THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

HOW TO USE THE FEDERAL REGISTERATLANTA, GEORGIA, WORKSHOPS

September 13 and 14,1978 See inside cover for details.

SUNSHINE ACT MEETINGS----------

NONDISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF HANDICAPCSA extends comment period to 10-13-78 on proposed regulations for programs and activities receiving Federal finan­cial assistance............................ ........................................ 36489MEDICAREHEW/HCFA proposes to limit reimbursements to providers for certain services, facilities, and supplies; comments by 10-16-78............................. .............................................. 36488MEDICAID AND AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDRENHEW/HCFA and SSA extend comment period to 9-5-78 on proposal to reduce Federal participation when States make erroneous payments..................................... ....... ............. 36478HEALTH PROFESSIONS CAPITATION GRANTSHEW/PHS issues interim regulations on special assurances required of schools of medicine; effective 8-17-78; commentsby 10-16-78................................................... ............. . . 36441HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION DOT/MTB invites comments on highway routing of radioactive materials; comments by 1-1-79....'........................................ 36492FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDSDOT/NHTSA extends and simplifies use of vehicle identifica­tion numbers; effective 1-1-80 and 9-1-80..... .................... 36448AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT OPERATORSDOT/FAA proposes requirements for aircraft equipment and personnel; comments by 11-11-78.....................«..........— 36464NATURAL GASDOE/FERC proposes exemptions for temporary sale, delivery, or transportation arrangements from certificate requirements; comments 9-13-78................................................... .......... 36471

CONTINUED INSIDE

feder

al reg

ister

ATLANTA, GEORGIA, WORKSHOPSHOW TO USE THE FEDERAL REGISTER

FOR: Any person who must use the Federal Registerand Code of Federal Regulations.

WHAT: Free public workshops (approximately 2 V2 hours) to present:

1. Brief history of the Federal Register system.

2. Difference between legislation and regulations.

3. Relationship of Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations.

4. Important elements of a typical Federal Register document.

5. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR system.

WHEN: September 13 and 14, 1978, at 9:00 a.m. (Each session identical.)

WHERE: First Floor Conference Room, U.S. Environmen­tal Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Stv At­lanta, Georgia.

WHY: To provide the public with access to informa­tion necessary to research Federal agency reg­ulations which directly affect them, as part of the General Services Administration's efforts to encourage public participation in government actions. There will be no discussion of specific agency regulations.

RESERVATIONS: Call Dave Conner, 404-881-4661.

10<

Published daily, Monday through Friday (no publication on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official Federal h olid ays), by the Office of the Federal Register, N ational Archives -.and Records Service, General Services Adm inistration, W ashington, D.C. 20408, under the Federal Register Act (49 Stat. 500, as am ended; 44 U.S.C., Ch. 15) and th e regulations of the A dm inistrative Com m ittee of th e Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I ) . D istribution is made only by thef Superintendent of D ocum ents, U.S. G overnm ent P rinting Office, W ashington, D.C. 20402.

The Federal R egister provides a uniform system for m aking available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclam ations .and Executive orders and Federal agency docum ents having general applicability and legal effect, docum ents required to be published by Act o f Congress and other Federal agency docum ents o f public interest. D ocum ents are on file for p ub lic inspection in the Office o f the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless earlier filing is requested by the issu ing agency.

p i e F ederal R egister will be furnished by m ail to subscribers, free of postage, for $5.00 per m onth or $50 per year payable in advance. The charge for individual copies is 75 cents for each issue, or 75 cen ts for each group of pages as actually bound.

^ 2 0 4 0 9 ^ ° r m oney order’ m ade payable to the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U.S. G overnm ent P rinting Office, W ashington.

There are no restrictions on th e republication of m aterial appearing in the Federal Register,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCEQuestions and requests for specific information may be directed to the following numbers. General inquiries may be

made by dialing 202-523-5240.

FEDERAL REGISTER, Daily Issue:Subscription orders (G P O )............. 202-783-3238Subscription problems (GPO)......... 202-275-3050“Dial - a - Reg” (recorded sum­

mary of highlighted documents appearing in next day’s issue).

Washington, D.C....... 202-523-5022Chicago, III................ 312-663-0884Los Angeles, C a lif.. 213-688-6694

Scheduling of documents for 202-523-3187publication.

Photo copies of documents appear- 523-5240ing in the Federal Register.

Corrections.......................................... 523-5237Public Inspection Desk.... 523-5215Finding Aids....................... 523-5227

Public Briefings: “How To Use the 523-3517Federal Register.”

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).. 523-3419' 523-3517

Finding Aids........................ 523-5227

PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS:Executive Orders and Proclama- 523-5233

tions.Weekly Compilation of Presidential 523-5235

Documents.Public Papers of the Presidents...... 523-5235Index...................................................... 523-5235

PUBLIC LAWS:Public Law dates and numbers....... 523-5266

523-5282Slip Law s................................ 523-5266

523-5282U.S. Statutes at Large.................... 523-5266

523-5282Index..................................................... 523-5266

523-5282

U.S. Government Manual................. 523-5230

Automation...................... 523-3408

Special Projects........ ................. 523-4534

HIGHLIGHTS—Continued

WHOOPING CRANESInterior/FWS proposes additional critical habitats; public com­ments by 10-16-78; comments from State Governors by 11-15-78 (Part II of this issue)..................................... ...... 36588AERONAUTICAL AND MARITIME RADIO- NAVIGATION SERVICESFCC proposes additional frequencies for nondirectional radio­beacons; comments by 10-16-78; reply comments by 11-15-78.............................. ............................................. 36489BOATS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DOT/CG delays effective date for certain requirements relat­ing to leakage of fuel from fuel pumps and carburetors on gasoline powered inboard boats; effective 8-17-78, and ex­tends effective date for ignition protection requirements; effec five 8-17-78 (2 documents)..................................... 36440, 36441FEDERAL LAND BANK AND PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION LOANS FCA amends and corrects eligibility requirements; effective 4 -4 -78 ............................................................................... 36428RAIL CARRIERSICC adopts interim rules on reimbursement for directed serv­ice; effective 8-17-78; comments by 9-18-78...................... 36455PASSENGER, COMMUTER, AND FREIGHT TRAINSDOT/FRA requires installation of rear end marking devices; effective 8-25-78....................... 36447

PRIVACY ACTJustice adopts an exemption; effective 8-17-78 ................... 36439Justice proposes to exempt a system of records from therecord provisions; comments by 9-18-78.......... .................. 36486Justice publishes an exemption for a system of records........ 36520Justice clarifies an exemption from the records provisions for asystem of records; comments by 9-18-78 ............................ 36520SEC amends and modifies systems of records (2 documents);effective 9-14 and 10-6-78.................................... 36536, 36538Marine Mammal Commission publishes annual notice of sys­tems of records....... ....... .................................................... 36524MEETINGS—

Commerce/Census: American Statistical Association, Cen­sus Advisory Committee, 9-7 and 9-8-78.......... 36501

Secy; Second International Conference on Recognition of National Programs for Accrediting Testing Laboratories,9-14 and 10-23 thru 10-27-78.................................. 36503

DOD/AF: USAF Scientific Advisory Board, 9-19 and9-20-78..... 36504Defense Communications Agency: Scientific AdvisoryGroup, 10-19 and 10-20-78 ...................................... 36504

DOE/SWPA: Public forum on tentative system power rates,8- 24-78............................................... 36514

DOT/CG; Merchant vessel personnel license testing pro­gram, 9-26 and 9-27-78........................................... 36547

HEW/HRA: National Council on Health Planning and Devel­opment, 9-8-78......................................................... 36517

Interior/BLM: Boise District (Idaho) Grazing Advisory Board,9- 26-78........................................... 36517

Cedar City District Grazing Advisory Board, 9-23-78 ...... 36517

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978 Ui

HIGHLIGHTS—Continued

Justice/Prisons: National Institute of Corrections AdvisoryBoard, 10-29-78...................................................... . 36520

NRC: Discussion on safeguards-requirements for non-powerreactors, 9-8-78........................................................ 36532

USDA/SCS: National conservation program for soil andwater resources, September meetings........................ 36495

VA: Station Committee on Educational Allowances, 9-7-78 36549

CANCELED HEARING- DOE: Compliance with floodplain/wetlands environmental

review requirements, 8-18-78............... .................. 36461

SEPARATE PARTS OF THIS ISSUEPart II, Interior/FWS..................................................... . 36588

rem inders(The items in this list were editorially compiled as an aid to F ederal R egister 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

N ote: There were no items eligible for inclusion in the list of R ules G oing Into E ffect T oday.

List of Public Laws

This is a continuing listing of public bills that have become law, the text of which is not published in the F ederal R egister. Copies of the laws in individual pamphlet form (referred to as “slip laws”) may be obtained from the U.S. Government Printing Office.

[Last Listing: Aug. 16, 1978.1H.R. 8 3 3 6 ..................................... Pub. L. 95-344

To authorize the establishment of the Chatta­hoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia, and for other pur­poses. (Aug. 15,1978; 92 Stat. 474) Price: , $.60

iv FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

contentsAGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENTNoticesAuthority delegations:

Regional Assistant Adminis­trators; bilateral and region­al population programs........ 76546

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE RulesOranges, Valencia, grown in

Ariz. and Calif........................ 36428AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENTSee Agricultural Marketing

Service; Federal Crop Insur­ance Corporation; Federal Grain Inspection Service; Soil Conservation Service.

AIR FORCE DEPARTMENTNoticesMeetings:

Scientific Advisory Board...... 36504CENSUS BUREAUNoticesMeetings:

American Statistical Associa­tion Census Advisory Com­mittee................................... 36501

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD NoticesHearings, etc.:

Florida service case................. 36499International Air Transport

Association............. 36499Oakland service case........... . 36500

COAST GUARD RulesBoating safety:

Gasoline fuel systems............ 36440Electrical systems................... 36441

Proposed Rules Navigation areas, regulated:

Great Lakes........... 36486NoticesMeetings:

Merchant vessel personnel li­cense testing program......... 36547

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTSee also Census Bureau; Eco­

nomic Development Adminis­tration; Industry and Trade Administration.

NoticesMeetings:

Testing Laboratories, Recog­nition of National Programs for Accrediting, Second In­ternational Conference........ 36503

COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIONProposed RulesNondiscrimination:

Handicapped in federally-as­sisted programs; extension of tim e................. .-............... 36489

CUSTOMS SERVICE NoticesManufacturers, producers, and

wholesalers petitions: Battery-operated clock move­

m ents.................................... 36548DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCYNoticesMeetings:

Scientific Advisory Group....... 36504DEFENSE DEPARTMENTSee Air Force Department; De­

fense Communications Agen­cy.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION NoticesRegistration applications, etc.;

controlled substances:Almar Pharmacy..................... 36520Collaborative Research, Inc.... 36524 FOS Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. 36521Moore, John W., Jr., M.D....... 36522Sariento, Maximo R., M.D...... 36523Wyeth Labs., Inc..................... 36524

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

NoticesImport determination petitions:

Cohan-Epner Co., Inc., et al.... 36501ENERGY DEPARTMENTSee also Federal Energy Regula­

tory Commission; Southwest­ern Power Administration.

Proposed RulesFloodplain/wetlands environ­

mental review requirements, compliance; hearing cancel­led............................................ 36461

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NoticesPesticides; tolerances, registra­

tion, etc.:Triforlne....................... 36514

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION RulesFinancing, eligibility and scope:

Federal land bank and produc­tion credit association loans; correction ............................ 36428

NoticesAuthority delegations:

Deputy Governor, Adminis­tration; order of succession.. 36515

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONRulesAirworthiness directives:

Beech ............... 36429Money.............................. 36429Pratt & Whitney..................... 36430

Reporting points; correction ..... 36431Control zones................................ 36431Transition areas........................... 36432Proposed RulesAir carriers certification, etc.:

Special certificates, airborne vibration monitors, pilot sta­tus, leakage, and air ambu­lance service; withdrawn...... 36461

Airmen certification:Domestic, flag, and supple­

mental air carriers and com­mercial operators of large aircraft; operations reviewprogram; safety levels......... 36464

VOR Federal airways and jet routes; correction............ ...... 36471

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

RulesOrganization and functions:

Network Inquiry Special Staff, establishment............ 36444

Proposed RulesAviation services, and frequency

allocations and radio treaty matters:

Radionavigation services, aeronautical and maritime .. 36489

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION

RulesCrop insurance, various com­

modities:Sugarcane................................ 36423

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Proposed RulesConduct standards; extension of

tim e......................................... 36461FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSIONRulesOffice directors, authority dele­

gations ............ 36433Proposed RulesPolicy and interpretations, etc.:

Natural gas certificate re­quirements; exemptions for temporary sale, delivery, or

' transportation..................... 36471NoticesHearings, etc.:

Area rate proceedings............ 36504Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co .... 36504 Certain producer and pipeline

respondents......................... 36505

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978 ▼

CONTENTS

Connecticut Light & Power Co. (2 documents).................. 36505

Duke Power Co........................ 36506El Paso Electric C o ................ 36506Florida Power & Light Co....... 36506Michigan Power Co......—........ 36507Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line

Co.................................. 36508Mullins & Prichard..........—« 36508New England Power Pool ....... 36510North Penn Gas Co........ 36511Northern Natural Gas Co___ 36511Northwest Pipeline Corp ........ 36512Northwest Pipeline Corp.; cor­

rection .......................___ 36512Public Service Co. of Indiana,

Ine. (2 documents).... 36512, 36513Southern Natural Gas Co...... 36513Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co — 36513

FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE NoticesGrain standards; inspection

points:Texas; name change; correc­

tion .......................................... 36495FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION Proposed RulesFlood elevation determinations:

Pennsylvania (5 documents) .. 36478-, 36480

Tennessee................. - ....... . 36481Texas (2 documents)................ 36481,

36482Washington (4 documents).... 36483,

36484Wisconsin (2 documents)....-... 36485

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION RulesRear end marking devices; ap­

proved devices...................... 36447FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM NoticesApplications, etc.:

American National KimballCorp............. 36515

Louisville Co........................... 36515Missouri Country Bancshares,

Inc ............ 36516FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE Proposed RulesGSA self-service stores; proce­

dures for making purchases.... 36488FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Rules

-Prohibited trade practices:Warner-Lambert Co............... 36432

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICERulesFishing:

National Elk Refuge, Wyo..... 36460Hunting:

Ankeny National Wildlife Ref­uge, Oreg., et a l ................... 36456

Camas National Wildlife Ref­uge, Idaho, et a l ................... 36459

Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, Wyo. (2 docu­ments)-............ . 36459, 36460

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, Wyo. (2 docu­ments) 36458

Proposed RulesEndangered and threatened spe­

cies; fish, wildlife, and plants:

Crane, whooping; critical h ab ita t................................. 36588

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE NoticesRegulatory reports review, pro­

posals, approvals, etc. (FMC).. 36516 Regulatory reports review, pro­

posals, approvals, etc. (FMC,ICC)............ :................... ........ 36516

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION See Federal Supply Service. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NoticesCoal land classifications: '

Wyoming —— ....................... 36519HEALTH CARE FINANCING

ADMINISTRATIONProposed RulesAged and disabled, health insur­

ance for:Cost to related organizations;

reimbursement ...... ...... 36488Medical assistance programs:

fiscal disallowance for errone­ous payments; extension of tim e...................................... 36478

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT

See Health Care Financing Ad­ministration; Health Re­sources A d m in is tra tio n ;Public Health Service; Social Security Administration.

HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONNoticesMeetings:

Advisory committees; Septem­ber ...... . 36517

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

See Federal Insurance Adminis­tration.

INDUSTRY AND TRADE ADMINISTRATIONNoticesScientific articles; duty free en­

try:Idaho State University et aL;

correction ___ ——— 36503Salk Institute for Biological

Studies et a l ........................ 36501INTERIOR DEPARTMENTSee Fish and Wildlife Service;

Geological Survey; Land Man­agement Bureau.

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY

NoticesPompeii Exhibit; display in Chi­

cago and Dallas..................... 36519INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONNoticesImport investigations:

Motorcycles from Japan ......... 36519Novelty glasses....................... 36519Plastic fastener assemblies ..... 36519

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSIONRulesRail carriers:

Railroads and bus companies; accounting and reporting of government transfers; cor­rection .................... 36456

Reimbursement for directed service, cost data submis­sion; optional cash funding procedures —................. 36455

NoticesHearing assignments............... - 36549Motors carriers:Permanent authority applica-

. tions...........___________—. 36557Temporary authority applica­

tions (2 documents)... 36549, 36553Temporary authority applica­

tions; correction.................. 36549Petitions, applications, finance

matters (including temporary authorities), railroad aban­donments, alternate route de­viations, and ihtrastate ap­plications .........— ... 36566

JUSTICE DEPARTMENTSee also Drug Enforcement Ad­

ministration; Prisons Bureau.RulesOrganization, functions, and au­

thority delegations:Tax Division, settlement of

civil claims ......—__——- 36438U.S. Attorneys, rights of re­

demption; release................. 36438Privacy Act; implementation..... 36439Proposed RulesPrivacy Act; implementation..... 36486 NoticesPrivacy Act; systems of records

(3 documents)........ 36520LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU NoticesApplications, etc.:

Colorado.................................. 36518New Mexico............................. 36518

Coal leases:Colorado; hearing................... 36518

Meetings:Boise District Idaho Grazing

Advisory............................... 36517Cedar City District Grazing

Advisory Board...... 36517Survey plat filings:

Nevada..................................... 36518

ri FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

CONTENTS

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION NoticesPrivacy Act; systems of records;

annual republication.............. 36524MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU RulesExplosives Bureau, authority

delegations withdrawn..... ...... 36445Proposed Rules Highway, carriage by:

Radioactive materials, rout­ing; inquiry.......................... 36492

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

RulesMotor vehicle safety standards:

Identification numbers.......... 36448NoticesMotor vehicle safety standards;

exemption petitions, etc.:Bristol Cars Ltd.; exterior pro­

tection....................... 36547Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd.; mo­

torcycle braking systems..... 36548NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

BOARDRulesSeal; design change.................... 36454NoticesSafety recommendations and

accident reports; availability, responses, etc.................... 36533

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NoticesApplications, etc.:

Arkansas Power Sc Light Co.(2 documents)............ 36524, 36525

General Atomic Co. et a l ....... 36525Sacramento Municipal Utility

District................................. 36531Southern California Edison

Co. et a l ................................ 36532Union Electric C o................... 36532Westinghouse Electric Corp... 36525

Meetings:Reactors, non-power; safe­

guards requirements........... 36532Regulatory guides; issuance and

availability (2 documents)..... 36526

PRISONS BUREAUNoticesMeetings:

National Institute of Correc­tions Advisory Board ........ 36520

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICERulesGrants:

Teaching facilities construc­tion, etc.; assurances re­quired of schools of m edicine app ly ing fo r health professions capita­tion grants........................... 36441

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

NoticesHearings, etc.:

Alabama Power Co................. 36540Ancorp National Services,

Inc., et a l .............................. 36541Gulf Power Co....................... 36541Indiana & Michigan Electric

Co......................................... 36542Ohio Valley Electric C orp ..... 36543

Privacy Act; systems of records(2 documents).............. 36536, 36538

Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

Bradford Securities Process­ing Services, Inc...................; 36545

Philadelphia Stock Exchange,In c .................................... 36545

Standardized options markets; structure; inquiry; extension of time........................ 36545

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONProposed RulesPublic assistance programs and

supplemental security in­come for aged, blind, and disabled:

Quality control and assur­ance; erroneous payments; extension of tim e ................ 36478

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICENoticesEnvironmental ^statements on

watershed projects; avail­ability, etc.:

Arthur Dodd Memorial Road­side Park Water-Based Rec­reation RC&D Measure,Mich,......................... ........... 36496

Fifield Hill Critical AreaTreatment RC&D Measure,Mich ............................... 36496

Jefferson County High School Critical Area TreatmentRC&D Measure, F la ........... 36497

Leutzinger-Lowe Run Water­shed, IoWa............................ 36497

Pennyrile RC&D Area Criti­cal Area Treatment RC&DMeasures, Ky....................... 36497

Quiet-Water Beach Water- Based Recreation RC&DMeasure, F la ........................ 36498

Quincy Gullies Critical Area Treatment RC&D Meas­ures, F la ............................... 36498

Santa Rosa Comity Roadside Critical Area TreatmentMeasure, F la ....................... 36498

Stanley Gully Critical Area Treatment RC&D Measure,F la .................... 36499

University of West Florida Critical Area Treatment RC&D Measure, F la ........... 36499

Meetings:Soil and water resources con­

servation............................... 36495SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATIONNoticesPower rates and charges; public

forums; extension of tim e...... 36514STATE DEPARTMENTSee Agency for International

Development.TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTSee Coast Guard; Federal Avi­

ation'Administration; Federal Railroad Administration; Ma­terials Transportation Bu­reau; N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administra­tion.

TREASURY DEPARTMENTSee Customs Service.VETERANS ADMINISTRATIONNoticesMeetings:

Educational Allowances Sta­tion Committee ................. . 36549

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978 ▼ii

list of cfr ports affected ¡n this IssueThe 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 List of CFR Sections Affected is published separately at the end of each month. The guide lists the parts and sections affected by documents

published since the revision date of each title.

7 CFR401............................................... 36423417..... ..............................______ 36423908............................................... 3642810 CFRP roposed R ules:

1022 ............ 3646112 CFR613........................... 36428P roposed R ules:

336......................... 3646114 CFR39 (3 documents).......... 36429, 3643071 (3 documents).......... 36431, 36432P roposed R ules:

21.......................................... 3646125.......................................... 3646143.......................................... 3646145.......................................... 3646163.......... « 3646465 (2 documents)....... 36461, 3646471.......................................... 3647175.....!.................................... 3647191.......................................... 36461121 (2 documents).. 36461, 36464135........................................ 36461

16 CFR13 .......................................................^ 36432

18 CFR1....................................... .......... 364343................ ....................... .......... 3643535..................................... .......... 36437157.............................................. 36467P roposed R ules:

2 ................................. .......... 36471157............................. .......... 36471

20 CFRP roposed R ules:

416............................. ___ ' 3647824 CFRP roposed R ules:

1917 (14 documents)... 36478-3648528 CFR0 (2 documents).............. .......... 3643816..................................... .......... 36439P roposed R ules:

16............................... .......... 3648633 CFR183 (2 documents).......... . 36440, 36441P roposed R ules:

128............................. .......... 3648641 CFRP roposed R ules:

101-28 ....................... .......... 3648842 CFR57..................................... .......... 36441

42 CFR—Continued P roposed R ules:

405 »...................................... 36488450....................................... . 36478

45 CFRP roposed R ules:

205............................ 364781010........... 36489

47 CFR0___ 36444P roposed R ules:

2 ................. 3648987.......................................... 36489

49 CFR171.......................... 36446173............ 36446178............................................... 36446221..... .......................«.............„.. 36447571......................... '36448803........... 364541126........................... 364551201............................................. 364561206...................,........................ 36456P roposed R ules:

177................... 3649250 CFR32 (6 documents)............. 36456-3646033 ............................................. 36460P roposed R ules:

17.................. 36588

viii FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

CUMULATIVE LIST OF CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING AUGUST

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 August

1 CFR 7 CFR—Continued 13 CFRCh. 1 ................... 336753 CFRP roclamations:

4580 ..................... 347534581 ................................ 354614582 ................................ 354634583 ................................ 354654584 ................................ 35467

Reorganization Plans:No. 2 of 1978........................ 36037

5 CFR213............................................... 33675,'

34427, 34428, 35017, 35645, 36043315 ...................................... 34428316 ...................................... 34429890 ...................................... 35017891 ................................... 35018P roposed R ules:

297........................................ 35721713........................................ 33732890 ............................. 35046, 35047

P roposed R ules—Continued1701 ........................... 35721, 361061822 ........................... 33923, 344891980...................................... 344902852.............................34490, 35722

8 CFR100....103.. ..204.. ;.212.. ..235.. ..242.. ..

____ 36237......... 3623833677, 36238......... 36238____ 35259......... 36238

9 CFR51.......................73.......................77 ............78 ............92........................318............. .......P roposed R ules:

9 2 ............... .

_____ 33677......... 35020____ 34430...___ 3604935458, 35682 ____ 33678

33926, 344907 CFR 10 CFR15.........................275.......................301.......................354.......................401...... .......... .417.......................661.......................725.......................792.......................908.......................910.......................919.......................926................. .930.......................945.......................967..................... .991.......................1036.....................1040.....................1071.....................1421.....................1427.......... ...........1446.....................1701.....................1806.....................1945.....................1980__________P roposed R ules:

722................728............... .913................927................989................993................1001_______1004 ..............1126..............1430..............

.................... 34755

.................... 35645

.................... 36043

.................... 34429

.................... 36423

.................... 36423

.................... 34755

.................... 36044

.................... 3367634103, 35469, 36428......... 34430, 35646.................... 34103.................... 35259__________ 34104.................... 33676.................... 35019.................... 36044.................... 33897.................... 36045.................... 36235......... 34757, 3604634104, 34762,36236..... 35469.................... 35647__________ 34430.... ............... 35648.................... 35661

......... 35053

......... 34483____ 34483......... 33732...... 33923......... 35053......... 3549035926, 36106____ 35047____ 34488

50___________73____________205____ ..._____211......................212......................470......................P roposed R ules:

70________73.................205.............210_______211_______212 _______440________500...............1022.............

12 CFR220......................226......................261b........... ........265............ .........545 .............. .............. ..............546 .............563....................584......................613___________615......................701..................... .P roposed R ules:

225...............336...............563...............571...............611...............612 ...............701_______

......... 34764____ 3476533687, 34433____ 3368833689, 33694 ____ 35020

____ 35321......... 35321____ 36264____ 3478634786, 36264 34786, 36264____ 34493......... 36280____ 36461

............ 3389934111, 35025, 36052.................... 34481.................... 34481__________ 35260................ 35262.................... 35262.................... 35262.................... 36428.................... 36052_____ 33899, 36239

3628136461361073610736108 36108 33929

120 .............. 35907121 ....... 36052P roposed R ules:

121........................................ 3594414 CFR39................... 34766,

34770, 35471-35473, 36429, 3643071................................................ 34114,

34770, 34771, 35474, 36431, 3643295 .................................................. 0000097................................. 00000202................................... 34115205............................................... 34116212 ........................................ 34116213 ....................................... 34116214..... 34117216............................................ 34117221.......................... 34117, 34442, 36053312..................................... 34119375........................................... 34119384 ........................................ 34119385 .................................... 34120399........ 35026, 360531204............................................. 341221245............................................. 34122P roposed R ules:

Ch. II......... ............................ 3478821........................................... 3646125........................................... 3646139 ............................... 34786, 3478743.................................. 3646145............................. 3646163........................................... 3646465 ............................... 36461, 3646471 __________ 34157, 35944, 36471*7? 3SQ4S75 34158,* 35946, 3647191................................. 36461121 .................. 35518, 36461, 36464127......................................... 35518135.. ................................. 36461221...................................... 34788241 ................................. 33733242 ................................. 33733249.. ................................. 33733291....................................... . 33733302.. .................................. 34788399.. ..______________ 35490

15 CFR371................................................. 35027373................................................ 35028378 ......................... 35028379 .......................... 33699, 35029399............................. 33699917......................... T.................... 35029909................................................ 36240

16 CFR1________________ 356834...........'............... ........................ 3568313________ 33900, 34124, 35262, 36432702................................................ 35684

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978 ix

FEDERAL REGISTER

16 CFR—Continued 21 CFR—Continued 24 CFR—Continued801 ............................ 34443, 36053802 ........... 34443, 36053803 ................. 34443, 360531115................................................ 349881209..... 352401500................................................ 33701P roposed R ules:

4 ................................. 3605413............................................. 33931,

35054, 35338, 35339, 36281259............................................ 34496439...... ..................................... 35341453........................................... 345001118......................................... 35440

17 CFRCh. I I .......... .................................... 33904229............. ....... .'........................... 34407239 ........................................... 34412240 ........ .'......................... 33906, 34413249..................................... 34413P roposed R ules:

229 ........................................ 34415230 ......................................... 35730240 ............................... 33935, 34790241 ........................................ 34T[90249 ................................... 34790250 ........................................ 35490256.................................. 35490

18 CFR1.. ..................................... 35907, 364343 ....................................................... 3643535............................. 36437141.. ......................................... 35911157............................................ 36437201................................ 35911216................................................... 35911260............................ 34454, 35911803........................................ 34127P roposed R ules:

2 ................ ;............................. 36471157........................................... 36471

19 CFR12.. ............................................ 36054101....................................... 36055, 36056111 .............................................. 34454112 ...................................... v..... 36057153.................................................. 35262P roposed R ules:

101.................. 36108200 ........................................ 34159201 ............ 34159

20 CFR404........................... 33705, 34455, 34777410.................................................. 34778620.......................................... 36058P roposed R ules: ,

404 ............................... 35344, 36110416.................... „......... .......... 36478

21 CFR5 ................................................... ;. 3606081.................... 36061182.................................................. 36063184................ ............................... .’. 36063193........ 35915436......................................... 34456

446......................510......................520................... .'.558................... <561......................573......................610......................640......................P roposed R ules:

10.................16 ................54.................56.................7 1 ................73.................170 ............171 ..............180..............182..............184..............186...............310..............312..............314..............320 ..............330 ..............347...............361 ..............430 .............431 ..............505...............510 ............511 ..............514...............539 ..... ..........548...............558...............570 ............571 ............601 ..............610..... .........630 ..............660...............812...............1003 ............1010 ............1308 ............

22 CFR709............... ......23 CFR

.................... 34456

.................... 35685

.................... 35685

......... 34457, 3568634457, 35686, 35915......... 33707, 33708

................. 34457.............. ;..... 34457

........................ 3505635056, 35186, 35210.................... 35210................ . 35186........ 35186, 35210................. ... 36064.................... 35210......... 35186, 35210.......... 35186, 35210......... 34500, 35731.......... 34500, 35731.............. r..... 35731.......... 35186, 35210...... 35186, 35210......... 35186, 3521035056, 35186, 35210.......... 35186, 35210.................... 34628.......... 35186, 35210.......... 35186, 35210.......... 35186, 35210.................... 35731.................... 35210.................... 35210.................... 35210.............. ..... 35731.................... 35731.................... 35059.................... 35210.................... 35210/.......... 35186, 35210.................... 35731

35186, 35210.................... 35731.....'............... 35056_____ 35186, 35210........... 35186, 38210....... 34503, 35734

36064

883 ....v......................................... 33880888............................................... 351621914 ................................ 360661915 ............................... 36241-362431917................................... 35267-352781920................................... 35916-35920P roposed R ules:

570......................................... 344241917...................................... 35060-

35069, 35491-35502, 36478-3648525 CFR258............................................... 35278P roposed R ules:

41......... ................. .............. 3534626 CFR1............... .............. 34128, 35279, 362447....................... ................ 35920, 36244P roposed R ules:

1 ............................................ 33936,33937, 35735, 35949, 36111

301.......... 3393728 CFR0........................................ 36068, 3643816................. 36439P roposed R ules:

16 ............................... 35347, 36486Ch. V ............................. 34062

29 CFR70a............................................... 3606989................................................. 3370898................................................ 344621910............ .............,........ 35032, 350351928........................................... 350351952............................................. 344632520............................................. 3504230 CFR44........................... 35687610....... 35477P roposed R ules:

Ch. VII.................................. 3611448 ............................... 34504

31 CFRP roposed R ules:

10.......................................... 34161260......................626......................630......................650 ,................ «...P roposed R ules:

480...............646 ..............

24 CFR81........................203.. ................204............. ........280.. ................570 ..................571 .............. .600......................803......................880.......... ...........881......................

3547735030 3446035031

......... 3500835008,35491

3620033906339063526534056 3475134057 35162 33880 33880

32 CFR44......49......56 ...57 ...63 ...64 ...71 ...72 ...83......84.. ......86 ......93......95......96.. ..120....123.... .125....136.... .

362453624536245362453624536245362453624536245362453624536245362453624536245362453624536245

x FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

FEDERAL REGISTER

32 CFR—Continued 40 CFR—Continued 45 CFR—Continued139.............. ................................ 36245142................................. 36245158............................................... 36245173.. ..... 36245178............................................... 36245210...................... 36245213............................................... 36245235............................................... 36245240.................................. 36245241.— ......................................... 36245250.... 36245254.................................... .......... 36245265.. ..........................................;.. 36245266 ............ 36245267 ........................................... 36245280........................ 36245294............................................... 36245553........................... 35043, 35922706.................................... 33709, 36070811a.... 33907837............................................... 35477885............................................... 35687888........................................... 36071952............................................... 33908953..................................... .:....... 339121466.................................... 35280P roposed R ules:

552 ................. 33749553 ............................. 35069, 35950

33 CFR110........................ ...................... 35480183.................................... 36440, 36441222.. ......................................... 35480P roposed R ules:

126............ 34362128........................................ 36486204........................................ 36283209.............................. 34162

36 CFR7 ...................................................... 35482262.................................................. 36245P roposed R ules:

7 ............. 3507021....................... 35071

37 CFR2............ 35482201............................................... 3504438 CFR21................................................. 35280P roposed R ules:

3 ................................. 3450539 CFRP roposed R ules:

111..................... 3595140 CFR22.................... 3473052..................................................33912-

33918, 34129-34131, 34463-34470, 35694, 36245, 36247

55................................................. 3592260.............................. ........ 34340, 34784162......... 34471180.............. 35309, 35696, 35697, 35923209............................................... 34132

228-------------- 33711730_______________________ 36249761............................................... 33918P roposed R ules:

22........................................ 3473825.......................................... 3479435.......................................... 3479451 ....................................... 3489252 ....................................... 34892,

35072, 35347, 35952, 35956, 36114, 36203

53 ....................................... 3489258.......................... 3489260 ............................... 34349, 3489262................. 3374965............ ............................. 33750-

33754, 34506, 35502-35508, 35957, 35961, 36284

105........................................ 34794120....... 35735180........ 34163,

34804, 35348, 35349, 35963249........................................ 34794413........................................ 33940

175 ..................176 ................177 ............185......................801......................1061....................P roposed R ules:

168...............190...............205...............228...............232 ............233 ............301 ............302 ............303 ............304 ............405...............450...............455...............1010 ................1076.............1609.............1705............. .

......... 34146

......... 34146

...... . 3433836228, 36250......... 35704......... 35312

3562435964364783471934164355113416434164341643416434710347103471036489355113376434805

41 CFR 46 CFR1-16................................................ 35310Ch. 3 .... 33712Ch. 101............................... 33713, 33892101-17 ................................ 34139, 35484101-36............................................ 34140P roposed R ules:

3-1...............3-4...............3-7...............101-28 ..........

42 CFR36................ .......37........................57............. ..........67.......................405......................P roposed R ules:

37.................51a.......:........52.................91.................122...............123...............405 .............. .448...............450...............

43 CFR4.........................29.......................45 CFRCh. I ...................16.......................19.......................74.......................185......................100b............ .100c................... .126......................144............. ........168............ .........173.............

33761, 33940......... 33940......... 33940........ 36488

3465033713364413447135698

......... 33762

......... 34717

......... 34507

......... 35073

......... 33764

......... 3376433763, 36488......... 35077......... 36478

3437633721

......... 35484

......... 36249

......... 35310

......... 3407636228, 36250......... 35701......... 35701......... 34324......... 34146......... 34334......... 35701

502............................................... 33721542......... ....... ............................. 3570447 CFR0 ......................... 36086, 364441 ......................................... *.... 360862 ............................................... 3372215................................................ 3609621................................................. 3531473................................................. 35924, 3610497........... 33722P roposed R ules:

1 ......................................... 341672 .......... 35350, 35352, 35353, 3648921.......................................... 3596961.......................................... 3480663 .................... 33942, 34823, 3628564 ................................ 34823, 3628567.......................................... 3482373.......................................... 33765,

33772, 34170, 34509, 35356, 35357, 35969, 36116, 36117

81.......................................... 3535283 .................... 35352, 36353, 3551287 .................... 35350, 35352, 3648989 ................................ 35352, 3536091 ................................ 35352, 3536093 ................................ 35352, 3536095.......................................... 3536097.......................................... 35352

48 CFRP roposed R ules:

Ch. I ........................... 34824, 3573649 CFRCh. I ............................ 3548525............. 33725171 ............ 36446172 .............................. 35485173..................................... 35485, 36446178............................................. 36446221 .................. 36447531.:............................................. 34785

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978 xi

FEDERAL REGISTER

49 CFR—Continued 49 CFR—Continued 50 CFR—Continued571........................................... 36448 P roposed R ules—Continued803............................................... 36454 10331033.............................................. 34147- 1040**'

34150, 34476, 35317, 35718 , nAn..............................71056............................................. 33921 .................................1126............................................. 36455 1082..................................1201....................... .*.................... 36456 1121.................................1206.............................. 36456 1124.......................1241............................ 35485 1201.......................P roposed R ules: 50 CFR

Ch. X ............. 3377427..................................... 34171 17....................................177........................................ 36492 20....................................195.................................... 35513 21....................................537........................................ 35517 26............................................

35083339453417234172337753508234172

34476359003415034151

32 ...................................... 33921,33922, 34151-34156, 34480, 35320, 35486-35488, 36251-36262,36450-36460

33 ...................................... 36262, 36460216....... 36263611.................................... 35719, 35924651............................................... 35488P roposed R ules:

17 .................... 35636, 36117, 3658820........................................ ;. 3589032......... 34825251........................................ 33946611 .................. 33776, 34510, 34825656........................................ 35736672........................................ 34825810 ........... .\........ . 35014, 36293

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES—AUGUSTPages ^ Date Pages Date Pages Date

33675-33897........ ........................ Aug. 1 35017-35258.................................. 8 35907-36036.................................. 1433899-34102............... .................. 2 35259-35459 .......................... ....... 9 36037-362?4......................... ......... 1534103-34426.............. ........... ....... 3 35461-35643.................................. 10 36235-36422................................... 1634427-34751.................................. 4 35645-35906.................................. 11 36423-36590.............. „................. 1734753-35016................................. 7

/

xil FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36423

________________ rules and regulations_______________This section o f the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect most o f 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 o f Documents. Prices o f new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each

month.

[3410-08]Title 7— Agriculture

CHAPTER IV — FEDERAL CROP INSUR­ANCE CORPORATION, DEPART­MENT OF AGRICULTURE

PART 401— FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE

PART 417— SUGARCANE CROP INSURANCE

Subpart— Regulations for the 1979 and Succeeding Crop Years

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This rule provides regu­lations for the insuring of sugarcane effective in certain comities in Florida and Texas effective with the 1979 crop year, and in counties in Louisiana ef­fective with the 1980 crop year. These regulations are issued under the au­thority of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., as amended.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter F. Cole, Secretary, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash­ington, D.C. 20250, 202-447-3325.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the authority of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (hereinafter called “Corporation”), hereby issues a new part 417 of chapter IV in title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations to be known as 7 CFR Part 417 Sugarcane Crop Insurance.

This is a new part and contains all previous sugarcane crop insurance reg­ulations found in 7 C F R 401.135 (40 F R 25434, June 16, 1975) and an amendment published in the F ederal R egister on June 2, 1976 (41 F R 22251). In addition, this new part 417 contains a rate adjustment table for premium determination in accordance with the insured’s individual insuring experience and the provisions of the crop insurance policy to form a com­

plete sugarcane policy and endorse­ment in a self-contained document. The Corporation has determined that such a sugarcane crop insurance policy as outlined below is more effective ad­ministratively.

In the provisions of the sugarcane policy the cancellation date, that date established by the Corporation by which a policyholder must notify the Corporation of his desire to cancel his crop insurance coverage for a particu­lar crop year, has been established as July 31. Any regulations as are pro­mulgated herein, or amendments thereto, must be placed on file in the Corporation’s office for the county 15 days prior to such cancellation date or by July 15, in order to be effective for that crop year.

The Board of Directors of the Cor­poration approved several counties in Florida and Texas for sugarcane crop insurance effective with the 1979 crop year and applications for sugarcane crop insurance will be taken in such counties when this new part 417 is placed on file.

There are no current sugarcane crop insurance policyholders in Florida and Texas; consequently, no one would be affected by the placing of such regula­tions as are in part 417 on file in the office for the county by a date that is past the required July 15 date, since there are no policyholders who should be notified of such regulations and af­forded an opportunity to consider their crop insurance contracts under the terms of such regulations with a view toward cancellation of their con­tract by the required July 31 cancella­tion date.

The only persons who will be affect­ed now by the regulations contained in the new part 417 are those who are contemplating filing applications for sugarcane crop insurance for the 1979 crop year. Such applications would normally have to be filed by not later than August 31.

In view of the limited time available to prospective policyholders to file their applications for sugarcane crop insurance for the 1979 crop year, the Corporation has, under a separate doc­ument, extended the deadline date for filing applications from August 31 to September 30 in order to provide more time for the filing of applications for such crop insurance on their sugar­cane crops.

As indicated above in the section of this document titled “SUMMARY”, the Corporation has determined that the regulations promulgated below shall become effective in Louisiana, where there are current policyholders, for the 1980 crop year. There is no need to extend the deadline date for filing applications in Louisiana, and current policyholders in that State will be notified of the provisions found in the new Part 417 Sugarcane Crop Insurance Policy prior to the normal July 31 cancellation date.

In view of the above, the Corpora­tion has found and determined that there would not be enough time to follow the procedure for notice and public participation and still make sugarcane crop insurance available to those counties in Florida and Texas for the 1979 crop year. Given the fact that growers in Florida and Texas have until now no sugarcane crop in­surance experience upon which to base comments if provision^were to be made for public participation, the Cor­poration has determined that to pro­vide a full 60 days for comment on this new program, then to begin accepting applications for the 1979 sugarcane crop insurance protection, would create the possibility of adverse selec­tivity which is counter to sound insur­ance principles. Therefore, this new Part 417 Sugarcane Crop Insurance Policy is hereby issued without com­pliance with such procedure for notice and public participation.

F inal R ule

Under the authority contained in the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation hereby issues a new part 417 of chap­ter IV in title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations to be known as 7 CFR Part 417 Sugarcane Crop Insurance Policy.§ 401.135 [Reserved]

7 CFR 401.135 is hereby deleted and reserved.

Pursuant to the authority contained in the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation hereby issues the provisions of this subpart which shall apply, until amended or superseded, to all sugar­cane effective with the 1979 and suc-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36424 RULES AND REGULATIONS

ceeding crop years in Florida and Texas and with the 1980 and succeed­ing crops years in Louisiana.Subpart— Regulations fo r the 1979 Succeeding

Crop Years

Sec.417.1 Availability of Sugarcane Insurance.417.2 Premium rates, production guaran­

tees, and prices at which indemnities shall be computed.

417.3 Application for insurance.417.4 Public notice of indemnities paid.417.5 Creditors.417.6 Good faith reliance on misrepresen­

tation.417.7 The contract.417.8 The policy.

Authority: Secs. 506, 516, 52 Stat. 73, as amended, 77, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1506, 1516).

Subpart— Regulations for the 1979 Succeeding Crop Years

§ 417.1 Availability of sugarcane insur­ance.

Insurance shall be offered under the provisions of this subpart on sugar­cane in counties within limits pre­scribed by and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Crop Insur­ance Act, as amended. The counties shall be designated by the Manager of the Corporation from those approved by the Board of Directors of the Cor­poration. Before insurance is offered in any cdtfeity, there shall be pub­lished by appendix to this section the name of the county and the crops on which insurance will be offered.§417.2 Premium rates, production guar­

antees, and prices at which indemnities shall be computed.

The Manager shall establish premi­um rates, production guarantees, and prices at which indemnities shall be computed for sugarcane. Such premi­um rates, production guarantees, and prices at which indemnities shall be computed shall be shown on the county actuarial table on file in the office for the county and may be changed from year to year.§ 417.3 Application for insurance.

(a) Application for insurance on a form prescribed by the Corporation may be made by any person to cover such person's insurable share in the sugarcane as landlord, owner-operator, or tenant. The application shall be submitted to the Corporation at the office for the county on or before the applicable closing date set forth below preceding the first crop year for which insurance is to be in effect.

(Closing D ates)All States_________________________ August 31

(b) The Corporation reserves the right to discontinue the acceptance of applications in any county upon its de­

termination that the insurance risk in­volved is excessive, and also, for the same reason, to reject any individual application. The Manager of the Cor­poration is authorized in any crop year to extend the closing date for accept­ance of applications in any county, by publishing a notice in the F ederal R egister, upon his determination that no adverse selectivity will result during the period of such extension: Provided, hoioever, That if adverse conditions should develop during such period the Corporation will immedi­ately discontinue the acceptance of ap­plications.

(c) Applications for initial insurance shall be made on the following form:

U.S. D epartment of Agriculture

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION

Application for Federal Crop Insurance for 19— and Succeeding Crop Years

Name and address----------------------------------

Contract No.---------------—---------- -------------

State---------------------------------------------------Identification N o.----------------------------------

A. The undersigned applicant, subject to the provisions of the regulations of the Fed­eral Crop Insurance Corporation (herein called the “Corporation”), hereby applies to the corporation for insurance on his share (for cotton, peanut and tobacco insurance, on his sharecropper or share tenant shares as specified in paragraph B below) in the crops stated below that are insurable crops planted on insurable acreage as shown on the applicable county actuarial table of the Corporation for the above-stated county. The applicant elects each plan of insurance, amount of insurance, or price at which in­demnities shall be computed, shown below which in each case shall be an electable plan, amount, or price, as provided on the applicable county actuarial table on file in the Corporation’s office for the above county. The premium rates and production guarantees shall be those shown on the ap­plicable comity actuarial table for each crop year.

Crops Elections (A) (P)

B. Applicable only to cotton, peanut and tobacco:

If the applicant intends to insure only the shares of his sharecroppers or share tenants who have no insurance on the crop with the Corporation, “(SC-Int.)” shall be entered following the name of the crop. If the appli­cant intends to insure both his individual share and the shares of his sharecroppers or share tenants “(Comb. Int.)” shall be en­tered following the name of the crop. Insur­ance for sharecroppers and share tenants shall be provided in accordance with the regulations of the Corporation (7 CFR Part 401,103(b)).

C. Upon acceptance of this application by the corporation the contract shall be in effect for the first crop year specified above, except on any crop on which the time for the filing of applications has passed at the

time this application is filed, and shall con­tinue for each succeeding crop year until canceled or terminated as provided in the contract. This application, the insurance policy, endorsements, and the county actu­arial tables shall constitute the contract. Any changes in the contract shall be on file in the Corporation’s office for the county at least 15 days prior to the applicable cancel­lation date.

D. This application, when executed by a person as an individual, shall not cover his share in as crop produced by a partnership or other legal entity.

The applicant is a ------------------------(Type of entity).

All natural persons in whose behalf this application is made are over 18 years of age ------------(Yes or No).

E. P remium N ote: In consideration hereof, the insured promises to pay to the order of the Corporation each crop year of the con­tract the annual premiums. It is agreed that any amount due the Corporation by the in­sured may be deducted from any indemnity payable to the insured and when not pro­hibited by law, from any loan or payment otherwise due the insured under any pro­gram administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Witness to signature-----------------------------Signature of applicant----------------------- —Date----------- , 19-Code —

Address of office for county:

Phone --------------------- ------------- -----Location of farm(s) or headquarters:

Phone ------------------------------------------------

§ 417.4 Public notice of indemnities paid.The Corporation shall provide for

posting annually in each county at the county courthouse a listing of the in­demnities paid in the county.§ 417.5 Creditors.

An interest of a persoh in an insured crop existing by virtue of a lien, mort­gage, garnishment, levy, execution, bankruptcy, or any involuntary trans­fer shall not entitle the holder of the interest to any benefit under the con­tract except as provided in sections 13 and 14 of the policy set forth in 7 CFR 416.8.§ 417.6 Good faith reliance on misrepre­

sentation.Notwithstanding any other provision

of the insurance contract, whenever an insured person under any contract of crop insurance entered into under these regulations has suffered a loss to a crop which is not insured, or for which the insured is not entitled to an indemnity because of failure to comply with the terms of the insur­ance contract, but which the insured believed to be insured, or believed the terms of the insurance contract to have been complied with or waived, because of a misrepresentation or other erroneous action or advice by an

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

agent or employee of the Corporation and the Board of Directors of the Cor­poration, or the Manager in cases in­volving not more than $5,000 finds (a) that an agent or employee of the Cor­poration did in fact make such misrep­resentation or take other erroneous action or give erroneous advice, (b) that said insured person relied thereon in good faith, and (c) that to deny said insured’s claim for indemnity would not be fair and equitable, such insured person shall be entitled to such indem­nity the same as if otherwise entitled thereto.§ 417.7 The contract.

The insurance contract shall become effective upon the acceptance by the Corporation of a duly executed appli­cation for insurance on a form pre­scribed by the Corporation. The con­tract shall cover the sugarcane crop which is provided in and covered by the policy when insurance is accepted on the sugarcane crop by the Corpora­tion pursuant to a duly submitted ap­plication. Any changes made in the contract shall not affect the continu­ity from year to year.§ 417.8 The policy.

The provisions of the sugarcane pro­duction insurance policy for the 1979 and succeeding crop years are as fol­lows:

U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e

SUGARCANE INSURANCE POLICY

(This is a continuous contract, refer to section 20.)

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION

Subject to the regulations of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (herein called “Corporation”) and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this policy, the Corporation upon acceptance of a per­son’s application does insure such person’s sugarcane crop against unavoidable loss of production due to causes of loss insured against that are specified in this policy. No term or condition of the contract shall be waived or changed on behalf of the Corpo­ration except in writing by a duly author­ized representative of the Corporation.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Meaning of terms. For purposes of in­surance on sugarcane the terms:

(a) “Actuarial table” means the forms and related material approved by the Corpora­tion which are on file for public inspection in the office for the county, and which show the applicable production guarantee, premi­um rates, prices for computing indemnities, insurable acreage, and related information regarding sugarcane insurance in the county.

(b) “Contract” means the accepted appli­cation, this policy, and the actuarial table.

(c) “County” means the county shown on the application and any additional insurable land located in a local producing area bor­dering on the county, as shown on the actu­arial table.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(d) “Crop year” means the period from planting for plant cane and from the later of April 15 or 30 days after harvest for stub­ble cane until the end of the insurance period for the applicable crop year and shall be designated by the calendar year in which harvest normally begins in the county.

(e) “Harvest” means cutting and removing the sugarcane from the field.

(f) “Loss ratio” means the ratio of indemnity!ies) paid to premium(s) earned.

(g) “Office for the county” means the Corporation’s office serving the county shown on the application for insurance or such office as may be designated by the Cor­poration. *

(h) “Person” or “Insured” means an indi­vidual, partnership, association, corpora­tion, estate, trust, or other business enter­prise or legal entity, and wherever applica­ble, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or any agency thereof.

(i) “Share” means the share of the in­sured as landlord, owner-operator, or tenant in the sugarcane crop at the time insurance attaches as reported by the insured or as de­termined by the Corporation, whichever the Corporation shall elect, and no other share shall be deemed to be insured: Provided, That for the purpose of determining the amount of indemnity, the insured share shall not exceed the insured’s share at the earliest of (1) the date of beginning of har­vest on the unit, (2) the calendar date for the end of the insurance period, or (3) the date the entire crop on the unit is de­stroyed, as determined by the Corporation.

(j) “Standard sugarcane” means net sugar­cane containing the percent sucrose in the normal juice or in the cane and, where ap­plicable, the purity factor as shown on the actuarial table.

(k) ' “Sugarcane” means either (1) sugar­cane the initial year planted (herein called “plant” cane) or (2) sugarcane which has previously been harvested and the stubble from the stalks is left for the purpose of producing another crop (herein called “stubble” cane).

(l) “Tenant” means a person who rents land from another person for a share of the sugarcane crop or proceeds therefrom.

(m) “Unit” means all insurable acreage of sugarcane in the county on the date insur­ance attaches (1) in which the insured has a 100-percent share, (2) which is owned by one person and operated by the insured as a tenant, or (3) which is owned by the insured and rented to one tenant. Land rented for cash, a fixed commodity payment, or any consideration other than a share in the sug­arcane crop on such land shall be consid­ered as owned by the lessee. Land which would otherwise be one unit may be divided according to applicable guidelines on file in the office for the county or by written agreement between the Corporation and the insured. The Corporation shall determine units as herein defined when adjusting a loss, notwithstanding what is shown on the acreage report, and has the right to consid­er any acreage and share reported by or for the insured’s spouse or child or any member of the insured’s household to be the bona fide share of the insured or any other person having the bona fide share.

2. Causes of loss, (a) Causes of loss insured against. The insurance provided is against unavoidable loss of production resulting from drought, earthquake, excessive rain, fire, flood, freeze, frost, hail, hurricane, insect infestation, lightning, plant disease,

36425

snow, tornado, wildlife, wind, winterkill, and any other unavoidable cause of loss due to adverse weather conditions occurring within the insurance period, subject however, to any exceptions, exclusions, or limitations with respect to such causes of loss that are set forth on the actuarial table.

(b) Causes of loss not insured against. The contract shall not cover any loss of produc­tion due to (1) neglect or malfeasance of the insured, any member of his household, his tenants or employees, (2) failure to follow recognized good farming practices, (3) damage resulting from the backing up of water by any governmental or public utili­ties dam or reservoir project, ot (4) any cause not specified as an insured cause in this policy as limited by the applicable actu­arial table.

3. Crop and acreage insured, (a) Upon ap­proval of an application for insurance, the sugarcane and insured shall be sugarcane grown for processing for sugarcane for which the actuarial table shows a guarantee and premium rate per acre.

(b) The acreage insured for each crop year shall be that acreage in the county of plant and stubble cane on insurable acreage, as shown on the actuarial table and as report­ed by the insured or as determined by the Corporation, whichever the Corporation shall elect: Provided, That insurance shall not attach or be considered to have at­tached as determined by the Corporation to any acreage of sugarcane (1) cut for seed, (2) where premium rates are established by farming practices on the actuarial table, and the farming practices carried out on any acreage are not among those for which a premium rate has been established, (3) which is destroyed and after such destruc­tion it was practical to replant to sugarcane and such-acreage was not replanted, (4) ini­tially planted after the date established by the Corporation and placed on file in the office for the county as being too late to ini­tially plant and expect a normal crop to be produced, (5) planted to a type or variety of sugarcane not established as adapted to the area or shown as noninsurable on the actu­arial table, or (6) planted with another crop.

(c) The corporation reserves the right to limit the insured acreage of sugarcane to any acreage limitations established under any act of Congress, provided the insured is so notified in writing prior to the planting of sugarcane.

4. Responsibility of insured to report acre­age and share, (a) The insured shall submit to the Corporation at the office for the county on a form prescribed by the Corpo­ration, a report showing all of the acreage of sugarcane in the county (including a des­ignation of any acreage to which insurance does not attach) in which the insured has a share and the insured’s share therein at the time insurance attaches. Such report shall be submitted each year not later than May 31. If the insured does not have a share in any insured acreage in the county for any year, he shall submit a report so indicating. Any acreage report submitted by the in­sured shall be binding upon the insured and shall not be subject to change by the in­sured.

(b) If the insured does not submit an acre­age report by May 31, the Corporation may elect to determine by insurance units the in­sured acreage and the share or declare the insured acreage on any insurance unit(s) to be “zero.”

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

3 6 4 2 6 ' RULES AND REGULATIONS

5. Irrigated acreage, (a) Where the actuar­ial table provides for insurance on acreage on which an irrigated practice is carried out, the insured shall report as irrigated only the acreage for which the insured has ade­quate facilities and water to carry out a good irrigation practice at the time of plant­ing.

(b) Any loss of production caused by fail­ure to carry out a good irrigation practice, except failure of the water supply from an unavoidable cause occuring after the begin­ning of planting, shall be considered as due to an uninsured cause. The failure or break­down of irrigation equipment or facilities shall not be considered as a failure of the water supply from an unavoidable cause.

(c) Insurance shall not attach to sugar­cane planted on any irrigated acreage the first year after a major leveling operation has been carried out, as determined by the Corporation.

6. Production guarantees and prices for computing indemnities, (a) For each crop year of the contract, the production guaran­tees and prices at which indemnities shall be computed are those shown on the actuar­ial table.

(b) The applicable production guarantee per acre shall be reduced 20 percent for any unharvested acreage.

(d) If there is no break in the continuity of participation, any premium adjustment applicable under subsection (c) of this sec­tion shall be transferred to: (1) The contract of the insured’s estate or surviving spouse in case of death of the insured, (2) the con­tract of the person who succeeds the in­sured in operating only the same farm or farms, if such person had previously active­ly participated in the farming operation, or (3) the contract of the same insured who stops farming in one county and starts farming in another county.

. (c) At the time application for insurance is made, the applicant shall elect a price from among those shown on the actuarial,table at which indemnities shall be computed. If the insured has not elected a price or the price elected is not shown on the actuarial table for the crop year, the applicable price under the contract, and which the insured shall be deemed to have elected, shall be the price provided on the actuarial table for such purposes. The insured may, with the consent of the Corporation, change the price election for any crop year by the clos­ing date for submitting applications for that year.

7. Annual premium, (a) The annual premi­um is earned and payable at the time insur­ance attaches and shall be determined by multiplying the insured acreage times the applicable premium per acre, times the in­sured’s share at the time insurance atta­ches, and applying the premium adjustment herein provided.

(b) For premium adjustment purposes, only the years during which premiums were earned shall be considered.

(c) The premium shall be adjusted as shown in the following table:

(e) If there is a break in the continuity of participation, any reduction in premium earned under subsection (c) of this section shall not thereafter apply; however, any in­crease in premium shall apply following a break in continuity.

(f) Any unpaid amount due the Corpora­tion by the insured may be deducted from any indemnity payable to the insured by the Corporation or from any loan or pay­ment to the insured under any act of Con­gress or program administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, when not pro­hibited by law.

8. Insurance period. Insurance on insured acreage of plant cane shall attach at the time of planting; for stubble cane, insurance shall attach on the later of the April 15 fol­lowing normal harvest or 30 days after har­vest. The insurance period shall cease upon the earliest of (1) final adjustment of a loss, (2) harvest, or (3) the following applicable date of the calendar year immediately fol­lowing the normal commencing of harvest in the county:

Florida................. ...... ........ Apr. 30Louisiana................... ................................. Jan. 31Texas........................ ....................................Apr. 30

9. Notice of damage or loss. Any notice of damage or loss shall be given 1n writing by the insured to the Corporation at the office for the county. The Corporation shall reject any claim for indemnity if any of the re­quirements of this section are not met.

(a) Notice shall be given promptly if, during the insurance period, the sugarcane on any unit is damaged to the extent that the insured does not expect to further care for the crop or harvest any part of it, or wants the consent of the Corporation to put the acreage to another use. No insured acre­age shall be put to another use until the Corporation has made an appraisal of the potential production of such acreage and consents in writing to such other use. Such ) consent shall not be given for plant cane ) until it is too late to replant to sugarcane. I Notice shall also be given when such acre- f age has been put to another use. (b) Notice ] shall be given not later than 30 days after j the earliest of: (1) The date harvest is com- j pleted on the unit, (2) the calendar date for ] the end of the insurance period, or (3) the j date the entire sugarcane crop on the unit is ? destroyed, as determined by the Corpora- > tion. The Corporation reserves the right to provide additional time if it determines that circumstances beyond the control of the in­sured prevent compliance with this provi­sion.

(c) If a loss is to be claimed on any unit, the stalks on unharvested acreage and the stubble remaining on harvested acreage shall be left intact until the Corporation makes an inspection.

(d) There shall be no abandonment to the Corporation of any insured sugarcane.

10. Claim for indemnity, (a) Any claim for indemnity on a unit shall be submitted to the Corporation on a form prescribed by the Corporation.

(b) It shall be a condition precedent to the payment of any indemnity that the insured:(1) Establish the total production of sugar­cane on the unit, and that any loss of pro­duction has been directly caused by one or more of the causes insured against during the insurance period of the crop year for which the indemnity is claimed and (2) fur­nish any other information regarding the amount of production as may be required by the Corporation.

(c) Indemnities shall be determined sepa­rately for each unit. The amount of indem­nity for any unit shall be determined by: (1) Multiplying the insured acreage of sugar­cane on the unit by the applicable produc­tion guarantee per acre, which product shall be the production guarantee for the unit,(2) subtracting therefrom the total produc-

Adjustments for favorable continuous experience

Number years continuous experience through previous crop year

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ormore

Loss ratio through previous crop yean

0 to .49........ ..........0.50 to .89.............0.90 to 1.09______

[Percentage adjustment factor for current crop year!

100 100 95 95 90 85 80 75 70100 100 100 100 95 90 85 80 75100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Adjustments for unfavorable insurance experience

Number of years indemnified through previous crop year

9 10 ormore

Loss ratio through previous crop yean1.10 to 1.19............. 1001.20 to 1.39................................... 1001.40 to 1.69................ 1001.70 to 1.99................................... 1002.00 to 2.49....... 1002.50 to 3.24____________ 1003.25 to 3.99................................... 1004.00 to 4.99.......... 1005.00 to 5.99................................... 1006.00 up.... ...................................... 100

Percentage adjustment factor for current crop year100100102103104105106107108 110

100103105107109111113115117120

103106109112115118121124127130

104109113118122127131136140145

106112118124130136142148154160

108116124132140148156164172180

110120130140150160170180190200

112125137150162175187200212225

115130145160175190205220235250

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36427tion of standard sugarcane to be counted for the unit, (3) multiplying the remainder by the applicable price for computing indemni­ties, (4) multiplying the result obtained in step (3) by the insured share: Provided, That if the premium computed on the de­termined acreage and share is more than the premium computed on the reported acreage and share, the amount of indemnity shall be computed on the determined acre­age and share and then reduced proportion­ately.

(d) The total production of standard sug­arcane to be counted for a unit shall be de­termined by the Corporation and, subject to the provisions hereinafter, shall include all harvested production and any appraisals made by the Corporation for: (1) Stubble acreage with insufficient stand at the time of inspection as provided in subsection (e) of this section, (2) unharvested or potential production, (3) poor farming practices, (4) uninsured causes of loss, or (5) acreage abandoned or put to another use without the consent of the Corporation. Any ap­praisals made by the Corporation and any harvested production not processed for sugar shall be in net tons and considered as standard sugarcane, except as provided in subsection (f) of this section. For acreage abandoned or put to another use without prior written consent of the Corporation and acreage damaged solely by an uninsured cause, the total production to be counted shall be not less than the applicable produc­tion guarantee provided for such acreage.

Ce) An appraisal for inadequate stand shall be made on any stubble acreage of sug­arcane when the stand at the time of inspec­tion is less than 1,000 plants for each ton of harvested guarantee. The per acre appraisal shall be the number of tons by which the harvested guarantee per acre exceeds the number of tons determined by converting the plant population per acre to tons at the rate of 1,000 plants per ton.

(f) The production to be counted of any sugarcane damaged by freeze occurring within the insurance period to the extent that processing of such cane adversely af­fects boiling house operations, as deter­mined by the Corporation, shall be adjusted by the factor obtained by dividing the value of such damaged sugarcane by the value of undamaged standard sugarcane, as deter­mined by the Corporation.

(g) In the event that any claim for indem­nity under the provisions of the contract is denied by the Corporation, an action on such claim may be brought against the Cor­poration under the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 1508(c): Provided, that the same is brought within one year after the date notice of denial of the claim is mailed to and received by the insured.

11. Payment of indemnity, (a) Any indem­nity will be payable within 30 days after a claim for idemnity is approved by the Cor­poration. However, in no event shall the Corporation be liable for interest or dam­ages in connection with any claim for idem­nity whether such claim be approved or, dis­approved by the Corporation.

(b) If the insured is an individual who dies or is judicially declared incompetent, or the insured entity is other than an individual and such entity is dissolved after the sugar­cane is planted for any crop year, any in­

demnity will be paid to the person(s) the Corporation determines to be beneficially entitled thereto.

12. Misrepresentation and fraud. The Cor­poration may void the contract without af­fecting the insured’s liability for premiums or waiving any right, including the right to collect any unpaid premiums if, at any time, the insured has concealed or misrepresented any fact or committed any fraud relating to the contract, and such voidance shall be ef­fective as of the beginning of the crop year with respect to which such act or omission occurred.

13. Other insurance against fire, (a) If the insured has other insurance against damage by fire during the insurance period, the Cor­poration shall be liable for loss due to fire for only the smaller of: (1) The amount of indemnity determined hereunder without regard to any other insurance, or (2) the amount, as determined by the Corporation, by which the loss from fire exceeds the in­demnity paid or payable under any other in­surance.

(b) For purposes of this section, the amount of loss from fire shall be the differ­ence between the fair market value of the production on the unit involved before and after the fire, as determined by the Corpo­ration.

14. Collateral assignment Upon approval of a form prescribed by the Corporation, the insured may assign to another party the right to an indemnity for the crop year and such assignee shall have the right to submit the loss notices and forms as required by the contract.

15. Transfer of insured share. If the in­sured transfers all or any part of the in­sured share during the crop year, upon ap­proval by the Corporation, protection will continue to be provided according to the provisions of the contract to the transferee for such crop year on the transferred share, and the transferee shall have the same rights and responsibilities under the con­tract as the transferor for the current crop year. Any transfer shall be made on a form prescribed by the Corporation.

16. Subrogation. The insured (including any assignee or transferee) assigns to the Corporation all rights of recovery against any person for loss or damage to the extent that payment hereunder is made and shall execute all papers required and take appro­priate action to secure such rights.

17. Records and access to farm. The in­sured shall keep or cause to be kept for two years after the time of loss, records of the harvesting, storage, shipments, sale or other disposition of all sugarcane in the county in which the insured has a share, including spearate records showing the same informa­tion for production from any uninsured acreage. Any persons designated by the Cor­poration shall have access to such records and the farm for purposes related to the contract.

18. Forms. Copies of forms referred to in the contract are available at the office for the county.

19. Contract changes. The Corporation re­serves the right to change any terms and provisions of the contract from year to year. Any changes shall be mailed to the insured or placed on file and made available for public inspection in the office for the

county at least 15 days prior to the applica­ble cancellation date, and such m ailin g or filing shall constitute notice to the insured. Acceptance of any changes will be conclu­sively presumed in the absence of any notice from the insured to cancel the contract as provided in Section 20.

20. Life of Contract: Cancellation and ter­mination. (a) The contract shall be in effect for the crop year specified on the applica­tion, and may not be canceled for such crop year. Thereafter, either party may cancel insurance for any crop year by giving writ­ten notice to the other by the cancellation date shown in subsection (b) of this section

(b) For each crop year of the contract the cancellation date shall be the July 31 pre- ceeding the beginning of the crop year. The termination date for indebtedness shall be the August 31 of the next succeeding calen­dar year.

(c) If the premium for any crop year is not paid by the termination date for indebted­ness shown in subsection (b) of this section, the contract shall terminate: Provided, That (1) the date of payment for premium, de­ducted from an indemnity claim shall be the date the insured signs such claim, or deduct­ed from payment under another program administered by the U.S. Department of Ag­riculture shall be the date such payment was approved or (2) the insured has not complied with a request by the Corporation for satisfactory arrangements for payment of the premium for the following crop year.

(d) If no premium is earned for three con­secutive years, the contract shall terminate.

(e) If the insured is an individual who dies or is judicially declared incompetent, or the insured entity is other than an individual and such entity is dissolved, the contract shall terminate as of the date of death, judi­cial declaration, or dissolution; however, if such event occurs after insurance attaches for any crop year, the contract shall contin­ue in force through such crop year and ter­minate at the end thereof. Death of a part­ner in a partnership shall dissolve the part­nership unless the partnership agreement provides otherwise. If two or more persons having a joint interest are insured jointly, death of one of the persons shall dissolve the joint entity.

(f) In the absence of a notice from the in­sured to cancel, and subject to the provi­sions of subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the contract shall continue in force for each succeeding crop year.

N ote.—The reporting requirements con- . tained herein have been approved by the Bureau of the Budget in accordance with the Federal Reports Act of 1942 and OMB Circular No. 840.

Approved by the Board of Directors on August 8,1978.

P eter P . Cole, Secretary, Federal

Crop Insurance Corporation.Approved August 14, 1978.

B ob B ergland,Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23097 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36428 RULES AND REGULATIONS

[3410-02]CHAPTER IX— AGRICULTURAL MAR­

KETING SERVICE (MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS; FRUITS, VEGETABLES, NUTS), DE­PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Valencia Orange Reg. 602]PART 908— VALENCIA ORANGES

GROWN IN ARIZONA AND DESIG­NATED PART OF CALIFORNIA

Limitation of Handling AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This regulation estab­lishes the quantity of fresh Califomia- Arizona Valencia oranges that may be shipped to market during the period August 18-24, 1978. Such action is needed to provide for orderly market­ing of fresh Valencia oranges for this period due to the marketing situation confronting the orange industry. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 1978. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles R. Brader, 202-447-6393.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Findings. Pursuant to the marketing agreement, as amended, and Order No. 908, as amended (7 CFR Part 908), reg­ulating the handling of Valencia or­anges grown in Arizona and designated part of California, effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601- 674), and upon the basis of the recom­mendations and information submit­ted by the Valencia Orange Admin- strative Committee, established under this marketing order, and upon other in form ation , it is found that'the limi­tation of handling of Valencia oranges, as hereafter provided, will tend to ef­fectuate the declared policy of the act.

The committee met on August 15, 1978, to consider supply and market conditions and other factors affecting the need for regulation and recom­mended a quantity of Valencia or­anges deemed advisable to be handled during the specified week. The com­mittee reports the demand for Valen­cia oranges continues to be reasonably strong.

It is further found that it is imprac­ticable and contrary to the public in­terest to give preliminary notice, engage in public rulemaking, and post­

pone the effective date until 30 days after publication in the F ederal R eg­ister (5-U.S.C. 553), because of insuffi­cient time between the date when in­formation became available upon which this regulation is based and the effective date necessary to effectuate the declared policy of the act. Inter­ested persons were given an opportuni­

ty to submit information and views on the regulation at an open meeting. It is necessary to effectuate the declared purposes of the act to make these reg­ulatory provisions effective as speci­fied, and handlers have been apprised of such provisions and the effective time.§ 908.902 Valencia Orange Regulation 602.

Order, (a) The quantities of Valencia oranges grown in Arizona and Califor­nia which may be handled during the period August 18, 1978, throughAugust 24, 1978, are established as fol­lows:

(1) District 1: 216,000 cartons;(2) District 2: 384,000 cartons; and(3) District 3: Unlimited.(b) As used in this section, “han­

dled,” “District 1,” “District 2,” “Dis­trict 3,” and “carton” mean the same as defined in the marketing order.(Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-674)

Dated: August 16,1978.W illiam T. M anley, Deputy Administrator,

Agricultural Marketing Service.[FR Doc. 78-23304 Filed 8-16-78; 11:37 am]

[6705-01]Title 12— Banks and Banking

CHAPTER V I— FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

PART 613— ELIGIBILITY AND SCOPE OF FINANCING

Federal Land Bank and Production Credit Association Loans; Correction

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administra­tion.ACTION: Correction and final rule.SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Admin­istration, by its Federal Farm Credit Board, took final action to amend its regulations which set forth the eligi­bility requirements for obtaining Fed­eral land bank and production credit association loans. This action is neces­sary to show the correct reference to a subpart of the recently revised § 613.3040.

