Federal Reserve Bank of Phila­delphia.

Any views or requests for hearing should be submitted in writing and re­ceived by the Secretary, Board of Gov­ernors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551, not later than October 23,1974.

Board of Governors of the Federal Re­serve System, September 26,1974.

[ se al ] T heodore E. A l l is o n ,Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.74-23282 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

SHEPHERD MALL STATE CORP. Formation of Bank Holding Co.

Shepherd Mall State Corporation, Ok­lahoma City, Oklahoma, has applied for the Board’s approval under section

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36068 NOTICES

3 (a )(1 ) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a) (1 )) to become a bank holding company through acquisi­tion of 100 percent of the voting shares of Shepherd Mall State Bank, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The factors that are considered in acting on the application are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

The application may be inspected at the office of the Board of Governors or at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Any person wishing to comment on the application should submit views in writing to the Reserve Bank, to be re­ceived not later than October 23, 1974.

Board of Governors of the Federal Re­serve System, September 25, 1974.

[seal] T heodore E. A llison, Secretary of the Board.

[PR Doc.74-23280 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

SOUTHEAST BANKING CORP.Approving Acquisition of Bank

Southeast Banking Corporation, M i­ami, Florida, a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act, has applied for the Board’s approval under section 3(a) (3) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a) (3 )) to acquire 80 percent or more of the voting shares of Southeast National Bank of Sweetwater, Dade County, Florida, ( ‘‘Bank” ) a pro­posed new bank.

Notice of the application, affording opportunity for interested persons to submit comments and views has been given in accordance with section 3(b) of the Act. The time for filing comments and views has expired, and none has been timely received. The Board has con­sidered the application in light of the factors set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C, 1842(c)).

Applicant, the largest banking orga­nization and bank holding company in Florida, controls 36 banks with aggregate deposits of approximately $2.1 billion, representing 9.3 percent of total deposits in commercial banks in Florida.1 Since Bank is a proposed new bank, consum­mation of the proposed acquisition would not immediately increase Applicant’s share of commercial bank deposits in the State.

Bank is to be located in a rapidly growing residential section of western Dade County, which is part of the Greater Miami banking market (ap­proximated by Dade County and the southern third of Broward County), the relevant banking market. Applicant pres­ently has eight subsidiary banks operat-

1 All banking data are as of December 31, 1973, and reflect bank holding company for­mations and acquisitions approved through August 31,1974.

2 Included among Applicant’s banking sub­sidiares are two recently approved but as yet unopened banks, Southeast National Bank of North Dade and Southeast Bank of Westland.

ing in the relevant banking market and controls about 23.7 percent of market de­posits.2

Competing in the relevant market are 41 other banking organizations control­ling 101 banks, including banking sub­sidiaries of the State’s second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth largest banking organizations. Since Bank is a proposed new bank, Applicant’s acquisition of Bank would not have any immediate effect on Applicant’s share df commercial bank deposits in the Greater Miami banking market, nor would it have sig­nificant adverse effects on existing or potential competition in that same mar­ket. In reaching this conclusion, the Board recognizes that de novo expansion by the market’s largest banking brga- nization within a particular area of the market could reduce the prospects for eventual déconcentration of that market by preempting sites for de novo entry by other banking organizations not already represented in the market. However, the record indicates that rapid and substan­tial growth is underway in Bank’s pro­posed service area and that numerous banking offices are located in the areas intervening between Bank and Appli­cant’s banking subsidiaries (Applicant’s closest existing' banking Subsidiary is seven miles distant from Bank). Based on all the facts in the record, it is the Board’s view that this area can support additional entries by other banking orga­nizations and that no significant adverse competitive effects would be realized. Accordingly, competitive considerations are consistent with approval of the ap­plication.

The financial and managerial resources and future prospects of Applicant and its subsidiary banks are regarded as gen­erally satisfactory, particularly in view of Applicant’s commitment to provide additional capital to certain o f its bank­ing subsidiaries. Bank, as a proposed new bank, has no financial or operating history; however, its prospects as a sub­sidiary of Applicant appear favorable. Banking factors as they relate to Ap­plicant, and its subsidiaries, are con­sistent with approval of the application. The proposed new bank will provide a convenient and new source of banking services for the rapidly growing western part of Dade County. Some of the serv­ices Applicant proposes to provide through Bank include consumer and personal loans, more business financing, mortgage financing, and professional billing and payroll accounting. Consid­erations relating to the convenience and needs factors, therefore, lend some weight toward approval. It is the Board’s judgment that consummation of the proposed acquisition would be in the pub­lic interest and that the application should be approved.

On the basis of the record, the ap­plication is approved for the reasons summarized above. The transaction shall not be made (a) before the thirtieth calendar day following the ef­

fective date of this order or (b) later than three months after the effective date and (c) Southeast National Bank of Sweetwater, Dade County, Florida, shall be opened for business not later than six months after the effective date of this order. Each of the periods de­scribed in (b) and (c) may be extended for good cause by the Board, or by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, pursu­ant to delegated authority.

By order of the Board of Governors,8 effective September 25, 1974.

[seal] T heodore E. A llison, Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.74-23285 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

INTERIM COMPLIANCE PANEL (COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY)LANE HOLLOW COAL CO. AND BELIBE

COAL CORP.Applications for Renewal Permits Electric

Face Equipment Standard; Opportunity for Public HearingApplications for Renewal Permits for

Noncompliance with the Electric Face Equipment Standard prescribed by the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 have been received for items of equipment in underground coal mines as follows;(1) ICP Docket No. 4201-000, Lame HollowCoal Company, Mine No. 21, Mine ID No. 44 02258 0, Maxie, Virginia, ICP Permit No. 4201-001 (Jeffrey 100L Con­tinuous Miner, Ser. No. 34370).(2) ICP Docket No. 4203-000, Belibe CoalCorporation, Mine No. 6, Mine ID No. 44 02756 0, Pearly, Virginia, ICP Permit No. 4203-004 (Kersey BJD Battery Tractor, Ser. No. 405), ICP Permit No. 4203-005 (Kersey BJD Battery Tractor, Ser. No. 406), ICP Permit No. 4203-006 (Kersey BJD Battery Tractor, Ser. No. 407).

In accordance with the provisions of § 504.7(b) of Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, notice is hereby given that requests for public hearing as to an ap­plication for a renewal permit may be filed on or before October 22, 1974. Re­quests for public hearing must be filed in accordance with 30 CFR Part 505 (35 FR 11296, July 15, 1970), as amended, copies of which may be obtained from the Panel upon request.

A copy of each application is available for inspection and requests for public hearing may be filed in the office of the Correspondence Control Officer, Interim Compliance Panel, Room 800, 1730 K Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.

G eorge A. H ornbeck, Chairman,

Interim Compliance Panel.

O ctober 1,1974.[FR Doc.74-23209 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

a Voting for this action: Chairman Burns and Governors Mitchell, Sheehan, Buo *-* Holland and Wallich.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36063

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Notice of MeetingO ctober 1, 1974.

Pursuant to the Provisions of the Fed­eral Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Humanities will be conducted at Wash­ington, D.C. on October 24 and 25, 1974.

The purpose of the meeting is to ad­vise the Chairman of the National En­dowment for the Humanities with re­spect to policies, programs, and proce­dures for carrying out his functions, and to review applications for financial sup­port and gifts offered to the Endowment and to make recommendations thereon to the Chairman.

The meeting will be held in the Shore- ham Building, 806 15th Street NW., Washington, D.C. The morning session will convene at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 24, and will be open to the pub­lic. The agenda for the morning session will be as follows:I. Minutes of Previous Meeting, n. ReportsA. Summary of Recent Business;B. Application Report;C. Report on Chairman’s Grants;D. Selected Project Evaluations;E. Citizens Committee for the Humanities.

Because the remainder of the proposed meeting will consider financial informa­tion and personnel and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman’s Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated August 13,1973,1 have determined that the meeting would fall within ex­emptions (4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and that it is essential to close the meet­ing to protept the free exchange of in­ternal views and to avoid interference with operation of the committee.

It is suggested that those desiring more specific information contact the Advisory Committee Management O f­ficer, Mr. John W. Jordan, 806 15th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20506, or call area code 202-382-2031.

Jo h n W. Jordan, Advisory Committee,

Management Officer. [PR Doc.74-2333Q Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

national s c ie n c e f o u n d a t io n

ADVISORY PANEL FOR ECONOMICS Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Com­mittee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby givén of a meeting of the Advi­sory Panel for Economics to be held at lank“ " on October 24, 1974, in Rm. 511, 1800 G Street NW., Washington, D.C. ¿ 2 » Purpose of this Panel is to provide

und recommendations as part of snl i f v ew and evaluation process for pecific proposals and proj ects.

This meeting will not be open to the public because the Panel will be review­ing, discussing, and evaluating individ­ual research proposals. These proposals contain information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as sal­aries ; and personal information concern­ing individuals associated with the pro­posals. These matters are within the exemptions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The clos­ing of this meeting is in accordance with the determination by the Director of the National Science Foundation dated De­cember 17, 1973, pursuant to the provi­sions of section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463. ~ For further information about this Panel, please contact James H. Black­man, Program Director for Economics, Rm. 205, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550, telephone 202/ 632-5968.

Dated: October 1,1974.F red K. M urakami,

Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc.74-23234 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

ADVISORY PANEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY

Notice of MeetingPursuant to the Federal Advisory Com­

mittee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Panel for Environmental Biology to be held at 9 a.m. on October 23-24, 1974, in room 543, 1800 G St. NW., Washington, D.C. The purpose of the Panel is to pro­vide advice and recommendations as part of the review and evaluation process for specific proposals and projects.

This meeting will be closed to the pub­lic in order that the Panel may evaluate progress and consider further funding of a specific proposal in the ecosystem area. This proposal contains information of a confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as sal­aries; and personal information concern­ing individuals associated with the pro­posal. These matters are within the ex­emptions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The closing of this meeting is in accordance with the determination by the Director pf the Na­tional Science Foundation dated Decem­ber 17,1973, pursuant to the provisions of section 10 (d) of Pub. L. 92-463.

For further information concerning this panel, please contact Dr. John L. Brooks, Program Director for General Ecology, Rm. 331, National Science Foundation/ Washington, D.C. 20550, telephone 202/632-7324.

Dated: October 1,1974.F red K. M urakami,

Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc.74-23235 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

ADVISORY PANEL FOR OCEANOGRAPHY Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Com­mittee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Ad­visory Panel for Oceanography, to be

held at 9 a.m. on October 23-24, 1974, in rooms 511 and 338, 1800 G Street NW., Washington, D.C.

The purpose of the Panel is to provide advice and recommendations in the eval­uation of specific research proposals and to advise the Foundation on the impact of its research support programs on the scientific community in oceanography. The agenda for this meeting is as fo l­lows:

October 23, Room 551 and 3389:00— Review and evaluation of research proposals in Oceanography.

October 24, Room 3389:00— Introductory Remarks, Dr. Crary, Di­vision Director, Environmental Sci­

ences.9:15— Program Statistics, Ms. Glendening, Asst. Program Director, Biological Oceanography.9:30— Ship and Facilities Funding, Ms.Johrde, Head, Office of Oceanogra­phic Facilities and Support.10:30— Energy-related Research, Dr. Harriss, Task Coordinator, Energy Research. 11:00— Discussion on Energy Workshop, Dr.Healy, Program Director, Marine Chemistry.11:30— Developments in Oceanography, Dr.Williams, Program Director, Bio­logical Oceanography.12:00— Lunch.1:30— Climate Dynamics Program, Dr.Bierly, Head, Office of Climate Dy­namics.2:30— Law of the Sea Negotiations, Mr.Wulf, Assistant to General Counsel.4:00— Data Reporting and Archiving,. Dr.Cannon, Program Director, Physical

Oceanography.4:30— Other Business.5:00— Adjourn.The entire session on October 23 will

be devoted to reviewing, discussing, and evaluating individual research proposals. These proposals contain information of a proprietary or confidential nature, in­cluding technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal in­formation concerning individuals asso­ciated with the proposals. These matters are within the exemptions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The closing of this meeting is in accordance with the determination by the Director of the National Science Foundation dated December 17, 1973, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463.

The remainder of this meeting shall be open to the public. Individuals who wish to attend should inform Mrs. Roberta Epps, Secretary to the Head, Oceanography Section, by telephone, 202-632-4227, or by mail, Rm. 317, Na­tional Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550 by October 18. Persons re­quiring further information concerning this Panel should contact Dr. Glenn Cannon, Program Director for Physical Oceanography at the above address. Summary minutes relative to this meet­ing may be obtained from the Manage­ment Analysis Office, Rm. K-720, 1800 G Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20550.

Dated: October 1, 1974.F red K. M urakami,

Committee Management Officer.[FR Doc.74-23236 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36070 NOTICES

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENTAL R&D - INCENTIVES

Meeting Announcement— FEA/NSF Incen­tives Preference Project/Phase II Simu­lation ExperimentAs part of the FEA/NSF Incentives

Preference Project, a meeting has been planned by members of the Office of Ex­perimental R&D Incentives with certain participating Federal officials and ex­perienced persons presenting, the position of industry to develop background infor­mation relative to incentives which the Federal government might use to accel­erate the availability of a U.S. synthetic fuels capability. The summary session will conclude an experiment involving simulated Government/Industry negoti­ation of the specifics involved in the im­plementation of five such incentives. While this session is not considered to be a meeting of an “advisory committee” as that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-436), the summary session is believed to be of sufficient importance and inter­est to the general public to have it opened for public attendance and observation.

The meeting is scheduled to be held on Friday, October- 11, 1974, in the audito­rium of the Thomas Edison Building (PEPCO), 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue NW „ Washington, D.C. The meeting will begin at 1:00 o’clock p.m. and will con­clude at or about 5:00 o’clock p.m. Mem­bers of the public are invited to observe this meeting. Space will be available on a first come, first serve basis. Public par­ticipation is limited to questions or state­ments submitted to the Chairman in writing or to such oral presentations as the Chairman may permit within avail­able time. Persons wishing to attend such meeting are requested to phone Miss Alice Bartlett, National Science Founda­tion, Washington, D.C. 20550, telephone 202/632-5762.

Dated: October 3,1974.R ichard J. G reen ,

Deputy Assistant Director for Research Applications.

[FR Doc.74-23422 Filed 10 -4-74;9:55 am]

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

CLEARANCE OF REPORTS List of Requests

The following is a list of requests for clearance of reports intended for use in collecting information from the public received by the Office of Management and Budget on October 2,1974 (44 U.S.C. 3509). The purpose of publishing this list in the F ederal R egister is to inform the public.

The list includes the title of each re­quest received; the name of the agency sponsoring the proposed collection of in­formation; the agency form number, if applicable; the frequency with which the information is proposed to be collected; the name of the reviewer or reviewing division within OMB, and an indication of who will be the respondents to the pro­posed collection.

The symbol (x) identifies proposals which appear to raise no significant is­sues, and are to be approved after brief notice through this release.

Further information about the items on this Daily List may be obtained from the Clearance Office, Office of Manage­ment and Budget, Washington, DC. 20503, (202-395-4529), or from the re­viewer listed.

New Forms

DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Health Resources Administration:To Development a Nurse Manpower Data Collection Capability in the Common­wealth of Puerto Rico, Form HRABHRD 0722, Single time, Collins (395-3756), Registered nurses, practical nurses. Public Health Service:Evaluation of a Satellite Clinic, Form Re­gion 60911, Single time, Collins (395- 3756), 20 percent sample of 520 house­holds in Tale, Oklahoma.DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management:Questionnaire for Local Newspaper, Form ---, Occasional, Sheftel (395-3878), In­dividuals.Revisions

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Survey of Scientific Activities of Institutions of Higher Education (Employment of Pro­fessional and Technical Personnel in the Sciences and Engineering), Form 724, An­nual, Planchón (395-3898), Universities and colleges.P h il l ip D . L arsen ,

Budget and Management Office. [FR Doc.74-23378 Filed 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[70-5546]CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER CO.

AND ROCKY RIVER REALTY CO.Proposed Sale of Utility Assets

S epte m b e r 20, 1974.Notice is hereby given that Connecti­

cut Light and Power Company ( “CL& P ” ) , P.O. Box 2010, Hartford, Connecti­cut 06101, an electric utility subsidiary company of Northeast Utilities (“NU” ), a registered holding company, and The Rocky River Realty Company (“Rocky” ) , a wholly-owned non-utility subsidiary of NU, have jointly filed with this Commis­sion a declaration pursuant to the Pub­lic Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (“Act” ) designating section 12(d) of the Act and Rule 44 promulgated thereunder as applicable to the following proposed transactions. All interested persons are referred to the declaration, which is summarized below, for a more complete statement of the proposed transactions.

Declarants state that until October 1973, CL&P and The United Illuminating Company (“U I” ), a non-affiliated elec­tric utility company, jointly owned as tenants-in-common the Coke Works generating plant site at New Haven Har­bor in New Haven, Connecticut (“Coke Works” ). In October, 1973, pursuant to an Agreement for Sale dated as of May 3, 1973 (“Agreement” ) by and between

CL&P, U I and Rocky, CL&P sold its in­terest in the Coke Works site to UI, with CL&P and Rocky also agreeing to sell to U I their respective interests in the fee properties and easements acquired for a transmission right of way (including the facilities which CL&P had designed to be constructed thereon) from the Coke Works site to Totoket Junction in North Branford, Connecticut, a distance of ap­proximately 6.1 miles (“ transmission properties” ) . In accordance with the Agreement, CL&P states it has completed construction of a 345 kv/115 kv double circuit transmission line on the trans­mission right of way and the line is being placed in operation.

CL&P and UI consider the sale of the transmission properties to be desirable since they are an essential outlet for the generating unit UI is constructing on the Coke Works site. Conversely, since CL&P would not be participating in the ownership of the Coke Works unit, CL&P states there was no longer any need for CL&P to own the transmission propertiesand facilities.

Accordingly, CL&P proposes to sell, on or before December 31, 1974, such prop­erties and facilities to UI, the purchase price for the transmission properties to be determined in accordance with the Agreement. Declarants state that as of June 30, 1974, the total expenditures made by CL&P and Rocky in connection with the transmission properties, includ­ing the facilities thereon, was $6,063,930. It is stated that certain additional ex­penditures (not anticipated to signifi­cantly increase the foregoing amount) will be made before the date of transfer. The purchase price is stated to have been calculated to reimburse to CL&P and Rocky their costs associated with the acquisition of the transmission proper­ties and the costs of constructing the transmission lines thereon.

Fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed trans­action aggregate $2,500, including legal fees of $2,000. It is stated that the Con­necticut Public Utilities Commission has approved the proposed sale of the utility assets and that no other State or Federal commission, other than this Commission, has jurisdiction over the proposed trans-actions. .

Notice is. further given that any inter­ested person may, not later than Octo­ber 14, 1974, request in writing that a hearing be held on such matter, stating the nature of his interest, the reaso . for such request, and the issues of i or law raised by said declaration wm. he desires to controvert; or he may quest that he be notified if the Commi- sion should order a hearing thereon, such request should be addressed: o retary, Securities and Exchange mission, Washington, D.C. 20549. A P of such request should be served Pej- ally or by mail (air mail if toe perso being served is located more miles from the point of mailing) Pthe declarants at the above-state^ ,,dress, and proof of service (by aor, in case of an attorney-at-law , bytificate) should be filed ^ h tt,e quest. At any time after said date,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36071

declaration, as filed or as it may be amended, may be permitted to become effective as provided in rule 23 of the General Rules and Regulations pro­mulgated under the Act, or the Com­mission may grant exemption from its rules as provided in rules 20(a) and 100 thereof or take such other action as it may deem appropriate. Persons who re­quest a hearing or advice as to whether a hearing is ordered will receive any notices and orders issued in this matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any postponements there­of.

For the Commission, by the Division of Corporate Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.[seal] G eorge A. Fitzsimmons,

Secretary.[PR Doc.74-23216 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[70-5501]CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL.Proposed Issue and Sale of Short-Term

Notes to Banks and Acquisition of Com­mon Stock of Subsidiary Companies

September 27,1974.In the matter of Consolidated Natural

Gas Company, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10020, CNG Devel­opment Company, Ltd., CNG Producing Company, Consolidated Natural Gas Service Company, Inc., Consolidated Sys­tem LNG Company, Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation, The East Ohio Gas Company, The Peeples Natural Gas Com­pany, The River Gas Company, and West Ohio Gas Company.

Notice is hereby given that Consoli­dated Natural Gas Company ( “Consoli­dated”), a registered holding company, and its above-named subsidiary com­panies have filed with this Commission a post-effective amendment to the appli­cation-declaration in this proceeding pursuant to section 6(b) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (“Act”) regarding the following pro­posed transactions. All interested persons are referred to the application-declara­tion, as now amended, which is sum­marized below, for a complete statement of the proposed transactions. ,

By order in this proceeding dated June 20, 1974 (HCAR No. 18466), the Commission authorized Consolidated to issue and sell up to $60,000,000 of short­en11 n°tes to a group of banks during 1974 to finance gas storage inventories and up to $50,000,000 of commercial pa­per notes for working capital purposes. Said order also authorized the financing oy Consolidated of various capital ex­penditures and working capital require­ments of its subsidiaries. Consolidated stated that part of the funds required or such financing would be provided by ne contemplated sale of its equity securities.mS ^ e d now Proposes, in order to I Z temporary financing for capital fpenditures prior to the proposed sale

« Preferred stock by January 31, 1975, «sue and sell on one or more dates up

to December 31, 1974, $40,000,000 of its unsecured promissory notes to banks maturing January 31, 1975, without com­mitment fee, at the prime commercial rate of interest in effect from time to time at Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Re­payment will be made from the proceeds of the planned sale of preferred stock. The names of the participating banks are to be filed by amendment. Consolidated proposes that the 8 percent exemption previously granted from the provisions of section 6(a) of the Act in this proceed­ing be increased to a maximum of 12 percent in order to permit Consolidated to have outstanding at any one time until January 31, 1975, up to $90,000,000 - of short-term notes, consisting of said $40,- 000,000 of bank notes and the $50,000,000 of commercial paper notes previously au­thorized. No compensating balance re­quirements are imposed^ because of the level of bank deposits regularly main­tained by the Consolidated companies, the average of such deposits amounting to approximately $24,000,000 for 1973. It is stated that based on a requirement of 10 percent of the proposed credit line and 10 percent of average borrowings there­under, the average compensating bal­ances would have amounted to approxi­mately $15,000,000 for the year 1973.

In said order of the Commission dated June 20, 1974, Consolidated was author­ized to acquire, and CNG Producing Company (“Producing Company” ) was authorized to issue and sell to Consoli­dated, 53,000 shares of Producing Com­pany’s common stock, $100 par value, at par. On account of accelerated explora­tion and developmental work, Producing Company will have issued and Consoli­dated will have acquired all of the 53,- 000 share so authorized by September 30, 1974. Producing Company finds that it will require an additional amount, esti­mated at $1,500,000, in order to finance capital expenditures through December 1974. Therefore, Producing Company now proposes that it be allowed to issue and sell from time to time through December 1974 an aggregate of 15,000 more shares of its common stock, and Consolidated proposes to acquire such shares at the par value thereof .

Finally, it is stated that at the time of the original filing in this proceeding, no need of financing for CNG Develop­ment Company Ltd. (“Development Company” ) was foreseen. However, it presently appears that Development Company will require $300,000 (Canadi­an) between the date of the filing and the year end in order to finance capital investments in Canada. Therefore, De­velopment Company proposes that it be authorized to issue and sell, at par, an aggregate of 3,000 shares of its common stock, $100 (Canadian) par value, from time to time through December 1974, and Consolidated proposes to acquire such shares at the par value thereof.

The rule 24 certificates of notification with respect to the proposed transactions are to be filed on a quarterly basis. Ex­penses to be incurred in connection with the proposed transactions are estimated not to exceed $1,000. No State commis­

sion and no Federal commission, other than this Commission, has jurisdiction over the proposed transactions.

Notice is further given that any in­terested person, may, not later than Oc­tober 23, 1974, request in writing that a hearing be held on such matter, stating the nature of his interest, the reasons for such request, and the issues of fact or law raised by said post-effective amendment to the application-declara­tion which he desires to controvert; or he may request that he be notified if the Commission should order a hearing thereon. Any such request should be ad­dressed: Secretary, Securities and Ex­change Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549. A copy of such request should be served personally or by mail (air mail i f the person being served is located more than 500 miles from the point of mailing) upon the applicants-declarants at the above-stated address, and proof of serv­ice (by affidavit or, in case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. At any time after said date, the application-declaration, as amended or as it may be further amended, may be granted and permitted to become effec­tive as provided in rule 23 of the general rules and regulation promulgated under the Act, or the Commission may grant exemption from such rules as provided in rules 20(a) and 100 thereof or take such other action as it may deem appro­priate. Persons who request a hearing or advice as to whether a hearing is ordered will receive any notices and orders issued in this matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any postpone­ments thereof.

For the Commission, by the Division of Corporate Regulation, pursuant to dele­gated authority.

[seal] G eorge A. Fitzsimmons,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23219 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[70-5553]DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT CO.

Proposed Issue and Sale of Common Stock by Holding Company and Exception from Competitive Bidding

September 27, 1974. Notice is hereby given that Delmarva

Power & Light Company (“Delmarva” ), 800 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19899, a registered holding company, has filed a declaration and an amendment thereto with this Commission pursuant to the Public Utility Holding Company Act (“Act” ) , designating sections 6 and 7 of the Act and rule 50 promulgated there­under as applicable to the following pro­posed transaction. All interested persons are referred to the declaration, which is summarized below, for a complete state­ment of the proposed transaction.

Delmarva proposes to issue and sell1,500,000 additional,shares of its author­ized but unissued common stock, par value $3.37% per share. At July 31,1974, Delmarva had 14,974,160 shares of com­mon stock outstanding. The company re­quests that the issuance and sale of the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36072 NOTICES

common stock be excepted from the com­petitive bidding requirements of rule 50 in order that the common stock may be sold to underwriters on a negotiated basis for public offering. Delmarva reserves the right, however, to amend its declaration in order to sell the shares pursuant to the competitive bidding requirements of Rule 50 if in its opinion the appropriate cir­cumstances exist.