In the F ederal R egister publication of the revision to §613.3040 (43 FR 16446), paragraphs (d) and (e) were in­advertently omitted. These sections are set forth below for the conven­ience of the reader. They include the correction referred to above and are effective as of April 4, 1978, the date of the revision of § 613.3040.,EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lee R. Brobst, Acting Deputy Gover-

nor, Office of Administration, FarmCredit Administration, 490 L’EnfantPlaza SW., Washington, D.C. 20578,202-755-2181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action corrects a reference, made under §613.3040 (e)(2), to the newly revised § 613.3040 (a) through <[d). Spe­cifically, the section referred to as “§ 613.3040(b)” is now “§ 613.3040(a).”

Since this addition is a technical cor­rection, it is found that notice of pro­posed rulemaking is unnecessary to the public interest.

Chapter VI of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding §613.3040 (d) and (e) as fol­lows:§ 613.3040 Rural residents.

* * * * *

(d) Program limitations. The rural home lending program shall be operat­ed within the following limitations:

(1) Rural home lending in a district may be implemented only with the ap­proval of the district board. Implemen­tation at the association level is within the discretion of the association board. Upon implementation, such loan serv­ice shall be made available to all eligi­ble persons.

(2) No Federal land bank may at any time have outstanding rural residence loans in an amount exceeding 15 per­cent of the total of all loans outstand­ing. No production credit association may have outstanding rural residence loans in an amount exceeding 15 per­cent of its total loans outstanding at the end of the preceding fiscal year, without prior approval by the Federal intermediate credit bank of the dis­trict, nor shall the aggregate of such loans exceed 15 percent of the out­standing loans of all associations in the district at the end of the bank’s preceding fiscal year.

(3) Whenever any Federal land bank association or production credit associ­ation exceeds 15 percent of its total loan volume in rural residence loans, the respective bank board shall re­quire the bank to make periodic re­views to assure that farmers’ credit needs are being adequately served in accordance with the objectives of the act.

(4) Should circumstances arise which curtail loan funds for the system, agricultural loans shall receive priority to the exclusion of rural home loans.

(e) Identification. All loans made under the rural home lending program shall be separately identified.

(1) In making such identification, a rural residence is a property which does not have the capacity to produce farm products for sale on a sustained

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

basis, or if it has that capacity is not intended to be used in that manner.

(2) Housing loans for homes used in farming operations or immediate family needs to farmers and ranchers may be identified as farm loans «if the borrower’s agricultural operation rep­resents more than 50 percent of his total business. Such loans are not sub­ject to the area and price limitation of § 613.3040(a) or the 15-percent limita­tion of § 613.3040(d).(Secs. 5.9, 5.12, 5.18, 85 Stat. 619, 620, 621.)

C. T. F redrickson, Acting Governor,

Farm Credit Administration.[FR Doc. 78-22976 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 ami

[4910-13]Title 14— Aeronautics and Space

CHAPTER I— FEDERAL AVIATIO N AD­MINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Airworthiness Docket No. 78-ASW-36; Arndt. 39-32791

PART 39— AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

Mooney Aircraft Corp. Models M20C, M20F, and M20J Airplanes

AGENCY; Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) which consists of requiring the en­largement of the emergency locator transmitter antenna mounting hole in the aircraft skin on Mooney Aircraft Corp. Models M20C, M20F, and M20J airplanes. This amendment is needed to assure that the emergency locator transmitter will radiate when activat­ed during emergency conditions.DATES: Effective August 21, 1978. Compliance schedule—As prescribed in body of this AD.ADDRESSES: The applicable service bulletins may be obtained from Mooney Aircraft Corp., P.O. Box 72, Kerrville, Tex. 78028. A copy of Mooney Service bulletin No. M20-213 is contained in the rules docket, Room 916, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, or Office of the Regional Counsel, Building 3B, Room 100, 4400 Blue Mound Road, Fort Worth, Tex.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neil B. Christenson, Systems and Equipment Section, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, telephone 817-624-4911, extension 505.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There have been instances of emer­gency locator transmitter antenna grounding reported on Mooney models M20C, M20F, and M20J airplanes. The antenna grounding prevents the emer­gency locator transmitter from radiat­ing a proper signal when activated during emergency conditions. This cre­ates a hazardous situation. Since this condition is likely to exist on other air­planes of the samé design, an airwor­thiness directive is being issued which requires enlargement of the emergen­cy locator transmitter antenna mount­ing hole in the aircraft skin on Mooney Aircraft Corp. models M20C, M20F, and M20J airplanes.

The above-noted hazardous situation can be remedied by the immediate adoption of this regulation. Therefore, it is found that notice and public pro­cedure hereon are impracticable, and good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of this docu­ment are Neil B. Christenson, South­west Region Flight Standards Divi­sion, and Joseph A. Kovarik, Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 4400 Blue Mound Road, Fort Worth, Tex. 76106.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity delegated to me by the Administra­tor, §39.13 of part 39 of the Federal Aviation regulations (14 CFR 39.13) is amended, by adding the following new airworthiness directive:M ooney A ircraft Corp. Applies to model

M20C, serial Nos. 20-1186 through 20- 1258, M20F, serial Nos. 22-1306 through 22-1486, and M20J, serial Nos. 24-0001 through 24-0454 airplanes, with Pacific Communications, Inc., Aircraft Products Division, model Alert 50, part No. 01070- 5, emergency locator transmitter system installed.

Compliance is required as indicated.To assure that the emergency locator

transmitter will radiate a proper signal when activated during emergency condi­tions, accomplish the following:

1. Rework the aircraft skin in accordance with Mooney Aircraft Corp. service bulletin M20-213, dated July 21, 1978, within 10 hours’ operating time but no later than 30 days from the effective date of this AD.

2. Upon completion of the Mooney service bulletin No. 20-213 instructions, measure the resistance between the antenna and the aircraft skin using an appropriate meter and assure that a reading of 9,000 to 13,000 ohms is obtained. Determine that the ELT transmits properly by testing it in accord­ance with FAA Advisory Circular No. 91-44 or 20-81.

3. The manufacturer’s specifications and procedures identified and described in this directive are vincorporated herein and made a part hereof pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). All persons affected by this directive who

36429

have not already received these documents from the manufacturer may obtain copies upon request to Mooney Aircraft Corp., P.O. Box 72, Kerrville, Tex. 78028. These docu­ments may also be examined at Southwest Regional Office, Regional Counsel, Building 3B, Room 100, 4400 Blue Mound Road, Fort Worth, Tex., and at FAA headquarters, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. A historical file on this AD which in­cludes the incorporated material in full is maintained by the FAA at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at Southwest re­gional office in Fort Worth, Tex.

This amendment becomes effective August 21,1978.(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; sec. 6(c), Department of Transpor- • tation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)); 14 CFR 11.89).)

Note.—The Federal Aviation Administra­tion has determined that this document ■ does not contain a major proposal requiring ; preparation of an economic impact state- , ment under Executive Order 11821, as 3 amended by Executive Order 11949, and 1 OMB Circular A-107.'• I

Issued in Fort Worth, Tex., on August 3,1978.

H enry L. Newman, Director, Southwest Region. I

Note.—The incorporation by reference | provisions in this document was approved ' by the Director of the Federal Register on « June 19, 1967.

[FR Doc. 78-22816 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am] {

[4910-13]

[Docket No. 77-CE-20-AD; Amdt. 39-3280] iPART 39-AIRW ORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

Beech 65, 70, and 90 Series Airplanes ;AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis- j tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule (revision).SUMMARY: This amendment revises ] airworthiness directive (AD) 77-22-01, ! applicable to certain Beech 65, 70, and ■ 90 series airplanes, by referring to a ] later version of Beechcraft service i instructions No. 0755-103 which incor- | porates a new procedure for the one­time inspection of the bushing instal- j lations in the stabilizer aft spars. A brief summary of the new inspection procedure is included in the AD revi­sion and will relieve owners/operators from the present requirement to remove the horizontal stabilizers for the bushing installation inspection.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. (Bud) Schroeder, Aero- | space Engineer, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, FAA, Cen- I tral Region, 601 East 12th Street, j

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36430

Kansas City, Mo. 64106, telephone816-374-3446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment revises Amendment 39-3066 (42 FR 56598-56599), AD 77-22-01, which currently requires a one­time inspection of both horizontal sta­bilizers aft spar to fuselage attach­ments for proper installation of bush­ings and clearance and repetitive in­spections of the fuselage station 380.00 bulkhead and associated components for cracks until certain new improved components are installed. The AD cur­rently requires removal of both hori­zontal stabilizers for the one-time bushing installation inspection. Subse­quent to issuance of AD 77-22-01, the manufacturer developed a procedure for accomplishing the bushing instal­lation inspection without removing the horizontal stabilizers. The new procedure is incorporated in revision II of Beechcraft service instructions No. 0755-103 which the manufacturer has made available for owners/opera- tors of affected airplanes.

The FAA has determined that the new inspection procedure will accom­plish its intended function and, if made mandatory, will result in a con­siderable savings in maintenance man­hours and aircraft downtime for those airplanes on which the bushings are properly installed. Therefore, the FAA is revising amendment 39-3066 by changing the lead-in statement of the AD to refer to revision II of Beech- craft service instructions No. 0755-103 and deleting the requirement for re­moval of the horizontal stabilizers in paragraphs (A)2, (A)3, and (A)4 of theAD.

Since this amendment is relieving in nature and imposes no additional burden on any person, notice and public procedure hereon are impracti­cable and good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days after the date of publication in the F ederal R egister.

D rafting Information

The principal authors of this docu­ment are: William L. (Bud) Schroeder, Flight Standards Division, Central Region, and John L. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the Regional Counsel, Cen­tral Region.

Adoption of Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity delegated to me by the Administra­tor, §39.13 of Part 39 of the Federal Aviation regulations (14 CFR 39.13) is amended by amending amendment 39- 3006 (42 FR 56598-56599), AD 77-22- 01, as follows:

(1) Delete “Revision 1” in the para­graph immediately preceding para­graph (A) and add “Revision II” in its place.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(2) In paragraph (A)2 delete the last five words therein, namely: “during reinstallation of the stabilizers.” and add a period after the word “Instruc­tions”.

(3) Delete paragraph (A)3 in its en­tirety and in its place, set forth the following new paragraph (A)3:

“3. Remove the aft spar attach bolts one at a time and, using a suitable feeler gauge, check for protrusion of the attach point bushing from the forward surface of the spar. If the forward face of the bushings is not flush with the front surface of the spar, complete removal of the stabilizer, and prior to reinstallation, correct by filing or grind­ing the bushings flush with the front sur­face of the spar.”

(4) In paragraph (A)4 after the word “stabilizers,” add the words “if re­moved.”

This amendment becomes effective August 23, 1978.(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423); sec. 6(c), Department of Trans­portation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)); § 11.89, Federal Aviation regulations (14 CFR sec. 11.89).)

N ote: The Federal Aviation Administra­tion has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an economic impact state­ment under Executive Order 11821, as amended by Executive Order 11949, and OMB Circular A-107.

Issued in Kansas City, Mo., on August 7,1978.

C. R. M elugin, Jr., Director, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 78-22818 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-13]

[Docket No. 78-NE-09; Amdt. 39-3281]PART 39— AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

Pratt & Whitney JT8D -9, -9A, -1 1 , - 15, -1 7 , and -17R Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) which requires eddy current inspec­tion for cracks of certain front com­pressor front hub blade slots. The AD is needed to detect cracks, originating in the blade slot, which could result in complete fracture of blade retention lugs and liberation of first stage fan blades.DATES: Effective date—September 20, 1978. Compliance schedule—As pre­scribed in the body of the AD.ADDRESSES: The applicable service bulletin may be obtained from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Division of United

Technologies Corp., 400 Main Street, East Hartford, Conn. 06108. A copy of the service bulletin is contained in the Rules Docket, Room 916, 800 Indepen­dence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, or Rules Docket, Office of the Regional Counsel, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Mass. 01803.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jay J. Pardee, Propulsion Section (ANE-214), Engineering and Manu­facturing Branch, Flight Standards Division, Federal Aviation Adminis­tration, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Bur­lington, Mass. 01803, telephone 617- 273-7347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation regulations to in­clude an airworthiness directive re­quiring an eddy current inspection for cracks of certain front compressor front hub blade slots was published in the F ederal R egister at 43 FR 21463. The proposal was prompted by reports of cracks occurring in the blade slots of certain part numbered front com­pressor front hubs. These have pro­gressed from multiple origins near the center of the blade slot pressure face at the edge of a galled area caused by blade root contact. In one instance, a complete fracture of a blade retention lug occurred liberating two adjacent first stage fan blades which caused massive engine damage. Two addition­al front compressor front hubs were found cracked at retirement. Other front compressor front hubs, inspected as part of a sampling program, were uncracked but had galled areas in the center of the blade slot pressure face.

Since this condition is likely to exist or develop in other engines of the same type design, the AD requires a repetitive eddy current inspection of front compressor front hubs, in ac­cordance with Pratt & Whitney Air­craft alert service bulletin No. 4841, re­vision 1, for cracks in the blade slot pressure face area. The repetitive eddy current inspection requirements of this AD will apply to front compressor front hubs, P/N’s 594301, 791801, 640601, 743301, 750101, and 749801. The proposed initial inspection at13,000 cycles is based on known failure statistics. The repetitive inspection in­terval of 6,000 cycles is based of crack propagation analysis.

Interested persons have been afford­ed an opportunity to participate in the making of the amendment. No objec­tions were received. Accordingly, the proposal is adopted without change.

D rafting I nformation

The principal authors of this docu­ment are Jay J. Pardee, Propulsion

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

Section, Engineering and Manufactur­ing Branch, and George L. Thompson, Office of the Regional Counsel, New England Region.

Adoption op the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity delegated to me by the Administra­tor, §39.13 of part 39 of the Federal Aviation regulations (14 CFR 39.13) is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:P ratt & W hitn ey A ircraft: Applies to

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft JT8D -9, -9A, -11, -15, -17, and -17R turbofan engine models.

Compliance required as indicated, unless already accomplished.

To detect cracks in front compressor front hubs, P/N’s 594301, 791801, 640601V743301, 750101, and serial numbered P/N 749801, except those listed in Pratt & Whitney Air­craft alert service bulletin No. 4841, revision 1, dated March 15, 1978, or later FAA-ap- proved revision, which could result in frac­ture of the retention lugs and release of first stage fan blades, accomplish the fol­lowing:

Inspect front compressor front hubs for cracks in the blade slots in accordance with Pratt & Whitney Aircraft alert service bul­letin No. 4841, revision 1, dated March 15, 1978, or later FAA-approved revision, or equivalent means approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, New England Region, prior to the accumula­tion of 13,000 cycles, since new, or within 2,000 cycles time in service after the effec­tive date of this AD, whichever is later. Disks inspected prior to 13,000 cycles must be reinspected prior to accumulating an ad­ditional 6,000 cycles or upon reaching 13,000 cycles, whichever is later.

Inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 cycles in service since last in­spection. Remove cracked front compressor front hubs before further flight.

Upon request of the operator, an FAA maintenance inspector, subject to prior ap­proval of the Chief, Engineering and Manu­facturing Branch, FAA, New England Region, may adjust the inspection intervals specified in this AD to permit compliance at an established inspection period of the oper­ator if the request contains substantiating data to justify the increase for that opera­tor.

The manufacturer’s alert service bulletin identified and described in this directive is incorporated herein and made a part hereof pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). All persons affected by this directive who have not al­ready received this document from the man­ufacturer may obtain copies upon request to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Division of United Technologies Corp., 400 Main Street, East Hartford, Conn. 06108. This document may also be examined at Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Mass. 01803, and at FAA Headquarters, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591. A historical file on this AD which includes the incorporated material in full is maintained by the FAA at its head­quarters in Washington, D.C., and at New England region.

This amendment becomes effective September 20, 1978.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423); sec. 6(c), Department of Transporta­tion Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)); 14 CFR 11.89.)

Issued in Burlington, Mass., on August 8,1978.

R obert E. W hittington , Director, New England Region.

N ote.—The incorporation by reference provisions of this document was approved by the Director of. the Federal Register on June 19, 1967.

[FR Doc. 78-22819 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4 9 lb -1 3 ]

[Airspace Docket No. 78-WA-10]

PART 71— DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL AIRWAYS, AREA LOW ROUTES, CONTROLLED AIRSPACE, AND RE­PORTING POINTS

Alteration of Reporting Points; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Correction to final rule.SUMMARY: In a rule published in the F ederal R egister of July 13, 1978, Vol. 43, page 30042, the WIDTH re­porting point was incorrectly changed to Lat. 57°21'23" N., Long. 155°53'17" W., in the first amendatory paragraph on page 30043. The reporting point should have been changed to Lat. 57°20'35" N., Long. 155°59'16" W. This correction reflects the correct lqcation of the WIDTH reporting point. In ad­dition, the effective date of that amendment is changed from Septem­ber 7,1978, to November 2, 1978.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Everett L. McKisson, Airspace Regulations Branch (AAT-230), Air­space and Air Traffic Rules Division, Air Traffic Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, telephone 202-426-3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR Doc. 78-19238 was published on July 13, 1978 (43 FR 30042) and amended the location of the WIDTH reporting point as a result of the relo­cation of - the Port Heiden, Alaska, radio beacon (NDB). Computation of this reporting point location was inad­vertently predicated on the King Salmon, Alaska, outer marker of the instrument landing system rather than the NDB that is presently being used. The location of the WIDTH re­porting point is Lat. 57°20'34.940" N., Long. 155°59'16.207" W. Therefore,

36431

action is taken herein to correct this error.

D rafting I nformation

The principal authors of this docu­ment are Mr. Everett L. McKisson, Air Traffic Service, and Mr. Richard W. Danforth, Office of the Chief Counsel.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity delegated to me by the Administra­tor, FR Doc. 78-19238 as published in the F ederal R egister on July 13, 1978, starting on page 30042 is amended in the first paragraph of the first column of page 30043 by deleting “Lat. 57°21'23" N., Long. 155°53'17" W.” and substituting “Lat. 57°20'35" N., Long. 155°59'16" W.” therefor. In addition, the effective date “September 7” is de­leted and “November 2” is substituted therefor where it appears in two places.(Secs. 307(a) and 313(a), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1348(a) and 1354(a)); sec. (c), Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)); and 14 CFR 11.69.)

N ote.—The FAA has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an economic impact statement under Executive Order 11821, as amended by Executive Order 11949, and OMB Circular A-107.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 8, 1978.

B. K eith P otts, Acting Chief, Airspace and

Air Traffic Rules Division.[FR Doc. 78-22815 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-13]

[Airspace Docket No. 78-NE-07]

PART 71— DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL AIRWAYS, AREA LOW ROUTES, CONTROLLED AIRSPACE, AND RE­PORTING POINTS

Alteration of the Concord, N.H., Control Zone

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This amendment changes the description of the Concord, N.H. control zone to provide more con­trolled airspace for aircraft executing a new VOR/DME instrument ap­proach procedure which has been de­veloped for the Concord Municipal Airport.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard G. Carlson, Operations Pro-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36432

cedures and Airspace Branch, ANE-536, Air Traffic Division, FederalAviation Administration, 12 NewEngland Executive Park, Burlington,Mass. 01803, telephone 617-273-7285.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 15, 1978, the Federal Aviation Administration published a notice pro­posing to enlarge the Concord, N.H. control zone by adding an extension area of approximately three (3) miles in depth and four (4) miles in width northwest of the Concord, N.H. VORTAC. This amendment will pro­vide additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the new VOR/DME instrument approach procedure to Concord Municipal Airport, Concord,N.H. Interested persons were invited to participate in this rulemaking proc­ess by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No objections were received.D rafting I nformation

The principal authors of this docu­ment are Richard G. Carlson, Air Traffic Division, New England Region, and George L. Thompson, Associate Regional Counsel, New England Region.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity delegated to me by the Administra­tor the description of the Concord,N.H. control zone in part 71, §71.171 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 71.171) is amended, effective 0901 G.m.t., November 2, 1978, by adding the following:

And within two (2) miles each side of the Concord, N.H. VORTAC, 284° radial extend­ing from the five (5) mile radius zone to three (3) miles north of the VORTAC.(Sec. 307(a), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 749; 49 U.S.C 1348(a)), sec. 6(c), De­partment of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c).)

Issued in Burlington, Mass., on July28,1978.

R obert. E. W hittington , Director, New England Region.

[FR Doc. 78-22817 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 ami

[4910- 13]

[Airspace Docket No. 78-SO-381

PART 71— DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL AIRWAYS, AREA LOW ROUTES, CONTROLLED AIRSPACE, AND RE- PORTING POINTS

Designation of Transition Area, Hawesville, Ky.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

SUMMARY: This rule designates a 700-foot transition area in the vicinity of Hawesville, Ky. This action pro­vides necessary airspace for accommo­dation of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Hancock Airfield.EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 GMT, Sep­tember 7, 1978.ADDRESS: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration, Chief, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Ga. 30320.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald T. Niklasson, Airspace andProcedures Branch, Federal AviationAdministration, P.O. Box 20636, At­lanta, Ga. 30320; telephone: 404-763-,7646.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the F ederal R egister on Thursday, June 15, 1978 (43 FR 25836) which proposed the designation of the Hawesville, Ky., transition area. No objections were received from this Notice. The airport operating status is accordingly changed from VFR to IFR.

D rafting I nformation

The principal authors of this docu­ment are Ronald T. Niklasson, Air­space and Procedures Branch, Air Traffic Division, and Keith S. May, Office of Regional Counsel.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, Subpart G, §71.181 (43 FR 440) of Part 71 of the Federal Avi­ation Regulations (14 CFR 71) is amended, effective 0901 GMT, Sep­tember 7, 1978, by adding the follow­ing:

H awesville, K y .That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius of Hancock Airfield (Lat. 37°56'40" N., Long. 86°47'35" W.); excluding the por­tion which coincides with the Tell City, Ind., Transition Area.(Sec. 307(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1348(a)) and sec. 6(c) of the Department of Transporta­tion Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c).)

N ote.—The Federal Aviation Administra­tion has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Economic Impact State­ment under Executive Order 11821, as amended by Executive Order 11949, and OMB Circular A-107.

Issued in East Point, Ga., on August8,1978.

G eorge R. LaCaille,

Acting Director, Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 78-23038 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6750-01]Title 16— Commercial Practices

CHAPTER I— FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Docket No. 8891]

PART 13— PROHIBITED TRADE PRAC­TICES, AND AFFIRMATIVE CORREC­TIVE ACTIONS

Warner-Lambert Co. AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.ACTION: Modification of order to cease and desist.SUMMARY: This modified order to cease and desist is issued pursuant to a decision and judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The words “[clontrary to prior advertising” have been deleted from the disclosure statement re­quired in part III of the original order to cease and desist issued December 9, 1975.DATES: Final order issued December 9, 1975. Modifying order issued July20,1978.1FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert H. Kramer, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20580, 202-523-3727.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the matter of Warner-Lambert Co., a corporation. The prohibited trade practices and/or corrective actions, as codified under 16 CFR Part 13, ap­pearing at 41 FR 2381, remains un­changed.(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. •721 (15 U.S.C. 46). Inter­prets or applies sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended (15 U.S.C. 45).)

The order modifying order to cease and desist, is as follows:M odified O rder T o Cease and D esist

Respondent, having filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a petition for review of the Commission’s cease-and-desist order issued herein on December 9, 1975; and the court having rendered its decision and judgment on August 2, 1977, affirming and enforcing the Commission’s order with modification of part III; and the Supreme Court of the United States having denied on April 3, 1978, petitions for writs of cer­tiorari filed by the parties:

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, That the aforesaid order to cease and desist be, and it hereby is, modified in

’Copies of the modifying order filed with the original document.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36433accordance with the decision and judg­ment of the court of appeals to read as follows:

Order

i .It is ordered, That respondent

Warner-Lambert Co., a corporation, its successors and assigns and respon­dent’s officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the labeling, advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of Listerine or any other nonprescription drug product in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Com­mission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by impli­cation, that any such product will cure colds or sore throats;

2. Representing, directly or by impli­cation, that any such product will pre­vent colds or sore throats;

3. Representing, directly or by impli­cation, that users of any such product will have fewer colds than nonusers.

il.It is further ordered, That respon­

dent Warner-Lambert Co., a corpora­tion, its successors and assigns and re­spondent’s officers, agents, representa­tives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the labeling, advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of Lister­ine or any other mouthwash product in or affecting commerce, as “com­merce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by impli­cation, that any such product is a treatment for, or will lessen the sever­ity of, colds or sore throats;

2. Representing that any such prod­uct will have any significant beneficial effect on the symptoms of sore throats or any beneficial effect on symptoms of colds;,

3. Representing that the ability of any such product to kill germs is of medical significancè in the treatment of colds or sore throats or the symp­toms of colds or sore throats.

h i.It is further ordered, That respon­

dent Warner-Lambert Co., a corpora­tion, its successors and assigns, and re­spondent’s officers, agents, representa­tives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from disseminating or causing the dissemination of any ad­vertisements for the product Listerine antiseptic unless it is clearly and con­

spicuously disclosed in each advertise­ment in the exact language below that:

Listerine will not help prevent colds or sore throats or lessen their severity.

In print advertisements, the disclo­sure shall be displayed in type size which is at least the same size as that in which the principal portion of the text of the advertisement appears and shall be separated from the text so that it can be readily noticed. In tele­vision advertisements, the disclosure shall be presented simultaneously in both the audio and visual portions. During the audio portion of the disclo­sure in television and radio advertise­ments, no other sounds, including music, shall occur. Each such disclo­sure shall be presented in the lan­guage, e.g., English, Spanish, princi­pally employed in the advertisement.

The aforesaid duty to disclose the corrective statement shall continue until respondent has expanded on Lis­terine advertising a sum equal to the average annual Listerine advertising budget for the period of April 1962 to March 1972.

IV.

It is further ordered, That the allega­tions of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the complaint be, and they hereby are, dis­missed.

v.It is further ordered, That respon­

dent shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is further ordered, That respon­dent notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any proposed change in its structure 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 corporation which may affect compli­ance obligations arising out of this order.

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

By the Commission; Commissioner Pitofsky did not participate.

Carol M. T homas, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23044 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]V

[6740-02]Title 18— Conservation of Power and

W ater Resources

CHAPTER I— FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. RM78-19]

DELEGATION TO VARIOUS OFFICE DIRECTORS OF CERTAIN COMMIS­SION AUTHORITY

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.ACTION: Final regulations.SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Reg­ulatory Commission is amending its regulations in order to delegate cer­tain routine ministerial Commission functions to various office directors. The amended regulations provide an opportunity for affected parties to challenge decisions made by staff pur­suant to the delegated functions by petitioning the Commission for a prompt review.DATES: Effective date: August 14, 1978. Comment date: Written com­ments due on or before September 25, 1978.ADDRESS: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatofy Commission, 825 North Capitol St. NE., Washington, D.C. 20426.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Equale, Office of General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, 202-275-3757.Jane Phillips, Office of General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE„ Washington, D.C. 20426, 202-275-4788.

A. Background

On October 1, 1977, pursuant to the provisions of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act) (Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 [August 15, 19773) and Executive Order No. 12009 (42 F.R. 46267 [September 15, 19773), the Federal Energy Regulatory Com­mission (the Commission) was estab­lished as an independent regulatory Commission within the Department of Energy. The functions and regulatory responsibilities of the Federal Power Commission were transferred to the Secretary of Energy and the Commis­sion.

The powers transferred to the Com­mission include section 309 of the Fed­eral Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825h) and section 16 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717o), which provide that the

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36434 RULES AND REGULATIONS

Federal Power Commission “shall have power to perform any and all acts and to prescribe, issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders, rules and regulations as it may find neces­sary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Act.”

The Commission has determined that an inordinate amount of time is being spent on matters that can be fairly characterized as routine. While recognizing the importance of all items of business that come to the Commission for determination, the de­cision has been made that by delegat­ing certain routine ministerial Com­mission functions to the various office directors, the Commission will be able to focus on more complicated and con­troversial tasks.

In general, the matters being dele­gated require limited discretionary decisionmaking on the part of the named office director. In the relatively few instances that such authority is delegated, parties affected by a dele­gated function may petition the Com­mission for a prompt review of the challenged staff decision [18 CFR § 1.7(d)].

The large majority of delegations re­quire amendments to 18 CFR §3.5. Several new paragraphs have been added to § 3.5 to include delegations to staff that were not previously made. There are minor conforming changes in other sections of Chapter 18.

B. S ummary

Section 1.8 is amended in order to give the presiding administrative law judge in a particular case, as well as the Commission, and the Secretary, the authority to issue orders granting or denying petitions to intervene in a pending proceeding. The amendment is being made for the sake of adminis­trative efficiency.

Section 1.27 has been amended to conform with the new provisions of § 1.8 .

Section 3.5 as currently constituted is deleted in its entirety 1 and a new § 3.5 is substituted.

Several delegations to the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) former­ly contained in § 3.5(a) have been de­leted. The functions involved in the deleted delegation have either been newly delegated to office directors or have been deleted altogether because they are no longer necessary. General­ly, the newly delegated functions are being transferred from the Secretary to either the Chief Accountant, the Director of the Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation or the Director

‘Except for paragraph (e), which was pro­mulgated by the Commission on Feb. 10, 1978, pursuant to Commission Order No. 3. Paragraph (e) is a delegation to the Oil Pipeline Board and is to remain in effect as issued.

of the Office of Electric Power Regu­lation in order to allow those office heads to accept or reject certain rate filings and amendments to rate filings. The purpose of delegating these func­tions to the office heads rather than to the Secretary is to reduce the enor­mous adminstrative burden on the Secretary.

The Chief Accountant has been given the authority to sign routine correspondence and to make certain determinations regarding the issuance of securities and stocks by public utili­ties.

Both the Director of the Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation and the Director of the Office of Electric Power Regulation are being delegated the Commission’s authority to pass upon routine applications and filings in their respective offices. This au­thority includes the issuance of defi­ciency letters.

C. E ffective date

The Commission makes these regu­lations effective without prior notice and public procedure because they are interpretive rules, statements of policy, and rules of agency procedure and practice. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), public procedure and comment are not required. For the same reasons, the Commission finds good cause to make the regulations ef­fective immediately. The Commission nevertheless welcomes interested members of the public to submit com­ments or suggestions regarding these regulations. The Commission and its staff will evaluate any information re­ceived from interested persons and will consider appropriate revisions to these regulations as a result of com­ments received. An original and 14 copies should be filed by September 25, 1978, with the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washing­ton, D.C. 20426. All comments should refer, on the cover page, to Docket No. RM78-19.(Federal Power Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 792 et seq., Natural Gas Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq., Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267 (September 12, 1977).)

For the reasons stated herein, Parts 1 and 3 of Subchapter A, Part 35 of Subchapter B, and Part 157 of Sub­chapter E of Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, are amended as set forth below, effective immedi­ately.

By the Commission.Lois D. Cashell,

Acting Secretary.

PART 1— RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

§ 1.7 [Amended]1. Section 1.7 is amended by deleting

paragraph (d) and substituting a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

* * * * *(d) Appeals from actions of the staff.

Any staff action, other than a decision or ruling of a presiding administrative law judge, taken pursuant to authority delegated to the staff by the Commis­sion that would be final, but for the provisions of this paragraph, may be appealed to the Commission by any in­terested party. The challenged staff action may be appealed by filing a pe­tition within 15 days of the action. An­swers to such petitions may be filed by any party within 10 days of service of the petition. Petitions and answers filed under this paragraph shall con­form to the requirements of §§ 1.15 through 1.17. An appeal from any ruling of a presiding administrative law judge shall conform to the re­quirements of § 1.28 of this chapter. The Commission considers its action on appeals made pursuant to this paragraph to be final agency action for purposes of judicial review.

2. Section 1.8 is amended by revising subparagraph (2) of paragraph (a), paragraph (d), paragraph (e), and sub- paragraph (2) of paragraph (f).§ 1.8 Intervention.

(a) Initiation of intervention.* * * * *

(2) Upon petition to intervene, by order of the Commission, the Secre­tary where an administrative law judge has not been designated, or the designated presiding administrative law judge in the proceeding, including oral or written requests to intervene presented for the first time at a pre- hearing conference or at the hearing. Whenever the designated presiding ad­ministrative law judge takes such action orally at the hearing, he or she shall promptly issue a written order confirming such action. Absent a find­ing of good cause to the contrary, late intervention is limited to prospective participation in a proceeding.

* * * * *(d) Filing and service of petitions.

Petitions to intervene and notices of intervention may be filed at any time following the filing of a notice of rate or tariff change, or of an application, petition, complaint, or other document

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36435seeking Commission action, but in no event later than the date fixed for the filing of petitions to intervene in any order or notice with respect to the pro­ceedings issued by the Commission or its Secretary, unless, for good cause shown, the Commission or the desig­nated presiding administrative law judge in the proceeding authorizes a late filing. Service shall be made as provided in § 1.17. Where a person has been permitted to intervene notwith­standing his failure to file his petition within the time prescribed in this paragraph, the Commission or the des­ignated presiding administrative law judge may, where the circumstances warrant, permit the waiver of the re­quirements of § 1.26(c)(5) with respect to copies of exhibits for such inter­vener.

(e) Answers to petitions. Any party to the proceeding or staff counsel may file an answer to a petition to inter­vene, and in default thereof, may be deemed to have waived any objection to the granting of such petition. If made, answers shall be filed within 15 days after the date of service of the petition, but not later than 5 days prior to the date set for the com­mencement of the hearing, if any, unless for cause the Commission or the designated presiding administra­tive law judge with or without motion shall prescribe a different time. They shall in all other respects conform to the requirements of §§ 1.15 to 1.17, in­clusive.

(f) Notice and action on petitions.* * * * *

(2) Action on petitions. As soon as possible after the expiration of the time for filing answers to such peti­tions or default thereof, as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the Com­mission or the designated presiding ad­ministrative law judge will grant or deny such petition in whole or in part or may, if found to be appropriate, au­thorize limited participation.

* * * * *

§ 1.14 [Amended]3. Section 1.14 is amended in the

next to the last sentence of subpara­graph (2) of paragraph (a) by adding the words “or the appropriate office director” after the word “Secretary” and before the word “with.”

4. Section 1.27 is amended in para­graph (b) by redesignating subpara­graph (10) as subparagraph (11), and by inserting a new subparagraph (10) to read as follows:§ 1.27 Presiding officers.

* * * * *

(b) Authority delegated.* * * * *

(10) To rule on all petitions to inter­vene which are pending either at the time the presiding administrative law judge is designated to hear a particu­lar case, or which are filed after the presiding administrative law judge is designated. This delegation is subject to the conditions set forth in § 1.8 of this chapter.

* * * * *

PART 3— ORGANIZATION; OPER­ATION; INFORMATION AND RE­QUESTS

5. Section 3.5 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d), and by adding new paragraphs (c), (f), and(g), to read as follows:§ 3.5 Delegations of authority.

The Commission authorizes:(а) The Secretary, or in the Secre­

tary’s absence, the Secretary's desig­nee to:

(1) Sign official general correspon­dence on behalf of the Commission, except as otherwise provided in this section.

(2) Except as provided in § 1.8 of this chapter, prescribe, for good cause, a different time than that required by the Commission’s rules of Practice and Procedure for filing by public utilities, licensees, natural gas companies, and other persons answers to complaints, petitions, motions, and other docu­ments. Absent a waiver, no answers shall be required to be filed within less than ten days after the date of service of the document.

(3) Schedule hearings and issue no­tices thereof.

(4) Accept for filing notices of inter­vention and petitions to intervene by commissions and agencies of the States and the Federal government.

(5) Pass upon petitions to intervene before a presiding administrative law judge is designated. However, in cases where a presiding administrative law judge has been designated, the provi­sions of paragraph (c) of this section are controlling.

(б) Consolidate proceedings for hear­ing, and sever proceedings which have been previously consolidated.

(7) Deny motions for extensions of time which are filed later than the time prescribed by Part 1 of this chap­ter, except that such motions may be granted if good cause is shown.

(8) Reject any documents filed later than the time prescribed by an order or rule of the Commission, except that such documents may be accepted if good cause is shown.

(9) Waive requirements of the Com­mission’s rules which govern matters of form, when consistent with the public interest in a particular case.

(10) Pass upon, in contested proceed­ings, questions of extending time for electric public utilities, licensees, natu­ral gas companies, and other persons to file required reports, data, and in­formation and to do other acts re­quired to be done at or within a specif­ic time by any rule, regulation, license, permit, certificate, or order of the Commission.

(11) Accept service of process on behalf of the Commission.

(12) Accept for filing bonds or agree­ments and undertakings submitted in rate suspension proceedings.

(13) Take the following actions on certificate and rate schedule filings of independent producers, where the sales involved are not of an interstate character, or where proposed inter­state sales were never made:

(i) Upon requests of the filing party, vacate the order previously issued granting a certificate of public conven­ience and necessity; and

(ii) Cancel the prior acceptance of, and permit withdrawal of, the related rate schedule upon request of the filing party or where the certificate application is concurrently being or has been previously withdrawn.

(14) Publish notice of land with­drawals under section 24 of the Feder­al Power Act.

(15) Issue notices of applications filed under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, fixing the time fof filing comments, protests or peti­tions to intervene and schedule hear­ings on such applications when appro­priate or required by law.

(16) Accept for filing rate schedules and supplements thereto, if any, sub­mitted in compliance with conditions in certificates of public convenience and necessity, both temporary and permanent, issued under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, when they meet the requirements prescribed by such certificates. The Secretary shall advise the filing party of such acceptance, the designation of the rate schedule, and the effective date of the rate schedule.

(17) Accept for filing amendments to agreements and contracts or rate schedules submitted in compliance with Commission orders accepting dffers of rate settlements if such fil­ings are in satisfactory compliance with such orders.

(18) Grant authorizations, pursuant to the provisions of § 35.1(a) of this chapter for a designated representa­tive to post and file rate schedules of public utilities which are parties to the same rate schedule.

(19) Redesignate proceedings, li­censes, certificates, rate schedules, and

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36436other authorizations and filing to re­flect changes in the names of persons and municipalities subject to or invok­ing Commission jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act or the Natural Gas Act, where no substantive changes in ownership, corporate structure or do­micile, or jurisdictional operation are involved.

(20) Change the appropriate hydro­electric project license article upon ap­plication by the licensee to reflect the specified reasonable rate of return as provided in § 2.15 of this chapter.

(21) Issue temporary certificates to independent producers pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act upon the finding that an emergency exists and based upon allegations presented in requests for temporary authoriza­tion to initiate the sale or transporta­tion of natural gas in interstate com­merce pursuant to § 157.28 of this chapter.

(22) Accept on behalf of the Com* mission:

(i) Rate filings of jurisdictional natu­ral gas companies which involve rol­lover contracts; and

" (ii) Statements of eligibility filed by producers of natural gas as defined in §154.91 and §157.40 of this chapter. Statements of eligibility are filed under § 2.56a(p) of this chapter.

(b) The Chief Accountant or in the Chief Accountant’s absence, the Chief Accountant’s designee to:

(1) Issue interpretations of the Uni­form Systems of Accounts for public utilities, licensees, and natural gas companies.

(2) Pass upon proposed accounting entries submitted by public utilities, li­censees and natural gas companies which require Commission approval under the Uniform System of Ac­counts, and which are consistent with applicable statutory requirements and Commission rules, regulations or orders, including the Uniform Systems of Accounts, or reject such entries when inconsistent with the foregoing, except that where the proposed ac­counting entries involve unusually large transactions or unique or contro­versial features, including the propri­ety of recognition for ratemaking pur­poses, the Chief Accountant shall present the entries to the Commission for consideration.

(3) Pass upon, when appropriate, ap­plications, petitions, and requests sub­mitted under General Instruction No. 12 of the Uniform Systems of Ac­counts prescribed for natural gas com­panies for approval to group certain gathering systems, or certain compres­sor stations for the purpose of comply­ing with that portion of General In­struction No. 12 that requires a segre­gation of the cost of operating and maintaining each plant.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(4) Pass upon applications to in­crease the size or to combine property units of public utilities, licensees and natural gas companies.

(5) Sign all correspondence on behalf of the Commission:

(i) Relating to Annual Report Nos. 1, IF, 2, 2A, and P; and,

(ii) With State regulatory commis­sions and agencies relating to account­ing and auditing matters.

(6) Pass upon, when requested to do so by a public utility or licensee:

(i) Requests to enter into negotia­tions for the placement of securities.

(ii) The issuance of common stock for purposes of employee stock option plans, stock investment plans, and sim­ilar arrangements.

(iii) The issuance of short-term notes, including but not limited to commercial paper.

(iv) Guarantees of debt or securities issued pursuant to pollution control bond issues.

(v) The issuance under competitive bidding procedures of common stock, preferred stock, and bonds, the value of which amounts of $25,000,000 or less.

(c) The chief administrative law judge, and the administrative law judge designated to preside at a partic­ular hearing, to exercise the power granted to a Presiding Officer by the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure, particularly § 1.27 of this chapter.

(d) The Solicitor or in the Solicitor’s absence, the Solicitor’s designee to;

(1) File with the appropriate court of the United States a certified list of the materials comprising the record of any proceeding which involves the Commission;

(2) Retain appropriate materials; and

(3) Deliver such materials to the court as required.

* * * * *(f) The Director of the Office of

Pipeline and Producer Regulation or in the Director’s absence, the Direc­tor’s designee to:

(1) Pass upon the following types of applications or amendments to appli­cations, provided that no formal oppo­sition to the applications or amend­ments is timely filed with the Commis­sion:

(i) Applications for natural gas pipe­line certificates authorizing the con­struction and operation of facilities that have a construction cost of less than $100,000;

(ii) Abbreviated applications and amendments thereto, pursuant to § 157.7(b), (c), (d), (e), and (g) of this chapter;

(iii) Applications by a pipeline for the abandonment of pipeline gas pur­chase facilities with a construction

cost of less than $100,000. This author­ity shall be exercised only in cases where the producer servicing the juris­dictional pipeline has received Com­mission approval-to abandon service to the pipeline and service by the juris­dictional pipeline will not be affected;

(iv) Applications for temporary certi­ficates for the transportation of natu­ral gas to industrials, pursuant to § 2.79 of this chapter.

(v) Amendments to certificates for the transportation of natural gas, pro­vided that;

(A) The transportation can be ac­complished within a previously au­thorized level of service; and,

(B) The amendments requested do not effect changes in the price.

(2) Accept for filing all initial rate schedules, rate schedule changes, no­tices of changes in rate submitted by natural gas companies; and advise the filing party of such acceptance; waive the requirement of statutory notice for good cause shown; designate the rate schedule and supplements thereto and the effective date thereof. This authorization shall not apply to pipe­line rate increases, or to any filings au­thorized by this subparagraph if there are timely protests or interventions to such filings.

(3) Reject a rate filing, submitted by a natural gas company unless accom­panied by a request for waiver in con­formity with § 1.14(a)(2) of this chap­ter but only if it fails patently to comply with applicable statutory re­quirements, Commission rules, regula­tions or orders.

(4) Accept for filing, data and re­ports submitted by natural gas compa­nies required by Commission orders, or presiding officers’ initial decisions, upon which the Commission has taken no further action, when such filings are patently in compliancé with such orders or decisions, and when appro­priate, to notify the filing party of such acceptance.

(5) Pass upon, in uncontested pro­ceedings applications by natural gas companies for extensions of time to file required reports, data, and infor­mation and to perform other acts re­quired, at or within a specific time by any rule, regulation, license, permit, certificate, or order of the Commis­sion.

(6) Issue reports for public informa­tion purposes. Any report issued with­out Commission approval shall:

(i) Be of a noncontroversial nature; and

(ii) Contain the statement, “This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission”, in bold face type on the cover.

(7) Pass upon requests by natural gas companies to withdraw applica­tions pursuant to § 1.11(d)(1) of this

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

chapter, in any proceeding in which a hearing has been held or convened.

(8) Issue and sign deficiency letters regarding natural gas rate filings, cer­tificate applications and abandonment applications.

(g) The Director of the Office of Electric Power Regulation or in the Director’s absence, the Director’s des­ignee to:

(1) Take appropriate action on any application for a determination or va­cation with respect to lands of the United States reserved from entry, lo­cation, or other disposal under section 24 of the Federal Power Act. •

(2) Pass upon applications by licens­ees, other Federal agencies and the States, to modify license conditions for a period of 1 year or less.

(3) Take appropriate action on draw­ings, maps, plans, or specifications showing hydroelectric project works “as built’’ that are submitted by a li­censee for approval in response to the requirements of a license article or a Commission order.

(4) Approve, with respect to particu­lar parcels of land within the project area of a licensed waterpower project, the conveyance by the licensee to an­other entity of an interest therein for use for a nonproject purpose, subject to the right of the licensee, its succes­sors and assigns to use the land for all project purposes contemplated by the license for the project. v

(5) Pass upon applications for amendments to licenses issued under the Fédéral Power Act for the authori­zation of changes of 10 acres or less in the area within the project boundary for which any proposed new land use would entail no significant environ­mental impact and no significant effect on operation or maintenance of the project or on the use of remaining project lands and water for project purposes.

(6) Pass upon applications for trans­fers of licenses from a licensee to a successor or assign under section 8 of the Federal Power Act.

(7) Pass upon applications for the surrender of transmission line licenses pursuant to Part 6 of this chapter.

(8) Pass upon requests by applicants to withdraw, pursuant to § 1.11(d)(3) of this chapter, any declaration of in­tention, or application for license, or amendment, under Part I of the Fed­eral Power Act.

(9) Pass upon requests by licensees for exemption from the requirement of filing FPC Form No. 80, Licensed Projects Recreation, under §v8.11 of this chapter.

(10) Take appropriate action on technical plans pertaining-to recrea­tion, fish, wildlife, cultural resources, or water quality that are submitted by la licensee for approval in response to the requirements of a license article or Commission order.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(11) Issue preliminary permits to enable permittees to maintain priority of application for a license where no opposition in any form to the issuance of the permit is^received by the Com­mission.

(12) Accept for filing all initial rate schedules and rate schedule changes except for changes which would result in rate increases, that are submitted by public utilities and licensees; waive the requirement of statutory notice for good cause shown, and advise the filing party of such acceptance; and designate rate schedules and the effec­tive dates thereof.

This authorization shall not apply where adverse interventions are re­ceived upon the expiration of the date set for such protests or interventions by the Commission’s public notice of such filings.

(13) Pass upon, in uncontested pro­ceedings, applications for the exten­sion of time for public utilities and li­censees to file required reports, data, and information and to do other acts required to be done within a specific time period by any rule, regulation, li­cense, permit, certificate or order of the Commission.

(14) Issue deficiency letters regard­ing electric rate schedule filings, cor­porate applications for the sale of fa­cilities with respect to interlocking di­rectorates, and applications filed under Part I of the Federal Power Act.

(15) Reject a rate filing or an appli­cation filed under Part I of the Feder­al Power Act, unless accompanied by a request for waiver in conformity with § 1.14(a)(2) of this chapter, if it fails patently to comply with applicable statutory requirements or Commission rules, regulations and orders.

(16) Accept for filing data and re­ports submitted by public utilities and licensees that are required by Commis­sion orders and presiding officers’ ini­tial decisions when such filings are pa­tently in compliance with the orders or decisions; and, when appropriate, notify the filing party of such accept­ance.

(17) Take appropriate action on pro­posals for the development of water resources projects submitted by other agencies of the Federal government for Commission review or comment. The Director or his designee shall direct comments, when necessary, to the spbnsoring agency on matters in­cluding, but not limited to, the need for, and appropriate size of, any' hy­droelectric power installation pro­posed by any other agency of the Fed­eral government.

(18) Issue Appraisal and Planning Status Reports regarding water plan­ning or development activities in spe­cific river basins. The reports shall contain the statement, “This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission,” unless the report

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST

36437

is specifically approved by the Com­mission.

(19) Prepare and issue comments on general water policy and planning issues, for the use of the Director of the Water Resources Council or the Assistant Secretaries of the Depart­ment of Energy.

(20) Pass upon applications filed by persons seeking to hold interlocking positions under section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act. This authority shall not be exercised in cases where a protest or adverse intervention is timely filed with the Commission.

(21) Pass upon applications for the sale of jurisdictional facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act. This authority shall not be exercised in cases where an adverse intervention is timely filed with the Commission.

PART 35— FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES

§ 35.2 [Amended]6. Section 35.2 is amended in the

final sentence of paragraph (c) by de­leting the word “Secretary,” and in­serting in lieu thereof “Director of the Office of Electric Power Regulation”.

PART 157— APPLICATIONS FOR CER­TIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVEN­IENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND AP­PROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

§ 157.8 [Amended]7. Section 157.8 is amended by sub­

stituting the words “Director of the Office of Pipeline and Producer Regu­lation” for the word “Secretary” wher­ever it appears.

[FR Doc. 78-22975 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 ami

[4410-01]

Title 28— Judicial Administration

CHAPTER I— DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

(Tax Division Directive No. 30]PART 0— ORGANIZATION OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEAppendix to Subpart Y— Redelega­

tion o f Authority To Compromise and Close G v il Claims

R edelegation of Authority to R e­lease R ights of R edemption in Cer­tain Cases

AGENCY: Tax Division, Department of Justice.17, 1978

36438

ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This directive increases the redelegation to the U.S. Attorneys of the authority to release rights of re­demption in certain cases. This direc­tive supersedes Tax Division Directive No. 29.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mildred L. Seidman, Chief, ReviewSection, Tax Division, Departmentof Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530,202-739-3661.In appendix to Subpart Y—Redele­

gation of Authority to Compromise 'and Close Civil Claims, Tax Division Directive No. 29 is deleted and Direc­tive No. 30 is added as follows:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by part O of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, particularly §§0.70, 0.160, 0.162, 0.164, 0.166, and0.168, it is hereby ordered as follows:

S ection 1. The U.S. Attorney for each district in which is located real property, which is subject to a right of redemption of the United States in re­spect of Federal tax liens, arising under section 2410(e) of title 28 of the United States Code, or under State law when the United States has been joined as a party to a suit, is author­ized to release the right of redemp­tion, subject to the following limita­tions and conditions—

(1) This redelegation of authority re­lates only to real property on which is located only one single-family resi­dence, and to all other real property having a fair market value not exceed­ing $60,000. That limitation as to value or use shall not apply in those cases in which the release is requested by the Veterans Administration or any other Federal agency.

(2) The consideration paid for the release must be equal to the value of the right of redemption, or fifty dol­lars ($50), whichever is greater. How­ever, no consideration shall be re­quired for releases issued to the Veter­ans Administration or any other Fed­eral agency.

(3) The following described docu­ments must be place in the U.S. Attor­ney’s file in each case in which a re­lease is issued—

(A) The favorable recommendation of the appropriate Regional Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service.

(B) Appraisals by two disinterested and well-qualified persons. In those cases in which the applicant is a Fed­eral agency, the appraisal of that agency may be substituted for the two appraisals generally required.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(C) Such other information and doc­uments as the Tax Division may pre­scribe.

S ec. 2. This directive supersedes Tax Division Directive No. 29, approved November 22,1976.

S ec. 3. This directive shall become effective August 1,1978.

Dated: July 25,1978.M. Carr F erguson,

Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division.

Approved:M ichael J. E gan,

Associate Attorney General.[FR Doc. 78-23092 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410 -01 ]

[Tax Division Directive No. 31]PART 0— ORGANIZATION OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Appendix to Subpart Y— Redelega­tion o f Authority to Compromise and Close Civil Claims

R edelegation of Authority to C ompromise and Close C iv il Claims

AGENCY: Tax Division, Department of Justice.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This directive increases the redelegation to various officials of the Tax Division of the authority to compromise, settle and close claims filed in behalf of the United States and in claims against the United States. This directive supersedes Tax Division Directive No. 28.EFFECTIVE DATE: This directive shall become effective on August 17, 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mildred L. Seidman, Chief, Review Section, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, 202-739-3661.In appendix to Subpart Y—Redele­

gation of Authority to Compromise and Close Civil Claims, Tax Division Directive No. 28 is deleted and Direc­tive No. 31 is added as follows:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by part O of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, particularly §§0.70, 0.160, 0.162, 0.164, 0.166, and0.168, it is ordered as follows:

S ection 1. The Chiefs of the Civil Trial Sections, the Court of Claims Section, and the Appellate Section are

authorized to reject offers in compro­mise, regardless of amount, without reference to the Review Section, pro­vided that such action is not opposed by the agency or agencies involved.

S ec. 2. Subject to the conditions and . limitations set forth in section 6 hereof, the Chiefs of the Civil Trial Sections and Court of Claims Section are authorized to accept offers in com­promise in all cases in which the amount of the Government’s conces­sion, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $50,000, provided that such action is not opposed by the agency or agencies involved.

S ec. 3. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in section 6 hereof, the Chief of the Review Sec­tion shall have authority to

(A) Accept offers in compromise in all cases in which the amount of the Government’s concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $200,000,

(B) Approve administrative settle­ments not exceeding $200,000,

(C) Approve concessions (other than by compromise) of civil claims asserted by the Government in all cases in which the gross amount of the origi­nal claim does not exceed $200,000, and

(D) Reject offers in compromise, or disapprove administrative settlements or concessions, regardless of amount,Provided, That the action is not op­posed by the agency or agencies in­volved or the chief of the section to which the case is assigned.

Sec. 4. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in section 6 hereof, the Director, Civil Litigation, shall have authority to—

(A) Accept offers in compromise of claims against the Government in all cases in which the amount of the Gov­ernment’s concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $500,000,

(B) Approve administrative settle­ments not exceeding $500,000,

(C) Approve offers in compromise of claims in behalf of the Government in all cases in which the difference be­tween the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed settlement does not exceed $250,000 or 10 percent of the original claim, whichever is greater,

(D) Approve concessions (other than by compromise) of civil claims asserted by the Government in all cases in which the gross amount of the origi­nal claim does not exceed $250,000, and

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

(E) Reject offers in* compromise, or disapprove administrative settlements or concessions, regardlesss of amount,Provided, That the action is not op­posed by the agency or agencies in­volved, the Chief of the Review Sec­tion, or the chief of the section to which the case is assigned: And pro­vided further, That the limiting amount in (A) and (B) shall be $200,000 if the case is subject to refer­ence to the Joint Committee on Tax­ation.

Sec. 5. Subject to the conditions and ' limitations set forth in section 6 hereof, the Deputy Assistant Attor­neys General each shall have authori­ty to—

(A) Accept offers in compromise of claims against the Government in all cases in which the amount of the Gov­ernment’s concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $500,000,

(B) Approve administrative settle­ments not exceeding $500,000,

(C) Approve offers in compromise of claims in behalf of the Government in all cases in which the difference be­tween the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed settlement does not exceed $250,000 or 10 percent of the original claim, whichever is greater, t

(D) Approve concessions (other than by compromise) of civil claims asserted by the Government in all cases in which the gross amount of the origi­nal claim does not exceed $250,000, and

(E) Reject offers in compromise, or disapprove administrative settlements or concessions, regardless of amount,Provided, That such action is not op­posed by the agency or agencies in­volved: And provided further, That the limiting amount in (A) and (B) shall be $200,000 if the case is subject to ref­erence to the Joint Committee on Tax­ation.

Sec. 6. The authority redelegated herein shall be subject to the follow­ing conditions and limitations—

(A) When, for any reason, the com­promise or administrative settlement or concession of a particular claim, as a practical matter, will control or ad­versely influence the disposition of other Claims totaling more than the respective amounts designated in sec­tions 2, 3, 4, and 5, the case shall be forwarded for review at the appropri­ate level.

(B) When, because of the impor­tance of a question of law or policy presented, the position taken by the agency or agencies or by the United States Attorney involved, or any other considerations, the person otherwise authorized herein to take final action (or the Chief of the Review Section, in cases which have beeen considered by

RULES AND REGULATIONS

such section) is of the opinion that the proposed disposition should be re­viewed at a higher level, the case shall be forwarded for such review.

(C) Nothing in this directive shall be construed as altering any provision of subpart Y of part O of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations requiring the submission of certain cases to the Attorney General, the Associate Attor­ney General, or the Solicitor General.

(D) Authority to approve recommen­dations that the Government confess error, or make administrative settle­ments, in cases on appeal, is excepted from the foregoing redelegations.

(E) The Assistant Attorney General, at any time, may withdraw any au­thority delegated by this Directive as it relates to any particular case or cat­egory of cases, or to any part thereof.

S ec. 7. This directive supersedes Tax Division Directive No. 28, approved November 22, 1976.

S ec. 8. This directive shall become effective-on August 17, 1978.

Dated: July 25,1978.M. Carr F erguson,

Assistant Attorney General.Approved:

M ichael J . E gan,Associate Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 78-23093 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-18]

[AAG/A Order No. 5-78]

PART 16— PRODUCTION OR DISCLO­SURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMA­TION

Subpart E— Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act

AGENCY: Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administra­tion.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), on May 9, 1978, the Depart­ment of Justice issued in the notice section of the F ederal R egister a notice of intent to exempt an existing system of records from the access pro­visions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d). On the same day the Department issued in the proposed rules section a proposed rule to effect the exemption. The sub­ject system is entitled Civil Rights In­vestigative System (JUSTICE/LEAA- 008). Exemption was proposed in those cases where a request for access to a complaint file is made prior to admin­istrative resolution of the civil rights complaint. The exemption is needed to insure unhampered conciliation and compliance efforts during the com­plaint and compliance process and to protect the identity of confidential

36439

sources. The system was printed in its entirety in the F ederal R egister on September 30, 1977.DATE: The rule will be effective August 17, 1978.ADDRESS: Legal and Legislative Group, Office of Management and Fi­nance, Department of Justice, 10th and Constitution Avenue NW., Wash­ington, D.C. 20530.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bronson E. Clayton, 202-739-4165.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations issued in the F ederal R egister on May 9 set forth plans to amend 28 CFR 16.100 by adding para­graphs (d) and (e). No comments have been received regarding the proposed regulations. However, one minor cor­rection has been made. The United States Code reference in § 16.100(d)(1) is further clarified by changing the reference from 5 U.S.C. 552a(k) to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Pursuant to the au­thority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and delegated to me by Attorney General Order No. 793-78, the proposed regulations amended as described above are set forth below.

Dated: August 8, 1978.K evin D. R ooney,

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

§ 16.100 of title 28 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e):§ 16.100 Exemption of Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration System— limited access.

* * * * *(d) The following system of records

is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(d):(1) The Civil Rights Investigative

System (JUSTICE/LEAA-008). This exemption applies only to the extent that information in this system is sub­ject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

(e) Exemption from subsection (d) is claimed since access to information in the Civil Rights Investigative System prior to final administrative resolution will deter conciliation and compliance efforts. Consistent with the legislative purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974, de­cisions to release information from the system will bfe made on a case-by-case basis and information will be made available where it does not compro­mise the complaint and compliance process. In addition, where explicit promises of confidentiality must be made to a source during an investiga­tion, disclosure will be limited to the extent that the identity of such confi-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L . 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36440 RULES AND REGULATIONS

dential sources will not be compro­mised.

[FR Doc. 78-23120 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-14]Title 33— Navigation and Navigable

Waters

CHAPTER I— COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

tCGD 78-036]PART 183— BOATS AND ASSOCIATED

EQUIPMENT

Safety Standards for Boat Gasoline Fuel Systems

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This amendment delays the effective date for certain require­ments in the regulations relating to the leakage of fuel from fuel pumps and carburetors installed on gasoline powered inboard boats. The Coast Guard has learned that the major sup­pliers of fuel pumps and carburetors used on boats subject to these regula­tions will not be able to supply iuel pumps and carburetors complying with the regulations in sufficient time for boat builders to meet the effective date. This delay will give boat builders time to receive marine engines which comply with the regulations and in­stall those marine engines on boats built after the new effective date.EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective on August 17,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Captain Philip Danahy, Marine Safety Council (G-CMC/81), Room 8117, Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, 202- 426-1477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In that the material contained in this amendment relieves certain require­ments for persons subject to a previ­ously issued final rule by delaying the effective date of that rule, this rule may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication.

In view of the fact that §§ 183.524(c) and 183.526 were to become effective on August 1, 1978, and in view of the need to inform manufacturers of their obligations, the Coast Guard has de­termined that prior notice and com­ment thereon is impracticable. Howev­er, in keeping with the spirit of 5 U.S.C. 553, the Coast Guard will accept written comments on or before October 2, 1978, to permit interested

persons to call to our attention any signigicant problems or objections.

Comments should include docket number (CGD 78-036), the name and address of the person submitting the comments, the specific section of the regulation to which the comment ap­plies, and reasons for the comment. Address comments to Commandant (G-CMC/81), U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. 20590. All comments received will be available for examina­tion at the Marine Safety Council (G- CMC/81), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

D rafting I nformation

The principal persons involved in drafting this rule are Mr. Lars E. Granholm, Project Manager, Office of Boating Safety, and Lt. Robert R. Meeks, Project Attorney, Office of Boating Safety.

D iscussion of the P roposed Amendment

Publication of the final rule for 33 CFR Part 183, Subpart J —Fuel Sys­tems, in the F ederal R egister oc­curred on January 31, 1977. During the past few months, the Coast Guard has received communications from four of the principal manufacturers of gasoline-powered marine engines to the effect that fuel pumps and carbu­retors meeting the requirements of these regulations will not be available in sufficient time or in sufficient quan­tity to supply the builders of boats subject to the regulations. This infor­mation has been considered with re­spect to the possible effects on persons subject to these regulations. The spe­cific amendment which follows was de­veloped from this information.

Section 183.524(c) specifies that after the completion of the fire test in § 183.590 the pump must not leak more than 5 ounces of fuel in 2% minutes.

Section 183.526—Carburetors, re­quires that each carburetor must not leak more than 5 cubic centimeters of fuel in 30 seconds under conditions which can exist when the engine is being started. It also requires each up­draft and horizontal draft carburetor to have a device that collects and holds fuel which might leak from the carburetor air intake or be discharged from the carburetor during a backfire.

The majority of fuel pumps and car­buretors used on gasoline powered marine engines in the United States are supplied by two manufacturers of automobile engine components who modify their standard products for marine use. The fuel pumps and car­buretors are supplied to a number of engine convertors who assemble parts from automotive engines, special marine parts, and these fuel pumps and carburetors, to produce marine en­gines. The completed marine engines

are sold to a much larger number of boat builders who install these marine engines in boats which are subject to the fuel systems regulations.

The information supplied to the Coast Guard indicates that the build­ers of the marine engines have experi­enced delays in receiving fuel pumps and carburetors which comply with these regulations. As a direct result of those delays, the manufacturers of marine engines have not been able to deliver engines to the boat builders who are subject to the regulation in time to comply with the effective date of August 1, 1978, for §§ 183.524(c) and 183.526.

The delays anticipated w'ould result in a severe economic burden on the boat builders subject to these regula­tions because they are prohibited from selling any boat built after the effec­tive date of the regulation if it does not comply with all of the require­ments. The Coast Guard had deter­mined that there are no reasonable al­ternatives available to the boat build­ers in view' of the limited number of suppliers of marine fuel pumps and carburetors. For the above reason, this amendment changes the effective date for §§ 183.624(c) and 183.526 from August 1, 1978, to the new effective date February 1, 1979.

This amendment has been reviewed under DOT Notice 78-1, Improving Government Regulations (43 FR 9582). A final evaluation has been pre­pared and is available for inspection at the Marine Safety Council.

In consideration of the foregoing, Part *183 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as fol­lows:§§ 183.501 [Amended]

In § 183.501, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

# • * • •(b) * • *

A ugust 1,1978183.512 183.540183.516 183.552183.524 (a) and (b) 183.558

F ebruary 1,1979 183.524(c) 183.526(85 Stat. 215 (46 U.S.C. 1454); 49 CFR 1.46(n)(l).)

N ote.—The Coast Guard has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Economic Impact Statement under Execu­tive Order 11821, as amended, and OMB Cir­cular A-107

Dated: August 11,1978.J. B. Hayes,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant

[FR Doc. 78-23029 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36441[4910-14 ]

[CGD 78-070]PART 183— BOATS AND ASSOCIATED

EQUIPMENT

Electrical Systems AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Final nûe.SUMMARY: This amendment extends the effective date for ignition protec­tion requirements. The August 1, 1978, effective date called for by the regula­tion would not have provided boat manufacturers sufficient time to obtain ignition protected electrical components. Delaying the effective date is expected to provide the time necessary for them to acquire the proper components and will provide a practical application of minimum safety standards without adversely af­fecting boating safety.EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective August 17, 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Captain Philip Danahy, Marine Safety Council (G-CMC/81), Room 8117, Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 202- 426-1477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In that the material contained in this amendment relieves certain require­ments for persons subject to previous­ly issued filial rules by delaying the ef­fective date of the rule, this rule may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication. In view of the fact that § 183.410 was to become effective on August 1, 1978, and in view of the need to inform manufacturers of their obligations, the Coast Guard has de­termined that prior notice and com­ment thereon is impracticable. Howev­er, in keeping with the spirit of 5 U.S.C. 553, the Coast Guard will accept written comments on or before October 2, 1978, to permit interested persons to call to our attention any significant problems or objections. Comments should include the docket number (CGD 78-070), the namç and address of the person submitting the comments, the specific section of the regulation to which the comment ap­plies,. and reasons for the comment. Address comments to Commandant (G-CMC/81), Room 8117, Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

D rafting I nformation

The principal persons involved in drafting this amendment are: Lt. John W. McBride, Project Manager, Office

of Boating Safety, and Lt. Robert R. Meeks, Project Attorney, Office of Boating Safety.

D iscussion of the Amendment

Publication of the final rule for 33 CFR Part 183, Subpart I, in the F eder­al R egister took place on January 31, 1977. During the past few months, the Coast Guard has received communica­tions from the manufacturers of boats, gasoline-powered marine engines, and electrical components. The communi­cations indicate that electrical compo­nents meeting the requirements for ig­nition protection will not be available in sufficient time or in sufficient quan­tity to supply the manufacturers of boats subject to the regulations. The Coast Guard has solicited written com­ments from various industry and standards organizations to evaluate the problem. That information has been considered with respect to the possible effects on persons subject to these regulations. The specific amend­ment which follows was developed from that information.

Section 183.410 requires electrical components not isolated from gasoline fuel sources to be ignition protected. The definition for electrical compo­nents includes auxiliary generator sets. A large electrical component can be a combination of smaller electrical components that operate together to perform a specific function. This is true of an auxiliary generator set. The majority of the generator sets manu­factured in the United States for use on recreational boats are supplied by two manufacturers who also build gen­erator sets for nonmarine use. The generator sets have to be modified for marine use by ignition protecting them which requires the generator set manufacturers to purchase ignition protected electrical components.

The information supplied to the Coast-Guard indicates that generator set manufacturers and manufacturers of electrical components to be in­stalled on generator sets have experi­enced design problems and delays. Ac­cordingly, the generator set manufac­turers have not been able to deliver ig­nition-protected generator sets to the boat manufacturers, who are subject to the regulation, in time to comply with the effective date of August 1, 1978, for § 183.410.

The delays anticipated would result in a severe economic burden on the boat manufacturers subject to these regulations because they are prohibit­ed from selling any boat built after the effective date of the regulation if it does not comply with all the re­quirements. The Coast Guard has de­termined that there are no reasonable alternatives available to the boat man­ufacturers in view of the limited number of suppliers of marine gener­

ator sets. For the above reason, this amendment changes the effective date for § 183.410 from August 1, 1978, to a new effective date of February 1, 1979.

This amendment has been reviewed under DOT Notice 78-1, Improving Government Regulations (43 FR 9582). A final evaluation has been pre­pared and is available for inspection at the Marine Safety Council.

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 183 of Chapter I of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:§183.401 [Amended]

Section 183.401, paragraph (b) is amended by changing the effective date for § 183.410 from August 1, 1978, to February 1,1979.(85 Stat. 215 (46 U.S.C. 1454); 49 CFR 1.46(n)(l).)

N ote.—The Coast Guard has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Economic Impact Statement under Execu­tive Order 11821, as amended, and OMB Cir­cular A-107.

Dated: August 11,1978.J. B. Hayes,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant

[FR Doc. 78-23030 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4110-83]Title 42— Public Health

CHAPTER I— PUBLIC HEALTH SERV­ICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PART 57— GRANTS FOR CONSTRUC­TION OF TEACHING FACILITIES, EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND STUDENT LOANS

Special Assurances Required . o f Schools of Medicine Applying for Health Professions Capitation Grants

AGENCY: Public Health Service, HEW.ACTION: Interim—Final regulations.SUMMARY: Section 770 of the Public Health Service Act provides that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall make annual grants, based on enrollment, to health profes­sions schools for the support of their educational programs (“capitation grants”). To receive a capitation grant, each school must meet certain statuto­ry requirements. These regulations im­plement the eligibility'requirement in

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36442section 771(b)(3) relating to schools of medicine.DATES: These regulations are effec­tive August 17, 1978. As discussed below, comments on the regulations are invited. Comments must be re­ceived on or-before October 16, 1978 in order to be considered.ADDRESSES: Written commentsshould be addressed to the Director, Bureau of Health Manpower, Health Resources Administration, 3700 East- West Highway, Center Building, Fourth Floor, Hyattsville, Md. 20782. All comments received will be availa­ble for public inspection and copying at the Office of Program Operations, Bureau of Health Manpower, at the above address, weekdays (Federal holi­days excepted) between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Robert K. Knouss, Director, Di­vision of Medicine, Bureau of HealthManpower, Room 4-44, at the aboveaddress, telephone 301-436-6418.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the approval of the Sec­retary of Health, Education, and Wel­fare, is hereby revising subpart F of 42 CFR Part 57, “Grants to Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, Osteopathy, Op­tometry, Podiatry, Pharmacy, and Veterinary Medicine for Support of Their Educational Programs,” to im­plement certain of the amendments made by the Health Professions Edu­cational Assistance Act of 1976 (Pub.L. 94-484, October 12, 1976) and by Pub. L. 95-215, December 19, 1977, to the authority for capitation grants in title VII of the Public Health Service

Section 770 of the Public Health Service Act (“the act”) (42 U.S.C. 295f) provides that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, (“the Secre­tary”) shall make annual grants, based on enrollment, to health professions schools for the support of their educa­tional programs (“capitation grants”). To receive a capitation grant, each school must meet certain statutory re­quirements. These regulations imple­ment the eligibility requirement in section 771(b)(3) relating to schools of medicine.

In summary, this requirement states that a school of medicine must in­crease its enrollment of full-time third-year students in the school year 1978-79 by not less than 5 percent of(1) the number of full-time first-year students enrolled in the school in school year 1977-78, or (2) the number of full-time third-year students en­rolled in the school year 1977-78, whichever is less. The pool of eligible

RULES AND REGULATIONS

students who can be counted toward meeting this increase consists of U.S. citizens who have begun their medical school education at medical schools not in the United States, individuals enrolled in 2-year programs at schools in the United States which prepare students to enter the third year of medical school in the United States, and individuals enrolled in Ph. D.-M.D. programs in the United States. Each eligible individual who wishes to enroll in a position in a school of medi­cine in accordance with the require­ments of these regulations must apply for admission directly to the school or schools at which the individual would accept a position.

This 5-percent enrollment increase represents a one-time-only require­ment. Subsequent to academic year 1978-79, it is anticipated that schools will have third-year or second-year en­rollments consistent with the normal academic advancement of first-year and second-year students.

The remainder of the requirements for capitation grants applicable to schools of medicine, as well as other health professions schools, will be the subject of separate regulations within this subpart.

The major issue regarding these reg­ulations is the implementation of the statutory provisions by which a school of medicine may be granted a waiver of this requirement in three limited circumstances. In summary, a waiver may be granted in whole or in part if the Secretary determines (1) that the required enrollment increase would result in the school’s not being able to maintain its accreditation, (2) that the required enrollment increase would prevent the school from providing high quality clinical training for each of its third-year students, or (3) that the school has made a good faith effort to meet the required enrollment increase but has been unable to do so solely because there is an insufficient number of students who are eligible to be counted.

In view of the 1 year duration of this requirement and the commitment made by Congress to a segment of U.S. citizens that they would be able to complete their medical education in the United States, the Department has determined that the burden of es­tablishing eligibility for any of the three authorized waivers should rest with the school applying for a waiver. Consequently, to obtain a waiver on the basis that the school cannot main­tain its accreditation if it takes the re­quired increase, the school must (1) demonstrate that it cannot maintain its accreditation, (2) document that the school has explored all reasonable alternatives by which all or part of the required increase could be taken, and(3) document that its attrition rate is

not sufficient to enable the school to take all or part of the required in­crease. As an essential part of criterion(1), the written recommendation from the body recognized by the Commis­sioner of Education to accredit schools of medicine must be received by the Secretary prior to the approval or dis­approval of such waiver requests. Cri­teria (2) and (3) above also must be es­tablished when a school seeks a waiver on the basis that taking the required increase would prevent the school from providing high quality clinical training for each of its third-year stu­dents.

To obtain a good faith statutory waiver, a school must establish that it has made a serious and substantial effort to meet the required increase by documenting that:

1. It actively sought eligible applicants in an effort to reasonably assure that the re­quired increase would be achieved.

2. The time limit for receipt of applica­tions was reasonable in light of the statute and these regulations.

3. The admission criteria were designed to provide a reasonable number of students (who are countable under the statute) an opportunity to be seriously considered for admission to the third-year class (or the second-year class, where applicable).

4. The admission criteria were those gen­erally applicable to students seeking to enter the school at the third-year level (or at the second-year level, where applicable) and were applied equitably to all applicants for positions at that level.

5. The number of written offers of uncon­ditional acceptances to students who are countable under the .statute constituted a reasonable attempt to meet the required en­rollment increase.

A school which applies for, but is denied, a good faith waiver will receive a grant award conditional on its achieving the required enrollment in­crease, no later than December 31, 1978. Grant funds will not be released for expenditure until the achievement of the required increase has been do­cumented to the Secretary.

Timely implementation of this provi­sion is essential if schools of medicine are to have adequate lead time to comply with the statutory require­ment so that grants can be made prior to the end of fiscal year 1978 (Septem­ber 30, 1978). Therefore, the Secretary has determined pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 and Department policy that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to follow pro­posed rulemaking procedures or to delay the effective date of these regu­lations.

Notwithstanding the omission of the proposed rulemaking procedures, in­terested persons are invited to submit written comments or data relating to these regulations to the Director of the Bureau of Health Manpower at the address given above. All relevant materials received not later than Octo-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

ber 16, 1978, win be considered, and following the close of the comment period, the regulations will be revised as warranted by the public comments received. It is intended that any revi­sion of the regulations arising from these comments will be published within 90 days of the close of the com­ment period.

The regulations as set forth below will be effective August 17,1978.

Accordingly, subpart P of 42 CFR part 57 is revised to read as set forth below.

Note.—The Department of Health, Educa­tion, and Welfare has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an inflation impact statement under Executive Order 11821 and OMB Circular A-107.

Dated: May 12,1978.Charles M iller,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Health.

Approved: August 5,1978.H ale Champion ,

Acting Secretary.Subpart F—G rants to S chools op

M edicine, D entistry , O steopathy, O ptometry, P odiatry, P harmacy, and Veterinary Medicine for S up­port of T h eir Educational P ro­grams.

Sec.57.501 Purpose and scope.57.502 Definitions.57.503 Enrollment increase requirement.57.504 Waiver provisions.

Authority: Section 215 of the Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690 as amended, 63 Stat. 35 (42 U.S.C. 216); section 771(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, 90 Stat. 2296, as amended, 91 Stat. 1503 (42 U.S.C. 295f-l(b)(3)).

§ 57.501 Purpose and scope.(a) Section 770 of the Public Health

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295f) provides that the Secretary of Health, Educa­tion, and Welfare (“the Secretary”) shall make annual grants to health professions schools for the support of their educational programs (“capita­tion grants”) if they meet certain stat­utory requirements. This subpart sets forth the manner in which one re­quirement applicable to schools of medicine will be implemented. In sum­mary, a school of medicine must submit assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that it will increase its en­rollment of full-time third-year stu­dents in the school year 1978-79 in an amount computed in accordance with §57.503 from a pool of eligible stu­dents, among whom are individuals who were enrolled before October 12, 1976, at medical schools not in the United States, individuals enrolled in 2 year programs or schools in the United States which prepare students

RULES AND REGULATIONS

to enter the third-year of medical school in the United States, and indi­viduals enrolled in Ph. D.-M.D. pro­grams in the United States. Other stu­dents accepted into the third year of the school as transfer students may be counted unless specifically excluded by the statute.

(b) A school of medicine which is eli­gible to receive a grant under section 770 of the Act in fiscal year 1978 but which does not fulfill the requirement of section 771(b)(3) of the Act and this subpart, also will not be eligible to re­ceive a capitation grant in fiscal years 1979 and 1980.§ 57.502 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart:“Nonaccredited school of medicine”

means a school of medicine in a State, which awards or intends to award a degree of doctor of medicine, and which is not accredited by a recog­nized body or bodies approved for such purpose by the Commissioner of Edu­cation, whether or not the degree is recognized in the State in which the school is located, or in any other State.

“Previously enrolled” means enroll­ment in a school prior to school year 1978-79, by a student who has taken a course or courses at the school in ful­fillment of the normal academic re­quirements for any class year of the school. A student who had been en­rolled in a U.S. medical, dental or os­teopathic school, but who subsequent­ly enrolled in a school of medicine not in a State prior to October 12, 1976, will not be considered “previously en­rolled” for purposes of this subpart.

“School” means a school of medicine or school of osteopathy as defined, re­spectively, in 42 CFR 57.2902(1) or a school of dentistry as defined in 42 CFR 57.3402(h).

“School of medicine not in a State” means a school outside of the States, providing training leading to a diplo­ma or degree of doctor of medicine or an equivalent degree, which diploma or degree is accepted by the country in which the school is located as one of the prerequisites for licensure or other official sanction to practice medicine as a physician in that country.

“School year 1977-1978” and “school year 1978-1979” mean the last annual curriculum periods beginning prior to Decembr 31, 1977, and December 31, 1978, respectively, consistent with the established policies and schedules of the school.

“Secretary” means the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and any other officer or employee of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to whom the authority in­volved has been delegated.

“State” means one of the several States, the District of Columbia, the

36443

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Is­lands.

“Student enrollment in an academic year” means the actual number of full-time students enrolled on Septem­ber 15 of the academic year unless a different count date has been negoti­ated with the Department.§ 57.503 Enrollment increase requirement.

(a) To be eligible for a capitation grant under section 770 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 295f) in fiscal year 1978, each school of medicine must provide assur­ances to the Secretary that the school will increase its enrollment of full­time third-year students in the school year 1978-79 over the number of full­time second-year students who suc­cessfully completed the second-year program in the preceding school year and have enrolled in the third-year class of the school from among stu­dents other than those who are ex­cluded below. This increase shall be not less than 5 percent of the number of full-time first-year students or the number of full-time third-year stu­dents, whichever is less, enrolled in the school in school year 1977-78. For purposes of this subpart:

(1) “First-year student” means an in­dividual enrolled in the first year of a 3 or a 4-year curriculum, or the first year of the last 4 years of a 6-year post high school curriculum, leading to an M.D. degree.

(2) “Second-year student” means an individual enrolled in the second year of a 3 or a 4-year curriculum, or the second year of the last 4 years of a 6- year post high school curriculum lead­ing to an M.D. degree.

(3) “Third-year student” means an individual enrolled in the third year of a 3 or a 4-year curriculum, or the third year of the last 4 years of a 6-year post high school curriculum leading to an M.D. degree.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to a school which in school year 1977-78 had an enrollment of full-time- first-year students which was at least 25 percent greater than its enrollment of full-time third-year stu­dents.

(c) The following students enrolled in the third-year class who were not enrolled in the second-year class may not be counted in meeting the increase required by this section:

(1) Students who are not citizens of the United States.

(2) Students who were previously en­rolled in a U.S. school of medicine which must increase its enrollment under the provision of this law.

(3) Students who were previously en­rolled in a U.S. school of medicine in

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 140— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36444

which a third-year position was availa­ble for them in school year 1978-79.

(4) Students who were first enrolled after October 12, 1976, in a school of medicine not in a State. For purposes of this paragraph, an individual will be considered enrolled in a school of medicine not in a State at the point at which the individual is enrolled in a course of study which is part of the medical school curriculum and is in­cluded in the transcript of the medical school.

(5) Students who were previously en­rolled in a school of dentistry or oste­opathy. .

(6) Students who were previously en­rolled in a non-accredited school of medicine.

(d) Students first enrolled in a school of medicine in school year 1978-79 as full-time second-year stu­dents who are citizens of the U.S. and who were enrolled prior to October 12, 1976, in a school of medicine not in a State shall be considered full-time third-year students for purposes of this subpart.§ 57.504 Waiver provisions.

(a) (1) The Secretary may waive in whole or in part the requirement in §57.503 if the Secretary determines: (i) After receipt of the written recom­mendation of the recognized body or bodies approved by the Commissioner of Education for accrediting purposes, that the enrollment of these students would result in the school’s not main­taining the accreditation standards of the recognized body or bodies or (ii) that because of the inadequate size of the population served by the hospital or clinical facility in which such school conducts its clinical training, an increase in the enrollment of third- year students to meet the requirement will prevent it from providing high quality clinical training for each of its third-year students.

(2) In determining whether the school will receive a waiver under this paragraph, the Secretary will consider whether the school has explored all reasonable alternatives by which part or all of the increase required in § 57.503 could be taken in school year 1978-79 and whether the school’s at­trition rate would enable the school to take all or part of the increase without preventing it from maintaining its ac­creditation or decreasing the quality of its clinical training.

(b) (1) The Secretary may waive in whole or in part the requirement in § 57.503 if the Secretary determines that a school has made a good faith effort to meet the increase, but has been unable to do so solely because there is an insufficient number of stu­dents who are eligible to be counted under § 57.503.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(2) In determining whether a school will receive a good faith waiver, the Secretary will consider whether the school has made a serious and sub­stantial effort to obtain the increase required by §57.503 as supported by findings including the following:

Ci) The school actively sought eligi­ble applicants in an effort to reason­ably assure that the required enroll­ment increase would be achieved.

(ii) The time limit for receipt of ap­plications was reasonable in light of section 771(b)(3) and these regula­tions.

(iii) The admission criteria were de­signed to provide a reasonable number of students who are countable under the statute with an opportunity to be seriously considered for admission to the third-year class or the second-year class, where applicable.

(iv) The admission criteria were those generally applicable to students seeking to enter the school at the third-year level and were applied equi­tably to all applicants for positions at that level.

(v) The number of written offers of unconditional acceptance to students who are countable under section 771(b)(3) constituted a reasonable at­tempt to meet the required enrollment increase.

(3) A school which applies for, but is denied, a good faith waiver will receive a grant award conditional on its achieving the required enrollment in­crease. This enrollment increase, to be achieved no later than December 31, 1978, must be documented to the Sec­retary before grant funds will be re­leased for expenditure, or the grant will be terminated.

[FR Doc. 78-22637 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6712-01]Title 47— Telecommunication

CHAPTER I— FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 0— COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

Establishment of the Network Inquiry Special Staff

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.ACTION: Amendment of rules.SUMMARY: This amendment changes the Commission’s rules to reflect the establishment of the network inquiry special staff to study commercial tele­vision network policies and practices.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 1978.ADDRESS: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bernard I. Kahn, Office of Execu­tive Director, 632-7513

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Adopted: August 8,1978.Released: August 14,1978.

Order. In the matter of editorial amendment of part O of the Commis­sion’s rules to reflect establishment of the network inquiry special staff.

1. On March 15, 1978, the Commis­sion formally established a new net­work inquiry special staff to conduct an inquiry into commercial television network policies and practices and the ability of station licensees to serve the public interest. The inquiry staff was formed as a separate organizational unit reporting directly to the Commis­sion. It is appropriate, therefore, that the Commission’s rules be amended to incorporate the network inquiry spe­cial staff as an official organizational element of the FCC.

2. This order is issued to incorporate the special staff into § 0.5 of the Com­mission’s rules and regulations and add a new § 0.176 describing the func­tions of the special staff.

3. Because this amendment relates to internal Commission organization and practice, the prior notice and ef­fective date provisions of section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply.

4. Authority for the amendment adopted herein is contained in sections 4(i) and 5(b) of the Communications Act as amended.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered, That ef­fective August 23, 1978, part O of the Commission’s rules and regulations is amended as set forth below.(Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082 (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303).)

R. D. L ichtwardt, Executive Director.

Part 0 of chapter I of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended as indicated below.

1. Sections 0.5(a)(13) and 0.5(b)(6) are added to read as follows:§ 0.5 General description of Commission

organization and operations.(a) Principal staff units. The Com­

mission is assisted in the performance of its responsibilities by its staff, which is divided into the following principal units:

* * * * *

(13) Network inquiry special staff.(b) Staff -responsibilities and func­

tions. The organization and functions of these major staff units are de­scribed in detail in §§0.11-0.176. The defense and emergency preparedness

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36445

functions of the Commission are set forth separately, beginning at §0.181. For a complete description of staff functions, reference should be made to these provisions. (See also the U.S. Government Organization Manual, which contains a chart showing the Commission’s organization, the names of the members and principal staff of­ficers of the Commission, and other information concerning the Commis­sion.) So that the public may more readily inform itself concerning the operations of the Commission as a whole, concerning the staff officials who exercise responsibility over mat­ters in which they are interested and concerning the relationship between the several staff units in such matters, however, a brief overall description of staff functions and responsibilities is set forth in this paragraph.

* • • • •(6) Network inquiry spécial staff.

The network inquiry special staff has primary responsibility for the conduct of a special inquiry relating to com­mercial television network practices and the ability of station licensees to serve the public interest, and related policy issues.

* * * * *2. Section 0.176 is added to read as

follows:Network I nquiry S pecial Staff

§ 0.176 Functions of the staff.The network inquiry special staff is

responsible for conducting a fact-gath­ering investigation and preparing a final report to the Commission relat­ing to commercial television network practices, the ability of station licens­ees to serve the public interest, and re­lated policy issues.

[FR Doc. 78-23126 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-60]Title 49— Transportation

CHAPTER I— MATERIALS TRANSPOR­TATION BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. HM-163; Arndt. Nos. 171-41, 173-119, 178-49]

BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES

Withdrawal of Certain Delegations of Authority

AGENCY: Materials Transportation Bureau, DOT.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: The purpose and intend­ed effect of these amendments to the

Department’s hazardous materials reg­ulations is to withdraw all of those delegations of authority to the Bureau of Explosives (hereinafter referred to as the B of E) which pertain to (1) ex­amination and approval of cigarette lighters or other similar ignition de­vices (§ 173.21(d)); (2) cylinder test ap­paratus approval (§ 173.34(e)(1)); (3) registration of container manufactur­ers’ mark or symbol; and (4) filing of reports. The few references to the B of E in Part 179—Specifications for Tank Cars—are not included in this rule- making and will be included in a future notice. This action, is being taken as an additional step in con­forming existing programs with the purposes of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.DATE: The effective date is August17,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan I. Roberts, Associate Directorfor Hazardous Materials Regulation,Materials Transportation Bureau,Research and Special Programs Ad­ministration, Washington, D.C.20590, 202-426-0656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Upon the formation of the Depart­ment of Transportation in 1967, the functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) relative to formu­lating regulations for the safe trans­portation of explosives and other dan­gerous articles (hazardous materials) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 831-835 were transferred to the Secretary of Trans­portation by section 6(e)(4) of the De­partment of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1657(e)(4)). The hazardous ma­terials regulations have been adminis­tered by the Department of Transpor­tation since that time.

As a matter of routine, the ICC had delegated certain functions to a non­governmental body, the B of E. Such delegations were made pursuant to paragraph (e) of 18 U.S.C. 834, which provided that:

(e) In the execution of sections 831-835, inclusive, of this chapter the Commission may utilize the service of carrier and ship­per associations, including the Bureau for the safe transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles * • *.

The Hazardous Materials Transpor­tation Act (title I of Pub. L. 93-633) (HMTA), enacted January 3, 1975, under which authority the hazardous materials regulations were reissued ef­fective January 3, 1977, does not con­tain any reference to this practice of Federal reliance on authority delegat­ed to the B of E. The HMTA directs the Secretary of Transportation to “take all steps necessary to bring * * • regulations into conformity with (its) purposes and provisions * * * as soon

as practicable * • V* (§ 114(b)(2)). Reissuance of the hazardous materials regulations was undertaken to comply with this direction. Withdrawal of del­egations to the B of E is being under­taken for the same reason.

Over the past several years, a number of the delegations have been deleted or assumed by the Department in conjunction with various specific ru­lemaking projects, including the recent docket HM-103/112 amend­ments (41 FR 15972, 41 FR 40614, and 41 FR 57018) which consolidated all of the Department’s hazardous materials regulations into 49 CFR Parts 100-199.

These amendments constitute the first action in an overall phased pro­gram to withdraw all of the delega­tions of authority to the B of E in 49 CFR Parts 100-199. The amendments herein constitute a withdrawal of some of the functions previously dele­gated and an assumption thereof by the Materials Transportation Bureau (MTB). The MTB has engaged the De­partment’s Transportation Systems Center (TSC), Cambridge, Mass., to perform all of the functions addressed herein under the direction and super­vision of the MTB, with the exception of § 173.34(e)(1). The delegations to the B of E remaining after this action will be dealt with in future rulemaking actions.

In the case of functions herein as­sumed by the MTB, or to be per­formed by the TSC, as well as those to be considered in future rulemaking, it is necessary to provide for continuity and continued effectiveness of existing B of E registrations for a specified transition period. Accordingly, a new section 171.18 is being added to pro­vide for continued effectiveness of any registration that is valid at the time MTB assumes that registration func­tion. Such registrations continue to be valid until they lapse in the normal course, with one exception in § 173.34(e)(1), or are otherwise restrict­ed by regulation. “Registration” (e.g. § 178.1-4(a)), a clerical function, is dis­tinct from the filing of “reports” (e.g. § 178.1-9(f)), also a clerical function, but one for which renewal is unneces­sary. Both functions are distinct from “approval,” a judgmental function to be treated in a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking (except for §§ 173.34(e)(1) and 173.21(d), treated herein).

In the course of evaluating B of E delegations, the MTB expects to pro­pose amendments to many of the sec­tions requiring departmental action in order to establish substitute perform­ance criteria, or to simplify, clarify, or delete such requirements. The amend­ments in this document may be sub­ject to further rulemaking.

The function in section 173.34(e)(1) herein withdrawn from the B of E will

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36446 RULES AND REGULATIONS

be performed on an interim basis by persons qualified under section 173.300a. Section 173.34(e)(1) present­ly requires B of E approval of equip­ment used in periodic retesting of DOT specification compressed gas cyl­inders. Persons qualified under section 173.300a are presently authorized to verify inspections and tests required in the construction of new cylinders. Be­cause the knowledge and skills re­quired for inspection and test verifica­tions on new cylinders are clearly ade­quate for inspection of retesting equip­ment, the MTB intends to rely on per­sons so qualified to inspect retest equipment until such time as other criteria may be developed. However, an existing backlog of applications for equipment inspection under section 173.34(e)(1) requires immediate atten­tion. During this interim period, anyone wishing to arrange for inspec­tion under section 173.34(e)(1) should contact the MTB.

Since these amendments do not impose additional requirements, public notice has not been provided and this amendment is effective without delay. The MTB has determined that the en­vironmental and economic impact as­sociated with these amendments is minimal. Primary drafters of this doc­ument are Darrell L. Raines, Exemp­tions and Regulations Termination Branch, Office of Hazardous Materials Regulation, and George W. Tenley, Office of Chief Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CPR Parts 171, 173, and 178 are amended as follows:PART 171— GENERAL INFORMATION,

REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

1. In § 171.8 new definitions of the abbreviations “MTB” and “MTB- TSC” are added immediately following the definition of “Motor vehicle” to read as follows:§ 171.8 Definitions and abbreviations.

* * * * *

“MTB” means the Materials Trans­portation Bureau, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.

“MTB-TSC” means the Transporta­tion Systems Center, Cambridge, Mass. 02142 (for functions performed under the direction and supervision of the MTB). **

• * * * *2. § 171.18 is added to read as follows:

§171.18 Continuation of effectiveness of existing Bureau of Explosives registra­tions.

A registration filed with the Bureau of Explosives in compliance with a re­

quirement of this subchapter, which is valid at the time that registration function is assumed by the MTB or MTB-TSC, remains valid to the same extent as if it had been filed originally with MTB or MTB-TSC.

PART 173— SHIPPERS— GENERAL RE- QUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND PACKINGS

3. In § 173.21 paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:§ 173.21 Prohibited packing.

* * * • ■ *(d) The offering for transportation

of any package containing a cigarette lighter or other similar ignition device charged with fuel and equipped with an ignition element, or any self-light­ing cigarette, is forbidden unless the design of the device and its packaging insofar as they affect safety in trans­portation have been examined and ap­proved by MTB-TSC. (An approval which was issued by the B of E re­mains valid to the same extent as if it had been issued by MTB-TSC.) For lighters containing flammable gases, also see § 173.308.

4. The words “Bureau of Explosives” is changed to read “MTB-TSC” in § 173.24(0(1)(ii).

5. In § 173.34 paragraph (e)(1) is re­vised to read as follows:§ 173.34 Qualification, maintenance, and

use of cylinders.* * * * *

(e) * * *(1) This periodic retest must include

a visual internal and external exami­nation together with a test by interior hydrostatic pressure in a water jacket or other apparatus of suitable form for the determination of the expan­sion of the cylinder. Each person who represents that he performs retesting in accordance with this paragraph must have a retester’s identification number issued by the MTB or have a valid Bureau of Explosives approval issued prior to August (effective date of these amendments) 1978. Such per­sons holding a B of E approval, with­out a termination date must obtain a retester’s identification number from MTB before December 31, 1979. The internal inspection may be omitted for cylinders of the type and in the service described under paragraphs (e) (9) and (10) of this section.

* * * * *6. The words “Bureau of Explosives”

are change to read “MTB-TSC” each time they appear in the following sec­tions:

Sections 173.34(1X2); 173.34(1X3);173.119(b)(3) note 1.

* * * * *

PART 178— SHIPPING CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS

7. The words “Bureau of Explosives” are changed to read “MTB-TSC” each time they appear in the following sec­tions:§ 178.1-4(a)§ 178.1-9(f)§ 178.2-6(a)(2)§ 178.3-8(a)(2)§ 178.4-4(b)§ 178.4-8(f)§ 178.5-9(f)§ 178.6-10(f)§ 178.7-7(a)(2)§ 178.8-7(a)(2)§ 178.12-9(a)(2)§ 178.13-5(a)(2)§ 178.14-7(a)(2)§ 178.15-7(b)§ 178.19-6(a)(3)§ 178,24-5(a)(2)§ 178.33-9(a)(2>§ 178.35-3(b)(2)§ 178.36-4(d)§ 178.37-4(d)§ 178.38-4(d)§ 178.39-4(d)§ 178.40-4(d)§ 178.41-4(d)§ 178.42-4(d)§ 178.43-4(d)§ 178.44-4(d)§ 178.47-4(d)§ 178.48-4(d)§ 178.49-4(d)§ 178.50-4(d)§ 178.51-4(d)§ 178.52-19(a)(2)§ 178.53-18(a)(2)§ 178.54-20(a)(2)§ 178.55-20(a)(2)§ 178.56-19(a)(2)§ 178.57-20(a)(3)§ 178.58-21(a)(2)§ 178.59-18(a)(2)§ 178.60-22(a)(2)§ 178.61-20(a)(2)§ 178.68-19(a)(2)§ 178.81-ll(a)(2)§ 178.83-ll(a)(2)§ 178.85-10(a)(2)§ 178.88-10(a)(2)§ 178.90-10(a)(2)§ 178.92-12(a)(2)§ 178.98-9(a)(2)§ 178.100-9(a)(2)§ 178.102-4(a)(2)§ 178.107-9(a)(2)§ 178.109-9(a)(2)§ 178.111-8(a)(2)§ 178.115-10(a)(2) § 178.117-ll(aX2) § 178.119-10(a)(2) § 178.131-9(a)(3)§ 178.133-9(a)(2)§ 178.135-8(a)(3)§ 178.140-6(a)(2)§ 178.146~15(a)(2) § 178.148-5(a)(2)§ 178.150-7(a)(3)§ 178.165-13(b)§ 178.169-18(d)§ 178.171-17(d)

§ 178.1-8(a)(2)§ 178.2-4(a)§ 178.3-4(a)§ 178.3-9(f)§ 178.4-7(a)(2)§ 178.5-7(a)(2)§ 178.6-8(a)(2)§ 178.7-3(a)§ 178.7-8(f)§ 178.9-7(aX2)§ 178.13-2(a)§ 178.14-3(a)§ 178.14-8(f)§ 178.18-8(a)(2)§ 178.21-2(b)(2)§ 178.27-2(0(2)§ 178.33a-9(a)(2)§ 178.35a-2(c)(2)§ 178.36-20(a)(3)§ 178.37-20(a)(3)§ 178.38-20(a)(2)§ 178.39-19(a)(2)§ 178.40-20(a)(2)§ 178.41-19(a)(2)§ 178.42-14(a)(2)§ 178.43-20(a)(2)§ 178.44-23(a)(2)§ 178.47-21(a)(2)§ 178.48-19(a)(2)§ 178.49-19(a)(2)§ 178.50-19(a)(2)§ 178.52-4(d)§ 178.53-4(d)§ 178.54-4(d)§ 178.55-4(d)§ 178.56-4(d)§ 178.57-4(d)§ 178.58-4(d)§ 178.59-3(0 § 178.60-3(0 § 178.61-4(d)§ 178.68-4(d)§ 178.80-11(a)(2)§ 178.82-ll(a)(2)§ 178.84-ll(a)(2)§ 178.87-ll(a)(2)§ 178.89-9(a)(2)§ 178.91-ll(a)(2)§ 178.97-9(a)(2)§ 178.99-9(a*)(2)§ 178.101-9(a)(2)§ 178.103-6(a)(3)§ 178.108-9(a)(2)§ 178.110-8(a)(2)§ 178.112-10(a)(2) § 178.116-10(a)(2) § 178.fl8-10(a)(2) § 178.130-8(a)(2)§ 178.132-9(a)(3)§ 178.134-4(a)(2)§ 178.136-9(a)(2)§ 178.*141-7(a)(2)§ 178.147-15(a)(2) § 178.149-7(a)(2)§ 178.156-12(a)(2) § 178.168-18(d)§ 178.170-17(d)§ 178.172-19(b)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36447

8 178.176-6(b)8 178.181-ll(b)§ 178.185-19(b) f 178.186-19(b)8 178.190-9(a)(2)8 178.193-6(a)(2)8 178.196-15(a)(2)8 178.198-4(a)(2)8 178.206-18(a)(2)8 178.208-12(a)(2)8 178.209-14(a)8 178.211-6(a)(2) .8 178.214-17(a)(2)8 178.218-10(a)(2)8 178.219-13(a)(2)8 178.224-4(a)(2)8 178.225-3(a)(2)(ii) 8 178.230-8(a)(2)8 178.234-9(a)(2)§ 178.237-7(b)8 178.239-7(b)8 178.241-5(b)8178.255-15.

8 178.177-6(b)8 178.182-4(a)(2)8 178.185-22(0(2)8 178.187-5(b)8 178.191-9(a)(2)8 178.194-6(b)8 178.197-14(a)(2)8 178.205-18(a)(2)8 178.207-18( a)( 2)8 178.209- 13(aX2)8 178.210- 12(a)(2)8 178.212-8(a)(2)8 178.214-18(a)8 178.218- ll(a)8 178.219- 14(a)8 178.225-3(a)(l)(ii) 8 178.226-4(a)(2)8 178.233-9(a)(2)8 178.236-7(b)8 178.238-7(b)8 178.240-10(a)(2)8 178.245-7(a)

(49 U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1808; 49 CFR 1.53(e).)The Materials Transportation Bu­

reau has determined that this final regulation will not have a major eco­nomic impact under the terms of Ex­ecutive Order 12044 and DOT imple­menting procedures (43 PR 9582). A regulatory evaluation is available for review in the docket.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 10,1978.

L. D. S antman, Acting Director,

Materials Transportation Bureau.

[FR Doc. 78-22739 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]AIl [4910-06]

j CHAPTER II— FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

L •[Docket No. RSRM-1, Notice 5]

I"PART 221— REAR END MARKING

DEVICE— PASSENGER, COMMUTER, AND FREIGHT TRAINS

Approved DevicesAGENCY: Federal Railroad Adminis­tration (FRA), Department of Trans­portation.ACTION: Final rule amendment.SUMMARY: Part 221 establishes re­quirements for the installation of rear end marking devices that are to be used on passenger, commuter, and freight trains. The purpose of this notice is to amend part 221 by the ad­dition of a new appendix which sets forth those specific devices that have been approved by FRA as of July 26, 1978.DATES: This amendment is effective August 25,1978.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

P rincipal Authors

Principal program person: John A. McNally, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, Washing­ton, D.C. 20590, 202-426-9178.

P rincipal Attorney

Lawrence I. Wagner, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Ad­ministration, Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-8836.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Railroad Safety Authori­zation Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-348, “the act”) required the Secretary of Transportation to issue such rules as may be necessary to require that “the rear car of all passenger and commut­er trains shall have one or more highly visible markers which are light­ed during periods of darkness or when­ever weather conditions restrict clear visibility;” and “the rear car of all freight trains shall have highly visible markers during periods of darkness or whenever weather conditions restrict clear visibility” (Pub. L. 94-348, sec­tion 5(b)).

On January 11, 1977, FRA published a final rule prescribing the require­ments for the installation of a rear end marking device for use on passen­ger, commuter, and freight trains (42 FR 2321). The rule establishes per­formance standards for marking de­vices and requires that the Federal Railroad Administrator approve de­vices that are to be installed.

On December 8, 1977, FRA amended part 221 by the addition of appendix A which set forth the specific procedures by which railroads subject to this part are to obtain approval of the marking devices to be used on passenger, com­muter, and freight trains (42 FR 62002). This amendment also post­poned, from January 1,1978, to July 1, 1978, the date trains subject to part 221 must be equipped with approved marking devices.

Several railroads have now obtained approval of marking devices in accord­ance with the procedures set forth in appendix A. Additionally, FRA has re­ceived many individual requests for in­formation on approved devices. Conse­quently, FRA has decided to publish appendix B to reflect those devices that have received FRA approval as of July 26,1978.

The approved devices identified in appendix B have been broken into two parts. Part I identifies those devices which were assembled by a manufac­turer for the railroad industry and were tested for the manufacturer either by an independent testing labo­ratory or by the manufacturer’s own testing facilities. Consequently, all of

the required test data may be obtained from the manufacturer. Part II identi­fies devices which were assembled for a specific carrier either by the railroad involved or by a manufacturer and may contain components furnished by a variety of sources. Testing of these devices was performed in most in­stances by an independent testing lab­oratory or by the carrier’s own testing facilities. Consequently, acquisition of the test data may require contacting both the carrier and the manufacturer of the components.

The addition of appendix B consi- tutes a statement of policy by the FRA. In accordance with the provi­sions of section 553 of the Administra­tive Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 533), notice and public procedure are not re­quired and this amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication. Furthermore, FRA has evaluated the addition of this ap­pendix in accordance with the Depart­ment of Transportation’s existing and proposed policies for the evaluation of regulatory impacts, discussed in the F ederal R egister on June 1, 1978 (43 FR 23925), and has concluded that this appendix will have no measurable regulatory impact.

In light of the foregoing, title 49 CFR, chapter II, part 221 is amended, effective August 25,1978, as follows:

1. 49 CFR part 221 is amended by adding a new appendix B as follows:Append ix B—Approved R ear E nd M arking

D evices

PART I — APPROVED DEVICES TESTED POR OR BY MANUFACTURERS

1. Manufacturer: Star Headlight & Lan­tern Co., 168 West Main Street, Honeoye Falls, N.Y. 14472.

FRA identification Nos. FRA-PLE-STAR- 845-F (flasher) and FRA-PLE-STAR-845-C (steady bum).

2. Manufacturer: Julian A. McDermott Corp., 1639 Stephen Street, Ridgewood, Long Island, N .i. 11227.

FRA identification Nos. FRA-MEC-MCD- 100-C (steady bum), FRA-MEC-MCD-100- F (flasher), FRA-MEC-MCD-300-C (steady bum), and FRA-MEC-MCD-300-F (flash­er).

3. Manufacturer: American Electronics, Inc.,1 40 Essex Street, Hackensack, N.J. 07601.

FRA identification Nos. FRA-DRGW- YANK-300 (portable strobe), FRA-WP- YANK-301R (flashing), FRA-WP-YANK- 305R (flashing), and FRA-WP-YANK-306R (steady bum).

PART I I — APPROVED DEVICES TESTED FOR OR BY RAIL CARRIERS

1. Carrier: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., Technical Research & Devel­opment Department, 1001 Northeast Atchi­son Street, Topeka, Kans. 66616.

Manufacturer: Trans-Lite, Inc., P.O. Box 70, Milford, Conn. 06460.

FRA identification Nos. FRA-ATSF-TL- 875-150, FRA-ATSF-TL-875-60, FRA-

‘Note.—Yankee Metal Products Corp. pre­viously produced these devices.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36448

ATSF-TL-875-4412, and FRA-ATSF-TL- 200.

2. Carrier Amtrak—National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 400 North Capitol Street NW.,Washington, D.C. 20001.

Manufacturer: (a) Trans-Lite, Inc., P.O. Box 70, Milford, Conn. 06460.

FRA identification Nos. FRA-ATK-TL- 3895-1, FRA-ATK-TL-4491-2, FRA-ATK- TL-4491-3, and FRA-ATK-TL-FM-4491-1.

Manufacturer: (b) Luminator Division of Gulfton Industries, Inc., 1200 East Dallas North Parkway, Plano, Tex. 75074.

FRA identification No. FRA-ATK-LUM- 0101890-001.

Manufacturer: (c) Whelen EngineeringCo., Inc., Deep River, Conn. 064171 ____

FRA identification No. FRA-ATK-WHE- WERT-12".(Sec. 202, 84 Stat. 971 (45 U.S.C. 431); sec. 1.49(n) of the regulations of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 49 CFR 1.49(B).}

Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 11,1978.

J ohn M. S ullivan, Administrator.

[FR Doc. 78-23090 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-59 ]

CHAPTER V— NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRA­TION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANS­PORTATION

[Docket No. 1-22; Notice 5]PART 571— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

Vehicle Identification NumbersAGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: This notice amends standard No. 115, vehicle identifica­tion number, to extend its applicabil­ity to additional classes of motor vehi­cles and to specify its content and format. The action was undertaken be­cause of the increased use of vehicle identification mumbers by the safety community, and is intended to extend and simplify VIN use.EFFECTIVE DATES: January 1, 1980, for passenger cars; September 1, 1980, for other vehicles.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Nelson Erickson, Office of Vehi­cle Safety Standards, National High­way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20590, 202-426-0854.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 16, 1978, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-

RULES AND REGULATIONS

tion (NHTSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (43 FR 2189) which proposed extending the applica­bility of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 115 dealing with vehicle identification numbers (49 CFR 571.115) to additional classes of vehi­cles and specifying VIN format and content for specific classes of vehicles.

The uses and users of the vehicle identification number (VIN) were dis­cussed in detail in the previous notice. In summary, the VIN is used as the key identifier of a vehicle by motor ve­hicle administrators, manufacturers, insurance companies, law enforcement agencies and the NHTSA, and is the cornerstone of the safety defect recall program. Also discussed in the previ­ous notice were the longstanding ef­forts by several groups in thé United States and abroad to standardize the VIN format and content and the two major and incompatible VIN systems previously proposed by the Interna­tional Standards Organization and the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commis­sion.

The system developed by the Inter­national Standard’s Organization (ISO), with the participation of United States representatives from industry and government, consists of 17 charac­ters and is flexible in terms of content. A second system developed by the Ve­hicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC), working in conjunction with the American Association of Motor Ve­hicle Administrators (AAMVA), con­sists of 16 characters whose character­istics are rigidly defined. While the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associ­ation (MVMA) attempted to establish a compromise position between the ISO and VESC-AAMVA systems by letter to Commissioner C. B. Craig of California (a copy of which was sub­mitted to the docket), neither party appears to have been persuaded to alter their system and both continue to urge that the jurisdictions they serve and the NHTSA adopt their system.

By issuing a proposal which the NHTSA believed was a first step in es­tablishing a better-engineered, more flexible system serving all users to the greatest degree possible, the agency hoped to elicit comments which would aid it in this endeavor. While some comments merely recited their belief that either the ISO or the VESC- AAMVA system should be adopted in toto, most were helpful in their analy­sis of the NHTSA proposal. All com­ments were carefully considered.

The NHTSA concludes it should not change its previous position that nei­ther the ISO nor the VESC-AAMVA systems are sufficient to satisfy the broadest group of potential users of the VIN in the most efficient fashion. In the case of the ISO system, the ligi-

timate needs of the motor vehicle ad­ministrators for descriptive informa­tion concerning the vehicle identified were not met. It should be pointed out the ISO saystem was never meant to serve this need, but merely to identify the vehicle. The VESC-AAMVA sys­tems, on the other hand, while admi­rably suited to the needs of the States did not take into account fully the needs of the manufacturers and the NHTSA. The most significant com­ments concerning the NHTSA propos­al are discussed below.

P reemption

A threshold question discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), but raised again by the com­ments, related to the preemptive effec­tive of the NHTSA standard on non­identical State standards relating to the same aspect of performance (see § 103(d) of the National Highway Traf­fic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This issue was most comprehensively discussed by the Maryland Department of Transporta­tion, which raised two basic points.

First, Maryland called the attention of the agency to the preamble of the notice which originally established Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 115 (33 FR 10207). As originally es­tablished in 1968, the Standard did not specify requirements regarding either the content or the format of the VIN. In that notice, the Administrator stated that State laws relating to iden­tifying numbers used for titling pur­poses did not conflict with the stand­ard as then drafted and therefore were not preempted.

The question, however, is not wheth­er standard No. 115 as originally issued 10 years ago preempted State standards, but whether the expanded standard regarding VIN format and content being promulgated today pre­empts the States in regulating this aspect of the VIN. As stated in the ad­vance notice of proposed rulemaking (41 FR 38189) and the NPRM, and as reiterated here it is the agency’s view that standard No. 115 as promulgated by this notice fully occupies the area of VIN format and content and pre­empts State and local requirements re­lating to the same matter.

The second legal argument raised by Maryland is that by establishing the format and content of the VIN, the NHTSA is “unabashedly violating fun­damental constitutional principles of federalism.” The gist of Maryland’s ar­gument, as we understand it, is that establishing the content and format of the VIN makes it necessary for the States to purchase computers and re­cordkeeping equipment and thereby makes them “quasi-departments and instrumentalities” of the NHTSA. In support of their position, they cite Na-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

tional League of Cities v. Usery., 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245(1976).

The NHTSA finds no merit in this argument. National League of Cities v. Usery concerned the direct imposition of Federal minimum wage standards by Congress on the States with an ad­ditional cost of millions of dollars in State employee salaries and an effect which curtailed the ability of the States to carry on a number of their essential functions. The result of the implementation of standard No. 115 has no greater effect on the States than do any of the other Federal Safety Standards which prescribe minimum performance standards for and affect the cost of vehicles which the States purchase. Further, there is no indication in the docket that the VIN format and content established by this notice, as compared to that contained in the VESC-AAMVA system, will have a substantial effect on the States or, as put in Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 95 S. Ct. 1792, 44 L. Ed. 2d 363 (1975), impair- their “ability to function effectively in a Federal system”.

A final argument relating to the pre­emption issue which was raised in some comments is that the NHTSA has failed to consult with the VESC, as required by § 103(f)(2) of the Na­tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.1392(f)(2)) and therefore the issuance of a revised Standard No. 115 is inval­id. The plain words of the statute and the legislative history of the Act show clearly that the process contemplated was advising the VESC of NHTSA pro­posals by issuing them and receiving the VESC comments. In this instance, comments were received from the VESC and carefully considered.

International H armonization

An important issue raised by most foreign manufacturers, the U.S. De­partment of Commerce, and the Presi­dent’s Special Representative for trade negotiations, Ambassador Robert S. Strauss, was the incompatibility of the NHTSA proposal with the internation­al standard adopted by the Interna­tional Standards Organization and, subsequently, by the European Eco­nomic Community. This issue was raised not only in relation to the goal of international harmonization of na­tional standards, but also the need to avoid the creation of unnecessary in­ternational obstacles to trade. In this regard, Mr. Strauss noted that a pro­posed code of conduct on preventing technical barriers to trade was under negotiation in the multilateral trade negotiations. This code would encour­age adherents to use relevant interna­tional standards as the basis for na-

RULES A ND REGULATIONS

tional standards, except where their use would be inappropriate.

The NHTSA, as a rule, establishes its motor vehicle safety standards out­side the channels of multilateral nego­tiations. NHTSA does recognize, how­ever, the desirability and importance of fostering international cooperation wherever feasible and unfailingly reg­ulates all manufacturers, be they do­mestic or foreign, in the same equita­ble fashion. Indeed, it was in this spirit that the NHTSA participated in the meetings which led to the creation of a number of ISO standards and pro­posals, including the one for the ISO VIN system.

However, through comments re­ceived during the rulemaking process, the NHTSA has become aware of the significantly greater potential of the VIN than is realized under the ISO system, both in terms of the amount of information which it can contain and its utility to various users. The ef­forts of the parties creating the VESC-AAMVA system and the ISO system, as well as their frank and forthright comments concerning the NHTSA proposals, have established clearly the parameters of VIN useful­ness and the needs of the users.

Consequently, in developing a VIN format and content which allows it to be used in the most efficient fashion— a goal which all parties agree to—the agency believes it is establishing a VIN system whose merit can and will be recognized by all. Of key importance to the agency in this belief are two facts. First, the VIN format as adopted by the NHTSA is not incompatible with that adopted by the ISO. Fur­ther, it is in almost all ways compati­ble with the VESC-AAMVA system.

The first section of the NHTSA VIN which serves as a maker identifier is fully compatible with the systems pro­posed by the VESC-AAMVA and the ISO. Likewise the third section of the NHTSA VIN which serves as a vehicle indicator is fully compatible with the systems proposed by the VESC- AAMVA and the ISO. The second sec­tion of the NHTSA VIN, which serves as a vehicle description, is somewhat different in structure than that con­tained in the other two systems. How­ever, it meets the informational needs of the VESC-AAMVA, while allowing the manufacturers the flexibility af­forded by the ISO system coupled with the format which the ISO adopt­ed.

Second, the ISO system, while adopted in Europe, has yet to be im­plemented by the manufacturers. The NHTSA sincerely hopes that the ISO, after considering the slight variations to its systems adopted by the agency, will modify its system to make it con­sistent with the NHTSA rule. In this

36449

way, international harmonization can be assured.

I nformation Coding and R etrieval T echniques

A short discussion of information coding and retrieval techniques will be helpful in understanding the VIN standard. . )

Information may be directly ob­tained from a series of alpha and nu­meric characters. For example, “FORD” indicates the name of an automobile manufacturer without fur­ther translation. The same manufac­turer may also be represented by a single character, such as “F”, but that character must be deciphered to deter­mine whether it represents Ford, Fiat or some other manufacturer. This process is called coding and decoding.

To decode a character, a “table look up” process is used. The dictionary may be either a reference document or a computer. In both instances, the character “F” will be assigned a mean­ing in the table, such as “F” means Ford, and looking up either “F” or Ford will allow its meaning to be de­termined.

The Character “F” may represent more than one piece of information, however, even though it is a single character. It can represent the name of a manufacture, e.g., Ford, the model of a vehicle produced by Ford, e.g., Pinto, and any other characteris­tics which the vehicle coded “F” has. This process is similar to a social secu­rity number which can be used as a key to a considerable amount of infor­mation about the individual to whom that number is assigned.

As a practical matter, this means that a manufacturer can encode more than five pieces of information in a five character code word. For example, if all 1980 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu Estate Station Wagons were in the same weight class and contained the same restraint system, there would be no need to directly encode this infor­mation.

If a 1 character alpha/numeric coding system is used, there can only be 35 different unique codes (A-Z, 1- 9). For example, if the social security number consisted of only one charac­ter, only 35 individuals could be identi­fied. Therefore, to increase the number of possible codes, more than 1 character is used. If 2 characters are used, there are 1225 possible codes; if 3 characters are used, there are 42,875 possible codes; if 4 characters are used, there are 1,500,625 possible codes; and if 5 characters are used, there are 52,521,875 possible codes. The number of possible codes increases exponen­tially as the number of characters within the code increases.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36450

P urpose and S cope

Several comments to the docket Questioned whether the standard would be useful in simplifying vehicle certification. While the presence of a VIN on the certification label uniquely identifies the vehicle being certified and avoids the need for considerable additional identifying information concerning that vehicle, it is a second­ary purpose and has therefore been eliminated as a rationale for promul­gation of the standard from the Pur­pose and Scope section.

Application

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association and a number of individu­al trailer manufacturers strongly op­posed the inclusion of truck trailers within the requirements of Standard No. 115. In support of their position, they pointed to the small size of many trailer manufacturers and their lack of access to sophisticated computer equipment. They also pointed to the lack of data relating to a serious safety problem involving trailer theft. Final­ly, they pointed to the overall govern­ment desire to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses.

The NHTSA considered carefully the issues raised by the trailer manu­facturers. It concluded that the need for a unified VIN system outweighed the argument of these manufacturers. If States and other users, as well as recall campaigns, are going to estab­lish computer capacity based on a 16 character plus check digit VIN system, allowing a different system will create substantial confusion and perhaps the loss of trailer VIN’s within the data base because of their aberrant format. Further, the use of a standardized VIN format will allow for the effective tracing of trailers for accident investi­gation purposes and the use of hidden partial VINs as a law enforcement tool.

In order to deal with the real prob­lems facing the small manufacturer, however, much of the data proposed to be required of the trailer manufac­turers has been eliminated. To the extent a limited number of models are produced, the necessary information can be simply represented. The first three characters would represent the maker identifier. The next five charac­ters indicates the model in whatever fashion the manufacturer chooses. Thus, four of these characters could be standarized and only the fifth would be variable if only a limited number of models are made. The deri­vation of the next character, the check digit, is easily dealt with by the use of an inexpensive, hand held cal­culator. The representation of the plant and model year could also be standardized. The determination of the trailer’s production sequence, par-

RULES AND REGULATIONS

ticularly with a $mall annual output, should not be difficult. The informa­tion which is unique to a vehicle can be added to its VIN when the certifica­tion label is prepared.

A definition of “manufacturer” has been added to make clear that the final stage manufacturer is responsible for assigning and affixing the VIN.

Based on the suggestion of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associ­ation, the term “type” has been substi­tuted for the term “class”, but the definition remains the same.

The definition of “model year” is al­tered to limit the actual period of a model year to just under two calendar years. The NHTSA concludes this will deal with the problem of multi-year model years raised by the AAMVA comment.

R equirements

Several of the commenters ex­pressed the view that affixing a tam­perproof label which could not be re­moved intact was a better method of displaying the VIN than stamping it on a separate plate which was affixed to the vehicle. The language of § 4.3 is amended to indicate this is permissi­ble. Volvo commented that the phrase “sunk into or embossed” was techni­cally limiting, and the language is therefore broadened to read “appear clearly and indelibly.” The agency also wishes to call to the attention of the manufacturers selecting the option providing for a separate plate that whether or not a plate is “permanent­ly affixed” is a matter which the agency intends to examine carefully.

Legibility R equirements

Many manufacturers commented un­favorably on the comprehensive leg­ibility and positioning requirements of the VIN, stating they were design re­strictive and unnecessary. In support of their position, they also pointed to increased retooling expenses and an increase in the size of the VIN plate if the requirements were adopted.

Consequently, the NHTSA concludes that it will limit its legibility require­ments to the minimum necessary to ensure an accurate reading of the VIN. These specify a minimum character height of 4 mm and that only capital, sans serif characters appearing on a contrasting background shall be used. If future data indicates these require­ments are not sufficient, they will be strengthened. §4.3.1 and §4.5 are therefore substantially amended and § 4.4.1 is deleted.

S ection I—M aker I dentifier

The use of the first three characters of the VIN to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type (previ­ously-designated “class“) of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer produces

500 or more vehicles of its class annu­ally is retained as proposed. The use of the first three characters of the VIN and the first three characters of the segment of the VIN which indicates the production sequence of the vehicle to identify manufacturers of less than 500 vehicles in a class annually is also retained.

The AAMVA comment in relation to the maker identifier requirement was that motor vehicle administrators reg­ister vehicles by make, never by manu­facturer. Consequently, the require­ment was said to be “totally redun­dant”. Foreign manufacturers, on the other hand, point out that a make classification is essentially a United States phenomenom, and is therefore not important. However, under the NHTSÀ proposal neither manufactur­er nor make is directly represented in the identifier. If State motor vehicle administrators are concerned only with a vehicle make, they need only program their data processing equip­ment to derive the make from the three character identifier code. If for­eign manufacturers do not utilize the make designation, then they need only advise the NHTSA of this fact when they submit information to the agency relating to the meaning of their identi­fier.

The Society of Automotive Engi­neers (SAE) pointed -out its work in the area of manufacturer identifica­tion and volunteered to be the reposi­tory and assignor of maker identifiers. The NHTSA must accept, of course, the ultimate responsibility concerning maker identifiers. The standard pro­vides, however, that an agent of a manufacturer can submit the maker identifier. The NHTSA would welcome the SAE carrying out these responsi­bilities as the agent of manufacturers, thus avoiding the potential confusion and initial duplication forecasted by many comments.

Section II—Vehicle Attributes

Section II of the VIN, relating to ve­hicle attributes, caused the most con­fusion among those commenting. The AAMVA and VESC strongly opposed the NHTSA vehicle attributes section proposal, although the differences be­tween th e , VESC-AAMVA system and the NHTSA system were minimal.

Under the VESC system, there would be five characters in the vehicle attribute section. The first four char­acters would be a “code word” from which a vehicle’s line, series and body type could be deciphered and the fifth would be a second “code word” deci­pherable into the engine type. Under the NHTSA proposal, the vehicle attri­bute section would have consisted of six characters representing a “code word” from which the information re­quired by the VESC as well as addi-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

tional information the NHTSA be­lieved was important could be deci­phered. Thus, the difference between the VESC and NHTSA resolved itself into the amount of information con­tained and the use of two code words versus one code word.

While many commenters recom­mended the use of the VESC system because of its fixed-length, fixed-field format, particularly in the second sec­tion, both systems were of a fixed length and, except for a specific posi­tion to represent engine type, both had the same degree of a fixed field.

After a review of the comments, the NHTSA has determined that all of the information proposed to be required is not necessary at this time as discussed below. Consequently, only five charac­ters are needed in the vehicle attri­butes section to allow for an adequate number of code words to represent the required information. Because of this change the designation of the plant of manufacture has been moved to the third section as is discussed below. Further, the sixth character of this section has been replaced by the check digit as is also discussed below.

It would be useful at this time to review the NHTSA requirements for the vehicle attributes section promul­gated in this notice as compared with the VESC-AAMVA and ISO systems.

A typical NHTSA vehicle attribute section for a passenger car would appear as follows: RX6302

The first five characters would be a code word from which is deciphered the line, series, body type, engine type, weight class, and restraint type. The sixth character would be the check digit. It should be noted that, the check digit need not be stored in a computer memory bank, as it can be regenerated during print out.

A typical VESC-AAMVA vehicle at­tribute section for a passenger car would appear as follows: RX63D

The first four characters would be a code word from which is deciphered the line, series and body type. The fifth character would be a code word decipherable into the engine type.

A typical ISO vehicle attribute sec­tion for a passenger car would appear as follows: RX63D2

All six characters would be decipher­able into a series of discretionary vehi­cle attributes.

INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Many commenters indicated that they believed much of the information required by the agency to be decipher­able from the vehicle attribute section was not necessary. After a review of the comments, the NHTSA has deter­mined to require for passenger cars only that information required by the VESC-AAMVA system and informa­tion relating to weight class and occu-

RULES AND REGULATIONS

pant restraint type. Information re­quirements for the other type of vehi­cles are also reduced.

Several comments pointed out that only the final stage manufacturer would be able to assign the VIN as the vehicle’s characteristics would not be known until that time. The comments also pointed out this raised a problem when a defect campaign was required of it first or second stage manufactur­er. To ease this problem, the NHTSA has concluded that the identity of any previous manufacturers should be de­cipherable from the vehicle attribute section. This procedure has been de­veloped by the Society of Automotive Engineers for their recommended practice for motor home vehicle iden­tification numbers. The agency also assumes that manufacturers will keep sufficient records pursuant to their re­sponsibilities under the National Traf­fic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to trace incompleted vehicles sold to final stage manufacturers.

Because of the flexibility afforded by the five character vehicle attribute section, further information could be required in the future without any change in the VIN format as estab­lished by this rule.

S e c t io n I I I — V e h ic l e I d e n t if ie r

MODEL YEAR

The NPRM proposed that either a vehicle’s model year or the calendar year of manufacture be encoded in the first character of the vehicle identifier section. Many comments suggested this would be confusing, and that only model year should be encoded as this is thq^ most representative category. The NHTSA concurs in this view, andS4.5.3.1 is amended accordingly. While one comment suggested including a direct two digit code representing the last two numbers of the year, the NHTSA concludes that there is not sufficient space in the VIN to include two characters as a year identifier.

PLANT OF MANUFACTURE

Numerous comments were made re­lating to what was perceived as option­al identification of the plant of manu­facturé in the NHTSA proposal. As the proposal stated, however, the plant of manufacture was required to be identifiable either directly from the last character of the vehicle attributes section or indirectly from the entire VIN. At no time was the inclusion of the plant of manufacture made op­tional.

After reviewing the comments to the docket from the manufacturers, how­ever, the NHTSA has concluded that the added flexibility of allowing the plant to be derived from the entire VIN rather than a specific character is not necessary, and that the more tra-

36451

ditional approach as embodied in the VESC-AAMVA and the ISO systems should be established. Consequently, plant of manufacture is now required to be designated in the second charac­ter of the third section (vehicle attri­butes section).

PRODUCTION SEQUENCE NUMBER

The NPRM proposed that the last six characters represent the sequential number of a vehicle when the manu­facturer produced more than 500 vehi­cles annually of that type. The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association stated that some of their members might desire to keep secret for com­petitive purposes the number of vehi­cles they produce annually. Since a manufacturer may begin his sequence at any number, however, so long as the order thereafter is maintained in sequence, the actual number of vehi­cles produced can be kept secret.

A number of comments pointed out that for various reasons a vehicle might be taken from a production line, thereby having an actual sequential number which differs from the pro­duction sequence number originally assigned by the manufacturer. The proposal is amended to indicate that the production sequence number is re­quired. Other comments questioned how the system could deal with manu­facturers who produced less than 500 vehicles in a class one year and more than 500 in the next. It should be noted that occasional overruns can be accommodated up to a total of 999 ve­hicles annually without the assign­ment of a different manufacturer identifier.

C h e c k D ig it

The requirement for a check digit is retained as proposed, but the check digit itself is repositioned within the VIN. Many commenters stated that the system proposed by the VESC- AAMVA, utilizing a computer “edit routine” as well designating many characters as either alpha or numeric, would be more efficient in reducing errors.

Both the check digit and the edit routine procedures are designed to reduce errors. The edit routine process analyzes the VIN in two areas. First, it considers the basic format utilized by a manufacturer, thereby discovering format errors. Second, it considers whether characters which should be either alpha or numeric meet these re­quirements. Thus, the edit routine can pinpoint with some accuracy where certain errors occur in a VIN.

The check digit routine, however, is able to discover errors missed by the edit routine process, such as mistaken characters of the same type (alpha or numeric). The check digit when used in conjunction with an edit routine

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36452

can find a greater proportion of errors than can be found using the basic edit routine proposed by some com- menters. Further, the check digit, unlike the edit routine which needs substantial data processing capability to be utilized, can be utilized by police­men or clerks equipped with an inex­pensive handheld calculator.

As a practical matter, the NHTSA expects that many users of VINs will utilize a combination of the two rou­tines to minimize VIN error. Thus, the format of a VIN will be checked against that expected for a particular manufacturer and the check digit will be utilized to ensure that VINs which are properly formatted also contain the proper alpha and numeric charac­ters.

Given the fact that both approaches would reduce the error rate, the NHTSA concluded that it would uti­lize the check digit since its use did not limit the flexibility of the system. The fixed format proposed by VESC/ AAMVA did the information they sought. However, other users of the VIN, notably the manufacturers and the research community, were nqt pro­vided the flexibility to make use of the potential capacity in the VIN to pro­vide additional information.

Several of the commenters, particu­larly those from the insurance indus­try, raised the questions of whether the check digit would be utilized by all users and the inability to determine the correctness of the VIN if the check digit was not used. While the authority of the NHTSA extends only to motor vehicle manufacturers, the agency fully expects all users interest­ed in maintaining the integrity of their records to utilize the VIN with the check digit.

Some commenters also stated their fear that when the VIN was reported from the field, some observers might neglect to include the check digit. Consequently, the check digit has been repositioned from the end of the VIN to the end of the second section to make it an integral part of the VIN.

Several commenters questioned the need for the check digit, pointing to the experience of the State of North Carolina in reducing its VIN transcrip­tion error rate to less than 1 percent without the benefit of either a check digit or alpha/numeric designation re­quirements. The NHTSA would seri­ously consider any petitions for recon­sideration which clearly demonstrate that neither a check digit nor alpha/ numeric designation requirements is necessary to substantially reduce error in transcribing the VIN.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Some commenters questioned the NHTSA proposal in that it allows manufacturers to display information

RULES AND REGULATIONS

in a unique format and to change that format with 60 days notice to NHTSA. They felt this would create confusion and the added expense of continual re­programming.

However, it should be noted that the VESC-AAMVA system also allows manufacturers that same right, i.e., the right to change the code which represents various informational ele­ments, but makes no provision for ad­vance warning. Indeed, the VESC- AAMVA system is silent as to how the users of the VIN will be informed of the meaning of the characters adopted by manufacturers. Consequently, no change is made to the reporting re­quirements as proposed by the agency. It should be noted that the NHTSA does not anticipate that manufactur­ers will have any need to change codes within model years.

The principal authors of this notice are Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division and Frederic Schwartz, Jr., of the Office of Chief Counsel.

In consideration of the foregoing, standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115 is re­vised to read as follows:§ 571.115 Standard No. 115; Vehicle Identi­

fication Number.51. Purpose and scope. This stand­

ard specifies requirements for a vehi­cle identification system to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to reduce the incidence of accidents by increasing the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle defect recall campaigns.

52. Application. This standard ap­plies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trail­ers, and motorcycles.

53. Definitions. “Body type” means the general configuration or shape of a vehicle distinguished by such charac­teristics as the number of doors or windows, cargo-carrying features and the roofline (e.g., sedan, fastback, hatchback).

“Check digit” means a single number or the letter X used to verify the accuracy of the transcription of the vehicle identification number.

“Engine Type” means a power source with specifically defined char­acteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement, manufacturer and horsepower.

“Line” means a name which a manu­facturer applies to a family of vehicles within a make which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type.

“Make” means a name which a man­ufacturer applies to a group of vehi­cles.

“Manufacturer” means the entity re­sponsibility for affixing the vehicle’s certification label.

‘-Model” means the term applied to a family of vehicles of the same type, make, line, series, and body type.

“Model Year” means the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually pro­duced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years.

“Plant of manufacture” means the plant where the completed vehicle is assembled.

“Series” means a name which a man­ufacturer applies to a subdivision of a “line” denoting price, size or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing pur­poses.

“Type” means a class of vehicle dis­tinguished by common traits, includ­ing design and purpose. Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles are separate types.

“Vehicle identification number” means a series of arabic numbers and roman letters which is assigned to a motor vehicle for identification pur­poses.

S4. Requirements.54.1 Each vehicle shall have a vehi­

cle identification number that is as­signed by the manufacturer and a check digit which meet the require­ments of this standard.

54.2 The vehicle identification num­bers of any twa vehicles manufactured within a 30 year period shall not be identical.

54.3 The vehicle identification number and check digit of each vehi­cle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair" or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.

54.3.1 The type face utilized for the vehicle identification number and check digit shall consist of capital, sans serif characters and shall appear on a contrasting background. Each character shall have a minimum height of 4 mm.

54.4 The vehicle identification number and check digit for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located inside the passenger compartment. They shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glaz­ing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar.

54.5 VIN basic content The VIN shall consist of three sections of char­acters and shall be grouped according­ly.

54.5.1 The first section shall consist of three characters which uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36453

type of the motor vehicle if its manu­facturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, the first and second characters may be determined by the manufacturer, the third character shall be the number 9, and the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle shall be identified in accordance with S4.5.3.3.

S4.5.2 The second section shall con­sist of five characters which shall uniquely identify the attributes of the vehicle as specified in Table I. The characters utilized and their place­ment within the section may be deter­mined by the manufacturer, but the specified attributes must be decipher­able with information supplied by the manufacturer under S6. In submitting data to the NHTSA relating to the gross vehicle weight rating, the follow­ing designations shall be utilized. No designations are specified for the VIN.

A. Not greater than 1,000 pounds.B. 1,000 pounds to 1,500 pounds.C. 1,500 pounds to 2,000 pounds.D. 2,000 pounds to 2,500 pounds.E; 2,500 pounds to 3,000 pounds.F. 3,000 pounds to 3,500 pounds.G. 3,500 pounds to 4,000 pounds.H. 4,000 pounds to 4,500 pounds.I. 4,500 pounds to 5,000 pounds.J. 5,000 pounds to 5,500 pounds.K. 5,500 pounds to 6,000 pounds.L. 6,000 pounds to 6,500 pounds.M. 6,500 pounds to 7,000 pounds.N. 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds.O. 7,500 pounds to 8,000 pounds.P. 8,000 pounds to 8,500 pounds.Q. 8,500 pounds to 9,000 pounds.R. 9,000 pounds to 9,500 pounds.S. 9,500 pounds to 10,000 pounds.T. Over 10,000 pounds.

T able I

Type of vehicle Information decipherable

Passenger Car........ Line, series, body type, engine type, gross vehicle weight rating, and restraint system type.

Multipurpose Line, series, body type, enginepassenger vehicle. type, and gross vehicle

weight rating.Truck....................... Model or line, series, chassis,

cab type, engine type, brake system, and gross vehicle weight rating.

Bus......................... . Model or line, series, body type, engine type, and brake system.

Trailer.................... i Type of trailer, series, body type, length, and axle configuration.

Motorcycle.............. Type of motorcycle, line, and brake horsepower.

The incomplete manufacturer(s) of iany vehicle completed by a final stage manufacturer as defined in Part 567 of this title shall also be decipherable.

S4.5.3 The third section shall consist of eight characters, of which the fifth through the eighth shall be numerical.

S4.5.3.1 The first character of the third section shall represent the vehi­cle model year. The year shall be des­ignated as indicated in Table II.

T able IIYean

1980 ......................................1981 ......................................1982 ....... .............................1983 ............... .....................1984 ............... .....................1985 .............................. ......1986 .............................. ......1987 .....................................1988 .... ................................1989 ....... ................. ..........1990 .....................................1991 .....................................1992 ................ ................. .1993 .....................................1994 .....................................1995 ....... .............................1996 .....................................1997 ....... .............................1998 .....................................1999 ............. ......... .............2000 ...................................2001............. ..........................2002................. .....................2003 .....................................2004 .....................................2005 .....................................2006 .. .'.................................2007 ...... ...............................2008 ............................. .......2009 ....................................2010 .....................................2011............. !..........................2012.............. ..........................

CodeABCD£PGHJKLMNPRSTV W XY 1 2345678 9 A B C

54.5.3.2 The second character of the third section shall represent the plant of manufacture.

54.5.3.3 The third through the eighth characters of the third section shall represent the production se­quence number of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the third section, combined with the three characters of the first sec­tion, shall uniquely identify the manu^ facturer, make and type of the motor' vehicle and the sixth, seventh, andl eighth character of the third section; shall represent the production se­quence number of the motor vehicle.

S4.6 Characters. Each character used in a vehicle identification number shall be one of the arabic numbers or roman letters set forth in Table III.

T able IIINumbers:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0Letters:

A B C D E F G H J K L M N P R S T U V W X YZ

All spaces provided for in the vehicle identification number must be occu­pied by a character specified in table III.

S5. Check digit55.1 A check digit shall be provided

with each vehicle identification number. The check digit shall immedi­ately follow the fifth character of the second section and appear on any transfer documents containing the ve­hicle identification number and pre­pared by the manufacturer to be given to the first owner for purposes other than resale.

S5.3 The check digit is determined by carrying out the mathematical computation specified in S5.3.1.-S5.3.4.

55.3.1 Assign to each number in the vehicle identification number its actual mathematical value and assign to each letter the value specified for it in table IV:

A=1T able IV

J=9 T=8B=2 K = 1 U=9C=3 L=2 V=1D=4 M=3 W=2E = 5 N=4 X=3F=6 P=5 Y=4G=7 R=6 Z=5H = 8 S=7

S5.3.2. Multiply the assigned value for each character in the vehicle iden­tification number by the weight factor specified for it in table V. Multiply the check digit by 0.

T able VWeightfactor

Character:1st....................... 82d................................... >............................... 73d....................... .....................................i...... 64 th .................................................................. 55 th ......................................... 46 th .................... .«........................................... 37 th .................................................................. 28 th .................................................................. 109th (Check Digit)......................................... 010th............................. 911th.... ............................................................ 812th......................................... 713th................................................................ 614th............ .................................................... 515th.................................................... 416th....................................................... 317th................................................................. 2

55.3.3. Add the resulting products and divide the total by 11.

55.3.4. The remainder is the check digit. If .the remainder is 10, the check digit is X.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36454 RULES AND REGULATIONS

example : U.S.C. 1902)). The adoption of a Boardseal marked the status of the Board as

Vehicle Identi­fication Number Character 1 G 4 A H E 9 » H 4 5 G i l 8 3 4 1

an independent agency of the Federal Government and was given publication in the F ederal R egister by the adop-

Assigned Value 1 7 4 1 8 5 9 8 5 7 1 1 8 3 4 1

tion (designation and revision) of a new set of Board regulations, includ­ing a new Part 803—Official Seal, set-

Multiply by Weight Factor 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

ting forth the uses to which the seal/ could be put (40 FR 30238; published! July 17,1975).

Add Products 8+ 49+24+5+ 32+15+18+80+0+45+56+7+ 6+ 40+12+12+2=411

The seal that was adopted did not convey the Federal Government con-i notations that are conveyed by the

Divide by 11 411/11 = 37 4/11Board’s newly adopted seal.

Accordingly, § 803.1 of Chapter VIII, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,

Check Digit 4 (compare to character in 9 thi position) is amended to read as follows: \S6. Reporting requirements.56.1 Manufacturers of motor vehi­

cles subject to this standard shall submit, either directly or through an agent, the unique identifier for each make and class of vehicle it manufac­tures by January 1,1979.

56.2 Manufacturers which begin pro­duction of motor vehicles subsequent to January L, 1979, shall submit, either directly or through an agent, the unique identifier for each make and ria-ss of vehicle it manufactures at least 30 days before affixing the first vehicle identification number. Manu­facturers whose unique identifier ap­pears in the third section of the vehi­cle identification number shall also submit the three characters of the first section which constitute a part of their identifier.

56.3 Each manufacturer shall submit at least 60 days before affixing the first VIN which meets the require­ments of this standard the informa­tion necessary to decipher the charac­ters contained in the second section of its vehicle identification numbers as required by S4.5.2. Any amendments to this information shall be submitted at least 60 days before affixing a vehi­cle identification number utilizing an amended coding.

56.4 Information required to be sub­mitted under this section shall be ad­dressed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­tion, 400 Seventh Street SW., Wash­ington, D.C. 20590, Attention: VIN Coordinator.(Secs. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407); delegation of authority at 49 CPR 1.50.)

Issued on August 11,1978.J oan Claybrook,

Administrator.(PR Doc. 78-22865 Piled 8-11-78; 4:03 pm]

[4910-58]CHAPTER V III— NATIONAL

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

PART 803— OFFICIAL SEAL

Change in Design o f Official SealAGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board.ACTION: Pinal rule.SUMMARY: The purpose of this amendment to part 803 of the regula­tions of the National Transportation Safety Board (49 CFR Part 803) is to reflect a change in the design of the Board’s seal that has been adopted in the interest of ready recognition of the Board’s status as an independent agency of the Federal Government charged with the investigation of transportation accidents. In exercising the Board’s investigatory functions, it is imperative that Board officials be readily recognized as agents of theU.S. Government by the many State and local officials and other members of the public with whom they work in carrying out the Board’s responsibil­ities.EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fritz L. Puls, General Counsel, Na­tional Transportation Safety Board, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20594, telephone 202-472-6033.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board adopted an official seal in 1975 when authorized to do so by Con­gress by virtue of section 303(c)(2) of the Independent Safety-Board Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-633, 88 Stat. 2168 (49

§ 803.1 Description.The official seal of the National

Transportation Safety Board is de­scribed as follows: An American bald1 eagle with wings displayed, holding in his dexter (right) talon an olive branch and in his sinister (left) talon, a bundle of 13 arrows; above his head is a scroll inscribed “E Pluribus Unum,” bearing a shield with vertical stripes of alternating white and red, crowned by a field of blue, all within an encircling, inscription “National Transportation Safety Board.” When illustrated in color, the background is white. The wings, the body, and the upper portion of the legs of the eagle are shades of brown; the head, neck, and tail are white; the beak, feet, and lower portion of the legs are gold. The inscription on the scroll is black. The encircling inscription is the same shade of gold as the eagle’s beak. The arrows and the olive branch are a lighter shade of gold. The red and blue of the shield are national flag red and blue. The official seal of the Board, in black and white, appears below:

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Signed at Washington, D.C., on August 11,1978.

James B. K ing, Chairman.

[PR Doc. 78-23032 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7035-01]

CHAPTER X— INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

SUBCHAPTER B— PRACTICE A N D PROCEDURE

[Ex. Parte No. 293 (Sub-No. 3)]

PART 1126— SUBMISSION OF COST DATA TO JUSTIFY REIMBURSEMENT FOR DIRECTED SERVICE

Implementation; Regional Rail Reor* ganization Act of 1973— Submis­sion of Cost Data To Justify Reim­bursement

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Com­mission.ACTION: Interim rule.SUMMARY: Under section 1(16Kb) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. l(16)(b), the Commission has authority to direct a rail carrier to per­form essential transportation services which another carrier is no longer able to perform, for a period of 60 days (or an extended period of no more than 240 days).