H ie net proceeds from the sale of the common stock will be applied toward the retirement of unsecured short-term notes issued primarily for interim financing of the construction program of Delmarva and its subsidiaries. On September II, 1974, such unsecured short-term notes outstanding amounted to $50,750,000. Construction expenditures for the last five months of 1974 and the year 1975 are estimated at $179,161,451, including an allowance for funds used during con­struction of $10,727,253.

The fees and expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection with the proposed transaction are estimated at $77,000, of which $10,500 will be incurred for legal fees and $13,500 for accountants’ fees. The Public Service Commission of Dela­ware has jurisdiction over the proposed transaction, and a copy of the order to be issued by that commission is to be filed by amendment. It is represented that no other State commission and no Federal commission, other than this Commission, has jurisdiction over the proposed trans­action.

Notice is further given that any inter­ested person may, not later than Octo­ber 23, 1974, reqdest in writing that a hearing be held on such matter, stating the nature of his interest, the reasons for such request, and the issues of fact or law raised by said declaration which he desires to controvert; or he may re­quest that he be notified if the Com­mission should order a hearing thereon. Any such request should be addressed: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549. A copy of such request should be served personally or by mail (air mail if the person being served is located more than 500 miles from the point of mailing) upon the declarant at the above-stated address, and proof of service (by affidavit or, in case of an attorney at law, by cer­tificate) should be filed with the request, At any time after said date, the declara­tion, as amended or as it may be further amended, may be permitted to become effective as provided in rule 23 of the General rules and regulations promul­gated under the Act, or the Commission may grant exemption from such rules as provided in rules 20(a) and 100 there­of or take such other action as it may deem appropriate. Persons who request a hearing or advice as to whether a hearing is ordered will receive any notices or orders issued in this matter, Including the date of the hearing ( if ordered) and any postponements thereof.

For the Commission, by the Division of Corporate Regulation, pursuant to dele­gated authority.

[ seal] Shirley E. Hollis,Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23222 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[File No. 500-1]

EQUITY FUNDING CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Suspension of TradingSeptember 27,1974.

It appearing to the Securities and Ex­change Commission that the summary suspension of trading in the common stock, warrants to purchase the stock, 9Yz percent debentures due 1990, 5Yt per­cent convertible subordinated debentures due 1991, and all other securities of Equity Funding Corporation of America being traded otherwise than on a na­tional securities exchange is required in the public interest and for the protection of investors;

Therefore, pursuant to section 15(c) (5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, trading in such securities other­wise than on a national securities ex­change is suspended, for the period from September 29, 1974 through October 8, 1974.

By the Commission.[ seal] Shirley E. Hollis,

Assistant Secretary. .[FR Doc.74-23226 Filed 10-4r-74;8:45 am]

[File No. 500-1]

INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.Suspension of Trading

September 27, 1974.It appearing to the Securities and Ex­

change Commission that the summary suspension of trading in the common stock of Industries International, Inc. being traded otherwise than on a na­tional securities exchange is required in the public interest and for the protec­tion of investors;

Therefore, pursuant to section 15 Cc) (5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, trading in such securities other­wise than on a national securities ex­change is suspended, for the period from September 29, 1974 through October 8, 1974.

By the Commission.[seal] Shirley E. Hollis,

Assistant Secretary.[FR Doc.74-23225 Piled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Release No. 34-11019]

PROPOSED TERMINATION OF FIXED COMMISSION RATES

Announcement of Written Requests; Correction

In FR Doc. 74-22555 appearing at page 35214 of the Federal Register for Mon­

day, September 30, 1974, the heading should read as set forth above.

For the Commission.[seal] G eorge A. F itzsimmons,

Secretary.September 30, 1974.

[FR Doc.74-23221 iFIed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

SEC REPORT COORDINATING GROUP (ADVISORY)

Notice of Public MeetingPursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, the Securities and Exchange Commission announces a pub­lic advisory committee meeting.

The Commission’s Report Coordinating Group (Advisory) will hold a meeting on October 29, 1974 at the . Securities and Exchange Commission, 500 North Capitol Street NW., Room 776. Washington, D.C. The meeting will commence at 10:00 a.m. local time and will be for the purpose of discussing development of the FOCUS Report of financial and operational in­formation.

The Group’s meetings are open to the public. Any interested person may attend and appear before or file statements with the advisory committee. Said statements, if in written form, may be filed before or after the meeting. Oral statements shall be made at the time and in the manner permitted by the Report Coordinating Group.

The Report Coordinating Group was formed to assist the Commission in de­veloping a coherent, industry-wide, coor­dinated reporting system. In carrying out this objective, the Report Coordinating Group is to review all reports, forms, and similar materials required of broker- dealers by the Commission the self-regu­latory. community and others. The Group is expected to advise the Commission on such matters as eliminating unnecessary duplication in reporting, reducing report­ing requirements where feasible, and de­veloping the FOCUS Report of financial and operational information (Securities Exchange Act Release No. 10612; Securi­ties Exchange Act Release No. 10959).

Information concerning the meeting, including the procedures for submitting statements to the Group, may be obtain«! by contacting: Mr. Daniel J. Piliero B. Secretary, SEC Report Coordinating Group, Securities and Exchange Commis­sion, Washington, D.C. 20549.

[ seal ] George A. F itzsim m o ns , Secretary.

September 27, 1974.[FR Doc.74-23218 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[70—5552]

SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER CO.Proposed Installment Purchase of

Pollution Control FacilitiesSeptember 23,1974.

Notice is hereby given that em Electric Power Company ( ®w

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

NOTICES 36073CO” ) , P.O. Box 1106, Shreveport, Louisi­ana 71156, an electric utility subsidiary company of Central and South West Corporation, a registered holding com­pany, has filed an application-declara­tion with this Commission pursuant to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (“Act” ) designating sections 6(a), 7, 9 (a )(1 ), 10* 12(d) and rules 44(b)(3) and 50 promulgated thereunder as applicable to the proposed transac­tions. All interested persons are referred to the application-declaration, which is summarized below, for a complete state­ment of the proposed transactions.

SWEPCO states that in order to com­ply with applicable state and federal en­vironmental control standards with re­spect to its Welsh Power Plant (“unit” ) presently under construction in Titus County, Texas, it is necessary to con­struct certain air and water pollution control facilities ( “facilities” ) . To finance construction and acquisition of the fa ­cilities, SWEPCO proposes to enter into an Installment Sale Agreement (“agree­ment”) with the Titus County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1 (“District” ) , an instrumentality of the state of Texas.

The agreement provides that SWEPCO will transfer to the District SWEPCO’s interest in the facilities as they presently exist and that the District will reimburse SWEPCO for the cost of construction of the presently completed facilities. SWEPCO will then cause the construct­ion of the facilities to be completed for the District* the District reimbursing SWEPCO for the costs of construction to the extent funds are available in the con­struction fund created under an Inden­ture (“indenture” ) , as further described below. Upon completion of the construc­tion of air and water pollution control portions of the facilities* title to such portion will automatically vest in SWEPCO.

The District will finance the acquisi­tion and construction of the facilities through the issue and sale of the Dis­trict’s Pollution Control Revenue Bonds (‘‘bonds” ) to be denominated “ 1974 Issue Bonds” in an aggregate amount of up to $14,000,000. The bonds will be issued raider the indenture with a corporate trustee to be selected in consultation with SWEPCO. The District has adopted a resolution agreeing to issue its- bonds raider conditions contemplated by the agreement and the indenture* for the Purpose of financing the facilities.

k°nds will be dated on or about me first day of the month in which they re issued (presently scheduled for ovember 1974) * will bear interest semi- nnually and will mature at a date or

™ ®>t more than 30 years from date Issue. The bonds will not be re-

rfou able wi^ n 10 years from their issue except under certain circumstances.

tfpl*?nds sr? subject to mandatory re- banning 10 years after date of

Drrwrtci ^ fa c t io n °* sinking fund /^icaisundter the indenture which will anwurtfISw6 25 percent in principal tomaturit k°n<k to be retired prior

The proceeds from the sale of the bonds (except as otherwise required by the in­denture) will be deposited in a construc­tion fund created under the indenture, and costs o f acquisition and construction of the facilities will be reimbursed to SWEPCO out o f funds in the construc­tion fund. In the event amounts in the construction fund are insufficient to pay all costs of the facilities, the agreement obligates SWEPCO to pay all additional amounts.

The agreement contains an unsecured commitment by SWEPCO to pay the Dis­trict the purchase price for the facilities in installments. The installments will be sufficient to enable the District to pay principal, interest, sinking fund and re­demption premium with respect to the bonds.

SWEPCO states that it is contemplated that the bonds will be sold by the Dis­trict pursuant to arrangements between the District and Merrill Lynch* Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.* as underwriter. It is expected that the terms of the bonds* including sale price and interest rate, will be agreed upon on or about October 22, 1974, that a public offering of the bonds will be made by the underwriter, and that delivery and payment for the bonds will be made on or about November 22, 1974. SWEPCO will not be a party to the Bond Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which the underwriter will purchase the bonds from the District, but the Bond Purchase Agreement provides that the terms of the bonds and of the indenture will be satisfactory to SWEPCO.

SWEPCO states that counsel states they are prepared to give a legal opinion that interest on the bonds will be exempt from federal income taxation. SWEPCO states that it has been advised that sim­ilar tax-exempt bonds have historically carried an annual interest rate approxi­mately 1 V2 percent to 2)4 percent lower than comparable taxable long-term bonds.

SWEPCO requests exception from the competitive bidding requirements of rule 50 pursuant to clause fa) (5) thereof.

Fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed transac­tions are estimated at $215,000, including legal fees o f $50,300. It is stated that no state commission and no federal commis­sion, other than this Commission, has jurisdiction over the proposed trans­actions.

Notice is further given that any inter­ested person may, not later than Octo­ber 16, 1974, request in writing that a hearing be held with respect to the pro­posed transactions, stating the nature of his interest, the reasons for such request, and the issues of fact or law raised by said application-declaration which he desires to controvert; or he may request that he be notified if the Commission should order a hearing thereon. Any such request should be addressed: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C; 20549. A copy of such request should be served personally or by mail (air mail if. the person being served is located more than 500 miles

from the point of mailing) upon the ap­plicant-declarant at the above-stated address, and proof of service (by affidavit or, in case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the re­quest. At any time after said date, the application-declaration, as filed or as it may be amended, may be granted and permitted to become effective as pro­vided in rule 23 o f the general rules and regulations promulgated under the act, or the Commission may grant exemption from such rules as provided in rule 20(a) arid 100 thereof or take such other action as it may deem appropriate. Persons who request a hearing or advice as to whether a hearing is ordered will receive any no­tices and orders issued in this matter* in­cluding the date o f . the hearing (if ordered) and any postponements there­of.

For the Commission by the Division of Corporate Regulation, pursuant to dele­gated authority.

[ seal ] G eorge A. F it z s im m o n s , Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23217 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[File No. 500-1]

WESTGATE CALIFORNIA CORF.Suspension- of Trading

S eptem ber 27,1974.It appearing to the Securities and Ex­

change Commission that the summary suspension of trading in the common stock (class A and B ), the .cumulative preferred stock (5 percent and 6 per­cent) ,. the 6 percent subordinated deben­tures due 1979 and the 6 *4 percent con­vertible subordinated debentures due 1987 being traded otherwise than on a national securities exchange is required in the public interest and for the pro­tection of investors;

Therefore, pursuant to section 15(c) (5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, trading in such securities other­wise than on a national securities ex­change is suspended, for the period from September 29* 1974 through October 8, 1974.

By the Commission.[ seal ] Sh ir l e y E. H o l l is ,

Assistant Secretary. :[FR Doc.74-23224 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[File No. 500—1}

ZENITH DEVELOPMENT CORP.Suspension of Trading

S eptem ber 27, 1974.It appearing to the Securities and Ex­

change Commission that the summary suspension of trading in the common stock of Zenith Development Corpora­tion being traded otherwise than on a national securities exchange is required in the public interest and for the pro­tection of investors;

Therefore, pursuant to section 15(c) (5) of the Securities Exchange Act of

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1974

36074 NOTICES

1934, trading in such securities otherwise than on a national securities exchange is suspended, for the period from Septem­ber 29, 1974, through October 8, 1974.

By the Commission.[ s e a i : S h ir l e y E. H o l l is ,

Assistant Secretary.[PR Doc.74-23223 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT ADVISORY

COUNCILNotice of Meeting

The Small Business Administration Albuquerque District Advisory Council will meet at 10 a.m., m.d.t., Thursday, October 31, 1974, at the Hilton Inn, 1901 University Boulevard NE., Albuquerque, to discuss such business as may be pre­sented by members, the staff of the Small Business Administration and others attending.

Dated. September 23, 1974.Jo h n Ja m eso n ,

Director, Office of Advisory Council, Small Business Ad­ministration.

[FR Doc.74-23294 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

ATLANTA DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL Notice of Meeting

The Small Business Administration Atlanta District Advisory Council will meet at 9 a.m. e.d.t., Wednesday, Octo­ber 23, 1974, at the First National Bank Building, in Atlanta, Georgia, to discuss such business as may be presented by members, the staff of the Small Business Administration and others attending. For further information, call or write John D. Sewell, Small Business Adminis­tration, 1491 Peachtree Street NE., At­lanta, Georgia 30309, (404) 526-5749.

Dated: September 27,1974.Jo h n Ja m eso n ,

Director, Office of Advisory Councils, Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc.74-23297 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

BALTIMORE DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Notice of MeetingThe Small Business Administration

Baltimore District Advisory Council will meet at 9 a.m., e.d.t., Friday, October 18, 1974, at the Quality Inn Motel in Towson, Maryland, to discuss such business as may be presented by members, the staff of the Small Business Administration and others attending. For further infor­mation, call or write Gerald J. Lang, 7800 York Road, Towson, Maryland 21204, (301) 962-2150.

Dated: September 27,1974.Jo h n Jam eso n ,

Director, Office of Advisory Councils, Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc.74—23298 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FARGO DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL Notice of Meeting

Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004, (215)597-3501.

The Small Business Administration Fargo District Advisory Council will meet at 12 Noon, e.d.t., Tuesday, October 22, 1972 at the Riverside Lodge, Highway 2 East, Minot, North Dakota, to discuss such business as may be presented by members, the staff of the Small Business Administration and others attending.

Dated: September 23, 1974.Jo h n Ja m e s o n ,

'* Director, Office of Advisory Councils, Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc.74-23295 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

LUBBOCK DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Notice of MeetingThe Small Business Administration

Lubbock District Advisory Council will meet at 10 a.m., Friday, November 1, 1974, at the Federal Building, 1205 Texas Avenue, Lubbock, Texas, to discuss such business as may be presented by mem­bers, the staff of the Small Business Ad­ministration and others attending.

Dated: September 23, 1974.Jo h n Jam eso n ,

Director, Office of Advisory Councils, Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc.74-23292 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Notice of MeetingThe Small Business Administration

New Orleans District Advisory Council will meet at 11 a.m., Thursday, Octo­ber 24, 1974, at the American Bank of Commerce in Lake Charles, Louisiana, to discuss such business as may be pre­sented by members, the staff of the Small Business Administration and others attending.

Dated: September 23,1974.' Jo h n Ja m eso n ,Director, Office of Advisory

Councils, Small Business Ad­ministration.

[FR Doc.74-23296 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Notice of MeetingThe Small Business Administration

Philadelphia District Advisory Council will meet at 9:30 a.m., e.d.t., Wednesday, October 23, 1974, at the George Wash­ington Motor Lodge, U.S. Route 22 and 7th Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania to discuss such business as may be pre­sented by members and the staff of the Small Business Administration and others attending. For further informa­tion, call or write, William B. Patterson, Small Business Administration, 1 Decker Square—West Lobby, Suite 400, Bala

Dated: September 27,1974.Jo h n Jam eson ,

Director, Office of Advisory Councils, Small Business Ad­ministration.

[FR Doc.74-23300 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

SYRACUSE DISTRICT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Notice of MeetingThe Small Business Administration

Syracuse District Advisory Council will meet at 9:30 a.m., e.s.t., Thursday, No­vember 7,1974, at the Community Room, Marine Midland Bank— Central, 360 South Warren Street, Syracuse, New York, -to discuss such business as may be presented by. members, the staff of the Small Business Administration and others attending. For further informa­tion, call or write J. Wilson Harrison, Small Business Administration, Fayette and Salina Streets, Syracuse, New York 13202 (315) 473-3460.

Dated: September 27,1974.Jo h n Jam eson ,

Director, Office of Advisory Councils, Small Business Ad­ministration.

[FR Doc.74-23299 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[License No. 02/02-0102] HANOVER CAPITAL CORP.

Application for Transfer of ControlNotice is hereby given that an applica­

tion has been filed with the Small Busi­ness Administration (SBA) pursuant to § 107.701 of the regulations governing small business investment companies (13 CFR 107.701 (1974)), for an application to transfer control of Hanover Capital Corporation, 485 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the Act).

Hanover Capital Corporation was li­censed on June 22, 1961, with private capital of $151,000 and is presently capi­talized at $351,000. The transfer of con­trol will be from the stockholders of Han­over Capital Corporation to Mr. Daniel Joseph Sullivan who will be the sole owner of all the presently issued and outstanding shares of common stock. It is anticipated that private capital will be increased to $500,000 by Mr. Sullivan within a period of twelve (12) months after approval of the transfer of control.

Subsequent to the change of ownership and transfer of control, the officers w be:

miel Joseph Sullivan, c/o Page Mill Group. 2 Palo Alto Square, 300 El Camino R > Palo Alto, California 94304, President, Treasurer, Director.win C. Nevis, 10 Mornington Lane, cie land, Ohio 44106, Secretary, Director, mes L. Kropf, c/o Page MiU Group, 2 Pao Alto Square, 300 El Camino Real, J r ’

proposed new owner does

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36075the area of operations or in its invest­ment policy. There will be no change of name and address of the present licensed small business investment company (Hanover Capital Corporation).

Matters involved in SEA’S considera­tion of the application include the gen­eral business reputation and character of the proposed new owner, the other new officers and directors, and the probability of successful operations of the company with new control and management in accordance with the Act and regulations.

Notice is further given that any inter­ested person may submit their comments on the proposed transfer of control to the Associate Administrator for Finance and Investment, Small Business Admin­istration, 1441 L Street, NW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20416, on or before October 17, 1974.

A similar notice shall be published by the proposed purchaser in a newspaper of general circulation in New York City, New York.

Dated: September 26,1974.James T h o m as P h e l a n ,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Investment.

[PR Doc.74-23293 Filed 10-4-74; 8:45 am]

[Notice of Disaster Loan Area 1094]

LOUISIANADisaster Relief Loan Availability

As a result of the President’s declara­tion of the State of Louisiana as a major disaster area following Hurricane Car­men on or about September 6, 1974, ap­plications for disaster relief loans will be accepted by the Small Business Adminis­tration from disaster victims in the fol­lowing parishes: Iberia, Jefferson, La­fayette, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Terre- bonne, and Vermilion, and adjacent af­fected areas. Adjacent areas include only counties within the state fo r which the declaration is made and do not extend beyond state lines.Applications may be filed at the:Small Business AdministrationDistrict OfficePlaza Tower, 17th Floor1001 Howard AvenueNew Orleans, Louisiana 70113

sod at such temporary offices as are established. Such addresses will be an­nounced locally.

Applications for disaster loans under Z S aa?ouncement must be filed not later jnan November 25, 1974. EIDL applica-Ti,«S no* ke accepted subsequent to June 25,1975.

Dated: September 25, 1974.

T ho m as S. K leppe , Administrator.

[PR Doc.74-23291 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 ami

[Application No. 02/02-5308]

N0RTH AMERICA INVESTMENT CORP. Application for License

as^awfIii^a^on *or a Dcense to operate 51118,11 business investment company

under the provisions of section 301 (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (15 TT.S.C. 661 et seq.), has been filed by North America Invest­ment Corporation (applicant), with the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to 13 CFR 107.102 (1974).

The officers and directors of the appli­cant are as follows:Teodore P. Fajardo, President and Director 1201 First Federal Building Stop 23Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909Alberic O. Girod, Vice President and Director 1201 First Federal Building Stop 23Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909Joaquin Zulueta, Secretary and Treasurer 1201 First Federal Building Stop 23Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909

The applicant with its principal place of business located at 1201 First Federal Building, Stop 23, Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909, will begin operations with $500,000 of .paid-in capital and paid-in surplus. All of the issued and outstanding stock of the applicant, consisting o f common stock, will be owned by Teodoro P. Fajardo.

As a small business investment com­pany under section 301(d) of the Act, the applicant has been organized and chartered solely for the purpose of per­forming the functions and conducting the activities contemplated under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended from time to time, and will provide assistance solely to small busi­ness concerns which will contribute to a well-balanced national economy by facil­itating ownership in such concerns by persons whose participation in the free enterprise system is hampered because of social or economic disadvantages.

Matters involved in SEA’S considera­tion of the applicant include the general business reputation and character of the proposed owner and management and the probability of successful operation of the applicant under their management, including adequate profitability and fi­nancial soundness, in accordance with the Small Business Investment Act and the SBA rules and regulations.

Any person may, on or before Octo­ber 22, 1974, submit to SBA written com­ments on the proposed applicant. Any such communication should be addressed to the Deputy Associate Administrator for Investment, Small Business Admin­istration, 1441 L Street NW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20416.

A copy of this notice shall be pub­lished in a newspaper of general cir­culation in Santurce, Puerto Rico.

Dated: September 26,1974.Jam es T h o m as P h e l a n ,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc.74-23301 tiled 10-4-74;8:45 am]

TARIFF COMMISSION[337—L-70J

ANTENNA ROTATOR SYSTEMS Dismissal of Preliminary Inquiry

On the basis of submissions made to the Tariff Commission by complainant, the Tariff Commission on October 1,19 74, dismissed preliminary inquiry 337-L-70 without a determination on its merits; notice of the receipt of the complaint and institution of preliminary inquiry 337-L-70 was published in the F ederal R egister of February 12, 1974 (39 FR 5375).

Issued: October 1,1974.By order of the Commission.Ese al ] K e n n e t h R . M a so n ,

Secretary.[FR Doc.74-23258 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[TEA-W-248]GETTYSBURG SHOE CO.

Workers’ Petition for a Determination;Notice of Investigation

On the basis of a petition filed under section 301(a)(2) of the Trade Expan­sion Act of 1962, on behalf of the work­ers and former workers of the Gettys­burg, Pa., Dillsburg, Pa., and East Berlin, Pa., plants of Gettysburg Shoe Co., Get­tysburg, Pa., a wholly owned subsidiary of Dero Industries, Inc., New York, N.Y., the United States Tariff Commission, on October 1, 1974, instituted an in­vestigation under section 301(c)(2) of the Act to determine whether, as a result in major part of concessions granted under trade agreements, articles like or directly competitive with footwear for women (of. the types provided for in items 700.45 and 700.55 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States) pro­duced by said firm are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to cause, or threaten to cause, the unemployment or underem­ployment of a significant number or proportion of the workers of such firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof.

The optional public hearing afforded by law has not been requested by the petititioners. Any other party showing a proper interest in the subject matter of the investigation may request a hearing, provided such request Is filed on or be­fore October 17,1974.

The petition filed in this case is avail­able for inspection at the Office of the Secretary, United States Tariff Com­mission, 8th and E Streets, NW., Wash­ington, D.C., and at the New York City office o f the Tariff Commission located at 6 World Trade Center.

Issued: October 2, 1974.By order o f the Commission.[ seal ] K e n n e t h R . M aso n ,

Secretary.[FR Doc.74-23257 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36076 NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOROffice of Federal Contract Compliance

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF DETROIT

Equal Employment Opportunity Require­ments for Federally Assisted Construc­tion ContractsOn August 15,1974, in accordance with

41 CFR 60-1.4(b) (2) (39 FR 2365, Janu­ary 21, 1974), the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance an­nounced his determination in the F ed­eral R egister (39 FR 29446) that the Board of Education of the City of Detroit Equal Employment Opportunity Compli­ance Policy is not inconsistent with Executive Order 11246, as amended, and not incompatible with the effective im­plementation of the Federal Detroit Plan.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 60-1.4(b) (2), both the Associated General Contractors of America, Detroit Chapter, Inc. and the Metropolitan Detroit Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association ap­pealed the OFCC Director’s determina­tion to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards by request­ing a hearing.

Accordingly, an administrative law judge has been designated to conduct a hearing commencing on October 24, 1974, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 1017 Federal Building and Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette, Detroit, Michigan 48226, to make proposed findings and a recom­mended decision to the Assistant Secre­tary of Labor for Employment Stand­ards upon the basis , of the record before him. In accordance with 41 CFR 60-1.4 (b) (2), evidence may be presented at the hearing relevant to the issue of whether the Board of Education of the City of Detroit Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Policy is inconsistent with Executive Order 11246, as amended, or incompatible with the effective imple­mentation of the Federal Detroit Plan.

We have given the Associated General Contractors of America, Detroit Chapter, Inc. and the Metropolitan Detroit Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association notice of their opportunity to participate in the hearing, by registered mail, return receipt requested. All other persons, organizations and other entities affected by the OFCC Director’s deter­mination may attend and participate in the hearing. Each participant shall have the right to counsel and a fair opportu­nity to present his case including such questioning of witnesses presented by the other parties as the administrative law judge may deem appropriate in the circumstances.