The existing regulations implement­ing section l(16)(b) anticipate pay­ment of the operating deficit upon completion of the directed-service period. As a result, the Commission must select as a directed carrier one which has, or can borrow, sufficient cash to meet start-up costs. The carri­er must also be able to absorb tempo­rarily any operating losses incurred. There may be instances in which no carrier with sufficient financial re­sources is available. Therefore, the Commission proposes to change its regulations to provide for earlier pay­ments to meet a directed carrier’s cash requirements.

A three-stage funding procedure is contemplated. First a directed carrier would receive an immediate payment to cover start-up costs. Second, on the basis of periodic carrier reports on op­erations and cash position, additional moneys would be paid out to remedy any serious cash flow problems. Final­ly, on completion of the directed serv­ice, a final accounting would be made. The Commission would pay any amount determined still owing to the directed carrier. On the other hand, if the directed carrier has received more than it is entitled to, the difference

would be payable to the Commission 30 days after determination of the amount.

The proposed cash funding proce­dures will be made effective immedi­ately, as interim rules, pending consid­eration of their appropriateness as final rules. Although we do not antici­pate any directed service orders in the near future, we believe that the need for cash funding is so great that a pro­cedure should be available in case any directed service orders may have to be issued before final rules have been considered.DATES: The proposed procedures will be effective as interim procedures im­mediately August 17,1978.

Comments must be received on or before September 18,1978.ADDRESS: Send comments to Office of the Secretary, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C. 20423.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward J. Schack, 202-275-7580.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority to order directed service is to be used as an interim emergency measure to prevent severe transporta­tion and economic dislocations result­ing from the cessation of services. The Commission is required to reimburse the directed carrier for any deficits in­curred in the performance of the di­rected services. Furthermore, the Commission may not direct operations that would substantially impair the ability of the directed carrier to serve adequately its own patrons or to meet its outstanding common carrier obliga­tions.

Both the statute and the existing regulations contemplate payment of all deficits after completion of the di­rected service period. When the Com­mission adopted its regulations, it was presumed that the directed carrier would be able to borrow the necessary operating fluids, allowing its claim to reimbursement to be assigned to the lending institution. See “Regional Rail Reorg. Act—Submission of Cost Data,” 348 I.C.C. 251, 276 (1975).

However, present circumstances indi­cate that earlier payment may be nec­essary to ensure the provision of ade­quate service. Class I railroads are facing bankruptcy and experiencing cash shortages. A directed carrier may not have sufficient funds available to meet the large start-up costs. Further­more, the directed carrier may not be able to absorb temporarily the operat­ing losses from the directed service and still maintain a proper cash flow. Some directed carriers may be in such poor financial condition themselves

3645Ethat financial institutions may be re­luctant to supply funds.

To effectuate the statutory program and ensure that directed service wili be available when needed, we propose to revise our regulations to provide foi payments to meet a directed carrier’s cash requirements. The proposed pro cedures are designed to be flexible anc not to impose any great burden on the directed carrier. By using these proce­dures, the directed service will not impair the carrier’s own services or its ability to meet its obligations.

As proposed, the following section would be added to Part 1126 of the Commission’s regulations.§ 1126.3 Optional cash funding proce­

dures.(a) The directed carrier may elect to

obtain cash funding from the Commis­sion following the procedure set forth below. The funding procedure is sepa­rated into three phases. The first Is designed to meet the directed carrier’s immediate requirements to institute service. The second is an interim ac­counting and adjustment under which any serious cash flow problems will be remedied. The third phase is the final accounting after completion of the service and computation of the total account reimbursible.

(1) All reports filed should refer to the appropriate ICC account numbers.

(2) The records of the directed carri­er relating to the directed service will be subject to continuing audit by the Commission.

(b) Initial funding. The initial fund­ing is intended to cover the immediate deficit to be incurred through cash ex­penditures that must be made before compensating revenues can be gener­ated. Permissible costs which might require lead funding include:

(1) Payroll costs necessary for as­signment of crews;

(2) Immediate maintenance of way or line repairs necessary to make a line operational or in compliance with safety standards;

(3) Fuel and supplies;(4) Immediate rental or maintenance

costs for equipment to be used (other than rental payments to the default­ing carrier);

(5) That portion of overhead alloca­ble to developing the initial operating plan; and

(6) Any other immediate cash re­quirements.To enable the Commission to deter­mine initial cash requirements, the di­rected carrier is required to submit the following items.

(i) A brief description of its initial operating plan for the directed service, outlining the frequency and schedule

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36456

of service planned, the personnel and equipment to be utilized, the crew change and interchange points to be observed, any immediate maintenance and repair work required, and its fuel and supply needs.

(ii) A statement of its immediate cash requirements, with any support­ing evidence deemed necessary.

(iii) A statement of the forecasted costs and revenues attributable to the directed service for the 60 day period, with appropriate explanatory notes.These are to be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after issuance of the directed service order. After the Commission has de­termined the initial cash require­ments, it will certify to the Treasury Department that this amount is imme­diately payable.

(C) Interim accounting. The interim accounting procedure consists of a report filed by the directed carrier at the end of each 30-day period follow­ing institution of the directed service. In addition, the carrier may file a report whenever it is experiencing severe cash flow difficulties and de­sires additional interim funding. The interim reports must contain:

(1 ) A statement of any revisions to the operating plan.

(2) An unaudited cash flow state­ment for the period since its last report, and an explanation of any re­quests for additional cash.

(3) An unaudited statement of costs and revenues attributable to the di­rected service since its institution, and a statement of the forecasted costs and revenues for the remainder of the directed service period.

(d) Final accounting. The final ac­counting report, to be filed within 180 days after completion of the directed service, should conform to the require­ments of § 1126.2, with two exceptions. Any moneys paid under the optional cash funding procedures must be de­ducted from the amount to be reim­bursed (line 85). Also, the base for computation of allowable interest (line 83) must be reduced by the amount paid. After auditing the claim, the Com­mission will determine the allowable reimbursement. It will certify to the Treasury Department that the direct­ed carrier be paid that amount by which the allowable reimbursement exceeds the amount paid. Should the amount paid exceed the allowable re­imbursement, the difference will be due and payable by the directed carri­er to the Commission within 30 days. If not paid within the 30-day period, the amount due will then begin to accrue interest at the prevailing prime rate.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Dated: August 11,1978.By the Commission, Chairman

O’Neal, Vice Chairman, Christian, Commissioners Murphy, Brown, Staf­ford, Gresham, and Clapp. Commis­sioner Stafford was absent and did not participate in the disposition of this proceeding.

H. G. H omme, Jr., Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-22987 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7035-01]

[Docket No. 36767]PART 1201 — RAILROAD COMPANIES

PART 1206— UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR COMM ON AND CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS

Accounting for Certain Government Transfers by Railroads and Motor Carriers of Passengers

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Com­mission.ACTION: Revision to final rule.SUMMARY: In the Commission’s deci­sion on accounting for certain govern­ment transfers by railroads and motor carriers of passengers, we inadvertent­ly omitted the names of the Commis­sioners participating in the decision. A summary of this decision was pub­lished in the F ederal R egister on July 17, 1978 (FR Doc. No. 78-19660; 43 FR 30558). This is a notice to the parties that the last line of the deci­sion is revised to include those names.DATES: The proceeding was decided June 30, 1978. The service date was July 17,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bryan Brown, Jr., Chief, Section of Accounting, Bureau of Accounts, Interstate Commerce Commission, phone 202-275-7448.By the Commission, Chairman

O’Neal, Vice Chairman Christian, Commissioners Murphy, Brown, Grésham, and Clapp. Commissioner Stafford absent and not participating.

H. G. H omme, Jr., Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23101 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310-55]Title 50— W ildlife and Fisheries

CHAPTER I— U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE IN ­TERIOR

PART 32— HUNTING National W ildlife Refuges in Oregon

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Special regulations. SUMMARY: The Director has deter­mined that the opening to hunting of certain national wildlife refuges in Oregon is compatible with the objec­tives for which these areas were estab­lished, will utilize a renewable natural resource, and will provide additional recreational opportunity to the public. This document establishes special reg­ulations effective for the upcoming hunting seasons for migratory game birds, upland game, and big game. DATES: September 1, 1978, to Janu­ary 31, 1979.ADDRESS: Contact the Refuge Man­ager at the address and/or telephone number listed below in the body of special regulations.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

L. A. Mehrhoff, Area Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4620 Over­land Road, Room 238, Boise, Idaho 83705, 208-384-1960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hunting is permitted on the national wildlife refuges indicated below in ac­cordance with 50 CFR Part 32, and the following special regulations. Portions of refuges which are open to hunting are designated by signs and/or delin­eated on maps. No vehicle travel is permitted except on designated roads and trails. Special conditions applying to individual refuges are listed on the reverse side of maps available at refuge headquarters and from the office of the Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Lloyd 500 Build­ing, Suite 1692, 500 NE. Multnomah Street, Portland, Oreg. 97232.§ 32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife refuge areas.

1. Migratory game birds may be hunted on the following refuge areas:

Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 198, Jefferson, Oreg. 97352, phone 503-327-2444. Special conditions: (1) Mourning dove and band-tailed pigeon hunters must check in and out of the refuge by use of self- service permits. (2) Waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting is permitted on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from opening shooting time until 12 noon during the authorized season. (3) A Federal permit is required for water-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

fowl, coot, and snipe hunting and will be issued on an advanced reservation basis. Applications for reservations will be accepted between September 15 and October 15. (4) Steel shot only may be possessed or used on the refuge while hunting waterfowl, coot, and snipe. (5) Waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunters are limited to the pos­session and use of twenty (20) shells per day.

Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge, 10995 Highway 22, Dallas, Oreg. 97338, phone 503-623-2749. Spe­cial conditions: (1) Dove and pigeon hunting is prohibited. (2) Waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting is permitted on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sun­days from opening shooting time until 12 noon during the authorized season.(3) A Federal permit is required for waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting and -will be issued on an advanced reserva­tion basis. Applications for reserva­tions will be accepted between Septem­ber 15 and October 15. (4) Steel shot only may be possessed or used on the refuge while hunting waterfowl, coot,

4 and snipe. (5) Waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunters are limited to the pos­session and use of twenty (20) shells per day.

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, Snake River Island Sector, Route 1, Box 1457, Nampa, Idaho 83651, phone 208-467-9278. Special conditions: (1) Waterfowl and coot hunters are re­quired to use native materials for hunting blind construction. (2) Hunt­ing is on a first come, first served basis.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,P.O. Box 113, Bruns, Oreg. 97720, phone 503-493-2323. Special condi­tions: (1) That portion of the refuge in the Blitzen Valley west of Highway 205, south of Diamond Lane will be open to dove and pigeon hunting con­current with the regular State season, as posted. (2) Part of Malheur Lake will be open to waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting concurrent with the State season as posted. (3) Use of motors on boats is prohibited.

William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Route 2, Box 208, Corvallis, Oreg. 97330, phone 503-757-7236. Spe­cial conditions: (1) Band-tailored pigeon hunting is prohibited. (2) Dove hunters are required to check in and out of the refuge daily by use of self-' service permits. (3) Waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting is permitted on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from opening shooting time until 12 noon during the authorized season. (4) A Federal permit is required for water- fowl, coot, and snipe hunting and will be issued on an advanced reservation basis. Applications for reservations will be accepted between September 15 and October 15. (5) Steel shot only may be possessed or used on the

RULES AND REGULATIONS

refuge while hunting waterfowl, coots, and snipe. (6) Waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunters are limited to the pos­session and use of twenty (20) shells per day.

2. Migratory game birds, except doves, pigeons, and common snipe, may be hunted on the following refuge areas:

Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge, Hermiston, Oreg., P.O. Box 239, Umatilla, Oreg. 97882, phone 503- 922-3232.

Klamath Forest National Wildlife Refuge (Headquarters: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, Route 1, Box 74, Tule Lake, Calif. 96134, phone 916-667-2231). Special conditions: (1) Boats with or without motors are per­mitted except air-thrust and inboard water-thrust are prohibited. (2) All decoys, boats, and other personal property must be removed from the refuge at the close of each day. (3) No person may possess any weapon or am­munition that may not be legally used for taking waterfowl.

Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Box 376C, Cathla- met, Wash. 98612, phone 206-795-4915. Special conditions: Posted portions of the refuge in Clatsop County will be closed to waterfowl and coot hunting.

Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. (Headquarters: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, Route 1, Box 74, Tule Lake, Calif. 96134, phone 916-667-2231.) Special conditions: (1) Posted retrieving zones are established on certain hunting units. Possession of firearms in these retrieving zones is prohibited, except, unloaded firearms may be taken through these zones when necessary to reach or leave hunting areas. Decoys may not be set in retrieving zones. (2) Boats with or without motors are permitted. Air-thrust and inboardwater-thrust boats are prohib­ited. (3) All decoys, boats, and other personal property must be removed at the close of each day.

McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Pendleton, Oreg. (Headquar­ters: Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 239, Umatilla, Oreg. 97882, phone 593-922-3232. Special conditions: Hunting is permitted on Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, and State holidays, except Christmas.

Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge,P.O. Box 239, Umatilla, Oreg. 97882, phone 503-922-3232. Special condi­tions: (1) Waterfowl and coot hunting is permitted on Wednesdays, Satur­days, Sundays, and State holidays, except Christmas. (2) A Federal permit is required and will be issued on an advance reservation basis. Suc­cessful applicants may bring one guest and must arrive at check station at least 1 hour before shooting time or reservation is cancelled. (3) Applica-

36457

tions will be accepted during two signup periods. Permits are nontrans- ferable. (4) Steel shot only may be possessed or used during waterfowl and coot hunting. (5) Waterfowl and coot hunting will be from blinds only.

Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (Headquarters: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, Route 1, Box 74, Tule Lake, Calif. 96134, phone 916-667-2231. Special conditions: (1) Boats with or without motors are per­mitted. Air-thrust and inboard water- thrust boats are prohibited. (2) All decoys, boats, and other personal property must be removed from the refuge at the close of each day. (3) No person may possess any weapon or am­munition that may not be legally used for taking waterfowl.§ 32.22 Special regulations; upland game,

for individual wildlife refuge areas.Upland game may be hunted on the

following refuge areas:Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge,

Route 1, Box 198, Jefferson, Oreg. 97352, phone 503-327-2444. Special conditions: (1) Only pheasant and quail may be hunted. (2) No upland game-hunting is permitted after No­vember 5, 1978. (3) All hunters must check in and out of the refuge daily by use of self-service permits. (4) Hunters on the area served by each registration station will be limited to 50 at any one time.

Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge, 10995 Highway 22, Dallas, Oreg. 97338, phone 503-623-2749. Spe­cial conditions: (1) Only pheasant and quail may be hunted. (2) No upland game hunting is permitted after No­vember 5, 1978. (3) All hunters must check in and out of the refuge daily by use of self-service permits. (4) Hunters on the area served by each registration station will be limited to 50 at any one time.

Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge, Hermiston, Oreg. (Headquar­ters: Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 239, Umatilla, Oreg. 97882, phone 503-922-3232.)

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, Snake River Island Sector, Route 1, Box 1457, Nampa, Idaho 83651, phone 208-467-9278.

Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 11, Lakeview, Oreg. 97630, phone 503-947-3315.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,» P.O. Box 113, Burns, Oreg. 97720, phone 503-493-2323. Special condi­tions: (1) Pheasant, quail, and par­tridge hunting will be permitted on the upland game hunting area during the last 9 days of the State season. (2) Pheasant, quail, and partridge hunting will be permitted on the waterfowl hunting area during the waterfowl season. (3) Hunting will be permitted in the Blitzen Valley west of Highway

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36458

205 concurrent with the regular State season as posted.

McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Pendleton, Oreg. (Headquar­ters: Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 239, Umatilla, Oreg. 97882, phone 503-922-3232.) Special conditions: (1) Hunting is permitted on Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, and State holidays, except Christmas.

Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 239, Umatilla, Oreg. 97882, phone 503-922-3232. Special condi­tions: (1) Hunting is permitted from 12 noon until closing time on Wednes­days, Saturdays, Sundays, and State holidays, except Christmas. (2) Pheas­ant hunters are required to check in and out of the refuge at check sta­tions.

William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Route 2, Box 208, Corvallis, Oreg. 97330, phone 503-757-7326. Spe­cial conditions: (1) Only pheasant and quail may be hunted. (2) Hunters are required to check in and out of the refuge by use of self-service permits.(3) Hunting is prohibited after Novem­ber 5, 1978. (4) Each registration sta­tion is limited to 100 hunters at any one time.§32.32 Special regulations; big game; for

individual wildlife refuge areas.Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge,

Snake River Island sector, Route 1, Box 1457, Nampa, Idaho 83651, phone 208-467-9278.

Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 111, Lakeview, Oreg. 97630, phone 503-947-3315. Special conditions: (1) Hunters are required to check in and out of refuge. (2) Ante­lope and sheep hunters are required to attend a prehunt indoctrination ses­sion.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 113, Bums, Oreg. 97720, phone 503-493-2323. Special condi­tions: (1) That portion of the refuge in the Blitzen Valley west of Highway 205 will be open as posted to deer hunting concurrent with the regular State season. (2) The archery area will be open to deer hunting from August 30 through September 10,1978.

William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Route 2, Box 208, Corvallis, Oreg. 97330, phone 503-757-7326. Spe­cial regulations: (1) Hunters are re­quired to check in and out of the refuge by use of self-service permits.(2) The use of riñes is prohibited.

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, part 32. The public is invited to offer suggestions and comments at any time.

N ote.—The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring prepara-

RULES AND REGULATIONS

tion of an economic impact statement under Executive Order 11949 and OMB Circular A-107.

Dated: August 8,1978.L. A. M e h r h o f f ,

Boise A rea Manager. tFR Doc. 78-23008 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 ami

[4310-55]p a r t 32— Hu n t in g

Opening o f Seedskadee National W ildlife Refuge, Wyoming, to Public Hunting of Mourning Dove

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Special regulation.SUMMARY: The Director has deter­mined that the opening to public hunting of mourning dove on Seedska­dee National Wildlife Refuge is com­patible with the objectives for which the area was established, will utilize a renewable natural resource, and will provide additional recreational oppor­tunity to the public.DATES: September 1, 1978, through October 15,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

H. J. Johnson, Refuge Manager, Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, Fontenelle Route, Via Kem- merer, Wyo. 83101, 307-877-6334.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:§ 32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife refuge areas.

Public hunting of mourning dove is permitted on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming. All of the refuge área, comprising 14,284 acres, and so designated by signs, is open to hunting. Maps of the area are availa­ble at the refuge office, Fontenelle Route, Via Kemmerer, Wyo. 83101, and from the office of the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv­ice, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo. 80225. Hunting shall be in accordance with all applica­ble State regulations governing the hunting of mourning dove.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplement the regulations which govern hunting on wildlife refuge areas generally which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32. The public is invited to offer suggestions and comments at any­time.

N ote.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring prepara­tion of an economic impact statement under

Executive Order 11949 and OMB Circular A-107.

H. J . J ohnson, Refuge Manager.

August 4,1978.[FR Doc. 78-22980 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310-55]PART 32— HUNTING

Opening of Seedskadee National W ildlife Refuge, Wyoming, to Public Hunting of Sage Grouse

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Special regulation.SUMMARY: The Director has deter­mined that the opening to public hunting of sage grouse on Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge is compatible with the objectives for which the area was established, will utilize a renew­able natural resource, and will provide additional recreational opportunity to the public.DATES: September 9, 1978, through September 17,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

H. J. Johnson, Refuge Manager, Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, Fontenelle Route, Via Kem­merer, Wyo. 83101, 307-877-6334.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:§ 32.22 Special regulations; upland game;

for individual wildlife refuge areas.Public hunting of sage grouse is per­

mitted on Seedskadee National Wild­life Refuge, Wyo. All of the refuge area, comprising 14,284 acres, and so designated by signs, is open to hunt­ing. Maps of the area are available at the refuge office, Fontenelle Route, Via Kemmerer, Wyo. 83101 and from the office of the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo. 80225. Hunting shall be in accordance with all applicable State regulations governing the hunting of sage grouse.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplement the regulations which govern hunting on wildlife refuge areas generally which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32. The public is invited to offer suggestions and comments at any time.

Note.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring prepara­tion of an economic impact statement under

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY. AUGUST 17, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS 36459Executive Order 11949 and OMB Circular A-107.

H. J. J ohnson, Refuge Manager.

August 4,1978.[FR Doc. 78-22981 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 ami

[4310-55]PART 32— HUNTING

Opening of Pathfinder National Wild­life Refuge, W yo., to Hunting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Special regulation.SUMMARY: The Director has deter­mined that the opening to migratory game bird hunting of Pathfinder Na­tional Wildlife Refuge is compatible with the objectives for which the area was established, will utilize a renew­able natural resource, and will provide additional recreational opportunity to the public.DATES: As established by Wyoming Game and Fish Commission for Calen­dar Year 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene C. Patten, Refuge Manager, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, Box 457, Walden, Colo. 80480, telephone 303-723-4717.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:§ 32.12 Special regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife refuge areas.

Hunting of ducks, geese, coots, and mergansers is permitted on Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, Wyo. in ac­cordance with dates established by Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, but only on areas of Pathfinder Refuge known as Goose Bay, DeWeese Creek, and Sage Creek-Platte Units. This open area, comprising 3,760 acres, is delineated on maps available at refuge headquarters in Walden, Colo, and from the office of the Area Man­ager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1426 Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138. Hunting shall be in accordance with all applicable State and Federal regulations covering the hunting of ducks, geese, coots, and mergansers subject to the following special condi­tion;

(1) Blinds—The construction of per­manent blinds or pits is not permitted. Portable blinds may be used but not left on the refuge.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplement the regulations which govern hunting on wildlife refuge areas generally which are set forth in

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32,

Note.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring prepara­tion of an Economic Impact Statement under Executive Order 11949 and OMB Cir­cular A-107.

E ugene C. P atten, Refuge Manager.

August 11,1978.[FR Doc. 78-23026 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 ami

[4310-55]PART 32— HUNTING

National Wildlife Refuges in IdahoAGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Special regulations.SUMMARY: The Director has deter­mined that the opening to hunting of certain National Wildlife Refuges in Idaho is compatible with the objec­tives for which these areas were estab­lished, will utilize a renewable natural resource, and will provide additional recreational opportunity to the public. This document establishes special reg­ulations effective for the upcoming hunting seasons for migratory game birds, upland game, and big game.DATES: September 1, 1978 to January 31, 1979ADDRESSES: Contact the Refuge Manager at the address and/or tele­phone number listed below in the body of Special Regulations.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

L. A. Mehrhoff, Area Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4620 Over­land Road, Room 238, Boise, Idaho 83705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hunting is permitted on the National Wildlife Refuges indicated below in ac­cordance with 50 CFR Part 32, and the following special regulations. Portions of refuges which are open to hunting are designated by signs and/or deline­ated on maps. No vehicle travel is per-. mitted except on designated roads and trails. Special conditions applying to individual refuges are listed on the re­verse side of maps available at refuge headquarters and from the office of the Regional Director, Fish and Wild­life Service, Lloyd 500 Building, Suite 1692, 500 Northeast MultnomahStreet, Portland, Or. 97232.§ 32.12 Special Regulations; migratory

game birds; for individual wildlife refuge areas.

1. Migratory game birds may be hunted on the following refuge areas:

Camas National Wildlife Refuge, Hamer, Idaho 83425 (phone 208-662- 5423). Special conditions: Dove hunt­ing is prohibited.

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, Snake River Island Sector, Route 1 Box 1457, Nampa, Idaho 83651 (phone 208-467-9278). Special conditions: (1) Waterfowl and coot hunters are re­quired to use native materials for hunting blind construction. (2) Hunt­ing is on a first-come-first-served basis.

Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, Star Route No. 1, Box 160, Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805 (phone 208-267- 3888). Special conditions: (1) Hunting is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. (2) Dove hunting is prohibited. (3) Steel shot only may be used or possessed by hunters. (4) Hunters are required to use native materials for blind con­struction.

2. Migratory game birds except doves and common snipe may be hunted on the following refuge areas:

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 9, Montpelier, Idaho 83254 (phone 208-847-1757). Special Regula­tions: Air-thrust boats are prohibited.

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Lowell Sector, Route 1, Box 1457, Nampa, Idaho 83651. Special condi­tions: (1) Goose hunting is prohibited.(2) Hunters are required to use native material for hunting blind construc­tion. (3) Steel shot only may be used or possessed by waterfowl and coot hunters using 12-gage shotguns.

Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 837, Soda Springs, Idaho 83276 (phone 208-547-4996). Special conditions: (1) Air-thrust boats are prohibited. (2) Entry to the hunt­ing area is limited to foot travel only.

Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge, Route 4, Rupert, Idaho 83350 (phone 208-436-3589).§ 32.22 Special regulations; upland game;

for individual wildlife refuge areas.Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge,

P.O. Box 9, Montpelier, Idaho 83254 (Phone 208-847-1757).

Camas National Wildlife Refuge, Hamer, Idaho 83425 (Phone 208-662- 5423).

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Lowell and Snake River Sectors, Route 1, Box 1457, Nampa, Idaho 83651 (Phone 208-467-9278).

Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge, Route 4, Rupert, Idaho 83350 (Phone 208-436-3589). Special conditions: Upland game may be hunted on the public hunting area during the water- fowl season only.§32.32 Special regulations; big game; for

individual wildlife refuge areas.Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge,

Snake River Island Sector, Route 1,

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36460 RULES AND REGULATIONS

Box 1457, Nampa, Idaho 83651 Phone 208-467-9278).

Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 837, Soda Springs, Idaho 83276 (Phone 208-547-4996). Special conditions: (1) Entry to the hunting area is by foot travel only. (2) Horses may only be used to retrieve bagged animals.

Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, Star Route No. 1, Box 160, Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805 (Phone 208-267- 3888). Special conditions: Only that portion of the refuge west of the west side road is open to big game hunting.

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. The public is in­vited to offer suggestions and com­ments at any time.

Note.—The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring prepara­tion of an Economic Impact Statement under Executive Order 11494 and OMB Cir­cular A-107.

Dated: August 8,1978.L. A. M ehrhoft,

Boise Area Manager.[FR Doc. 78-23025 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310 -55 ]PART 32— HUNTING

Opening of Pathfinder National W ildlife Refuge, W yo., to Hunting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Special regulation.SUMMARY: The Director has deter­mined that the opening to deer and antelope hunting of Pathfinder Na­tional Wildlife Refuge is compatible with the objectives for which the area was established, will utilize a renew­able natural resource, and will provide additional recreational opportunity to the public.

DATES: As established by Wyoming Game and Fish Commission for Calen­dar Year 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene C. Patten, Refuge Manager, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, Box 457, Walden, Colorado 80480, telephone 303-723-4717.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:§32.32 Special regulations; big game; for

individual wildlife refuge areas. Hunting of deer and antelope is per­

mitted on Pathfinder National Wild­life Refuge, Wyo. in accordance with dates and areas designated in the Wy­oming 1978 Orders regulating deer and antelope hunting. These areas, com­prising 16,807 acres, are composed of four separate units and are delineated on maps available at refuge headquar­ters in Walden, Colo, and from the office of the Area Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1426 Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138. Hunting shall be in accordance with all applicable State regulations covering the hunting of deer and antelope.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplement the regulations which govern hunting in wildlife refuge areas generally which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32.

N ote.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring prepara­tion of an Economic Impact Statement under Executive Order 11949 and OMB Cir­cular A-107.

E ugene C. P atten, Refuge Manager.

August 11,1978.[FR Doc. 78-23024 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310 -55 ]PART 33— SPORT FISHING

Opening of the National Elk Refuge, Wyoming to Sport Fishing

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Special regulation.SUMMARY: The Director has deter­mined that the opening to sport fish­ing of the National Elk Refuge is com­patible with the objectives for which the area was established, will utilize a renewable natural resource, and will provide additional recreational oppor­tunity to the public.DATES: May 31, 1978, through Octo­ber 31,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John E. Wilbrecht, National ElkRefuge, P.O. Box C, Jackson, Wyo.83001. Phone: 307-733-2627.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:§33.5 Special regulations; sport fishing;

for individual wildlife refuge areas.Sport fishing is permitted on the Na­

tional Elk Refuge, Wyo., only on the areas designated by signs as being open to fishing. These areas compris­ing approximately 3 miles of stream are delineated on maps available at the refuge headquarters and from the Area Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Room 3035, 316 North 26th, Billings, Mont. 59101. Sport fishing shall be in accordance with all applicable State regulations subject to the following condition:

(a) Use of boats or other floating devices is not permitted.

The provisions of this special regula­tion supplement the regulations which govern fishing on wildlife refuge areas generally which are set forth in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 33. The public is invited to offer sug­gestions and comments at any time.

Note.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring prepara­tion of an Economic Impact Statement under Executive Order 11949 and OMB Cir­cular A-107.

Dated: July 28,1978.J ohn E. W ilbrecht,

Refuge Manager.

[FR Doc. 78-21638 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36461

proposed rulesThis section o f the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public o f the proposed issuance o f rules and regulations. The purpose o f these notices is to

give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption o f the fina l rules.

[3128 -01 ]DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

O ffice o f the Secretary

[1 0 CFR Part 1022]

COMPLIANCE W ITH FLOODPLAIN/W ETLANDS ENVIRONM ENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

Cancellation o f Public H earing

AGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Cancellation of public hear­ing.SUMMARY: The Department of Energy hereby gives notice that a public hearing scheduled for August18, 1978, on its proposed rulemaking (10 C FR Part 1022) pertaining to floodplain management and wetlands protection, which appeared in the F ed­eral R egister, at 43 F R 31108 (July19, 1978), has been cancelled due to lack of interest. Written comments will be considered.DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 28, 1978.ADDRESSES: Comments to Box TP, Department of Energy, Public Hearing Management, Room 2313, 2000 M Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20461.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol Borgstrom, Office of the As­sistant Secretary for Environment, Room 7119, Federal Building, 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20461, 202-566- 9760.Issued in Washington, D.C., August

11,1978. OW illiam S. H effelfinger, Director of Administration.

[FR Doc. 78-23002 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6714-01]FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

[1 2 CFR Pori 3 36 ]

EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES A N D CONDUCT

Extension o f Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: On June 30, 1978, the FDIC published a proposed rule deal­ing with employee responsibilities mid conduct (43 FR 28518). Comments were to be received by July 31, 1978. Due to delays in distribution, many FDIC field employees did not receive the proposal until near the close of the comment period. Since the propos­al impacts directly on employees, and their fullest participation in the rule- making is desired, the comment period is hereby extended.DATE: Written comments must be re­ceived on or before September 15, 1978.ADDRESS: Direct written comments to the Office of the Executive Secre­tary, Federal Deposit Insurance Cor­poration, Washington, D.C. 20429.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1

Mark I. Rosen, attorney, Legal Divi­sion, Federal Deposit Insurance Cor­poration, Washington, D.C. 20429, 202-389-4637.By. order of the Board of Directors,

August 11,1978.F ederal Deposit Insurance

Corporation,Alan R . M iller,

Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 78-23003 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-13]DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal A v ia tio n A dm inistration

[1 4 CFR Parts 21, 25 , 43 , 45, 65, 91, 121, and 135]

[Docket Nos. 13954, 13989, 14611, 15534, and 17045; Reference Notice Nos. 74-29, 74-30, 75-21, 76-9, and 77-14]

SPECIAL CERTIFICATES, AIRBORNE V IB R ATIO N M ONITORS, A N D STATUS OF FA A PILOTS A N D APPLICANTS DURING FLIGHT TESTS

In fligh t O verboard Leakage o f Fluids Subject to Freezing; A ir Am bulance Service

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Collective withdrawal of no­tices and advance notices of proposed rulemaking.SUMMARY: This notice withdraws the notices of proposed rulemaking dealing with the subjects of special

certificates, airborne vibration moni­tors, and the status of FAA pilots and aircraft certificate applicants during flight test and the advance notices of proposed rulemaking dealing with the subjects of inflight overboard leakage of fluids subject to freezing and air ambulance service. This action is based on the comments received in re­sponse to the notices and the FAA’s determination that additional rule- making action based on the notices at this time is not warranted.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Raymond E. Ramakis, Regula­tory Projects Branch, Safety Regu­lations Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Adminis­tration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, tele­phone 202-755-8716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:D iscussion of W ithdrawals

Information concerning each of the notices and advance notices being withdrawn, including a discussion of the significant public comments re­ceived and the reasons for withdrawal, is presented below under appropriate subject headings.

SPECIAL CERTIFICATES

On August 2, 1974, the FAA issued notice No. 74-29 (39 FR 29189; August 14, 1974), a notice of proposed rule- making, in which the FAA invited comments on a proposed amendment to the Federal Aviation Regulations that would have limited the issuance of experimental certificates under part 21 to aircraft engaged in genuine ex­perimental operations, except for cer­tain amateur-built aircraft, and would have established new special certifi­cate classifications for other aircraft that are currently issued experimental certificates. Under the proposal, spe­cial certificates would have been issued for aircraft used in: (1) exhibi­tion and air racing; (2) market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training; (3) research (not related to aircraft development); and (4) custom-built (amateur-built) aircraft operations. The proposed rule would have required aircraft under the new classifications to be maintained in ac­cordance with part 43 and would have amended portions of parts 21, 43, and 91 and the airman certification rules

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36462

of part 65 to provide for the mainte­nance of aircraft having custom-built certificates to be performed by the builder of the aircraft and to permit the renewal of these certificates. In addition, parts 45 and 91 would have been amended to require appropriate markings at cabin and cockpit en­trances and to add appropriate operat­ing limitations. The creation of the custom-built certificate and related maintenance and certification rules were the major objective of notice No. 74-29. The notice was developed in re­sponse to the petition of the Experi­mental Aircraft Association for rule- making fo provide more direct recogni­tion of amateur builders’ activities. On October 25, 1974, the FAA issued notice No. 74-29A (39 FR 38667; No­vember 1, 1974) which extended the closing date for comments on notice No. 74-29.

Of the 120 comments received in re­sponse to the notice, approximately two-thirds objected to the proposal or significant portions of the proposal. Most of the public comments were aimed at proposed § 21.196 which would have created the custom-built aircraft certificate. A number of com­mentators felt that the proposed regu­lations for custom-built aircraft would be too stringent and unduly restrictive and that they would tend to inhibit the amateur-built aircraft operator’s freedom of flight without improving safety or giving any greater protection to the public. A major objection con­cerned the maintenance provisions of notice No. 74-29 which would make part 43 standards applicable to custom-built aircraft. It was felt that past operating history did not support the imposition of the proposed main­tenance requirements, which were be­lieved to be economically burdensome and unnecessary. Many commentators also objected to the proposed require­ment for an owner and operator manual for custom-built aircraft since it was claimed that the information re­quired would be too voluminous, am­biguous, difficult to comply with in a consistent manner, and not required of standard aircraft. In addition, many felt that allowing only the builder of a custom-built aircraft to obtain a re­pairman certificate, as proposed, was discriminatory since subsequent owners and buyers of the aircraft would not be offered the same oppor­tunity. There were also objections to the placarding requirements for custom-built aircraft and to the limita­tions regarding IFR operations and acrobatics.

Based on the comments received, the FAA has reevaluated the need for the custom-built aircraft classification and the related proposals in notice No. 74- 29. While the FAA believes that cer­tain of the concepts covered in the

PROPOSED RULES

notice have considerable merit, on the whole, the proposals in the notice would not lead to its intended result, that is, fostering amateur aircraft building. To the contrary, the com­ments received indicate that the certi­fication and operation of amateur- built aircraft would be made consider­ably more burdensome both to the builder and the FAA.

The custom-built concept was the reason for and the heart of notice No. 74-29. Amateur built aircraft make up the vast bulk of current experimental aircraft. The other special certificate classifications that were proposed rep­resent a small percentage of the air­craft intended to be removed from the experimental classification. According­ly, the FAA believes that without the custom-built classification, rulemaking on the other proposed classifications would not acheive the purpose intend­ed by the notice.

In view of the foregoing, the FAA has determined that rulemaking action on the proposed amendments is not appropriate and that notice No. 74-29 should be withdrawn.

AIRBORNE VIBRATION MONITORS

On August 23, 1974, the FAA issued notice No. 74-30 (39 FR 31913; Sep-' tember 3, 1974), a notice of proposed rulemaking, in which the FAA invited comments on a proposed amendment to the Federal Aviation regulations (FAR) which would have prohibited operations under FAR part 121 in a Boeing model B-747, Lockheed model L-1011, and McDonnell Douglas model DC-10 aircraft unless the aircraft was equipped with an indicator to indicate rotor system unbalance for each engine to the flight crew.

, The FAA received 10 comments in response to notice No. 74-30, including comments from trade associations rep­resenting airlines and aircraft manu­facturers, foreign airworthiness au­thorities, domestic and foreign air­lines, aircraft operators, and other in­terested persons.

Of the 10 written comments re­ceived, 5 were in opposition. In gener­al, the basic reason given by the com­mentators for opposing the amend­ment was that airborne vibration mon­itor (AVM) systems are unreliable. The commentators argued that the systems are valuable only as a second­ary maintenance aid, that AVM’s have caused many unnecessary engine shut­downs due to faulty readings, resulting in fuel dumping, delayed flights, and increased costs to both the public and the airlines, and that operating experi­ence has shown that the systems are incapable of giving advance warning on uncontained engine failures, which are sudden in nature.

When notice No. 74-30 was issued, the FAA believed that the utilization

of operable AVM systems in the wide body jet fleet would result in a signifi­cant reduction in the frequency of un­contained engine failures with a mini­mum economic burden being placed on the aviation industry. However, based on the comments received, the FAA believes that the drawbacks associated with the proposal are substantial and justify its withdrawal. In view of the comments and data submitted, the FAA believes that rulemaking action on the proposed amendment would not be in the best interest of the public. Therefore, notice No. 74-30 should be withdrawn.

STATUS OF FAA PILOTS AND APPLICANTS DURING FLIGHT TESTS

On May 15, 1975, the FAA issued notice No. 75-21 (40 FR 22271; May 22,1975) , a notice of proposed rulemak­ing, hi which the FAA proposed an amendment to the Federal Aviation regulations to clarify the status of FAA pilots and applicants during flight tests required for the certifica­tion of an aircraft. Under the propos­al, a new section would have been added to part 21 which would have provided that an FAA pilot is not the pilot in command of an aircraft during a flight test unless a written agree­ment to that effect is made prior to the flight.

The FAA received eight comments in response to notice No. 75-21. Five commentators were in favor of the proposed rule. The major objection raised was that it would tend to dimin­ish the authority of the FAA test pilot during flight tests. The FAA agrees with this objection. The FAA test pilot must be able to, and in fact sometimes does, become pilot in command during flight tests. By requiring a written agreement before the FAA test pilot can act as pilot in command, the pro­posed rule would tend to diminish the authority of the FAA test pilot and could inhibit the depth of investiga­tion which is necessary in the certifi­cation process. Therefore, the FAA be­lieves that rulemaking action on the proposed amendment is not appropri­ate and that notice No. 75-21 should be withdrawn.IN-FLIGHT OVERBOARD LEAKAGE OF FLUIDS

SUBJECT TO FREEZING

On March 29, 1976, the FAA issued notice No. 76-9 (41 Fit 14393; April 5,1976) , an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, in which the FAA invited public participation in the identifica­tion and selection of a course of action with respect to possible rulemaking to establish type certification, mainte­nance, and equipment standards to prevent the occurrence of in-flight overboard leakage of fluids subject to freezing.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36463

The PAA received 16 comments in response to notice No. 76-9 including comments from trade associations rep­resenting airlines and aircraft manu­facturers, foreign airworthiness au­thorities, foreign airlines, aircraft op­erators, and other interested persons. The general view of the commentators was that the present potable water/ lavatory waste drain systems are ade­quate to prevent in-flight leakage and that they will perform satisfactorily when properly maintained and ser­viced. While many of the comments noted that incidents of ice damage have occurred, only three of the com­mentators felt that the problem war­ranted rulemaking.

Before, during, and after the issu­ance of notice No. 76-9, the FAA en­gaged in an intensive advisory effort to persuade operators of large aircraft to take effective corrective measures immediately. Comments received in re­sponse to notice No. 76-9 suggested ac­tions which are generally in concur­rence with the corrective measures recommended by the PAA. Corrective measures have been taken and the re­ported incidents of in-flight overboard leakage of fluids subject to freezing has decreased from 14 in 1974, to 7 in 1975, and to 4 in 1976.

In consideration of the comments re­ceived and the decrease in the number of reported incidents of in-flight over­board leakage' of fluids subject to freezing, the PAA believes that the underlying objectives of notice No. 76- 9 have been accomplished and that ru­lemaking is not necessary at this time. Therefore notice No. 76-9 should be withdrawn. However, if the FAA finds that a particular aircraft design is sus­ceptible to in-flight overboard leakage of fluids subject to freezing and that an unsafe condition exists, the FAA will take appropriate regulatory action to remedy the situation.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

In December of 1974, a Department of Transportation working group (con­sisting of members from the FAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­tion) was formed to develop definitive minimum standards for air ambu­lances. To assist this group, two public meetings were held in July of 1975 to obtain public comment on a prelimi­nary series of items for inclusion in those standards. The meetings were held at Denver, Colo, and Washington,D.C. Those comments were carefully considered in preparation of the pro­posals set forth in advance notice of proposed ruemaking No. 77-14 (42 FR 37825; July 25, 1977) in which the FAA proposed regulations to govern the transportation in small aircraft, for compensation or hire, of persons who may need assistance in meeting their

medical needs while in flight. They were intended to provide air ambu­lance standards to insure that the medical needs of these people would be met without compromising safety.

The FAA received comments in re­sponse to notice No. 77-14 from more than 250 individuals and organiza­tions. A majority of those comments expressed opposition to the proposed regulations. Among them were com­ments received from the congressional representatives of 10 States and from the Governors of 2 States.

A few comments questioned the stat­utory authority of the FAA to adopt the regulations proposed and suggest­ed they should be proposed by the De­partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Other comments expressed the view that, if adopted, the propos­als would prove so unduly burdensome and costly as to drive many aircraft operators out of business, with the result that communities might be de­prived of needed air ambulance service in certain sparsely populated areas of the country. It was pointed out that charter operators engaging in air am­bulance service currently work closely with doctors and hospitals in their areas of operation and rely on them to determine what specialized equipment and personnel will be necessary for the particular patient to be transport­ed. Most of the comments received ex­pressed the view that these matters should continue to be the responsibili­ty of the aircraft operators and profes­sional medical personnel and should not be regulated by the FAA.

Certain of the commentators sup­porting the issuance of regulations were particularly concerned about the number of air taxi operators in the United States who, although holding themselves out to the public as provid­ing air ambulance services, do not have adequate equipment or personnel to provide medically related services for ill patients. Even if it is assumed that this occurs in a statistically sig­nificant number of cases, this is not a problem relating primarily to air transportation safety, but rather, it is one relating to “truth in advertising.” As such, it is not a problem that the FAA is, by statute, empowered to deal with. The commentators’ remedy is more properly found under section 411 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, which is administered by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Section 411 specifically applies to air taxi op­erators (see 14 CFR 298.11) and pre­cludes “deceptive practices” in “air transportation or the sale thereof.” In the FAA’s judgment, the economic cost of levying the proposed regula­tions on an entire industry outweighs the public benefits »nee there is a readily available statutorily enacted remedy. It is the FAA’s conclusion,

therefore, based upon the reasons set forth by the objecting commentators and the FAA's analysis, that it would be inappropriate to impose the regula­tions proposed in advance notice of proposed rulemaking No. 77-14 at this time, and, consequently, they are hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawal of the covered notices and advance notices does not preclude the FAA from issuing similar notices in the future, nor does it commit the FAA to any course of action.

D r a f t in g I n f o r m a t io n

The principal authors of this docu­ment are Robert V. Ford, Heinz J. Hel- lebrand, Frank M. Jamison, Jr., C. E. Radawick, and James. F. Zahringer, Flight Standards Service, and Darlene F. Romanias, Office of the Chief Counsel.W it h d r a w a l o f P r o p o se d R u l e m a k in g

Accordingly, the following notices and advance notices of proposed rule- making are withdrawn by the Federal Aviation Administration:

Notice No. 74-29 (39 FR 29189; August 14, 1974) entitled “Special Cer­tificates”.

Notice No. 74-30 (39 FR 31913; Sep­tember 3, 1974) entitled “Airborne Vi­bration Monitors”.

Notice No. 75-21 (40 FR 22271; May 22, 1975) entitled “Status of FAA Pilots and Applicants During Flight Tests”.

Notice No. 76-9 (41 FR 14393; April 5, 1976) entitled “In-flight Overboard Leakage of Fluids Subject to Freez­ing”.

Notice No. 77-14 (42 FR 37825; July 25, 1977) entitled “Air Ambulance Service”.(Sec 313(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1354(a)); Sec. 6(c) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)).)

N ote.—The Federal Aviation Administra­tion has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Economic Impact State­ment under Executive Order 11821, as amended by Executive Order '11949, and OMB Circular A-107.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 8,1978.

J. A. F e r r a r e se , Acting Director

Flight Standards Service.[FR Doc. 78-23043 Filed 8-16-78: 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36464 PROPOSED RULES

[4910-13]

A via tio n A dm inistration

[1 4 CFR Parts 63 , 65 and 121]

[Docket No. 18241; Notice No. 78-11]OPERATIONS REVIEW PROGRAM NOTICE

N O . 9

Certification: Flight Crewm em bers O th er Than Pilots

C ertification: A irm en O th er Than Flight Crewm em bers

Certification and Operations: Domestic, Flag and Supplem ental A ir Carriers and Commer­cial O perators o f Large A ircra ft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemak­ing (NPRM).SUMMARY: This notice describes the FAA’s disposition of certain proposals discussed at the Operations Review Conference. After consideration of these proposals, the FAA has deter­mined that certain amendments to the rules applicable to aircraft equipment requirements, aircraft maintenance, aircraft operating rules, airmen certifi­cation, certificated operators and agencies, flight attendants and train­ing are needed to provide a level of safety commensurate with the devel­opment and expansion of the aviation system. Certain other proposals were withdrawn by their proponents. Other proposals are being removed from fur­ther consideration after review by the FAA. The proposals, withdrawals and removals are contained in this notice.DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 11,1978.ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposals in duplicate to: Federal Avi­ation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC- 24), Docket No. 18241, 800 Indepen­dence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald A. Schroeder, Safety Regula­tions Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Adminis­tration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, tele­phone 202-755-8715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:C o m m e n t s I n v it e d

Interested persons are invited to par­ticipate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments relating to the envi­ronmental, energy, or economic impact that might result from adop­tion of the proposals contained in this

notice are invited. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address above. All communications received on or before November 17, 1978, will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on the proposed rule. The pro­posals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments re­ceived. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by in­terested persons. A report summariz­ing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with the rule-making will be filed in the docket.

For convenience, each proposal in this notice is numbered separately. The FAA requests that interested per­sons, when submitting comments, refer to proposals by these numbers and by the section to which they relate.

A v a il a b il it y o f T h i s N o t ic e

Any person may obtain a copy of this notice of proposed rule-making (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Information Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Wash­ington, D.C. 20591, or by calling 202- 426-8058. Communications must iden­tify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2 which describes the applica­tion procedures.

B a c k g r o u n d

The aviation industry in the United States and abroad has grown substan­tially during the last 10 years. Paral­leling its rapid growth and numerous technological advances are significant changes in the operating environment in which airmen, air agencies and air­craft operators function.

To enable the FAA to become more responsive to the needs of the general public and the aviation community in fu lfilling the agency’s aviation safety responsibilities, notice 75-9 (40 FR 8585; February 28,1975) was issued, in­viting all interested persons to submit proposals for consideration during the operations review program.

In response to that invitation, the FAA received more than 5,000 individ­ual comments contained in 123 submis­sions. Based on those comments and on the compilation of proposals, the FAA prepared a number of working documents for the Operations Review Conference held in Arlington, Va., on December 1-5, 1975. The FAA distrib­uted those documents to each person who participated in the operations

review program and to all other inter­ested persons who requested them.

The Operations Review Conference was attended by more than 600 per­sons. Various committees discussed all the scheduled agenda items during the conference. Summaries were given by the FAA committee chairmen at the close of discussions on each agenda item. Persons present were given the opportunity to correct those oral sum­maries. Those summaries were edited, and combined with an attendee list and transcripts of certain plenary ses­sions speeches, and distributed to all attendees and to other interested per­sons.

T h e P r o p o s a l s

This notice deals with selected pro­posals concerning parts 63, 65 and 121 contained in the following Operations Review Committee Workbooks:

Committee TitleNo.

1 ............. ;........ Aircraft Equipment and Require­ments.

2....................... Aircraft Maintenance.3 ................... Aircraft Operating Rules.4 .............. .... Airmen Certification.8 ................... Certificated Operators and Agen­

cies.6 ...................... Flight Attendants.9 ... ............... Training.

A number of the proposals contained in both the Compilation and the work­ing documents are not included in this notice. Thé proposals listed in Appen­dices I and II fall into two categories as follows:Appendix I—Proposals withdrawn by propo­

nent.Appendix II—Proposals removed from con­

sideration.D r a f t in g I n f o r m a t io n

The principal authors of this docu­ment are J. T. Morse, Flight Stand­ards Service, and R. B. Elwell, Office of the Chief Counsel.

T h e P r o p o se d A m e n d m e n t s v

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend parts 63, 65 and 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Parts 63, 65 and 121) as follows:

PART 63— CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS OTHER TH A N PILOTS

9-1. By revising §63.39 (a), (b)(2) &(3) and by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:§ 63.39 Skill requirements.

(a) An applicant for a flight engineer certificate with a class rating must pass a practical test, including an oral examination, on the duties of a flight engineer, in the class of airplane for which a rating is sought. Except as

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

provided in paragraph (c) of this sec­tion, the test may only be given on an airplane specified in § 63.37(a).

(b) * * *(2) In flight, except as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section, show sat­isfactory performance of the normal duties and procedures relating to the airplane, airplane engines, propellers (if appropriate), systems, and appli­ances; and

(3) In flight, or in an airplane simu­lator, or in an approved flight engi­neer training device, show satisfactory performance of abnormal and emer­gency duties arid procedures and rec­ognize and take appropriate action for malfunctions of the airplane, engines, propellers (if appropriate), systems and appliances.

(c) An applicant for a flight engineer certificate may complete the flight portion of the practical test, required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, in an approved airplane simulator of the type and class for which the applicant is seeking a rating if the applicant holds either a commercial pilot certifi­cate who holds a commercial pilot cer­tificate with an instrument rating, an airline transport pilot certificate, or is an applicant for an additional flight engineer class rating.

Explanation. This proposal allows an ap­plicant for a flight engineer certificate with an instrument rating, who holds an airline transport pilot certificate, or who is an ap­plicant for an additional flight engineer class rating, to complete the flight portion of the practical test in an approved airplane simulator for that type airplane. The FAA believes that such an applicant has already demonstrated ability to perform complex in­flight duties and therefore has proven fit­ness to operate successfully in the flight en­vironment. The FAA believes that such an applicant would receive at least a compara­ble level of training and this option would, if exercised, also reduce noise and pollution and conserve fuel.

Additionally, this proposal adds a require­ment for an oral examination to the practi­cal test to determine the applicant’s knowl­edge in certain areas which cannot be other­wise demonstrated, such as airplane per­formance and limitations, systems and dif­ferences between various airplane models.

Also, a reference to “abnormal” duties and procedures has been added. With the advent of more complex airplanes, a new concept of training was devised to reduce the number of “emergency procedures” which crew­members must memorize. To do this, many emergency procedures were redefined as “abnormal” requiring a “challenge and re­sponse” as opposed to rote memorizations.

Ref. Proposal Nos. 71, 75, 76, and 77; §63.39 (a), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (c); committee 4; agenda item A-2.

9-2. By adding a new § 63.40 to read as follows:§ 63.40 Operating experience.

(a) For the purpose of this section airplane groups are as follows:

PROPOSED RULES

(1) Group I. FTopeller driven, includ­ing—

(1) Reciprocating powered; and (ii) Turbopropeller powered.(2) Group II. Turbojet powered.(b) An applicant for a flight engi­

neer certificate may not serve as a re­quired flight engineer on an airplane until the applicant has performed the duties of a flight engineer under the supervision of a check flight engineer, for at least the following number of hours of operating experience:

(1) Group I reciprocating powered airplanes, 8 hours.

(2) Group I turbopropeller powered airplanes, 10 hours.

(3) Group II airplanes, 12 hours.(c) The operating experience re­

quired by paragraph (a) of this section must be obtained in flight or in an ap­proved airplane simulator of the type and class for which the applicant is seeking a rating. The operating experi­ence may be obtained in a simulator only when the applicant—

(1) Holds a commercial pilot certifi­cate with an instrument rating, holds an airline transport pilot certificate, or is an applicant for an additional flight engineer class rating;

(2) Is employed by a part 121 certifi­cate holder or a certificate holder op­erating under § 135.2 of this chapter; and

(3) Has completed an approved part 121 flight engineer training program in accordance with part 121 or § 135.2.

(d) When all of the operating experi­ence required by paragraph (a) of this section is obtained in flight, the hours of experience required may be reduced by not more than 50 percent, by the substitution of one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of flight.

(e) When the operating experience required by paragraph (a) of this sec­tion is obtained in a simulator, it must be accomplished under line operating conditions with all required flight crew positions occupied by appropri­ately qualified personnel.

Explanation. The FAA believes that all applicants for a flight engineer certificate should meet the operating experience re­quirements currently required by § 121.434(d). To accomplish this, we propose to add a new § 63.40 entitled, “Operating ex­perience.”

The FAA believes that a flight engineer applicant, who holds a commercial pilot cer­tificate with an instrument rating who holds an airline transport pilot certificate, or who is an applicant for an additional flight engineer class rating, who is employed by a part 121 operator and has completed an approved part 121 flight engineer train­ing program, has sufficient background and experience to qualify him to take the practi­cal test and obtain the required operating experience in a simulator. However, if oper­ating experience is accomplished in the sim­ulator it must simulate line operating condi­tions with all flight crew positions occupied by personnel qualified for those positions.

36465

Flight engineers who meet the requirements of this section are also considered to meet the requirements of § 121.434(d).

Ref. Proposal Nos. 71, 75, 76 and 77; new § 63.40; committee 4; agenda A-2.

9-3. By revising paragraph (a)(3)(i), appendix C, of part 63, to read as fol­lows:

A p p e n d i x C — F l i g h t E n g i n e e r T r a i n i n g C o u r s e R e q u i r e m e n t s

(a) * • •(3) Flight course outline.(i) The flight training curriculum must in­

clude at least 10 hours of flight instruction in an airplane specified in § 63.37(a). The flight time required for the practical test may not be credited as part of the required flight instruction. However, an applicant employed and trained by a part 121 certifi­cate holder or a certificate holder operating under § 135.2 of this chapter, wo successful­ly completes an approved training program and who is recommended by an instructor, need not complete the 10 hours of flight in­struction required by this paragraph.

* * * * *Explanation. This proposal provides that

an applicant for a flight engineer certificate who is employed and trained by a part 121 certificate holder or a part 135 certificate holder operating under § 135.2, who success­ful completes an approved training program and who is recommended by an instructor, need not complete the programmed instruc­tion required by paragraph (a)(3) of appen­dix C.

Patt 121 pilot training programs embrace the “training to proficiency” concept. The FAA believes that this concept should also be included in part 63, appendix C.

Ref. Proposal No. 89; part 63, appendix C; committee 9; agenda item A-l.

PART 65— CERTIFICATION: A IRM EN OTHER TH A N FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS

§ 65.15a [Deleted]9-4. By deleting § 65.15a and mark­

ing it “[Reserved]”.Explanation. Certificates issued under

§ 65.15a had a twelve month duration until Amendment 65-12, effective December 21, 1967, deleted the 12 month limitation for certain airmen certificates issued to persons who are not U.S. Citizens and provided for the reissuance of permanent certificates to the holders of such duration-limited certifi­cates. Since the one year duration-limited certificates have been expired, for over 6 years, the FAA believes that reissuance of unlimited certificates without further proof of technical ability is no longer appropriate. Hence, § 65.15a would be deleted.

Ref. Proposal No. 94; § 65.15a; committee 4; agenda item B-l.

§ 65.81 [Amended]9-5. By amending § 65.81 by inserting

the phrase preventive mainte­nance,” after each word “mainte­nance” in § 65.81(a).

Explanation. This proposal adds the words “preventive maintenance” to make the authorization consistent with § 43.3.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36466 PROPOSED RULES

Ref. Proposal No. 108; §65.81; committee 4; agenda item B-l.

9-6. By revising § 65.93 to read as fol­lows:§ 65.93 Inspection authorization: Renewal.

(a) To be eligible for renewal of an inspection authorization for a one year period an applicant must present evidence annually, during the month of March, at an FAA General Aviation District Office, a Flight Standards Dis­trict Office or an International Field Office that the applicant still meets the requirements of § 65.91(c) (1) through (4), and must show that, during the current period that the ap­plicant held the inspection authoriza­tion, the applicant—

(1) Has performed at least one annual inspection for each 90 days that the applicant held the current authority; or

(2) Has performed inspections of at least two major repairs or major alter­ations for each 90 days that the appli­cant held the current authority; or

(3) Has performed or supervised and approved at least one progressive in­spection in accordance with standards prescribed by the Administrator; or

(4) Attended and successfully com­pleted a refresher course, acceptable to the Administrator, of not less than eight hours of instruction during the 12 month period preceding the appli­cation for renewal; or

(5) Has passed an oral test to deter­mine that the applicant’s knowledge of applicable regulations and stand­ards is current.

(b) The holder of an inspection au­thorization that has been in effect for less than 90 days before the expiration date need not comply with paragraph(a) (1) through (5) of this section.

Explanation. The renewal requirements of § 65.93 were adequate at the time of origi­nal enactment. However, those require­ments are no longer consistent with the cur­rent inspection programs in use and re­quired by the regulations. Therefore, this proposal provides additional qualifying ac­tivities for renewal of inspection authoriza­tion including recurrent training.

Ref. Proposals 119, 120, 121 and 122; § 65.93; committee 4; agenda item B-4.

9-7. By revising §65.103 to read as follows:§ 65.103 Repairman certificate: privileges

and limitations.(a) A certificated repairman may

perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of aircraft or aircraft components ap­propriate to the job for which the re­pairman was employed and certificat­ed, but only in connection with duties for the certificate holder by whom the repairman was employed and recom­mended.

(b) A certificated repairman may not perform or supervise duties under the repairman certificate unless the re­pairman understands the current instructions of the certificate holder by whom the repairman is employed and the manufacturer’s instructions for continued airworthiness relating to the specific operations concerned.

Explanation. This proposal extends to certificated repairmen the privilege of per­forming alterations and preventive mainte­nance to qualify them to perform those functions performed by a repair station as outlined in § 43.3(e). Additionally, the phrase “certificate holder” has been substi­tuted for "repair station, commercial opera­tor, or air carrier,” as all of these organiza­tions are certificate holders. Also, the phrase “instructions for continued airwor­thiness” has been substituted for “mainte­nance manuals” because instructions may exist in documents other than manuals.

Ref. Proposal Nos. 134 and 135; § 65.103(a) and (b); committee 4; agenda item B-5.

PART 121— CERTIFICATION A N D OPERATIONS:DOMESTIC, FLAG A N D SUPPLEMENTAL AIRCARRIERS A N D COMMERCIAL OPERATORSOF LARGE AIRCRAFT9-8. By revising the heading and text

of § 121.97 to read as follows:§ 121.97 Airports: required data.

(a) After (1 year after the effective date of the amendment based on the notice) each domestic and flag air car­rier must show that it has an approved system for obtaining, maintaining and distributing to appropriate personnel current aeronautical data for each air­port it uses to ensure a safe operation at that airport. The aeronautical data must include the following:

(1) Airports, (i) Facilities (weather, NOTAM service, maintenance, refuel­ing, passenger terminal ramp commu­nication, passenger enplaning and de­planing, flight planning, and de-icing and anti-icing).

(ii) Public protection (fire equip­ment, police, medical services, fences, and gates).

(iii) Navigational and communica­tions aids (en route, approach, termi­nal, and departure).

(iv) Construction affecting takeoff, landing, or ground operations.

(v) Air traffic facilities (tower, taxi, takeoff, and landing clearance, separa­tion, transition information, radar ser­vices, and sequencing).

(2) Runways, clearways and stop- ways.

(i) Dimensions.(ii) Surface (composition, texture,

and strength).(iii) Marking and lighting systems

(approach, landing, runway, taxiway, maneuvering, obstructions, and ramp areas).

(iv) Elevation and gradient.(3) Displaced thresholds.(i) Location.

(ii) Dimensions.(iii) Takeoff or landing or both.(4) Obstacles.(i) Those affecting takeoff and land­

ing performance computations in ac­cordance with subpart I of this part.

(ii) Controlling obstacles (descrip­tion, location, height for en route, ter­minal routes, approach, missed ap­proach, departure, and airport area).

(5) Instrument flight procedures.(i) Departure procedure.(ii) Approach procedure.(iii) Missed approach procedure.

Instrument flight procedures at for­eign airports must be in accordance with the criteria in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) publication, Procedures for Air Navi­gation Services-Aircraft Operations (PANS OPS), or in the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Ap­proach Procedures (TERPS).

(6) Special information.(i) Runway visual range measure­

ment equipment.(ii) Prevailing winds under low visi­

bility conditions.(b) If the Flight Standards District

Office charged with the overall inspec­tion of the certificate holder’s oper­ations finds that revisions are neces­sary for the continued adequacy of the certificate holder’s system for collec­tion, dissemination and usage of aero­nautical data that has been granted approval, the certificate holder shall, after notification by the Flight Stand­ards District Office, make those revi­sions in the system. Within 30 days after the certificate holder receives this notice, the certificate holder may file a petition to reconsider the notice with the Director, Flight Standards Service. This filing of a petition to re­consider stays the notice pending a de­cision by the Director, Flight Stand­ards Service. However, if the Flight Standards District Office finds that there is an emergency that requires immediate action in the interest of safety in air transportation, the Direc­tor may, upon a statement of the rea­sons, require a change effective with­out stay.

Explanation. This is one of a set of relat­ed proposals affecting §§ 121.97 and 121.117. After investigation of an aircraft accident the National Transportation Safety Board found, among other things, certain irregu­larities involving the collection and dissemi­nation of airport information which ren­dered ineffective the air carrier’s operation­al control system. It has been determined that current §§ 121.97 and 121.117 do not adequately describe the airport data which the air carrier must have available to ensure safe operations. Accordingly, these proposed revisions require the certificate holders to establish and maintain an approved system to obtain, disseminate and use, on a continu­ous basis, current aeronautical data for each airport they serve.

Ref. Proposal No. 376; § 121.97; committee 6A; agenda item C.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160-rTH U RSD A Y , AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36467

9-9. By revising the heading and text of § 121.117 to read as follows:§ 121.117 Airports: required data.

(а) After (one year after the effec­tive date of the amendment based on the notice) each supplemental air car­rier and commercial operator must show that it has an approved system for obtaining, maintaining and distrib­uting to appropriate personnel current aeronautical data for each airport it uses to ensure a safe operation at that airport. The aeronautical data must include the following:

(1) Airports.(1) Facilities (weather, NOT AM serv­

ice, maintenance, refueling, passenger terminal, ramp communication, pas­senger enplaning and deplaning flight planning, and de-icing and anti-icing).

(ii) Public protection (fire equip­ment, police, medical services, fences, and gates).

(iii) Navigational and communica­tions aids (en route, approach, termi­nal, and departure).

(iv) Construction affecting takeoff, landing, or ground operations.

(v) Air traffic facilities (tower, taxi, tkeoff, and landing clearance, separa­tion, transition information, radar ser­vices, and sequencing).

(2) Runways, clearways and stop- ways.

(i) Dimensions.(ii) Surface (composition, texture,

and strength).(iii) Marking and lighting systems

(approach, landing, runway, taxiway, maneuvering, obstructions, and ramp areas).

(iv) Elevation and gradient.(3) Displaced thresholds.(i) Location.(ii) Dimensions.(iii) Takeoff or landing or both.(4) Obstacles.(i) Those affecting takeoff and land­

ing performance computations in ac­cordance with Subpart I of this part.

(ii) Controlling obstacles (descrip­tion, location, height for en route, ter­minal routes, approach, missed ap­proach, departure and airport area).

(5) Instrument flight procedures.(i) Departure procedure.(ii) Approach procedure.(iii) Missed approach procedure.

Instrument flight procedures at for­eign airports must be in accordance with the criteria in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) publication, Procedures for Air Navi­gation Services-Aircraft Operations (PANS OPS), or in the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Ap­proach Procedures (TERPS).

(б) Special information, (i) Runway Visual Range-measurement equip­ment.

(ii) Prevailing winds under low visi­bility conditions.

(b) If the Flight Standards District Office charged with the overall inspec­tion of the certificate holder’s oper­ations finds that revisions are neces­sary for the continued adequacy of the certificate holder’s system for collec­tion, dissemination, and usage of aero­nautical data that has been granted approval, the certificate holder shall, after notification by the FAA District Office, make those revisions in the system. Within 30 days after the cer­tificate holder receives such notice, the certificate holder may file a peti­tion to reconsider the notice with the Director, Flight Standards Service. This filing of a petition to reconsider stays the notice pending a decision by the Director, Flight Standards Service. However, if the FAA District Office finds that there is an emergency that requires immediate action in the inter­est of safety in air transportation, the Director may, upon a statement of the reasons, require a change effective without stay.

Explanation. This is one of a set of relat­ed proposals affecting §§ 121.97 and 121.117. After investigation of an aircraft accident the National Transportation Safety Board found, among other things, certain irregu­larities involving the collection and dissemi­nation of airport information which ren­dered ineffective the air carrier’s operation­al control system. It has been dètermined that current §§ 121.97 and 121.117 do not adequately describe the airport data which the air carrier must have available to ensure safe operations. Accordingly, these proposed revisions require the certificate holders to establish and maintain an approved system to obtain, disseminate and use, on a continu­ous basis, current aeronautical data for each airport they serve.

Ref. Proposal No. 378; § 121.117; commit­tee 6A; agenda item C.

9-10. By revising § 121.135(b)(23) to read as follows:§ 121.135 Contents.

* * * * ♦

(b) * * *(23) After (90 days after the effec­

tive date of the amendment based on this notice), procedures and informa­tion to assist personnel to identify packages marked or labeled as con­taining hazardous materials and, if these materials are to be carried, stored, or handled, procedures and instructions relating to the carriage, storage, or handling of hazardous ma­terials, including the following:

(i) Procedures for determining the proper shipper certification required by 49 CFR Subchapter C, proper pack­aging, marking, labeling, shipping doc­uments, compatibility of materials, and instructions on the loading, stor­age, and handling.

(ii) Notification procedures for re­porting hazardous material incidents as required by 49 CFR Subchapter C.

(iii) Instructions And procedures for the notification of the pilot in com­mand when there are hazardous mate­rials aboard, as required by 49 CFR Subchapter C.

* * * * *Explanation. This proposal would require

all part 121 certificate holders to provide guidance in their operations manuals which would enable their flight and ground oper­ations personnel to recognize and handle packages containing hazardous materials. This guidance would be in addition to the current requirement for the manual to con­tain procedures and instructions for person­nel who actually handle hazardous materi­als.

Employees who do not recognize packages containing hazardous materials may un­knowingly allow the shipment of these ma­terials contrary to the FARs and 49 CFR Subchapter C. Part 121 certificate holders who do not carry such materials also need procedures and instructions of sufficient detail to insure that their employees can recognize shipments of these materials and refuse to accept them.

Since hazardous materials regulations are now contained in 49 CFR Subchapter C, ap­propriate reference changes have been made in § 121.135(b)(23) (i), (ii) and (iii).

Ref. Proposal No. 381; § 121.135(b)(23); committee 6A; agenda item D.

9-11. By revising the heading of § 121.137 and revising § 121.137(b) to read as follows:§ 121.137 Distribution and availability.

* * * • ■ *(b) Each person to whom a manual

or appropriate parts of it are fur­nished under paragraph (a) of this sec­tion shall keep it up to date with the changes and additions furnished to that person and shall have the manual or appropriate parts of it accessible when performing assigned duties.

* * * * *

Explanation. This proposed change would require each person to whom a manual or appropriate parts are furnished, to have the manual or appropriate parts accessible when performing assigned duties.

Ref. Proposal No. 382; § 121.137; commit­tee 7; agenda item B.

9-12. By revising § 121.161(a) to read as follows:§ 121.161 Airplane limitations: type of

route.(a) Unless authorized by the Admin­

istrator, based on the character of the terrain, the kind of operation, or the performance of the airplane to be used, no certificate holder may oper­ate a two-engine or three-engine air­plane (except a three-engine turbine- powered airplane) over a route that contains a point farther than 1 hour flying time (in still air at normal cruis-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36468 PROPOSED RULES

ing speed with one engine inoperative) from an adequate airport.

* * * * *Explanation. This proposal substitutes

the term “certificate holder” for the terms “domestic or flag air carrier” thus applying the rule to supplemental air carriers and commercial operators. This change would require certificate holders to comply with the same route and airport restrictions whether the operations are passenger or cargo type.

Ref. Proposal No. 385; § 121.161(a); com­mittee 3; agenda item C-l.

9-13. By revising § 121.163(a) to read as follows:

§ 121.163 Aircraft proving tests.(a) No domestic or flag air carrier

may operate an aircraft not before proven for use in scheduled air carrier operations, and no supplemental air carrier or commercial operator may

operate an aircraft not before proven for use in air carrier or commercial op­erator operations, unless an aircraft of that type has had, in addition to the aircraft certification tests, at least 100 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator, including a repre­sentative number of flights into en route airports. The requirement for at least 100 hours of proving tests may be reduced by the Administrator if the Administrator determines that a satis­factory level of proficiency has been demonstrated to justify the reduction. At least 10 hours of proving tests must be flown at night.

»* * * * *

Explanation. The FAA believes that prov­ing tests may be concluded, even if the total is less than 100 hours, when proficiency is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Aministrator.

Ref. Proposal No. 387; § 121.163(a); com­mittee 6A; agenda item D.

A p p e n d i x I—M is c e l l a n e o u s P r o p o s a l s W it h d r a w n b y P r o p o n e n t

The following proposals are withdrawn. The withdrawal of FAA proposals does not commit the FAA to any future course of action.

14 CFR (PAR) Proposal No. Committee Agenda item No.

Proponent

63.23..................................... 73 4 A - l ............. Federal Aviation Adminstration.63.41.................................... 78 4 A-2............. Do.63 appendix C ................... . 90 9 A - l ............. Do.65.51(b)............................... 98 4 B -2............. S.G.A.C./France.65.71.................................... 99 4 B -3............. Federal Aviation Administration.65.101.................................. 99 4 B -3............. Do.65.113................................... 99 4 B -3............. Do.121.1(b)................................ 355 6 A................. Do.121.9(a)............................... . 359 6 A................. S.G.A.C./France.121.13(a)............................. 359 6 A................. Federal Aviation Administration.121.590(b)............................ 359 6 A................. Do.121.47................................... 367 6 B ................. Do.121.51.... .............................. 369 6 B ................. Do.121.61................................... 1 373 6 B ................. Do.

A p p e n d i x II—P r o p o s a l s R e m o v e d F r o m C o n s id e r a t io n

Based on the FAA’s review of the discussions at the Operations Review Conference and the information submitted by interested persons, the following proposals are removed from consideration for the reasons listed:

14 CFR (FAR) Proposal No. CommitteeNo.

Agenda item Proponent

63.35(e)............................... 74 4 A -2............. Air Transport Association of America.65.11............... ..................... 91 4 B - l ............. Do.65.15.... ................................ 93 4 B - l ............. Mr. Sam Corso.65.81............. ...................... 106 4 B -3............. International Association of Machin­

ists and Aerospace Workers.118 4 B -4.............123 4 B -4............. Do.

65.95(c)............................... 128 4 B -4............. Helicopter Association of America.65.100.................................. 130 4 B -5............. International Association of Machin­

ists and Aerospace Workers.65.101.................................. 131 4 B -5............. Do.65.101(e)............................. 132 4 B -5............. Air Transport Association of America.65.102.................................. 133 4 B -5............. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Associ­

ation.137 4 B -5............. Do.138 4 B -5............. Do.

65.111 Subpart F .............. '139 None None.......... Mr. Sam Corso.65.113.................................. *140 None None.......... Do.65.115.................................. 1141 None None.......... Do.65.117.................................. »142 None None.......... Do.65.119.................................. >143 None None.......... Do.65.121.................................. »144 None None.......... Do.65.123.................................. » 145 None None.......... Do.65.125.................................. >146 None None.......... Do.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES

14 CPR (PAR) Proposal No. Committee Agenda item No.

Proponent

121 Subpart V ....... ........... 345 2 D .................Board.

121 Subpart....................... 346 2 D ................. Do.121 (New)........................... 347 10 G ................ Do.i2i m r ..... 34R 6A A121 (New)........................... 349 1 C - l ............. D a121 (New)............ .’.............. 350 3 C - l ............. Do.121 (New)........................... 351 3 C -l............. Do.121 (New)........................... 352 3 C - l ............. Do.121 (New)........................... 353 10 G ................ Do.121 (New)........................... 354 3 C - l ..... ....... Do.121.6(c)(6).......................... 357 10 E .................121.25(b)(9)........................ 361 6A B ................. Do.121.27.................................. 362 B ................. The Association of Flight Attendants.121.45(b)(8)........................ 365 6A B................. Air Transport Association of America.121.59.................................. 371 7 A................. The Association of plight Attendants.121.61.................................. 374 7 A................. Do.121.99.................................. 377 6A C................. Air Transport Association of America.121.133................................ 379 6A C................. International Association of Machin-

ists.121.139................................ 383 7 B .................121.161(a)........................... 3«fi 6A n .................121.163(e)........................... 388 6A D................. Do.121.163....................... ......... 389 6A D................. The Association of Flight Attendants.

‘Not discussed during Operations Review—Previously shown in Operations Review Notice 4, as de­ferred.

Proposal 74. This proposal would have amended § 63.35(e) to allow an air carrier or commercial operator with an approved training program under part 121, to administer the writ­ten test for an original flight engineer rating. The justification given was that the written examination for an original group II rating is based pri­marily on the B-727 airplane regard­less of the type aircraft on which the applicant is to serve. Since the written examinations for original group II rat­ings are now tailored to the type of aircraft on which the applicant will serve, there is no justification for the proposed amendment. Additionally, the PAA believes that, for reasons of uniformity and control, the original written examination for certification of flight engineers should continue to be administered by the FAA.

Proposal 91. This proposal would have amended §65.11(a) to allow an applicant who is employed by an air carrier holding both an air carrier op­erating certificate, and a repair station certification, who will perform identi­cal duties under each certificate, to apply on a single form for a certificate with dual privileges. The proposal stated that the current FAA practice is guided by FAA Handbook 8310.4A which has been interpreted to require the repairman to make separate appli­cation for identical ratings under each of the air carrier’s certificates. The FAA has determined that a regulatory change is unnecessary and will revise the handbook.

Proposal 93. This proposal would have amended §65.15 to make repair­man certificates permanently effective unless sooner surrendered, suspended, or revoked. The repairman would not have to be re-certificated. The FAA believes that the repairman authoriza­tion should continue to be issued for an appropriate air carrier or repair station since it is unique to the re­quirements of those organizations and the certificate should continue to expire when the repairman changes employment.

Proposal 106. This proposal would have amended §65.81 to protect the mechanic from technical violations which could arise when the mechanic works on an unfamiliar aircraft. Cur­rent § 65.81 provides that a certificated mechanic may not supervise the main­tenance or alteration of, or approve for return to service, any aircraft or appliance or part for which the me­chanic is rated, unless the mechanic has satisfactorily performed the work at an earlier date. Since modem train­ing aids such as closed circuit televi­sion, microfiche, etc., are available for a mechanic’s use, the problem of a me­chanic being unfamiliar with an air­craft has been minimized. Insufficient justification was presented to support the proposed amendment.

Proposals 118 and 123. These pro­posals would have amended §§ 65.91(d) and 65.93, “Inspection Authorization,” on the basis that there was little justi­fication for the requirement of period­ic renewal of an inspection authoriza­tion. The FAA has concluded that

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36470 PROPOSED RULES

there is sufficient justification to re­quire each holder of an inspection au­thorization to periodically update knowledge of regulatory requirements and related information by actual per­formance of duties authorized.

Proposal 128. This proposal would have amended § 65.95(c) to allow an authorized inspector to utilize inspec­tion authority anywhere under the ju­risdiction of the FAA. Since § 65.95(c) now allows this, there is no need for a rule change.

Proposals 130 and 131. These pro­posals would have- amended §65.101 to require applicants for a repairman’s certificate to pass a written or oral test covering the construction and maintenance of aircraft or compo­nents appropriate to the rating being sought instead of the current proce­dure where repairmen certificates are issued based solely on the employer’s recommendation. The FAA believes that, since the employee currently has to meet the qualification and experi­ence requirements of §65.101 (b) and(e), the privilege of candidate selection should continue to rest with the em­ployer.

Proposal 132. This proposal would have amended §65.101 to allow a person to meet one of the require­ments for a repairman crtificate by having a degree from a technical insti­tute and six months of practical expe­rience instead of 18 months of practi- casl experience. The FAA believes that the current 18 months practical expe­rience requirement is necessary.

Proposals 133, 137 and 138. These proposals woud have amended part 65 to providé for a new repairman certifi­cate to extend the scope of mainte­nance which may be performed by an owner/pilot. Considering the increased workload which this proposal would impose upon “appropriately rated me­chanics” and the “Administrator”, the problems associated with control of quality of workmanship, and the prob­lems associated with resale of aircraft where repairs have been made by the owner/pilot, the FAA believes that there is insufficient justification for the proposed change.

Proposal 139. This proposal would have amended §65.111 to eliminate the provisions for a “Senior” and “Master” rigger. The FAA has deter­mined that the two-level certificate system, under which “Master” rigger has higher qualifications that the “Senior” rigger, is needed in the inter­est of safety.

Proposals 140-146. These proposals would have amended §§65.113, 65.115, 65.117, 65.119, 65.121, 65.123 and65.125 and were submitted contingent upon the acceptance of proposal 139 which, for the reason stated under proposal 139, has been removed from consideration.

Proposal 345. This proposal would have amended subpart K of part 121 to require a maintenance program to ensure reliability of emergency evacu­ation slides. Section 121.309(b) re­quires the operator to inspect emer­gency equipment regularly in accord­ance with inspection periods estab­lished in the operations specifications to ensure its continued serviceability and immediate readiness. Section 121.309(b) is adequate to ensure reli­ability of slides.

Proposal 346. This proposal would have required certificate holders con­ducting operations under parts 121, 123, and § 135.2 to report all emergen­cy evacuations slide deployments, fail­ures and malfunctions to the FAA through the Mechanical Reliability Reporting System (MRRS). The FAA is considering the need to revise the list of Mechanical Reliability Report­ing System items to make them com­patible with today’s aviation environ­ment, and the need for a requirement to report all emergency evacuation slide deployments.

Proposal 347. This proposal would have amended part 121 to consolidate all rules pertaining to passengers under one subpart within 14 CFR part 121. The FAA is amending individual part 121 rules regarding passengers, crews, and operators. We believe that the recommended consolidation would only lead to duplication and confusion.

Proposal 348. This proposal would have added a new section to part 121 entitled, “Fuel consumption” to read as follows: “For those aircraft on which fuel compensators have been re­moved, the density of fuel must be considered maximum.” The proposal is vague and general. Discussion revealed that the intent of the proposal was to modify aircraft systems by supplemen­tal type certification (STC) or other means and did not reflect malfunc­tioning systems which would be sub­ject to the Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Any modification affecting fuel quantity accuracy should be con­tained in airworthiness rather than operating rules. Therefore, the propos­al is considered outside the scope of the operations review.

Proposal 349. This proposal would have added a new section to part 121 to require retroactive relocation of glide slope antenna to conform to an International Civil Aviation Organiza­tion recommendation. The FAA be­lieves the present operational proce­dures and glide slope antenna certifi­cation criteria are adequate to assure a safe aircraft clearance over the runway threshold.

Proposal 350. This proposal would have added a new section to part 121 which would leave to the discretion of the pilot in command the utilization of high drag maneuvers and associated

operatihg procedures. Since the pro­posal is vague and the proponent did not define the problem or provide spe­cifics during the operations review, there is inadequate justification pre­sented to support a rule change.

Proposal 351. This proposal would have added a new section which would allow the pilot in command to elect to operate the aircraft at the minimum drag point if, in the pilot in com­mand’s opinion, increased perform­ance is required. It would also require the operator to establish the speeds for various minimum drag configura­tions. The proposal is too broad, vague, and indefinite. The justifica­tion submitted was insufficient to sup­port a rule change.

Proposal. 352. This proposal would have added a new paragraph to § 121.189 to require the lateral area of consideration for this obstacle plane to be the same as the lateral limits for the departure procedure specified in TERPS. Due to the diverse departure procedures at many airports where specific departure routes are not de­fined and the extensive combinations of possible emergencies which could occur to each type of aircraft under various weather conditions, the FAA does not agree with the proposed rule change.

Proposal 353. This proposal would have added a new section to part 121 which would provide for periodic sur­veillance by the FAA to determine that the weight and balance of the air­craft is accurate. The FAA believes that present surveillance procedures provide an adequate level of safety.

Proposal 354. This proposal would allow for a 10-percent reduction in take -off thrust. The FAA has issued Order 8000.3, “Reduce Thrust Take - offs—Turbojet Powered Transports,” which accomplishes the basic objective of the proposal.

Proposals 357, 361, and 365. This series of proposals would have deleted §§121.6(0(6), 121.25(b)(9), and121.45(b)(8) which would limit the Ad­ministrator’s authority to amend the certificate holder’s operations specifi­cations. The FAA believes that these sections are required to provide admin­istrative flexibility.

Proposal 362. This proposal recom­mends that the public should have a voice in determining whether excep­tions or deviations from § 121.27 (b) and (c) should be granted. Section 121.27 concerns issuance of certificates and is not the place for discussion of exemptions and general public rule- making procedures. Part 11 prescribes procedures for the submission and processing of petitions for rulemaking and exemptions.

Proposals 371 and 374. These pro­posals would have amended §§ 121.57 and 121.61 to require supplemental air

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36471

carriers and commercial operators to employ a Director of Flight Atten­dants and a Chief Flight Attendant on the basis that this would enhance the professionalism of flight attendants and, indirectly, improve operational safety. The FAA believes that the pro­ponent did not present sufficient justi­fication to support a requirement for the establishment of these positions.

Proposal 377. This proposal would have revised § 121.99 to eliminate, for domestic and flag air carriers, the re­quirement for a two-way air to ground radio communication with the appro­priate dispatch office when the air­craft is operating in controlled air­space. The proposal would have elimi­nated the requirement for flight watch over most en route operations and would reduce dispatch surveil­lance and coordination. The FAA be­lieves that the current regulation is necessary to maintain an adequate level of safety and to rescind it would not be in the public interest.

Proposal 379. This proposal would have amended §121.133, by providing that no manual changes be made by air carriers or commercial operators of large aircraft unless the affected maintenance personnel are notified by bulletin of the change and the effec­tive date of the change. Current § 121.137 places the responsibility on each certificate holder to furnish copies of the manual required by §121.133 and the changes and addi­tions or appropriate parts of the manual to its appropriate ground op­erations and maintenance personnel. The FAA believes that this proposal would burden the certificate holder without an equivalent increase in safety.

Proposal 383. Section 121.139 cur­rently requires each supplemental air carrier and commercial operator to carry appropriate parts of the manual on each aircraft when away from the principal base. This proposal would have amended § 121.139 to require the certificate holder to provide aboard the aircraft, maintain, and revise a separate manual containing only the pertinent safety information concern­ing the cabin. The FAA believes that there is insufficient justification for the imposition of such an additional requirement on the certificate holder.

Proposal 386. This proposal would have amended § 121.161 to allow two- engine turbine-powered airplanes, cer­tificated under part 25, to operate in passenger operations.with one engine inoperative, over a route that contains a point farther than one hour’s flying time from an adequate airport. The FAA believes that a two-engine tur­bine-powered aircraft with one engine inoperative would not provide ah ade­quate level of safety.

Proposal 388. This proposal would have amended § 121.163 to allow the certificate holder to “* * * carry only passengers needed to make the test * * *”. As written, the proposal could be interpreted as allowing reve­nue passengers to be carried on the proving flights. The FAA believes that, since the proving flights are de­signed to prove that the airplane en­counters no unforeseen operational conditions, passengers should not be carried. The present rule is considered adequate.

Proposal 389. This proposal would have eliminated flight attendants aboard aircraft during proving tests. Proving tests, as required by § 121.163, are intended to prove to the FAA that the operational procedures for that aircraft are adequate for the safe car­riage of the general public in sched­uled operation. Such aircraft proving tests are not flight tests as required by §21.33 and are not intended to prove the capability of the aircraft. The flight attendants are an integral part of the operational procedures for han­dling passengers and it is necessary that they be present during the prov­ing tests for FAA evaluation of their functions.(Secs. 313, 314, and 601 through 610 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354, 1355, and 1421 through 1430 and sec­tion 6(c) of the Department of Transporta­tion Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)).)

Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 10,1978.

J. A. F e r r a r e se , Acting Director,

Flight Standards Service.[FR Doc. 78-22813 Filed 8-16-78 8:45 am]

[4910-13]

[1 4 CFR Parts 71 and 7 5 ]

[Airspace Docket No. 78-RM-16]A IR W A Y S A N D JET ROUTES

Proposed A lte ra tio n and A ddition; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Adminis­tration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Correction to notice of pro­posed rulemaking.SUMMARY: In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published in the F ed er a l R e g is t e r of July 27, 1978, vol. 43, page 32438, under “The Proposed Amendment” the Denver 085° radial should be 058° in the description of V- 220 and the Hayden 098° radial should be 089° in the description of J-56. This correction reflects the correct radials.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Everett L. McKisson, Airspace

Regulations Branch (AAT-230), Air­space and Air Traffic Rules Division, Air Traffic Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, telephone 202-426-3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR Doc. 78-20814 was published on July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32438) and pro­posed among other things the realine- ment of V-220 and jet route No. 56. The numbers describing the Denver 085° radial and the Hayden 098° radial in items 11 and 20 under the heading of “The Proposed Amendment” were inadvertently transposed. They should be Denver 058° and Hayden 089°. Therefore, action is taken herein to correct these errors.

D r a f t in g I n f o r m a t io n

The principal authors of this docu­ment are Mr. Everett L. McKisson, Air Traffic Service, and Mr. Richard W. Danforth, Office of the Chief Counsel.

T h e P r o p o s e d A m e n d m e n t

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity delegated to me, the Federal Avi­ation Administration, FR Doc. 78- 20814 as published in the F ed er a l R eg­is t e r on July 27, 1978, starting on page 32438 is amended in the right hand column of page 32439 under item 11 by deleting “Denver 085°” and sub­stituting “Denver 058°” . therefor; also, under item 20 by deleting “Hayden 098°” and substituting "Hayden 089°” therefor.(Secs. 307(a), 313(a), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1348(a) and 1354(a)); sec. 6(c), Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)); and 14 CFR 11.65.) "

Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 9,1978.

B . K e it h P o t t s , Acting Chief, Airspace and

Air Traffic Rules Division. [FR Doc. 78-22814 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy R egulatory Commission

[1 8 CFR Parts 2 and 157]

[Docket No. RM78-7]NATURAL GAS FROM CERTIFICATE

REQUIREMENTS

Proposed Exemptions fo r Tem porary Sale, D elivery , or Transportation A rrangem ents

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemak­ing.SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Reg­ulatory Commission proposes that

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36472 PROPOSED RULES

§§ 2.68, 157.22 and 157.29 of Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations be re­voked and replaced by new §§ 157.45 through 157.52. Review of the existing emergency purchase exemptions indi­cates the present provisions should be modified. The proposed regulations consolidate and modify the existing regulations and defines the circum­stances under which exempted emer­gency natural gas supplies can be bought, sold, and transported in inter­state commerce.DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 13,1978.ADDRESS: Interested persons may participate in this proposed rulemak­ing by submitting written data, views or arguments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teresa Ponder, Office of GeneralCounsel, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 825 North CapitolStreet NE., Washington, D.C. 20426,202-275-4284.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: B a c k g r o u n d

The Commission is reevaluating and proposing to revise the emergency pur­chase provisions of its regulations taking cognizance of the narrow con­struction given the exemption provi­sion of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f) under which the present 60-day programs were institut­ed) in Consumers Federation of Amer­ica v. F.P.C., 515 F.2d 347 (D.C. Cir. 1975), and the frequent use of the emergency provisions. On April 7, 1978, the Commission requested dis­cussion and comments from the public regarding the following subjects: The criteria to be used in determining the existence of an emergency; the types of consumers to whom emergency sup­plies should be made available; the proper relationship of emergency sup­plies in regard to system supply; the need for price guidelines and what they should be; the proper method of recovering the costs of emergency sup­plies; the effects of emergency pur­chases on the price of intrastate sup­plies and on the ability of the inter­state market to attract new onshore reserves; the proper role of limited- term certificates in alleviating emer­gencies; and the legal limitations on certification exemptions. The com­ments submitted, as summarized below, expressed divergent opinions on each point.

S u m m a r y o p t h e C o m m e n t s

Many of the comments questioned the necessity of changing the emer­

gency provisions since natural gas which would otherwise be unavailable to the interstate market could be ac­quired for critical needs during supply shortages if the present regulatory scheme is maintained.

C r it e r ia f o r D e t e r m in in g a n E m e r g e n c y

While no consensus was reached, many of the comments indicated that the existence of an emergency should be determined by focusing on the actual needs at the end-use level rather than at the level of pipeline curtailment, except in the case of severe curtailments and force majeure situations. On the other hand, as many comments indicated, such a focus might impede the current effec­tiveness of the emergency programs. Comments also expressed concern that end-use requirements might cause ad­ministrative problems since end-use criteria would be hard to evaluate at the time of an emergency and not pro­vide sufficient flexibility for the pipe­lines.

Q u a l if ie d P u r c h a s e r s

Although most of the comments agreed that emergency gas should be limited to high priority users, many expressed the opinion that the sug­gested limitations were too restrictive and that certain additional industrial users should be allowed to obtain emergency gas. The class of excluded users which expressed the most con­cern were consumers with alternate fuel facilities, because occasionally, al­ternate fuels are not available when there is a natural gas emergency. These consumers stated that unless they are allowed to purchase emergen­cy supplies when alternate fuels are unavailable, the emergency regula­tions might provide a disincentive to install alternate fuel facilities.

Most comments emphasized a criti­cal need for allowing pipelines to store emergency supplies. It was argued that although. excessive emergency purchases should be avoided, pipelines and distributors should not be discour­aged from attempting to forecast and obtain the necessary supplies for winter requirements by disallowing the recovery of the costs incurred in the purchase of excess emergency sup­plies.

T h e P r o p e r R ole o f P i p e l i n e a n d D i s t r ib u t o r s

Comments suggested that pipelines should usually act as a broker or agent, purchasing emergency gas for particular purchasers. Pipelines should purchase emergency gas for system supply only to meet a force majeure situation or a severe curtail­ment, or to fill summer storage. In all other situations, the gas should be

specifically assigned to the designated purchaser. Many of the comments, however, indicated that specific as­signment of emergency natural gas might present an impossible adminis­trative task for pipelines and distribu­tors. Several comments suggested that the distributors and direct industrial consumers should be able to contract for and store their own emergency supplies.

P r ic e G u id e l in e s

Many commentators opposed the promulgation of price guidelines be­cause emergency situations may re­quire extraordinary measures, includ­ing high prices, to guarantee the gas will be immediately available. It was suggested that should price guidelines be established, they would be work­able only if they (1) provide some as­surance that pipelines will be able to recover the cost of emergency sup­plies, (2) are flexible, creating a zone of reasonableness, and (3) allow market forces to operate. With regard to the price of the gas, the comments emphasized the need to allow recovery of all costs. The guideline most often suggested was a zone approximating the prevailing intrastate prices.

Transportation guidelines were sug­gested which allowed recovery of all costs of gathering and transporting the gas. Generally, it was assumed that the price of transporting emer­gency gas would be no higher than the cost of transporting nonemergency gas supplies, but that any exceptional ex­penses should be recovered. The prev­alent concern was that restrictive price guidelines would deter emergency sales.

M e t h o d o f R e c o v e r in g C o s t s

The comments were divided as to whether or not the costs of emergency supplies should be rolled-in with other costs of purchased gas and recovered through the PGA accounts. Most in­terstate pipelines argued that the costs should be flowed through the PGA accounts because, when emergen­cy supplies flow, benefit accrues to all customers on the line, and it would be discriminatory to require certain cus­tomers to bear the entire burden of the cost of the emergency gas. Com­ments which argued against rolling in the costs through the PGA accounts cited the fact that permitting rolled-in costs disguises the high price of emer­gency supplies, encourages increased use of emergency gas and forces high priority users, who do not usually have to resort to emergency gas, to subsidize its use by lower priority users.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

M a r k e t E f f e c t s o f E m e r g e n c y P u r c h a s e s

Most parties who addressed the sub­ject of market effects stated that emergency gas purchases would have a minimal effect on intrastate gas prices or on availability of new gas supplies to the interstate market. Some com­mentators believed that many reserves dedicated to the intrastate market are simply not available to the interstate market. Producers suggested that emergency gas programs, in fact, en­courage dedications to the interstate market because they allow the produc­er to tap wells immediately while ap­plications for certification are pend­ing.

L im it e d -T e r m C e r t if ic a t io n s

Most comments indicated that the Commission should encourage the lim­ited-term procedure. It is generally be­lieved by commentators, however, that a limited-term certificate program cannot take the place of emergency gas purchases and should only be used to augment emergency supplies.

Several comments supported the re­quirement that limited-term certifi­cates be granted only for gas other­wise unavailable to the interstate market, but added that such a require­ment should not be interpreted to mean that the producers must have an intrastate contract in hand. In the past, such an interpretation has dis­couraged the seeking of limited-term certificates because by the time the seller has an intrastate contract, he does not need to sell the gas in the in­terstate market.

Limited-term certification raises the issue of whether or not gatherers arid intrastate pipelines should be given these certificates, and if so, whether their uncertified suppliers should also be required to seek certification. It was generally agreed in the comments that the extension of the Commis­sion’s jurisdiction over the producers of these supplies would reduce the available supplies because producers as a rule might seek to avoid Federal jurisdiction to the point of refusing to make sales that would subject them to jurisdiction.

L egal B o u n d a r ie s o f E m e r g e n c y E x e m p t io n s

Most parties feel that the present program meets the legal requirements established by the Natural Gas Act and the courts.

Most parties who addressed the issue stated that for the purposes of emer­gency purchases, the Commission can legally continue to regulate nonjuris- dictional producers’ rates indirectly: Provided, That rates meet the stand­ards of section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. Most comments suggested that in

PROPOSED RULES

“Consumer’s Federation of America v. F.P.C.”, 515 F. 2d 347 (D.C. Cir. 1975), the Court of Appeals criticized the Commision’s method of indirect regu­lation, but did not rule that indirect regulation was invalid per se. Rather, it required that more specific guide­lines be established by the Commis­sion in this regard.

M is c e l l a n e o u s

There is substantial disagreement over whether or not take-or-pay provi­sions should be allowed. Some com­ments argued that take-or-pay provi­sions drive up the price of emergency gas, while others believe that the price of gas would significantly increase if take-or-pay provisions were barred.

D e t e r m in a t io n o f t h e C o m m is s io n

The Commission has determined that, except in the case of a pipeline emergency, it is appropriate to define emergency by focusing on the needs of ultimate end-users, not on a pipeline’s level of curtailment. Experience devel­oped over the years, with respect to ul­timate end-use effects of a pipeline’s level of curtailment at the wholesale level, demonstrate that little or no cor­relation exists between curtailment and the needs of ultimate end-users. Because pipeline curtailment is not an adequate indication of an emergency situation, imminent or reasonably an­ticipated curtailments of end-user sup­plies will be proposed as the criteria for determining the existence of an emergency.

Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act extends the authority of the Commis­sion:* * * to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, to the sale in inter­state commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, and to natural-gas companies engaged in such transporatation or sale, but * * * not* * * to any other transportation or sale of natural gas or to the facilities used for such distribution or to the production or gather­ing of natural gas.Because the emergency transactions which the Commission is proposing to exempt would otherwise require a cer­tificate of public convenience and ne­cessity, the Commission may specify the conditions and circumstances under which a given emergency trans­action will be exempt. These condi­tions and circumstances may properly be related to the activities of buyers, sellers, or transporters under the emergency tranactions, in a manner consistent with the Commission’s ju­risdiction.

Broad authority in a similar situa­tion has been exercised by thë Com­mission in the FPC Order No. 533 pro­gram which was recently reviewed and continued with modifications by

36473*FERC Order No. 2. FPC Order No. 533 was recently affirmed by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.1 The Commission may also base a pipe­line’s curtailment plan upon end-use principles.2

The Commission’s jurisdiction does not extend to the services performed by a local distribution company or to the methods of accounting for emer­gency supplies or to the recovery of the costs of emergency supplies by a distributor. The Commission may, however, determine that a distribution company qualifies to enter into emer­gency transactions only when certain customers are threatened with curtail­ment under that distribution compa­ny’s curtailment plan. It is also per­missible for the Commission to specify that pipelines, under most circum­stances, should directly assign their gas purchases, and related costs, to their customers which require emer­gency supplies.

The proposed rule incorporates these and similar concepts for several reasons. Allowing pipelines to obtain emergency natural gas for system supply, except in special circum­stances, may encourage purchases of emergency supplies in excess of actual emergency needs. When the cost of emergency supplies is included with the cost of pipeline system supplies, the burden of paying for this gas is spread among all the pipeline’s cus­tomers even though only certain cus­tomers may require or benefit from these ' emergency supplies. On the other hand, if a pipeline’s direct sale and distribution company customers are directly assigned the costs of the gas, responses to emergency situations will be properly circumscribed and the beneficiaries of these transactions will pay the full cost thereof.

The existence of a natural gas emer­gency usually requires immediate pur­chase and delivery of emergency sup­plies. The purchaser must compete for intrastate gas otherwise unavailable to the interstate market, and the pur­chaser usually pays intrastate rates to obtain it. Since there must be an ex­traordinary need for the gas, the Com­mission has determined that as long as the emergency transaction complies with this proposed rule, it will be deemed to be in the public interest.

With respect to the Commission’s evaluation of the proposed rule and comment thereon, the Commission in­tends to make use of the data filed in current pipeline curtailment omnibus proceedings. Such use is appropriate and permissible in this informal rule- making proceeding, in light of the in-

1 “American Public Gas Association et al. v. FERC,” D.C. Cir. No. 75-2105, Decided May 10, 1978.

2 “State of North Carolina v. FERC,” D.C. Cir. No. 76-2102, Decided July 13,1978.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36474 PROPOSED RULES

tended purpose of the omnibus pro­ceedings to gather data and informa­tion for the benefit of the Commis­sion.

It is the Commission’s intent that these regulations be self-executing. They will permit interstate pipelines and their customers to promptly react to emergency situations as they devel­op without seeking prior Commission approval of emergency transactions conducted in accordance with this sub­part.

S u m m a r y o f t h e A m e n d m e n t s

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes that §§2.68, 157.22, and 157.29 be re­voked and replaced by §§ 157.45 through 157.52. Section 2.68 autho­rizes distribution companies not under Commission jurisdiction, as well as in­trastate pipelines, to make sales and deliveries of natural gas in interstate commerce to distribution companies and interstate pipelines in need of temporary emergency gas supplies for 60 days. Section 157.22 authorizes the construction and operation of facilities and the sale of natural gas without a certificate where the sale is necessary to assure maintenance of adequate natural gas service. Section 157.29 au­thorizes independent producers, under certain conditions, to sell and trans­port natural gas to interstate pipelines for a 60-day period without a certifi­cate. Under all three sections, an emergency exists when the pipeline is forced to curtail its services. Also, a pipeline has the option of treating the emergency natural gas as system supply and recovering its costs through purchased gas adjustment (PGA) accounts.

As proposed, the new regulation would eliminate these three exemp­tions and replace them with a single regulation.O u t l in e o f M a jo r F e a t u r e s o f P r o ­

p o se d 6 0 -D a y E m er g e n c y R e g u la ­t io n

Section 157.45—Purpose. The con­struction and operation of facilities or the sale or transportation of emergen­cy gas would be exempted from certifi­cate requirements of the Natural Gas Act under certain conditions. It would be the policy of the Commission to monitor emergency natural gas trans­actions. The Commission proposes to accord a rebuttable presumption of prudence to transactions conducted in accordance with this subpart.

Section 157.46—Definitions. A pipe­line emergency would be defined as a sudden unanticipated loss of supply or a situation where immediate action is required for protection of life, health, or property. The term “pipeline emer­gency” would be adopted rather than “force majeure.” “Emergency” would

mean a pipeline emergency or a situa­tion where actual curtailment of natu­ral gas service is imminent or reason­ably anticipated to occur to any of the following end-users:

(1) Any residential Consumer;(2) Any commercial or industrial

consumer whose average daily require­ments are less than 300 Mcf per day;

(3) Any industrial consumers for feedstock, process, or plant protection uses; and

(4) Any commercial or industrial consumer other than an electric util­ity:

(i) Whose requirements exceed 300 Mcf per day;

(ii) Which does not have installed al­ternate fuel facilities or which does not have alternate fuel immediately available;

(iii) Whose operations would be sub­stantially impaired without additional gas supplies.If imminent or reasonably anticipated curtailment of an end-user electric utility presents a danger to life, health, or maintenance of physical property, the electric utility would qualify for relief from its pipeline sup­plier under the terms of § 154.46(a). However, when the curtailment would not result in such a danger to life, health, or maintenance of physical property, the electric utility would be required to receive prior Commission approval before participating in the emergency program.

“Qualified sellers” would include producers, intrastate pipelines, inter­state pipelines, and distribution com­panies. “Qualified purchasers” would include distribution companies and in­terstate pipelines.

Section 157.47—Exemptions from certificate requirements. Qualified sellers and transporters of emergency natural gas are exempted from the certificate requirements of the Natu­ral Gas Act, when the emergency transactions are conducted in accord­ance with the provisions of this sub­part.

Section 157.48— Terms and condi­tions of emergency purchases—General conditions. The proposed § 157.48 would permit distribution companies and interstate pipelines to purchase emergency natural gas, but require them to make every reasonable at­tempt to conduct their operations in such manner as to minimize or avoid reliance upon emergency supplies. Flexibility would be accorded purchas­ers to account for colder-than-normal winter weather while forecasting natu­ral gas supplies and needs for the winter.

Distribution companies and direct sale customers would be required to verify to the pipeline that an emergen­cy exists.

The proposal provides that the Com­mission could take appropriate action to insure compliance with the condi­tions of this subpart. Among other remedies available to the Commission, it could, after notice and opportunity for hearing, declare any person found to have engaged in emergency transac­tions in violation of this subpart to be ineligible to participate in further emergency transactions without prior Commission approval. Producers who use this subpart to circumvent the cer­tificate requirements of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, among other remedies, could be declared ineligible.

Duration. Emergency transactions would continue to be limited to a period of not more than 60 consecutive calendar days, except where the Com­mission determines that there is a nat­ural gas emergency which is national or regional in scope, or for an addi­tional period of not more than 60 days, where a seller, other than a pro­ducer, has requested a waiver and the Commission has not issued an order denying the waiver for the additional 60 days. A producer could not continue to sell emergency natural gas from a well beyond the initial 60-day period unless the producer had filed an appli­cation for a permanent or temporary certificate and sold the gas, after the initial 60-day period, at the applicable national or area rate ceiling.

System supply and direct assignment of supplies. The proposal provides that interstate pipelines could purchase emergency natural gas for general system supply only when a pipeline emergency exists or for summer stor­age injection. Interstate pipelines could purchase emergency natural gas and directly assign volumes and costs associated with such gas, including transportation costs, to its direct sale customers and resale distribution com­panies faced with an emergency, if re­quested by the customers. Interstate pipelines could also act as agent or broker in acquiring and transporting emergency natural gas for distribution companies. In the event this régula­tion is adopted, pipelines which engage in emergency transactions will be expected to file tariff changes, if necessary, so that the cost of emergen­cy supplies may be allocated to specif­ic pipeline customers.

Emergency purchases for summer storage injections. Emergency natural gas supplies could be purchased for summer storage injection when the scheduled injections could not be made from nonemergency natural gas supplies without creating an emer­gency during the injection period.

Section 157.49—Price Ceilings for Emergency Transactions—Transpora- tation prices. Generally, interstate pipelines would determine a transpor­tation charge based upon the trans-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36475mission costs included in the pipeline’s effective sales rates. The revenues re­ceived for the transportation and other services would be credited to the deferred account and flowed back to the pipeline’s customers except for a small nominal charge of 2 cents per Mcf which may be retained by the pipeline. The 2 cents per Mcf allowance is not intended to apply to any other jurisdictional transaction.

Natural gas prices. Except for pro­duction from the Federal offshore domain, sales of emergency natural gas by producers could be made at a rate no higher than the national or area rate ceiling plus allowable adjust­ment, or at a rate not in excess of the rate for current intrastate producer’s sales of comparable location and con­tract vintage as reported in FPC form 45, to create a rebuttable presumption of prudence. In addition, the purchas­er must seek and obtain that supply of gas which results in the lowest total cost by inquiring of at least three qualified sellers as to the cost and availability of gas from such sellers.

Sales of emergency natural gas by intrastate pipelines and distributors should be made at the lesser of (1) the weighted average systemwide cost of gas supplies plus a normal charge for gathering and transportation to the point of. delivery or (2) the lowest offer obtained after inquiring of at least three qualified sellers. A rebutta­ble presumption of prudence will also attach to a sale made at a cost in excess of the weighted average system- wide cost of gas if the requisite three inquiries are made and if the seller can show that it will actually incur the claimed higher cost of gas in acquiring and delivering the emergency supplies.

The proposal provides that compli­ance with the price guidelines would create a rebuttable presumption of prudence. Failure to comply with the guidelines would place on the purchas­er the burden of demonstrating pru­dence. If the lowest price offered by qualified producers did not fall within the published FPC form 45 data, the rebuttable presumption of prudence would not be created. The presump­tion of prudence would be rebutted upon a showing that the purchaser’s efforts to comply with these require­ments did not actually constitute a good faith effort to obtain the emer­gency supplies at the lowest available cost.

Section 157.SO—Reporting require­ments for emergency tranactions. The proposed regulations require that within 48 hours after commencement of deliveries, the interstate pipeline should report by telegram to the Com­mission the nature of the emergency and other relevant aspects of the emergency transaction. Interstate pipelines which transport emergency

supplies would file reports with the Commission every calendar quarter.

Section 157.51—Waiver of require­ments for emergency transactions. The Commission would be able to waive the requirements of this subpart.

Section 157.52—Drilling or testing and purging new natural gas pipeline facilities. This proposed section pro­vides that gas service for the drilling of new oil or gas wells, or for testing and purging of a new natural gas pipe­line facility, would be exempted from certificate requirements.

P u b l ic C o m m e n t P r o c e d u r e s

Interested persons may particpate in this proposed rulemaking by submit­ting written data, views, or arguments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, on or before September 13, 1978. Eachperson submitting a comment should include his name and address, identify the notice (Docket RM78-7), and give reasons for any recommendations. An original and 14 conformed copies should be filed with the Secretary of the Commission. Comments should in­dicate the name, title, mailing address, and telephone number of one person to whom communications concerning the proposal may be addressed. Writ­ten comments shall be placed in the Commission’s public files and will be available for public inspection at the Commission’s Office of Public Infor­mation, Room 1000, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, during regular business hours.(Natural Gas Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 717), Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267)

In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed to amend Parts 2 and 157, Chapter I of Title 18, the Code of Fed­eral Regulations, as set forth below.

By direction of the Commission.Lois D. C a s h e l l ,

Acting Secretary.§2.68 [Deieted]

1. Part 2 is amended by deleting § 2.68 in its entirety.§§ 157.22 and 157.29 [Deleted]

2. Part 157 is amended by deleting §§ 157.22 and 157.29 in their entirety and by adding new subparts C (§§157.45 through 157.51) and D (§ 157.52), to read as follows:Subpart C—Exemption of Emergency Sale, Delivery,

or Transportation Arrangements for Natural Gas From Certificate Requirements

Sec.157.45 Purpose.157.46 Definitions.157.47 Exemptions from certificate re­

quirements.

Sec.157.48 Terms and conditions of emergency

transactions.157.49 Price ceilings for emergency trans­

actions.157.50 Reporting requirements for emer­

gency transactions.157.51 Waiver of requirements for emer­

gency transactions.A uthority: Natural Gas Act, as amended

(15 U.S.C. 717), Department of Energy Or­ganization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, E.O. 12009, 42FR 46267.Subpart C— Exemption o f Emergency Sale, De­

live ry , or Transportation A rrangem ents fo rN atu ra l Gas From C ertificate Requirements.

§ 157.45 Purpose.(a) The purpose of this subpart is to

prescribe the conditions under which certain emergency transactions involv­ing the construction and operation of facilities or the sale, transportation and delivery of natural gas in inter­state commerce are exempt from the requirements of section 7 of the Natu­ral Gas Act.

(b) It shall be the policy of the Com­mission to monitor emergency natural gas transactions to the extent neces­sary to assure compliance with the re­quirements of this subpart.

(c) It shall be the policy of the Com­mission to accord a rebuttable pre­sumption of prudence to emergency natural gas transactions conducted in accordance with this subpart, and, unless such presumption is successful­ly rebutted in subsequent rate pro­ceeding, to permit companies subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission to recover those costs incurred in ac­cordance with this subpart.§ 157.46 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart:(a) “Pipeline emergency” means (1)

a sudden unanticipated loss of gas supply or (2) a situation where the pipeline purchaser, in good faith, de­termines that immediate action is re­quired or is reasonably anticipated to be required for protection of life or health or for maintenance of physical property.

(b) “Emergency” means a pipeline emergency or a situation where actual curtailment of natural gas service is imminent or reasonably anticipated to occur to any of the following end- users:

(1) Any residential consumer;(2) Any commercial or industrial

consumer whose average daily require­ments in a peak month are less than 300 Mcf per day;

(3) Any industrial consumer for feedstock, process, or plant protection use; or

(4) Any commençai or industrial consumer other than an electric util­ity:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36476

(1) Whose average daily require­ments in a peak month exceed 300 Mcf per day,

(ii) Which does not have alternate fuel facilities or which does not have alternate fuels immediately available, and,

(iii) Whose operations would be sub­stantially impaired without emergency natural gas supplies.

(c) “Qualified seller" means any pro­ducer, intrastate pipeline, interstate pipeline, or distribution company.

(d) “Qualified purchaser” means a distribution company or interstate pipeline.

(e) “Interstate pipeline” .means any natural gas company as defined in sec­tion 2(6) of the Natural Gas Act which is engaged in the transportation by pipeline of natural gas.

(f) “Distribution company” means any person (or governmental entity) which receives patural gas for local distribution and resale to natural gas users.

(g) “Intrastate pipeline” means any person (other than an interstate pipe­line) engaged in the transportation by pipeline of natural gas.

(h) “Emergency natural gas” means natural gas transported or sold to alle­viate an emergency in accordance with this subpart.§ 157.47 Exemptions from certifícate re­

quirements.(a) Any qualified seller or other

person engaged in the transportation or sale of emergency natural gas, or in the construction and operation of fa­cilities for the sale or transportation of emergency natural gas, is exempt from the requirements of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, to the extent that (1) such sale or transportation of emergency natural gas or such con­struction or operation of facilities is necessary to alleviate an emergency and (2) such sale, transportation, con­struction or operation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.

(b) Participation in any transaction described in paragraph (a) of this sec­tion shall not subject any person to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Natural Gas Act except to the extent provided in this subpart.§ 157.48 Terms and conditions of emergen­

cy purchases.(a) General conditions. (1) Qualified

purchasers may purchase emergency natural gas in accordance with the provisions of this subpart but should make every reasonable attempt to con­duct their operations in such a manner as to minimize or, if possible, to avoid continuing reliance upon emergency natural gas supplies.

(2) In applying the definition of emergency, flexibility will be accorded

PROPOSED RULES

interstate pipelines and distribution companies to account for colder than normal winter weather and to accomo­date operations under effective cur­tailment plans. A reasonable relation­ship should exist between volumes purchased under this subpart and the volumes which are anticipated to be needed during the emergency.

(3) When a distribution company purchases, or a direct sale customer or distribution company requests assign­ment of emergency natural gas, a re­sponsible official of such distribution company or direct sale customer shall advise the interstate pipeline which will make the deliveries, before com­mencement of the deliveries, that the emergency exists or is imminent and shall provide such pipeline with such imformation as m ay, be required within sufficient time to enable the pipeline to make the reports required in § 157.50.

(4) After notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Commission may take appropriate action to insure compli­ance with this subpart. Upon a deter­mination by the Commission that a person has engaged in emergency transactions and has failed to comply with the conditions of this subpart, the Commission may, in addition to any other remedies, declare such person ineligible to engage in further emergency natural gas transactions without prior Commission approval.

(b) Duration.Emergency transactions under this

subpart shall be limited to a period of not more than 60 consecutive calendar days, except in the following cases:

(1) In the event that the Commis­sion determines that there is a natural gas emergency which is national or re­gional in scope, emergency transac­tions may continue for such period as the Commission may by order pre­scribe.

(2) Except for sales by producers, emergency transactions under this subpart may be continued for an addi­tional period of not more than 60 con­secutive days where (i) 15 days prior to the end of the initial 60-day period, the qualified purchaser files a petition requesting a waiver so as to permit one additional 60-day period of exemption, describing fully the continued emer­gency situation, and (ii) the Commis­sion does not, within the 15-day period, by order, prohibit continuation of the emergency transactions for such additional period.

(3) A producer may not continue to sell emergency natural gas from a well beyond the initial 60-day period unless the producer has filed an application for a permanent or temporary certifi­cate to continue such sales within 45 days after commencement of the emergency natural gas deliveries under this subpart. Any deliveries

made after the initial 60-day period shall be made at or below the applica­ble national or area rate ceiling, and may continue at such rates until the Commission acts on the application for the certificate.

(4) No cost associated with facilities installed by interstate pipelines in con­nection with emergency transactions shall be included in the pipeline’s ju­risdictional rates unless a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been issued authorizing such facilities.

(c) System supply and direct assign­ment of supplies. (1) Interstate pipe­lines may purchase emergency natural gas for general system supply for a pipeline emergency, or for summer storage injection, pursuant to para­graph (d) of this section.

(2)(i) Interstate pipelines may pur­chase emergency natural gas and di­rectly assign volumes and costs associ­ated with such gas, including transpor­tation costs, to its direct sale and dis­tribution company customers faced with an emergency, if the customer or company complies with paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(ii) An interstate pipeline, at its dis­cretion, may choose to establish a sep­arate account to cover the cost of all assigned emergency purchases and al­locate costs in that account to the in­dividual assignment customers on a weighted average cost basis. If an in­terstate pipeline purchases emergency gas supplies for direct assignment in quantities greater than related emer­gency requirements, then the balance may be used for general system supply. It is expected that such excess emergency natural gas volumes will be small and that pipelines will make every reasonable attempt to balance assignments with supplies. Interstate pipelines may also act as brokers or agents in acquiring and transporting emergency natural gas for distribution companies faced with an emergency and shall cooperate with these compa­nies in arranging for such acquisition and transportation.

(d) Emergency purchases for summer storage injections. (1) Emergency nat­ural gas supplies may be purchased for summer storage injection when:

(1) It is reasonably anticipated that failure to make natural gas injections would result in unfulfilled scheduled storage inventories at the beginning of the winter, and,

(ii) The pipeline, in good faith, de­termines that projected nonemergency natural gas supplies are not adequate to meet scheduled storage injections without creating an emergency during the injection period.

(2) The quantities of emergency sup­plies purchased to fill storage shall bear a reasonable relationship to the quantities otherwise needed to meet storage injections and to avoid an

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L . 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36477emergencyseason.

during the injection

§157.49 Price ceilings for emergencytransactions.

(a) Transportation prices. (1) Inter­state pipelines rendering transporta­tion services under this subpart shall determine transportation charges as follows:

(1) In the event a pipeline has on file an effective transportation rate sched­ule applicable to transactions under this subpart, the pipeline will employ the rate(s) contained therein.

(ii) If an interstate pipeline does not have a transportation rate schedule applicable to transportation services rendered under this subpart, then it shall determine transportation charges applicable to such services as follows:

(A) Such charges shall be based upon the transmission costs then in­cluded in the pipeline’s effective sales rates.

(B) In calculating such charges, the pipeline shall employ the methodolo­gy used in designing rates to recover the transportation component includ­ed in its then effective sales tariffs; except where the pipeline has on file an effective transportation schedule applicable to certified transportation service in which case the transporta­tion charge shall be designed consist­ent with the methodology employed under that rate schedule.

(iii) The» revenues received for the transportation and any other services, including all brokerage fees, in excess of 2 cents per Mcf shall be credited to a deferred account and flowed back to the pipeline’s customers, except where the pipeline can demonstrate that its out-of-pocket costs actually exceed 2 cents per Mcf or that the level of its effective base tariff rates is predicated upon (A) billing units which include specific volumes of emergency gas pur­chased or anticipated to be purchased by the pipeline or (B) revenues re­ceived for the transportation of emer­gency gas volumes which were cred­ited to the test-year cost of service. Thus, pipelines shall be required to flow through all revenues from emer­gency transactions in excess of 2 cents per Mcf which are not reflected in the level of the pipeline’s effective base tariff rates. Volumes for compressor station fuel and lost and unaccounted for gas shall be provided by the party for whom the transportation is ren­dered.

(2) Intrastate pipelines rendering transportation service under this sub­part shall determine transportation charges in a manner consistent with both the cost and methodology for cal­culating transportation charges to the customers of that pipeline.

(b) Natural gas prices. (1) Except for production form the offshore Federal domain, sales of emergency natural gas by producers shall be accorded a rebuttable presumption of prudence if made in accordance with subpara­graph (4) of this paragraph, and if made at a rate no higher than the ap­plicable national rate plus allowable adjustment, or at a rate not in excess of the rate for intrastate producer sales of comparable location and con­tract vintage as reported in the most current summary report of FPC Form 45 data publicly available at the time the parties entered into the transac­tion. In no event shall sales by produc­ers pursuant to this subpart from the offshore Federal domain be made at rates in excess of the applicable na­tional rate.

(2) Sales of emergency natural gas by intrastate pipelines or distribution companies shall be accorded a rebutta­ble presumption of prudence if made in accordance with subparagraph (4) of this paragraph, and if made at its weighted average systemwide cost of gas supplies plus a charge for gather­ing and transportation to the point of delivery. The gathering and transpor­tation charge should reflect and be consistent with both the cost and methodology for calculating transpor­tation costs to the customers of the distribution companies or pipeline. A rebuttable presumption of prudence will also be accorded to a sale made in accordance with subparagraph (4) of this paragraph, when the sale is made under a pricing method using a cost of gas in excess of the weighted average systemwide of gas if the seller provides a written statement, under oath, veri­fying the fact that it will actually incur the claimed higher cost of gas in acquiring or delivering the gas which constitutes the emergency supplies.

(3) Sales by interstate pipelines shall be made at rates prescribed in their tariffs.

(4) Prior to entering into any emer­gency purchases, the qualified pur­chaser shall diligently seek and obtain that supply of gas which results in the lowest total cost by inquiring of no fewer than three qualified sellers as to the cost and availability of gas from such sellers.§ 157.50 Reporting requirements for emer­

gency transactions.(a) Within 48 hours after commence­

ment of deliveries of emergency natu­ral gas, the interstate pipeline shall notify the Commission by telegram of the sale, stating the specific nature and duration of the emergency (spe­cifically noting whether the purchase is to be added to system supply for a pipeline emergency or for summer storage); the amount of emergency natural gas to be purchased, on a daily

basis, the name of the seller, trans­porter, and any person to whom the emergency natural gas is to be as­signed; and the price.

(b) For any period during which an interstate pipeline engages in any transaction for emergency natural gas, the interstate pipeline shall file with the Commission, within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, whether the transactions are complet­ed or in progress, a sworn statement and four conformed copies thereof, which shall include the following in­formation:

(1) Identification of each emergency transaction completed or in progress;

(2) The volumes of each emergency natural gas delivered during the quar­ter under each transaction;

(3) The total moneys received or other compensation received by each seller for each emergency sale during the quarter;

(4) The total amount of moneys re­ceived or other compensation received by each transporter for each emergen­cy sale delivered during the quarter;

(5) The charges and the methods by which each transporter’s compensa­tion was dërived;

(6) Information relied on to deter­mine eligibility for each purchase;

(7) The volumes of emergency natu­ral gas included in system supply for pipeline emergencies, and the volumes of natural gas included in system supply during summer storage; and

(8) A statement from a responsible company official attesting that the ac­tivities of the interstate pipeline car­ried out in accordance with the re­quirements of this subpart and to the best of its knowledge, an emergency did exist or was reasonably anticipat­ed, and (a) a sworn statement from a responsbile company official of each purchasing distribution company or each direct sale customer or distribu­tion company which requested the as­signment of emergency supplies de­scribing the emergency circumstances as required by § 157.48(a)(3).§ 157.51 Waiver of requirements for erne-

gency transactions.The Commission may by order waive

the requirements of this subpart in connection with any emergency trans­action to the extent required by the public interest.Subpart D— Exemption o f N atrua l Gas Service

fo r Drilling, Testing, or Purging From C ertifi­cate Requirements

§157.52 Drilling of gas or oil wells and testing or purging of new natural gas pipeline facilities.

(a) Construction and operation of fa­cilities necessary to render direct natu­ral gas service for use in the drilling of gas or oil wells or for the use in the

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36478 PROPOSED RULES

testing and purging of new natural gas pipeline facilities are exempted from the certificate requirements of section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, when the construction and operation of such fa­cilities are conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Operations undertaken to render direct natural gas service shall be ter­minated upon the completion of the well or the purging or testing of the pipeline facilities. Persons undertaking any construction or operation of facili­ties or service under this section shall file an original and two copies of an annual statement, by February 1 of each year, describing their activities hereunder.

[FR Doc. 78-23098 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4110-07]DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Social Security Adm inistration

H ealth Care Financing Adm inistration

[2 0 CFR Part 4 16 ]

[4 2 CFR Part 450]

[4 5 CFR Part 205 ]

SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOM E FOR THE AGED, BLIND, A N D DISABLED A N D MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

A id to Families w ith D ependent Children; Fiscal Disallowance fo r Erroneous Payments; Ex­tension o f Comment Period

AGENCY: Social Security Administra­tion (SSÂ), HEW; Health Care Financ­ing Administation (HCFA), HEW.ACTION: Extension of comment period.SUMMARY: This Notice extends the period for comments to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the F ederal R e g is t e r on July 7, 1978 (43 FR 29311). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerned the reduction of Federal financial partici­pation (FFP) when States make erro­neous expenditures with respect to the Medicaid and Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) pro­grams. The NPRM also contained pro­visions governing Federal fiscal liabili­ty (FFL) for erroneous expenditures of State supplements in the Supple­mental Security Income (SSI) pro­gram.

Several persons have requested an extension of time for submitting com­ments on these proposed rules. These persons believe that a 45-day comment period is inadequate in view of the im­portance of these proposed rules.

The Department of Health, Educa­tion, and Welfare has decided to extend the comment period an addi­tional 15 days, as shown below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 5,1978.ADDRESSES: Send your written com­ments on the AFDC and SSI provi­sions to: Social Security Adminstra- tion, Department of Health, Educa­tion, and Welfare, P.O. Box 1585, Bal­timore, Md. 21203. Copies of all com­ments which the Social Security Ad­ministration receives can be seen at the Washington Inquiries Section, Office of Information, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, North Building, Room 5131, 330 Inde­pendence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20201. Send your written com­ments on the medicaid provisions to: Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, P.O. Box 2366, Washington, D.C. 20013. please refer to MMB-242-P. Agencies and organizations are asked to submit comments in duplicate. The public may review the comments on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Department’s offices at 330 C Street SW., Room 5231, Washington, D.C., telephone 202-245-0950.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For AFDC—John X. Bowes, Division of Quality Control Management, 202-245-0688. For SSI—William J. McCarthy, Division of Standards and Operating Policies, 301-594- 4594. For Medicaid—Victor Kuga- jevsky, 202-472-3846.Dated: August 11,1978.

H a l e C h a m p io n , Acting Secretary of Health,

Education, and Welfare. [FR Doc. 78-23100 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01]DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Federal Insurance Adm inistration

[2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4375]N ATIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation D eterm ination for the Borough o f Coraopolis, A llegheny County, Pa.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the Borough of Coraopolis, Allegheny County, Pa. These base (100-year)

flood elevations are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the national flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed flood elevations are available for review at the Borough of Coraopolis Secretary’s Office, 1012 5th Street, Coraopolis, Pa. 15108. Send comments to: Mr. Domunique Murgia, President of the Council of Coraopolis, 1012 5th Street, Coraopolis, Pa. 15108.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office o f. Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the Borough of Coraopolis, Allegheny County, Pa., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93- 234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed » to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36479

Elevation in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Ohio River......... .... Downstream corporate limit.

717

Upstream corporate limit.

718

Montour Run......... Confluence with Ohio 718River.

Most upstream corporate limits.

718

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 19,1978.G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22792 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4376]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation Determinations fo r Borough o f Dravosburg, A llegh en y County, Pa.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the Borough of Dravosburg, Allegheny County, Pa. These base (100-year) flood elevations are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the national flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed flood elevations are available for review at the Dravosburg Borough Hall, Secretary’s Office, 3d Street, Dravosburg, Pa. 15034. Send com­ments to: Mr. John Hamilton, Presi­dent of the Council of Dravosburg, P.O. Box 37, Dravosburg, Pa. 15034.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­

ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the Borough of Dravosburg, Allegheny County, Pa., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93- 234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Eleyation in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Monongahela Upstream corporate 746River. limits.

Downstream corporate limits.

745

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 19, 1978.G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22793 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01] «[2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4377]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation D eterm ination for the Borough o f Glassport, A llegh en y County, Pa.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the the Borough of Glassport, Alle­gheny County, Pa. These base (100- year) flood elevations are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the national flood insurance program (NFIP).DATES: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESSES: Maps and other infor­mation showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at the Glas­sport Borough Hall, 5th and Mononga- hela Avenue, Glassport, Pa 15045. Send comments to: Mr. Thomas Ur- banski, President of the Council of Glassport, 5th and Monongahela Avenue, Glassport, Pa. 15045.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the the Borough of Glas­sport, Allegheny County, Pa. in ac­cordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood In­surance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act Of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36480 PROPOSED RULES

to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Source of flooding Location

Elevation in feet,

national geodetic vertical datum

Monongahela Upstream corporate 747River. limits.

Downstream corporate 746limits.

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective Jan. 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, Nov. 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s delegation of authority to Federal Insurance Administra­tor, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 17,1978.G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator.(FR Doc. 78-22794 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4378]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Borough o f M ifflin to w n , Juniata County, Pa. fo r the Revision o f Proposed Flood Elevation Determ inations

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the Borough of Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa. Due to recent engineering analysis, this proposed rule revises the proposed determinations of base (100- year) flood elevations published in the Juniata Sentinal on May 31, 1978, and in the Juniata Sentinal published on June 7, 1978, and hence supersedes those previously published rules.DATES: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this notice in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.

ADDRESSES: Maps and other infor­mation showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed flood elevations are available for review at the Mifflintown Borough Building, Mifflintown, Pa. Send com­ments to: Hon. Larry Yetter, Mayor of Mifflintown, 26 North 3d Street, Mif­flintown, Pa. 17059.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed base (100-year) flood eleva­tions are listed below for selected loca­tions in the Borough of Mifflintown, Pa., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the Na­tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90- 448), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a)).

These base (100-year) flood eleva­tions are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the com­munity is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the na­tional flood insurance program (NFIP).

These modified elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on exist­ing buildings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations are:

Elevation in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Moist R un......... ..... Front St. (upstream/ downstream).

444

Main St./William Penn Highway (upstream/ downstream).

444

Cross St. (30 ft downstream of bridge).

444

At Cross Street Bridge ... 448Juniata River.... .... Confluence of Moist

Rim.444

Bridge St. (upstream/ downstream).

444

Northern corporate limits—about 1,050 ft upstream of Bridge Street Bridge.

444

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title xttt of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended;

42 U.S.C. 4001-4128; and Secretary’s delega­tion of authority to Federal Insurance Ad­ministrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 28, 1978.G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator. [FR Doc. 78-22795 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4379]N ATIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation Determ inations fo r the Borough o f Osborne, A llegh en y County, Pa.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the Borough of Osborne, Allegheny County, Pa.

These base (100-year) flood eleva­tions are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the com­munity is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the na­tional flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed flood elevations are available for review at the Sewickley Public Li­brary, Board and Thom Streets, Sewickley, Pa. Send comments to: Hon. Thomas A. Standish, Jr., Mayor of Osborne, 1300 Linden Street, Os­borne, Pa. 15143.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the Borough of Osborne, Al­legheny County, Pa. in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93- 234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36481

1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 2001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Elevation in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Ohio River............ Downstream corporate 716limits.

Upstream corporate 717limits.

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128; and Secretary’s delega­tion of authority to Federal Insurance Ad­ministrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 17,1978.G l o r ia M . J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22796 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4380]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation D eterm ination for Ham ilton County, Tenn.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in Hamilton County, Tenn.

These base (100-year) flood eleva­tions are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the com­munity is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in

effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the na­tional flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at the Hamil­ton County Courthouse, Chattanooga, 'Tenn. 37402. Send comments to: Hon. Don Moore, Jr., Hamilton County Judge, Hamilton County Courthouse (Chattanooga, Tenn. 37402.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh StreetSW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202-755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424-8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for Hamilton County, Tenn., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Devel­opment Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 2001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Elevation in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Tennessee River.... Downstream County 651boundary.

Confluence of Wolftever 686 Creek.

Confluence of Soddy 687Creek.

Confluence of Sale 687Creek.

Possum Creek........ McGill R d....................... 701U.S. Highway 27 708

(upstream).Backvalley Rd................. 737

Sale Creek............. Dougherty Rd.................. 689U.S. Route 27 .................. 691Old Dayton Pike............. 704

Rock Creek............ Confluence with Sale 690

U.S*Route 27.................. 725Southern Ry..................... 740Slab Town R d ................. 774

Wolftever Creek.... Confluence with 686Tennessee River.

Short Tail Springs Rd.... 689Bell Mill Dam.............. 718Mitchell Mill Rd. 736

extended.Interstate 75.................... 746Ooltewah-Harrison Rd... 753Tucker Rd..... ................... 785

Chestnut Creek..... Downstream corporate 811limits.

Bauxite R d ................ .'..... 823East Brainerd R d ........... 831

Lookout Creek___ Dixie Highway................ 656Upstream corporate 658

limits.Wilkerson Branch. Downstream corporate 817

limits.North Boy Scout Rd................... 672

ChickamaugaCreek.

Southern Ry.................... 674

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 19,1978.G l o r ia M . J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator. '[FR Doc. 78-22797 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210 -01 ]

[2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4381]

N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood Elevation Determ inations fo r the C ity o f La Joya , H idalgo County, Tex.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the city of La Joya, Hidalgo County, Tex. These base (100-year) flood eleva­tions are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the com-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36482 PROPOSED RULES

munity is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the na­tional flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at the City Manager’s Office, City Hall, P.O. Drawer H, La Joya, Tex. 78560. Send comments to: Mayor L. J. Leo, City Hall, P.O. Drawer H, La Joya, Tex. 78560.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh StreetSW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202-755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424-8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the city of La Joya, Hidalgo County, Tex., in accordance with sec­tion 110 of the Flood Disaster Protec­tion Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change I any existing ordinances that are more i stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur-

' ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Elevationin feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Rio Grande........... 11th St. between Garza 131and Leo Aves.

Military Rd.......... ........... 131Walker Lake.......... Walker Lake.................... 134

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 26,1978. \G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator. [FR Doc. 78-22798 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4382]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation Determ inations fo r the C ity o f Mercedes, H idalgo County, Tex.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION:.Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the city of Mercedes, Hidalgo County, Tex. These base (100-year) flood eleva­tions are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the com­munity is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the na­tional flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESSES: Maps and other infor­mation showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations / are available for review at City Hall, P.O. Box 837, Mercedes, Tex. 78570. Send comments to: Mayor W. C. Ross or Mr. Anthony Covacevich, City Plan­ner, City Hall, P.O. Box 837, Mercedes, Tex. 78570.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the city of Mercedes, Hidalgo County, Tex., in accordance with sec­tion 110 of the Flood Disaster Protec­tion Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by Section 1910.3 of the pro­gram regulations, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements on its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, fetate, or regional enti­ties. These proposed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropri­ate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their, contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing buildings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Elevation in feet.

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Ponding in At intersection of 62Southwest Maryland Ave. andcomer of city, 14th St.adjacent to east levee of North Floodway.

58Ponding along At intersection of 5thArroyoAnacuitas.

St. and Chapman St.

Ponding in At Mile 1 West Rd. and 65Northwest part of city, adjacent to east levee of North Floodway.

east levee.

63Ponding in north Where Missouri Ave.part of city, intersects with annorth of fairgrounds and west of Main Canal.

Unnamed St.

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title •xttt of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority' to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 26,1978.G l o r ia M . J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22799 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, Í9 7 8

PROPOSED RULES 36483

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. PI-4383]N ATIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation D eterm ination for the C ity o f Bremerton, K itsap County, W ash.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base < 100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the city of Bremerton, Kitsap County, Wash. These base (100-year) flood ele­vations are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the na­tional flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at the City Hall, Bremerton, Wash. Send com­ments to: Hon. Glenn K. Jarstad, mayor, city of Bremerton, City Hall, 239 Fourth Street, Bremerton, Wash. 98310'FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the city of Bremerton, Wash., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Devel­opment Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more

stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Elevation, in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Gorst Creek.........., Old Navy Yard Highway—35 ft*.

38

Confluence with Parish Creek.

53

Dirt Road Bridge—20 ft*...

59

Parish Creek......... , Old Navy Yard Highway—60 ft*.

68

Ostrich Bay Areas adjacent to the 10(Sinclair Inlet). shore.

Osyter Bay Areas adjacent to the 10(Sinclair Inlet). shore.

Port Washington Hefner St—500 ft south 10Narrows of intersection with(Sinclair Inlet). Lebo Blvd.

Warren Ave. Bridge....... 10Manette Bridge....... ........ 10All other areas adjacent

to the shore.10

Kitsap Lake........... , Areas adjacent to the shore.

159

* Upstream of centerline.(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority tô Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issuejl: July 18,1978.Gloria M. J imenez,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22800 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4384]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation Determ ination for the C ity o f Port Orchard, K itsap County, W ash.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the city of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Wash. These base (100-year) flood elevations are the basis for the flood plain management measures

that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the national flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at City Hall, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, Wash. Send comments to: Hon. Paul D. Powers, Jr., mayor, city of Port Or­chard, P.O. Box 186, Port Orchard,* Wash. 98366.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh StreetSW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202-755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424-8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the city of Port Orchard, Wash., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act Of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the Na­tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban ¡Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90- (448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36484

Elevation, in feet.

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Blackjack Creek Confluence with 10>(Lower Reach). Sinclair Inlet.

Blackjack Creek Washington State 168(Upper Reach. Highway 16—175 ft

upstream of centerline.Ross Creek........... . 1260 ft west of

intersection of Melcher St. and Pottery Ave. at comer of corporate limits near Ross Creek.

49

Sinclair Inlet........ . Areas adjacent to the shore.

10

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 18,1978.G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22801 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4385]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood E levation Determ inations fo r C ity o f Raym ond, Pacific County, W ash.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the city of Raymond, Pacific County, Wash. These base (100-year) flood ele­vations are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the na­tional flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at City Hall, Second and Commercial Streets, Ray­mond, Wash. Send comments to: Mr. W. P. Christensen, Jr., Mayor, City of Raymond, City Hall, Second and Com-

PROPOSED RULES

mercial Streets, Raymond, Wash. 98577.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the city of Raymond, Wash., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Devel­opment Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Elevation in feet,

Source <5f flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Willapa River.... ... Intersection of Heath St. and 9th St.

11

Intersection of 2d St. and Commercial St.

11

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C, 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 20, 1978.G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22802 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4386]N A T IO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood Elevation Determ inations fo r the C ity o f South Bend, Pacific County, W ash.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the city of South Bend, pacific County, Wash. These base (100-year) flood elevations are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the national flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community.ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at the City Hall, First and Willapa Streets, South Bend, Wash. Send comments to: Hon. Katy Kimura, Mayor, City of South Bend, P.O. Box 34, South Bend, Wash. 98586.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the city of South Bend, Wash., in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the Na­tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90- 448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36485

stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations aré:

Elevation in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Willapa River........ Intersection of 1st St. and Central Ave.

11

Intersection of Monroe St. and Oregon Ave.

11

Intersection of 1st St. and Washington St.

11

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968),' effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 18,1978.G loria M. J imenez,

Federal Insurance Administrator. [FR Doc. 78-22803 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4210-01][2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-43873N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood Elevation Determ inations fo r the V illa g e o f Hales Com ers, M ilw aukee County, W is.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the village of Hales Comers, Milwau­kee County, Wis. These base (100- year) flood elevations are the basis for the flood plain, management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the national flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in the above-named community. ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­

posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at the Village Hall, 5635 South New Berlin Road, Hales Comers, Wis. Send comments to: The Honorable Alexander McCon­nell, Village Commissioner, Village of Hales Comers, 5635 South New Berlin Road, Hales Comers, Wis. 53130.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the village of Hales Comers in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 '(Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Devel­opment Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448))» 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a)).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, Statè, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Source of flooding

Elevation in feet,

Location national geodetic vertical datum

Root River At downstream 734tributary. WhitnaU Park Dr.

1,000 ft downstream of 108th St.

756

Just upstream of West Forest Home Ave.

765

Just upstream of West Janesville Rd.

780

Just upstream of West GodseURd, approximately 1,500 ft downstream of Upper Kelly Lake.

795

Just upstream of South Kurtz Rd.

803

Just upstream of south 124th St.

811

Upper Kelly Lake........... 811

Source of flooding

Elevation in feet,

Location national geodetic vertical datum'

Wemp Branch...... Confluence with Root River tributary.

769

Just upstream of West Jahesville Rd.

774

Just upstream of West 7841 Parnell Ave.

Just upstream of South 115th St.

789

113th St. Branch... Mouth at Wemp Branch 784Just upstream of West

Grange Ave.789

Just upstream of West Upham Ave.

795

Just downstream of West Edgerton Ave.

800

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 26,1978.Gloria M. J imenez,

Federal Insurance Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22804 Filed 8-16^78; 8:45 am]

[4210 -01 ]

[2 4 CFR Part 1917]

[Docket No. FI-4388]N A TIO N A L FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Proposed Flood Elevation Determ inations fo r the C ity o f Spooner, W ashburn County, W is.

AGENCY: Federal Insurance Adminis­tration, HUD.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are solicited on the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations listed below for selected locations in the City of Spooner, Washburn County, Wis. These base (100-year) flood elevations are the basis for the flood plain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the national flood insurance program (NFIP).DATE: The period for comment will be ninety (90) days following thei second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation; in the above-named community,

ADDRESS: Maps and other informa­tion showing the detailed outlines of the flood-prone areas and the pro­posed base (100-year) flood elevations are available for review at the City

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36486 PROPOSED RULES

Hall, Spooner, Wis. Send comments to: The Honorable Thomas F. Donovan, Mayor, City of Spooner, City Hall, Spooner, Wis. 54801.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Richard Krimm, Assistant Ad­ministrator, Office of Flood Insur­ance, Room 5270, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410, 202- 755-5581 or toll-free line 800-424- 8872.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Insurance Administrator gives notice of the proposed determi­nations of base (100-year) flood eleva­tions for the- city of Spooner, in ac­cordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to the National Flood In­surance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 24 CFR 1917.4(a).

These elevations, together with the flood plain management measures re­quired by § 1910.3 of the program reg­ulations, are the minimum that are re­quired. They should not be construed to mean the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their flood plain manage­ment requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter require­ments on its own, or pursuant to poli­cies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These pro­posed elevations will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insur­ance premium rates for new buildings and their contents and for the second layer of insurance on existing build­ings and their contents.

The proposed base (100-year) flood elevations for selected locations are:

Elevation in feet,

Source of flooding Location nationalgeodeticverticaldatum

Yellow River..... .... Western corporate limit. 10491200 ft upstream from

western corporate limit.

1051

Just downstream from Fish Hatchery Bridge.

1053

50 ft upstream of iDam... 106650 ft upstream of South

River St. Bridge.1067

East corporate limit........ 1067

(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128); and Secretary’s dele­gation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator, 43 FR 7719.)

Issued: July 26,1978.G l o r ia M. J im e n e z ,

Federal Insurance Administrator. [FR Doc. 78-22805 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-02]DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

O ffice o f the A tto rney G eneral

[2 8 CFR Part 16]

[AAG/A Order No. 8-78]PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

Exemption o f Records Systems

AGENCY: Department of Justice. ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: In the notice section of today’s F e d er a l R e g is t e r , the Depart­ment of Justice proposes to amend 28 CFR § 16.96 as it relates to the FBI Central Records System (JUSTICE/ FBI-002) published annually and most recently on September 30, 1977. The Department proposes to amend § 16.96(b)(2), Exemption of Federal Bureau of Investigation Systems—lim­ited access, by adding a sentence to supplement the published reasons for exempting the system from subsection(d) of the Privacy Act. On August 27, 1975, the Department published a notice establishing the above-named system. On the same day the Depart­ment published a rule exempting the system from subsection (c) (3) and (4),(d), (e) (1), (2) and (3), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (e) (5) and (8), (f), (g) and (m) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j) and (k). While justification for exemption from the access provisions of subsections d(l) was given, the rea­sons for exemption from the record amendment provisions of subsection (d) (2), (3), and (4) of the Privacy Act were not given. The amendment set forth below will correct this omissions.DATES: All comments must be re­ceived on or before September 18, 1978.ADDRESS: All comments should .be addressed to the Administrative Coun­sel, Office of Management and Fi­nance, Department of Justice, 10th and Constitution Avenue NW., Wash­ington, D.C. 20530.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bronson E. Clayton, 202-739-4165.The authority for this proposed rule

is 5 U.S.C. 552a. Accordingly, it is pro­posed that 28 CFR 16.96(b)(2) be re­vised as follows (amended portion italicized):

§16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of Investigation Systems—limited access.