Interested persons, organizations and other entities affected by the OFCC Di­rector’s determination, including the Board of Education, the Associated Gen­eral Contractors of America, Detroit Chapter, Inc. and the Metropolitan De­troit Plumbing and Mechanical Contrac­tors Association, who wish to participate in the hearing should so notify Mr. H. Stephen Gordon, Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor,

1111 Twentieth Street NW., 720 Vanguard Building, Washington, D.C. 20210, by registered mail, return receipt requested, by the close of business, October 22,1974. The notice of intention to participate (original and one copy) must state the name and address of the person to ap­pear, and the approximate amount of time required for the presentation. In addition, to the extent practicable, the notice should also include, or be accom­panied by, a general statement of the position to be taken with regard to the aforementioned Equal Employment Op­portunity Compliance Policy and of the evidence to be adduced in support of that position. The use of prepared statements by participants, subject to questioning by the other parties, is encouraged. Such prepared statements and all other docu­ments intended to be submitted for the record at the hearing should accompany the notice of intention to participate. All documents should be submitted in dupli­cate. In addition, the parties should be prepared to provide representatives of each of the parties of record with a copy of all prepared statements and other documents intended to be submitted for the record at the hearing.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of September 1974.

H. S t e ph e n G ordon ,Chief Administrative Law Judge,

U.S. Department of Labor.[FR Doc.74-23329 Filed 10-4-74; 7:45 am]

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONAffirmative Action Plan for Federally As­

sisted Construction and Opportunity forAppeal1. Background. 41 CFR 60-1.4(b) (2)

(39 FR 2365, January 21,1974) prescribes procedures whereby State and local gov­ernments intending to impose affirmative action hiring and/or training require­ments on federally assisted construction already subject to federal minority hiring and/or training plans established pur­suant to Executive Order 11246, as amended, shall submit such requirements to the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. Such State and local requirements will be deemed ap­plicable to federally assisted construc­tion contracts unless the OFK)C Director, or in the case of an appeal of the Direc­tor’s determination, the Assistant Secre­tary for Employment Standards, deter­mines that such requirements are incon­sistent with the Order or incompatible with the effective implementation of the federal minority hiring and/or training plan (either voluntary or imposed) in the area.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 60-1.4 (b) (2), on May 20, 1974, the University of Wash­ington submitted its Affirmative Action Requirements for construction con­tracts to the OFCC Director. The University of Washington’s Affirmative Action Requirements are applicable to all construction work performed under contracts with the University of Wash­

ington including federally assisted con­struction subject to Federal EEO Bid Conditions incorporating the Seattle- King County hometown plan. These Af­firmative Action Requirements were de­veloped pursuant to Executive Order 70-1 issued by the Governor of the State of Washington on January 30, 1970. In relevant part, the University of Wash­ington’s Affirmative Action Requirements require “a minimum goal of 13 percent of all hours worked to be worked by minority employees in each craft.” The Affirmative Action Requirements require contractors and-subcontractors to submit to the University of Washington reports on the total manhours of employment on a craft-by-craft basis, which identifies the percentage of manhours worked by minorities and nonminorities.

The Affirmative Action Requirements provide for monthly review of contrac­tors’ employment practices during the performance of their contracts. If a con­tractor or subcontractor meets his goals he is presumed to be in compliance with the Affirmative Action Requirements. Where the University of Washington finds that a contractor or subcontractor has failed to comply with the require­ments of the Affirmative Action Require­ments, the University will take such ac­tion and impose such sanctions as may be appropriate.

I f a contractor or subcontractor has not met the minority hiring goals of the Affirmative Action Requirements, he can show that he has met the good faith re­quirements by instituting the specific af­firmative action steps found in Part n of the Requirements. I f the contractor or subcontractor can demonstrate a good faith attempt to meet the Requirements hiring goals, he will be relieved of his default even though he did not meet such goals. Failure to comply with the. Affirmative Action Requirements may constitute grounds for application of general contract default remedies.

Copies of the University of Washing­ton Affirmative Requirements may be ob­tained from the University of Washing­ton, Seattle, Washington 98105 or Philip J. Davis, Director, Office of Federal Con­tract Compliance, U.S. Department of Labor, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210.

2. Decision. After careful review of the University of Washington Affirmative Action Requirements in accordance with the provisions of 41 CFR 60-1.4(b) (21, l have determined that' the University s Affirmative Action Requirements are no inconsistent with Executive Order 112 , as amended, and not incompatible wi the implementation of the Federal sea - tle-King County Plan. Accordingly, * have approved the University of Wa ington’s Affirmative Action Require­ments and the University may ioc such requirements in federally ass contracts.

3. Rights of Appeal. On July 26, •in accordance with 41 CFR 60- •(2), I communicated my determination to Mr. Ernest M. Conrad, Vice President

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36077for Business and Finance, University o f Washington by registered mail return receipt requested.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 60-1.4(b) (2>, any persons or groups affected by my determi­nation, including construction contrac­tors, labor organizations, associations or other organizations of construction trades contractors and/or labor organi­zations, and minority community groups,^ may appeal this determination to Mr. Bernard E. DeLury, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20210, by requesting a hearing on or before October 29, 1974. Following this appeal period, if any requests for a hearing have been filed with the As­sistant Secretary, the Department of Labor shall then designate an adminis­trative law judge who shall conduct a hearing to make proposed findings and a recommended decision to the Assistant Secretary upon the basis of the record before him. The administrative law judge shall give reasonable notice of the oppor­tunity to participate in such hearing by registered mail, return receipt requested, to those requesting the hearing and shall

also give reasonable notice of such hear­ing in the F ederal R egister to inform all other persons, organizations and other entities affected by my determination of their opportunity to participate in the hearing. Each participant shall have the right to counsel and a fair opportunity to present his case, including such cross- examination as the administrative law judge may deem appropriate in the cir­cumstances. Within 80 days of the close of the appeal period for requesting a hearing, the Assistant Secretary shall make a final decision on the basis of the record before him, which shall consist of the record for recommended decision, the ruling and recommended decision of the administrative law judge, and the exceptions and briefs filed subsequent to the administrative law judge’s decision.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day of October 1974.

P h il ip J. D a vis , Director, Office of

Federal Contract Compliance.[FR Doc.74-23328 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

I N T E R S T A T E C O M M E R C E C O M M I S S I O N[Notice 15]

TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TERMINATIONThe temporary authorities granted in the dockets listed below have expired as

a result of final action either granting or denying the issuance of a Certificate or Permit in a corresponding application for permanent authority, on the date indi­cated below:

Temporary authority application Final action or certificate Date ofor permit action

Tri Delta Building Materials, Co., Inc., MC-129656 Sub-7..................MC-129656 Sub-9National Carriers, Inc., MC-133106 Sub-20.... ................... ........ MC-133106 Sub-23D.b.a. Nebraska Beef Express, MC-134114 Sub-3.......................... MC-134114 Sub-1North Star Transport, Inc., MC-134145 Sub-29........................... MC-134145 Sub-82Ockenfel’s Transfer, Inc., MC-134264 Sub-11,14........................... MC-134264 Sub-13’Blackburn Truck Lines, Inc., MC.-134387 Sub-14.......................... MC-134387 Sub-18'Home Run, Inc., MC-134388 Sub-6.................... •.................... MC-134388 Sub-7Goose Creek Transport, Inc., MC-134601 Sub-3........................... . MC-134601 Sub-4D.b.a. Refrigerated Distributing, MC-134915 Sub-3................ MC-134915 Sub-4American Transport, Inc., MC-135007 Sub-30........................... . . MC-135007 Sub-24’American Transport, Inc., MC-135007 Sub-16........ . . j ............ MC-135007 Sub-26A^J’D Corp. MC-135018, Sub-2.............. ....................................MC-135018 Sub-1.!d.b.a. Earl G. Dubose Trucking Co., MC-135065 Sub-1.....................MC-135065 Sub-3Seco, Inc., MC-135109 Sub-1............................................. Mft-iasinoKerr Contract Carriage, Inc., MC-135183 Sub-4........................ I I I " MC-135183 Sub-5 *Monti Moving & Storage, Inc., MC-135218 Sub-1..............................MC-135218 Sub-2**Joseph E. Davis, MC-135282........................ ........................... __ MC-135282 Sub-2*'Lamar Trucking, Inc., MC-135406 Sub-2........ .......................... MC-135406 Sub-3"Cook Transports, Inc., MC-135529 Sub-1...................................... MC-135529 Sub-2El Dorado Transportation, Inc., MC-135535 Sub-3..........................MC-135535 Sub-4"

.......... -.............................................MC-135561 Sub-1.’Lake Port Trucking and Leasing and Leasing, Inc., MC-135696 Sub-2. . . MC-135696 Sub-1Motor Service Co., Inc., MC-135701.............. ............................... MC-135701 Sub-l”J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc., MC-135797 Sub-4....................... * MC-135797 Sub-7S&S Enterprises, Inc., MC-135840 Sub-1.........................................MC-135840 Sub-2*’d.b.a. Specialized Trucking Service, MC-135877 Sub-3...................... MC-135877 Sub-6Voyne E. Gleason, MC-135887 Sub-1........................................ MC-135887 Sub-2*’Joe Brown Co., Inc., MC-136008 Sub-7................................... MC-136008 Sub-8"D.b.a. E S Lafoe, lkC-136080...........................................i : " " " MC-1W0 SuM I'.Bernard An^re, MC-136117.................................................... MC-136117 SuB-1Hubbard Cartage, Inc., MC-136451 Sub-2.................................. " MC-136451 Sub-3 *Talmadge C. Gray, MC-136513 Sub-3.... .............................. MC-136513 Sub-4"Trans American Exchange, Inc., MC-136565.......... .................. MC-136565 Snb-l "D.b.a. The Waggoners, Md-136777 Sub-1..................................... ” MC-136777 Sub-3 *Robco Transportation, Inc., MC-136786 Sub-10........ ................. MC-136786 Sub-37*Prospex Industries, Ltd., MC-136810......................... ............... MC-136810 Sub-1 *D.b.a. Matlock Transportation, MC-136814 Sub-1........ i ........... * MC-136814 Sub-2 *Midnight Express, Inc~ MC-136842................................... MC-136842 Sub-l” 'Swift Transportation Co., Inc., MC-136897 Sub-2......................... " * MC-136897 Sub-4**'Package Express, Inc., MC-136911, and Sub-2............ ................... MC-136911 Sub-l"'Th® Oail Corp., MC-136930, and Sub-l.......................................... MC-136930 Sub-2 *'Kay’s Trucking, Inc., MC-136953............... , ........... .................... MC-136953 Sub-l” I

. Nov. 14,1973

. Nov. 20,1973

. Nov. 6,1973

. Nov. 2,1973

. Nov. 19,1973

. Nov. 23,1973

. Nov. 13,1973 Nov. 23,1973

. Feb. 8,1974

. Nov. 21,1973

. Nov. 27,1973

. Nov. 14,1973

. Dec. 6,1973

. Nov. 26,1973

. Jan. 24,1974

. Nov. 20,1973 Jan. 30,1974 Jan. 23,1974 Nov. 8,1973 Dec. 21,1973 Jan. 3,1974 Nov. 14,1973 Nov. 20,1973 Jan. 30,1974 Nov. 28,1973 Dec. 18,1973 Nov. 7,1973 Dec. 11,1973 Feb. 8,1974 Dec. 3,1973 Dec. 6,1973 Jan. 29,1974 Nov. 8,1973 Nov. 14,1973 Dec. 18,1973 Nov. 15,1973 Dec. 14,1973 Dec. 4,1973 Dec. 14,1973 Jan. 21,1974 Apr. 29,1974 Jan. 2,197¿

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36078 NOTICES

Temporary authority application Final action or certificate Date of or permit action

Lake Crystal Transportation, Oo., MC-136961 Sub-1---- -Scott Trucking, Inc., MC-136988 Sub-2------ -------------R. F. Box, d.b.a., R. F. Box Trucking, MC-136989 Sub-1.Heavy Hauling, Inc., MC-I38076 Sub-1. -----------------D.b.a. Lowrance Moving & Btorage, MC-138099--- — —Orbit Stull, MC-138221.----------------------- -------- --Charles H. Williams Trucking Co., Inc., MC-138247------Shippers Best Express, Inc., MC-I38274 Sub-2-----.......Associated Delivery Service, Inc., MC-138288 Sub-1...---National Parkers Express, Inc., MC-138304---------- ----Furness (Montreal) Ltd., MC-138318 Sub-1. ________—.D.b.a. Valley Spreader Co., MC-138345.______________Lenneman Transport, Inc., MC-138359----1---------------D.b.a. Hoth Trucking, MC-138364 Sub-1.. . . . . ----------D.b.a. Ruckdaschel Truck Line, MC-138366 Sub-1-------Chadderdon & Sons, Inc., MC-13S381 Sub-1, 2------------Elwood Lynch, MC-138384 Sub-1__________ _________ _Kephart Trucking Co., MC-138386------------------------Spruce River Transport, Inc., MC-138411 Sub-1.............D.b.a. H. J. Bell, MC-138414-............. ...............—ASI,.Inc., MC-138429 Sub-1................................... —Pinky’s Transportation, Inc., MC-138440_____________Keystone Lime Co., Inc., MC-138444________;----------Park Cities Van Lines, Inc., MC-138460--- ---------------d.b.a. Schnitker Truck Lines, MC-138478 Sub-1........Metropolitan Contract Services, In$., MC-138505 Sub-1—Ricci Trans. Co., Inc., MC-138510___________________D.b.a. New Trucking, MC-138614--------- '------------- -Redcliff Bus Lines, Ltd., MC-138700 (Sub-1)—--- -

MC-136961 Sub-2.....„.i__Feb. 8,1974MC-136988 Sub-8_________ Nov. 28,1973MC-136989 Sub-2_________ Nov. 23,1973MC-138076 Sub-2.......____Nov. 21,1973MC-138099 Sub-2_________ Nov. 19,1973MC-138221 Sub-1.__—....... Jan. 23,1974MC-138247 Sub-1— ........... Apr. 29,1974MC-138274 Sub-3............... Do.MC-138288 Sub-2......; ....... Dec. 20,1973MC-138304 Sub-1...............Jan. 3,1974MC-138318.....— ___ _ Dee. 18,1978MC-138345 Sub-1.-.............Dec. 4,1973MC-138359 Sub-1__________Nov. 15,1973MC-138364 Sub-2— ______ Dec. 12,1973MC-138366 Sub-2........ ...... Dec. 10,1973MC-138381 Sub-3_________ Nov. 26,1973MO-138384 Sub-2........ ......Jan. 2,1974MC-138386 Sub-1............. Nov. 27,1973MC-138411 Sub-2________ _ Apr. 25,1974MC-138414 Sub-1...............Dec. 18,1973MC-138429 Sub-2-.— .:.— . Jan. 3,1974MC-138440 Sub-1.... .......... Dec. 10,1973MC-138444 Sub-1.............. Nov. 8,1973MC-138460 Sub-1...............Jan. 25,1974MC-138478 Sub-2............— Jan. 2,1974MC-138505..:...................Jan. 23,1974MC-138510 Sub-1............ . Nov. 30,1973MC-138614 Sub-1........ ..... Apr. 26,1974MC-138700 Sub-2______ ___Apr. 25,1974

[SEAL] R obert L. O s w a l d ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23173 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

[Notice 604]

ASSIGNMENT OF HEARINGS* O ctober 2,1974.

Cases assigned for hearing, postpone­ment, cancellation or oral argument ap­pear below and will be published only once. This list contains prospective as­signments only and does not include cases previously assigned hearing dates. The hearings will be on the issues as presently reflected in the official docket of the Commission. An attempt will be made to publish notices of cancellation of hearings as promptly as possible, but interested parties should take appropri­ate steps to insure that they are notified of cancellation or postponements of hearings in which they are interested. No amendments will be entertained after the date of this publication.MC 119789 Sub 191, Caravan Refrigerated

Cargo, Inc., riow assigned October 18, 1974, at Phoenix, Ariz., is cancelled and the ap­plication is dismissed.

MC 119777 Sub 293, Ligon Specialized Hauler, Inc., now assigned October 31, 1974, at Omaha, Nebr., is cancelled and the appli­cation is dismissed.

MC 31389 Sub 180, McLean Trucking Com­pany, now being assigned hearing Decem­ber 4, 1974 (2 days), at Little Rock, Ark., in a hearing room to be latert designated.

MC 114211 Sub 225, Warren Transport, Inc., now assigned November 5,1974, at Chicago, 111., will be held in Room 1086A, Everett McKinley Dirksen Bldg., 219 South Dear­born St.

MC 113678 Sub 536, Curtis, Inc., now as­signed November 7, 1974, at Chicago, 111., will be held in Room 1086A, Everett Mc­Kinley Dirksen Bldg., 219 S. Dearborn Street.

MC 1872 Sub 79, Ashworth Transfer, Inc., MC 32882 Sub 67, MitcheU Bros. Truck Lines, MC 95876 Sub 140, Anderson Truck­ing Service, Inc., MC 107456 Sub 20, Harry L. Young and Sons, Inc., MC 108119 Sub 40, E. L. Murphy Trucking Co., MC 113855 Sub

258, International Transport, Inc., MC 123407 Sub 134, Sawyer Transport, Inc., MC 123681 Sub 24, Widing Transportation, Inc., MC 125433 Sub 36, F -B Truck Line Company, MC 127242 Sub 3, Houston Truck Lines, Inc., now being assigned hear­ings December 2, 1974 (2 weeks), at San Francisco, Calif., and December 16, 1974 (1 week), at Minneapolis, Minn., hi hear­ing rooms to be later designated.

MC 113267 Sub 313, Central and Southern Truck Lines, Inc., now assigned Novem­ber 11, 1974, at Chicago, 111.; will be held in Room 1665, Everett McKinley Dirksen Bldg., 219 South Dearborn Street.

MC 139738, Commercial Air Frate, Inc., now assigned November 12, 1974, will be held in Room 1086A, Everett McKinley Dirksen Bldg., 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, HI.-,

[ seal ] R obert L . O s w a l d ,Secretary.

[FR Doc.74-23306 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

IRREGULAR-ROUTE MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS OF PROPERTY-ELIMINATION OF GATEWAY LETTER NOTICES

O ctober 2, 1974. . The following letter-notices of pro­

posals to eliminate gateways for the pur­pose of reducing highway congestion, al­leviating air and noise pollution, mini­mizing safety hazards, and conserving fuel have been filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission under the Com­mission’s Gateway Elimination Rules (49 CFR 1065(a) ) , and notice thereof to all interested persons is hereby given as pro­vided in such rules.

An original and two copies of protests against the proposed elimination of any gateways herein described may be filed with the Interstate Commerce Commis­sion on or before October 17,1974. A copy must also be served upon applicant or its representative. Protests against the elim­ination of a gateway will not operate to stay commencement of the proposed operation.

Successively filed letter-notices of the same carrier under these rules will be numbered consecutively for convenience in identification. Protests, if any, must refer to such letter-notices by number.

No. MC 730 (Sub-No. E42), filed May 8, 1974. Applicant: PACIFIC INTER­MOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., P.O. Box 638, Oakland, Calif. 94612. Applicant’s representative: R. N. Cooledge (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, o"3r irregular routes, transporting: Pe­troleum and petroleum products, as de­scribed in Appendix X IH to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certifi­cates, 61 M.C.C. 209, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in that part of Utah in and north of Tooele, Utah, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, to points in California. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Salt Lake City, Utah.

No. MC 730 (Sub-No. E45), filed May 8, 1974. Applicant: PACIFIC INTER­MOUNTAIN EXPRESS COr, 1417 Clay Street, Oakland, Calif. 94612. Applicant’s representative: R. N. Cooledge (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular; routes, transporting: Pe­troleum products, in bulk, in tank ve­hicles, from, points in that part of New Mexico on and north of Interstate High­way 40 to points in that part of Nevada on and north of U.S. Highway 50. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Salt Lake City, Utah.

No. MC 730 (Sub-No. E47), filed May 13, 1974. Applicant: PACIFIC INTER­MOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., P.O. Box 633, Oakland, Calif. 94612. Applicant’s representative: R. N. Cooledge (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by. motor vehicle over irregular routes, transporting: Pe­troleum products as described in Appen­dix X IH to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in that part of Utah in and north of Tooele, Utah, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, to points in Nevada. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gate­way of Salt Lake City, Utah.

No MC 61592 (Sub-No. E48h filed ìe 10, 1974. Applicant: JENKINb UCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3 P.O. Box , Jeffersonville, Ind. 47130. Applicant resentative: Bob Jenkins (same as ive). Authority sought to operate as 7mon carrier, by motor vehicle, ov igular routes, transporting: Lumoer, m points in Lewis and Clark Comi . ., to points in Kentucky and Tennes- . The purpose of this filing is to eiiiw e the gateway of Beardstown, n •To. MC 730 (Sub-No. E49), y 13, 1974. Applicant: PACI^iI7ERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., 1 ,y Street, Oakland, Calif. 9461 • ¡ant’s representative: R. N. Co ^ me as above). Authority torrate as a common carrier, t.tide, over irregular routes, transpo : Petroleum and petroleum Pr

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36079in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in that part of Colorado in and north of Garfield, Eagle, Lake, Chaffee, Fremont, Pueblo, Otero, Bent, and Prowers Coun-- ties, to points in that part of Idaho in and south of Adams, Valley, Clark, Lemhi, and Fremont Counties. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Wyoming.

No. MC 730 (Sub-No. E55), filed May 13, 1974. Applicant: PACIFIC INTERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., P.O. Box 638, Oakland, Calif. 94612. Appli­cant’s representative: R. N. Cooledge (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport-' ing: Petroleum products, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in Wyoming to points in that part of Oregon on and north of Lane, Deschutes, and Crook Counties, and in and west of Crook, Wheeler, and Gilliam Counties. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of Caldwell, Idaho, and Baker and The Dallas, Oreg.

No. MC 29079 (Sub-No. E l l ) (correc­tion), filed May 21, 1974 published in the F ed er al R e g is t e r July 23, 1974. Applicant: BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., P.O. Box 395, Kokomo, Ind. 46901. Applicant’s representative: Edward K. Wheeler, 15th & H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron, steel and iron and steel products and dies, and die parts, die checking fixtures, die models, hand jigs, tools, patterns, and templates, when moving in connection with dies, from De­troit, Gibralter, and Kelsey Hayes Com­pany, Romulus Township, Mich., to points in Illinois and St. Louis, Mo. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of Portage and Kokomo, Ind. The purpose of this correction is to ex­pand the commodity description.

No. MC 29079 (Sub-No. E12) (correc­tion), filed May 21, 1974 published m the F ederal R e g is t e r July 23, 1974. Applicant: BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., P.O. Box 395, Kokomo, hid. 46901. Applicant’s representative: Edward K. Wheeler, 15th & H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, oy motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron, steel, and iron and steel products, dies, die parts, die check- uig fixtures, die models hand jigs, tools, Patterns, and templates, when moving n connection with dies (except those commodities of such size or weight as equire the use of special equipment),

jjom Detroit, Gibraltar and Kelsey "ayes Company at Romulus Township, fhi «vto Louisville, Ky. The purpose of w® "hng is to eliminate the gateway of

*nd. The purpose of this cor- tion is to expand the commodity

description.

JS?- 29079 (Sub-No. E13) (cor- ecuon), filed May 21, 1974 published in

Federal R egister July 23, 1974. Ap-

plieant: BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., P.O. Box 395, Kokomo, Ind. 46901. Applicant’s representative: Edward K. Wheeler, 15th & H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron, iron and steel products, and dies, and die parts, die checking fixtures, die models, hand jigs, tools, patterns, and templates, when moving in connection with dies, between St. Louis, Mo., and points in Illinois, on the one hand, and, on the other, Erie, Pa. The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Kokomo, Ind. The purpose of this correction is to expand the commodity description.^ No. MC 29079 (Sub-No. E16) (cor­rection) , filed May 21, 1974 published in the F ed e r a l R e g is t e r , July 23, 1974. Ap­plicant: BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., P.O. Box 395, Kokomo, Ind. 46901. Applicant’s representative: Edward K. Wheeler, 15th and H Streets NW., Washington, D.C. 20005. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron, steel and iron and steel products and dies, and die parts, die checking fixtures, die models,~7iand jigs, tools, patterns, and templates when moving in conn6ction with dies, (1) between Clarion, Pa., on the one hand, and on the other, Galesburg, and Savan­na, HI,: (2) between DuBois, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Dixon, Freeport,' Quincy, and Savanna,111.; (3) between Greensburg, Pa., on the one. hand, and, on the other, Aurora, Deerfield, Elgin, Galesburg, Glen Ellyn, La Salle, Rockford, Waukegan, and Woodstock, HI.; (4) between Indiana, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, De Kalb, Dixon, Fox Lake, Free­port, Galesburg, La Salle, Rockford, Savanna, Waukegan, and Woodstock, HI.; (5) between Johnstown, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Aurora, Chicago, Deerfield, De Kalb, Dixon, Elgin, Fox Lake, Freeport, Galesburg, Glen Ellyn, La Salle, Rockford, Savanna, Waukegan, and Woodstock, 111.; between Kane, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Freeport, Galesburg, Quincy, and Savanna, HI.; (6) between New Castle, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Savanna, HI.; (7) between Pittsburgh, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, De Kalb, Dixon, Fox Lake, Freeport, Rockford, Savanna, and Woodstock, HI.; (8) between Punxsutaw- ney, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Dixon, Freeport, Galesburg, arid Savanna, HI.; (9) between Rochester, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the_ other, Dixon, Freeport, Rockford, and Savanna, 111.; (10) between Somer­set, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Aurora, Chicago, Deerfield, De Kalb, Dixon, Elgin, Fox Lake, Free­port, Galesburg, Glen Ellyn, La Salle, Rockford, Savanna, Waukegan and Woodstock, HI.; (11) between Union- town, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Aurora, De Kalb, Dixon, Rock­ford, Savanna, and Woodstock, 111.;

(12) between Warren, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Marion, 111.; and (13) between Washington, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Savan­na, HI. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of Columbiana, Ohio, Detroit, Mich., and Portage and Kokomo, Ind. The purpose of this cor­rection is to expand the commodity description.

No. MC 29079 (Sub-No. E18) (correc­tion) , filed May 21, 1974 published in the F e d er al R e g is t e r July 23, 1974. Appli­cant: BRADA MILLER FREIGHT SYS­TEM, INC., P.O. Box 395, Kokomo, Ind. 46901. Applicant’s representative: Ed­ward K. Wheeler, 15th and H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Dies, and die parts, die checking fixtures, die models, hand jigs, tools patterns, and templates, when moving in connection with dies, from Detroit, and Kelsey Hayes Company, at Romulus, Mich., to points in New York on and west of U.S. Highway 62 (except points in Lake Erie between Angola and the State line), points in Pennsylvania on and west of U.S. Highway 219 (ex­cept points located in Erie County), and points in West Virginia on and north of U.S. Highway 40; and (2) iron and steel articles, as described in Appendix V to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209, from Detroit and Gibralter, and Kelsey Hayes Company at Romulus, Mich., to the des­tination territories described in (1) above. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Columbiana, Ohio. The purpose of this correction is to expand the origin territory in (2) above.

No. MC 50069 (Sub-No. E3), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: REFINERS TRANSPORT & TERMINAL CORPORA­TION, 445 Earlwood Ave., Oregon, Ohio 43616. Applicant’s- representative: Jack A. Gollan (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Phosphoric acid, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Villa Park, HI., and points within 5 miles thereof (ex­cept points within the Chicago, HI., com­mercial zone, as defined by the Com­mission), to points in Pennsylvania on and west of U.S. Highway 219. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Trenton, Mich.

No. MC 50069 (Sub-No. E5), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: REFINERS TRANSPORT & TERMINAL COR­PORATION, 445 Earlwood Ave., Oregon, Ohio 43616. Applicant’s representative: Jack A. Gollan (same as above). Author­ity sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting:. Paint materials, synthetic resins, lacquers, varnishes, and liquid glues, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Swanton, Ohio, to points in Iowa and Missouri. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Peoria, HI.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36080 NOTICES

No. MC 50069 (Sub-No. E6), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: REFINERS TRANSPORT & TERMINAL COR­PORATION, 445 Earlwood Ave., Oregon, Ohio 43616. Applicant’s representative: Jack A. Gollan (same as above). Author­ity sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Varnishes and lac­quers in bulk, in tank vehicles, from In­dianapolis, Ind., to points in Iowa and Minnesota (Peoria, 111.)*, points in Pennsylvania north of the Pennsylvania Turnpike and points in New York (To­ledo, Ohio) *, points in Wisconsin (Dan­ville, 111.) *, points in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Jersey (To­ledo, Ohio) *. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways marked with asterisks above.

No. MC 50069 (Sub-No. E7), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: REFINERS TRANSPORT & TERMINAL CORPO­RATION, 445 Earlwood Ave., Oregon, Ohio 43616. Applicant’s representative: Jack A. Gollan (same as above). Author­ity sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Petroleum products, as described in Appendix X III to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209, from Indianapolis, Ind., and points and places within 20 miles thereof, to points in Kentucky east of U.S. Highway 127 (Leb­anon, Ohio) *, points in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan north of a line from the Indiana-Michigan State line and extending along the Michigan-Indi- ana State line to the junction of U.S. Highway 31, thence along U.S. highway 31 to Niles, Mich., thence along Michi­gan Highway 40 to the junction of U.S. Highway 12, thence along U.S. Highway 12 to the junction of U.S. Highway 127, and east o f a line from the junction of U.S. Highway 12 and U.S. Highway 127 along U.S. Highway 127 to Lansing, thence along U.S. Highway 27 to the junction of Interstate Highway 75, thence along Interstate Highway 75 to Mackinaw City, Mich. (Lima, Ohio and points within 10 miles thereof)*, points in New York west of a line from the Pennsylvania-New York State line along New York Highway 8 to Utica, thence along New York Highway 49 to Rome, thence along New York Highway 69 to Camden, thence along New York High­way 13 to Port-"Ontario, N.Y. (Lima, Ohio, and Titusville, Pa.)*, points in Pennsylvania north and west of a line from the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line along U.S. Highway 22 to the junction of Pennsylvania Highway 60, thence along Pennsylvania Highway 60 to Pittsburgh, thence due north to the New York-Penn- sylvania State line (Springfield, Ohio)*, and points in West Virginia (except points in Marawha Counties and except petrochemicals to Follansbee and Mor- ganstown, W. Va.) (Lebanon, Ohio and Ashland, K y .)* ; and (2) Petroleum products (except petrochemicals), from Indianapolis, Ind., to points in Connecti­cut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. (Springfield, Ohio, Mid­land, Pa., and Congo, W. Va.) *. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gate­ways indicated by asterisks above.

No. MC 61592 CSub-No. E30), filed May 31, 1974. Applicant: JENKINSTRUCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3, P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville, Ind. 47130. Appli­cant’s representative: Bob Jenkins (same as above). Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Agricultural implements and parts, from Moline, 111., to points in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Mary­land, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washing­ton. The purpose of this filing is to eli­minate the gateway of the plant site of Simplicity Manufacturing Co., at Port Washington, Wis.

No. MC 61592 (Sub-No. E33), filed June 3, 1974. Applicant: JENKINSTRUCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3, P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville, Ind. 47130. Appli­cant’s representative: Bob Jenkins (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Agricultural implements (except com­modities which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment), from Memphis, Tenn., to points in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gate­ways of the plant and warehouse sites of White Farm Equipment, a wholly owned subsidiary of White Motor Cor­poration, at Atlanta, Ga.

No. MC 61592 (Sub-No. E35), filed June 3, 1974. Applicant: JENKINSTRUCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3, P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville, Ind. 47130. Applicant’s representative: Bob Jenkins (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Tractors (except truck-tractors and those which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment), from New Orleans, La., to points in Minneosta, Montana, North Dakota, Washington, and Wiscon­sin. The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of the plant site of Simplicity Manufacturing Co., at Port Washington, Wis.

No. MC 61592 (Sub-No. E36), filed June 3, 1974. Applicant: JENKINSTRUCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3, P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville, Ind.. 47130. Applicant’s representative: Bob Jenkins (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, jjver irregular routes, transporting: Tractors (except truck tractors and those which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment), from Houston, Tex., to points in Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Simplicity Manufacturing Co., at Port Washington, Wis.

No. MC 61592 (Sub-No. E43), filed June 10, 1974. Applicant: JENKINS TRUCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3, P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville, Ind. 47130. Applicant’s representative: Bob Jenkins (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Agricul­tural implements (except such imple­ments which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment), from Memphis, Tenn., to points in Mon­tana and Washington. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Simplicity Manufactur­ing Co., at Port .Washington, Wis.

No. MC 61592 (Sub-No. E47), filed June 10, 1974. Applicant: JENKINS TRUCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3, P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville,' Ind. 47130. Applicant’s representative: Bob Jenkins (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Plastic pipe, plastic tubing, plastic conduit, plas­tic moulding, plastic valves, plastic fit­tings, plastic compounds, plastic joint sealer, plastic bonding cement, plastic thinner, vinyl building products, and ac­cessories used in the installation of such products, from Pevely, Mo., to points in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of McPherson, Kans.

No. MC 61592 (Sub-No. E50), filed June 25, 1974. Applicant: JENKINS TRUCK LINE, INC., R.R. 3, P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville, Ind. 47130. Appli­cant’s representative: Bob Jenkins (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Lumber, from Beardstown, 111., to points in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Mas­sachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, Vermont, and Virginia. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Cass County, Ind.

No. MC 100666 (Sub-No. E191), filed May 19, 1974. Applicant: M ELTO N TRUCK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 7666, Shreveport, Louisiana 71107. Applicants representative: Paul L. Caplinger (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting : ( l) Composition hardboard, composition paneling, and composition building (points in Henry County, Tenn.) *, points in Illinois, Missouri, and Wyoming (points in Henry County Tenn.) * POin in Iowa, Kansas, the Upper Penmsulaoi Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nor■ Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, anu Wisconsin (the warehouses and pia site of the International Paper Coi^any located in Stone County, Miss.) in Colorado and New Mexico (Acme. Tex.)*, and points in Arizona, Califor­nia, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington (the warelmus and plantsite of the International Pape

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36081Company, located in Stone County, Miss., and Pittsburg, ans.*). The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways marked with asterisks above.

No. MC 100666 (Sub-No. E192), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: MELTON TRUCK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 7666, Shreveport, La. 71107. Applicant’s rep­resentative : Paul L. Caplinger (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Paper and paper products (except com­modities in bulk, and commodities which, because of size or weight, require the use of special equipment), (1) from the plant and warehouse facilities of Bo- waters Southern Paper Corporation in McMinn County, Tenn., to points in Alaska. Restriction: The service author­ized in (1) above is restricted to traffic originating at the named origins. (2) From the plants!te of the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company located at or near Wickliffe, Ky., from points in Rich­mond County, Ga., and from the plant- site and storage facilities of the Weyer- hauser Company located at or near Val- liant, Oklahoma, to points in Alaska. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plantsites and storage facilities of Boise-Southern Company on Taylor Road, in Beauregard Parish, La.

No. MC 100666 (Sub-No. E197), filed May 24, 1974. Applicant: MELTON TRUCK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 7666, Shreveport, La. 71107. Applicant’s rep­resentative: Paul L. Caplinger (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Com­position or prepared roofing, from points in Kansas to points in Georgia. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of West Memphis, Ark.

No. MC 100666 (Sub-No. E198), filed May 19, 1974. Applicant: MELTON TRUCK LINES, INC., P.O. Bok 7666, Shreveport, La. 71107. Applicant’s rep­resentative: Paul L. Caplinger (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Composi­tion board, from Trumann, Ark., to Points in Montana and Wyoming (points in Henry County, Tenn.) *, and points in California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington (points in Henry County, Tenn., and Pittsburg, Kan.) % The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways marked with asterisks above.

No. MC 107002 (Sub-No. E9), filed May 13, 1974. Applicant: MILLER TRANSPORTERS, INC., P.O. Box 1123, Jackson, Miss. 39205. Applicant’s repre­sentative: John J. Borth (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over ^regular routes, transporting: (1) «in il iCaZs (excePt liquid hydrogen, liq-

an i ° gen, and liquid oxygen), in bulk, «■ tank vehicles, from LeMoyne, Ala., to points in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

chigan, and Wisconsin, restricted against the transportation of dry chem­

icals to points in the East St. Louis, 111., .commercial zone as defined by the Com­mission. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Barfield, Ark., and points in Arkansas within 10 miles thereof. (2) Chemicals (except sulphuric acid), in bulk, in tank vehicles, from LeMoyne, Ala., to points in Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Jackson County, Miss. (3) Chemicals (except sulphuric acid and caustic soda), in bulk, in tank vehicles, from LeMoyne, Ala., to points in Ohio. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of points in Jackson County, Miss., and McIntosh, Ala* (4) Chemicals (except sulphuric acid, liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, and liquid ni­trogen), from LeMoyne, Ala., to Eliza­bethtown, Kingsport, Johnson City, Bristol, Morristown, Greenville, and Newport, Tenn. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of points in Jackson County, Miss., and Mobile, Ala.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E211), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Bananas,

hcoconuts, and pineapples, from Tampa, Fla., to points in Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, and that part of Missouri on and north of a line beginning at the Missouri- Illinois State line, thence along Missouri Highway 74 to junction Missouri High­way 25, thence along Missouri Highway 25 to junction Missouri Highway 91, thence along Missouri Highway 91 to junction Missouri Highway 34, thence along Missouri Highway 34 to junction Missouri Highway 21, thence along Mis­souri Highway 21 to junction Missouri Highway 106, thence along Missouri Highway 106 to junction Missouri High­way 17, thence along Missouri Highway 17 to junction Missouri Highway 38, thence along Missouri Highway 38 to junction U.S. Highway 66, thence along U.S. Highway 66 to junction U.S. High­way 65, thence along U.S. Highway 65 to junction U.S. Highway 60, thence along U.S. Highway 60 to the Missouri- Oklahoma State line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Food Specialties of Ken­tucky, Division of Oscar Ewing, Inc., in Jefferson County, Ky.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E212), filed May 29; 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: R. M. Tettlebaum, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Bananas, coconuts, and pineapples, from West Palm Beach, Port of Palm Beach, Port of Everglades, Fla., to points in Ohio. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Food

Specialties of Kentucky, Division of Oscar Ewing, Inc., in Jefferson County, Ky.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E213), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority' sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, meat products and meat byproducts, as described in Section A of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Car­rier Certificates, 61 MCC 209 and 766, in vehicles equipped with mechanical re­frigeration (except commodities in bulk, in tank vehicles), from Booneville, Miss., to points in Michigan. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Food Specialties of Ken­tucky, Division of Oscar Ewing, Inc., in Jefferson County, Ky.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E214), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIG­ERATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Appli­cant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Frozen foods, in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from points in that part of Alabama on and south o f U.S. Highway 80, and that part of Mississippi on and south of Inter­state Highway 20, to points in that part of Tennessee on and east of a line begin­ning at the Tennessee-North Carolina State line, thence along U.S. Highway 129 to junction Interstate Highway 75, thence along Interstate Highway 75 to the Tennessee-Kentucky State line. The purpose of this filing Is to eliminate the gateway of Doraville, Ga.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E216), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIG­ERATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Appli­cant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Fresh and cured meats and such commodities as are classified as dairy products in the appendix to the report in Modification of Permits—Packing House Products, 46 MCC 23, and 48 MCC 628, between points in North Carolina and South Carolina, on the one hand, and on the other, points in Florida on and west of U.S. Highway 231. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of any point that is both within 5 miles of Macon, Ga., and within the Macon com­mercial zone (except Macon).

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E220), filed 5/29/74. Applicant: REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s rep­resentative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3579 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36082 NOTICES

common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Fresh and cured meats, and such commodities as are classified as dairy products in the Appendix to the report in Modification of Permits—Packing House Products, 46 MCC 23, and 48 MCC 628, between points in Louisiana, on the one hand, and, on the other, that part of Tennessee on east of a line beginning at the Georgia- Tennessee State line, thence along Interstate Highway 75 to junction Inter­state Highway 40, thence along Inter­state Highway 40/75 to Knoxville, thence’ along Interstate Highway 70 to the Ken- tucky-Tennessee State line. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of any joint both within 10 miles of Atlanta, Ga., and within the Atlanta commercial zone (except Atlanta).

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E222), filed 5/29/74. Applicant: REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s rep­resentative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Frozen foods (except candy and confectionery), in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from points in Louisiana, to that part of Tennessee on and east of a line beginning at the Georgia-Ten- nessee State line, thence along Interstate Highway 75 to junction Interstate High­way 40/75, thence along Interstate High­way 40/75 to Knoxville, thence along Interstate Highway 75 to the Kentucky- Tennessee State line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Commercial Cold Storage, Inc., at Doraville, Ga.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E228), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Fresh and cured meats, in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from Bristol, Va., to points in Texas. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of (1) Atlanta, Ga., and (2) Montgomery, Ala.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E229), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Unfrozen meat and meat products, from Bristol, Va., to points in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, that part of New Jersey on and east of U.S. Highway 1, and that part of New York on and east of Interstate Highway 87. The purpose of

this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Gatesville, N.C.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E230), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, fresh, frozen, salted, cooked, or cured, in vehicles equipped with mechanical re­frigeration, from Bristol, Va., to points in Louisiana, Mississippi, and that part of Alabama, on and south of U.S. High­way 78. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Commercial Cold Storage, Inc., at Doraville, Ga.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E231), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375,3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, '■ meat products and meat by-products, as described-in Section A of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Car­rier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (except commodities in bulk), and frozen foods, /from Richmond, Va., to points in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wis­consin, that part of Indiana on and west of a line beginning at the Indiana- Michigan State line, thence along Inter­state Highway 69 to junction Interstate Highway 74, thence along Interstate Highway 74 to the Indiana-Ohio State line and that part of Tennessee on and west of Interstate Highway 65. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Food Special­ties of Kentucky, Division of Oscar Ewing, Inc., at Jefferson County, Ky.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E232), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Appli­cant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375-3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., At­lanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Meats, meat products, meat by­products, as described in Section A of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (except commodities in bulk), in vehicles equipped with mechan­ical refrigeration, from Richmond, Va., to points in Texas and that part of Kansas on and south of a line beginning at the Kansas-Colorado State line, thence along U.S. Highway 50 to junction U.S. Highway 54, thence along U.S. Highway 54 to junction U.S. Highway 77, thence along U.S. Highway 77 to the Kansas-Oklahoma State line, restricted against the transportation of traffic orig­inating at points in Florida. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Montgomery, Ala.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E233), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Appli­cant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., At­lanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Unfrozen meat and meat products, and meat by-products, as described in Section A to Appendix I to the report in Description in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (except commodi­ties in bulk), from Smithfield and Nor­folk, Va., to points in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Wisconsin, Minne­sota, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and that part -of Penn­sylvania on and north of a line beginning at the Pennsylvania-New York Statje line thence along U.S. Highway 220 to junction U.S. Highway 22 thence along U.S. Highway 22 to Pennsylvania-Ohio State, line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Gatesville, N.C.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E234), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, meat products and meat by-prod­ucts, as described in Section A of Appen­dix I to the report in Description in Mo­tor Carrier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (except commodities in bulk), from Norfolk (except imported frozen meat) and Smithfield, Va., to Kalamazoo, Mich., and to points in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and In­diana. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plant site of Food Specialties of Kentucky, Division of Oscar Ewing, Inc., in Jefferson County, Ky.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E235), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: R. M. Tettlebaum, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, meat products and meat by-products, as described in Section A of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Car­rier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (except commodities in bulk), from the plant site of Pruden Packing Co. at Suf­folk, Va., to points in Alabama, Louisi­ana, and Tennessee, restricted to the transportation of shipments originating at the facilities of Pruden Packing Co., at Suffolk, Va. The purpose of this filing ifitA oiiminafA t.hA cratewav of Goldsboro,N.C.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E 2 3 6 ) , filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGE“ " ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P O. BO* 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicants

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36083representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Unfrozen meat and meat products, from the plant site of Pruden Packing Co. at Suffolk, Va., to points in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Is­land, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Ver­mont, Maine, and Massachusetts. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Gatesville, N.C.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E237), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Fro­zen foods, from Richmond, Va., to points in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of GainsVille, Ga.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E238), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: Bruce E. Mitchell, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate as a commpn carrier, by motor vehicle, over irrgeuiar routes, transporting: Un­frozen meat and meat products (except commodities in bulk), from Norfolk, Va., to New York, N.Y., points in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, N.Y., Wisconsin, Min­nesota, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and that part of Pennsylvania on and north of a line beginning at the New York-Pennsylvania State line, thence along U.S. Highway 220 to junction U.S. Highway 22, thence along U.S. Highway 22 to the Pennsyl- vania-Ohio State line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Gatesville, N.C.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E239), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: R. M. Tettlebaum, Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30326. Authority sought to operate

a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Unfrozen horsemeat, and such animal food as is comprised of un­frozen meat, from North Platte, Nebr., to Points in that part of Virginia on and east of U.S. Highway 29. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Gatesville, N.C.

No. MC 107515 (Sub-No. E240), filed May 29, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATE0 TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box ¿08, Forest Park, Ga. 33050. Applicant’s representative: R. M. Tettlebaum, Suite 375,3379 Peachtree Rd. NE., Atlanta, Ga.°326. Authority sought to operate as a

common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, meat products, and meat by-products, as described in Section A of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Car­rier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (except commodities in bulk, in tank ve­hicles, and hides), from Grand Island, Nebr., to Philadelphia, Pa., and points in Virginia. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of the plantsite of Odom’s Sausage Co., at Madison, Tenn.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E46), filed June 3, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s representa­tive: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Au­thority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Explosives and blasting .supplies, between points in that part of Iowa on'and east of U.S. High­way 65, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey Counties, Minn., and that part of Minnesota on and north of a line begin­ning at Minneapolis, thence along U.S. Highway 52 to St. Cloud, thence along Interstate Highway 94 to the Minnesota- North Dakota State line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of St. Paul, Minn.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E47) , filed June 3, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Classes A and B explosives, (1) from points in Colorado and Wyoming to points in Alabama (Carthage and Atlas, M o.)*, (2) from points in Kansas and Nebraska to points in Alabama (Atlas, Mo.) *, and (3) from points in North Dakota and South Da­kota to points in Alabama (points in Jasper County, Mo.)*. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indicated by the asterisks above.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. *E48), filed June 3, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Classes A and B explosives, from the plantsite of Her­cules, Inc., at or near Kenvil, N.J., to points in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Merriam, Kans.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E49), filed May 3, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s ' rep­resentative: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Classes A

west of the Mississippi River to points in that part of Texas on and west of a line beginning at the New Mexico-Texas State line, thence along Texas Highway 18 to Ft. Stockton, thence^ along U.S. Highway 385 to junction Texas Highway 118, thence along Texas Highway 118 to the International Boundary line between the United States and Mexico. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gate­way of Jal, N. Mex.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E51), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s representa­tive: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Au­thority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Explosives, between points in Lpuisiana, Mississippi, and that part of Tennessee on and west of Inter­state Highway 65, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Delaware, Mary­land, Virginia, and West Virginia. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points within 10 miles of Nashville, Tenn.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E52), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant's repre­sentative: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Classes A and B explosives, (1) between points in that part of New Mexico on and south of U.S. Highway 70 and on and east of Interstate Highway 10, including Holloman Air Force Base and White Sands Missile Range, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in California, Utah, and Washington (Anthony, Tex.) *, and (2) between points in that part of New Mex­ico on and south of U.S. Highway 82 and on and east of Interstate Highway 10, in­cluding Holloman Air Force Base and White Sands Missile Range, on the one hand, and, on the other, (a) points in Nevada, that part of Arizona on and west of U.S. Highway 89 (Anthony, Tex.) *, and (b) that part of Oregon on and west of U.S. Highway 97 (Anthony, Tex., and Lincoln, Calif.)*. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways in­dicated by the asterisks above.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E53) , filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. S. Gordan (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Explosives and blasting supplies, (1) between points in Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Washington, and (2) between pbints in that part of Iowa on and east of U.S. Highway 63, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Ari-

and B explosives (except nitroglycerin), zona, California, and Clark, Douglas, from points in that part of Louisiana "Mineral, and Storey Counties, Nev. The

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195—-MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36084 NOTICES

purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Carthage, Mo.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E54), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., PC . Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (A) Classes A and B explosives, blasting materials, blasting supplies? and blasting agents, (1) from points in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (points in either Quarry Township, 111., or South Liberty Town­ship, Mo.) *, (2) from Louviers, Colo., and points within 5 miles thereof to points in that part of -Iowa on and east of U.S. Highway 65 (points in Kansas and points in South Liberty Township, Mo.) *, and (3) from points in that part of Kan­sas on and south of U;S. Highway 36 to points in Des Moines County, Iowa (points in South Liberty Township, M o .* ); and (B) Classes A and B explo­sives, (1) from points in Utah to points in that part of Iowa on and east Of U.S. Highway 281 and on and south of Iowa Highway 92 (points in South Liberty Township, M o.)*, and (2) from points in Louisiana to points in Iowa (points in Kansas and points in South Liberty Township, M o.)*. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indi­cated by the asterisks above.

No. MC 199397 (Sub-No. E55), filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O. Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (A) Explosives, (ex­cept nitroglycerin), between points in Louisiana, on the one hand, and, on the other, Louviers, Colo., and points within 5 miles thereof; and (B) Classes A and B explosives, (1) between points in Mis­souri and Arkansas, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in that part of Oklahoma on and north of U.S. High­way 60, restricted in (2) above against the transportation of nitroglycerin. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Kansas.

No. MC 109397 (Sub-No. E57),' filed May 15, 1974. Applicant: TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., P.O, Box 113, Joplin, Mo. 64801. Applicant’s represent­ative: E. S. Gordon (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Explosives, (1) from points in Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North -Carolina, South Carolina, and Ohio, to points in Iowa (the plantsite of E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Go., near Seneca, La Salle County, 111., ?or points in -Quarry Town­ship, Jersey County, HI.) * and -(2) from points in West Virginia, Virginia, Mary­land, and Delaware, to points in Iowa (West Jefferson, Maryland, and Dela­ware, to points in Iowa (West Jefferson, Ohio, and the plantsite of E. I. Du Pont

de (Nemours and Co., near Seneca, La Salle County, 111.) * The purpose o f this ¿filing is to eliminate the gateways in­dicated by asterisks above.

No. MC 110420 (SUb-No. E78), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: QUALITY-CAR­RIERS, INC., P;Q. Box 186, Pleasant Prairie, Wis. 53158. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 666 Eleventh Street NW., Washington. D.C. 20001. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, ’by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chocolate, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Milwaukee, Wis., to points in the Lower Peninsula o f Michigan, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Ken­tucky, Indianar Ohio., North Carolina, and to Denver, Colo., Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Baltimore, Md. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Chicago, 111.

No. MC 110420 (Sub-No. E78), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: QUALITY CAR­RIERS, INC., P.O. Box 186, Pleasant Prairie, Wis. 53158. Applicant’s represent­ative: E. Stephen Heisley, 666 Eleventh St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20001. Au­thority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Liquid choco­late, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Waukegan, HI., to Denver, Colo., Burling­ton, Iowa, Boston, and North Abington, Mass., New York, and Rochester, N .Y„ Fargo, N. Dak., and points in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas, California, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. (2) Liquid chocolate and edible chocolate coating and flavoring compounds in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Waukegan, 111., to points in Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Utah, that part of Ken­tucky on and south of U.S. Highway 62, and points in Ohio, in and east of Ash­tabula, Trumbull, Mahoning, ¡Colum­biana, Carroll, Tuscarawas, Guernsey, Muskingum, Morgan, Athens, Meigs, and Gallia Counties. (3) Liquid chocolate and chocolate confectioners coating, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Waukegan, ni., to points in Arkansas (except points in and south of Columbia, Union, Calhoun, Cleveland, Lincoln, and Desha Counties, The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Milwaukee, Wis.