* * * * *

( b ) * * *(2) From subsections (c)(4), (d),

(e)(4) (G) and (H), (f) and (g) because these provision concern individual access to records and such access might compromise ongoing investiga­tions, reveal investigatory techniques and confidential informants, and invade the privacy of private citizens who provide information in connection with a particular investigation. In ad­dition, exemption from subsections (d), (e)(4) (G) and (H) is necessary to protect the security of information classified in the interest of national defense and foreign policy. In addi­tion, exemption from subsection id) is necessary because to require the agency to correct or otherwise amend information thought to be incorrect, irrelevant or untimely might, because of the nature of the information col­lected and the essential length of time it is maintained, create an impossible administrative and investigative burden by forcing the agency to con­tinuously retrograde its investigations in an attempt to resolve questions of accuracy, etc.

* * * * * Dated: August 10,1978.

K e v in D. R o o n e y , Assistant Attorney General

for Administration. [FR Doc. 78-23123 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-14]DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[3 3 CFR Part 128]

[CGD 77-246]REGULATED N A V IG A T IO N AREAS, GREAT

LAKES

Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is con­sidering the establishment of three seasonal Regulated Navigation Areas in the Great Lakes. In Grays Reef Passage the channel is subject to ice buildups in the winter so that a vessel, not escorted by an icebreaker, could easily become beset by ice and be forced aground. The potential for loss of life, loss of or damage to the vessel, and damage to the environment justi­fies empowering the Captain of the Port, Sault Ste. Marie to close this area to navigation when weather con­ditions indicate it is necessary. In the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36487Mackinac Island and Bois Blanc Island areas natural ice bridges form in the waters linking the islands and the mainland while at the same time the ice on the lake prevents the use of small vessels for travel to and from the mainland. Consequently, the island residents depend on the ice bridges for access to the mainland. The passage of larger vessels through this area breaks up the ice bridges. This proposal« would allow the Captain of the Port, Sault Ste. Marie to close these areas to navigation during ap­propriate times of the year.DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 2,1978.ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to the Office of the Com­mander, Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199. A copy of the economic evaluation from which the economic summary in this document is taken is available for examination at the above address. A copy of the survey study for the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence Seaway—Navigation Season Extension conducted by the Corps of Engineers is also available at the above address.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Capt. Phillip Danahy, Marine SafetyCouncil (G-CMC/81), Room 8117,Department of Transportation,Nassif Building, 408 Seventh StreetSW., Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-1477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested persons are invited to par­ticipate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or arguments. Eachrperson submitting a comment should include the writer’s name and address, identify the notice (CGD 77-246) and the specific section to which the comment applies, and give the reason for the comment. All comments received before the expira­tion date of the comment period will be considered before final action is taken on this proposal.

No public hearing is planned but one may be held at a time and place to be set in a- later notice in the F ederal R e g is t e r if requested, in writing, by an interested person raising a genuine issue and desiring to comment orally at a public hearing.

D r a f t in g I n f o r m a t io n

The principal persons involved in drafting this proposal are: Mr. D. W. Ziegfeld, Project Manager, Office of Marine Environment* and Systems, and Lieut. George S. Karavitis, Project Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel.

D i s c u s s i o n o f t h e P r o p o se d R e g u l a t io n s

During the winter season certain sections of the Great Lakes are subject to severe ice conditions thereby limit­ing or halting navigation. In the areas between Mackinac Island and Bois Blanc Island, natural ice bridges form and the island residents use these ice bridges as a means to get to and from the mainland. The passage of vessels through this area breaks up the ice bridges, severing the link to the main­land. The island residents cannot rely on small vessels for access to the main­land because of the severe ice condi­tions. Since an alternative route is available for use by larger vessels, the Captain of the Port, Sault Ste. Marie would be permitted to close the area between Mackinac Island and Bois Blanc Island when ice conditions indi­cate that it is necessary.

A recent survey study for the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence Seaway—Naviga­tion Season Extension conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rec­ommended, among other things, that the traffic lanes between St. Ignace and Mackinac Island be closed during the winter season.

Grays Reef Passage is an area sub­ject to severe ice buildups where a vessel which is not escorted by a vessel capable of breaking ice, could easily become beset by ice and be forced aground. In this situation, the vessel may be lost or damaged with a poten­tial risk of loss of life and damage to the environment. Alternative routes are available, passing north of White Shoal Light.

The Captain of the Port, Sault Ste. Marie would close and open the pro­posed areas as weather and ice condi­tions dictate. Only one closing each winter and one opening each spring is anticipated. However, if ice conditions in the designated areas require it, ad­ditional closings and openings would be included in the Captain of the Port’s authority. Prior to the closing or opening of these Regulated Naviga­tion Areas, the Captain of the Port would give interested parties, includ­ing both shipping interests and island residents, not less than 72 hours notice of any action.

The Coast Guard has evaluated this proposal under the Department of Transportation Policies for improving Government Regulations published on March 8, 1978 (43 FR 9582). Because of the existence of alternative routes for navigation, minimal increase in costs to shipping interests is expected.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that a new § 128.901 be added to part 128 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

§ 128.901 Great Lakes Winter Navigation.(a) Lake Huron. The following are

Regulated Navigation Areas:(1) The waters of Lake Huron known

as South Channel between Bois Blanc Island and Cheboygan, Mich.; bound­ed by a line north from Cheboygan Crib Light <LL 1340)’ at latitude 45°39.8' N., longitude 84°27.6' W.; to Bois Blanc Island at latitude 45°43.7'N., longitude 84°27.6' W., and a line north from the mainland at latitude 45°43.0' N., longitude 84°(35.5' W.; to the western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at latitude 45°48.7' N„ longitude 84°35.5' W.

(2) The waters of Lake Huron be­tween Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, Mich, bounded by a line east from St. Ignace Ferry light (LL-1387) at lati­tude 45°52.2' N., longitude 84°43.0' W.; to Mackinac Island at Latitude 45°52.2' N., longitude 84°39.0' W.; and a line east from the mainland at latitude 45°53.2' N., longitude 84°43.5' W.; to the northern tangent of Mackinac Island at latitude 45°53.2' N., longitude 84°38.8' W.

(b) Lake Michigan. The following is a Regulated Navigation Area. The waters of Lake Michigan known as Grays Reef Passage bounded by a line from Grays Reef Light (LL-2006) at latitude 45°46.0' N., longitude 85°09.2' N.; to White Shoals Light (LL-2003) at latitude 45°50.5' N., longitude 85°08.1' W.; to a point at latitude 45°49.2' N., longitude 85°04.8' W.; thence to a point at latitude 45°45.7' N., longitude 85°08.7' W.; thence to the point of be­ginning.

(c) The regulations, the Captain of the Port, Sault Ste. Marie, will close and open these regulated navigation areas as ice conditions dictate. Under normal seasonal conditions only one closing each winter and one opening each spring area anticipated. Prior to the closing or opening of these regu­lated navigation areas, the Captain of the Port must give interested parties, including both shipping interests and island residents, not less than 72 hours notice of the action. No vessel may navigate in a regulated navigation area which has been closed by the Captain of the Port. Under emergency conditions, the Captain of the Port may authorize specific vessels to navi­gate in a closed regulated navigation area.

N ote.— The Coast Guard has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Inflation Impact Statement under Execu­tive Order 11821 and OMB Circular A-107.(Sec. 104, 86 Stat. 424 (33 U.S.C. 1224); 37 FR 21943, 49 CFR 1.46 <n)<4).)

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36488

Dated: August 11,1978.J. B. Hayes,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.

[FR Doc. 78-23028 Filed 8-16-78 8:45 am]

[6820 -24 ]GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Federal Supply Service

[41 CFR Part 1 0 1 -2 8 ]

GSA SELF-SERVICE STORES

A dvance Notice o f Proposed Rulem aking

AGENCY: General Services Adminis­tration.ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rule.SUMMARY: The General Services Ad­ministration (GSA) intends to amend the Federal property management reg­ulations to include revised procedures for making purchases from GSA self- service stores. The procedures will be designed to provide strict control over purchases from self-service stores and thereby prevent abuses such as have recently been disclosed.DATE: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 1978.ADDRESS: General Services Adminis­tration (FAFR), Washington, D.C. 20406.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John Î. Tait, Director, Regula­tions and Management Control Divi­sion, 703-557-1914.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is issued to invite interest­ed persons to comment and participate in the development of the procedures. The following is a brief description of the procedures on which comments or suggestions are requested. Commenc­ing no later than September 1, 1978, GSA will implement interim proce­dures to require customer agencies to use new GSA Form 3146, GSA Self- Service Store Request/Sales Slip, and to provide supporting GSA regional offices with a list of customer agency officials authorized to approve pur­chases from GSA self-service stores. Agency users of self-service stores will be required to enter data on the form and obtain the signature of the au­thorized customer agency approving official prior to entering the store. Data to be entered on the form in­clude the customer’s name and tele­phone number, quantity, and descrip­tion of items. Prior to checkout, the customer will insert the appropriate unit price of the items. The store checkout clerk will verify the authen-

PROPOSED RULES

ticity of the customer agency approv­ing official’s name by checking the sig­nature against a file of the names of authorized approving officials. To fi­nalize the transaction, the checkout clerk will verify and total the prices, imprint the request/sales slip with the customer’s shopping plate, and provide the customer with a register receipt and copy of the completed request/ sales slip.

Dated: August 11, 1978.R o b e r t P. G r a h a m ,

Commissioner, Federal Supply Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23159 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4110-35]DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

H ealth Care Financing Adm inistration

[4 2 CFR Part 4 05 ]

MEDICARE PROGRAM

Cost to R elated O rganizations

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Ad­ministration (HCFA), HEW.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: This regulation would amend the current Medicare regula­tion which limits the amount a provid­er may be reimbursed when it obtains services, facilities, and supplies from an organization related to the provider by common ownership or control. The amendment would permit a nonprofit provider who obtains services, facili­ties, or supplies from a related, non­profit “shared services” organization to be reimbursed on the basis of the charges made by the supplier, rather than the supplier’s costs. The purpose is to encourage the use of shared ser­vices organizations by nonprofit pro­viders when doing so will reduce the costs of furnishing Medicare benefits.DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments or suggestions re­ceived on or before October 16, 1978.ADDRESSES: Address comments to: Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, P.O. Box 2372, Washington, D.C. 20013. In commenting, please refer to MAB-51. Comments will be available for public inspection beginning approximately 2 weeks after publication in Room 5231 of the Department’s offices at 330 C Street SW., Washington, D.C., on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Telephone 202-245-0950.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Mr. Henry H. Eidman, Medicare

Bureau, Health Care Financing Ad­ministration, East Building, Room403, 6401 Security Boulevard, Balti­more, Md. 21235, 301-594-9440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Medicare provider’s reimbursable costs for services, facilities, or supplies furnished to it by another organiza­tion are normally based on the charge made by the supplier organization (see 42 CFR 405.402). However, a special rule applies when a provider obtains services, facilities, or supplies from a supplier to which it is related by common ownership or control (see 42 CFR 405.427, Cost to Related Organi­zations). * '

In this situation, the provider’s al­lowable cost is limited to the cost to the related organization, rather than the charge made by that organization. The regulation is intended to prevent the Medicare program from paying the provider a profit factor attributa­ble to the provider’s self-dealing.

Groups of nonprofit providers have begun to organize and operate non­profit, cooperative supplier organiza­tions in order to achieve cost savings. These organizations, which typically are owned or controlled by the non­profit providers which obtain items and services from them, are frequently able to furnish items and services to providers at lower cost than commer­cial suppliers. They generally pur­chase items or deliver services in great volume, and thus are able to achieve economies of scale. In addition, since they are in direct competition with commercial vendors, they must price their products and services according­ly. Their prices, therefore, are general­ly at or below the prices charged by commerical vendors for comparable items and services. For this reason, purchasing from these organizations is a cost-effective way for a nonprofit provider to obtain such items and sup­plies.

Because the objective of these shared-services organizations is provid­er cost containment, rather than pro­fitmaking, the organizations are set up and operated on a nonprofit basis, exempt from Federal taxes. In order to be exempt^ from Federal income taxation, the organization’s items or services must be furnished only to pro­viders which are themselves exempt from Federal income taxes (see 26 CFR 1.501(c)(3)). Also, all net earnings of the organization for a tax year must be allocated or distributed under the applicable provisions of the Inter­nal Revenue Code (see 26 CFR 1.501(e)(2)).

As a result of the constraints under which these organizations operate, they typically do not have capital available to develop new services or expand their range of activities. Unlike commercial suppliers, they

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36489cannot, invest surplus resources in new lines of activity and wait to recover their expenditures through subse­quent sales. The primary purpose of this regulation is to enable shared-ser­vices organizations to use the marginal difference between their costs and their charges to providers for develop­ing additional ways in which to fur­nish items and services at a savings in provider costs.

Because of the constraints under which shared-services organizations operate, we believe that the proposed rule will not permit the providers with whom they deal to profit unfairly through self-dealing. Rather, we think an exemption from the general limita­tion on allowable costs to related orga­nization will result in reduced provider costs. 42 CFR 405.427 would, there­fore, be amended to exempt purchases by nonprofit providers from shared- services organizations from the exist­ing cost-reimbursement J principle limiting the provider’s allowable cost to the cost of the supplier. Such pur­chases would remain subject to the limitation that the provider’s allowa­ble cost not exceed the price at which comparable services, facilities, or sup­plies could be purchased from other sources.

42 CFR 405.427 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(4); by re­vising the heading of paragraph (d) to read “(d) Exceptions.” and adding “(1)” after the heading and before the existing text; and by adding a new paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:§ 405.427 Cost to related organizations.

♦ * * * *

(b) Definitions* * *(4) Shared services organization. A

shared-services organization is a non­profit organization which is organized and operated to:

(1) Furnish services, facilities, or sup­plies, to , two or more providers, that are necessary for the delivery / of health care services; or

(ii) Furnish support services to two or more providers.

♦ * * * *

(d) Exceptions. (1) * * *(2) For services, facilities, and sup­

plies furnished by a shared-services or­ganization to a related nonprofit pro­vider, the provider’s allowable cost shall not exceed the lower of:

(i) The charge made by the shared services organization to the provider, or

(ii) The price at which comparable services, facilities, or supplies could be purchased in the open market.Any refunds, rebates, or distributions of the shared-services organization’s earnings received by the provider must

be used to reduce the provider’s al­lowable costs for the items and ser­vices to which they relate.(Secs. 1102, 1861(v), and 1871 of the Social Security Act; 49 Stat. 647 and 79 Stat. 331 and 322 (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395x(u), and 1395hh).(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 13.773, Medicare—Hospital In­surance; No. 13.774, Medicare—Supplemen­tary Medical Insurance.)

Dated: June 20, 1978.R o b e r t A . D e r z o n ,

Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration.

Approved: July 29,1978.Hale Champion,

Acting Secretary.CFR Doc. 78-23099 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6315-01]COMMUNITY SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION[4 5 CFR Part 1010]

CIVIL RIGHTS REGULATIONS

Nondiscrim ination on the Basis o f Handicap in Programs and A ctivities Receiving or Bene­fiting From Federal Financial Assistance

AGENCY: Community Services Ad­ministration.ACTION: Extension of comment period on proposed regulations.SUMMARY: On June 30, 1978; the Community Services Administration (CSA) published in the F ed er a l R e g is ­t e r proposed regulations to begin its implementation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amend­ed (43 FR 28758). These proposed reg­ulations contain provisions to insure that no qualified handicapped individ­ual is solely because of handicap denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subject­ed to discrimination in any program or activity receiving or benefiting from fi­nancial assistance provided by CSA, A 60-day comment period was estab­lished during which comments were invited from other Federal agencies and from the public—particularly handicapped persons and their advo­cates and CSA grantees. Because some of the issues raised by the proposed rule have not previously been ad­dressed in the section 504 rulemaking process, public comment on the pro­posed rule is important. Unfortunate­ly, a delay in distribution of the regu­lation to CSA grantees and to handi­capped persons and their advocates has, in effect, cut the 60-day comment period in half. To remedy the effect of this delay, and to encourage additional public commnent, the comment period is being extended an additional 45

days. Comments received on or before October 13, 1978, will be considered in drafting the final rule.DATE: The comment period will not close until October 13, 1978.ADDRESS: Comments or inquiries should be submitted to Jill Robinson, Office of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, Community Services Admin­istration, 1200 19th Street NW., Wash­ington, D.C. 20506.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jill Robinson, 202-254-2534 (voice);202-254-6218 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A d d it io n a l C o p ie s

Printed and taped copies of the pro­posed rule are available and may be obtained by calling or writing the con­tact person listed above.

C o n t a c t P e r s o n

Please note that the telephone number of the contact person has changed since the publication of the proposed rule. The correct new tele­phone number is 202-254-2534. The TTY number, 202-254-6218, has not changed.

T T Y C o m m e n t s

CSA’s TTY makes a printed copy of conversations. Persons with access to a TTY are invited to comment on the proposed rule over the TTY. The printout of the conversation will become a part of the public record. Persons wishing to comment over the TTY are requested to ask for Jill Rob­inson and to indicate that comments on section 504 will be made. Commen­tators may proceed with their com­ments or may wait until Ms. Robinson is located.

G r a c ie l a ( G r a c e ) O l iv a r e z , Director, Community

Services Administration.[FR Doc. 78-22955 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6712-01]FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION[4 7 CFR Parts 2 and 8 7]

[Gen. Docket No. 78-235; RM-2971; FCC 78- 570]

M A K IN G FREQUENCIES IN THE 1 90 -2 0 0 , 5 IQ - 525 A N D 5 2 5 -5 3 5 KHZ BANDS AVAILABLE TO THE AERO NAUTICAL R A D IO N A V IG A ­TIO N SERVICE

Providing fo r Sharing o f the Bands 2 7 5 -2 8 5 and 3 2 5 -3 3 5 kHz by A eronautical and M a ri­tim e R ad ionavigation Services

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36490 PROPOSED RULES

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.SUMMARY: The Commission is pro­posing to amend the rules to make ad­ditional frequencies available for non- directional beacons used for aeronauti­cal and maritime navigation. These low-frequency radiobeacons are nor­mally authorized to operate in the band 200—415 kHz. In recent years, the use of the beacons has grown sub­stantially, particularly by offshore drilling platforms for the guidance of helicopters and small boats. Installa­tion of new radiobeacons in some areas is not possible because the currently available frequencies are saturated by existing assignments. By expansion of the existing bands and making availa­ble some frequencies heretofore not available to nongovernment oper­ations, it will be possible to assign ad­ditional beacons in those areas where they are needed.DATES: Comments are to be received by October 16, 1978, and reply com­ments by November 15, 1978.ADDRESSES: Federal Communica­tions Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

John E,. Jacobs, Safety and SpecialRadio Services Bureau, 202-632-7197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Adopted: July 31, 1978.Released: August 11, 1978.

In the matter of amendment of parts 2 and 87 of the Commission’s rules to make frequencies in the 190- 200, 510-525, and 525-535 kHz bands available to the aeronautical radiona­vigation service. Amendment of part 2 of the rules to provide for sharing of the bands 275-285 and 325-335 kHz by aeronautical and maritime radionavi­gation services, general docket No. 78- 235, RM-2971.

1. Notice of proposed rulemaking in the above-captioned matter is hereby given.

2. The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) has peti­tioned the Commission to “* * * take the necessary rulemaking actions as soon as possible in parts 2 and 87 of its rules, as appropriate, to:

1. Make the band 190-200 kHz available exclusively for the aeronautical radionaviga­tion service;

2. Make the band 525-535 kHz available for the aeronautical radionavigation service on a shared coequal basis with the travelers information service (TIS) [sic]. Use of this band by the aeronautical radionavigation service could be limited primarily to off­shore platforms, but it is believed that the aeronautical radionavigation service could still make some use of this band in other areas and still be compatible with TIS;

3. Investigation with the appropriate gov­ernment agencies what national arrange­ments might be made for the band 510-525 kHz to allocate it exclusively to the aero­nautical radionavigation service with a foot­note concerning the use of 512 kHz by the maritime mobile service. It is recommended that the aeronautical radionavigation serv­ice be shared between government and non­government.

"In addition to the above, it might be ap­propriate to undertake early national rule- making action for the bands 275-285 kHz to permit the sharing of these bands between the aeronautical and maritime radionaviga­tion services as proposed in the 5th NOI.”

The reference made is to the fifth notice of inquiry in docket No. 20271. This petition was assigned RM-2971. It was placed on public notice on Sep­tember 30, 1977, and no comments rel­ative to the petition were received.

3. The RTCA states that the recom­mendations were forwarded in com­ments relative to preparation for the 1979 General World Administrative Radio Conference. They believe, how­ever, that the requirements for addi- tonal spectrum space for aeronautical radionavigation are sufficiently urgent to warrant immediate consideration, and we agree.

4. The navigation aids with which this matter is concerned are those ra­dionavigation land stations (nondirec- tional beacons (NDB)) operated by both Government and nongovernment entities in the frequency range 200- 415 kHz under present rules. The sta­tions are primarily operated by the U.S. Government with provisions made for the authorization of nongo­vernment facilities by the Commission after coordination between the Com­mission and the Federal Aviation Ad­ministration (FAA) (rule §87.501). Since 1970, installation and use of the beacons had expanded considerably, with nongovemnment authorizations doubling (from 523 to 1,033) in that time. According to figures available from the FAA, there were more than 1,800 stations, in use on January 1, 1977. A survey of FAA regional offices which coordinate these assignments indicates that each region has at least one area which has now reached, or shortly will reach, saturation. The major increase in use of beacons has come from offshore petroleum and other resoure platforms and by semi­private airports. For example, the FAA states that they are unable to make any more assignments in the Ohio and Indiana areas because of the use of beacons by airports. Similarly, except for a plan of user sharing, no more assignments can be made in the Lousiana gulf coast area due to the number of drilling platforms using beacons. In addition, the expected de­velopment of oil and natural gas fields off the east coast of the United States will bring about the need for more

beacons to be used in this manner. They are used to guide the helicopters which ferry supplies and personnel to and from the platforms.

190-200k H z

5. This band is part of the band 160- 200 kHz allocated to the fixed service in ITU region 2 and to the fixed and maritime mobile services (Government only) in the United States. There are no nongovernment fixed assignments currently on the frequencies. The In­terdepartment Radio Advisory Com­mittee (IRAC) has studied the use of the band at length and they have also recommended this amendment. The direction-finding equipment in use aboard aircraft today is generally ca­pable of timing to as low as 190 kHz, so we envision no inconvenience to the general aviation public in this respect.

6. We therefore propose to amend parts 2 and 87 of the rules to allocate the band 190-200 kHz to aeronautical radionavigation. We recognize that certain already established U.S. Navy fixed operations in Hawaii must be ac­commodated and by appropriate foot­note to the table of allocations will provide protection to this installation.

275-285 a n d 325-335 k H z

7. The band 285-325 kHz is currently allocated to the maritime radionaviga­tion service, and those bands immedi­ately above and below to the aeronau­tical radionavigation service. The RTCA suggestion to permit sharing of 275-285 and 325-335 kHz will merely extend the present maritime band by 10 kHz at each end. Like the aviation community, maritime interests have had difficulty in finding adequate spectrum space to meet the increasing need for radiobeacon assignments. This has largely been brought about by offshore oil exploration and the in­creasing population of small beats. The operations of such craft normally do not lend themselves to the use of more sophisticated navigation systems because of weight, cost, need, et cetera, and they consequently depend more on NDB’s for navigational pur­poses. Current marine radiobeacon re­ceivers normally have a tuning range of from 285 to 325 kHz and it is rea­sonable to assume that they can tune the additional 10 kHz with little or no modification. We therefore anticipate no equipment problems for the users. Since operation of these navigational aids in both services is primarly by Government agencies and any Com­mission assignments are only made in those instances where the Govern­ment is not prepared to provide service (footnote US 18, rule section 2.106), any clearance will be through the IRAC and this should insure compati­bility between aeronautical and marine radiobeacons.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36491

8. We propose to amend the rules to permit sharing of the bands 275-285 and 325-335 kHz by aeronautical and maritime radionavigation. We will, however, assign secondary status to maritime radiohavigation and limit their operations to radiobeacons. No amendment to part 81, subpart K— Stations on land in the maritime ra­diodetermination service, is necessary.

510-525 k H z

9. In the U.S. table of allocations, 510-535 kHz is shown as one band. For purposes of this action, we will sepa­rate this into two bands: 510—525 kHz and 525-535 kHz. This will coincide with the separation shown in ITU radio regulations.

10. Aeronautical radionavigation is shown as a permitted 1 service in this band in ITU region 2. However, the band is little used in the United States because of the prohibition against nongovernment use in footnote US14. In its recent study of the use of the frequencies 200-525 kHz, the IRAC agreed that this prohibition serves no useful purpose at this time. We concur with this and with RTCA’s recommen­dation. We propose to amend the rules to allocate the band 510-525 kHz to aeronautical radionavigation as a pri­mary service. We will amend footnote US14 and add new footnote US225 to establish the use of the frequencies in certain areas and to permit the contin­ued use of 512 kHz as a ship telegraph frequency. Further action on the use of 512 kHz by ship stations is contem- pleted. However, use of this frequency is governed by ITU radio regulations Nos. 188, 437A, 1123, and 1125 through 1129, so any action must be accom­plished through and appropriate inter­national conference.

525-535 k H z

11. In an earlier action (report and order in docket 20509, released June 20, 1977, 42 FR 31594), the Commis­sion provided for travelers information stations (TIS)’to be authorized on 530 and 1610 kHz in the local government radio service. These stations, to be au­thorized to local and State governmen­tal entities, are meant to provide traf­fic and road conditions and similar in­formation to the traveling public. Au­thorization is conditioned on the fact that the TIS will cause no interference to authorized services operating on a primary basis. The RTCA requests that we permit aeronautical radionavi­gation to share this band with TIS on a coequal basis.

‘Permitted is explained by ITU radio reg­ulation No. 138: “Permitted and primary services have equal rights, except that, in the preparation of frequency plans, the pri­mary service, as compared with the permit­ted service, shall have prior choice of fre­quencies.”

12. They also suggest that the use by aeronautical radionavigation service be limited primarily to offshore plat­forms, no doubt in order to preclude the possibility of mutual interference and provide for coexistence of both types of facilities in that portion of the spectrum. The intended coverage area of the TIS is small and, conse­quently, relatively severe limitations are placed on the field strength, so there appears to be little possibility of interference coming from this source.

13. Howeverrthe possibility of harm­ful interference to either service from the other does exist. We feel .the public interest would not be served by arbitrarily establishing priorities at this tiihe. Further studies will be made to determine the practicality of shar­ing. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has recently completed a study to deter­mine the compatibility of the two sys­tems. They have developed engineer­ing and site selection criteria which will have considerable bearing on as­signments. We feel that all these mat­ters should be considered before making any recommendations for as­signment in this band. Consequently, we do not propose any changes in the 525-535 kHz band at this time. We will address the matter at a later date.

14. The proposed amendments of the rules as set forth below are issued pur­suant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 303 (b), (c), (d), (f), and (r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

15. Pursuant to applicable proce­dures set forth in § 1.415 of the Com­

mission’s rules, interested parties may file comments on or before October 16, 1978, and reply comments on or before November 15, 1978. All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in the proceeding. In reaching its decision in this proceeding, the Commission may also take into ac­count other relevant information before it, in addition to the specific comments invited by this notice.

16. In accordance with the provisions of § 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, an original and five copies of all state­ments, briefs, or comments filed shall be furnished to the Commission. Re­sponses will be available for public in­spection during regular business hours in the Commission’s public reference room at its headquarters in Washing­ton, D.C.

F ed er a l C o m m u n ic a t io n s C o m m is s io n ,

W il l ia m J . T r ic a r ic o ,Secretary.

Parts 2 and 87 of chapter I of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 2— FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS A N DR AD IO TREATY MATTERS: GENERAL RULESA N D REGULATIONS

Section 2.106, the table of frequency allocations, is amended to read as fol­lows: footnote US14 is amended and new footnotes US225 and US226 are added as follows:

§ 2.106 [Amended]

Band (kHz) Service Class of station Frequency (kHz) Nature of servicesNature of stations

7 8 9 10 11

160-190................... . G G G v G . . . .190-200.................... . Aeronautical Radionavigation, * G ■ * Aeronautical

radionavigation(US226).

land. radionavigation.

200-275.................... G 6 * • * G G G G

275-285.................... * * * G G G

radionavigation. AeronauticalMaritime radionavigation.radionavigation(radiobeacons)(US18).Aeronauticalmobile.

Maritime radionavigation.

* G G G G G G

325-335.................... Aeronautical G G G . . G Aeronautical mobile.radionavigation. AeronauticalMaritime radionavigation.radionavigation(radiobeacons)(US18).Aeronautical,mobile.

Maritime radionavigation.

335-405.................... • G * G G G G G * * * ** G G G G G G

510-525 (US14) Aeronautical Radionavigation, G -G G Aeronautical(US225). radionavigation. land. radionavigation.

525-535 (US221)..... * * * G G G • G G G G G« G G G G G G

FootnotesG G G G G' G G

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36492 PROPOSED RULES

US14: When 500 kHz Is used for distress purposes, ship and coast stations may use 512 kHz for callingexcept for inland waters. _ ■ *

* * * * * * *

US225: In addition to its present government use, the frequency band 510-525 kHz is available to gov­ernment and nongovernment aeronautical radionavigation stations inland of the territorial base line as co­ordinated with the military services. In addition, the frequency 510 kHz is available for nongovernment ship-helicopter operations when beyond 100 nautical miles from shore and required for aeronautical re-dionavigation. _ . „ „• * * * *

US(226): In the State of Hawaii, stations in the aeronautical radionavigation service shall not cause in- . terference to U.S. Navy reception from its station at Honolulu on 198 kHz.

PART 87— A V IA T IO N SERVICES

In § 87.501, paragraph (f) is amended to read as follows:§ 87.501 Frequencies available.

* * * * * * *

(f) Radiobeacon stations: 190-285 kHz; 325-415 kHz; 510-525 kHz.* * * * * * •[FR Doc. 78-22833 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-60]DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

M ateria ls Transportation Bureau

[4 9 CFR Part 177]

[Docket No: HM-164; Advance Notice]CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC H IG H W A Y

H igh w ay Routing o f R adioactive M ateria ls; Inquiry

AGENCY: Materials Transportation Bureau, Research and Special Pro­grams. Administration, DOT.ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This publication invites comment on the need, and possible methods for establishing routing re­quirements under the Hazardous Ma­terials Transportation Act applicable to highway carriers of radioactive ma­terials. The Materials Transportation Bureau (MTB) recently completed an examination of a local New York City ordinance halting the movement of ra­dioactive materials. Similar ordinances have been or may be enacted else­where. This inquiry is intended to assist in MTB in deciding what Feder­al action may be justified in light of local concerns addressed in such ordin­ances. A hearing will be announced subsequently.DATE: Comments must be received on or before January 1,1979.ADDRESS: Comments must be ad­dressed to Dockets Branch, Informa­tion Services Division, Materials Transportation Bureau, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Wash­ington, D.C. 20590. Five copies of com­ments are requested but not required.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Crockett, Office of Hazard­ous Materials Regulation, U.S. De­partment of Transportation, Room 6218, 2100 Second Street SW., Wash­ington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-0656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. S cope of Th is D ocket

A. Background. On April 20, 1978, the MTB published an opinion (43 FR 16954) concerning the legal relation­ship between section 175.111 of the New York City health code and regu­lations issued by DOT under the Haz­ardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA, Title I of Pub. L. 93-633). Sec­tion 175.111 of the city’s health code prohibits the transportation in or through the city of most commercial shipments of radioactive materials. The HMTA is the basic Federal legis­lation under which the transportation safety of hazardous materials, includ­ing radioactive materials, is regulated. In the opinion, MTB. concluded that HMTA routing authority is sufficient to preempt State and local highway routing requirements (see HMTA, §§ 105, 112; 49 U.S.C. 1804, 1811), but that because a routing requirement has not yet been established under the HMTA, that act does not at present preempt section 175.111 of the city’s health code.

This municipal safety requirement, and other similar requirements im­posed by State and local jurisdictions elsewhere, affect interstate commerce. In some cases local requirements may so vary from one another as to be in­compatible. In other cases they may impose significant additional responsi­bilities on shippers, carriers, or neigh­boring jurisdictions. Existing State and local requirements for highway

carriers of various radioactive materi­als now restrict use of bridges, tunnels, and roads otherwise open to public use. Local jurisdictions have also im­posed requirements for permit fees, advance notice, escorts, and specified times of travel. In many cases, these local restrictions are associated with local responsibilities for emergency re­sponse or for traffic control (such as the establishment of truck routes). This rulemaking will examine the transportation safety aspects of high­way routing of radioactive materials. The examination will include consider­ation of routing decisions now being made by carriers and the methods by which those decisions are made. The rulemaking will examine the safety ef­fects of existing and possible Federal, State, and local highway routing con­trols, including effects of actions by one State or locality on another.

Only highway routing of radioactive materials will be considered in this docket. This does not rule out the pos­sible future consideration of materials in other hazard classes and other modes of transportation. However, highway transportation, of all four modes of transportation, offers the largest number of routing possibilities and the greatest access to population centers. When highway carriers trans­port radioactive materials, they now face immediate and significant dispari­ties in safety requirements imposed by State and local jurisdictions.

B. Safety. Both DOT and the Nucle­ar Regulatory Commission (NRC) share responsibility for insuring use of safe methods of preparing and trans­porting radioactive materials. DOT regulations pertain to packaging, la­beling and marking, placarding and shipping paper entries, keyed to the radiation hazard of the material being transported (49 CFR parts 170-178, es­pecially §§ 173.7(b), 173 .389-.398 and parts 390-397, especially part 397). Complementary NRC regulations, per­taining to packaging of certain radio­active materials, are found at 10 CFR part 71. In addition NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 73 concern the physi­cal security of special nuclear materi­als, at both fixed facilities and while in transportation.

An existing DOT regulation general­ly addresses highway routing of haz­ardous materials (49 CFR 397.9(a)), in­cluding radioactive materials, when carried in substantial quantities. Sec­tion 397.9 was issued under statutes that predate the HMTA (18 U.S.C. 834 and 49 U.S.C. 304), and states:§397.9 Routes.

(a) Unless there is no practicable alterna­tive, a motor vehicle which contains hazard-

&

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

PROPOSED RULES 36493ous materials must be operated over routes which do not go through or near heavily populated areas, places where crowds are as­sembled, tunnels, narrow streets, or alleys. Operating convenience is not a basis for de­termining whether it is practicable to oper­ate a motor vehicle in accordance with this paragraph.

♦ * * * *Another DOT regulation expressly

recognizes State and local traffic regu­lation (49 CFR 397.3). Section 397.3 approves those State and local require­ments which concern the mechanics of driving and handling vehicles. Those State and local requirements are roughly comparable to Federal re­quirements in 49 CFR part 392. Sec­tion 397.3 states:§397.3 State and local laws, ordinances,

and regulations.Every motor vehicle containing hazardous

materials must be driven and parked in com­pliance with the laws, ordinances, and regu­lations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated, unless they are at variance with specific regulations of the Department of Transportation which are applicable to the operation of that vehicle and which impose a more stringent obligation or re­straint.

A third regulation, issued under the HMTA, approves certain hazardous materials restrictions imposed on the use of tunnels by State or local au­thority (49 CFR 177.810). Section 177.810 states:§177.810 Vehicular tunnels.

Nothing contained in parts 170-189 of this subchapter shall be so construed as to nulli­fy or supersede regulations established and published under authority of State statute or municipal ordinance regarding the kind, character, or quantity of any hazardous ma­terial permitted by such regulations to ‘be transported through any urban vehicular tunnel used for mass transportation.

Sections 397.3 and 397.9, and section 177.810(a), taken together, reflect the fact that routing of highway traffic in hazardous materials has been a matter left primarily to State and local regu- laion, and the principle that such State and local regulation should not have the actual effect of altogether forbidding highway transportation be­tween any two points, even where other modes of transportation are available. These provisions constitute the present posture of DOT highway routing policy.

In addition to these provisions, there are also a number of publications available, concerning radioactive mate­rials transportation, which will be con­sidered in this docket. The list below is not inclusive:

(1) Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NUREG-0170), U.S. Nuclear Regula­tory Commission, Office of Standards

Development, December 1977 (availa­ble from the National ïechnical Infor­mation Service for $12).

(2) Lippek and Schuller, Legal, Insti­tutional, and Political Issues in Trans­portation of Nuclear Materials at the Back End of the LWR Nuclear Fuel Cycle, September 30, 1977 (Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 4000 Northeast 41st Street, Seattle, Wash. 98105).

(3) Transport of Radioactive Materi­al in the United States (NUREG- 0073), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission, Office of Standards Develop­ment, May 1976 (single copies may be obtained by writing to Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555).

(4) Environmental Survey of Trans­portation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants (WASH-1238), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Regula­tory Standards, December 1972 (copies available from the National Technical Information Service for $7.25).

In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has contracted for a ge­neric environmental assessment on transportation of radioactive materials near or through large densely populat­ed areas. Results of this effort will be considered as they become available.

The items listed are available for public inspection in the MTB dockets room. Copies may be obtained from the publishing agencies or, where indi­cated, from the National Technical In­formation Service, Springfield, Va. 22161 (payment to NTIS should be en­closed).

C. The need for consistent rules. Con­sistency among Federal, State, and local transportation requirements af­fects both efficiency and safety in transportation. For highway transpor- tation, differences in regulatory re­quirements may affect safety in a number of ways, such as—

(1) Routes used may not be the best avail­able;

(2) Confusion resulting from differences in locally enforced rules may result in non- compliance with either Federal or local rules;

(3) Rerouting that results from a locally imposed rule may have unconsidered effects on other localities, especially on their emer­gency responsibilities.

However, regulatory uniformity may not be always desirable or possible, due to local transportation conditions and the emergency responsibilities of local authorities. There are therefore practical limits on the possible scope of uniform or exclusive HMTA routing requirements that might be developed in this docket.

II. S ome P ossible R egulatory Alternatives

Four alternatives are outlined below, to illustrate several procedures which might be used to regulate highway routing of radioactive materials. MTB is not proposing to employ any of the alternatives. They are outlined merely as illustrations of available HMTA au­thority. As illustrations, they reflect differences in State and local decision­making participation, differences in cost to governments, business, and consumers, and differences in judg­ment as to the necessity for additional Federal scrutiny of radioactive materi­als carriage by highway. The first three alternatives are probably in as­cending order of stringency, cost, and degree of DOT rulemaking scrutiny. A draft regulatory evaluation, available for inspection in the public docket, tentatively concludes the implementa­tion of the regulatory examples below would probably not have major eco­nomic consequences under Executive Order 12044.

A. Require compliance by radioac­tive materials highway carriers with a general routing rule to be established by MTB. The test of 49 CFR 397.9 might serve as a model for develop­ment of a general routing requirement (variations would require an exemp­tion under part 107). Specific route ap­proval or licensing of highway carriers would not be necessary or possible.

B. Require each highway carrier to be licensed only for variance from ra­dioactive materials routes permitted under a generally applicable MTB routing rule, but permit voluntary li­censing. Alternative B, a partial licens­ing scheme, would have many of the features of alternative C, a full licens­ing scheme, outlined below. However, alternative B would involve the estab­lishment of a general Federal routing rule under which much or most high­way carriage of radioactive materials would occur, with specific route ap­proval required only for carriage oper­ations that depart from the general rule. Both the general rule, as well as any specific route approvals, might consider, in addition to actual routes, matters such as carrier fitness, travel times, and availability of alternate methods of transportation other than highway carriage. The general rule, or a specific route approval, would be suf­ficient authority for highway carriage operations conducted in compliance with applicable Federal requirements, and State Rnd local requirements not consistent with those Federal require­ments would be preempted.

This alternative could also provide for specific route approval, when justi­fied, on a voluntary basis upon appli­cation by a carrier, or as a require­ment upon application from a State or local government. Specific route ap-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36494 PROPOSED RULES

proval would be used primarily for sit­uations involving unusual local condi­tions or routes involving substantial controversy.

C. Require each highway carrier to he licensed for each radioactive mate­rial route. This alternative would re­quire each highway carrier to obtain prior MTB approval of any route to be used in the transportation of radioac­tive materials. The carrier might file proposed routes supported by a state­ment of safety and jurisdictional con­siderations. Public comment would be solicited. If the carrier’s proposal were accepted by MTB, it would authorize carrier operation under the plan for a certain term, perhaps 2 years. Plan ap­proval would preempt State and local requirements not consistent with it, but could make federally enforceable those State and local requirements af­fecting the carrier which arfe consist­ent with the plan. In some cases, spe­cial locally imposed requirements might be expressly incorporated into the plan by the carrier or MTB.

It would be necessary to establish some general criteria by which route plans could be judged. As in alterna­tive B, matters which might be exam­ined could include carrier fitness, travel times, and availability of alter­nate methods of transportation. Such criteria additionally would be useful to carriers in preparing plans, and to State and local governments in admin­istering their highway regulatory pro­grams.

At the end of the term, a carrier could file for renewal. At that time his safety record, and conditions affecting his performance, could be evaluated, again by a public process. Under some circumstances, and subject to proce­dural considerations, the carrier’s plan approval could be revoked or modified before the term had run.

This alternative would make it im­possible to move a designated radioac­

tive material by highway unless the route used were previously approved by MTB. Consequently, existing rout­ing practices would have to be phased out gradually, to reduce confusion and commercial disruption. The mechanics of this alternative resemble those of the process now used by MTB in issu­ing exemptions. Implementing this al­ternative may require substantial ad­ministrative resources. -

D. Invite the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider routing re­strictions for its licensees. The Nucle­ar Regulatory Commission addresses routes used to transport special nucle­ar materials (10 CFR part 73) and has the authority to consider routing in both regulatory and licensing proceed­ings.

III. R equest for Comment

Comment is solicited on the preced­ing discussion and on the questions below.

Should radioactive materials be sub­ject to more stringent Federal high­way routing requirements than now imposed by 49 CFR 379.9?

(A) If so­il) What types, quantities and forms of

radioactive materials should be considered?(2) What benefits might be achieved?(3) What factors in addition to population

density and highway conditions should be considered in connection with routing? Should those factors include such things as emergency response training for drivers, special, equipment, or the operating conven­ience and efficiency of the carrier? Should these factors be considered in place of rout­ing?

(4) How would additional Federal rules impact State and local regulatory programs, or emergency response capabilities? To what extent is greater uniformity in State and local requirements desirable, and to what extent achievable through Federal rulemak­ing?

(5) What kind of Federal rule is desirable? Is a generalized DOT requirement prefer­able to a procedure that entails an individu­al DOT examination of some or all routes?

Do local conditions affecting route selection necessitate individual Federal examination? If detailed examination of highway routes is necessary, by what procedures should it be accomplished?

(6) What additional costs may be involved if new routing rules are developed and im­plemented? How are those costs likely to affect shippers, carriers, Federal, State, and local governments, utilities, and the public?

(B) If not—(1) What are the likely costs and benefits

of taking no action?(2) Do existing disparities between State

and local rules concerning highway carriage of radioactive materials need to be harmo­nized? If so, how?

A hearing will be held to consider views on this advance notice, at a time and place to be subsequently an­nounced. Drafters of this document are Douglas A. Crockett, Office of Hazardous Materials Regulation, MTB, and George W. Tenley, Office of the Chief Counsel, Research and Spe­cial Programs Administration.

Commenters are advised that section 105(b) of the HMTA requires DOT to consult and cooperate with the Inter­state Commerce Commission before is­suing any regulation with respect to the routing of hazardous materials.

A uthority: 49 U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1808; 49 CFR 1.53(e) and paragraph (a)(4) of app. A to part 102.

N ote.—The Materials Transportation Bureau has determined that this advance notice will not result in a major economic impact under the terms of Executive Order 12044 and DOT implementing procedures (43 FR 9582). A regulatory evaluation is available in the docket.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 10,1978.

D ouglas A. Crockett, Acting Associate Director for

Hazardous Materials Regula­tion, Materials Transportation Bureau.

[FR Doc. 78-22738 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36495

noticesThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices o^ 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. *

[1505-01]DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Grain Inspection Service

G R A IN STANDARDS

N am e Change fo r Lubbock Grain Exchange, Inc., Lubbock, Tex.

CorrectionIn PR Doc. 78-21716, appearing on

page 34513 in the issue for Friday, August 4, 1978, in the fourth para­graph, the company name should not have been abbreviated and therefore should be corrected to read “Lubbock Grain Inspection and Weighing, Incor­porated”.

[3410-16]

Soil Conservation Service

RCA N A T IO N A L PUBLIC MEETINGS

AGENCY: Soil Conservation Service (SCS).ACTION: The Soil Conservation Serv­ice announces a series of public meet­ings to be held September 1978. (See schedule, RCA National meetings, ap­pendix 1.) These meetings fulfill the national portion of the public partici­pation activities related to the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-192, as de­scribed in the F ederal R egister, Vol. 43, No. 118, June 5,1978.SUMMARY: The Soil and Water Re­sources Conservation Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-192, was enacted to help address concerns related to the growing de­mands on these resources to meet present and future needs. This Act calls for the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with conservation dis­tricts and State soil conservation agen­cies, to appraise the Nation’s soil and water resources and develop a national conservation program. The Secretary delegated this responsibility to SCS. The Act also calls for widespread public participation in these efforts. The National Association of Conserva­tion Districts (ÑACD) is cooperating with SCS to involve the public. (See “fact sheet: The Soil and Water Re­sources Conservation Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-192),” appendix 2.) As one means of providing opportunities for partici-'

pation, SCS is inviting individuals with national or multi-State viewpoint and national leaders of academic, business, industry, citizen, environmental and governmental organizations to public meetings. The purposes of these meet­ings are to present the features of the Resources Conservation Act, describe the appraisal and policy development process and the public’s role in it, then listen as participants give their views on pertinent national so|l and water conservation issues. (See “suggested topics on which the public may com­ment at RCA national public meet­ings,” appendix 3.)FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Interested individuals may present their views at these meetings or in writing* to Mr. Richard L. Duester- haus, Assistant Administrator for Planning and Evaluation, Soil Con­servation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 2890, Wash­ington, D.C. 20013, telephone number 202-447-7705. Deadline date for written comments is September 30, 1978.Dated: August 14,1978.

V ictor H. Barry, Jr., Deputy Administrator

for Programs.Appendix 1.

RCA NATIONAL MEETINGS

August 9,1978.

Monday, September 11, 1978, 9:30 a.m.Jefferson Auditorium, South Building (Be­

tween 5th and 6th wings),’ U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture, 14th and Indepen­dence Avenue SW„ Washington, D.C. 20250.

Friday, September 15, 1978, 2 p.m.Saturday, September 16,1978, 10 a.m.

Americana Inn of Six Flags, 601 Avenue H East, Arlington, Tex. 76011. (Interstate 30 at Route 360 North Exit.)Tuesday, September 19, 2 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Oakland Airport Hilton Hotel, No. 1 Hegen- berger Road, Oakland, Calif. 94614.

Monday, September 25,1978, 10 a.m.Holiday Inn Airport, 1380 Virginia Aveiiue,

Atlanta, Ga. 30320. (Interstate 85 at Vir­ginia Avenue Exit South of Atlanta.)

Tuesday, September 26, 1978,10 a.m.Ohare Motor Inn, 3939 North Manneheim

Road, Schiller Park, 111. 60176. (Approxi­mately 5 miles from Ohare Airport.)

Appendix 2.Fact Sheet: The Soil and Water Resources

Conservation Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-192).What: The Resources Conservation Act

requires:1. An appraisal of America’s soil, water,

and related resources;2. A national soil and water conservation

program to guide conservation efforts for protecting and improving our resources; and

3. An annual evaluation report to Con­gress on the program’s progress and effec­tiveness.

The public will participate in carrying out the requirements of the law.

Who: The Soil Conservation Service will implement the Act in cooperation with con­servation districts, State soil and water con­servation agencies, citizen groups and indi­viduals.

When: The national program will be com­pleted during 1979 and sent to Congress in early 1980.

Objectives: The appraisal will assess the Nation’s soil, water, and related resources including fish and wildlife habitats and de­termine their capabilities and limitations for current and future needs. It will evalu­ate changes in our resources resulting from past use and farming techniques.

The 5-year national soil and water conser­vation program based on the appraisal will be the guide for future USDA soil and water conservation efforts. It will analyze resource problems, existing guidelines in dealing with them, and effectiveness of ongoing soil and water conservation programs. Alternative - methods of achieving conservation goals will be considered at well as their costs and benefits.

The evaluation report, which will accom­pany the President’s budget, will assess the program’s effectiveness and recommend future action—possibly including new legis­lation.

The law specifically requires public par­ticipation and opinion in evaluating re­source problems and developing the Na­tion’s soil and water conservation program. Interested individuals can offer ideas and suggestions.

Appendix 3.

SUGGESTED TOPICS ON W H ICH THE PUBLIC MAY COMMENT AT RCA NATIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS

Public participation activities related to the Resources Conservation Act are being conducted at the national level. The public is asked to comment on a variety of topics of national scope. Any or all of the following are suggested as appropriate for comment:

1. The Nation’s soil, water, and related re­source problems;

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36496 NOTICES

2. The quality and quantity of soil, water, and related resources, including fish and wildlife habitats;

3. The capability and limitations of those resources for meeting current and projected demands on the resource base;

4. The changes that have occurred in the status and condition of those resources re­sulting from various past uses, including the impact of farming technologies, techniques, and practices;

5. Current Federal laws, policies, pro­grams, rights, regulations, ownerships, and their trends and other considerations relat­ing to the use, development, and conserva­tion of soil, water, and related resources;

6. Existing Federal Government authori­ties and adjustments needed for conserving these resources;

7. The effectiveness of the soil and water conservation programs and the overall pro­gress being achieved by Federal programs and the land owners and land users in meet­ing soil and water conservation objectives;

8. Alternative methods for the conserva­tion, protection, environmental improve­ment, and enhancement of soil and water resources, in the context of alternative time frames, and a recommendation of the pre­ferred alternatives;

9. The costs and benefits of alternative soil and water conservation practices;

10. The Federal and non-Federal inputs required to implement a national soil and water conservation program;

11. Alternative irrigation techniques re­garding their costs, benefits, and impact on soil and water conservation, crop produc­tion, and environmental factors;

12. The practicability, desirability, and feasibility of collecting organic waste mate­rials, including manure, crop and food wastes, industrial organic waste, muncipal sewage sludge, logging, and wood-manufac­turing residues, and any other organic refuse, compositing, or similarly treating such materials, transporting and placing such materials onto the land to improve soil filth and fertility, the projected cost of such collection, transportation, and placement in accordance with sound locally approved soil and water conservation practices.

13. Other pertinent soil, water, and relat­ed resources conservation issues.

[FR Doc. 78-23088 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16]ARTHUR DODD MEM ORIAL ROADSIDE PARK

WATER-BASED RECREATION R.C. A D. MEASURE, M IC H IG A N

Intent N ot To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, UJS. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact state­ment is not being prepared for the Arthur Dodd Memorial Roadside Park Water-Based Recreation R.C. & D. Measure, Cass County, Mich.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. Arthur H. Cratty, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this proj­ect.

The measure concerns a plan for water-based recreation. The planned works of improvement will be installed on about 51 acres of land along about 2,700 feet of Dowagiac Creek. Planned development includes installation of picnic sites, picnic shelters, play­ground equipment, parking areas, wells, recreation walkways with foot bridges, fencing, access road for trash pickup, restrooms, repair of existing water control structure, signs, seeding, fertilizing and mulching of disturbed areas. Total basic facilities costs are approximately $102,090: $204,045 R.C. & D. funds; and $102,045 local funds.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. Arthur H. Cratty, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 1405 South Har­rison Road, East Lansing, Mich. 48823, telephone 517-372-1910, extension 242. An environmental impact appraisal has been prepared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy requests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18, 1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901-, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q).)

Dated: August 11,1978.Edward E. Thomas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23079 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16]FIFIELD HILL CRITICAL AREA TREATMENT R.C.

& D. MEASURE, M IC H IG A N

Intent N ot to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact state­ment is not being prepared for the Fi- field Hill Critical Area Treatment R.C. & D. Measure, Van Buren County, Mich.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. Arthur H. Cratty, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this proj­ect.

The measure concerns a plan for critical area treatment. The planned works of improvement include con­struction of one catch basin on each side of Decatur Road with 140 feet of 12-inch corrugated metal bipe to carry the water into a sediment seepage basin. The sediment seepage basin is 115' x 70' and will be fenced. All dis­turbed areas will be seeded, fertilized and mulched. Total construction cost is estimated to be $13,625: $9,125 R.C. & D. funds; and $4,500 local funds.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. Arthur H. Cratty, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 1405 South Har­rison Road, East Lansing, Mich. 48823, telephone 517-372-1910 extension 242. An environmental impact appraisal has been prepared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and inerested parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy requests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18,1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q).)

Dated: August 11,1978.Edward E. Thomas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23080 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

[3410-16]

JEFFERSON COUNTY H IG H SCHOOL CRITICALAREA TREATMENT R.C. & D. MEASURE,FLORIDA

Intent N ot To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Erivironmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact state­ment is not being prepared for the Jef­ferson County High School Critical Area Treatment R.C. & D. Measure, Jefferson County, Fla.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this proj­ect. . /

The measure concerns a plan for sta­bilizing critically eroding areas. The planned works of improvement include a paved access road, paved parking lot, paved channel, grassed waterway and diversions, sodding, seeding and mulching, concrete headwalls, riprap energy dissipation structure, and cor­rugated metal pipe.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. WilliamE. Austin, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 401 Southeast First Avenue, Gainesville, Fla. 32601, telephone 904-377-8732. An environ­mental impact appraisal has been pre­pared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interest­ed parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy re­quests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18,1978.(Catalog of Federal. Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590-f, q).)

NOTICES

Dated: August 11,1978.E dward E. T homas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23081 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16]

LEUTZINGER-LOWE RUN WATERSHED, IO W A

Intent N ot To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact state­ment is not being prepared for the Leutzinger-Lowe Run Watershed, Muscatine County, Iowa.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. William J. Brune, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this proj­ect.

The project concerns a plan for floodwater and sediment control. The planned works of improvement include two grade stabilization structures and channel work between them.

The notice of intent to not prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment is on file and may be reviewed by interested parties at the Soil Conservation Service, 693 Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, 515-284-4260. An environmental impact appraisal has been prepared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal is available to fill single copy requests.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18, 1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program—Pub. L. 83- 566, (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008).)

36497

Dated: August 11, 1978.J oseph W. H aas,

Assistant Administrator for Water Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service, U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture.

[FR Doc. 78-23089 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16]

PENNYRILE R.C. & D. AREA CRITICAL AREATREATMENT R.C. & D. MEASURES, KENTUCKY

Intent N ot To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that environmental impact statements are not being prepared for the Pennyr- ile R.C. & D. Area Critical Area Treat­ment R.C. & D. Measures in Caldwell, Christian, Crittenden, Hopkins, Liv­ingston, Lyon, Muhlenberg, Todd, Trigg, Union, and Webster Counties, Ky.

The environmental assessment of these federally assisted actions indi­cates that the projects will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. Glen E. Murray, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of environmental impact state­ments are not needed for this project.

The measures concern plans for critical area treatment. The planned works of improvement include seedbed preparation, fertilization seeding, mulching, and netting as needed for establishment of permanent vegeta­tion.

The notice of intent not to prepare environmental impact statements has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency. The basic data de­veloped dtu*ing the environmental as­sessment are on file and may be re­viewed by contacting Mr. Glen E. Murray, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 333 Waller Avenue, Lexington, Ky. 40504, tele­phone 606-233-2749. An environmen­tal impact appraisal has been prepared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the envi­ronmental impact appraisal are availa­ble to fill single copy requests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18, 1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36498 NOTICES

and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q).)

Dated: August 11,1978.E dward E. T homas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[PR Doc. 78-23082 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16]Q U IN C Y GULLIES CRITICAL AREA TREATMENT

R.C. & D. MEASURES, FLORIDA

Intent N ot To Prepare cm Environmental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of .1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); the Soil Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Quincy Gullies Critical Area Treatment R.C. & D. Measure, Gadsden County, Fla.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this proj­ect.

The measure concerns a plan for gully stabilization. The planned works of improvement include corrugated metal pipe implacements, concrete inlet structures, timber bent struc­tures, riprap plunge basins, subsurface drain pipe, fencing, sodding, earth fill, and seedbed preparation.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. WilliamE. Austin, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 401 Southeast First Avenue, Gainesville, Fla. 32601, telephone 904-377-8732. An environ­mental impact appraisal has been pre­pared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interest­ed parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy re­quests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18, 1977.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q).)

Dated: August 11,1978.E dward E. T homas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23086 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16]QUIET-WATER BEACH WATER-BASED

RECREATION R.C. & D. MEASURE, FLORIDA.

In tent N ot To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact state­ment is not being prepared for the Quiet-Water Beach Water-Based Rec­reation R.C. & D. Measure, Escambia County, Fla.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this proj­ect.

Thè measure concerns a plan for water-based recreation. The planned works of improvement include the con­struction of a wood-based pier and beach pavilion.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 401 Southeast First Avenue, Gainesville, Fla. 32601, telephone 904-377-8732. An environ­mental impact appraisal has been pre­pared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interest­ed parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy re­quests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18, 1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q).)

Dated: August 11, 1978.E dward E. T homas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23085 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16] ,SANTA ROSA COUNTY ROADSIDE CRITICAL

AREA TREATMENT MEASURE, FLORIDA

In ten t N ot To Prepare an Environm ental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact state­ment is not being prepared for the Santa Rosa County Roadside Critical Area Treatment R.C. & D. Measure, Santa Rosa County, Fla.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this proj­ect.

The measure concerns a plan for sta­bilizing critically eroding areas. The planned works of improvement include concrete flumes, sodding, seeding of disturbed areas, and culvert replace­ments.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 401 Southeast First Avenue, Gainesville, Fla. 32601, telephone 904-377-8732. An environ­mental impact appraisal has been pre­pared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interest­ed parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy re­quests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18,1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q>.)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36499

Dated: August 11,1978.Edward E. T homas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23083 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410-16]

STANLEY GULLY CRITICAL AREA TREATMENT R .C & D. MEASURE, FLORIDA

Intent N o t To Prepare an Environm ental Im pact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Serv­ice Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. De­partment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact state­ment is not being prepared for the Stanley Gully Critical Area Treatment R.C. & D. Measure, Walton County, Fla.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this sub­ject.

The measure concerns a plan for gully stabilization. The planned works of improvement include a concrete lined waterway, sodding, earth filL and seedbed preparatioin with mulch­ing.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. WilliamE. Austin, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 401 Southeast First Avenue, Gainesville, Fla. 32601, telephone 904-377-8732. An environ­mental impact appraisal has been pre­pared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interest­ed parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy re­quests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18,1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q).)

Dated: August 11, 1978.Edward E. Thomas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23084 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3410 -16 ]UNIVERSITY O F WEST FLORIDA CRITICAL

AREA TREATMENT R .C & D. MEASURE,FLORIDA

In ten t N e t To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem ent

Pursuant to section 102(2X0 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Soil Conservation Service guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the University of West Florida critical area treatment R.C. 6s D. measure, Escambia County, Fla.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause signifi­cant local, regional, or national im­pacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, has de­termined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this proj­ect.

The measure concerns a plan for sta­bilizing critically eroding areas. The planned works of improvement include grade stabilization structures, earthen dikes, diversions, a concrete ditch, an underground conduit, riprap, a plunge basin, and establishment of vegetation on denuded and disturbed areas.

The notice of intent not to prepare an environmental impact statement has been forwarded to the Environ­mental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the environ­mental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. William E. Austin, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, 401 Southeast First Avenue, Gainesville, Fla. 32601, telephone 904-377-8732. An environ­mental impact appraisal has been pre­pared and sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interest­ed parties. A limited number of copies of the environmental impact appraisal are available to fill single copy re­quests at the above address.

No administrative action on imple­mentation of the proposal will be taken until September 18,1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.901, Resource Conservation and Development Program—Pub. L. 87-703, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f, q).)

Dated: August 11,1978.Edward E. Thomas,

Assistant Administrator for Land Resources, Soil Conser­vation Service.

[FR Doc. 78-23087 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6320-01]CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

[Docket 33091)FLORIDA SERVICE CASE

Prehearing Conference

Notice is hereby given that a per- hearing conference in the above-enti­tled matter is assigned to be held on September 19, 1978, at 10 a.m. (local time) in room 1003, Hearing room A, Universal Building North, 1875 Con­necticut Avenue NW„ Washington, D.C., before Administrative Law Judge William H. Dapper.

In order to facilitate the conduct of the conference, parties are instructed to submit one copy to each party and four copies to the Judge of (1) pro­posed statements of issues; (2) pro­posed stipulations; (3) proposed re­quests for information and for evi­dence; (4) statements of positions; and(5) proposed procedural dates. The Bureau of Pricing and Domestic Avi­ation will circulate its material on or before September 6, 1978, and the other parties on or before September 13, 1978. The submissions of the other parties shall be limited to points on which they differ with the Bureau of Pricing and Domestic Aviation, and shall follow the numbering and letter­ing used by the Bureau to facilitate cross-referencing.

Dated at Washington, D.C., August11,1978.

W illiam H. D apper, Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc. 78-23040 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6320-01]

[Order 78-8-49; Docket 30777; Agreement C.A.B. 27217, 27195; R -l and R-2]

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT A SSOCIATIO N

Currency M atters and Passenger Fares; O rder

Adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Board at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 10th day of August 1978.

Order 78-4-134, April 20, 1978, estab­lished procedures for the receipt of carrier justification, comments and re­plies on an agreement relating to cur­rency matters filed by the Internation­al Air Transport Association. The agreement proposes a six-percent sur­charge on U.S.-originating passenger fares for travel to Japan, Hong Kong,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L . 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36500 NOTICES

South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei to compensate for the recent depreciation in the value of the U.S. dollar.

Justification has been submitted by Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan American) and by Japan Air Lines Company, Ltd. (JAL). Comments opposing application of the surcharge at Seattle have been filed by the Puget Sound Traffic Association (PSTA). Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest), a non-IATA carrier, states that it does not intend to apply the IATA-agreed surcharge on its ser­vices.

In support of the agreement, Pan American states that the surcharge is needed primarily to compensate for­eign-flag carriers for dollar devalu­ation-related losses on their U.S. oper­ations; and that the surcharge will have a minimal impact on Pan Ameri­can’s North/Central Pacific earnings and will not give it an excessive return.1

JAL submits that the erosion of the dollar against the Japanese yen has resulted in a substantial directional disparity in U.S./Japan fares;2 that the Board has recognized that a deval­uation may warrant a fare increase if the value of foreign carriers’ profits on revenues earned in the United States in devalued dollars is reduced when the funds are remitted to the home country; that during the year ended March 1977, JAL earned $120 million in the United States for its North/ Central Pacific passenger operations, then equaivalent to 10.72 billion yen, but this dollar amount is now worth only 8.621 billion yen for a devalu­ation-related loss of 2.1 billion yen or $8.8 million; and that the proposed surcharge will produce $7.2 million in additional revenue, which will still leave JAL short of its pre-devaluation position.

PSTA states that while a devalu­ation-related surcharge may be justi­fied on some routes, it should not be applied to fares from Seattle, since Northwest, the only U.S. carrier oper­ating between Seattle and the Orient, is highly profitable, and no foreign- flag carriers serve Seattle.

Separate Agreement C.A.B. 27195 proposes general increases of $10 or $20 in all fares.

The Board has been unable to reach a majority on the question of approval of these agreements. Chairman Kahn

‘Pan American’s forecast for scheduled combination services indicates that the pro­posed surcharge would increase its return on investment by less than a percentage point, to about 8.5 percent.

* JAL notes that from April 1976 through March 1977 the monthly average official rate of exchange was 293.67 yen=$1.00, but during the period December 1977 through April 1978, the average rate was 236.16 yen=$1.00.

and Vice Chairman Minetti would dis­approve the agreements; Members O’Melia and Bailey would approve them. Therefore the agreements are not approved.3

Accordingly, it is ordered, That:1. Agreements C.A.B. 27217, R -l and

C.A.B. 27195, R-2, are not approved; and

2. Agreement C.A.B. 27195, R-l, is approved.4

This order will be published in the F ederal R egister.

P hyllis T . K aylor, Secretary.

[PR Doc. 78-23042 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6320-01][Docket 30699]

O A K LA N D SERVICE CASE

Environm ental Rejection in Part and Announce­m ent o f Preparation o f Environmental Im pact Statem ent

By Order 78-4-121, dated April 19, 1978, the Board directed all applicants who had not already done so to file the environmental evaluation required by part 312.12 of the Board’s proce­dural regulations (14 CFR 312.12). The Board directed that those evaluations be filed by July 19, 1978, or within 15 days after the carrier filed its applica­tion, whichever is later.

Of the six original applicants in the case, only Hughes Airwest filed an en­vironmental evaluation by July 19. DHL, which filed its application later, also submitted an environmental ea- luation. Although we did not have evaluations from the other carriers to aid us, we were able to forecast a range of service levels likely to be of­fered should all of the applications be granted.

Our forecasts, which assumed 65 percent load factors, price elasticity ranging from —.7 to —2.0, average fares ranging from 60 to 75 percent of DPFI coach levels, and varying de­grees of flow and connecting traffic, produced the following projections:

MarketNumber of

weekly round trips

Equip­ment*

Albuquerque.................... ......... 7-14 DC-9Atlanta............................. ......... 7-14 727Boston.............................. ......... 7-13 DC-8, 707Chicago............................ 707, DC-8Dallas/Fort Worth......... ......... 7-20 DC-8, 707Denver................... .......... 727, DC-8

*We will approve Agreement C.A.B. 27195, R -l, which does not involve increases to or from U.S. points, but has indirect applica­tion in air transportation as defined by the Act.

4 All Members concurred.

MarketNumber of

weekly round trips

Equip­ment*

Detroit...................................... „ 7-11 N/A; 727„ 7-14 727

Kansas City............................. .. 0-7 N/A, 727Minneapolis/St. Paul......... . .. 7-14 707, 727

.. 7-8 737, 707

.. 14-21 727, 707Portland................................... .. 0-14 N/A, 727Salt Lake City................ ........... 7-18 727, 737

„ 28-35 737, DC-8

Total Oakland Airport LTO’s..................................... 133-259

•The type of equipment employed may depend on the volume of traffic projected. Where the type of aircraft expected to be used differs for the high and low estimates, the low estimate equipment type is listed first.

Using the high end of this range, which represents the worst case envi­ronmentally, we conducted our noise and pollutants screening tests1 for each of the 16 cities which would be affected by the proposed awards. Based on the results of these tests, I, having been designated by the Direc­tor of the Bureau of Pricing and Do­mestic Aviation, have concluded that with respect to the cities of Albuquer­que, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Kansas City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City and Seattle, any subsequent action approving, denying or otherwise acting on the applications would not constitute a “major Federal action sig­nificantly affecting the quality of the h um an environment” within the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the Na­tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

With respect to Oakland, however, the thresholds of our screening tests were exceeded, indicating that further study is necessary. Accordingly, an en­vironmental impact statement will be prepared assessing the effect of the proposed action on the San Francisco Bay area and, especially, the area sur­rounding Oakland Airport. We will en­deavor to complete the draft state­ment by August 18. After allowing 45 days for comments on the draft, we will issue a final statement.'

Dated at Washington, D.C., August14,1978.

P aul L. G retch,Chief Legal Processing Division,

Bureau of Pricing and Domes­tic Aviation.

[FR Doc. 78-23041 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

‘See part 312 of the Board’s Procedural Regulations, 14 CFR 312.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36501[3510-07]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau o f the Census

CENSUS A DVISO RY COMMITTEE OF THE AM ERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIO N

Public M eeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. appendix (1976), notice is hereby given that the Census Advisory Committee of the American Statistical Associ­ation will convene on September 7 and 8, 1978, at 9 a.m. The Committee will meet in room 2424, Federal Building 3 at the Bureau of the Census in Suit- land, Md.

The Census Advisory Committee of the American Statistical Association was established in 1919. It advises the Director, Bureau of the Census, on the Bureau’s programs as a whole and on their various parts, considers priority issues in the planning of censuses and surveys, examines guiding principles, advises on questions of policy and pro­cedures, and responds to Bureau re­quests for opinions concerning its op­erations.

The Committee is composed of 15 members appointed by the President of the American Statistical Associ­ation.

The agenda for the September 7 meeting, which will adjourn at 5:30 p.m. is: (1) Topics of current interest at the Bureau of the Census, including staff changes and Bureau organiza­tion, and major budget and program developments; (2) evaluation of Bureau public information campaigns;(3) Foreign Trade Export Statistics Program; (4) National Academy of Sci­ences report on privacy and confiden­tiality; (5) 1980 post-enumerationsurvey; and (6) development of Com­mittee recommendations.

The agenda for the September 8 meeting, which will adjourn at 12:30 p.m; is: (1) Committee discussion of recommendations; (2) Bureau electron­ic data processing—status, problems, and plans; (3) report of the Special Panel on Decennial Census Plans; (4) beginning of the ASA/NSF project on seasonal adjustment; (5) discussion on Bureau responses to prior Committee recommendations, status of specific Bureau activities, and Bureau activi­ties described at earlier Committee meetings; and (6) Committee recom­mendations, plans, and agenda items for the next meeting.

The meeting will be open to the public, and a brief period will be set aside on September 8 for public com? ment and questions. Extensive ques­tions or statements must be submitted in writing to the Committee Control Officer at least 3 days prior to the meeting;

Persons wishing additional informa­tion concerning this meeting or who wish to submit written statements may contact the Committee Control Officer, Mr. James L. O’Brien, Acting Chief, Statistical Research Division, Bureau of the Census, Room 3573, Federal Building 3, Suitland, Md. (Mail address: Washington, D.C. 20233). Telephone, 301-763-5350.

Dated: August 11,1978.Manuel D. P lotkin ,

Director, Bureau of the Census.[FR Doc. 78-23009 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3510-24]

Economic D evelopm ent Adm inistration

COHAN-EPNER C O M P A N Y , IN C . ET AL

Petitions for Determ inations o f E ligibility to A p p ly fo r Trade Adjustm ent Assistance

Petitions were accepted for filing from three firms: (1) Cohan-Epner Co., Inc., 55 Meadow Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11206, a plater of watchbands, watchcases, pens and pencils, jewelry and novelties; (accepted August 3, 1978); (2) Rest-Right Slipper, Inc., 580 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10012, a producer of women’s footwear; (ac­cepted August 9, 1978); and (3) Car- done and Baker, Inc., 214 Duffield Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201, a pro­ducer of women’s footwear (accepted August 9, 1978). The petitions were submitted pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-618) and section 315.23 of the adjustment assistance regulations for firms and communities (13 CFR Part 315).

Consequently, the United States De­partment of Commerce has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or direct­ly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to total or partial separation of the firm’s workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning' firm.

Any party having a substantial inter­est in the proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A re­quest for a hearing must be received by the Chief, Trade Act Certification Division, Economic Development Ad­ministration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, no later than the close of business on the tenth calendar day following the publication of this notice.

J ack W. Q sburn, J r ., Chief, Trade Act Certification

Division, Office of Planning and Program Support.