No. MC 110420 (Sub-No. E79), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., P.Q. Box 186, Pleas­ant Prairie, Wis. 53158. Applicant’s rep­resentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 666 Eleventh St. NW., Washington, D.C, 20001. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chocolate coating, in bulk, in tank vehi­cles, from Mansfield, Mass., (1) to St. Paul, Minn., St. Joseph and Joplin, Mo., Lincoln, and Omaha, Nebr., Memphis, Tenn., Waco, Tex., and Madison, and Milwaukee, Wis. (Chicago, 111.) *; (2) to Denver, Colo., Grand Forks, N. Dak., points in Missouri, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, points in Michigan, in the Upper

Peninsula and in and southwest of Al­legan, 'Kalamazoo, and St. Joseph Counties, and that part of .'Louisiana in and west of East Felieiana, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Iberia, Eastern St. Mar­tin, and St. Mary Parishes ¡(Chicago, H I.)*; (3) to points in South Dakota (Chicago, 111.) *; (4) to points in that part of Indiana in, and west Df St. Joseph, Marshall, Pulaski, White, Tip­pecanoe, Fountain, and Warren Coun­ties, and that part of Kentuoky in, -on and west of Lexington, Marshall, and Calloway Counties (Chicago, 111.) *; (5) to points in Kansas (Chicago, 111.) * ; ¡(6) to points in California, .Oklahoma, Texas and points in that part of 'Louisiana in and west of East .Feliciana, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Iberia, Eastern St. Mar­tin, and St. Mary Parishes (Chicago, HI., and Milwaukee, Wis.) * ; C7) topoints in Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, and that part of Illinois on and north of Interstate Highway 70 (Chi­cago, HI., and Milwaukee, Wis.) *; (8) to points in Arkansas in, west, and south of Baxter, Stone, Cleburne, White, Wood­ruff, Cross, and Crittenden Counties (Chicago, HI., and Milwaukee, Wis.)*. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indicated by asterisks above.

No. MC 110420 (Sub-No. E80) , filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., PC . Box 186, Pleas­ant Prairie, Wis. 53158. Applicants rep­resentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 666 Eleventh St. NW., Washington, DC. 20Q01. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Liquid chocolate and chocolate products, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Fulton, N.Y., to points in Colorado, Nebraska, and South Dakota (Burlington, Wis.)*. (2) Liquid chocolate, chocolate confection­ery coatings, •and cocoa butter, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Fulton, N.Y., to points in Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and that part of Louisiana in and west of Tangipahoa, .St. John .the Baptist, St. Charles, and Lafourche Parishes (Bur­lington, W is.)*. (3) Liquid chocolate and chocolate products, in bulk, in ¡tank vehicles, from Fulton, N.Y., to points in that part of Missouri in and south -iff Perry, Madison, Iron, Reynolds, Shan­non, ’Texas, Wright, Webster, Christian, and Stone Counties, and that part of Hlinois in and south of Iroquois, Ford,Champaign, Piatt, Moultrie, Shelby, Fayette, Clinton, Washington, and Ran­dolph Counties (Burlington, Wis.)*. w Liquid chocolate and chocolate products, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Fulton, N.Y., to points in Minnesota, Iowa, the Upper Peninsula, and in that part oi Michigan in and west of Allegon, Kala­mazoo, and St. Joseph Counties, and to Grand Forks, N. Dak. (Burlington, jwis-> and Chicago, HI.) *. The purpose of this filing is to eliminafee the gateways in-

A/i VfcTr o o f o r i e l r o oVl/YUP

No. MC 110420 (Sub-No. E81),June 4,1974. Applicant : QUALITY CAR­RIERS, INC., PC . Box 186, Pleasant

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36085

Prairie, Wis. 53158. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 666 Elev­enth St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20001. Authority sought to operate as a com­mon carrier, by motor vehicle,' over ir­regular routes, transporting: Liquid chocolate and liquid cocoa butter, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Milwaukee, Wis., to (1) Memphis, Terin., and Waco, Tex.,(2) points in Texas and Louisiana, and(3) to Baltimore, Md. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Chicago, 111.

No. MC 110420 (Sub-No. E85), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: QUALITY CAR­RIERS, INC., P.O. Box 186, Pleasant Prairie, Wis. 53158. Applicant’s repre­sentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 666 Elev­enth St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20001. Authority sought to operate as a com­mon carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: (1) Liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles from Milwaukee, Wis., to points in (a) Mary­land, New York, New Jersey, and Penn­sylvania (Ringwood, 111.) *, (b) Nebraska (the plant site of the Hawkeye Chemical Company, at or near Clinton, Iowa) *;(2) Liquid chemicals (except liquid oxy­gen, hydrogen, and nitrogen), in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Milwaukee, Wis., to points in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Is­land, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Colum­bia (Carpentersville, 111.)*; (3) Liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Milwaukee, Wis., to points in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming and that part of Nebraska on and west of U.S. Highway 281 (Ringwood, 111., and Janesville, Wis.) *; (4) Liquid chemicals (except cryogenic liquids) from Milwau­kee, Wis., to points in that part of South Dakota on and south of Interstate High­way 90 (the plant site of the Hawkeye Chemical Company, at or near Clinton, Iowa, and Fremont, Nebr.) *. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indicated by the asterisks above.

No. MC, 110525 (Sub-No. E779) (cor­rection) , filed May 20, 1974 published in the Federal R egister Sept. 23, 1974. Ap­plicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downing- town, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representa­tive: Thomas J. O’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chemicals (except bituminous products and materials, hy- drofluodilic acid, such naval stores as are chemicals, crude tall oil, sulphate, black liquor skimmings, and liquid alum), in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in that part of West Virginia on and north of a line beginning at the West Virginia- Kentucky state line, thence along Inter­state Highway 64 to Charleston, thence along Interstate Highway 77 to the West Virginia State line, to points in Missis­sippi. The purpose of this filing is to elim­inate the gateway of Atlanta, Ga. The

purpose of this correction is to set forth the correct origin State. The purpose of this correction is to correct the “E” num­ber. Previously published as E719.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1076), filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: L i­quid glycols, and liquid etlainolamines, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Orange, Tex., to points in North Carolina, South Carolina, and that part of Florida east of the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Vicksburg, Miss.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1077), filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa: 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O ’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Ni­tric acid, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Lake Charles, La., to points in Arizona, California, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebras­ka, Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, and that part of Virginia on and east of a line be­ginning at the North Carolina—Virginia State line, thence along U.S. Highway 1 to junction Virginia Highway 46, thence along Virginia Highway 46 to junction U.S. Highway 460, thence along U.S. Highway 460 to junction U.S. Highway 15, thence along U.S. Highway 15 to junction Virginia Highway 20, thence along Virginia Highway 20 to junction U.S. Highway 29, thence along U.S. High­way 29 to junction U.S. Highway 522, thence along U.S. Highway 522 to the Virginia-West Virginia State line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Houston, Tex.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1078), filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O ’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Ni­tric acid, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from El Dorado, Ark., (1) to points in Ala­bama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and that part of Florida east of the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers (Vicksburg, Miss.) *, and (2) to points in Virginia, West Virginia, and that part of Tennessee on and east of U.S. Highway 27 (Vicksburg, Miss., and Wildwood, Ga.) *. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indi­cated by asterisks above.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1079), filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Nitric acid, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from

Luling, La., to points in (1) Kentucky (Vicksburg, Miss.)*, (2) Indiana, Mich­igan, and Ohio (Vicksburg, Miss., and Louisville, Ky.) *, (3) Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyo­ming (Houston, Tex.) *, and (4) New Mexico (Beaumont, Tex.) *. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indicated by asterisks above.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1080), filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Nitrogen solution (except those derived from petroleum, fertilizer or fertilizer ingredients) in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Luling, Louisiana, to points in (1) Kentucky (Vicksburg, Miss.)*, (2) In ­diana, Michigan, and Ohio (Vicksburg, Miss., and Louisville, Ky.) *, (3) Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (Houston, Tex.) *, and (4) points in New Mexico (Beaumont, Tex.) *. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indicated by asterisks above.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1081), filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O’Brien (same as above) . Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Nitrogen solutions (except those derived from petroleum, fertilizer or fertilizer ingredients) in bulk, in tank vehicles, from El Dorado, Ark., to points in (1) Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and that part of Florida east of the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers (Vicksburg, Miss.) *, and (2) Vir­ginia, West Virginia; and that part of Tennessee on and east of U.S. Highway 27 (Vicksburg, Miss., and Wildwood, Ga.) *. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indicated by as­terisks above.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1083) , filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Phosphoric Acid, and phosphatic ferti­lizer solutions in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Dallas, Tex., to points in North Carolina, South Carolina, and that part of Florida east of the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Vicksburg, Miss.

No. MC 110525 (Sub-No. E1094), filed May 20, 1974. Applicant: CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, Downingtown, Pa. 19335. Applicant’s representative: Thomas J. O’Brien (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36086 N O TIC E S\

over irregular routes, transporting: Cottonseed oil, soybean oil, and peanut oil, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, (1) to the District of Columbia and points in that part of Pennsylvania on and east of U.S. Highway 11 (Ports­mouth, Va.) *, (2) to New York, N.Y. (Portsmouth, Va., and points in Aston Township, Pa.)*, and (3) to points in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (Portsmouth, Va., points in Aston Township, Pa., and New York, N.Y.) *. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways indicated by the asterisks above.

No. MC 113388 (Sub-No. E l), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: LESTER C. NEWTON TRUCKING CO., P.O. Box 618, Seaford, Delaware 19973. Applicant’s rep­resentative : Charles Ephraim, 1250 Conn. Ave. NW., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Frozen foods, (1) from Dover, Del., to points in Florida and points in that part of Georgia on, south and west of a line beginning at the Georgia-Alabama State line and extending along Georgia Highway 34 to ¿junction U.S. Highway 27, thence along U.S. Highway 27 to junction Georgia Highway 109, thence along Georgia High­way 109 to junction Georgia Highway 18, thence along Georgia Highway 18. to U.S. Highway 341, thence along U.S. Highway 341, to junction Georgia Highway 11, thence along Georgia Highway 11 to •junction U.S. Highway 129, thence along U.S. Highway 129 to junction Geòrgia Highway 182, thence along Georgia Highway 182 to junction U.S. Highway 319, thence along U,S. Highway 319 to junction U.S. Highway 441, thence along U.S. Highway 441 of the Georgia-Florida State line.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Robbinsville, N.J.(2) from Bridgeville, Del., to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa­chusetts (except Boston and Cambridge), Rhode Island, and points in that part of Florida on and south of Florida High­way 84.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Dover, Del. (3) from Exmore, Va. to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts (except Boston and Cambridge), and Rhode Island.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Dover, Del. (4) from Houston, Del., to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu­setts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vir­ginia, North Carolina, New Castle County, Del. Points in Maryland west of the Chesapeake Bay, and the District of Columbia.

The purpose' of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Dover, Del. (5) from Houston, Del., to points in Florida and points in Seminole, Miller, Early, Clay, Quitman, Stewart, Chattahoochee, Muscogee, and Harris Counties, Ga.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateways of Dover, Del., and Robbinsville, N.J. (6) from Baltimore, Md. to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut (except points in New Haven, Middlesex and New London Counties), and points in, north, and east of Putnam, Dutchess, Greene, Scho­harie, Ostego, Oneida, Lewis and Jeffer­son Counties, N.Y.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateways of either Bridgeville, or Dover, Del. (7) from points in New Jersey to points in Virginia, North Caro^_ lina, and the District of Columbia.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Dover, Del. (8) from points in New Jersey to points in Florida (except points in Madison, Hamilton, Suwannee, Columbia, Baker, Nassau, and Duval Counties, Fla.)

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateways of Dover, Del., and Robbinsville, N.J. (b) from points in that part of New Jersey on and north of a line beginning at Barneget Bay and extending along New Jersey Highway 530 to junction New Jersey Highway 70, thence along New Jersey Highway 70 to junction New Jersey Highway 530, thence along New Jersey Highway 530 to the Rancocas River, thence along the Rancocas River to the Pennsylvania- Delaware State line to points in Madison, Hamilton, Suwanee, Columbia, Baker, Nassau, and Duval Counties, Fla.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateways of Dover, Del., and Robbinsville, N.J. (9) from Salem County, N.J., to points in McKean, War­ren, Forest, Clarion, Armstrong, Alle­ghany, Washington, Greene, Fayette, Erie, Crawford, Mercer, Lawrence, Beaver, Butler, and Venango Counties, Pa., points in Chautaugua, Green, Liv­ingston, Wyoming, Orleans, Niagara, Genesee, Erie, Catteragus, Franklin, Jef­ferson, St. Lawrence and Clinton Coun­ties, N.Y. and points in Maine, Virginia and North Carolina.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Dover, Del. (10) (a) from New York, N.Y., to points in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Robbinsville, N.J.(b) from New York, N.Y., to points in Aroostock County, Me.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Englishtown, N.J.(c) from New York, N.Y., to points in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateways of points in New Jersey south of New Jersey Highway 27 and Dover, Del., (11) (a) from Phil­adelphia, Pa., to points in Florida and points in Georgia in and south of Mus­cogee, Marion, Schley, Dolly, Wilcox, Ben Hill, Coffee, Bacon, Pierce, Brantley, and Camden Counties.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateways of New York, N.Y., and Robbinsville, N.J. (b) from Philadelphia, Pa., to points in Aroostock County, Me.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the-gateways of New York, N.Y. and Englishtown, N.J. •( 12) from Brockport, N.Y., to points in North Carolina, points in Kent, Queen Annes, Caroline, Talbot, Dorchester, Wicomico, Somerset and Worcester Counties, Md., points in Kent and Sussex Counties and those points in that part of New Castle County, Del., south of the .Delaware & -Chesapeake Canal, and points in Virginia in, south and east of Pittsylvania, Halifax, Char­lotte, Lunenburg, Nottoway, Amelia, Chesterfield, Hanover, King William, King and Queen and Richmond Coun­ties.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Bridgeville, Del. (13)(a) from points in Milton, Pa., to points in Florida and points in Georgia in and south of Carroll, Douglas, Decatur, Henry, Newton, Morgan, Greene, Talia­ferro, Warren, McDuffie, and Burke Counties.

The purpose Of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Robbinsville, N.J.(b) from Milton, Pa., to points in Maine (except Portland), and points on and south of Maine Highway 25.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Swedesboro, N.J. ;(c) from Milton, Pa., to points in North Carolina in, south, and east of Warren, Franklin, Wake, Harnett, Cumberland, Hoke, and Scotland Counties, N.C.

The purpose of this filing is to Elimi­nate the gateway of Dover, Del. (14) from Princess Anne, Md. and jpoints within 15 miles thereof (not including Salisbury, Md.) to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, points in Massa­chusetts (except those in Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden Counties, Mass,, points in Providence and Newport Counties, R.I. and points in Niagara, Erie, Orleans, Genesee, Wyoming, Livingston, Monroe, Clinton, Franklin, St. Lawrence, Jefferson, Os­wego, and Wayne Counties, N.Y.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateways of Deepwater, N.J. (a point within the Wilmington, Del., Commercial Zone and Dover, Del. (15) from the plantsite and warehouse facili­ties of the Pifisbury Company, at or nearEast Greenville, Penn., ¡to points in South ■Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

The purpose of this filing is to elimi­nate the gateway of Robbinsville, N.J.

No. MC 113459 (Sub-No. E73), filed May 6, 1974. Applicant: H. J. JEFFRIES FRUCK LINE, INC., P.O. Box 94850, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73109. Ap- fiicant’s representative: Robert A. Wisher (same as above). Authority ¡ought to operate as a common earner, jy motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Metal tubing and pipc> she transportation of which because o >ize or weight, require the use of specif fquipment, (1) from points in that pan >f Oklahoma on and west of a line De- pnnning at the Oklahoma-Texas St ine, thence along U.S. Highway 77 unction U.S. Highway 70, thence along I.S. Highway 70 to junction Oklahom highway 12, thence along Oklahom

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, T974

NOTICES 36087Highway 12 to junction Oklahoma High­way 78, thence along Oklahoma High­way 78 to junction Oklahoma Highway 99, thence along Oklahoma Highway 99 to junction Oklahoma Highway 7, thence along Oklahoma Highway 7 to junction U.S. Highway 81, thence along U.S. Highway 69 to junction Oklahoma High­way 10, thence along Oklahoma High­way 10 to junction U.S. Highway 59, thence along U.S. Highway 59 to junc­tion U.S. Highway 60, thejice along U.S. Highway 60 to the Oklahoma-Missouri State line, to points in Georgia (except Atlanta); and (2) from points in that part of Oklahoma on and north of a line beginning at the Oklahoma-Texas State line, thence along U.S. Highway 62 to junction Oklahoma Highway 7, thence along Oklahoma Highway 7 to junction U.S. Highway 81, thence along U.S. Highway 81 to junction Oklahoma Highway 29, thence along Oklahoma Highway 29 to junction U.S. High­way 77, thence along U.S. Highway 77 to junction Oklahoma Highway 19, thence along Oklahoma Highway 19 to junction Oklahoma Highway 1, thence along Oklahoma Highway 1 to junction U.S. Highway 75, thence along U.S. Highway 75 to junction Inter­state Highway 40, thence along Inter­state Highway 40 to the Oklahoma- Arkansas State line, to points in Ala­bama (except Decatur). The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

No. MC 113843 (Sub-No. E405) (cor­rection) , filed May 22, 1974, published in the Federal R egister September 13, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGERATED FOOD EXPRESS, INC., 316 Summer Street, Boston, Mass. 02210. Applicant’s representative: Lawrence T. Sheils (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a com m on carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Frozen meats, meat products and edible meat by-productSi as defined by the Commission, from Sandusky, Ohio, to Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and points in Bradford, Wayne, Pike, Lackawanna, Susquehanna, and Wyoming Counties, Pa. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Buffalo, N.Y. The purpose of this correction is to add the destination point of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., which was inadvertently omitted from the previous publication.

No. MC 113843 (Sub-No. E829), filed «June 4, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED FOOD EXPRESS, INC., 316 Summer Street, Boston, Mass. 02210. Ap­plicant’s representative: Lawrence T. Sheils (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport-

Frozen fruits, frozen berries, and JJ°zen Vegetables, from points in Massa­chusetts and Rhode Island to points in Kentucky. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Dundee, N.Y.

No. MC 113843 (Sub-No. E836), filedaS L 4’ 1974> Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED FOOD EXPRESS, INC., 316 Sum-

mer Street, Boston, Mass. 02210. Appli­cant’s representative: Lawrence T. Sheils (same as above). Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Frozen juices, frozen berries, and frozen vegetables from points in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, to points in Nebraska. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Geneva, N.Y.

No. MC 113843 (Sub-No. E836), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: REFRIGER­ATED FOOD EXPRESS, INC., 316 Sum­mer Street, Boston, Mass. 02210. Appli­cant’s representative: Lawrence T. Sheils (same as above). Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Frozen foods, from Vineland, N.J., to Ash­tabula, Ohio, and points in that part of Ohio on and north of a line beginning at the Ohio-Indiana State line and extend­ing along U.S. Highway 6 to Sandusky and Lake Erie. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Elmira, N.Y.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No.-E4 and E5), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLO­NIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s rep­resentative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: In E5, Iron and steel mill products encompassed by materials and Supplies used in the agri­culture, water treatment, food process­ing, wholesale groceries, and institutional supply industries (except in bulk) ; In E4, Materials and supplies used in the agriculture, water treatment, food proc­essing, wholesale groceries, and institu­tional supply industries, thè transporta­tion of which because of their size or weight require the use of special equip­ment (except in bulk), in both E4 and E5, (1) from points in Alabama on, south, and west of a line beginning at the Ala- bama-Mississippi State line and extend­ing along U.S. Highway 84 to junction U.S. Highway 31, thence along U.S. High­way 31 to the Alabama-Florida State line to points in Georgia on and north of a line beginning at the Alabama-Florida State line and extending along U.S. High­way 78 to Douglasville, thence along In­terstate Highway 20 to the Georgia- South Carolina State line and points in Tennessee (except from points in Mobile and Baldwin Counties, Ala., to Memphis, Tenn., and points in its commercial zone) ; (2) from points in Alabama with­in an area beginning at the Alabama- Mississippi State line and extending along U.S. Highway 82 to junction U.S. Highway 31, thence along U.S. Highway 31 to junction U.S. Highway 84.

Thence along U.S. Highway 84 to the Alabama-Mississippi State line, thence along said State line to the point of be­ginning to those points in Georgia de­scribed in (1) above and points in Ten­nessee; (3) from points in Alabama with­in an area beginning at the Alabama- Mississippi State line and extending

along U.S. Highway 78 to junction U.S. Highway 278 thence along U.S. Highway 278 to junction Interstate Highway 65, thence along Interstate Highway 65 to junction Alabama Highway 69, thence along Alabama Highway 69 to junction U.S. Highway 82, thence along U.S. High­way 82 to the Alabama-Mississippi State line, thence along said State line to the point of beginning to points in Georgia, Florida, and to that portion of Louisi­ana east of the Mississippi River and to those points in Tennessee on and east of U.S. Interstate Highway 65 and to that portion of Mississippi on and south of Interstate Highway 20; (4) from points in Alabama within an area beginning at the intersection of Alabama Highway 69 and Interstate Highway 65, thence along Interstate Highway 65 to Birmingham, thence south along Alabama Highway 79 to junction US. Highway 231, thence along U.S. Highway 231 to junction In­terstate Highway 20, thence along Inter­state Highway 20 to junction Alabama Highway 21.

Thence along Alabama Highway 21 to junction U.S. Alternate Highway 231, thence along U.S. Alternate Highway 231 to junction Alabama Highway 22, thence along Alabama Highway 22 to junction U.S. Highway 82, thence along U.S. Highway 82 to junction Alabama Highway 69, thence along Alabama High­way 69 to the point of beginning, to points in Georgia, Tennessee, Missis- sippif'Florida, and that part of Louisi­ana east of the Mississippi River; (5) from points in Alabama within an area beginning at Montgomery and extending northerly along Interstate Highway 65 to junction Alabama Highway 14, thence along Alabama Highway 14 to junction Alabama 49, thence along Alabama Highway 49 to junction U.S. Highway 280, thence along U.S. Highway 280 to junction Alabama Highway 22, thence along Alabama Highway 22 to junction Alabama Highway 77, thence along Ala­bama Highway 77 to junction U.S. Alter­nate Highway 231, thence along U.S. A l­ternate Highway 231 to Alabama High­way 22, thence along Alabama Highway 22 to junction U.S. Highway 82, thence along U.S. Highway 82 to Montgomery, the point of beginning, to points in Mis­sissippi, Tennessee, and those in Louisi­ana east of the Mississippi River; and (6) from points in Alabama within an area beginning at Birmingham and ex­tending along Alabama Highway 79 to junction U.S. Highway 231, thence along U.S. Highway 231 to junction Interstate Highway 20, thence" along Interstate Highway 20 to junction Alabama High­way 77, thence along Alabama Highway 77 to junction Alabama Highway 21, thence along Alabama Highway 21 to junction U.S. Highway 431, thence along U.S. Highway 431 to junction U.S. High­way 411, thence along U.S. Highway 411 to Centre, thence along Alabama High­way 9 to junction Alabama Highway 35, thence along Alabama Highway 35 to junction Alabama Highway 75, thence along Alabama Highway 75 to junction U.S. Highway 278, thence along U.S.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36088 NOT3CES

Highway 278 to junction U.S. Highway 231, thence along U.S. Highway 231 to Arab, thence along Arkansas Highway 69 to Cullman, thence along Interstate Highway 65 to Birmingham, the point of beginning, to points in Mississippi, Flpr- ida, and Louisiana east of the Missis­sippi River and that portion in Ten­nessee on and west of Interstate Highway 65 and that portion in Georgia on and south of U.S. Highway 80. The purpose of ths filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E6), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Aluminum articles, the transporta­tion of which because of their size or weight, require the use of special equip­ment, (1) between points in Florida, Mississippi, and those in Louisiana east of the Mississippi River, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Vir­ginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia; (2) between those points in Louisiana east of the Mississippi River, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Minnesota, Wis­consin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio; (3) between points in Florida and Georgia, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa; (4) between points in Florida, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin; (5) be­tween points in Georgia, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Texas; (6) between points in Mississippi, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in North Caro­lina and South Carolina; (7) between points in Arkansas, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Georgia; (8) be­tween points in Texas, on the one hand, and, on the other, those points in Ten­nessee on and east of Interstate Highway 65, and points in Florida (except those points in Florida west of U.S. Highway 319 from the Georgia-Florida State line to Saint Teresa (except Tallahassee);(9) between points in Oklahoma, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Tennessee on and east of U.S. Highway 27, and points in Florida (except those points in Florida west of U.S. Highway 319 from the Georgia-Florida State line to Saint Teresa (except Tallahassee);(10) between those points in Mississippi on and south of Interstate Highway 20, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wisconsin; (11) between those points in Mississippi on and south of Interstate Highway 10, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Illinois and Missouri.

(12) between those points in Georgia on and south of a line beginning at the Alabama-Georgia State line and extend­ing along U.S. Highway 78 to Douglas- ville, thence along Interstate Highway 20 to the Georgia-South Carolina State line, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin; (13) between those points in Nebraska and Kansas, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Tennessee on and east of U.S. High­way 27; (14) between those points in South Dakota on and west of U.S High­way 281, on the one hand, and, on the other, those points in Mississippi on and south of Interstate Highway 20; (15) be­tween those points in South Dakota on and east of U.S. Highway 281, on the one hand, and, on the other, those points in Mississippi on and south of Interstate Highway 10; (16) between points in Ohio, on the one hand, and, on the other, those points in Mississippi on and south of U.S. Highway 78 from the Alabama- Mississippi State line to the intersection of the Natchez Trace Parkway, thence southward to the intersection of the Natchez Trace Parkway and Interstate Highway 20, thence along Interstate Highway 20 to the Louisiana-Mississippi State line; (17) between points in Louisi­ana, on the one hand, and, on the other, those points in Tennessee on and east of Interstate Highway 65, and those points in Georgia on and north of U.S. High­way 80; and (18) from Akron, Cleveland, Warren, and Youngstown, Ohio, to those points in Georgia on and south of a line beginning at the Alabama-Georgia State line and extending along U.S. Highway 78 to Douglasville, thence along Inter­state Highway 20 to the intersection of Interstate Highway.75, and on and west of Interstate Highway 75 from its inter­section with Interstate Highway 20, to the Georgia-Florida State line. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gate­way of the plant site of Planet Corpora­tion, Inc., at Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E7), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birming­ham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s representa­tive: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and steel ar­ticles (except commodities which be­cause of size or weight require the use of special equipment), from (1) points on the Mississippi River south of Greenville, Miss., located in Louisiana and Missis­sippi, to points in Maine, New Hamp­shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsyl­vania (except Wellsboro and Bradford),(2) from points on the Mississippi River located in Tennessee, to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu­setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and those in New York on and east of Interstate Highway 81 from

the Pennsylvania-New York State line to Syracuse, thence along New York Highway 57 to Lake Ontario, those points in Pennsylvania on and east of Inter­state Highway 81, and (3) from points on the Tennessee River located in Ala­bama east of Interstate Highway 65, to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Ver­mont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con­necticut, New York, New Jersey, Dela­ware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (except Wellsboro and Bradford). The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E8) . filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birming­ham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s representa­tive: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and steel mill products, overhead highway sign struc­tures, highway break-away posts, high­way guardrails, and uprights, the trans­portation of which because of their size or weight, require the use of special equipment, and related contractors’ ma­terials and supplies incidental to the con­tractors’ materials and supplies inciden­tal to the commodities requiring special equipment, from points in Florida, Mis­sissippi, and those in Louisiana east of the Mississippi River, to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu­setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania (except Wellsboro and Bradford), and Kentucky (except from those points in Mississippi on and north of U.S. Highway 82 to points in Kentucky). The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E9), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Iron and steel farm implements (except commodities which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment), (1) from New Orleans, La., to points in Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and those points in Texas on, north, and west oi Interstate Highway 20 from the Texas- Louisiana State line to Dallas, thence along Interstate Highway 35E to Junc­tion Interstate Highway 35, thence along Interstate Highway 35 to San Antonio, thence along U.S. Highways 281 to junc­tion U.S. Highway 59, thence along u.&. Highway 59 to junction with Interstate Highway 37, thence along Interstate Highway 37 to Corpus Christi, thence along the Intracoastal Waterway to United States-Mexico International Boundary line, and (2) from Natchez, Miss., to points in Kentucky, No Carolina, and South Carolina, and

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36089from Vicksburg, Miss., to points in North Carolina and South Carolina. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Poplarville, Miss.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E10), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL PAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes; transport­ing: Iron and steel articles (except in bulk and except commodities which be­cause of size or weight require the use of special equipment), between points in North Carolina and South Carolina, on the one hand, and, on the other, points on the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers in Alabama^ Louisiana, and Mississippi, and those points located on the Missis­sippi River in Tennessee west of U.S. Highway 51. The purpose o f this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E l l ) , filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL PAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above).' Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Cast, reinforced, and prestressed concrete, and concrete products the transportation of which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment, from the plant site of Dixie Cast-Stone, Inc., at or. near Marietta, Ga„ and the plantsite of Southern Con­crete Products Company at or near A t­lanta, Ga., to those points in Louisiana east of the Mississippi River. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E12), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL PAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Alai 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Farm implements encompassed by iron and steel mill products, and (2) form implements, the transportation of which because o f their size or weight, require the use of special equipment and related machinery parts and related con­tractors’ materials and supplies com­posed of farm implements, when their transportation is incidental to the trans­portation of the above commodities which by reason, of size or weight require the use of special equipment, from Bir­mingham, Ala., and points within 10 miles thereof to points-in Texas. The ¡™iPose this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Poplarville, Miss.

m?0'«MC 115840 (Sub-No. E13), filed “^7 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL

* PREIGHT UNES, INC., 1215 ■°«-nkhead Highway West, P.O. Box

10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier, by mptor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Fabricated and structural aluminum articles, from points in Arkansas, Kan­sas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas to points in North Carolina and South Carolina. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gate­way of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E14), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Iron and steel farm implements, from Poplarville, Miss., to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mas­sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Mary­land, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania (except Wellsboro and Bradford, Pa.). The purpose of this fil­ing is to eliminate the gateway of Bir­mingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E15), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Cast iron pipe, from Coshocton^ Ohio, to points in Oklahoma on and south of Interstate Highway 40. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Decatur, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (SutnNo. E16), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Valves, hydrants, and gas­kets, from Anniston, Ala., to points in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti­cut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (except Wellsboro and Bradford), and Kentucky. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E17), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES,'- INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and steel articles, and fabricated and structural aluminum, the

transportation of which, because of their size or weight, require the use of special equipment, from points in Missis­sippi and those in Louisiana east of the Mississippi River to points in North Carolina and South Carolina. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E18), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and steel articles, encompassed by iron and steel mill prod­ucts, from points in Mississippi, and those in Louisiana east of the Mississippi River, to points in North Carolina and South Carolina. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E20), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Salt and salt mixtures (except in bulk), from Weeks Island, La., to points in Florida and North Carolina. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of Montgomery (in shipments to points in North Caro­lina) and Mobile (on shipments to points in Florida), Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E21), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Ap­plicant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and steel articles (ex­cept commodities which because of size and weight require the use of special equipment, and commodities used in or in connection with discovery, develop­ment, production, refining, manrtfactur- ing, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas and petroleum and their products and by­products) , from points on the Tennessee River in Alabama and points on the Ten­nessee River in Tennessee on and east of U.S. Highway 27, to points in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate thé gateway of Decatur, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E22), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Ap­plicant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36090 NOTICES

transporting: Salt and salt mixtures (ex­cept in bulk), and materials and sup­plies used in the agriculture, water treat­ment, food processing, wholesale gro­ceries, and institutional supply indus­tries, when shipped in mixed loads with salt and salt mixtures, from the plant site of Morton Salt, Inc., at Weeks Is­land, La., to points in Florida and North Carolina. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Montgomery (on shipments to North Carolina) and Mobile (on shipments to Florida), Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E23), filed 5/27/74. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birming­ham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s representa­tive: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a com­mon carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: (1) Iron and steel articles and conractors’ equip­ment as encompassed by iron and steel mill products, and (2) iron and steel articles and contractors’ equipment, the transportation of which because of their size or weight require the use of special equipment, and related contractors’ materials and supplies when their trans­portation is incidental to the transporta­tion of commodities which by reason of size or weight require special equipment (except cement and commodities in bulk), between points in North Carolina and South Carolina, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Mississippi, those points in Florida on and west of U.S. Highway 231, and those points in Louisiana east of the Mississippi River. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E24), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., P.O. Box 10327, 1215 Bankhead Highway West, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and steel articles (except commodities which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment), from points on the Mississippi River in Louisi­ana and Mississippi to points in Ken­tucky, North Carolina, and South Caro­lina. The purpose of this filing is to elim­inate the gateway of Memphis, Tenn.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E25), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: (I ) Iron and steel articles, as en­compassed in iron and steel mill products, and (II ) Iron and steel articles which because of their size or weight require the use of special equipment, from Bir­mingham, Ala., and points within 10 miles thereof, to points in North Caro­lina and South Carolina. The purpose of

this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Chattanooga, Tenn.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E26), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Scrap iron and steel (except com­modities which because of size or weight require the. use of special equipment), from points in Arkansas and Oklahoma to points in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Florence, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E27), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Iron and steel articles (except com­modities which because of size or weight require the use of special equipment), from those points in Alabama located on the Tennessee River, and those points in Louisiana and Mississippi located on the Mississippi River, and those points in Tennessee located on the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers east of Tennessee Highways 13, 49, and 120, to points in North Carolina and South Carolina. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Chattanooga, Tenn.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E28), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Appli­cant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Scrap metals, the transportation of which because of their size and weight require the use of special equipment, from points in Arkansas and Oklahoma, to points in Georgia and Florida. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E29), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s rep­resentative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle over irregular routes, transporting: Cast iron and brass valves and components and cast iron fire hydrants, from Anniston, Ala., to points in Texas. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E l), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAUL- ERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s representative:

Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nash­ville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Aqua ammonia and nitrogen fertil­izer solutions, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Luling, La., to points in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and those in Tennessee on and east of a line beginning at the Missis- sippi-Tennessee State line and extending along U.S. Highway 45 to Jackson, thence along U.S. Highway 45E to the Tennes- see-Kentucky State line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Sheffield, Ala., and points within 15 miles thereof.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E2), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAUL- ERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s representative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nash­ville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Sheffield, Ala., and points within 15 miles thereof, to points in Iowa and Michigan. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Maury County, Tenn.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E3), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAUL- ERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s representative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nash­ville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Hydrofluorosilicic acid, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Tupelo, Miss., to (1) points in Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, those in Missouri on and north of Interstate Highway 70, and those in Illinois on and north of Interstate Highway 70; (2) points in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan; and (3) points in Kentucky on and east of U.S. Highway 41. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of Barfield, Ark., in (1 ); Columbia, Tenn., in (2 ); and LaVergne, Tenn., in (3).

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E6), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAULERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s repre­sentative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nashville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Sheffield, Ala., and points within 15 miles thereof, to points in Michigan, West Virginia (ex­cept those in Kanawha County), and Houston, Tex. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Maury County, Tenn.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E7), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAULERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s repre­sentative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nashville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes*

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

NOTICES 36091transporting: Liquid chemicals (except phosphatic feed supplements), in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Tampa, Fla., to points in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mis­souri, Ohio, Illinois, and those in Ar­kansas oh and north of Interstate High­way 40. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Maury County, Tenn.

NO. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E71), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Applicant’s representative: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except those of unusual value, classes A and B explosives, house­hold goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those requir­ing special equipment), between points in Pike and Wyoming Counties, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Miami In­ternational Airport at or near Miami, Fla., Hartsfleld International Airport at or near Atlanta, Ga., and Douglas Mu­nicipal Airport at or near Charlotte, N.C., restricted to the transportation of traffic having prior to subsequent movement by air and further restricted against the transportation of shipments to Miami International Airport which have a sub­sequent movement beyond Miami, Fla., in foreign commerce. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of New­ark Airport, Newark, N.J.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E28), filed May 27, 1974. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINE, INC., 1215 Bank- head Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birmingham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s representative: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Scrap metals, the transportation of which because of their size and weight require the use of special equipment, from points in Arkansas and Oklahoma, to points in Georgia and Florida. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 115840 (Sub-No. E29), filed 5/27/74. Applicant: COLONIAL FAST FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1215 Bankhead Highway West, P.O. Box 10327, Birming­ham, Ala. 35202. Applicant’s represents- tive: Roger M. Shaner (same as above). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, uver irregular routes, transporting: Cast iron and brass valves and components and cast iron fire hydrants. From Anniston, Ala., to points in Texas. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Birmingham, Ala.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E l), filed 4. 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAUL-

ERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s representative: Walter Harwood, P.O. 15214, Nashville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate 88 a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Aqua

ammonia and nitrogen fertilizer solu­tions, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Lul- ing, La., to points in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, North Caro­lina, and those in Tennessee on and east of a line beginning at the Mississippi- Tennessee State line and extending along U.S. Highway 45 to Jackson, thence along U.S. Highway 45E to the Tennessee- Kentucky State line. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Shef­field, Ala., and points within 15 miles thereof.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E2), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAUL- ERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s representative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nash­ville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Sheffield, Ala., and points within 15 miles thereof, to points in Iowa and Michigan. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Maury County, Tenn.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E3), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM-HAUL- ERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s representative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nash­ville, Tenn. 37215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Hydrofluorosilicic acid, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Tupelo, Miss., to (1) points in Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, those in Missouri on and north of Interstate Highway 70, and those in Illinois on and north of Interstate Highway 70; (2) points in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan; and (3) points in Kentucky on and east of U.S. Highway 41. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of Bar- field, Ark., in (1 ); Columbia, Tenn., in(2 ); and LaVergne, Tenn., in (3).

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E6), filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM- HAULERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s repre­sentative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nashville, Tenn. 37215. Author­ity sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Sheffield, Ala., and points within 15 miles thereof, to points in Michigan, West Virginia (ex­cept those in Kanawha County), and Houston, Tex. The purpose of this fil­ing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Maury County, Tenn.

No. MC 116254 (Sub-No. E7)>, filed June 4, 1974. Applicant: CHEM- HAULERS, INC., P.O. Box Drawer M, Sheffield, Ala. 35660. Applicant’s repre-* sentative: Walter Harwood, P.O. Box 15214, Nashville, Tenn. 37215. Author­ity sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chemicals (except phosphatic feed supplements), in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Tampa, Fla., to points in Indiana, Iowa, Michi­gan, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and those

in Arkansas on and north of Interstate Highway 40. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Maury County, Tenn.

No. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E71), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Appli­cant’s representative: GeraldK. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except those of unusual value, classes A and B explosives, house­hold goods as defined by the Commis­sion, commodities in bulk, and those re­quiring special equipment), between points in Pike and Wyoming Counties, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Miami International Airport at or near Miami, Fla., Hartsfleld International Airport at or near Atlanta, Ga., and Douglas Municipal Airport at or near Charlotte, N.C., restricted to the trans­portation of traffic having a prior or sub­sequent movement by air and further restricted against the transportation of shipments to Miami International Air­port which have a subsequent movement beyond Miami, Fla., in foreign commerce. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Newark Airport, Newark, N.J.

No. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E72), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa, 19079. Appli­cant’s representative: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except those of unusual values, classes A and B explosives, house­hold goods as defined by the Commis­sion, commodities in bulk, and those re­quiring special equipment), between points in Pike County, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, Richmond, Nor­folk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Ches­apeake, Newport News, Hampton, Salem, and Roanoke, Va., and points in Han­over, Henrico, Chesterfield, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, York, Roanoke, Franklin, Montgomery, Craig, Bedford, and Bote­tourt Counties, Va., restricted to the transportation of traffic having a prior or subsequent movement by air. The pur­pose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Friendship International Air­port, Anne Arundel County, Md., and Newark Airport, Newark, N.J.

No. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E73), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Applicant’s representative: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except classes A and B ex­plosives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those requiring special equipment), between Dulles International Airport,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

360^2

Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Va., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Northampton and Accomack Coun­ties, Va., restricted to the transportation of traffic having a prior or subsequent movement by air. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway' of Friendship International Airport, Anne Arundel County, Md.

No. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E74), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Applicant’s representative: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except commodities in bulk, classes A and B explosives, and motor vehicles), between LaGuardia Air­port, New York, N.Y., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Glou­cester, and Salem Counties, N.J., that part of Burlington County, N.J., south of Rancocas Creek, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties, Pa., and that part of Burks County, Pa., north and west of Pennsylvania High­way 232, restricted against the trans­portation of aircraft engines from La­Guardia Airport. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Newark Airport, Newark, N.J.

No. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E75), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Applicant’s representative: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except commodities in bulk, classes A and B explosives, and motor vehicles), between Washington National Airport, Gravelly Point, Va., Friendship International Airport, Anne Arundel County, Md., and Dulles Inter­national Airport, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Va., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, N.J., that part of Burl-

NOTICES

ington County, N.J., south of Rancocas Creek, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties, Pa., and that part of Bucks County, Pa., north and west of Pennsylvania Highway 232. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, Pa.

No. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E78), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Applicant’s representative: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except classes A and B ex­plosives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those requiring special equipment), between Miami International Airport at or near Miami, Fla., on the- one hand, and, on the other, points in that part of Delaware on and north of Delaware Highway 20, restricted to the transpor­tation of traffic having a prior or subse­quent movement by air, and further re­stricted against the transportation of shipments moving to Miami Interna­tional Airport which have a subsequent movement beyond Miami, Fla., in for­eign commerce. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateways of Friend­ship International Airport, Anne Arundel County, Md., and Philadelphia Interna­tional Airport, Philadelphia, Pa.

No. MC 128383 (Sub-No. E79), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Applicant’s representative: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except commodities in bulk, and those requiring special equip­ment), (1) between LaGuardia Airport, New York, N.Y., and Newark Airport, Newark, N.J., on the one hand, and, on the other, Hopkins Airport, Cleveland, Ohio, Vandalia Airport, Dayton, Ohio, and Weir Cook Airport, Indianapolis, Ind.; and (2) between Philadelphia In­

ternational Airport, Philadelphia, Pa., and Weir Cook Airport, Indianapolis! Ind., restricted in (1) and (2) above to the transportation of traffic having a prior or subsequent movement by air, and further restricted against the transpor­tation of aircraft engines and parts, from LaGuardia and Newark Airports. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of John F. Kennedy Interna-' tional Airport, New York, N.Y.

No. MC 128383 • (Sub-No. E80), filed June 4,1974. Applicant: PINTO TRUCK­ING SERVICE, INC., 1414 Calcon Hook Road, Sharon Hill, Pa. 19079. Applicant’s representatives: Gerald K. Gimmel, 303 N. Frederick Ave., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except classes A and B ex­plosives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, mid those requiring special equipment), between Washington National Airport, Gravelly Point, Va., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Northamp­ton and Accomack Counties, Va. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Friendship International Air­port, Anne Arundel County, Md.

No. MC 129873 (Sub-No. E l), filed May 24, 1974. Applicant: SCHUSTER TRANSPORT, INC., Knapp, Wis. 54749. Applicant’s representative: Bradford E. Kistler, P.O. Box 82028, Lincoln, Nebr. 68501. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, oyer irregular routes, transporting: (1) Trac­tors (except truck-tractors), (2) agri­cultural implements and machinery, and(3) attachments for, and equipment de­signed for use with the articles described in (1) and (2) above, when moving in mixed loads with the articles described in (1) arid (2) above, from Rock Island and East Moline, HI., to points in South Dakota. The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of Le Mars, Iowa.

By the Commission.[ seal ] R obert L. O sw ald ,

Secretary.[FR Doc.74-23307 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974WASHINGTON, D.C.

Volume 39 ■ Number 195

PART II

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

AGENCY

FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING

POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Effluent Limitations an d Guide) ines

36094 PROPOSED RULES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[4 0 C FR Part 418][FRIi 271-4]

FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Proposed Effluent Limitations and Guidelines

Notice is hereby given that effluent limitations and guidelines for existing sources and standards of performance and pretreatment standards for new sources set forth in tentative form below are proposed by the Environmental Pro­tection Agency (E PA ). On April 8, 1974, EPA promulgated a regulation adding Part 418 to Title 40 of the Code of Fed­eral Regulations (39 FR 12832). That regulation with subsequent amendments established effluent limitations and guide­lines for existing sources and standards of performance and pretreatment stand­ards for new sources for the fertilizer manufacturing point source category. The regulation proposed below will amend 40 CFR Part 418—fertilizer manufacturing point source category by adding thereto the ammonium sulfate subcategory (Subpart F ) and the mixed and blend fertilizer production subcate­gory (Subpart G) pursuant to sections 301, 304(b) and (c), 306(b) and 307(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended 33 U.S.C. 1251,131i, 1314(b) and (c ), 1316(b) and 1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500 (the Act).

(a) Legal authority— (1) Existing point sources. Section 301(b) of the Act requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which require the application of the best practicable control technology currently available as defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b) of the Act. Section 301(b) also requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1983,' of effluent lim­itations for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which require .the application of best available technology economically achievable which will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollut­ants, as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b) to the Act.

Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish regulations pro­viding guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluent re­duction attainable through the applica­tion of the best practicable control tech­nology currently available and the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best control meas­ures and practices achievable including treatment techniques, process and pro­cedure innovations, operating methods and other alternatives. The regulation proposed herein sets forth effluent limi­tations and guidelines, pursuant to sec­tions 301 and 304(b) of the Act, for the ammonium sulfate subcategory (Sub­part F ) and the mixed and blend fer­

tilizer production subcategory (Subpart G) of the fertilizer manufacturing point source category.

(2) New sources. Section 306 of the Act requires the achievement by new sources of a Federal standard of per­formance providing for the control of the discharge of pollutants which re­flects the greatest degree of effluent reduction which the Administrator de­termines to be achievable through appli­cation of the best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.

Section 306(b) (1) (B) of the Act re­quires the Administrator to propose reg­ulations establishing Federal standards of performance for categories of new sources included in a list published pur­suant to section 306(b) (1) (A ) of the Act. The Administrator published in the F ederal R egister of January 16,1973 (38 FR 1624), a list of 27 source categories, including the fertilizer manufacturing category. The regulations proposed here­in set forth the standards of performance applicable to new sources for ammonium sulfate subcategory (Subpart F ) and the mixed and blend fertilize]: production Subcategory (Subpart G) of the fertilizer manufacturing point source category.

Section 307(c) of the Act requires the Administrator to promulgate pretreat­ment standards for new sources at the same time that standards of performance for new sources are promulgated pursu­ant to section 306. Sections 418.66 and 418.76, proposed below, provide pretreat­ment standards for new sources within ammonium sulfate subcategory. (Subpart F ) and the -mixed and blend fertilizer production subcategory (Subpart G) of the fertilizer manufacturing point source category.

Section 304(c) of the Act requires the Administrator to issue to the States and appropriate water pollution control agen­cies information on the processes, proce­dures or operating methods which result in the elimination or reduction of the discharge of pollutants to implement standards of performance under section 306 of the Act. The report or “Develop­ment Document” referred to below pro­vides, pursuant to section 304(c) of the Act, information on such processes, pro­cedures or operating methods.

(b) Summary and Basis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Exist­ing Sources and Standards of Perform­ance and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources.

(1) General methodology. The effluent limitations, guidelines and standards of performance proposed herein were de­veloped in the following manner. The point source category was first studied for the purpose of determining whether sep­arate limitations and standards are ap­propriate for different segments within the category. This analysis included a determination of whether differences in raw material used, product produced, manufacturing process employed, age, size, waste water constituents and other factors require development of separate

limitations and standards for different segments of the point source category. The raw waste characteristics for each such segment were then identified. This included an analysis of the source, flow and volume of water used in the process employed, the sources of waste and waste waters in the operation and the constitu­ents of all waste water. The constituents of the waste waters which should be sub­ject to effluent limitations and standards of performance were identified.

The control and treatment technolo­gies existing within each segment were identified. This included an identification of each distinct control and treatment technology, including both in-plant and end-of-process technologies, which are existent or capable of being designed for each segment. It also included an identi­fication of, in terms of the amount of constituents and the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollut­ants, the effluent level resulting from the application of each of the technologies. The problems, limitations and reliability of each treatment and control technol­ogy were also identified. In addition, the non-water quality environmental im­pact, such as the effects of the applica­tion of such technologies upon other pol­lution problems, including air, solid waste, noise and radiation, was identified. The energy requirements of each control and treatment technology were deter­mined as well as the cost of the appli­cation of such technologies.

The information as outlined above, was then evaluated in order to determine what levels of technology constituí* the “best practicable control technology cur­rently available,” “best available tech­nology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives.” In identifying such technologies, various factors were con­sidered. These included the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering as­pects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) and other factors.

The data, upon which the above anal­ysis was performed included EPA permit applications. EPA sampling and inspec­tions, consultant reports, and industry submissions.

The pretreatment standards proposed herein are intended to be complementary to the pretreatment standards proposed for existing sources under 40 CFR Part 128. The basis for such standards is set forth in the F ederal R egister of July 19» 1973, 38 FR 19236. The provisions of Part 128 are equally applicable to sources which would constitute “new sources, under section 306 if they were to dis­charge pollutants directly to navigapie waters, except for § 128.1326. That sectio provides a pretreatment standard io “ incompatible pollutants” which require application of the “best practicable con-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36095trol technology currently available,” sub­ject to an adjustment for amounts of pollutants removed by the publicly owned treatment works. Since the pretreatment standards proposed herein apply to new sources, §§ 418.66 and 418.76 below amend § 128.133 to specify the applica­tion of the standard of performance for new sources rather than the “best prac­ticable” standard applicable to existing sources under sections 301 and 304(b) of the Act.

(2) Summary of conclusions with re­spect to ammonium sulfate subcategory (Subpart F) and the mixed and blend fertilizer production subcategory (Sub­part G) of the fertilizer manufacturing point source category.

(i) Categorization. For the purpose of establishing effluent limitation guidelines and standards, the formulated fertilizer segment of the fertilizer manufacturing category was divided into two discrete subcategories. As is discussed in detail in the Development Document cited be­low, these subcategories were derived fol­lowing analysis of a number of factors. Among these factors were waste water characteristics, natural industry division, and treatability of water streams by either reuse in the process or treatment technology.

Ammonium sulfate is historically re­garded by industry as a nitrogen fer­tilizer, separate from the mixed fertil­izers. It does not have an actual process effluent, because of the highly exothermic nature of the ammonia-sulfuric acid re­action. Another consideration for a separate ammonium sulfate subcategory is the relatively pure nature of the process stream. Ammonium sulfate plants are part of either a steel making or fertilizer complex.

The mixed and blend fertilizer plants are subcategorized primarily on the basis of raw materials and the manufacturing and effluent control processes involved. The raw materials of this segment are principally products obtained from the basic fertilizer processes. The effluent control practices of the mixed and blend subcategory involve containment and reuse of the wastes. Mixed and blend plants are usually isolated units as op­posed to being part of an integrated fertilizer complex.

(ii) Origin and characteristics of process waste water generated by the manufacture of formulated fertilizer products.

<1) Ammonium sulfate. Ammonium sulfate in this subcategory is manufac­tured. by two processes; synthetic and coke oven by-product. The synthetic process involves direct combination of ammonia and sulfuric acid. By-product ammonium sulfate is manufactured :r°m ammonia reclaimed from the cok- mg of coal by absorption with sulfuric acid.

Synthetic ammonium sulfate is manu- a"jUred by the neutralization of sulfuric cid with ammonia. The product am­

monium sulfate is crystallized, cooled, Qd separated by centrifugation. Follow­

ing centrifugation, the crystals are washed and dried to product specifica­tions. The major process effluent results from the condensers, with either direct or indirect water-gas contact. Process waste waters contributing to raw waste load are also generated by crystal wash water, process condensate, and leaks and spills. The significant waste water con­stituent is ammonia as nitrogen.