[FR Doc. 78-22984 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3510-25]

Industry and Trade Adm inistration

BROOKHAVEN N ATIO N A L LABORATORY

Applications for Duty-Free Entry o f Scientific Articles

The following are notices of the re­ceipt of applications for duty-free entry of scientific articles pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scien­tific, and Cultural Materials Importa­tion Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897). Interested persons may present their views with respect to the question of whether an instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value for the purposes for which the article is intended to be used is being manufactured in the United States. Such comments must be filed in tripli­cate with the Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Bureau of Trade Regulation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, within 20 calendar days after the date on which this notice of application is published in the F ederal R egister.

Regulations (15 CFR 301.9) issued under the cited act prescribe the re­quirements for comments.

A copy of each application is on file, and may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, in room 6886C of the Depart­ment of Commerce Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW. Washing­ton, D.C. 20230.

Docket No. 78-00343. Applicant: The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, P.O. Box 1809, San Diego, Calif. 92112. Article: Fluorescence amino acid ana­lyzer, Liquimat III and spare parts. Manufacturer: Kontron Ltd., Switzer­land. Intended use of article: The arti­cle is intended to be used for the de­termination of amino acid composi­tions of newly isolated biologically active peptides (which are available in quantities of typically one-millionth of 1 gram only) as well as for the deter­mination of amino acid sequence of newly isolated peptides. Furthermore, the article will be used for further de­velopm ent^ all aspects of high-sensi­tivity amino acid analysis (improve­ments in sensitivity, simplicity, reli­ability, speed of analysis, etc.). Appli­cation received by Commissioner of Customs: July 20,1978.

Docket No. 78-00344. Applicant: Lenox Hill Hospital, 100 East 77th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021. Article: Double tilt-lift for EMU-101- electron microscope. Manufacturer: Siemens Corp., West Germany. Intended use of article: The article is an accessory to an electron microscope that will be used for the examination of portions of human bronchial mucosa, liver, kidney, and skin for abnormal content of inorganic substances that are capa­ble of producing diseases. Application^

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36502 NOTICES

received by Commissioner of Customs: July 20, 1978,

Docket No. 78-00345. Applicant: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y. 11973. Article: 2(ea.) Mon­ochromator crystals. Manufacturer: Cristal Tec, France. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used in a research program involving the study of the properties of solids using neutrons from the Brookhaven High Flux Beam Reactor. The neu­trons emerge from the pile with a smooth distrubution of energies and by employing suitably oriented single crystals, called monochromators, neu­trons of a single energy may be select­ed from the pile pectrum. These mon- oenergetic neutrons are then used in the study of the properties of solids. The CUzMnAl crystal also can be used to polarize the neutron beam so that the spins of the neutrons selected are alined as well as being monoener- getic. Application received by Commis­sioner of Customs: July 20, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00346. Applicant: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, N.Y. 11973. Arti­cle; Eight each neutron guide tubes and accessories. Manufacturer: Munich Technical University, West Germany. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used in a re­search program involving the study of the properties of solids using slow neu­trons from the Brookhaven High Flux Beam Reactor. A narrow beam of new- trons impinging on a solid will be broadened due to the interacton of the neutrons and the various inhomogen­eities which is important in the mate­rials sciences for nondestructive test­ing of metals and alloys. The neutron guide tubes are required to conduct and concentrate the beam of neutrons onto the materials being investigated. Application received by Commissioner of Customs: July 20, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00347. Applicant: Na­tional Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 0, 1000 BUllock Boulevard NW., Socorro, N. Mex. 87801. Article: (3,000 each) TE j model circular wave­guide and (3,000 each) coupling sleeves. Manufacturer: Sumitomo Electric Industries, Japan. Intended use of article: The articles are intend­ed to be used as part of the Very Large Array radio telescope to transmit radio wavelength radiation received from extraterrestrial objects to record­ing apparatus. The study of this radi­ation enables astronomers to study the sources of energy, origin, and evolu­tion of the universe. Application re­ceived by Commissioner of Customs: July 26, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00348. Applicant: Har­vard Medical School, Department of Anatomy, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, Mass. 02115. Article: Electron micro­scope, model JEM-100CX and accesso­

ries. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used to update an elec­tron microscope facility for research involving localization of specific pro­teins in cells and tissues by scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Specific projects to be conducted will include the following:

(1) The relation of collagen and gly- cosaminoglycans to cells and the dis­tribution of matrix components in de­veloping tissues which are of impor­tance in morphogenetic interactions between embryonic tissues.

(2) Immunolabeling of the clycoca- lyx on Rickettsiae and host cells.

(3) Localization of macromolecular secretagogues on intestinal epithelial cells.

(4) Mobility and topography of cell surface glycoproteins.

(5) Antigens on the surface of devel­oping spermatogenic cells.

(6) Structural analysis of the sperm flagellar axoneme and its microtubule components.

The article will also be used in train­ing postdoctoral research fellows in advanced electron microscopy. Appli­cation received by Commissioner of Customs: July 26,1978.

Docket No. 78-00349. Applicant: Har­vard University (New England Region­al Primate Research Ctr.), One Pine Hill Drive, Southboro, Mass. 01772. Ar­ticle: Electron microscope, model JEM-100S and accessories. Manufac­turer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used for studies of biological materials including normal and abnormal tissues from nonhuman primates as well as a multitude of infectious agents, espe­cially viruses, isolated from nonhuman primates. Experiments will be con­ducted to use the nonhuman primate as a model to study specific disease ‘problems of man with the hope of gaining a better understanding of those problems so as to benefit man. These experiments will include:

1. Fine structural analysis of new viral isolates as a crucial step in their identification and characterization.

2. Ultrastructural studies of the ex­perimentally induced neoplastic and/ or transformed cells produced by the two primate oncogenic herpesviruses.

3. Determination of the morphologi­cal effects of new antiviral drugs on viral replication and on infected cell cultures treated in vitro.

4. Characterization of the ultra- structural lesions induced in nonhu­man primates fed specific experimen­tal diets.

5. Characterization of the ultrastruc­tural features of certain age-related brain changes in nonhuman primates and compare them to analogous le­sions found in aged human brains.

In addition, the article will be used in tlj£ conduct of a postdoctoral train­ing program in c.omparative pathology. Application recéived by Commissioner of Customs: July 26, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00350. Applicant: Uni­versity of North Carolina, Department of Pathology, 411 Preclinical Educa­tional Building, 228H, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514. Article: LKB 14800-3 Cryo- kit and accessories. Manufacturer: LKB Produkter AB, Sweden. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used for studying the subcellular localization of heavy metals and the subcellular binding sites of various kinase antigens which may be affected by these metals in the brain, muscles, peripheral nerves, kidneys and livers of experimental animals. The article will also be used to instruct a limited number of postdoctoral and graduate students in ultracryomicrotomy when their research requires this technique. Application received by Commissioner of Customs: July* 26, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00351. Applicant: Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Fifth Avenue and 100th Street, New York, N.Y. 10029. Article: LKB 2128-010/U1- trotome IV Ultramicrotome and acces­sories. Manufacturer: LKB Produkter AB, Sweden. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used for the study of brain tissues from experi­mental monkeys in research to further basic knowledge on brain ultrastruc­ture and to reveal, at the ultrastruc­tural level, the changes occurring during growth and development. In­vestigations will be conducted to un­derstand early postnatal development and to correlate ultrastructural changes with behavioral maturation. By understanding these correlations, preventive measures for human dis­eases can be established. Application received by Commissioner of Customs: July 26, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00352. Applicant: Lutheran General Hospital, 1775 West Dempster Street, Park Ridge, 111. 60068. Article: LKB 2128-010 Ultro- tome IV Ultramicrotome and accesso­ries. Manufacturer: LKB Produkter AB, Sweden. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used in cutting sections of tissues (tumor biop­sies, renal biopsies, muscle tissues) for electron microscopic examination in the following clinical research pro­jects:

(a) Typing and identification of neo­plastic conditions essential for pa­tient’s treatment and prognosis.

(b) Diagnosis of renal diseases, par­ticularly identification of types of var­ious glomerulonephritis.

(c) Muscle biopsy tissues in clinical research of primary degenerative myo­pathies.

The electron microscopic material is also used for a pathology resident

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36503

training program as well as for train­ing resident physicians in other disci­plines, especially those in internal medicine. Application received by Commissioner of Customs: July 26, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00353. Applicant: Southern Illinois University, Center for Electron Microscopy, Carbondale,111. 62901. Article: Electron micro­scope, model H-500, goniometer stage with accessories. Manufacturer: Hita­chi, Japan. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used for the following research purposes:

1. Examination of thin sections of the fungus Diplodia maydis in com tissue to determine the penetration mechanism.

2. Thin section examination of the mussel, Mytilus edulis treated with various agents affecting photoactivity to study the phenomenon of photore­ception.

3. Diffraction studies of osmium complexes to determine structure.

4. High resolution studies of nega­tively stained DNA to determine size and shape.

5. Autoradiographic studies to local­ize various protein moieties in the yeast, Saccharomyces.

6. Identification of various virus preparations by negative staining to determine size and purity.

7. Cellulase localization in thin sec­tions in various fungal pathogens.

8. Lattice structures of various crys­tals.

9. Morphology of fossils by replica technique.

10. Examination of thin sections of Bacillus bacterial spores to study the germination process and various agents affecting it.

11. Thin section study of the effect of osmium complexes on mammalian tissue and inferences of its use in ar­thritis.

12. Thin section study of amyloid content of fungal spore of Zellero- myces.

13. Bacterial typing of various spe­cies by flagellar location (shadowed preps).

14. Localization of PAS positive sub­stances in fungal plan pathogens. In addition, the article will be used for educational purposes in the course Transmission Electron Microscopy for Research in which students are taught how to effectively use the article as a research tool and various preparation techniques depending on need. Appli­cation received by Commissioner of Customs: July 26, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00354. Applicant: Uni­versity of Alabama in Birmingham, Department of Pathology, University Station, Birmingham, Ala. 35294. Arti­cle: Electron microscope, model EM 400 with high magnification gonio­meter stage and accessories. Manufac­

turer: Philips Electronics Instruments NVD, The Netherlands. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used to examine biologic tissues which will include normal tissues from ani­mals as well as individual organisms such as bacteria, parasites, viruses or fungi. On rare occasions, tissues of nonbiological origin may also be stud­ied. Studies will be conducted in order to define structural alterations of tis­sues and to correlate these with bio­chemical and functional changes in the tissue. Specific examples of the re­search projects include:

(a) identification of membrane integ­rity of cardiac muscle cells following ischemic cell damage in experimental animals.

(b) specific cell localization of amino acid precursors of protein synthesis in hearts made to hypertrophy by var­ious different techniques.

(c) demonstration of altered mem­brane permeability of heart muscle cells using such tracers as horse radish peroxidase and ferritin.

(d) localization of specific cell sur­face antigens using immunqlogically labeled antibodies on the surface of the cell with ferritin tracers.

(e) characterization of the lipid bi­layer membrane of liposomes specifi­cally constructed to carry various agents within the liposome cavity.

(f) identification of immune complex structures within the basement mem­branes of the kidney glomerulus in animals with compliment deficient in­duced glomerulopathy.

The article will also be used to train graduate students in the use of elec­tron microscopy and to obtain and to interpret results obtained using this technique. Application received by Commissioner of Customs: July 26, 1978.

Docket No. 78-00355. Applicant: The University of Texas System Cancer Center, 6723 Bertner, Houston, Tex. 77030. Article: Pulse cytophotometer, model ICP 21. Manufacturer: Phywe AG, West Germany. Intended use of article: The article is intended to be used for the studies of cells from ani­mals, including humans. Experiments to be conducted will involve treating the animal cells with different anti­cancer drugs and then determining the alternations in the cell’s division cycle using the pulse cytophotometer that were caused by the drug. The ob­jective pursued in the course of these investigations is to further improve chemotherapy of human cancer by se­lecting anticancer drugs based on their effects on the cell division cycle. Appli­cation received by Commissioner of Customs: July 27, 1978.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 11.105, Importation of Duty- Free Educational and Scientific Materials.)

R ichard M. S eppa, Director, Statutory

Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. 78-23017 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3510-25]ID A H O STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL.

Applications for Duty-Free Entry o f Scientific Article; Correction

The notice of applications for duty­free entry of scientific articles appear­ing at page 35368 in the F ederal R eg­ister of Wednesday, August 9, 1978, should be deleted in its entirety as this notice is a duplicate of the notice that appeared in the F ederal R egister at page 34179, of Thursday, August 3, 1978.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 11.105, Importation of Duty- Free Educational and Scientific Materials.)

R ichard M. Seppa, Director, Statutory Import

Programs Staff.[FR Doc. 78-23016 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3510-13]O ffice o f the Secretary

SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE O N RECOGNITION OF N A TIO N A L PROGRAMS FOR ACCREDITING TESTING LABORATORIES

O pen M eetings

Notice hereby is given of two meet­ings relative to the Second Interna­tional Conference on recognition of national programs for accrediting test­ing laboratories (ILAC/78). The first meeting is a preconference briefing session for the benefit of the U.S. dele­gation to the Conference; it will be held on Thursday morning, September 14, 1978, 9:30 to 12 noon, in Confer­ence Room 4833, U.S. Department of Commerce, Main Building, 14th Street between Constitution Avenue and “E” Street, NW., Washington, D.C. The second meeting is the International Conference which will be held October23-27, 1978 at the Shoreham Ameri­cana Hotel, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day, except on October 25 when the Conference will be held from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The public is invited to attend either or both meetings, on an unreserved, first-come first-served basis, to the limit of available facilities remaining after the various delega­tions and staffs are accommodated.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36504 NOTICES

Dated: August 11,1978.F rancis W. W olek,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

[FR Doc. 78-22983 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3910-01]DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Departm ent o f the A ir Force

USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD

M eeting

August 8,1978.The USAF Scientific Advisory Board

Ad Hoc Committee to review the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory will hold meetings at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., on September 19- 20, 1978, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.

The purpose of the meeting is to ex­amine the Human Resources Labora­tory interface with representative users.

The meeting concerns matters listed in section 552b(c) of title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraph(2) thereof, and accordingly, will be closed to the public.

For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board secretariat at 202-697-4648.

F rankie S. E step,Air Force Federal Register

Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 78-23018 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3710-05]Defense Communications A gency

SCIENTIFIC A DVISO RY GROUP

Closed M eeting

The DCA Scientific Advisory Group will hold a closed meeting on October 19 and 20,1978. The October 19 and 20 meeting will be at the Defense Com­munications Agency, Director’s Man­agement Information Center at Head­quarters, Defense Communications Agency, Eighth Street and South Courthouse Road, Arlington, Va.

The agenda items will be WWMCCS system engineer general war studies, AUTOVON studies and MILSATCOM architectural studies on high frequen­cy utilization and antijam techniques.

Any person desiring information about the Advisory Group may tele­phone area code 202-692-1765, or write Chief Scientist—Associate Director, Technology, Headquarters, Defense Communications Agency, Eighth Street and South Courthouse Road, Arlington, Va. 22204.

This meeting is closed because the material to be discussed is classified

requiring protection in the interest of National Defense. (Freedom of Infor­mation Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(l).)

M argaret E. Anderson, Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 78-22999 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy R egulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. AR64-2 et al.; AR61-2 and AR69-1 et al.]

AREA RATE PROCEEDING; TEXAS GULF COAST AREA; SOUTHERN LO UIS IA NA AREA

Filing o f Refund Distribution Plan

August 9,1978.Take notice that on August 1, 1978,

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Division of Tenneco Inc. (Tennessee), filed its plan for distribution of refunds re­ceived from its producer-suppliers pur­suant to the Commission orders of February 23, 1976, and September 23, 1977, in these proceedings. Tennessee states that as of July 17, 1978, it had received total additional refunds (prin­cipal and interest) of $42,185,116.82.

Tennessee requests permission to flow through to its customers $37,139,618.58 of the refunds by means of a credit to the unrecovered pur­chased gas cost account maintained pursuant to its PGA clause. Tennessee states that it will retain the remaining $5,045,498.24 of the refunds in accord with its settlement agreement in docket Nos. G-11980 et al.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a peti­tion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis­sion, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with sections 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 August 25, 1978. 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; pro­vided, however, that any person who has previously filed sc petition to inter­vene in this proceeding is not required to file a further petition. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commis­sion and are available for public in­spection.

Lois D. C ashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23046 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02][Docket No. CP78-455]

ARKANSAS LO UIS IA NA GAS CO.

Application

August 10,1978.Take notice that on August 1, 1978,

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. (Appli­cant), P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, La. 71151, filed in docket No. CP78-455 an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and section 157.7(g) of the Commission’s regula­tions under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.7(g)) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity au­thorizing the construction and for per­mission for and approval of the aban­donment, during the 12-month period beginning December 22, 1978, and op­eration of field gas compression and related metering and appurtenant fa­cilities, all as more fully set forth in the application 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 the construction, reloca­tion, and operation and abandonment of facilities which will not result in changing Applicant’s system salable capacity or service from that author­ized prior to the filing of the instant application.

Applicant states that the total cost of the proposed construction arid abandonment of facilities would not exceed $3 million, and that the cost of any single project would not exceed $500,000. Applicant indicates that it would finance such cost from cash on hand, from cash generated from normal internal sources, from short­term bank loans and other short-term borrowings utilized in the normal op­eration of the company’s total busi­ness.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before August 31, 1978, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 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 sub-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36505ject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory 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 for and approval of the proposed aban­donment are required by the public convenience and necessity. If 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.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23047 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. RI75-112]CERTAIN PRODUCER A N D PIPELINE

RESPONDENTS

Extension o f Time

August 4, 1978.On July 31, 1978, Union Oil Co. of

California and staff counsel filed mo­tions to extend the time for filing briefs on exceptions to the initial deci­sion issued July 7, 1978, in this pro­ceeding.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the time for filing briefs on exceptions is extended to and includ­ing August 25, 1978. Briefs opposing exceptions are due on or before Sep­tember 14, 1978.

K enneth F . P lumb, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23048 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. ER78-525] CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO.

Filing

August 10, 1978.Take notice that on August 2, 1978,

the Connecticut Light «Ss Power Co. (C.L. & P.), tendered for filing a pro­posed amendment to transmission agreement (amendment) dated May 15, 1978, between (1) C.L. «Ss P., the Hartford Electric Light Co. (Helco) and Western Massachusetts Electric Co. (Wmeco), and (2) New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. (N.B.G. «Ss E.).

C.L. «Ss P. states that N.B.G. & E. has executed contracts with Green Moun­tain Power Corp. (“GMP”) of Burling­ton, Vt. for the purchase of power from GMP’s entitlement in the Ver­mont Yankee nuclear generating fa­cility in the amount of 30,000 kilo­watts for the period November 1, 1976,' to October 31, 1978, and 25,000 kilo­watts Tor the period November 1, 1978, to October 31,1979.

C.L. «Ss P. further states that the amendment provides for an extension of the termination date of the trans­mission agreement from October 31, 1978, to October 31, 1978, and de­creases the amount to be transmitted for the period from November 1, 1978, to October 31, 1979, from 30,000 kilo­watts to 25,000 kilowatts.

C.L. «Ss P. requests that the Commis­sion permit the amendment filed to become effective on November 1, 1978.

C.L. «Ss P. indicates that the monthly transmission charge is equal to one- twelfth of the estimated annual aver­age cost of transmission service on the Northeast Utilities system determined in accórdance with Section 13.9 (De­termination of Amount of the Pool Transmission Facilities (PTF) Costs) of the New England power pool (Nepool) agreement and the uniform rules adopted by the Nepool Executive Committee multiplied by the number of kilowatts of winter capability which N.B.G. «Ss E. is entitled to receive, re­duced to give due recognition of the payments made by N.B.G. «Ss E. for transmission services on the system of Public Service Co. of New Hampshire.

Copies of this rate schedule have been mailed to Helco, Wmeco, and N.B.G. «Ss E., according to C.L. «Ss P.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said application should file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Com­mission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with sections 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 August 28, 1978. Protests will be considered by thè 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.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23062 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. ER78-533] CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO.

Filing

August 10, 1978.Take notice that on August 3, 1978,

the Connecticut Light <fe Power Co. (C.L. & P.) tendered for filing a pro­posed purchase agreement with re-r spect to various gas turbine units dated September 1, 1977, between (1) C.L. & P., the Hartford Electric Co. (Helco), and Western Massachusetts Electric Co. (Wmeco), and (2) Village of Ludlow Electric Light Department (Ludlow).

C.L. «& P. states that the purchase agreement provides for a sale to Ludlow of a specified percentage of ca­pacity and energy from 13 gas turbine generating units during the period from November 1, 1978, to October 31, 1985, together with related transmis­sion service.

C.L. & P. requests that the Commis­sion permit, the rate schedule filed to become effective on November 1, 1978.

C.L. «& P. states that the capacity charge for the proposed service was developed on a cost-of-service basis. The monthly transmission charge is equal to one-twelfth of the annual average unit cost of transmission serv­ice on the Northeast Utilities (NU) system determined in accordance with section 13.9 of the New England power pool (Nepool) agreement and the uni­form rules adopted by the Nepool Ex­ecutive Committee, multiplied by the number of kilowatts of winter capabili­ty which Ludlow is entitled to receive, reduced to give due recognition of the payments made by Ludlow for trans­mission services on intervening sys­tems. The variable maintenance charge was derived from historical cost.

Helco and Wmeco have filed certifi­cates of concurrence in this docket.

C.L. «& P. states that copies of this rate schedule have been mailed or de­livered to Helco, Hartford, Conn., Wmeco, West Springfield, Mass, and Ludlow, Rutland, Vt.

Any person desiring to be heard or tq protest said application should file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Com­mission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with sections 1.8 and 1.10 of the Com­mission’s rules of practice and proce­dures (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such peti­tions or protests should be filed on or before August 31, 1978. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition to intervene.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36506 NOTICES

Copies of this Application are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.

Lois D. C a s h e l l , Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23063 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02 ]{Docket No. ER78-536]

DUKE POWER CO.

Filing o f Rate Schedule

August 10,1978.Take notice that on August 4, 1978,

Duke Power Co. (Duke) filed with the Commission pursuant to section 35.12 of the Commission’s regulations an in­terconnection agreement with North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1 (Power Agency). Duke indicates that under the terms of the agreement, Duke will interconnect its generation and transmission system with the Ca­tawba Nuclear Station, presently being constructed, and wheel electric power and energy to the participants in the power agency. The interconnec­tion agreement is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

Duke states that the interconnection agreement is one of three agreements between it and the power agency which are concerned with the sale to the power agency of a 75-percent undi­vided interest in unit No. 2 of the Ca­tawba Nuclear Station and 37Vfe per­cent of the support facilities at the plant. The other two agreements are a purchase, construction, and ownership agreement and an operating and fuel agreement.

Duke states that in addition to the interconnection of facilities and the wheeling by Duke of electric power and energy to the participants of the power agency, the interconnection agreement provides for the following:

(1) Determination of amount of power and energy to be supplied from Catawba to par­ticipants of the power agency.

(2) Determination of amount of power and energy sold from Catawba to Dukev

(3) A reliability exchange between the Ca­tawba units, and between the Catawba units and the McGuire Nuclear Station owned by Duke. ^

(4) Determination of amount of supple­mental capacity and energy to be supplied by Duke to fulfill electric requirements of participants of the power agency.

(5) Determination of reserves required by the power agency, deficiency energy and unused supplemental energy when needed by the power agency to supply its electric needs when Catawba Unit No. 2 is not run­ning.

(6) Sales by the power agency of surplus energy.

(7) Transmission services and deliveries.(8) Metering. -(9) Billing and payments.(10) Default and resolution of disputes.

(11) Formulas to compute rates and charges of Duke and the power agency for all services.

Duke further states that it expects to initiate service to the power agency under the interconnection agreement on or after July 1, 1981, with the com­mencement of the commercial oper­ation of either unit No. 1 or . No. 2 of the Catawba Nuclear Station. Duke re­quests that the interconnection agree­ment be accepted for filing by October 1, 1978, to become effective on the date of initiation of service.

Any person desiring to be heard or to pro­test said filing should file a petition to inter­vene or protest with. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in ac­cordance with sections 1.8 and 1.10 of the rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such petitions or protests should be filed on or before August 31, 1978. Pro­tests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protes- tants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a peti­tion to intervene.

Lois D. C ashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR DOC. 78-23049 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740 -02 ] .[Docket No. ES78-50]EL PASO ELECTRIC CO.

Application

August 10, 1978.Take notice that on July 25, 1978, El

Paso Electric Co. (applicant) filed an application with the Commission pur­suant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act and part 34 of the Commis­sion’s regulations, for authorization to engage in negotiations for the sale by private placement of up to $15 million of Cumulative preferred stock.

Applicant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal business office at El Paso, Tex., and is engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electrical energy in the States of Texas and New Mexico.

The applicant believes that a negoti­ated sale by private placement of pre­ferred stock would be advantageous to it because an analysis of recent issues of preferred stock indicates that the cost of issuance of preferred stock sold in the public market is more costly than the issuance of preferred stock in the private placement market.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said application should file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Com­mission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with sections 1.8 and 1.10 of the Com­mission’s rules of practice and proce­

dure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such peti­tions or protests shall be filed on or before August 25, 1978. 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.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23050 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740 -02 ]

[Docket Nos. ER78-478 and ER78-19, et al.]FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.

O rd er Accepting Rate Schedule fo r Filing, Pro­vid ing fo r Suspension, Providing for H ear­ing, W aiv in g Regulations, G ranting In terven­tion, and Consolidating Proceedings

August 9, 1978.On July 10, 1978, Florida Power &

Light Co. (FP&L) submitted for filing as an initial rate schedule an unexe­cuted transmission service agreement for service to Lake Worth Utilities Au­thority (Lake Worth), Fla. Lake Worth is a municipally-owned utility which generates and distributes elec­tricity within a service area surround­ed by that of FP&L. Although Lake Worth did not sign the agreement, by letter of June 21, 1978, it requested FP&L to file the agreement with us. FP&L states that under the agree­ment, it will transmit power and energy for Lake Worth as required by Lake Worth to implement its inter­change agreements with Orlando Utili­ties Commission, Tampa Electric Co., Florida Power Corp., Fort Pierce Utili­ties Authority, city of Homestead and the Utilities Commission of the city of New Smyrna Beach, Fla. FP&L re­quests an effective date of no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this filing. The submittal provides for charges which are similar to those pro­vided in a proposed interchange agree­ment with the city, of Homestead (docket No. ER78-325) and with Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (docket No. ER78-376), both' now set for hearing in consolidated docket Nos. ER78-19, et al.

Notice of FP&Ks filing was issued on July 18, 1978, with protests or peti­tions to intervene due on or before July 28, 1978. On July 28, 1978, Lake Worth filed a protest, petition to in­tervene, and request for consolidated hearing. Lake Worth states that it has an interconnection agreement with FP&L providing for, inter alia, the fol­lowing services: economy interchange, scheduled maintenance, and emergen-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

cy power. Lake Worth protests the form, terms, conditions, and rates of the proposed transmission service. In particular, Lake Worth objects to FP&L’s submission of a separate rate schedule for service to Lake Worth, rather than a general transmission tariff with a regional transmission rate for peninsular Florida. Lake Worth al­leges that FP&L’s filing technique is monopolistic in that it inhibits the uti­lization of transmission service from FP&L. Lake Worth agrees with and adopts the “protest and request for consolidated hearing” filed June 5, 1978 by Fort Pierce Utilities Authority in docket No. ER78-376, which now is consolidated in docket Nos. ER78-19, et al.

Lake Worth also argues that FP&L is not proposing an initial rate, but a rate change, and concludes that the rates proposed in FP&L’s submittal should be made subject to refund pur­suant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act. Lake Worth requests:

(1) That FP&L’s submittal be ac­cepted for filing and made effective subject to refund, after a 1-day sus­pension period;

(2) That Lake Worth be granted in­tervention in any hearing proceeding set in this docket;

(3) That a hearing be ordered; and(4) That the hearing be consolidated

with Florida Power & Light Co., docket Nos. ER78-19, et al.

FP&L’s submittal properly should be filed pursuant to section 35.13 of the Commission’s Regulations as a change in rates, and not as an initial rate. FP&L is proposing to render a supplemental or an additional service to Lake Worth, since it has an agree­ment to sell interchange power at wholesale to Lake Worth.1 The Com­mission shall waive the cost support requirements of section 35.13 for the limited purpose of accepting FP&L’s submittal for filing. However, FP&L shall be directed to file the cost sup­port information required under sec­tion 35.13 within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order.

Consolidation of the hearing to be ordered in this docket with the pro­ceeding in docket Nos. ER78-19, et al. is appropriate. Similar issues of fact and law are presented; 1978 test year data is relied upon in both; and the hearing in phase II of docket Nos. FR 78-19, et al. has not commenced.

‘Sales of power by FP&L to Lake Worth under the interchange agreement are trans­ported to Lake Worth through FP&L’s transmission lines. Thus, FP&L already has an effective rate recovering, inter alia, costs of transmission service to Lake Worth, and, therefore, the submittal in this docket is not that of an initial rate. See order in Florida Power & Light Co., docket No. ER77-175 (April 12, 1977). Rather, the instant trans­mission rate submittal is supplemental to the current interchange rate, which inher­ently includes transmission charges.

NOTICES

FP&L’s proposed rates have not been shown to be just and reasonable and may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, preferential or otherwise unlawful. The commission therefore shall suspend the proposed rates for one day to become effective August 11, 1978, subject to refund, pending the outcome of a hearing and decision thereon.

The Commission finds: (1) Good cause exists to accept FP&L’s pro­posed rates and suspend them and the service thereunder for one day, until August 11, 1978, subject to refund, pending the outcome of a hearing and decision thereon.

(2) Good cause exists to waive the cost support requirements of section35.13 of the Commission’s regulations for the limited purpose of accepting FP&L’s submittal for filing.

(3) Good cause exists to consolidate the instant docket with docket Nos. ER78-19, et al.

(4) Participation by Lake Worth in this proceeding may be in the public interest.

The Commission orders: (A) Pursu­ant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by section 402(a) of the Department of Energy Act and by the Federal Power Act, particularly sec­tions 205, 206, 301, 308 and 309 there­of, and pursuant to the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure and to the regulations under the Federal Power Act (18 CFR Chapter I), a public hearing shall be held concern­ing the justness and reasonableness of the rate increase proposed by Florida Power & Light Co. in this proceeding.

(B) Pending a hearing and decision thereon, FP&L’s proposed rates and service are hereby accepted for filing and suspended for one day, to become effective August 11, 1978, and the rates thereunder to be subject to refund.

(C) The Commission waives section35.13 of its regulations for the limited purpose o l accepting FP&L’s submit­tal for filing. FP&L hereby is ordered to file cost support information pursu­ant to section 35.13 for service to Lake Worth within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order.

(D) Docket No. ER78-478 hereby is consolidated with docket Nos. ER78- 19, et al. for the purpose of a hearing and decision thereon. .

(E) Lake Worth hereby is permitted to intervene in this proceeding subject to the rules and regulations of the Commission: Provided, however, that participation of Lake Worth shall be limited to the matters specifically set forth in its petition to intervene; and Provided, further, that the admission of Lake Worth shall not be construed as recognition by the Commision that

36507it might be aggrieved by any order issued in this proceeding.

(F) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the rights of the parties to this proceeding regard­ing the convening of conferences or offers of settlement pursuant to Sec­tion 1.18 of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure.

(G) The Secretary shall cause prompt publication of this order to be made in the F ederal R egister.

By the Commission.Lois D. Cashell,

Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 78-23051 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45]

[6740- 02]

[Docket No. ER78-524]M IC H IG A N POWER CO.

Proposed T ariff Change

August 8, 1978.Take notice that Michigan Power

Co. (Michigan Power) on July 31, 1978, tendered for filing proposed changes in its FERC Electric Tariff MRS, Volume No. 1 for wholesale for resale electric service to the city of Dowa- giac, Mich, and the village of the Paw Paw, Mich, which tariff changes it proposes should be made effective on two separate dates as follows:

Michigan Power has requested an August 30, 1978, effective date for the tariff changes encompassed in Fourth Revised Sheet No. 6. Michigan Power states that such tariff changes involve recovering increased costs of capital and increased costs of providing elec­tric service. Michigan Power further states that increased revenues from ju­risdictional sales and service of $45,290 would result from such proposed tariff changes based on the 12-month period ending December 31, 1977.

Michigan Power has requested waiver of the Commission’s rules and regulations so as to permit the pro­posed tariff changes encompassed in the Fifth Revised Sheet No. 6, ten­dered for filing herewith to become ef­fective concurrent with the effective date of Indiana and Michigan Electric Co.’s proposed tariffs in docket No. ER78-37 (December 23, 1978). Michi­gan Power indicates that such tariff changes involve recovering increased purchased power expense which will be incurred by Michigan Power pursu­ant to the Commission’s decision in docket No. ER78-379 and would in­crease revenues from jurisdictional sales and service by $311,825 based on the 12-month period ending December 31, 1977.

Copies of the filing were served upon the city of Dowagiac, the village of Paw Paw and the Michigan Public

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36508Service Commission, according to Michigan Power.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said application should file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Com­mission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with sections 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 August 18, 1978. 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.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23052 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. CP78-452]M IC H IG A N W ISCONSIN PIPE LINE

Application

August 10, 1978.Take notice that on July 31, 1978,

Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. (ap­plicant), One Woodward Avenue, De­troit, Mich. 48226, filed in docket No. CP78-452 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing applicant to pro­vide a gas transportation service for Pacific Interstate Transmission Co. (Pacific), and incident therewith to construct and operate an interconnec­tion in Roberts County, Tex., between its existing pipeline facilities and pipe­line facilities owned and operated by Trans western Pipeline Co. (Transwes- tem), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspec­tion.

Pursuant to a gas exchange agree­ment dated June 1, 1978, between Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. (Michigan Consolidated) and Pacific, Michigan Consolidated would sell to Pacific during the period, November 1978 through March 1979, 16,000,000 Mcf of gas at a maximum daily rate of150,000 Mcf, and during the period, November 1, 1978, through March 31, 1981, Michigan Consolidated would sell to Pacific on a best efforts basis, up to 85,000,000 Mcf of gas, it is said. The application indicates that Pacific would be solely responsible for arrang­ing and paying the cost of transport­ing the gas through the facilities of such pipelines as may be required to

•X- NOTICES

redeliver the gas to the facilities of Pa­cific at the California-Arizona border. In this regard, applicant states, Pacific has requested and both applicant and Transwestem have agreed to provide transportation for the gas supplies purchased by Pacific from Michigan Consolidated. Under the proposed ar­rangement, applicant would transport and redeliver to Transwestem such gas supplies, and Transwestem in turn would transport and redeliver the sup­plies to Pacific at the California-Arizo­na border.

The application further indicates that the transportation service by ap­plicant resulting in deliveries of gas to Transwestem for the account of Pacif­ic would be provided pursuant to a transportation agreement dated June 1, 1978, between applicant and Pacific. The agreement provides that, com­mencing on November 1, 1978, Pacific would cause Michigan Consolidated to deliver to applicant up to 101,000,000 Mcf of natural gas at a rate of up to150,000 Mcf per day, such deliveries to be made at applicant’s W. G. Woolfolk compressor station located in Mecosta County, Mich., and/or applicant’s Willow Run meter station located in Washtenaw County, Mich., it is said. Applicant indicates that it would pro­vide transportation for the gas so re­ceived for the account of Pacific and would redeliver by displacement equiv­alent volumes to Transwestem at a proposed inter-connection between the pipeline systems of applicant and Transwestern in Roberts County, Tex. Pacific would pay applicant $10,597 per month for 29 consecutive months in order to compensate applicant for the cost of incremental facilities here­inafter described which are necessary to provide the service, it is said.

Applicant would be required to con­struct an inter-connection between the pipeline systems of it and Transwes­tern at the Roberts County, Tex., re­delivery point, which would include two 10-inch orifice meter runs, a flow controller, and certain associated piping, instrumentation, and appurte­nances, it is said. Applicant estimates that the cost of such facilities would be $216,520, which cost would 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 August 31, 1978, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 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 Energy Regulatory 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. If 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.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23053 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

Federal Energy R egulatory Commission

[Docket No. RI78-13]MULLINS & PRICHARD

O rder Granting Special Relief and Permitting In tervention

August 9,1978.On November 21, 1977, Mullins &

Prichard (petitioner), filed for special relief pursuant to § 2.76 of the Com­mission’s rules of practice and proce­dure for the sale of gas from wells No. 1 and No. 2 on State lease 2864, Mal­lard Bay Field, Cameron Parish, La. to Texas Gas Transmission Co. (Texas Gas). Subsequently, petitioner filed an amended petition for special relief on May 31,1978.

Mullins & Prichard is an independ­ent small producer 1 which holds a 100 percent working interest in the wells. Currently, Petitioner is selling gas to Texas Gas pursuant to a contract da.ted March 7, 1960, at a rate of 31.418 cents per Mcf under the ceiling established in opinion No. 749.2

1 Small producer certificate issued in docket No. CS73-36.

* Petitioner is a successor in interest to Chevron U.S.A., a large producer, effective July 1, 1977. Mullins acquired the subject property from Chevron U.S.A. by closed bid at a lease sale for a cost of $136.000. There

Footnotes continued on next page

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36509P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y

Notice of Mullins & Prichard’s peti­tion for special relief was issued on December 8, 1977, and notice of amended petition was issued by the Commission on July 6, 1978. Texas Gas filed a timely intervention in sup­port of the original special relief peti­tion. Texas Gas executed a contract amendment with petitioner agreeing to amend its gas purchase contract to pay the just and reasonable price ap­proved by the Commission.

P r o p o sa l

Petitioner proposes to rework both wells and install a new compressor, salt water disposal pump and engine, and a 350-barrel salt water tank. The estimated investment for reworking both wells is $556,406. The estimated costs to purchase and install a com­pressor and salt water disposal equip­ment is $158,831. Petitioner requests authority to collect $1.89 per M cf8 for the sale of said gas.

C o s t A n a l y s is

Staff accepts petitioner’s current in­vestment of $125,000. Staff has re­viewed the investment proposal total­ing $715,237, and, based on bids to­gether with petitioner’s actual cost ex­perience or a similar project, finds the estimate to be acceptable. Staff has re­viewed Chevron U.S.A.’s actual annual operating expenses, and finds the esti­mate of $49,416 to be reasonable. 4 A 5 percent inflation factor was applied for the first 5 years in projecting total estimated production expenses of $457,001. Based on data filed by peti­tioner, staff estimates that 811,312 Mcf of gas remains to be recovered over 7.9 years. Staff has used the above costs along with tl^e 709,898 Mcf of reserves attributable to petitioner’s87.5 percent net working interest in a traditional cost study. The results of this analysis indicate that $1.89 per Mcf exclusive of severance tax will be required to allow petitioner to recover all costs associated with this project over its 7.9 year life including a 15 per­cent rate of return. Thus, petitioner’s requested rate appears to be cost sup­ported. 5

Footnotes continued from last page is no information available to staff as to the second highest bid. Utilizing staff’s reserve estimate and allocating the $136,000 cost be­tween oil and gas by applying the modified Btu method, the acquisition costs is 15.8 cents per Mcf.

3 Petitioner originally requested $2.1648 per Mcf for the sale of said gas.

4 Chevron is the predecessor in interest to the subject properties.

* See appendix A, attached hereto.

Having conducted a study of the eco­nomics associated with this project, staff is of the opinion that the rate re­quested is cost supported and that it is in the public interest to grant special relief.

After reviewing the costs to be in­creased and the reserves to be recov­ered, the Commission determines that Mullins & Prichard’s petition for spe­cial relief is warranted and that it is in the public interest to grant this peti­tion.

The Commission orders: (A) The amended petition for special relief of Mullins & Prichard is hereby granted.

(B) Mullins & Prichard is authorized to collect $1.89 per Mcf at 15.025 psia, which includes all quality adjust­ments, plus state severance tax for the sale of gas from wells No. 1 and No. 2 on State lease 2864, Mallard Bay Field, Cameron Parish, La, to Texas Gas. ef­fective upon either the date of issu­ance of this order or the date the pro­posed work is completed, whichever is later.

(C) The authorization is subject to the following conditions: (1) Within 30 days of the effective date provided in ordering paragraph (B) above for the rate authorized herein, Mullins & Pri­chard must file a statement signed by Texas Gas stating that the work has been completed to its satisfaction; and (2) petitioner must file the appropri­ate rate change filing in docket No. CS73-36 in accordance with § 154.94 of the Commission’s regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR § 154.94) within 30 days of the effective date provided in ordering paragraph (B) above.

(D) Petitioner must file a notice of independent producer rate change in docket No. CS73-36 reflecting any change in rate resulting from a change in the Louisiana state severance tax at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the proposed change.

(E) The contract amendment signed by petitioner and Texas Gas included with the original petition for special relief is accepted by the Commission for filing in accordance with § 154.92 of the Commission’s regulations.

(F) Texas Gas is permitted to inter­vene in the above-entitled proceeding, subject to the rules and regulations of the Commission; Provided, however, That its participation shall be limited to matters affecting asserted rights and interests specifically set forth in its petition for leave to intervene; And

Provided, further, That the admission of Texas Gas in the manner provided shall not be construed* as recognition by the Commission that Texas Gas might be aggrieved because of any order or orders entered in this pro­ceeding, and that Texas Gas agrees to accept the record as it now stands.

By the Commission. Commissioner Holden voted present.

K e n n e t h F . P l u m b , Secretary.

Mullins & Prichard, docket No. RI78-13, State lease 2864, wells No. 1 and No. 2, Ca­meron Parish, La.

[Unit cost of gas]

Line No. and item Amount

1. Net working interest volumes:2. Gas—Mcf at 15.025 l b / f t ________3. Liquids—bbl *.......................................4. Cost of production:5. Return *................. ..............................6. D D & A 4.................... .....................................7. Production expense5..........................

709,89819,231

$362,022$804,112$457,001

8. Subtotal.............................................9. Allocated to gas ‘.................................

10. Regulatory expense .... „.................

$1,623,135$1,340,060

$710

11. T ota l cost,............................. $1,340,77012. Unit cost of gas (per Mcf):13. C ost o f production •............................ $1.89

$1.8914. Total cost of gas *.............................

>811,312 times 0.875.‘21,978 times 0.875.‘Line 16 of sheet 3 times 0.15 times 7.9 years of

productive life.‘From line 8 of sheet 2.‘Based on an estimated base year of $49,416 esca­

lated 5 percent per year for the first 5 years.‘Line 14 of sheet 2 times line 8.10.01 cent per Mcf.‘Line 11 divided by line 2.‘The unit cost does not include a component for

State severance tax due to applicant’s allegation that the future value of this component is un­known at the present time.

[Investment and allocation of costs]

Line No. and item Amount

1. Investment:2. Remaining net book value................. $125,000

$158,831$256,880$299,526

4. Rework well No. 1................................5. Rework well No. 2 ...............................

6. T otal in v e s tm e n t, ........ ........ $840,237$36,1257. Less salvage

8. D ep reciab le in v es tm en t.... ................ $804,112

$1.132714

743,973157,156

9. Depreciation per unit of produc­tion *...........................................................

10. Allocation of costs: ‘11. Gas—MMBtu4................................ .12. Liquids—MMBtu ‘...............................

13. Total—MMBtu.................................14. Percentage allocated to gas ‘.............

901,12982.56

'From filing.‘Line 8 divided by 709,898 Mcf.‘Modified Btu method per opinion No. 749. ‘709,898 Mcf times 1.048 MMBtu per Mcf.‘ 19,231 bbl of lease condensate times 5.448

MMBtu per bbl times 1.5 modifier.‘Line 11 divided by line 13.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36510 NOTICES

Mullins & Prichard, docket No. RI78-13, State lease 2864, wells No. 1 and No. 2, CameronParish, La.

[Average investment and annual rate base]

Annual Beginning of Déprécia- End of year AverageLine No. and year N.W.I. year tion1 investment investment *

production investment(Mcf)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

1.Average investment:

2.3. 1............................................... 189,443 $840,237 $214,585 $625,522 $732,9454. 2 ............................................... 153,495 625,652 173,866 451,786 538,7195. 3 ............................................... 121,002 451,786 137,061 314,725 383,2566. 4 ............................................... 91,798 314,725 103,981 210,744 262,7357. 5 ............................................... 53,601 210,744 60,715 150,029 180,3878. 6 ............................................... 41,572 150,029 47,089 102,940 126,4859. 7 ............................................... 32,105 102,940 36,366 66,574 84,757

10. 8 (11 m o)..................... ........... >26,882 66,574 30,449 36,125 47,071

11. Total............................. . 709,898 804,112 2,356,35512. Average annual investment4..... 298,27313. Annual rate base:14. Average annual investment. .............. . 298,27315. Average annual working

capital allowance5.............. 7,231

16. Total annual rate base... 305,504

Column (b) times line 9 of sheet 2.2Column (c) plus column (e) divided by 2.*11 months of production.4Line 11 of column (f) divided by 7.9 years of productive life.60.125 times line 7 of sheet 1 divided by 7.9 years of productive life.

[PR Doc. 78-22762 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02][Docket No. ER77-607]

NEW ENGLAND POWER POOL

O rder W aiv ing Notice, Accepting fo r Filing and Suspending Proposed Rate Schedule

August 9,1978.On September 21, 1977,1 New Eng­

land Power Pool (NEPOOL) submitted for filing a proposed interconnection agreement with New York Power Pool (NYPP), dated April 4, 1977, with NYPP’s concurrence contained there­in.2 The agreement provides for the exchange of emergency and economy electric capacity and energy.8 When the NEPOOL-NYPP interconnection agreement becomes effective, service between NEPOOL and four NYPP members4 will no longer be provided under currently effective agreements.

NEPOOL requests waiver of the Commission’s notice requirements in

‘This proceeding was commenced before the PPC. By the joint regulation of October 1, 1977 (10 CFR 1000.1), it was transferred to the PERC. The term “Commission,” when used in the context of action taken prior to October 1, 1977, refers to the FPC; when used otherwise, the reference is to the PERC.

Additional data, which satisfied the Com­mission’s filing requirements, was received on July 10,1978.

sSee attachment for designations.4Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.,

consolidated Edison Co., Long Island Light­ing Co., and Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

order that the agreement may be deemed effective April 4, 1977, the date that NYPP commenced one- system economic dispatch. Although service began on April 4, 1977,NEPOOL states that the parties were unable to conclude their negotiations and prepare the necessary filings at that time. The proposed agreement provides for the exchange of:

(1) Emergency energy service, which is limited to the time required for the receiving Pool to start new generation within its collective system, to sched­ule firm service from a third party, or to purchase supplemental service as defined below. The charge for such service shall be the supplier’s incre­mental cost, including losses, multi­plied by the factor of 1.10.

(2) Economy energy service, which is priced on- a shared savings basis. Such service may be scheduled on an hour- to-hour basis or on a day-to-day basis. The latter is designated as Assured Economy Service.

(3) Supplemental service, for service beyond the duration of emergency service, when the receiving pool is not withholding generating facilities from service on an economy basis. The charge for this service is the sum of the energency service charge plus an additional charge of 35 mills per kWh for each kWh used during the hour of maximum taking during the day.

(4) Transactions with remote sys­tems, in which one pool desires to

make a purchase or sale transaction with a third party with which the other pool (intervening pool) has an interconnection agreement. Interven­ing pool will make such transaction under its interconnection agreement on behalf of the other pool. All trans­actions will be considered supplemen­tal service if they do not conform to the conditions for emergency, econo­my, or assured economy service. Charges for emergency service will be the same as described above. Charges for economy service will be determined as follows:

(a) If the remote system is the buyer, the intervening pool will pay the selling pool’s incremental cost plus one-third of the sav­ings.

(b) If the remote system is the seller, the buying pool will pay to the intervening pool the remote system’s incremental cost plus two-thirds of the savings.

Charges for supplemental service will be determined as follows:

(a) If the remote system is the buyer, the intervening pool will pay the selling pool’s incremental cost (adjusted for losses on its system to points of interconnection) multi­plied by the factor of 1.10, plus an addition­al charge of 35 mills per kWh for each kWh used during the hour of maximum taking dining the day (equivalent to an annual rate of $12.77 per KW).

If the remote system is the seller, the buying pool will pay the intervening pool’s incremental cost (including the purchase price of the power) plus a transmission charge of 20 mills per kWh for each kWh used during the hour of maximum taking dining the day (equivalent to an annual rate of $7.30 per kW).

Transactions were made under the proposed agreement during the recent coal strike last winter. As a result of a preliminary investigation of a limited group of utilities that engaged in wholesale power transactions during the course of power shortages result­ing from the coal strike, the Commis­sion determined that some utilities may have collected revenues in excess of lawful rates for those transactions. Consequently, on May 10, 1978, in docket No. ER78-367, the Commission ordered a formal staff investigation to ascertain whether lawful rates were charged for these transactions.

Commission review of the proposed interconnection agreement indicates that it has not been shown to be just and reasonable and may be unjust, un­reasonable, unduly discriminatory, preferential, or otherwise unlawful. There is a question as to whether ap­propriate charges were assesssed for power transactions made during the coal strike last winter. Consequently, the Commission shall suspend NE- POOL’s filing for 1 day, to be deemed effective April 4, 1977. After Commis­sion staff completes its investigation in docket No. ER78-367, the Commis-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36511sion shall evaluate staff’s report and the instant filing and take such action as it considers appropriate. :

Since service under the proposed agreement began on April 4, 1977, the Commission finds good cause to waive the notice requirements of § 35.3 of its regulations.

The Commission finds: (1) It is nec­essary and proper in the public inter­est and to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of the Federal Power Act to accept for filing NEPOOL’s pro­posed interconnection agreement, sus­pend, and defer the use thereof all as hereinafter ordered.

(2) Good cause exists to waive the notice requirements of §35.3 of the Commission’s regulations.

The Commission orders: (A) The proposed NEPOOL-NYPP intercon­nection agreement is hereby accepted for filing and suspended for one day, to be deemed effective as of April 4, 1977, subject to refund.

(B) The notice requirements of § 35.3 of the Commission’s regulations are hereby waived.

(C) After staff completes its investi­gation in docket No. ER78-367, the Commission shall evaluate staff’s report and the instant filing and will establish such procedures as it deems appropriate at that time.

(D) The Secretary shall cause prompt publication of this order to be made in the F ed er a l R e g is t e r .

By the Commission.Louis D. C a s h e l l ,

Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 78-23054 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. RP76-158]NORTH PENN GAS CO.

Refund Report

A u g u s t 9,1978.Take notice that on July 31, 1978,

North Penn Gas Co. (North Penn) filed a refund report in docket No. RP78-158. North Penn indicates that on July 1, 1978, it made refunds total­ling $473,351.62 pursuant to the settle­ment agreement approved by the Commission on May 11, 1978. The refund report sets forth the computa­tions underlying the July 1, 1978 re­funds.

Any person wishing to do so may submit comments in writing concern­ing North Penn’s refund report. All such comments should be filed with or mailed to the Federal Energy Regula­tory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, on or before August 23, 1978. Copies of the report are on file with the Com­

mission and are available for public in­spection.

Lois D . C a s h e l l , Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23055 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. CP78-440]NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO.

Application

A u g u s t 10,1978.Take notice that on July 24, 1978,

Northern Natural Gas Co. (Applicant), 2223 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebr. 68102, filed in docket No. CP78-440 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the transportation of nat­ural gas for Iowa Electric Light & Power Co. (Iowa Electric), all as more fully set forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Applicant requests authorization to transport natural gas for Iowa Electric pursuant to a gas transportation agreement dated July 8, 1976, among Applicant, Iowa Electric, and Iowa Power & Light Co. (Iowa Power), which agreement provides that Appli­cant would, upon request by Iowa Electric, deliver during the period, March 27 through October 26 (summer season), up to 2,000 Mcf of summer maximum daily volume (summer MDV) to Iowa Power at Des Moines for Iowa Electric’s account, which volumes Iowa Power would liq­uefy and store for Iowa Electric. Ap­plicant states that such deliveries would be made through Iowa Power’s, Des Moines, Iowa, TBS No. 1 in Polk County, Iowa. Applicant further states that on days not within the summer season, Iowa Electric may request and, subject to the approval of Applicant and Iowa Power, have gas delivered to Iowa Power under the same terms and

'conditions as gas delivered during the summer season. The total net LNG in­ventory held in storage by Iowa Power for Iowa Electric would at no time exceed 108,000 Mcf, it is said.

It is stated that each day during the summer season, Iowa Electric would designate by individual billing group the specific volume it wishes Applicant to deliver to Iowa Power at Des Moines for liquefaction and storage and that the volume designated for a specific billing group is not to exceed the summer MDV then currently in effect for such billing group. Gas vol­umes delivered on any day would be those which could otherwise be deliv­ered to Iowa. Electric within their au­thorized entitlement for such day.

Applicant indicates that the gas vol­umes delivered to Iowa Power for Iowa

Electric during the summer season would be considered as sold to Iowa Electric within the billing group from which the volume was diverted and billed to such billing group under Ap­plicant’s rate schedule CD-I. Such de­liveries would be considered to be the first volumes delivered to each desig­nated billing group.

Applicant states that it would at the direction of Iowa Electric transport by displacement to the billing groups, as designated by Iowa Electric, volumes of vaporized LNG at a daily rate of „up to 9,000 Mcf during the period, Octo­ber 27 through March 26 (winter season). Such volumes would be desig­nated by individual billing group and would not exceed the winter maximum daily volume (winter MDV) then in effect for each such billing group. It is stated that total daily volumes desig­nated for transprotation by Iowa Elec­tric would be made available by Appli­cant’s concurrent reduction of author­ized deliveries to Iowa Power at Des Moines, Iowa, under Applicant’s rate schedule CD-I.

It is indicated that Iowa Electric would pay Applicant a demand charge which would be determined by apply­ing the appropriate summer or winter seasonal demand rate to the appropri­ate MDV set forth in the agreement. The seasonal demand charge is said to be as follows:

Seasonal demand charge/Mcf:A. Summer—$2.465 x summer MDV.B. Winter—$5.239 x winter MDV.

It is stated that Iowa electric would also pay a commodity charge which would be determined by applying the appropriate summer or winter com­modity rate set forth below to the summer or winter season transport volumes.

Commodity charge/Mcf:A. Summer (April-Qctober):Rates to Des Moines TBS No. 1 from

group: B—None; C—0.16 cent/Mcf; and D— None.

B. Winter (November-March):Rates from Des Moines TBS No. 1 to

group: B—4.20 cents/Mcf; C—0.841 cents/ Mcf; and D—3.149 cents/Mcf.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before August 31, 1978, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 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

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36512 NOTICES

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 Energy Regulatory 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. If 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.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23056 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. CP78-4493

NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP.

Application

August 10,1978.Take notice that on July 31, 1978,

Northwest Pipeline Corp. (Applicant), P.O. Box 1526, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110, filed in docket No. CP78-449 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Applicant to transport up to 50,000 Mcf of gas per day for the ac­count of Mountain Fuel Supply Co. (Mountain Fuel) pursuant to a gas transportation and exchange agree­ment dated June 1, 1978, between Ap­plicant and Mountain Fuel, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Applicant states that Mountain Fuel has acquired or otherwise controls vol­umes of natural gas in the South Lake area of Rich County, Utah, which it desires to make available economically to its market area. Therefore, pursu­ant to the June 1, 1978, agreement, Mountain Fuel would deliver the sub­ject gas to Applicant at or near the wellhead of the Hogback Ridge No. 20-1 well in Rich County, Utah, and Applicant would transport it through its South Lake gathering system and mainline facilities and redeliver ther­mally equivalent volumes, less com­

pressor fuel, to Mountain Fuel at Ap­plicant’s existing point of interconnec­tion with Mountain Fuel in Sweetwater County, Wyo. It is indicat­ed that the proposed receipts and re­deliveries of natural gas would, to the extent possible, be balanced monthly on a heating value basis.

Applicant indicates that it would construct and operate the South Lake gathering system, which is necessary to connect the Hogback Ridge No. 20- 1 well to its mainline transmission system, pursuant to budget-type au­thorization.

Approximately 20,000 Mcf of gas per day are estimated by Applicant to be available from the Hogback Ridge No. 20-1 well. Mountain Fuel would pur­chase 50 percent of such gas from American Quasar Petroleum Co. (Quasar) pursuant to a gas purchase contract between Mountain Fuel and Quasar dated April 21, 1978, and Ap­plicant would purchase the other 50 percent of such gas.

The application indicates that since the subject gas is anticipated to have a relatively low Btu content, Applicant would have the right to regulate the volumes of gas transported for Moun­tain Fuel in order to maintain a gross heating value of no less than 985 Btu’s per cubic foot in Applicant’s mainline at the point of interconnection with the South Lake gathering system.

For gathering and transporting Mountain Fuel’s gas as described herein, Applicant proposes to charge Mountain Fuel a two-part rate as fol­lows:

(1 ) A gathering rate, initially 2.0 cents per Mcf, based on Applicant’s cost-of-service at­tributable to transporting Mountain Fuel’s gas through Applicant’s South Lake gather­ing system, and

(2) A negotiated transportation rate, due to the relatively short distances involved, of 1.5 cents per Mcf for transporting Mountain Fuel’s gas from the point of interconnection of Applicant’s South Lake gathering system and Applicant’s mainline to the mainline re­delivery point to Mountain Fuel.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before August 31, 1978, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petition to intervene or a protest in accordance vgith 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 inter­

vene 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 Energy Regulatory 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. If a petition for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own 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.

Lois D. Cashell,. Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23057 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02][Docket No. CP75-287]

NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP.

Erratum Notice; Petition to Am end

August 8,1978.Page 3, Presently authorized alloca­

tions, seasonal quantity therms:Delete:

Washington Natural Gas Co......... ......... 4,376,488and Washington Water Power Co.,

jointly............................. ....................... 72,504,000

And substitute:Southwest Gas Corp................................ 4,376,448Washington Natural Gas Co., and

Washington Water Power Co., joint­ly .............................. .. ...................... . 72,504,000

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23064 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02][Docket No. ER76-149]

PUBLIC SERVICE C O .

Extension o f Time

August 4,1978.On July 28,1978 the Indiana Munici­

pal Electric Association and various Indiana cities (IMEA Cities) filed a motion for an extension of time for filing briefs opposing exceptions to the initial decision issued June 20, 1978, in this proceeding. IMEA Cities states that the other parties have been con­tacted and have no objection to the re­quest.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36513

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the time for filing briefs op­posing exceptions is extended to and including August 30,1978.

K enneth P . P lumb, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23058 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02]

[Docket No. ER78-537]PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF IN D IA N A

Proposed T ariff Change

August 10,1978.Take notice that Public Service Co.

of Indiana, Inc. on August 2, 1978 ten­dered for filing a notice of termination of the Interconnection Agreement be­tween Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. and the city of Peru, Ind. to become effective November 1,1978.

Said notice of termination provides for the termination of such Intercon­nection Agreement, rate schedule PERC No. 212, by its own terms. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. has filed on July 28, 1978, in docket No. ER78-513 a service agreement to re­place the terminated rate schedule.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a peti­tion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis­sion, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with sections 1.8 and 1.10 of the Com­mission’s rules of practice and proce­dure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such peti­tions should be filed on or before August 31, 1978. 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 the filing are available for public inspection at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23059 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am] *

[6740-02]

[Docket No. CP77-659]SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CO.

Rescheduling o f In form al Conference

August 10, 1978.Take notice that the conference

scheduled on August 24, 1978 in the above-captioned docket has been res­cheduled to August 25, 1978, at 10 a.m. in room 3400. The conference will be

held at 941 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426.

Louis D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23060 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6740-02][Docket Nos. CP60-94, CP66-20; CP69-222

(Phase II); CP70-185 and CP74-318]TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO.

Petition To Am end

August 10,1978.Take notice that on August 3, 1978,

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Division of Tenneco Inc. (petitioner), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Tex. 77001, filed in docket Nos. CP60-94, CP66-20, CP69- 222 (phase II), CP70-185 and CP74- 318 a petition to amend the orders issued by the Federal Power Commis­sion on September 19, 1963 (30 FPC 759), October 1, 1965 (34 FPC 1058), January 29, 1971 (45 FPC 213), June 22, 1970 (43 FPC 937), and October 31, 1974 (52 FPC 1159), respectively, as previously amended by order issuedDecember 28, 1976 (56 FPC---- 1,1 inthe instant dockets pursuant to sec­tion 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act so as to authorize service by petitioner to Connecticut Gas Co. (Connecticut Gas) under petitioner's rate scheduled CD-6 and under a single gas sales con­tract, all as more fully set forth in the petition to amend which is on file with the Commission and open to public in­spection.

Petitioner states that the FPC by order issued December 28, 1976, (1) Reflected the acquisition by Connecti­cut Natural Gas Corp. (Connecticut Natural) of the gas distribution facili­ties of Connecticut Gas and The Hart­ford Electric Light Co. (Hartford); (2) reflected the assignment by Connecti­cut Gas and Hartford to Connecticut Natural of their gas sales contracts with petitioner; and, (3) authorized pe-. titioner to serve Connecticut Natural at each of the service areas where peti­tioner has been serving Connecticut Gas and Hartford, in addition to the service areas of Connecticut Natural then being served by petitioner under petitioner’s rate scheduled CD-6 and under a single new gas sales contract which provided for a contract demand volume of 76,425 Mcf per day.

Petitioner states that such consoli­dation under petitioner’s rate schedule CD-6 allowed Connecticut Natural the flexibility to operate its distribution

‘This proceeding was commenced before the FPC. By the joint regulation of October 1, 1977 (10 CFR 1000,1), it was transferred to the FERC. The term “Commission”, when used in the context of action taken prior to October 1, 1977, refers to the FPC; when used otherwise, the reference is to the FERC.

system in a way to permit maximum use of natural gas by high priority cus­tomers.

Connecticut Natural has encoun­tered unanticipated delays in consum­mating its acquisition of Connecticut Gas and Hartford, it is stated; and pe­titioner, therefore, requests authoriza­tion for the consolidation of Connecti­cut Gas’ and Hartford’s existing gas sales contracts with petitioner into a single gas sales contract between Con­necticut Gas and petitioner under pe­titioner’s rate schedule CD-6 with a contract demand volume of 44,133 Mcf of natural gas per day. Petitioner states this would be an interim au­thorization until Connecticut Natural acquires Connecticut Gas and Hart­ford.

Petitioner asserts that the order of December 28, 1976, provided for a con­tract demand volume of 76,425 Mcf per day which consisted of Connecti­cut Natural’s present contracted demand volume of 36,794 Mcf per day plus the contracted demand volume of 44,133 Mcf per day for Connecticut Gas less the daily contract volume of 4,502 Mcf per day applicable to Con­necticut Gas’ Wallingford service area which the town of Wallingford (Wal­lingford) proposed to purchase direct­ly from petitioner. It is further assert­ed that Wallingford no longer pro­poses to purchase gas from petitioner but that those properties would be ac­quired by Connecticut Natural at the same time It acquires Connecticut Gas and Hartford. Petitioner, therefore, requests the Commission to amend the order of December 28, 1976, so as to provide Connecticut Natural with a contract demand volume of 80,927 Mcf per day which includes the gas appli­cable to the Wallingford service area.

Petitioner states that the service proposed herein would not result in any increase in maximum contract quantities presently authorized for the Connecticut Gas and Hartford service areas combined, nor would such oper­ations have any effect on petitioner’s ability to render service to any of its other customers.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said petition to amend should on or before August 31, 1978, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 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 reguations 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

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36514 NOTICES

participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a petition to inter­vene in accordance with the Commis­sion’s rules.

Lois D. Cashell, Acting Secretary.

[PR Doc. 78-23061 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[3128-01]

Southwestern Pow er Adm inistration

TENTATIVE SYSTEM POWER RATES

A dditional Public Comment Forum and Change in date fo r W ritten Comment

AGENCY: Southwestern Power Ad­ministration (SWPA), Department of Energy.ACTION: Notice of additional public comment forum and change in date for written comment.SUMMARY: In response to a request at the public comment forum on July 20, 1978, in Tulsa, Okla., an additional public comment forum has been scheduled for August 24, and the time for submitting written comments on the tentative rate schedules has been extended from August 15 to Septem­ber 11, 1978.DATES: An additional public com­ment forum is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., August 24,1978, at the Aaronson Audi­torium, City-County Library; 400 Civic Center, Tulsa, Okla. The time for sub­mitting written comments on the ten­tative rate schedules has been ex­tended to September 11,1978.ADDRESSES: Five copies of the writ­ten comments should be submitted to the Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Depart­ment of Energy, P.O. Box 1619, Tulsa, Okla. 74101. Five copies should also be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Resource Applications, U.S. De­partment of Energy, 12th and Penn­sylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20461.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Walter M. Bowers, Chief, Divi­sion of Power Marketing, Southwest­ern Power Administration, Depart­ment of Energy, P.O. Box 1619, Tulsa, Okla. 74101, 918-581-7529.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the tentative rate schedules, the rate design study, and power re­payment studies for the integrated system were mailed in April to all SWPA customers and others who have expressed an interest in the subject. SWPA will continue to furnish copies of these materials upon request.

The originial notice of the tentative rates and opportunities for public

comment was published in the F eder­al R egister on Wednesday, April 19, 1978 (43 FR 16545), and a notice of changes in dates fbr public comments was published in the F ederal R egister on Thursday, June 15, 1978 (43 FR 25865). As explained in these notices, public information forums were held in Tulsa on May 18 and June 22 and a public comment forum was held on July 20.

Because of delays by SWPA in fur­nishing requested information to the customers, particularly information from the Army Corps of Engineers, a request was made that a further op­portunity for oral comment be afford­ed and that the time for submitting written comments be extended. In re­sponse, it was announced at the July 20 forum that an additional public comment forum will be held at 9:30 a.m., August 24, 1978, in the Aaronson Auditorium, City-County Library, 400 Civic Center, Tulsa, Okla. At this public comment forum, interested per­sons may submit written comments or make oral presentation of their views and comments. The forum will be con­ducted by a chairman who will be re­sponsible for orderly procedure. SWPA representatives will be present, and they and the chairman may ask questions of the speakers. Persons in­terested in speaking should submit a request to the Administrator, SWPA, at least three (3) days before the forum so a speakers’ list can be devel­oped. The chairman may allow others to speak if time permits.

A transcript of the forum will be made. Copies of the transcript and of all documents introduced will be avail­able on request for a fee.

It also was announced at the July 20 forum that written comments on the tentative rate schedules are due on or before September 11, 1978.. Five copies of the written comments should be submitted to the Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, and five copies to the Assistant Secre­tary for Resource Applications in Washington, D.C., at the addresses shown above. Following review of the oral and written comments and the in­formation gathered in the course of the proceedings, the Assistant Secre­tary for Resource Applications will an­nounce a proposed decision on rates and send his proposal to the Adminis­trator, Economic Regulatory Adminis­tration for review ana final decision. The ERA will allow the public an op­portunity to comment on the proposal before a final decision is made.

Issued in Washington, D.C., August11,1978.

W illiam S. H effelfinger, Director of Administration.

[PR Doc. 78-23001 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6560-01]ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP-180215; FRL 948-2]RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCES

Specific Exemption To Use Triforine To Control “ M onilin ia”

M um m yberry on Blueberries

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted a specific exemption to the Rhode Island De­partment of Natural Resources (here­after referred to as the “applicant”) to use triforine for the control of Moni­linia mummyberry on 45 acres of blue­berries in New York. This exemption was granted in accordance with, and is subject to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 166, which prescribes require­ments for exemption of Federal and State agencies for use of pesticides under emergency conditions.

This notice contains a summary of certain information required by regu­lation to be included in this notice. For more detailed information, inter­ested parties are referred to the appli­cation on file with the Registration Division (TS-767), Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, 401 M Street SW., Room E-315, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Mummyberry is caused by the fungus Monilinia vaccinii corymbosi. Primary infection by ascospores takes place early in the spring just as the leaf and flower buds begin to grow. These ascospores are released from spore cups that develop from mummi­fied fruit. Spore cup emergence coin­cides with the emergence of the young susceptible tissues of the plant. Mum­mies are a result of the disease from the previous crop and have over-win­tered on or near the surface of the soil beneath the bushes. Infeeted blossoms and leaves turn brown and wither as a result of these primary infections. The fungus then produces a second spore type on these infected tissues. These are blown onto remaining blossoms where secondary infection takes place on the developing pistil of the flowers. These flower infections remain unde­tected until the fruit begins to enlarge. The infected fruit turns off-color and usually drops to the ground before healthy berries mature. These mum­mified fruits persist through the winter and act as a source of the fungus for the primary infection the following spring.

Currently there are four fungicides registered for the control of the pri­mary infection stage: Benomyl, Captan, Ferbam, and Ziram. The ap­plicant referred to data which indicat­ed that these fungicides are relatively ineffective in controlling primary in-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 1 60 — THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36515fections of this disease. Cultural prac­tices have also not been successful in commercial planting. However, trifor- ine (N,N-[l,4-piperazinediylbis (2,2,2- trichloroethylidene )]-bis- Cf ormamide]) appeared to be efficacious in suppress­ing this pathogen. Triforine is regis­tered in the United States under the trade name Funginex EC for use on greenhouse roses (EPA Reg. No. 21137-4).

The applicant planned to use trifor­ine on 45 acres of commerical blueber­ries in Rhode Island. It was estimated by the applicant that the economic loss from mummyberry disease would be $45,000 if an effective fungicide was not availiable this growing season.

The applicant proposed to use Fun­ginex EC at a rate not to exceed 0.3 pound active ingredient per acre. There would be a maximum of three applications made by ground equip­ment at 7-day intervals. Applications would be made by State-certified pesti­cide applicators. Based on the low tox­icity, short half-life, and low applica­tion rate, no serious hazards to fish and wildlife are expected.

After reviewing the application and other available information, EPA has determined that: (a) a pest outbreak of MonUinia mummyberry is likely to occur this year on bludberries in Rhode Island; (b) there is no pesticide presently registered and available for use to control this pest in that State;(c) there are no alternative means of control, taking into account the effica­cy and hazard; (d) significant econom­ic problems may result if the pest is not controlled; and (e) the time availa­ble for action to mitigate the problems posed is insufficient for a pesticide to be registered for this use. Accordingly, the applicant has been granted a spe­cific exemption to use the pesticide noted above until July 30, 1978, to the extent and in the manner set forth in the application. The specific exemp­tion is subject to the following condi­tions:

1. The product Funginex EC, EPA Reg. No. 21137-4, may be applied; ^

2. A maximum of 45 acres may be treated with ground equipment;

3. Triforine will be applied at a rate of 0.3 pound a.i. per acre in 20 to 50 gallons of water;

4. A maximum of three applications may be applied at seven-to-ten day intervals. Ap­plication will begin at time of first shoot growth;

5. A minimum of 60 days will elapse be­tween the last application of triforine and harvest;

6. Applications of this pesticide will be made by State-certified pesticide applica­tors;

7. A triforine residue level not to exceed 0.1 ppm in or on harvested blueberries has been determined to be adequate to protect the public health. The Food and Drug Ad­ministration, U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare has been informed of this action;

8. All applicable directions, restrictions, and precautions on the product label must be followed;

9. The EPA will be immediately informed of any adverse effects resulting from the use of triforine in connection with this ex­emption; and

10. The applicant is responsible for assur­ing that all of the provisions of this specific exemption are met and must submit a report summarizing the results of this pro­gram by November 30, 1978.(Sec. 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungi­cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (86 Stat. 973; 89 Stat. 751; 7 U.S.C. 136(a) et seq.).>

Dated: August 10,1978.D ouglas D . Campt,

Acting Deputy Assistant Admin­istrator for Pesticide Pro­grams.