Various methods exist to produce am­monium sulfate as a coke oven by­product. These methods all combine coke oven off-gases with sulfuric acid to form ammonium sulfate crystals. A particular method is chosen depending on the grade and crystal size desired. .The process unit operations and functions of these methr ods are essentially identical to the syn­thetic ammonium sulfate process. Thus, the water usage and waste character­istics are much the same. Since the source of ammonia is coke production, various cations and anions, in addition to ammonia, may be present in the proc­ess stream as well as small concentra­tions of phenol, tar, and cyanide.

(2) Mixed and blend fertilizers. A mixed fertilizer is manufactured by the mixing of straight and mixed fertilizer materials through chemical reactions into complete mixed goods. The process involves the controlled rate addition of both dry and liquid raw materials to a granulator for mixing. The mixed ferti­lizer product is dried, sized, and cooled and then conveyed to storage or ship­ment. Significant process waste waters result from the use of water scrubbing of drier, cooler, and ammoniator exhaust gases. Water is also used for pump seals and plant wash-up. Spills and leaks and nonpoint source discharge also account for a small portion of the waste water load. The waste stream includes water monia, phosphorus, and fluoride.

Blend fertilizer plants mix dry, straight and mixed fertilizers into com­plete mixed goods. There are no liquids used in the operation and thus no liquid wastes.

(iii) Treatment and control technol­ogy. Waste water treatment and control technologies have been studied for each subcategory of the industry to determine what is (a) the best practicable control technology currently available, (b) the best available technology economically achievable, and (c) the best available demonstrated control technology, proc­esses, operating methods or other alter­natives. Good in-process control is a sig- nificanl/ pollution abatement technique for the ammonium sulfate subcategory. The highly exothermic characteristic of the ammonia-sulfuric acid neutraliza­tion reaction permits the addition of the minor process effluents (crystal wash, spills and leaks, and indirect contact gas condensate) back into the process. The treatment technology to accomplish this is a trench and sump system with a pump to collect and recirculate minor contam­inated effluent streams. The collected ef­fluent is returned on a controlled basis to the crystallizer. This is the best prac­ticable control technology currently

available, best available control technol­ogy economically achievable, and best available demonstrated control technol­ogy, resulting in no discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.

The blend fertilizer process has no liquid requirements. Process raw mate­rials include only dry materials, and only dry type air effluent control equipment is used. Treatment technologies are not required for this process to achieve no discharge of process waste water pollu­tants to navigable waters.

For mixed fertilizer plants the effluent control system consists of a closed loop contaminated water system with a small retention pond for settling and clarify­ing the contaminated water. Pond water is returned for use in the granulator and in wet scrubbers which remove noxious gases and particulate material.

The best practicable control technol­ogy currently available, the best avail­able control technology economically achievable, and the best available dem­onstrated control technology consist of the contaminated water recirculation system. The degree of effluent reduction is no discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.

Solid waste control must be consid­ered. Best practicable control technology and best available control technology as they are known today, require disposal of the pollutants removed from waste waters in this industry in the form of solid wastes and liquid concentrates. In most cases these are non-hazardous sub­stances requiring only minimal custo­dial care. However, some constituents may be hazardous and may require spe­cial consideration. In order to ensure long term protection of the environment from these hazardous or harmful constit­uents, special consideration of disposal sites must be made. A ll , landfill sites where such hazardous wastes are dis­posed should be selected so as to prevent horizontal and vertical migration of these contaminants to ground or surface waters. In cases where geologic condi­tions may not reasonably ensure this, adequate legal and mechanical precau­tions (e.g., impervious liners) should be taken to ensure long term protection to the environment from hazardous mate­rials. Where appropriate, the location of solid hazardous materials disposal sites should be permanently recorded in the appropriate office of legal jurisdiction.

(iv) Cost estimates for control of waste water pollutants. Cost information was obtained from industry, government sources, engineering firms, and available literature. Costs are based on the model plant concept, which requires a synthe­sizing of data to develop a representative plant profile. A review of costs with vari­ous companies was undertaken for vali­dation of data.

Investment costs for a plant within the ammonium sulfate subcategory for the best practicable control technology are less than $9,000. The technology and costs are the same for synthetic and by­product plants. Estimated annual operat-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36096 PROPOSED RULES

ing costs were reported at $2,000. All o£ the ammonium sulfate plants surveyed utilized this control technology necessary to meet no discharge requirements. In­dividual mixed fertilizer plants of 40 ton per hour production capacity will require $245,000 for wet scrubbers to meet the no discharge standard, and an­nual operating costs of $52,000. Those plants with scrubbers, but without reten­tion ponds, will incur costs of $10,000.

Costs have been uniformly calculated, based on 10 percent straight line depre­ciation. Operation and maintenance are estimated at 4 percent of investment. Interest costs are adjusted to 7.5 percent of average investment over the 10 year life of the equipment to reflect average annual interest costs. All costs are based on August 1971 figures and adjusted to reflect 1973 dollar values.

(v) Energy requirements and nonwater quality environmental impacts. Increases in energy consumption for meeting best practicable control technology currently available are estimated to be $.05/hr for ammonium sulfate plants and $3.09/hr for mixed fertilizer plants.

Thermal pollution was not encountered in this study nor was noise or odor pollution.

(vi) Economic impact analysis. No ad­verse economic impacts are expected due to BPT, BAT, or NSPS regulations. The annual costs as a percentage of sales are negligible for all segments; and the capi­tal investment necessary to meet the guidelines is not significant—except in the mixed fertilizer subcategory. How­ever, only about 130 of the 362 mixed plants will need to make expenditures to comply with BPT standards. It is esti­mated that 97 of these 130 plants will close as the result of economic reasons unrelated to pollution control. Thus, actual expenditures for BPT should not be large.

The analysis of blend plants has as­sumed that no treatment is required. On the other hand, 1 to 4 plants may have wet scrubbers due to state or local air pollution regulations. Such plants would have to make substantial investments in order to meet BPT guidelines. The Agency is requesting data on the number of blend plants with wet scrubbers in place.

Price increases are anticipated exclu­sively in the mixed fertilizer sector. The majority of such plants will be able to maintain current levels of profitability with price boosts in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 percent. A few small plants may need slightly larger price increases (in the range of 2.5 to 3.0 percent) ; but most of these low tonnage producers are located in protected markets and should be able to raise prices by the required amounts.

Effluent limitations are not expected to cause any production curtailments, unemployment, community effects, or balance of trade effects either in 1977 or 1983. However, pollution control regula­tions may influence the timing of closure decisions for mixed fertilizer plants.

NSPS should not have any impact on industry growth. In fact, no new capacity additions are anticipated in the am­

monium sulfate or mixed fertilizer subcategories even without pollution controls. Construction of such plants is unlikely due to competition from direct application materials and low cost substitutes.

The report entitled “Development Doc­ument for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Formulated Fertilizer Segment of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category” details the anal­ysis undertaken in support of the regu­lation being proposed herein and is avail­able for inspection in the EPA Informa­tion Center, Room 227, West Tower, Waterside Mall, Washington, D.C., at all EPA regional offices, and at State water pollution control offices. A supplementary analysis prepared for EPA of the possible economic effects of the proposed regula­tion is also available for inspection at these locations. Copies of both of these documents are being sent to persons or institutions affected by the proposed reg­ulation, or who have placed themselves on a mailing list for this purpose (see EPA’s Advance Notice of Public Review Procedures, 38 FR 21202, August 6,1973). An additional limited number of copies of both reports are available. Persons wishing to obtain a copy may write the EPA Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention: Mr. Philip B. Wisman.

On June 14, 1973, the Agency pub­lished procedures designed to insure that, when certain major standards, regula­tions, and guidelines are proposed, an explanation of their basis, purpose and environmental effects is made available to the public (38 FR 15653). The pro­cedures are applicable to major stand­ards, regulations and guidelines which are proposed on or after December 31, 1973, and which prescribe national standards of environmental quality or re­quire national emission, effluent or per­formance standards and limitations.

The Agency determined to implement these procedures in order to insure that the public was apprised of the environ­mental effects of its major standards set­ting actions and was provided with de­tailed background information to assist it in commenting on the merits of a pro­posed action. In brief, the procedures call for the Agency to make public the infor­mation available to it delineating the major nonenvironmental factors affect­ing the decision, and to explain the viable options available to it and the reasons for the option selected.

The procedures contemplate publica­tion of this information in the F ederal R egister , where this is practicable. They provide, however, that where, because of the length of these materials, such pub­lication is impracticable, the material may be made available in an alternate format.

The report entitled “Development Doc­ument for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Formulated Fertilizer Segmehts of the Fertilizer Manufactur­ing Industry Point Source Category” con­tains information available to the Agency

concerning the major environmental ef­fects of the regulation proposed below, including:

(1) The pollutants presently dis­charged into the Nation’s waterways by manufacturers of fertilizer and the de­gree of pollution reduction obtainable from implementation of the proposed guidelines and standards (see particu­larly sections IV, V, VI, IX, X, and X I)j

(2) The anticipated effects of the pro­posed regulation on other aspects of the environment including air, solid waste disposal and land use, and noise (see par­ticularly Section V in ) ; and

(3) Options available to the Agency iri developing the proposed regulatory system and the reasons for its selecting the particular levels of effluent reduction which are proposed (see particularly Sec­tions VI, VII, and V I I I ) .

The supplementary report entitled “Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the FERTILIZER INDUS­T R Y ” contains an estimate of the cost of pollution control requirements and an analysis of the possible effects of the pro­posed regulation on prices, production levels, employment, communities in which fertilizer manufacturing plants are located, and international trade. In ad­dition, the Development Document de­scribes, in Section V III, the cost and en­ergy consumption implications of the proposed regulations,

The two reports described above in the aggregate exceed 100 pages in length and contain a substantial number of charts, diagrams, and tables. It is clearly impracticable to publish the material contained in these documents in the F ederal R egister . T o the extent pos­sible, significant aspects of the material have been presented in summary form in foregoing portions of this preamble. Additional discussion is contained in the following analysis of comments received and the Agency’s response to them. As has been indicated, both documents are available for inspection at the Agency’s Washington, D.C. and regional offices and at State water pollution control agency offices. Copies of éach have been distributed to persons and institutions affected by the proposed regulations or who have placed them­selves on a mailing list for this pur­pose. Finally, so long as the supply re­mains available, additional copies may be obtained from the Agency as de­scribed above.

When this regulation is promulgated, revised copies of the Development Document will be available from the Superintendent of Documents, Govern­ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Copies of the Economic Analysis will be available through the National Technical Information Service, Spring- neld, Virginia, 22151.

(c) Summary of public participation. Prior to this publication, the agencies and groups listed below were consulted and given an opportunity to participate in the development of effluent limita­tions, guidelines and standards proposed for the fertilizer manufacturing cate­gory. All participating agencies have been

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

PROPOSED RULES

informed of project developments. An (3) The inclusion of NPK plants in initial draft of the Development only two states, Alabama and Illinois, Document was sent to all participants was objected to as being narrow in scope, and comments were solicited on that re- The commenter felt that this precluded port. The following are the principal consideration of the many variations agencies and groups consulted: ( l ) .E f - practiced in other states, fluent Standards and Water Quality Selection o f exemplary plants was a Infomation Advisory Committee (estab- necessary part of the study. The two lished under section 515 of the Act) ; (2) states selected have a high density of all State and U.S. Territory Pollution plants in this industry and represent two Control Agencies; (3) the Fertilizer In- different geographical areas. The con­stitute; (4) Puerto Rico Land As- tractor is familiar with many plants in Association; (5) Puerto Rico Land As- the industry. From this knowledge no sociation; (6) The American Society of factors relevant to the guidelines were Mechanic Engineers; (7) Hudson River encountered due to unique circumstances Sloop Restoration, Inc.; (8) The Conser- in areas other than Alabama and Illi- vation Foundation; (9) Environmental nois. Any additional information on this Defense Fund, Inc.; (10) Natural Re- subject will be welcome, sources Defense Council; (11) The (4) One commenter stated that the American Society of Civil Defense Coun- scrubbing system depicted for mixed fer- cil; (12) The American Society of tilizer plants is not representative of the Civil Engineers; (13) Water Pollution majority of plants. Scrubber systems for Control Federation; (14) National mixed fertilizers include ammoniator off - Wildlife Federation; (15) the Isaac gases in addition to the dryer and cooler Walton League of America; (16) West- off-gases, in some cases as separate ern Montana Scientists Committee for equipment.Public Information; (17) U.S. Depart- The process diagram for mixed fer­ment of Commerce; (18) U.S. Depart- tilizer ih thè development document has ment of the Interior; (19) U.S. Depart- been modified in response to this com­ment of Agriculture; and (20) U.S. Water ment. Plants may be built with a single Resources Council. scrubber or more than one scrubber.

The following responded with com- The use of a different scrubber config- ments: North Carolina Department of uration does not affect the validity of Natural and Economic Resources; Amer- the guidelines.ican Institute of Chemical Engineers; (5) A commenter questioned the air Michigan Department of Natural Re- emission collection and abatement sys- sources; The Fertilizer Institute; Min- tern shown for blend fertilizer plants, nesota Pollution Control Agency; Some plants have bag collection systems Manufacturing Chemists Association; on point sources, but not systems de- and Delaware River Basin. signed to collect all emissions from the

The primary issues raised in the de- total plant, velopment of the proposed effluent Bag collectors for dust emission con- limitations guidelines and standards of trol may be a single unit for the whole performance and the treatment of these plant or several units at the points where issues herein are as follows: dusting occurs. The specific method of

(1) One commenter noted that diam- installing bag collectors is irrelevant to monium phosphate equipment is some- the guidelines.times used for producing NPK fertilizer (6) The Fertilizer Institute believes and this operation was not described. that the discharge proposals recom-

A few plants occasionally add potash mended by the study contractor are at­to the diammonium phosphate granu- tainable at least for most of the installa- lator to produce an NPK fertilizer. Where tions under the applicable categories, this is done it is only a few weeks in a (7) It was stated that the process de-' year and is a minor variation on the scription given for blend fertilizers principal diammònium phosphate pro- should state that batch units are usually auction. For guidelines purposes, this one of two types: A cement-type mixer, operation should be considered part of capable of 20 to 30 tons per hour and the Phase I fertilizer guidelines, which an auger-type with four or five tons per coyer diammonium phosphate. ‘ hour.

(2) The remark was made that data This will be added to the development P o t io n from only eight mixed and document.tViK fer^ izer Plants does not provide <8) One commenter suggested includ­ine broad perspective needed. It was sug- inS cooler exhaust gas in the description gested that at least 15 to 20 plants be of Process equipment with an effluent considered as a minimum in studying purge stream.mese proceSses This suggestion has been incorporated

k industry is made up of a large hi the development document.™ ber of Plants and the approach to <9> K was recommended that the cost siuay necessarily required selection of of electric energy should be 15 to 20 mills sfinin?vfry Plants that properly repre- Per KWH instead of the 10 mill rate.The ,1 f °heration of the total group. The 10 mill rate was based on the 1971 contra t bi?se smalh however, the rate in an area of moderately priced theinri, T has extensive knowledge of electricity. The energy consumption is DlanfeSt'ry*Pro1?1 this knowledge, many small for the treatment systems involved, emnin Weiie considered from which ex- The alleged difference is of no signifi- resentfiti an S Were sele<?ted to he rep- canee in the impact study, the DrnrinM0!,«116 ray materials used and (10) One reviewer noted that the esti- try, ucl mix variations in the indus- mated investment costs in the report are

very high for mixed fertilizer effluent con-

36097trol and also for the blend plant air con­trol system.

The cost estimates were done by the estimating group in the contractor’s firm whose usual work is estimating for actual construction. Estimates from this highly qualified group are believed to be accu­rate. I f the cost estimates were high, as alleged, the economic impact on the in­dustry would be less and the economic impact is conservative.

(1 1 ) One commenter stated that waste streams may contain fluoride or phenol. These constituents may be hazardous if disposed of in concentrated form. He encouraged that the report take cogni­zance of this.

Fluoride wastes are recycled or pre­cipitated to become solid waste rather than discharged. Proper disposal of such solid waste is recommended. Phenol wastes associated with by-product am­monium sulfate are. attributable to the coking operation and are not part of the subcategory as defined.

(12) A question was raised about the application of the ammoniator pond sludge as a fertilizer. Since the “muck” contains hazardous materials such as fluorides, which are considered harmful to animal and plant life, safeguards to prevent" migration of the hazardous constituents to ground water should be taken.

Disposal of solid waste must be carried out in a way that does not allow migra­tion of harmful materials to ground water or degradation to plant or animal life. Discussion of proper handling of solid wastes is included in the preamble to the proposed regulation and in the development document.

(13) One reviewer noted that the cost, energy, and nonwater quality section did not adequately deal with the disposal of potentially hazardous wastes. He urged the report to describe what the proper waste disposal procedure should be.

Although this regulation pertains to process waste water effluents, discussion of proper handling of solids wastes is included in the preamble to the proposed regulations and in the development doc­ument.

(14) One commenter questioned the no discharge standards, since fertilizer plants may need exceptions for leaks, spills, cleaning of process equipment, and discharges from holding ponds. It was recommended that a more precise definition be included in the report.

No discharge standards are viable. For ammonium sulfate, the effluents are re­cycled including leaks, spills, etc. For mixed fertilizers, the holding pond, is small and there is a negative water bal­ance that allows total recycle. The blend fertilizer process uses no process water.

(15) For ammonium sulfate, one com­menter noted that continuous recycle of crystal wash waters would cause a build­up of impurities in the product, requiring disposal of the waste impurities. This should be more directly addressed in the report. The commenter also pointed to a need for more elaboration concerning crude tar disposal. These wastes are covered in the steel guidelines.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36098 PROPOSED RULES

The effluent is recycled and the small amount of impurities present go into the product. Crude tar from by-product re­covery is part of the coking operation, not the ammonium sulfate production. This elaboration will be included in the development document.

(16) One reviewer criticized the lack of reference citations in the text as well as lack of justifying detail.

Reference citations and justifying detail have been increased in the de­velopment document.

(17) It was noted that continuous, long-term operating life is not cited for plants referenced as capable of achieving no discharge of process waste water.

Operating life with no discharge for these plants is not limited. A small amount of solid waste is generated from mixed fertilizer operations, but is han­dled by proper solid waste disposal. Be­cause all water is reused in the process and in the scrubbers, no blowdown dis­charges are required. No allowance is provided for leaks and spills since they are part of the water reused in the process.

(18) One commenter stated that wet scrubbers could be used in blend plants associated with other production facilities.

Use of wet scrubbers for dust control in blend plants is not a good alternative. By transfer of technology wet scrubber wastes from blend plants could be treated for recycle but it would be done at a significant economic disadvantage. Wet scrubbing of wastes and discharge of un­treated scrubber effluent is not a satisfac­tory alternate. Additional information on the location and treatment systems of plants using wet scrubbers is requested.

(19) The Office of Air Quality Plan­ning and Standards concurred that dry collection is the current and correct con­trol for air pollutants from blend operations.

Interested persons may participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments in triplicate to the EPA Infor­mation Center, Environmental Protec­tion Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention: Mr. Philip B. Wisman. Com­ments on all aspects of the proposed regulation are solicited. In the event comments are in the nature of criticisms as to the adequacy of data which are available, or which may be relied upon by the Agency, comments should identify and, if possible, provide any additional data which may be available and should indicate why such data are essential to the development of the regulations. In the event comments address the ap­proach taken by the Agency in establish­ing an effluent limitations guideline or standard of performance,' EPA solicits suggestions as to what alternative ap­proach should be taken and why and how this alternative better satisfies the de­tailed requirements of sections 301, 304 (b ) , 306 and 307 of the Act.

A copy of all public comments will be available for inspection and copying at the EPA Information Center, Room 227, West Tower, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. A copy of preliminary draft contractor reports, the

Development Document and economic study referred to above, and certain sup­plementary materials supporting the study of the industry concerned will also be maintained at this location for pub­lic review and copying. The EPA infor­mation regulation, 40 CFR Part 2, pro­vides that a reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

All comments received on or before No­vember 6, 1974, will be considered. Steps previously taken by the Environmental Protection Agency to facilitate public response within this time period are out­lined in the advance notice concerning public review procedures published on August 6, 1973 (38 FR 21202).

Dated: September 20,1974.Jo h n Q uarles ,

Acting Administrator.PART 418— FERTILIZER MANUFACTUR­

ING POINT SOURCE CATEGORYSubpart F— Ammonium Sulfate Production

SubcategorySec.418.60 Applicability; description of the am­

monium sulfate production sub­category.

418.61 Specialized definitions.418.62 Effluent limitations guidelines repre­

senting the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli­cation of the best available tech­nology economically achievable.,

418.63 Effluent limitations guidelines repre­senting the degree of effluent re­duction attainable by the applica­tion of the best available tech­nology economically achievable.

418.64 [Reserved].418.65 Standards of performance for new

sources.418.66 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.Subpart G— Mixed ano Blend Fertilizer

Production Subcategory418.70 Applicability; description of the

mixed and blend fertilizer produc­tion subcategory.

418.71 Specialized definitions.418.72 Effluent limitations guidelines repre­

senting the degree of effluent re­duction attainable by the applica­tion of the best practicable control technology currently available.

418.73 Effluent limitations guidelines repre­senting the degree of effluent re­duction attainable by the applica­tion of the best available technol­ogy economically achievable.

418.74 [Reserved]418.75 Standards of performance for new

sources.418.76 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.Authoritt: Secs. 301, 304(b) and (c ),

306(b) and 307(c) of the Federal Water Pol­lution Control Act, as amended; (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314(b) and (c ), 1316(b) and 1317(c)); 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92- 500 (the A ct).

Subpart F— Ammonium Sulfate Production Subcategory

§ 418.60 Applicability; description of the ammonium sulfate production subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges resulting from the produc­tion of ammonium sulfate by the syn­thetic process and by coke oven by­product recovery.

§ 418.61 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the

general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis set forth in Part 401 of this chapter shall apply to this subpart.§ 418.62 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the applica-

„ tion of the best practicable control technology currently available.

In establishing the limitations set forth in this section, EPA took into ac­count all information it was able to col­lect, develop and solicit with respect to factors (such as age and size of plant, raw materials, manufacturing processes, products produced, treatment technology available, energy requirements and costs) which can affect the industry subcate­gorization and effluent levels established. It is, however, possible that data which would affect these limitations have not been available and, as a result, these limitations should be adjusted for cer­tain plants in this industry. An individ­ual discharger or other interested per­son may submit evidence to the Regional Administrator (or to the State, if the State has the authority to issue NPDES permits) that factors relating to the equipment or facilities involved, the proc­ess applied, or other such factors related to such discharger are fundamentally different from the factors considered in the establishment of the guidelines. On the basis of such evidence or other avail­able information, the Regional Adminis­trator (or the State) will make a writ­ten finding that such factors are or are not fundamentally different - for that facility compared to those specified in the Development Document. I f such funda­mentally different factors are found tp exist, the Regional Administrator or the State shall establish for the discharger effluent limitations in the NPDES permit either more-or less stringent than the limitations established herein, to the ex­tent dictated by such fundamentally dif­ferent factors. Such limitations must be approved by--the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator may approve or disap­prove such limitations, specify other

■ limitations, or initiate proceedings to revise these regulations. The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant prop­erties, controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point source sub­ject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practicable control technology currently available: There shall be no discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.§ 418.63 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appjica" tion of the best available technology economically achievable.

The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pol­lutant properties, controlled by this section, which may be discharged by

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36099

a point source subject to the provisions of this siibpart after application of the best available technology economically achievable: There shall be no discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.

§418.64 [Reserved]

§ 418.65 Standards of performance for new sources.

The following standards of perform­ance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, con­trolled by this section, which may be discharged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart: There shall be no discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.

§ 418.66 Pretreatment standards for new sources.

The pretreatment standards under sec­tion 307(c) of the Act for a source within the ammonium sulfate production subcategory, which is a user of a publicly owned treatment works (and which would be a new source subject to section 306 of the Act, if it were to discharge pol­lutants to the navigable waters), shall be the standard set forth in part 128 of this chapter, except that, for the purpose of this section, § 128.133 of this chapter shall be amended to read as follows: “ In addition to the prohibitions set forth in § 128.131 of this chapter, the pretreat­ment standard for incompatible pollut­ants introduced into a publicly owned treatment works shall be the standard of performance for new'sources specified in § 418.65: Provided, That, if the publicly owned treatment works which receives the pollutants is committed, in its NPDES permit, to remove a specified per­centage of any incompatible pollutant, the pretreatment standard applicable to users of such treatment works shall, ex­cept in the case of standards providing for no discharge of pollutants, be cor­respondingly reduced in stringency for that pollutant.”

Subpart G— Mixed and Blend Fertilizer Production Subcategory

§418.70 Applicability; description of the mixed and blend fertilizer pro­duction subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap­plicable to discharges resulting from the Production of mixed fertilizer and blend fertilizer.§ 418.71 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the

general definitions, abbreviations and

methods of analysis set forth in Part 401 of this chapter shall apply to this sub- part.

(b) The term “mixed fertilizer” shall mean a mixture of wet and/or dry straight fertilizer materials, mixed ferti­lizer materials, fillers and additives pre­pared through chemical reaction to a given formulation.

(c) The term “blend fertilizer” shall mean a mixture of dry, straight and mixed fertilizer materials.§ 418.72 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the applica­tion of the best practicable control technology currently available.

In establishing the limitations set forth in this section, EPA took into account all information it was able to collect, de­velop and solicit with respect to factors (such as age and size of plant, raw ma­terials, manufacturing processes, prod­ucts produced, treatment technology available, energy requirements and costs) which can affect the industry subcate­gorization and effluent levels established. It is, however, possible that data which would affect these limitations have not been available and, as a result, these limitations should be adjusted for certain plants in this industry. An individual discharger or other interested person may submit evidence to the Regional Admin­istrator (or to the State, if the State has the authority to issue NPDES permits) that factors relating to the equipment or facilities involved, the process applied, or other such factors related to such dis­charger are fundamentally different from the factors considered in the establish­ment of the guidelines. On the basis of such evidence or other available infor­mation, the Regional Administrator (or the State) will make a written finding that such factors are or are not funda­mentally different for that facility com­pared to those specified in the Develop­ment Document. I f such fundamentally different factors are found to exist, the Regional Administrator or the State shall establish for the discharger effluent limi­tations in the NPDES permit either more or less stringent than the limitations es­tablished herein, to the extent dictated by such fundamentally different factors. Such limitations must be approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Pro­tection Agency. The Administrator may approve or disapprove such limitations, specify other limitations, or initiate pro­ceedings to revise these regulations. The following limitations establish the quan­tity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point

source subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practicable control technology currently available: There shall be no discharge of process waste water pollutants to naviga­ble waters.§ 418.73 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the applica­tion of the best available technology economically achievable.

The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section, which may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best available technology economically achievable:^ There shall be no discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.§ 418.74 [Reserved]§ 418.75 Standards o f performance for

new sources.The following standards of perform­

ance establish the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties, con­trolled by this section, which may be dis­charged by a new source subject to the provisions of this subpart: There shall be no discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.§ 418.76 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.The pretreatment standards under sec­

tion 307 (c) of the Act for a source with­in the mixed and blend fertilizer produc­tion subcategory, which is a user of a publicly owned treatment works (and which would be a new source subject to section 306 of the Act, if it were to dis­charge pollutants to the navigable waters), shall be the standard set forth in Part 128 of this chapter, except that, for the purpose of this section, § 128.133 of this chapter shall be amended to read as follows: “ In addition to the prohibi­tions set forth in § 128.131 of this chap­ter, the pretreatment standard for in­compatible pollutants introduced into a publicly owned treatment works shall be the standard of performance for new sources specified in § 418.75; Provided, That, if the publicly owned treatment works which receives the pollutants is committed, in its NPDES permit, to re­move a specified percentage of any in­compatible pollutant, the pretreatment standard applicable to users of such treatment works shall, except in the case of standards providing for no discharge of pollutants, be correspondingly reduced in stringency for that pollutant.”

[PR Doc.74-22604 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974 WASHINGTON. D.C.

Volume 39 ■ Number 195

PART III

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

AGENCY

EMISSION STANDARDS

State Plans (or the Control of Existing Facilities

36102 PROPOSED RULES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ 40 CFR Part 60 ][FRL 237-1]

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCES FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

State Plans for the Control of Existing Facilities

Under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6(d) as amended), the Administrator is required to estab­lish procedures under which States sub­mit plans to control emissions of certain pollutants from existing facilities. State plans are required when:

a. A standard of performance for af­fected facilities has been promulgated under section 111(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6(b) as amended); and

b. A national ambient air quality standard has not been promulgated for the pollutant under consideration, nor has the Administrator declared his in­tention of establishing an ambient air quality standard for the pollutant by in­cluding it in a list published under sec­tion 108(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c- 3 (a) as amended); and

c. The pollutant under consideration has not been designated a hazardous air pollutant, nor has the Administrator de­clared that such a substance may be hazardous by including it in a list pub­lished under section 112(b) (1) (A) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7(b) (1) (A ) as amended).

For ease of discussion, pollutants which fit the above conditions are de­fined in the proposed regulations as “designated pollutants,” and existing facilities which emit these pollutants are defined in the proposed regulations as “designated facilities.” Designated pol­lutants can, at a later time, be listed as criteria pollutants under section 108(a) or as hazardous air pollutants under sec­tion 112(b)(1 )(A ).

The Act authorizes the propiulgation of standards of performance under sec­tion 111(b) far categories of new sources which may contribute to the endanger- ment of public health or welfare. When standards of performance have been promulgated for designated pollutants, the Act requires that States submit plans which establish emission standards for existing sources and provide for imple­mentation and enforcement of such emission standards. The Act further re­quires that the procedure for State sub­mission of a plan shall be similar to the procedure for submission of State imple­mentation plans under section 110, and mandates that EPA shall prescribe a plan according to procedures similar to those in section liO (c) if the State fails to submit a “satisfactory plan.”

Basis for State emission standards. It is the Administrator’s judgment that section 111(d) permits him to approve State emission standards only if they re­flect application of the best systems of emission reduction (considering the cost of such reduction) that are available for designated facilities. Accordingly, EPA

will publish guideline documents (dis­cussed below) describing available sys­tems of emission control that have been demonstrated, select a system which is judged ta be the best when costs are taken into account, and specify an emission limitation in § 60.29 that re­flects the application of such a system. State plans that include an emission standard equal to or more stringent than the specified limitation will be approv- able. It is recognized, however, that ap­plication of such standards may be un­reasonable in some situations. For ex-. ample, to require that existing controls be upgraded by a small margin at a high relative cost may be unreasonable in some cases. The proposed regulations, therefore, provide that States may es­tablish less stringent emission standards on a case-by-case basis provided that sufficient justification is demonstrated in each case.

Adoption and submittal of State Plans* Section 6022 requires plans to be sub­mitted within 9 months after promulga­tion of emission limitations under § 6029. I f there are no designated facilities in a State to which a plan would apply, the State is exempted from submitting a plan provided a letter is sent to the Ad­ministrator certifying that no such fa­cilities exist in -that State. '

Public hearings. The requirements of § 60.22 concerning public hearings are similar to those of 40 CFR 51.4 (Require­ments for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans), in ­cluding the holding of hearings in air quality control regions. Hearing in air quality control regions have been re­quired so that public hearings will be hel.d in several locations if designated facilities are spread throughout a State. This should provide a greater opportu­nity for public participation. Also, in some cases, only one designated facility may exist in a State; therefore, a local ordinance may be appropriate in place of a State-wide regulation. Section 60.23(b) allows for local adoption of emission standards provided they are enforceable by the State.

Requirements for emission standards. Section 60.23 establishes that emission standards must be legally enforceable in the judgment of the Administrator and provides that States may establish standards more stringent than the emis­sion limitation specified by the Adminis­trator. The application of less stringent emissioi\ standards on a case-by-case basis is allowed, provided that sufficient economic justifiction is demonstrated in each case. Such justification must be presented for each case in thé plan and may include, for example, unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant age, location, or basic process design or phys­ical impossibility of installing specified control systems.

Compliance schedules. The State im­plementation plan requirements pro­vided that individually negotiated com­pliance schedule» could be submitted after the implementation plan was sub­mitted. By contrast, § 60.23 requires the submission of compliance schedules

along with the plan required under sec­tion 111(d). Except for this change, compliance schedule requirements are essentially the same as for State imple­mentation plans. Provision for submit,, ting compliance schedules after plan submittal is not necessary because plan development is less complex than that required by the State implementation plans, and the allowed 9 months should provide sufficient time to negotiate the small number of compliance schedules involved hr any one plan.

Emission inventories, source surveil­lance, reports. Section 60.24 requires an inventory of designated facilities, in­cluding emission and process data, in a format to be specified at a later date. The Agency is developing a computerized data bank to accommodate data on nu­merous pollutants for which there is no national ambient air quality standard. This system will complement the Na­tional Emission Data System and will be available by mid-1975. Special coding forms will be available from the Ad­ministrator in time for plan development; Emission data are to be summarized in the plan to facilitate public comment. As in State implementation plans, provi­sion is made for the State to obtain ap­proval from the Regional Administrator to use an existing system if it differs from the system to be specified.

Requirements under § 60.24 concern­ing source surveillance are essentially the same as those under State implementa­tion plans. Submission of procedures is not required if they have already been approved as portions of a preceding plan submitted under Part 60 or as portions of State implementation plans submitted under section 110 of the Act: Provided, That the procedures are applicable to the designated pollutant (s) for which the current plan is submitted and that the legal authority requirements of § 60.25 are met.

Section 60.24 also requires periodic re­ports as part of the semi-annual reports under State implementation plants. There is, however; no minimum source size or reference to.air quality data.

Legal authority. Requirements under § 60.25 are similar to those in State im­plementation plans except that provi­sions relating to national ambient air quality standards are deleted. Copies of laws or regulations relied on need not be submitted if they have been approved as portions of a preceding plan submitted under Part 60 or as portions of a State implementation plan: Provided, That the laws and regulations are applicable to the designated pollutant(s) for which the current plan is submitted.

Actions by the Administrator. Section 60.26 establishes the Administrator’s role in approving or disapproving plans Oor portions thereof) submitted by the States and in proposing regulations set­ting forth plans (or portions thereof) where States have failed to submit plans (or portions thereof) or where plans (or portions thereof) have been disapproved. It also establishes the basis for EPA pro­posals, when required, as the degree oi

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

PROPOSED RUUE5 36103control set forth in the emission limita­tions specified in § 60.29.

Publication of guidelines, emission limitations, and deadlines for control of designated facilities. Section 60.27 out­lines the contents of a guideline docu­ment to be published by the Admin­istrator at • the time a standard of performance for the control of desig­nated pollutants from affected facilities is proposed for public comment. This guideline document will provide infor­mation useful to States in developing emission standards, will identify the emission control systems and emission limitations that are considered to reflect the best systems of emission reduction available for designated facilities (taking costs into account), and will specify the time within which EPA believes compli­ance with such limitations can be achieved. Under § 60.27(a), emission limitations and times for compliance identified in the guideline document will be proposed for public comment and after consideration of comments, will be promulgated in § 60.29 with such modi­fications as may be appropriate.

Plan revisions. Section 60.28 allows States to revise plans by submitting re­visions to the Administrator for approval in accordance with the procedures and requirements for developmènt and sub­mission of the original plan.

Comments on proppsed regulations. In­terested persons may submit written comments (in triplicate) on the proposed regulations to Mr. Don R. Goodwin, Di­rector, Emission Standards and Engi­neering Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. All relevant comments postmarked on or before No­vember 21, 1974, will be considered. Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Office of Public Affairs, 401 M Street SW., Wash­ington, D.C.20460.

The regulations provide in § 60.23(e) that “upon application by the owner or operator of a designated facility, States shall provide for review of such a fa­cility for the purpose of applying for less stringent emission standards or final compliance times than those specified in § 60.29.” It is the expectation of the Agency, in proposing this review require­ment, that normal State procedures for standards development and variance re­quest review will extend to requirements Proposed in implementation of this reg­ulation. The Administrator specifically requests that all State agencies submit comments if the language as drafted would adversely affect their established Procedures for setting standards, adopt- mg regulations, holding public hearings and negotiating compliance schedules. I f we Administrator finds on the basis of wese comments the proposed regulations would cause a substantial disruption and equire the States to substantially revise neir established procedures, appropriate .. an&e will be made before the regula­tions are promulgated.is« is no^ce of proposed rulemaking is

ued under the authority of ' sections 1(d) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act

[42 U.S.C. 1857c-6(dX, 1857g(a)] as amended by Public Law 91-604 [84 Stat. 1678,17131. *

Dated: October 1,1974.Jo h n Q uarles ,

Acting Administrator.It is proposed to amend Part 60 of

Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Fed­eral Regulations by adding subpart B as follows:

Subpart B— Procedures and Requirements for Submittal of State Plans for Designated FacilitiesSec.60.20 Applicability.60.21 Definitions.60.22 Adoption and submittal of State

plans; public hearings.60.23 Requirements for State emission

standards and compliance sched­ules.

60.24 Emission inventories, source surveil­lance, reports.

60.25 Legal authority.60.26 Actions by the Administrator.60.27 Publication of guidelines;' emission

limitations, and final compliance dates.

60.28 Plan revisions.60.29 [ Reserved ].

A u t h o r it y ; 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6(d), 1857g(a).

Subpart B— Procedures and Requirements for Submittal of State Plans for Desig­nated Facilities

§ 60.20 Applicability.The provisions of this subpart apply

to States upon promulgation of an emis­sion limitation under this part for the control of designated pollutants from designated facilities.§ 60.21 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in the Act and in Subpart A of this part:

(a) “Designated pollutant” means any air pollutant, emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources but for which air quality criteria have not been issued, and which is not included on a list pub­lished under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A ) of the Act.

• (b) “Designated facility” means any existing facility which emits a desig­nated pollutant and which would be subject to the standard of performance for that pollutant if the existing facility were an affected facility.

(c) “Plan” means the plan under sec­tion t i l (d) of the Act, which establishes emission standards for designated pollu­tants from designated facilities and pro­vides for the implementation and en­forcement of such emission standards.

(d) “Applicable plan” means the plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has been approved under § 60.26(b) or promulgated under § 60.26(d).

(e) “Emission limitation” means a degree of control specified for a desig­nated pollutant in § 60.29 in accordance with § 60.27.

(f) “Compliance schedule” means the date or dates by which a source or cate­gory of sources is required to comply with specific emission standards con­

ta in «! in a plan and with any in­crements of progress toward such compliance.

(g) “ Increments of progress” means steps toward compliance which will be taken by an owner or operator, including:, (1) Date of submittal of a final con­

trol plan to the appropriate air pollution control agency;

(2) Date by which contracts for emis­sion control systems or process modifi­cations will be awarded or date by which orders will be issued for the purchase of component parts to accomplish emission control or process modification;

(3) Date of initiation of on-site con­struction or installation of emission con­trol equipment or process change;

(4) Date by which on-site construc­tion or installation of emission control equipment or process modification is to be completed; and

(5) Date by which final compliance is to be achieved.

(h) “Region” means air quality con­trol region as defined by the Administra­tor under section 107 of the Act.

(i) “Local agency” means any a*r pollution control agency other than a State agency which is charged with re­sponsibility for carrying out a portion of a plan.

( j ) “Emission standard” means a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions, or prescribing equipment specifications that result in control of air pollution emissions.§ 60.22 Adoption and submittal o f State

plans; public hearings.(a) Within 9 months after promulga­

tion of any emission limitation in § 60.29, each State shall adopt and submit to the Administrator, in accordance with § 60.4, a plan for the control of the designated pollutant to which the emission limita­tion applies.

(b) I f no designated facility is located within a State, the State shall submit a letter of certification to that effect to the Administrator within 9 months after promulgation of any emission limitation in § 60.29. Such certification shall ex­empt the State from the .requirements of this subpart.

(c ) (1) Except as provided in subpara­graph (2) of this paragraph, the State shall, prior to the adoption of any plan or revision thereof, conduct one or more public hearings on such plan or plan re­vision in each region containing a desig­nated facility.

(2) No hearing shall be required for any change to an increment of progress in an approved compliance schedule un­less that change is likely to cause the facility to be unable to comply with the final compliance date in the schedule.

(d) Any hearing required by para­graph (cl of this section shall be held- only after reasonable notice. This notice shall be given at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing and shall in­clude :

(1) Notification to the public by prominently advertising the date, time, and place of such hearing in the region affected;

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

36104 PROPOSED RULES

(2) Availability at the time of public announcement of each proposed plan or revision thereof for public inspection in at least one location in each region to which it will apply;

(3) Notification to the Administrator;(4) Notification to each local air pol­

lution control agency in each region to which the plan or revision will apply; and

(5) In the case of an interstate region, notification to any other States included in the region.

(e) The State shall prepare and re­tain a record of each hearing for in­spection by the Administrator upon his request. The record shall contain, as a minimum, a list of witnesses together with the text of each presentation.

(f ) The State shall submit with the plan or revision a certification that each hearing required by paragraph (c) of this section was held in accordance with the notice required by paragraph (d) of this section.§^60.23 Requirements for State emission

standards and compliance schedules.(a) State emission standards adopted

for purposes of this subpart must be in the form of legally enforceable regula­tions setting forth allowable rates of emission unless, otherwise indicated in a guideline document issued pursuant to § 60.27. Emission limitation regulations prescribing equipment specifications that result in emission control will be per­mitted only in those cases in which it is clearly impracticable to prescribe an en­forceable regulation setting forth an al­lowable rate of emission. Emission limi­tation regulations prescribing equipment specifications shall to the degree possible set forth the emission reductions achievable by implementation of such specifications, and shall provide for compliance by equipment determined by the State to be equivalent to that pre­scribed.

(b) Emission standards shall apply to all designated facilities within the State and may be adopted by local jurisdictions provided the adopted emission standards are enforceable by the State.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph(e) of this section, emission standards are to be determined by the State but they shall be no less stringent than the emission limitations specified in § 60.29.

(d) (1) Each plan shall include legally enforceable compliance schedules setting forth the dates by which all designated facilities must be in compliance with any applicable requirement of the plan. In all cases, final compliance shall be re­quired as expeditiously as practicable. Except as indicated in paragraph (e) of this section, final compliance shall be required no later than the date specified in the appropriate paragraph of § 60.29.

(2) Any compliance schedule extend­ing more than 18 months from the date required for submittal of the plan shall provide for legally enforceable incre­ments of progress toward compliance by each designated facility or category of facilities. Increments of progress shall

include, where practicable, each incre­ment of progress specified in § 60.21(g) and shall include such additional incre­ments of progress as may be necessary to permit close and effective supervision of progress toward timely compliance.

(e) Upon application by the owner or operator of a designated facility, States shall provide for a review of such facility for the purpose of applying less stringent emission standards or final compliance times than those specified in § 60.29. Sufficient justification for adoption of such less stringent emission standards or final compliance time shall be set forth in the plan and shall include considera­tion of the following factors:

(1) Unreasonable cost of control re­sulting from plant age, location, or basic process design;

(2) Physical impossibility of install­ing necessary control equipment; or

(3) Other specific factors that make application of less stringent standards significantly more reasonable.§ 60.24 Emission inventories, source sur­

veillance, reports.(a) Each plan shall include an inven­

tory of all designated facilities, including emission data for the designated pollu­tants and information related to emis­sions, recorded and submitted to the Ad­ministrator on the data forms to be specified by the Administrator. These data shall be summarized in the plan to relate emission rates of designated pollu­tants to designated facilities.

(b) Where a State has an existing format for recording the required in­formation that differs from the format specified by paragraph (a) of this sec­tion, the State must obtain approval of the format from the Administrator prior to submittal of the information, unless such format has been approved under State implementation plans or preceding plans adopted pursuant to this part.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph(e) of this section, each plan shall in­clude provisions for monitoring the status of compliance with the emission standards submitted under this part. Each plan shall, as a minimum, provide for:

(1) Legally enforceable procedures for requiring owners or operators of desig­nated facilities to maintain records and periodically report to the State informa­tion on the nature and amount of emis­sions from such facilities, and/or such other information as may be necessary to enable the State to determine whether such facilities are in compliance with applicable portions of the plan.

(2) Periodic inspection and, when ap­plicable, testing of designated facilities.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph(e) of this section, each plan shall in­clude provisions to ensure that informa­tion obtained by the State under para­graph (c) of this section shall be corre­lated with the applicable emission standards and made available to the general public. As used in this para­graph, “correlated” means presented in such a manner as to show the relation­ship between measured or estimated

amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions allowable under the applicable emission standards.

(e) The procedures referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section need not be submitted for approval if they have been approved as portions of a preceding plan submitted under this part or as portions of an implementation plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, provided the State demonstrates that the procedures are applicable to the des­ignated pollutant(s) for which the plan is submitted and that the requirements of § 60.25 are met.

(f) The State shall submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to the Ad­ministrator on a semiannual basis, com­mencing with the first full report period after approval of a plan or after promul­gation of a plan by the Administrator. Reports covering the period July through December shall be submitted by Feb­ruary 15 of the following year. Reports covering the period January through June shall be submitted by August 15 of that year.

(g) The progress report shall in­clude:

(1) Enforcement actions initiated against designated facilities during the reporting period, under any emission standard or compliance schedule of the plan.

(2) Identification of the achievement of any increment of progress required by the applicable plan during the reporting period.

(3) Identification of designated facil­ities that have ceased operation during the reporting period.

(4) Submission of emission inventory data as described in § 60.24(a) for desig­nated facilities that were not in opera­tion at the time of plan development but initiated operation during the report period.

(5) Submission of revised data as de­scribed in § 60.24(a) for designated,facil­ities that have achieved compliance dur­ing the reporting period.

(h) Information required under this this section shall be included in the semi­annual reports required under the State implementation plan requirements of § 51.7 of this chapter.§ 60.25 Legal authority.

(a) Each plan shall show that the State has legal authority to carry out the plan, including authority to:

(1) Adopt emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to des­ignated facilities.

(2) Enforce applicable laws, regula­tions, and standards and seek injunctive relief.

(3) Obtain information necessary todetermine whether designated facilities are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards, including au­thority to require recordkeeping and to make inspections and conduct tests o designated facilities. ,

(4) Require owners or operators designated facilities to install, maintai , and use emission monitoring deucesto make periodic reports to the State

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

PROPOSED RULES 36105the nature and amounts of emissions from such facilities; also authority for the State to make such data available to the public as reported and as correlated with any applicable emission standards.

(b) The provisions of law or regula­tion which the State determines provide the authorities required under this sec­tion shall be specifically identified. Cop­ies of such laws or regulations shall be submitted with the plan unless they have been approved as portions of a preced­ing plan submitted pursuant to this part or as portions of a State implementation plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, provided the State demonstrates that the laws or regulations are appli­cable to the designated pollutant (s) for which the plan is submitted.

(c) The plan shall show that the legal authorities specified in this section are available to the State at the time of sub­mission of the plan. Legal authority ade­quate to fulfill the requirements of para­graphs (a) (3) and (4) of this section may be delegated to the State pursuant to section 114 of the Act.

(d) A State governmental agency other than the State air pollution control agency may be assigned responsibility for carrying out a portion of a plan if the plan demonstrates to the Administrator’s satisfaction that the State governmental agency has the legal authority necessary to carry out that portion of the plan.

(e) The State may authorize a local agency to carry out a plan, or portion thereof, within the local agency’s juris­diction if the plan demonstrates to the Administrator’s satisfaction that *the local agency has the legal authority nec­essary to implement the plan or portion thereof, and that the authorization does not relieve the State of responsibility under the Act for carrying out the plan or portion thereof.

§ 60.26 Actions by the Administrator.(a) The Administrator may, when­

ever he determines necessary, extend the period for submission of any plan or por­tion thereof. -

(b) The Administrator will, within 4 months after the date required for sub­mission of a plan, approve or disapprove such plan or each portion thereof.

(c) The Administrator will, after con­sideration of any State hearing record, Promptly prepare and publish proposed

regulations setting forth a plan, or por­tion thereof, for a State if :

(1) The State fails to submit a plan within the time prescribed; or

(2) The Administrator disapproves the plan, or any portion thereof, as un­satisfactory because the procedures and requirements of this part have not been followed or, in the judgment of the Ad­ministrator, the State has not responded adequately to public comments concern­ing the proposed plan.

(d) The Administrator will, within 6 months after the date required for sub­mission of a plan, promulgate the regu­lations proposed under paragraph (c) of this section with such modifications as may be appropriate unless, prior to such promulgation, the State has adopted and submitted a plan which the Adminis­trator determines to be appro vable. _

(e> Regulations prepared and pro­posed by the Administrator under this section to establish emission standards and compliance schedules will reflect the application of the best available systems of emission reduction that have been adequately demonstrated (considering the cost of such reduction) for attain­ing the degree of emission limitation as specified in, § 60.29 of this part.

(f ) I f a State failed to hold public hearings as required by § 60.22 the Ad­ministrator will provide opportunity for such hearings within the State prior to promulgation of a plan under paragraph(d) of this section.§ 60.27 Publication of guidelines, emis­

sion limitations, and final compliance dates.

(a) Simultaneously with proposal of a standard of performance for the con­trol of a designated pollutant from affected facilities, the Administrator will publish guidelines for the control of the designated pollutant from designated fa­cilities. Within 30 days after promulga­tion of this subpart, the Administrator will publish guidelines for sulfuric acid mist.

(b> The guidelines published under this section will provide information for the development o f emission standards, such as:

(1) Known or suspected endangerment of public health or welfare caused, or contributed to, by emissions of the desig­nated pollutant.

(2) Description of available systems of emission reduction which, in the judg­

ment of the Administrator, have been adequately demonstrated.

(3) Information on the degree of emis­sion reduction which is achievable with each system, together with information on the costs of applying each system to designated facilities.

(4) Incremental periods of time nor­mally expected to be necessary for the design, installation, and startup of iden­tified control systems.

(5) A summary statement of the emis­sion limitation that reflects the appli­cation of the best system of emission re­duction (considering the cost of such reduction) that is available for desig­nated facilities, and the time within which compliance with the limitation can be achieved in the judgment of the Ad­ministrator.

(6) Information related to solid and liquid wastes, and other air contaminants resulting from applicable control sys­tems.

(7) Such other available information as the Administrator determines may contribute to the formulation of State plans.

(c) The emission limitations and times for compliance referred to in paragraph(b) (5) of this section will be proposed for comment upon publication of the guidelines, and after consideration of comments will be promulgated with such modifications as may be appropriate.§ 60.28 Plan revisions.

(a) Plan revisions which have the effect of delaying compliance with ap­plicable emission standards or of es­tablishing less stringent emission stand­ards must be submitted to the Admin­istrator within 60 days after adoption according to the procedures and require­ments established for development and submission of the original plan.

(b) Mpre stringent emission standards or orders which have the effect of accel­erating compliance may be submitted to the Administrator as plan revisions, pro­vided the procedures and requirements established for development and submis­sion of the original plan are met.

(c) Revisions of a plan, or any portion thereof, shall not be considered part of an applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by the Administra­tor in accordance with this part.§ 60.29 [Reserved]

[PR Doc.74-23326 Filed 10-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39 , NO. 195— MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1974

now available 15-year Cumulation

LAW S AFFECTED TABLES FO R 1956-1970

V olumes 70-84U nited States Statutes at Large

Lists all prior laws and other Federal instruments which were amended, repealed, or otherwise affected by the provisions of public Jaws enacted during the years 1956-1970. Includes index of popular name acts affected in Volumes 70-84.

Price: $8.15 domestic postpaid; $7.50 GPO Bookstore

üm

Compiled by Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration

Order from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402