[R Doc. 78-23111 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6705-01]FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

[Farm Credit Administration Order No.810]

DEPUTY GO VERNOR, OFFICE OF ADM INISTRATION

A uthority o f ond O rder o f Precedence o f Cer­ta in O fficers To Act (Revocation o f O rderN o. 7 83 )

1. The Deputy Governor, Adminis­tration, shall, subject to the jurisdic­tion and control of the Governor of the Farm Credit Administration, ex­ecute and perform all power, authori­ty, and duties relative to Farm Credit Administration budget, personnel, public affairs, and other internal ad­ministrative support services, congres­sional affairs, and economic analysis, as well as activities relating to farm credit system personnel and public af­fairs programs, and to all matters inci­dental thereto, and to administration of all provisions of law pertinent thereto.

2. In the event the Deputy Gover­nor, Administration, Farm Credit Ad­ministration, is absent or is not able to perform the duties of his office for any other reason, the officer who is highest on the following list and who is available to act is hereby authorized to exercise and perform all functions, powers, authority, and duties of the Deputy Governor, Administration, pertaining to the functions of his office:

(1) Director, Administrative Division.(2) Director, Personnel Division.(3) Director, Congressional Affairs Divi­

sion.(4) Director, Economic Analysis Division.(5) Director, Public Affairs Division.

3. This order shall be effective on July 18, 1978, and revokes Farm Credit Administration Order No. 783, dated January 31, 1975 (40 FR 5815).

C. T. F redrickson, Acting Governor,

Farm Credit Administration. [FR Doc. 78-22985 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6210-01]FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

AM ERICAN N A TIO N A L KIMBALL CORP.

Formation o f Bank Holding Com pany

American National Kimball Corp., Kimball, Nebr., 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)) to become a bank holding company by acquiring 80 per­cent or more of the voting shares of the American National Bank of Kim­ball, Kimball, Nebr. 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 offices 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 September 5, 1978.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11, 1978.

G riffith L. G arwood, .Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 78-23068 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6210-01]

LOUISVILLE CO.

Formation o f Bank Holding Com pany

Louisville Co., Omaha, Nebr., 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)) to become a bank holding company by acquiring 91.4 percent or more of the voting shares of Home State Bank, Louisville, Nebr. 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 offices 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 no later than September 11,1978.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36516 NOTICES

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11, 1978.

G riffith L. G arwood, Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 78-23069 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6210- 01]MISSOURI COUNTRY BANCSHARES, INC.

Formation o f Bank Holding Com pany

Missouri Country Bancshares, Inc., Liberal, Mo., 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)) to become a bank holding company by acquiring 90 per­cent or more of the voting shares of Citizens Bank of Liberal, Liberal, Mo. 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 offices 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 September 6,1978.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11,1978.

G riffith L. G arwood, Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 78-23070 Filed 8-16-78 8:45 am]

[ 1610- 01]GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

REGULATORY REPORTS REVIEW

Receipt o f Report Proposals

The following requests for clearance of reports intended for use in collect­ing information from the public were received by the Regulatory Reports Review Staff, GAO, on August 3, 1978 (FMC), and August 10, 1978 (ICC). See 44 U.S.C. 3512 (c) and (d). The purpose of publishing this notice in the F eder­al R egister is to inform the public of such receipts.

The notice includes the title of each request received; the name of the agency sponsoring the proposed collec­tion of information; the agency form number, if applicable; and the fre­quency with which the information is proposed to be collected.

Written comments on the proposed FMC and ICC requests are invited from all interested persons, organiza­tions, public interest groups, and af­fected businesses. Because of the limit­ed amount of time GAO has to review the proposed requests, comments (in triplicate) must be received on or before September 5, 1978, and should be addressed to Mr. John M. Lovelady,

Assistant Director, Regulatory Re­ports Review, U.S. General Accounting Office, Room 5106, 441 G Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20548.

Further information may be ob­tained from Patsy J. Stuart of the Regulatory Reports Review Staff, 202- 275-3532.

F ederal M aritime Com m ission

The FMC requests clearance of a new, voluntary, single-time question­naire “Survey of Major Virgin Islands Importers” which will be sent to im­porters in the Virgin Islands so that a better understanding of ocean ship­ping problems in the islands can be achieved. The FMC estimates respon­dents will number approximately 75 importers and reporting burden will average 3 hours per report.

Interstate Commerce Com m ission

The ICC requests an extension with­out change clearance of form F-l, Annual Report, required to be filed by some 146 class A freight forwarders, pursuant to section 412 of the Inter­state Commerce Act. Data collected by form F-l are used for economic regu­latory purposes. A new schedule is added to the form for only 1978 to provide for reporting summary data on freight loss and damage claims. The schedule was adopted by the Commission in No. 35345 (Sub-No. 2) July 1, 1977. GAO approved the use of this schedule December 30, 1977. The ICC estimates respondents to number approximately 146 and reporting burden to average 25 Vi hours per report.

The ICC requests an extension with­out change clearance of form F-2, Annual Report, required to be filed by some 27 class B freight forwarders, pursuant to section 412 of the Inter­state Commerce Act. Data collected by form F-2 are used for economic regu­latory purposes. A new schedule is added to the form for only 1978 to provide for reporting summary data on freight loss and damage claims. The schedule was adopted by the Commission in No. 35345 (Sub-No. 2) July 1, 1977. GAO approved the use of this schedule December 30, 1977. The ICC estimates respondents to number approximately 27 and reporting burden to average 15 hours per report.

The ICC requests an extension with­out change clearance of form No. ACR-43 Carrier Reclassification Form, applicable to railroads, electric rail­ways, motor carriers of property and passengers, inland and coastal water­ways carriers and freight forwarders experiencing a change in- operating revenue for the preceding years which would result in reclassification of the carrier from one class to another for accounting and reporting.. Data col­lected by form ACR-43 are intended to

eliminate undue delays in carrier re­classification and minimize accounting system implementation problems. The ICC estimates repondents to number approximately 400 annually and re­porting burden to average one-half hour per report.

N orman F. Heyl, Regulatory Reports

Review Officer.[FR Doc. 78-23006 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[ 1610- 01]REGULATORY REPORTS REVIEW

Receipt and A pprova l o f Report Proposal

A request for emergency clearance of revisions to General Order 27 (46 CFR 542)—Financial Responsibility for Oil Pollution Cleanup and related forms FMC-224, FMC-11, FMC-346, and FMC-244 was received by the Reg­ulatory Reports Review Staff, GAO, on July 19, 1978. See 44 U.S.C. 3512 (c) and (d). The purpose of publishing this notice in the F ederal R egister is to inform the public of such receipt and the action taken by GAO.

F ederal M aritime Com m ission

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) requested emergency clearance of revisions to General Order 27 (46 CFR 542)—Financial Responsibility for Oil Pollution Cleanup and related forms FMC-224, Application for Cer­tificate; FMC-11, Request for Missing Information; FMC-346, Request for Confirmation That a Certificate Is De­sired; and FMC-244, Certificate of Fi­nancial Responsibility. The revised regulations are being issued as a new general order under 46 CFR 542 (re­vised)—Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution, and the forms have been renumbered as FMC-321, FMC- 11, (revised), FMC-346 (revised), and FMC-329, respectively. These revised regulations were issued in response to the Clean Water Act of 1977. The reg­ulations require that vessel operators demonstrate that they are financially able to meet their liability to the United States resulting from the dis­charge of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shore­lines or waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural authority of the United States. Vessels must carry on board a certificate of finan­cial responsibility in order to lawfully use the navigable waters of the United States.

GAO agreed to accept FMC’s emer­gency request for clearance due to the exigent need to change 46 CFR 542 be­cause of the passage of the Clean

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36517Water Act of 1977. There are approxi­mately 9,000 certificants who must reapply for new certificates by Octo­ber 1, 1978, if they are using the navi­gable waters of the United States. Thé agreement was made after the PMC agreed to include certain language in its notice of proposed rulemaking which would specifically request com­ments on issues contained in 44 U.S.C. 3512 relating to reporting burden and duplication. GAO independently re­viewed the comments received by the Commission regarding these and other issues.

GAO granted emergency clearance of the revisions to the regulations and related forms on July 31, 1978, under the following numbers:

Clearance No. B-180233 (R0544) B-180233 (R0545) B-180233 (R0546) B-180233 (R0547) B-180233 (R0554)

Norman F. Heyl, Regulatory Reports,

Review Officer.[FR Doc. 78-23007 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4110-83]DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

H ealth Resources Adm inistration

NATIONAL COUNCIL O N HEALTH PLA N NING A ND DEVELOPMENT A DVISO RY COMMITTEE

M eeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advi­sory body scheduled to meet during the month of September 1978:Name: National Council on Health Planning

and Development.Date and Time: September 8, 1978, 8:45

a.m.-4 p.m.Place: Main Auditorium, Hubert H. Hum­

phrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20201.

Open for entire meeting.Purpose: The National Council on Health

Planning and Development is responsible for advising and making recommendations with respect to (1) the development of na­tional guidelines under section 1501 of Pub. L. 93-641, (2) the implementation and administration of titles XV and XVI of Pub. L. 93-641, and (3) an evaluation of the implications of new medical technol­ogy for the organization, delivery and equitable distribution of health care ser­vices. In addition, the Council advises and assists the Secretary in the preparation of general regulations to carry out the pur­poses of section 1122 of the Social Securi­ty Act and on policy matters arising out of the implementation of it, including the co­ordination of activities under that section with those under other parts of the Social Security Act or under other Federal or federally assisted health programs. The

Council considers and advises the Secre­tary on proposals submitted by the Secre­tary under the provisions of section 1122(d)(2) that health care facilities or health maintenance organizations be re­imbursed for expenses related to capital expenditures notwithstanding that under section 1122(d)(1) there would otherwise be exclusion of reimbursement for such expenses.

Agenda: Introduction of new members, Report of Council Agenda Planning Work Group, Report of Council Policy Commu­nication Improvement Work Group, and Health Planning Program Overview.

Anyone wishing to participate, obtain a roster of members, minutes of meetings, or other relevant information should con­tact Mrs. S. Judy Silsbee, Executive Secre­tary, National Council on Health Planning and Development, Room 10-27, Center Building, 3700 East-West Highway, Hy- attsville, Md. 20782; telephone 301-436- 7175.

Agenda items are subject to change as prior­ities dictate.Dated: August 10, 1978.

James A. Walsh, Associate Administrator for Operations and Management.

[FR Doc. 78-23021 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310-84]DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau o f Land M anagem ent

BOISE DISTRICT ID A H O G R A ZIN G A DVISO RY BOARD

M eeting

In accordance with Pub. L. 92-463 the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and Pub. L. 94-579, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, notice is given that the Boise District Grazing Advisory Board will meet on Septem­ber 26, 1978. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in the Owyhee Room of the Rodeway Inn, 29th and Chinden Bou­levard, Boise, Idaho.

The agenda for the meeting will in­clude: (1) Discuss and make recom­mendations on the use of fiscal year 1979 range betterment funds and advi­sory board fund expenditure; and (2) a review of the fiscal year 1978 range betterment projects.

The meeting ifc open to the public. Interested persons may make oral statements to the board or file written statements for the board’s considera­tion. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement must notify the District Manager, Bureau of Land Manage­ment, 230 Collins Road, Boise, Idaho 83702 by September 15, 1978. Depend­ing on the number of persons wishing to make oral statements, a per person time limit may be established by the District Manager.

Minutes of the board meeting will be maintained in the District Office. They will be available for public in­

spection during regular business hours within 30 days following the meeting.

Dated: August 8,1978.D. D ean B ibles, District Manager.

[FR Doc. 78-22979 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310-84]

CEDAR CITY DISTRICT G R A ZIN G A DVISO RY BOARD

M eeting

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Pub. L. 92-463 that a meeting of the Cedar City District Grazing Advi­sory Board will be held on September 23, 1978.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in the conference room of the bureau of Land Management Office at 320 North First East, Kanab, Utah. Attendees will then tour grazing allotments around the Kanab and Tropic area.

The agenda for the meeting will in­clude: (1) Tour of grazing allotments to review and make recommendations on proposed allotment management plan (a) objectives, (b) season-of-use, (c) range suitability, (d) grazing capac­ity, (e) grazing system, (f) range bet­terment projects, (g) coordination with other resource use; (2) expendi­ture of range bettwement funds; (3) arrangements for the next meeting.

The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral statements to the board between 9 and 9:30 a.m., September 23, or file written statements for the board’s considera­tion. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement must notify the District Manager, Bureau of Land Manage­ment, 1579 North Main Street, Cedar City, Utah 84720 by September 19, 1978. Depending on the number of persons wishing to make oral state­ments, a per person time limit may be established by the District Manager. Persoris desiring to make the tour on September 23 should furnish their own transportation, food, and drink.

Summary minutes of the board meeting will be maintained in the Dis­trict Office and be available for public inspection and reproductions (during regular business hours) within 30 days following the meetings.

Dated: August 9,1978.J. K ent G iles,

Assistant District Manager.[FR Doc. 78-22989 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

46 CFR 542 (revised).FMC-321....................FMC-11 (revised)......FMC-346 (revised)....FMC-329....................

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36518

[4310-84]

[Colorado 23396]LANDS IN ROUTT COUNTY, COLO.

Hearing

United States Department of the In­terior, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Denver, Colo. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on September 6, 1978 at 7:30 p.m'. in the Routt County Courthouse in Steamboat Springs, Colo. The purpose of the hearing is to obtain public comments, with respect to offering for lease certain coal re­sources in the lands hereinafter de­scribed, on the technical examination- environmental assessment report and on the following items: (1) The method of mining to be employed to obtain maximum economic recovery of the coal (2) the impact that mining the coal in proposed leasehold may have on the area, included but not lim­ited to impacts on the environment, agriculture, and other economic activi­ties, and (3) method of evaluation of the coal to be offered. Comments will be accepted orally or in writing and will be considered prior to lease offer­ing.

In addition, the public is invited to submit written comments on the fair market value of the coal to be offered to the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Room 700 Colorado State Bank Building, 1600 Broadway, Denver, Colo. 80202.

Coal to be offered: the lands are lo­cated in Routt County, Colo, approxi­mately 23 miles southwest of Steam­boat Springs, Colo., in the vicinity of the old Johnnie’s mine. The lands are described as follows:

S ixth Principal Meridian, Colorado T. 4 N., R. 86 W.

Section 33: SEViNEVi, NEViSEV* approxi­mately 80.00 acres

Notice of availability: The technical examination-environmental assess­ment report will be available for review in the Craig District Office, Bureau of Land Managment, 455 Em­erson Street, P.O. Box 248, Craig, Colo. 81625.

A copy of the technical examination- environmental assessment report, the case file and the comments submitted by the public on fair market value, except those portions identified as proprietary by the commentor will be available for public inspection at the Bureau of Land Management, Room 700 Colorado State Bank Building, 1600 Broadway, Denver, Colo. 80202.

A n d r e w W. H e a r d , Jr., Leader, Craig Team,

Branch of Adjudication.[FR Doc. 78-22977 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

NOTICES

[4310-84]

Bureau o f Land M anagem ent

N EVAD A

Filing o f Plats o f Survey and O rder Providing fo r O pening o f Lands

1. The Plats of Survey of lands de­scribed below will be officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nev., effective 10 a.m. on September 21, 1978:

Mount D iablo Meridian, Nevada

T. 5 S., R. 66 E.T. 10 S., R. 66 E.2. The area surveyed in T. 5 S., R. 66

E. is mountainous, with elevations from 3,900 to 5,700 feet above sea level. Vegetation consists of sagebrush and rabbitbrush. There is a spring in section 27. Access into the township is by an improved road to Elgin, Nev. No mineral formations of consequence were noted.

3. The area (section 24) surveyed in T. 10 S., R. 66 E. is mountainous. Soil varies from sandy clay to rocky. Vege­tation is greasewood, yucca, mesquite and joshua trees. Union Pacific Rail­road crosses the area. Access into the township is a one trail road which winds along the railroad tracks. No mineral formations noted.

4. Subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals and classifications, and the require­ments of applicable law, the lands are hereby opened to such applications and petitions as may be permitted. All such valid applications received at or prior to 10 a.m. September 21, 1978, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in order of filing.

Inquiries concerning these lands shall be addressed to the Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 300 Booth Street, Reno, Nev. 89509.

Dated: August 9, 1978.L o y d C. M il l e r ,

Chief, Branch of Records and Data Management.

[PR Doc. 78-23019 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310-84]

[NM 34094 and 34095]NEW M EXICO

Applications

A u g u s t 8, 1978.Notice is hereby given that, pursu­

ant to section 28 of the Mineral Leas­ing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 185), as amended by the act of November 16, 1973 (87 Stat. 576), El Paso Natural Gas Co. has applied for two 4y2-inch

natural gas pipeline rights-of-way across the following land:

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

T. 32 N., R. 11 W.,Sec. 27, SEViNEVi and NViiSE1/«.These pipelines will convey natural

gas across 0.539 of a mile of public land in San Juan County, N. Mex.

The purpose of this notice. is to inform the public that the Bureau will be proceeding with consideration of whether the application should be ap­proved, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

Interested persons desiring to ex­press their views should promptly send their name and address to the District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 6770, Albu­querque, N. Mex. 87107.

F red E. P a d il l a ,Chief Branch of Lands

and Minerals Operations.[PR Doc. 78-23020 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310-84][Colorado 27106]

ROCKY M O U N TA IN NATURAL GAS C O M P A N Y , INC.

Pipeline Application

A u g u s t 11, 1978.Notice is hereby given that, pursu­

ant to section 28 of the Mineral Leas­ing Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 449), as amended (30 U.S.C. 185), Rocky Moun­tain Natural Gas Co., Inc., 1600 Sher­man Street, Denver, Colo. 80203, has applied for a right-of-way for 4.5-incho.d. natural gas distribution pipeline totaling approximately 13.2 linear miles across the following public lands:

S ixth P rincipal Meridian, Colorado •T. 1 S., R. 99 W.,

Sections 33 and 34 T. 2 S., R. 97 W.,

Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 T. 2 S., R. 98 W.,

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12 T. 2 S., R. 99 W.,

Sections 1, 2, 3, and 11.The primary purpose for construc­

tion of the proposed pipeline is to enable the applicant to convey natural gas from the Big Hole, Blue Gravel, and Black Sulphur Creek Natural Gas Fields by way of the Big Hole Natural Gas Transmission Line to an industri­al customer.

The purposes of this notice are: to inform the public that the Bureau of Land Management will be proceeding with the preparation of environmental and other analyses necessary for de­termining whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what terms and conditions; to allow in-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

terested parties to comment on the ap­plication; and to allow any persons as­serting a claim to the lands or having bona fide objections to the proposed natural gas pipleine right-of-way to file their objections in this office.

Any person asserting a claim to the lands or having bona fide objectfbns must include evidence that a copy thereof has been served on the appli­cant.

Any comment, claim, or objections must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Adjudication, Bureau of Land Man­agement, Colorado State Office, Room 700, Colorado State Bank Building, 1600 Broadway, Denver, Colo. 80202, as promptly as possible after publica­tion of this notice.

ANDREW W. HEARD, Jr.Leader, Craig Team,

Branch of Adjudication.[FR Doc. 78-22998 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4310-31]

Geological Survey

[Coal Land Classification Order Wyoming No. 154]

W Y O M IN G

Coal Land Classification O rder

Pursuant to authority under the Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. 394; 43 U.S.C. 31), and as delegated to me by Departmental Order 2563, May 2, 1950, under authority of Reorganiza­tion Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1262), the following described lands, insofar as title thereto remains in the United States, are hereby classified as shown:

''S ixth P rincipal Meridian, Wyoming

Reclassified Coal Land From Noncoal LandPrior classification of the following subdi­

visions as noncoal land is hereby revoked and the land is reclassified as coal land:T. 46 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 23, SEV4SEV4;Sec. 36, NWV4NWV4

The area described aggregates 80 acres (32 ha), more or less, of which all are reclassified as coal land.

Dated: August 7, 1978.W. A. R ad linski,

Acting Director.[FR Doc. 78-22982 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

NOTICES

[8230-01]INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION

AGENCYCULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT WORKS OF ART

A m endm ent o f Determ ination; Extension o fPompeii A .D . 79 Exhibition W ithin the UnitedStates

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by Pub. L. 89-259 of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459) and Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 PR 13359, March 29, 1978) I hereby amend public notice No. 596, published in the F ederal R egister on March 9, 1978 (43 FR 9665), by adding to the places of exhibition or display; The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago,111., on or about August 12, 1978, to on or about November 26, 1978, and the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts, Dallas, Tex., on or about January 2, 1978, to on or about March 18,1979.

These additional exhibitions are pur­suant to amendments to the loan agreement between the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass., and the Gov­ernment of Italy referred to in public notice No. 596 published on March 9, 1978 (43 FR 9665).

Notice of this amendment of the de­termination is ordered to be published in the F ederal R egister.

J ohn E. R einhardt, Director, International, Communication Agency.

A ugust 11, 1978.[FR Doc. 78-23000 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7020-02]INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION[Investigation No. 337-TA-55]

CERTAIN NOVELTY GLASSES

Prelim inary Conference

Notice is hereby given that a pre­liminary conference will be held in connection with the above styled in­vestigation at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, August 30, 1978, in room 610, Bicen­tennial Building, 600 E Street NW., Washington, D.C. Notice of this inves­tigation was published in the F ederal R egister on July 11, 1978 (43 F R 29840). The purposes of this prelimi­nary conference are to establish a dis­covery schedule, to discuss the proce­dures to be followed in pursuing such discovery, to set the dates for the pre- hearing conference and hearing, and to resolve any other matters necessary to the conduct of this investigation.

If any questions should arise not covered by these instructions, the par­ties or their counsel shall call the

36519

chambers of the undersigned presiding officer.

The Secretary shall serve a copy of this notice upon all parties of record and shall publish it in the F ederal R egister.

Issued: August 14,1978.Judge D onald K. D uvall,

Presiding Officer.[FR Doc. 78-23095 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

-------- \[7020-02]

[Investigation No. 337-TA-36]CERTAIN PLASTIC FASTENER ASSEMBLIES

Cancellation o f Hearing

The hearing in this matter noticed for 10 a.m. on August 16, 1978, in room 610 of the Bicentennial Building, 600 E Street NW., Washington, D.C., is hereby cancelled.

The Secretary shall serve a copy of this notice on all parties of record and shall publish it in the F ederal R egis­ter.

Issued: August 14, 1978.J anet D. S axon ,

Administrative Law Judge.[FR Doc. 78-23094 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7020-02][AA1921-187]

MOTORCYCLES FROM JAPA N

Investigation and Hearing

Having received advice from the De­partment of the Treasury on August 3, 1978) 'th a t motorcycles from Japan, with the exception of merchandise produced by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value, the U.S. Interna­tional Trade Commission on August 11, 1978, instituted investigation No. AA1921-187 under section 201(a) of the Antidumping Act, 1921, as amend­ed (19 U.S.C. 160 (a)), to determine whether an industry in the United States is being, or is likely to be in­jured, or is prevented from being es­tablished, by reason of the importa­tion of such merchandise into the United States. For the purpose of its determination concerning sales at less than fair value, the Treasury Depart­ment defined “motorcycles” as motor­cycles having engines with total piston displacement over 90 cubic centi­meters, whether for use on or off the road.

A public hearing in connection with the investigation will be held in the Commission’s hearing room, U.S. In­ternational Trade Commission, 701 E Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20436, beginning at 10 a.m., e.d.t., on Thurs­day, September 28, 1978. All persons

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36520 NOTICES

shall have the right to appear by counsel or in person, to present evi­dence and be heard. Requests to appear at the public hearing, or to in­tervene under the provisions of section 201(d) of the Antidumping Act, 1921, shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission at his office in Washing­ton, D.C., not later than noon, Friday, September 22, 1978.

There will be a prehearing confer­ence in connection with this investiga­tion which will be held in Washington, D.C., at 10 a.m., e.d.t., on Friday, Sep­tember 22, 1978, in room 117, U.S. In­ternational Trade Commission Build­ing, 701 E Street NW.

By order of the Commission.Issued: August 14," 1978.

K enneth R. M ason, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23096 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-18]DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

O ffice o f the A ttorney G eneral

[AAG/A Order No. 4-78]PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

System o f Records

On Friday, September 30, 1977, notice of the existence of the Civil Rights Investigative System (Justice/ LEAA-008) was published in the F ed­eral R egister’s annual compilation of Privacy Act issuances (42 FR 53318). Categories of records in the system consist of civil rights complaint con­trol logs and civil rights litigation ref­erence files.

On Tuesday, May 9, 1978, notice was published in the Notice Section of the F ederal R egister that the Depart­ment of Justice, Law Enforeehient As­sistance Administration, proposed to promulgate rules pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k) to exempt this system fropa the access requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d). On the same day the Depart­ment published a proposed rule in the Proposed Rules Section of the F ederal R egister to effect this exemption. No comments were received regarding the proposed regulations.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney Gen­eral Order No. 793-78, the regulations published on May 9 are adopted with one minor correction. The correction is identified and the regulations are reprinted in the Rules Section of tod ay’s F ederal R egister.

Dated: August 8, 1978.K evin D. R ooney,

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

[FR Doc. 78-23119 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-01][AAG/A Order No. 6-78]

PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

Systems o f Records; Adoption o f Routine Uses

Pursuant to provisions of the Priva­cy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, on April 27, 1978, the Department of Justice published in the F ederal R egister a proposal to add routine uses and make other modi­fications to systems of records pub­lished in their entirety in the F ederal R egister on September 30, 1977 (42 FR 53288 through 53429). No com­ments were received regarding the pro­posed routine uses or the other modifi­cations.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney Gen­eral Order No. 793-78, the system changes as published on April 27, are hereby adopted.

Dated: August 8, 1978.K evin D. R ooney,

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

[FR Doc. 78-23121 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-02]

[AAG/A Order No. 7-78]PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

System o f Records (A m end ed )

Pursuant to the general notice re­quirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c) and(e) , notice is hereby given that the De­partment of Justice proposes to amend 28 CFR § 16.96 as it relates to the FBI Central Record System (Justice/FBI- 002) published annually and most re­cently on September 30,1977.

On August 27, 1975, the Department published a notice establishing the above-named system. On the same day, the Department published a rule exempting the system from subsec­tions (c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (2) and(3) , (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(5) and (8),(f) , (g) and (m) of the Privacy Act pur­suant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). While justification for exemption from the access provisions of subsec­tion d(l) was given, the reasons for ex­emption from the record amendment provisions of subsection (d)(2), (3) and(4) of the Privacy Act were not given. The proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules Section of today’s F ed­eral R egister will correct this omis­sion by adding a sentence to 28 CFR'

§ 16.96(b)(2) to supplement the pub­lished reasons for exempting the system from subsection (d) of the Pri­vacy Act.

Because investigative information is collected daily over long periods and the information is altered and updated on a daily basis by the FBI, amend­ment of records based on requests from individuals would be impractical.

Comments may be submitted in writ­ing to the Administrative Counsel, Office of Management and Finance, Room 1118, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530. All comments must be received on or before Septem­ber 18, 1978. No oral hearings are con­templated.

Dated: August 10, 1978.K evin D . R ooney,

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

[FR Doc. 78-23122 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-05]Bureau o f Prisons

N A TIO N A L INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS A DVISO RY BOARD

M eeting

Notice is hereby given that the Na­tional Institute of Corrections Adviso­ry Board in accordance with section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Com­mittee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) will met on Sunday, October 29, 1978, starting at 1 p.m. in the confer­ence room of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Regional Office, K.C.I. Bank Building, 8800 NW 112th Street, Kansas City, Mo.

This meeting is one of the regularly scheduled triannual meetings of the Advisory Board.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th day of August, 1978.

Allen F. B reed, Director.

[FR Doc. 78-22986 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-09]Drug Enforcement Adm inistration

ALM AR PHARM ACY

Denial o f Registration

On June 11, 1976, Albert Marcovsky was convicted of seven counts of ille­gally distributing controlled sub­stances and one related count of con­spiracy to distribute controlled sub­stances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 and 846. The criminal offenses of which Mr. Marcovsky was convicted involved the distribution of tens of thousands of dosage units of metha- qualone, a schedule II controlled sub­stance. Mr. Marcovsky paid a fine of

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, A U G U S T '17, 1978

$11,000 and was placed on probation for a period of 5 years.

On August 16, 1976, the Administra­tor of the Drug Enforcement Adminis­tration issued an order to show cause proposing to revoke the DEA certifi­cate of registration of Almar Pharma­cy of Carnegie, Pa. Mr. Marcovsky is the owner and operator of Almar Pharmacy. On September 13, 1977, fol­lowing a full administrative hearing under DEA docket No. 76-33, the Ad­ministrator published his final order revoking Almar Pharmacy’s registra­tion under the Controlled Substances Act. (See volume 42, FR 45969.)

On January 31, 1978, Mr. Marcovsky, on behalf of Almar Pharmacy, applied to the Drug Enforcement Administra­tion for a new certificate of registra­tion. On May-1, 1978, the Administra­tor issued an order to show cause as to why this application should not be denied for reason that Mr. Marcovsky had been convicted of felony offenses relating to controlled substances and for further reason that insufficient time had elapsed since the conviction and revocation to permit an assess­ment of whether such registration would be in the public interest. Mr. Marcovsky did not request a hearing on the issues raised by this order to show cause. Instead, he provided a written statement of position which was primarily concerned with the eco­nomic hardship which loss of a con­trolled substances registration has caused him and his family.

The Administrator has reviewed the record of this matter, including Mr. Marcovsky’s response to the order to show cause and the administrative law judge’s opinion in the aforementioned docket No. 76-33. In the proceeding, the administrative law judge wrote that “in light of such conduct, Re­spondent Marcovsky should riot be permitted to dispense controlled sub­stances in a pharmacy.” In his final order in the case, the Administrator adopted the findings and recommen­dations of the administrative law judge.

The Administrator has given a full measure of consideration to Mr. Mar­covsky’s correspondence and the un­fortunate situation in which he now finds himself. But the Administrator’s primary concern, as mandated by Con­gress, must be with the maintenance of effective controls against the diver­sion of controlled substances from le­gitimate medical and scientific chan­nels and into the illicit market. The Administrator must take such action as will most likely assure that diver­sion will not occur. Mr. Marcovsky’s, as evidenced by his conviction and the record of the recent administrative proceedings, has shown a callous disre­gard for the law, the welfare of the general public, and for his professional

NOTICES

responsibility as a pharmacist. For this reason, it is the Administrator’s opinion that Mr. Marcovsky cannot at the present time be entrusted with any opportunity to dispense controlled substances and that, therefore, his ap­plication for registration must be denied.

Mr. Marcovsky has less than 3 years to serve of his term of probation. It is possible that by the end of that period of probation, Mr. Marcovsky may have demonstrated that he is again worthy of the trust and responsibility placed in him when he was originally regis­tered. Completion of the 5 years of probation to the satisfaction of the U.S. District Court which originally sentenced him may well be sufficient to indicate that Mr. Marcovsky could then be trusted with a DEA registra­tion. Therefore, the Drug Enforce­ment Administration- will again consid­er an application for registration filed by, or on behalf of, Mr. Marcovsky on June 11, 1981, or as soon thereafter as such application may be filed.

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity vested in the Attorney General by section 303 and 304 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823 and 824), and redelegated to the Adminis­trator of the Drug Enforcement Ad­ministration, the Administrator hereby orders that the application of Almar Pharmacy be, and it hereby is, denied, effective immediately.

Dated: August 10,1978.Peter B. B ensinger,

Administrator,Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 78-23039 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-09]Drug Enforcement Adm inistration

FOS PHARMACEUTICAL C O., INC.

Denial o f Applications fo r Registration

On May 17, 1978, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administra­tion (“DEA”) directed to FOS Phar­maceutical Co., Inc. (Respondent) of Kansas City, Mo., two orders to show cause proposing to deny Respondent’s September 16, 1977, applications for registration under the Controlled Sub­stances Act as a distributor and as a manufacturer (repacker-relabeler) of controlled substances listed in sched­ules III, IV, and V. The Respondent, through ììSl attorney, waived its right to a hearing and submitted a written statement regarding its position on the matters of fact and law raised by the orders to show cause. This proce­dure is in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.54(c).

In accordance with the applicable provisions of 21 CFR 1316.66, the Ad-

- 36521

minsitrator hereby publishes his final order in these proceedings.

F indings of Fact

1. The Administrator finds that on or about January 31, 1977, Robert Dean Foster, president of Respondent, delivered 200,000 phendimetrazine tar­trate capsules (70-mg) to one John Paul Jones, at 8 South Boeke Street, Kansas City, Kans. On that date, John Paul Jones was not registered in any manner with DEA. The premises at the address to which these controlled substances were delivered was not a lo­cation registered with DEA. As a proximate result of this transaction, Mr. Jones transported approximately50,000 phendimetrazine tartrate cap­sules (70-mg) to New Orleans, La., where he was subsequently arrested by special agents of DEA. Citations in the record supporting these findings are to the transcript of Unites States v. John Paul Jones, et al., Criminal Action No. 77-175, Section “A,” U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, specifically: Page 8, line 1 through page 12, line 5; page 23, line 9 through page 33, line 10; page 145, line 5 through page 147, line 16; and page 157, line 18 through page 177, line 9.

2. The Administrator agrees with Judge Schwartz’ finding at the afore­mentioned trial that the circum­stances surrounding the transactions between Robert Dean Foster and John Paul Jones, especially John Paul Jones’ purchase of 200,000 70-mg cap­sules of Phendimetrazine tartrate from Foster in early 1977, were of such a nature as should make a rea­sonable man aware that the activities of John Paul Jones with respect to those substances were of an illegal nature. This finding is supported by the previously cited portions of the transcript listed in finding 1.

3. The Administrator also finds that Respondent is no longer authorized by the State of Missiouri, Division of Health, Bureau of Narcotics and Dan­gerous Drugs, to engage in either the manufacture or the distribution of any controlled substance listed in schedule III. In addition, its Missouri controlled substances registration is limited to ac­tivities involving only the following controlled substances listed in sched­ules IV and V: Phénobarbital, chloral hydrate, chlordiazepoxide, meproba­mate, propoxyphene, and diphenoxy­late with atropine. This finding is sup­ported by the terms of the agreement between the Division of Health of Mis­souri, Bureau of Narcotics and Dan­gerous Drugs and Respondent dated April 20 and April 24, 1978.

Conclusions of Law

1. Under the provisions of the appli­cable statute, the Administrator, as de- legee of the Attorney General, shall

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36522 NOTICES

register applicants to manufacture and to distribute controlled substances listed in schedules III, IV, and V unless the Administrator determines that the issuance of such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest, pursuant to a consideration of factors listed in 21 U.S.C. 823(d)(l)-(6) and (e)(l)-(5).

2. Three of the factors to be consid­ered under each subsection are “main­tenance of effective controls against diversion of particular controlled sub­stances * * * into other than, legiti­mate medical, scientific, and (or) in­dustrial channels,” “past experience (with reference to) controlled sub­stances,” and “such other factors as may be relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.” 21 U.S.C. 823(d) (1), (5), and (6); 21 U.S.C. 823(e) (1), (4), and (5).

3. The illegal distribution and im­proper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general wel­fare of the American people. 21 U.S.C. 801(2).

4. Congress has mandated a system of law and regulations designed to maintain a closed system of distribu­tion and thereby to lessen the poten­tial for diversion of controlled sub­stances. Distributors and manufactur­ers of controlled substances can be ex­pected to handle greater quantities and wider varieties of controlled sub­stances than other types of regis­trants. Consequently, the public trust to be imposed on registered distribu­tors and manufacturers is relatively greater than that imposed on other registrants whose contacts with con­trolled substances are fewer or more remote. In the matter of Common­wealth Wholesale Drug Co., docket No. 77-31 (42 FR 64934, December 29,1977).

5. It is reasonable to conclude, as did Judge Schwartz, that Robert Foster, president of Respondent, knew of the illegal nature of the activities of John Paul Jones with reference to the transaction involving 200,000 phendi- metrazine 70-mg capsules in early 1977, or that, if Mr. Foster did not have such knowledge, his lack of knowledge was the result of his inten­tional desire not to be aware of the nature of Jones’ activities. See the transcript of United States v. John Paul Jones, et p,l., supra, at page 484, lines 18-22.

6. The record as a whole supports the conclusion that Respondent and its president, Robert Dean Foster, have failed to establish and to main­tain effective controls against the di­version of controlled substances into other than legitimate medical, scien­tific, or industrial channels.

7. The record as a whole supports the conclusion that Respondent’s past

experiences in the repacking, relabel­ing, and subsequent distribution of controlled substances illustrate its fail­ure to meet its fiduciary responsibil­ities as a public trustee under the Con­trolled Substances Act. Such failure constitutes a detriment to the public health and safety.

8. Respondent, as a matter of law, is not entitled to a Federal registration to manufacture or to distribute con­trolled substances listed in schedule III, due to a lack of authorization from the competent authorities in the State of Missouri for it to engage in those activities. 21 U.S.C. 823 (d)(2) and (e)(2), and 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).

9. The issuance of registrations to Respondent to manufacture (repack­age-relabel) and to distribute con­trolled substances listed in schedules III, IV, and V would be inconsistent with the public interest.

D e c is io n

The Administrator, pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(e), has considered all of the facts and circumstances involved in this m atter and has concluded that the registration of FOS Pharmaceuti­cal Co., Inc., to be a manufacturer and distributor of controlled substances listed in schedules III, IV, and V would be inconsistent with the public inter­est.

Therefore, pursuant to the authori­ty vested in the Attorney General, and redelegated to the Administrator of DEA, the Administrator orders that the applications of FOS Pharmaceuti­cal Co., Inc., dated September 16, 1977, to manufacture (repackage-relabel) and to distribute controlled substances in schedules III, IV, and V are hereby denied with leave to reapply for regis­tration not less than one year after the date of publication of this order in the F ed er a l R e g is t e r .

This order is effective September 18, 1978.

Dated: August 10, 1978.P e t e r B . B e n s in g e r ,

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 78-23014 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-09]JO H N W . M OO RE, JR, M .D .

Revocation o f Registration

On December 11, 1978, the Adminis­trator of the Drug Enforcement Ad­ministration (DEA) issued an order to show cause proposing to revoke DEA Certificate of Registration AM2780624, previously issued to John W. Moore, Jr., M.D. (Respondent), of Detroit, Mich.

The Respondent expressly waived a hearing in this matter and in lieu

thereof submitted a written statement concerning his position on the matters of law arid fact involved. In support of his position, the Respondent also sub­mitted the affidavits of three physi­cians, a dentist, and two members of the clergy whose testimony concerned the Respondent’s competency as a physician and his service to his com­munity. The Administrator has given full weight and consideration to the aforementioned documents as well as to the investigative file in this matter.

The investigative file reveals that on at least three occasions an undercover investigator of the Michigan Diversion Investigative Unit purchased con­trolled substances, without prescrip­tions, from a Detroit pharmacist. Sub­sequently the pharmacist told the in­vestigator that the Respondent was writing - prescriptions to cover the pharmacist’s illegal distributions of controlled substances. Eventually, the investigator was given an introduction to the Respondent. Thereafter, on sev­eral occasions, the investigator ob­tained prescriptions for controlled sub­stances, including schedule II narcot­ics, from the Respondent, although the investigator clearly indicated that she had no legitimate medical need for such drugs and, in fact, stated that she had been using Dilaudid to “get high.”

On May 20, 1977, the Respondent was indicated by a Federal grand jury sitting in the eastern district of Michi­gan. The indictment charged the Re­spondent with one count of conspiring to unlawfully distribute controlled substances and five counts of distrib­uting controlled substances in viola­tion of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1). On October 6, 1977, following his plea of nolo contendere to a single distribution count, the Re­spondent was convicted.

The Administrator finds that the Respondent has been convicted of a felony offense relating to controlled substances and that, therefore, there is a lawful or statutory basis for the revocation of his controlled substances registration pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 824(a)(2). In light of the Respondent’s past con­duct with respect to prescriptions for controlled substances, the Administra­tor finds that revocation of his DEA registration will be an appropriate sanction which will preclude future mishandling of controlled substances by this Respondent.

Therefore, pursuant to the authori­ty granted to the Attorney General by section 304 of the Controlled Sub­stances Act (21 U.S.C. 824), as redele­gated to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Administrator hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration AM2780624 be, and it hereby is, re-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36523voked. This order shall be effective September 18,1978.

Dated: August 9,1978.P eter B. B ensinger,

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[PR Doc. 78-23012 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-09]

[Docket No. 77-40]M A X IM O R. SARMIENTO, M .D .

Revocation o f Registration

On November 17, 1977, the Adminis­trator of the drug Enforcement Ad­ministration (DEA) issued to Maximo R. Sarmiento, M.D. (respondent), an order to show cause proposing to revoke the respondent’s DEA Certifi­cate of Registration, AS5589203, for reason that on September 20, 1977, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the respondent was convicted of 22 counts of distributing controlled sub­stances in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1), felony offenses relating to controlled sub­stances. The respondent requested a hearing. Following the conclusion of prehearing proceedings, and pursuant to notice published in the F ederal Register, the hearing in this matter was held on May 23, 1978, in San Fran­cisco, Calif. The Honorable Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, presided.

On July 25, 1978, pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.65, Judge Young certified the record of these proceedings to the Administrator, together with his opin­ion, recommended rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recom­mended decision. The A d m in is tr a to r , pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.66, hereby publishes hik final order in this matter, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below.

The Administrator finds that on September 20, 1977, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the respondent was con­victed of 22 counts of distributing con­trolled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). There is a lawful basis for the revocation of the respon­dent’s DEA registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2).

The administrative law judge found that on 11 different occasions, three female undercover operatives of the California Diversion Investigative Unit (DIU) obtained prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances from the respondent without giving the slightest indication of legitimate medical need for such drugs. Except for each of these agent’s first visit, none of them subsequently saw Dr.

Sarmiento; the operatives would merely request prescriptions for the desired drugs from the receptionist who would collect the fee for the office visit, obtain the prescriptions and hand them over.

In the Spring of 1976, an informal survey of physicians’ prescribing prac­tices was made in the San Francisco area by the California DIU and DEA. After some initial investigatidh, 13 Bay Area pharmacies, known to do a high volume of Schedule II prescrip­tion business, were visited and their prescription records examined. During the months of April, May, and June 1976 these 13 pharmacies filled ap­proximately 20,600 prescriptions for Schedule H controlled substances. Al­though these represented the prescrip­tions of some 900 practitioners, the re­spondent alone was responsible for 4,663 of them. Judge Young found that although this survey may have been “unscientific,” its results can properly be relied upon to support a finding that the respondent was pre­scribing Schedule II drugs in frequen­cy enormously greater than that of the average Bay Area physician. The actions of other persons, “patients” in the respondent’s office, observed there by one or more of the DIU agents, support a finding that large numbers of people were obtaining prescriptions from the respondent without having demonstrated legitimate medical need. Like the agents, on each of their visits after the first, people were observed arriving at the respondent’s office, talking briefly to the receptionist, and after a short wait, receiving a prescrip­tion from the receptionist, making a payment to her in one form or an­other, and then* leaving the premises without having seen the respondent. All of the evidence, in the opinion of the Aministrator, fully justifies a find­ing that the respondent wrote many thousands of prescriptions for Sched­ule II controlled substances without making any determination that such drugs were needed for a legitimate medical purpose.

The administrative law judge fur­ther found that the respondent chose not to contest charges made against him of obtaining payments unlawfully from the California Medi-Cal program. The respondent is required to pay $240 per month to the State for a period of 3 years, $100 of which sum is a fine and $140 of which is restitution. In addition, the respondent has been required to serve 400 horn’s in some charitable activity.

The respondent is 48 years of age. He is married and has three children. Both he and his wife are naturalized citizens of the United States and are originally from the Philippines. The respondent testified in the hearing of this matter, as did his wife and four

other witnesses called by him. From their testimony it appears that the re­spondent does have some legitimate patients who hold him in high regard as a physician and as a person. At the hearing in these DEA proceedings, the respondent and his attorney limited themselves to matters in mitigation. This consisted principally of showing the unfortunate and unhappy situa­tion in which the respondent and his family now find themselves. In the Ad­ministrative law judge’s view, the re­spondent’s conduct was so outrageous and reckless that he made no effort at all to show that there were extenuat­ing circumstances with respect to the incidents which led to his conviction. The respondent flagrantly violated the laws regulating controlled sub­stances. The Administrator hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclu­sions of law recommended by Judge Young.

In recommending that the Adminis­trator revoke the respondent’s DEA registration, the administrative law judge stated that “the Administrator must be primarily concerned with the maintenance of controls over the regu­lated substances, with taking the action most likely to assure that diver­sion does not again occur at the hands of this respondent. The callous disre­gard shown by the respondent for the law, the welfare of the general public, and the professional resonsibilities of the physician argue rather convincing­ly that the respondent cannot be en­trusted at this point in time with any opportunity to prescribe controlled substances.” The Administrator fully concurs in this analysis.

In view of all of the facts and cir­cumstances in this case, it is the Ad­ministrator’s decision that the respon­dent’s registration be immediately re­voked. However, the Administrator ac­cepts the ac$ninistrative law judge’s recommendation that DEA give con­structive consideration to respondent’s application for registration in about 4 years when the respondent completes the probationary period imposed on him by the U.S. District Court. At that time, provided that he is still licensed to practice medicine, the respondent may have demonstrated that he is again worthy of the trust and respon­sibility originally placed in him when he was licensed to practice medicine and granted a DEA registration.

Accordingly, pursuant to the author­ity vested in the Attorney General by Section 304 of the Controlled Sub­stances Act (21 U.S.C. 824), and redele­gated to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Administrator hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration AS5589203 be, ana it hereby is, re­voked, effective immediately.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36524

Dated: August 9,1978.P e t e r B . B e n s in g e r ,

Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration. [PR Doc. 78-23013 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-09]MANUFACTURE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

Registration

By notice dated June 23, 1978, and published in the Fe d e r a l R e g is t e r on June 29, 1978 (43 FR 28259), Wyeth Labs., Inc., 611 East Nield Street, West Chester, Pa. 19380, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administra­tion to be registered as a bulk manu­facturer of meperidine (9230), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.

No comments or objections having been received, and pursuant to section 303 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and title 21, Code of Federal Regula­tors § 1301.54(e), the Administrator hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for regis­tration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed above is granted.

Dated: August 9,1978.P e t e r B . B e n s in g e r ,

Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration.[FR Doc. 78-23011 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4410-09]MANUFACTURE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

Application

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(1), and § 1301.43(a) of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 21, 1978, Collabo­rative Research, Inc., 1365 Main Street, Waltham, Mass. 02154, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the sched­ule I controlled substance lysergic acid diethylamide (7315).

Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such sub­stance, may file comments or objec­tions to the issuance of the above ap­plication and may also file a written request for a hearing thereon in ac­cordance with 21 CFR 1301.54 and in the form prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.

Any such comments, objections, or requests for a hearing may be ad­dressed to the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, United

NOTICES

States Department of Justice, 1405 I Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Rep­resentative (room 1203), and must be filed no later than September 18, 1978.

Dated: August 9, 1978.P e t e r B . B e n s in g e r ,

Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration. [FR Doc. 78-23010 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[6820-31]MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION

PRIVACY ACT ISSUANCES

Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Marine Mammal Commis­sion.ACTION: Incorporation by reference of Privacy Act issuances.SUMMARY: Federal agencies are re­quired by the Privacy Act of 1974 to give annual notice of certain records they maintain. The notices published last year were compiled by the Office of the Federal Register into “Privacy Act Issuances—1977 Compilation.” The purpose of this document is to in­corporate by reference the notices that appear in “Privacy Act Is­suances—1977 Compilation” and to publish in full the systems that this agency has amended since publication of the 1977 Compilation.DATES: This document fulfills the annual notice requirements of the Pri­vacy Act for 1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Eisenbud, General Counsel,1625 I Street NW., Room 307, Wash­ington, D.C. 20006, 202-653-6237.

Approval of the D irector

The notices of systems of records of this agency which appear in “Privacy Act Issuances—1977 Compilation” are incorporated by reference. The Direc­tor of the Office of the Federal Regis­ter granted approval to incorporate by reference these Privacy Act issuances on July 13,1978.

1977 Compilation Up -To-Date

Information about this agency’s sys­tems of records that appears in “Priva­cy Act Issuances—1977 Compilation” is complete and up-to-date. Since publi­cation of the 1977 compilation, this agency has made no changes to its sys­tems of records.

Availability of 1977 Compilation

“Privacy Act Issuances—1977 Compi­lation” is available from regional de­pository Libraries at 50 locations

around the country and can be exam­ined at these libraries free of charge. The 1977 compilation is also available at the General Services Administra­tion Federal Information Centers, which are located at 38 central points around the country and may be exam­ined at the central headquarters and all field offices of this agency. It is also available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash­ington, D.C. 20402. Upon request, the Office of the Federal Register will fur­nish a photocopy of the full text of a particular records system published in the 1977 compilation for a nominal fee.

L o c a t io n o f N o t ic e s i n 1977 C o m p il a t io n

Notices of this agency’s systems of records appear in volume 1 of the 1977 compilation at 47431-47433 (42 FR 47431, Sept 20, 1977). Thé price of this volume is $6.50.

J o h n R . T w i s s , J r ., Executive Director.

A u g u s t 13, 1978.[FR Doc. 78-23118 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01]NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-313]ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.

Issuance o f A m endm ent to Facility O perating License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission (the Commission) has issued amendment No. 34 to Facility Operat­ing License No. DPR-51, issued to Ar­kansas Power & Light Co. (AP&L) or the licensee), which revised the Tech­nical Specifications for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 (ANO-1 or the facility) located in Pope County, Ark. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.

This amendment modifies the ANO- 1 technical specifications dealing with the organization structure and deletes the requirements of the technical specifications concerning respiratory protection which are now stipulated in 10 CFR 20.103.

The application for the amendment complies with the standards and re­quirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the^Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropri­ate findings as required by the Act and the Commission’s rules and regula­tions in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Prior public notice of-this amendment

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

was not required since the amendment does not involve consideration.

The Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant envi­ronmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR § 51.5(d)(4) an environmen­tal impact statement or negative decla­ration and environmental impact ap­praisal need not be prepared in con­nection with issuance of this amend­ment.

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the licensee’s appli­cation for amendment dated January 20, 1978, (2) amendment No. 34 to li­cense No. DPR-51, and (3) the Com­mission’s related safety evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. and at the Arkansas Polytechnic College, Russellville, Ark. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be ob­tained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Di­rector, Division of Operating Reactors.

Dated at Bethesda, Md, this 7th day of August 1978.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

R obert W. R eid, Chief, Operating Realtors

Branch No. 4, Division of Op­erating Reactors.

[FR Doc. 78-22968 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01][Docket No. 50-368]

ARKANSAS POWER A N D LIGHT CO.

Granting o f R elief From ASME Section XI Inservice Testing Requirements

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission (the Commission) has granted relief from Certain requirements of the ASME Code, Section XI, “Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components” to Arkan­sas Power and Light Co. The relief re­lates to the inservice testing program for the Arkansas Nuclear One—Unit 2 located in Pope County, Ark. The ASME Code requirements are incorpo­rated by reference into Section 4.05.a.l of the facility Technical Specifica­tions. The relief is effective as of its date of issuance.

The relief consists of alternate methods to meet the testing require­ments of section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Code Class 1, 2 and 3 pumps and valves.

The request for relief complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amend­ed (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commis-

NOTICES

sion has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commis­sion’s rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the letter granting relief. Prior public notice of this action was not required since the granting of this relief from ASME Code requirements does not in­volve a significant hazards considera­tion.

The Commission has determined that the granting of this relief will not result in any significant environmen­tal impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declara­tion and environmental impact ap­praisal need not be prepared in con­nection with this action.

For further details with respect to this action, see: (1) licensee’s request for relief dated June 15, 1978, (2) the Commission’s letter to the licensee dated August 8, 1978.

These items are available for public inspection at the Commission’s Public document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. and at the Arkansas Polytechnic College, Russellville, Ark. 72801. A copy of item (2) may be ob­tained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Di­rector, Division of Project Manage­ment.

36525

Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 8th day of August 1978.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

John F. Stolz,Chief, Light Water Reactors

Branch No. 1, Division of Proj­ect Management.

[FR Doc. 78-22967 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01]LICENSES TO EXPORT NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR

MATERIALS

Applications

Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70, “Public Notice of Receipt of an Application”, please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following applications for export licenses during the period of July 24- 28, 1978. A copy of each application is on file in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Public Document Room located at 1717 H Street NW., Wash­ington, D.C.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

Dated this Day August 3, 1978 at Be­thesda, Md.

Gerald G. Oplinger, Assistant Director Export/

Import and International Safeguards Office of Interna­tional Programs.

Name of applicant, date of application, date received, and application number

Material in kilograms or reactor type and

power levelEnrichment End-use

Countryof

destination

General Atomic Co., July 18, 1978, July 24, 1978, XSNM01088, amendment 01.

Westinghouse Electric July 18,1978, July 24,1978, XSNM01349.

Additional 4.5 uranium, 4.2 U 2“.

93.15 Fuel for the Tehran research reactor.

Iran.

25,000 uranium............... 3.25 Reload on No. 4 of the Bugey 2 nuclear power reactor.

France.

Transnuclear, Inc., July 26, 1978, July 26, 1978, XSNM01350.

2.1 plutonium........ „....... Used in scope of fast breeder program of common European program.

WestGermany.

Union Carbide Corp., July 21, 1978, July 27, 1978, XSNM01354.

7.33 uranium................... 93 CERCA for fabrication of fuel elements and return to United States.

France.

Transnuclear, Inc., July 28, 1978, July 28, 1978, XSNM01355.

101 uranium.................... 93.3 Used in NRX, NRU, and Slowpoke reactors and for WNRE Thoria fuel development.

Canada.

[FR Doc. 78-22971 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01]LICENSES TO EXPORT NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR

MATERIALS

Applications

Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70, “Public

Notice of Receipt of an Application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following applications for export licenses during the period of July 31 through August 4. A copy of each ap­plication is on file in the Nuclear Reg-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36526 NOTICES

ulatory Commission’s Public Docu­ment Room located at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Dated this day August 9,1978, at Be- thesda, Md.

Name of applicant, date of Material in kilograms application, date received, or reactor type and and application number power level

Westinghouse Electric Corp., 109,406.17 uranium........July 28, 1978, Aug. 2, 1978,XSNM01357.

Tech. Aid Inc., Aug. 4,1978, 19,000 lbs heavy water....Aug. 4, 1978, XMAT0012.

Westinghouse Electric, Aug. Components for 3,1978, Aug. 4,1978, Philippine NuclearXCOM0013. Power Plant Unit No.

1.

[7590-01]REGULATORY GUIDE

Issuance and A va ila b ility

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a new guide in its regula­tory guide series. This series has been developed to describe and make availa­ble to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of implementing spe­cific parts of the Commission’s regula­tions and, in some cases, to delineate techniques used by the staff in evalu­ating specific problems or postulated accidents and to provide guidance to applicants concerning certain of thé information needed by the staff in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

Regulatory Guide 1.56, Revision 1, “Maintenance of Water Purity in Boil­ing Water Reactors,” describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for minimizing the probability of cor­rosion-induced failure of the reactor coolant pressure boundary in boiling water reactors by maintaining accept­able purity levels in the reactor cool­ant. It further describes instrumenta­tion acceptable to the NRC staff for determining the condition of the reac­tor coolant and coolant purification systems in boiling water reactors.

Comments and suggestions in con­nection with (1) items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or (2) improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Public comments on regulatory guide 1.56, re­vision 1, will, however, be particularly

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

Gerald G. Oplinger, Assistant Director, Export/

Import and International Safeguards, Office of Interna* tional Programs.

CountryEnrichment End-use of

destination

3.30 Reloads for Ringhals Sweden. Nos. 3 and 4.

Will be used in critical Taiwan, assembly project to measure reactor fundamental parameters.

$15,000,000....................... Philippines.

useful in evaluating the need for an early revision if received by October13,1978.

Comments should be sent to the Sec­retary of the Commission, U.S. Nucle­ar Regulatory Commission, Washing­ton, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Regulatory guides are available for inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. Requests for single copies of issued guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future guides in specific divi­sions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissison, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Di­rector, Division of Technical Informa­tion and Document Control. Tele­phone requests cannot be accommo­dated. Regulatory guides are not copy­righted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them.(5 U.S.C. 552(a).)

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 7th day of August 1978.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

R obert B. M inogue, Director, Office of

Standards Development[FR Doc. 78-22974 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01]REGULATORY GUIDES UNDER DEVELOPMENT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commis-

sion, in its continuing effort to provide for increased public participation in the regulatory process, is publishing the titles and scopes of regulatory guides under development as of July 1, 1978, and, where appropriate, the re­lated national standards such as those of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Nuclear Society (ANS), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). At the end of the title of the guide, the Office of Stand­ards Development task number is given. This task number is temporarily used to identify the guide during its development.

The primary purposes of regulatory guides are (1) to describe and make available to the public methods ac­ceptable to the NRC staff of imple­menting specific parts of the Commis­sion’s regulations and in some cases to delineate techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or pos­tulated accidents and (2) to provide guidance to applicants concerning cer­tain of the information needed by the NRC staff in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Regulatory guides are not intended as substitutes for regulations, and therefore compli­ance with these guides is not required. Methods and solutions different from those set forth in the guides will be ac­ceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission.

Although these guides are not yet available, suggestions in connection with the regulatory guides under de­velopment are encouraged and should be sent to the Secretary of the Com­mission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch.

Following is the list of regulatory guides under development as of July 1, 1978, with the scope of the guide and any related national standards. The list is divided into two parts: Existing guides that are being revised and new guides under development. This list will be updated and published periodi­cally.

R egulatory Guides B eing R evised

DIVISION 1, POWER REACTOR GUIDESRevision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.7,

Control of Combustible Gas Concen­trations in Containment Following a Loss-of-Coolant Accident (EM 526-1).

Scope: To provide an acceptable method for meeting NRC require­ments relative to the control of com-

[FR Doc. 78-22972 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36527bustible gas concentrations in contain­ment.

Related Standard: ANSI N275 (draft), Containment Hydrogen Con­trol.

Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8, Personnel Selection and Training (RS 807-5).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for complying with Commission requirements for personnel selection and training at nu­clear power plants.

Related Standard: ANSI/ANS 3.1- 1978, Selection and Training for Nu­clear Power Plant Personnel.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.9, Selection of Diesel Generator Set Ca­pacity for Standby Power Supplies (RS 710-5).

Scope: To describe an acceptable program for selection, design, and qualification of diesel generator units. The revision will (1) expand the scope by endorsing, with appropriate excep­tions, IEEE Std 387-1977, and (2) update the data on diesel generator ca­pacity selection.

Related Standard: IEEE Std 387- 1977, IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel Generator Units Applied as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.12, Instrumentation for Earthquakes (EM 707-5).

Scope: To specify the seismic instru­mentation acceptable to the staff.

Related Standard: ANSI N18.5, Earthquake Instrumentation Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.

Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.13—Spent Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis (FP 701-5).

Scope: To describe acceptable fuel storage and handling systems with adequate safety under normal and pos­tulated accident conditions.

Related Standard: ANS 210-1976, Design Objectives for Light Water Re­actor Spent Fuel Storage Facilities at Nuclear Power Stations.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.25, Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reac­tors (EM 802-4).

Scope: To provide guidance for dose calculation of fuel handling accident.

Related Standard: None.Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.28,

Quality Assurance Program Require­ments (Design and Construction) (RS 707-5).

Scope: To describe overall quality as­surance program requirements.

Related Standard: ANSI N45.2-1977, Quality Assurance Program Require­ments for Nuclear Power Plants.

Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.29, Seismic Design Classification (EM 709-4).

Scope: To describe an acceptable method of identifying and classifying those features of light-water reactor plants that should be designed to withstand the effects of the safe shut­down earthquake.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.50,

Control of Preheat Temperature for Welding of Low-Alloy Steel (SC 712- 4).

Scope: To describe acceptable meth­ods for controlling the preheat tem­perature for the welding of low-alloy steel. The revision will take into ac­count present day fabrication exper­tise and current data from research programs.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.56,

Maintenance of Water Purity in Boil­ing Water Reactors (SC 718-4).

Scope: To provide guidance on the maintenance of purity .levels in boiling water reactors to minimize the prob­ability of corrosion-induced failures.

Related Standard: None.Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.63,

Electric Penetration Assemblies in Containment Structures for Light- Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (RS 612-4).

Scope: To provide improved guidance with respect to maintaining the integ­rity of containment electric penetra­tion assemblies.

Related Standard: IEEE Std 317- 1976, Electric Penetration Assemblies in Containment Structures for Nucle­ar Power Generating Stations.

Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.68, Initial Test Program for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (RS 501-4).

Scope: To describe the general scope and depth of acceptable initial test programs for water-cooled nuclear powerplants.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide

1.68.2, Initial Startup Testing Program for Facility Shutdown From Outside the Control Room (RS 507-4).

Scope: To describe an acceptable ini­tial startup test program for facility shutdown from outside the control room.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.71,

Welder Qualification for Areas of Lim­ited Accessibility (SC 608-4).

Scope: To provide guidance for quali­fying welders to perform in areas of limited accessibility.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.72,

Spray Pond Piping Made From Fiberg­lass-Reinforced Thermosetting Resin (SC 532-5).

Scope: To provide guidance on imple­menting requirements with regard to

design, fabrication, and testing of fi­berglass-reinforced thermosetting resin for spray pond applications asso­ciated with light-water-cooled and gas- cooled reactors.

Related Standard: ASME Code Case.Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.75,

Physical Independence of Electric Sys­tems (RS 489-4).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for insuring physical independence of electric sys­tems in nuclear powerplants.

Related Standard: IEEE Std 384- 1974, Criteria for Separation of Class IE Equipment and Circuits.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.80, Preoperational Testing of Instrument Air Systems. (RS 709-4).

Scope: To describe an acceptable ini­tial startup test program for instru­ment and control air systems. The re­vision will (1) expand guide’s scope to include non-safety-related air systems (as well as safety-related), (2) provide for detailed failure analysis of plant air systems, and (3) provide for preo­perational tests to verify failure analy­sis.

Related Standard: None.Revision 13 to Regulatory Guide

1.84, Code Case Acceptability—ASME Section III Design and Fabrication (SC 811-4).

Scope: To present the NRC staff po­sition on ASME Section III Code Cases related to design and fabrica­tion. The guide, is revised periodically to add cases that have been judged ac­ceptable and to remove code cases withdrawn by ASME.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Revision 13 to Regulatory Guide

1.85, Code Case Acceptability—ASME Section III Materials (SC 812-4).

Scope: To present the NRC staff pos­tion on ASME Section III Code Cases related to materials. The guide is re­vised periodically to add code cases that have been judged acceptable and to remove code cases withdrawn by ASME.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.89,

Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants (RS 042-2).

Scope: To provide guidance on quali­fication of electric equipment for nu­clear powerplants.

Related Standard: IEEE Std 323- 1974, Standard for Qualifying Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Gener­ating Stations.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.98, Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Radioactive Offgas System Fail­ure in a Boiling Water Reactor (EM 027-2).

Scope: To provide guidelines for cal­culating limits of radioactivity release from boiling water reactor offgas sys­tems.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36528

Related Standard: None.Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide

1.101, Emergency Planning for Nucle­ar Power Plants., (SD 803-4).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC. staff for emergency planning for nuclear powerplants.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide

1.104, Overhead Crane Handling Sys­tems for Nuclear Power Plants (SC 512-4).

Scope: To describe functional re­quirements acceptable to the NRC staff for design, fabrication, testing, and operation of overhead crane han­dling systems for nuclear power plants.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide

1.125, Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants (SS 701-4).

Scope: To provide guidance on docu­mentation for physical hydraulic models and on staff participation in disign, operation, and interpretation.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide

1.128, Installation Design and Installa­tion of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants (RS 604-5).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for the installa­tion design and installation of large lead storage batteries for nuclear powerplants.

Related Standard: IEEE Std 484- 1975, Recommended Practice for In­stallation Design and Installation of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Gen­erating Stations and Substations.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide1.130, Design Limits and Loading Com­binations for Class 1 Plate-and-Shell- Type Component Supports (SC 602-4).

Scope: To delineate acceptable design limits, acceptable loading com­binations, and additional supplemen­tary criteria for the design and con­struction of Class 1 shell-and-plate- type component Supports.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide

1.131, Qualification Tests of Electric Cables, Field Splices, and Connections for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (RS 050-2).

Scope: To provide guidance for type tests of electric cables, field splices, and connections installed inside the containment of nuclear powerplants.

Related Standard: ANSI/IEEE Std 383-1974, Type Test of Class IE Elec­tric Cables, Field Splices, and Connec­tions for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide1.133, Loose-Part Detection Program for the Primary System of Light- Water-Cooled Reactors (SC 523-4).

NOTICES

Scope: To describe a program accept­able to the NRC staff for loose-part detection in the primary system of light-water-cooled reactors.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide

1.134, Medical Certification and Moni­toring of Personnel Requiring Opera­tor Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants (RS 616-5).

Scope: To provide criteria to be used by physicians to evaluate the medical qualifications of a nuclear reactor op­erator or applicant.

Related Standard: ANSI N546-1976, Medical Certfication and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Li­censes for Nuclear Power Plants.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide1.135, Normal Water Level and Dis­charge at Nuclear Power Plants (SS 613-4).

Scope: To define criteria and meth­odology for determining ambient ground and surface water level and flow at time of occurrence of extreme design basis events.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide

1.136, Material for Concrete Contain­ments (SC 703-4).

Scope: To describe the NRC staff po­sition on the acceptability for NRC li­censing actions of CC-2000 of the Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments published jointly by the American Society of Mechanical Engi­neers (ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, 1975 edition) and the American Con­crete Institute (ACI Standard 359-74), and its 1975 Winter addenda to the Code; In those areas where the NRC finds provisions of the referenced Code not sufficient for licensing pur­poses, supplementary guidelines are given.

Related Standard: ASME Code and ACI Standard 359-74.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide1.137, Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Diesel Generators (RS 070-4).

Scope: To describe methods for the design and performance of fuel-oil sys­tems for standby diesel generators.

Related Standard: ANSI N195-1976, Fuel Oil Systems for Standby Diesel Generators.

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.140, Design, Testing, and Mainte­nance Criteria for Normal Ventilation Exhaust System Air Filtration and Ad­sorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (FP 601-4).

Scope: To describe criteria accept­able to the NRC staff for design, test­ing, and maintenance of exhaust fil­tration and adsorption units.

Related Standard: None.

DIVISION 3 , FUELS AND MATERIALS FACILITIES GUIDES

Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 3.5, Standard Format and Content of Li­cense Applications for Uranium Mills (FP 703-4).

Scope: To provide specific guidance on the format and content of an appli­cation for an NRC Source Material Li­cense authorizing uranium mill activi­ties. Major changes in the guide are anticipated to be in the areas of plant operation, operating procedures, radi­ation and environmental monitoring, and quality assurance.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 3.8,

Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills (ES 717-4).

Scope: To describe acceptable meth­ods consistent with the goals as set forth by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190) for preparation of environmental reports for uranium mills. The revision will re­flect changes in legislation, regula­tions, staff review procedures, and in­dustry practice.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 3.42,

Emergency Planning for Fuel Cycle Facilities and Plants Licensed Under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 (FP 059-4).

Scope: To describe a method accept­able to the NRC staff for complying with requirements to provide emergen­cy planning for fuel cycle facilities and nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50.and 70.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 4 , ENVIRONMENTAL AND SITING

GUIDES

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.14, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Releases of Radioac­tive. Materials in Liquid and Airborne Effluents from Uranium Mills (ES 403-4).

Scope: To describe programs accept­able to the NRC staff for monitoring effluents from uranium mills.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.15,

Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Oper­ations)—Effluent Streams and the En­vironment (ES 610-4).

Scope: To outline the position of the NRC staff regarding quality assurance for radiological effluent and environ­mental monitoring.

Related Standard: None. *Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.16,

Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Releases of Radioac­tive Materials in Liquid and Airborne Effluents from Nuclear Fuel Process­ing and Fabrication Plants (ES 404-4).

Scope. To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for measuring, evaluating, and reporting radioactivity in releases of radioactive materials in

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36529liquid and airborne effluents from nu­clear fuel processing and fabrication plants.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 5, MATERIALS AND PLANT

PROTECTION GUIDES

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 5.12, General Use of Locks in the Protec­tion and Control of Facilities and Spe­cial Nuclear Materials (MP 803-4).

Scope: To provide criteria acceptable to the NRC staff for selection and use of commercially available locks in pro­tection of facilities and special nuclear materials. The revision will reflect more recent technical information and new regulations requiring more strin­gent physical protection.

Related Standard: None.Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 5.52,

Standard Format and Content for the Physical Protection Section of a Li­cense Application (for Facilities Other Than Nuclear Power Plants) (MP 712- 4).

Scope: To provide guidance on the format and content of the physical protection section of a license applica­tion for facilities other than nuclear power plants. The guide will be revised to include changes resulting from the safeguards upgrade and guard training rules.

Related Standard: NoneRevision 1 to Regulatory Guide 5.54,

Standard Format and Content of Safe­guards Contingency Plans for Nuclear Power Plants (MP 703-4).

Scope: To provide a standard format and content for safeguards contingen­cy plans describing how a licensee or applicant plans to react to security in­cidents at nuclear power reactors.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 5.55,

Standard Format and Content of Safe­guards Contingency Plans for Fuel Cycle Facilities (MP 701-4).

Scope: To provide a standard format and content for safeguards contingen­cy plans describing how a licensee or applicant plans to react to security in­cidents at fuel cycle facilities.

Related Standard: None.Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 5.56,

Standard Format and Content of Safe­guards Contingency Plans for Trans­portation (MP 702-4).

Scope: To provide a standard format and content for safeguards contingen­cy plans describing how a licensee or applicant plans to react to security in­cidents during transportation of radio­active materials.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 7, TRANSPORTATION GUIDES

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 7.8, Load Combinations for the Structural Analysis of Shipping Casks (SC 527-4).

Scope: To establish load combina­tions for the structural analysis of

shipping casks acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the require­ments of Appendices A and B to 10 CFR Part 71.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 10, GENERAL GUIDES

Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 10.5, Guide for the Preparation of Applica­tions for Type A Licenses of Broad Scope for Byproduct Material (OH 603-4).

Scope: To inform applicants of the desired format and information to be submitted when applying for a Type A Byproduct Material License of broad scope.

Related Standard: None.N e w R e g u l a t o r y G u id e s U n d e r

D e v e l o p m e n t

DIVISION 1, POWER REACTOR GUIDES

Single-Failure Criteria for Light- Water Reactor Plant Fluid Systems (EM 622-5).

Scope: To define application of single-failure criteria to light-water re­actor fluid systems.

Related Standard: ANSI N658-1976, Single Failure Criteria for Pressurized Water Reactor Fluid Systems.

Linear and Nonlinear Time-History Methods of Dynamic Analysis (EM 701-4).

Scope: To delineate different meth­ods do doing time-history dynamic analysis^

Related Standard: None.Classification of Plant Events for

Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants (EM 703-5).

Scope: To provide an acceptable method and guidelines for classifica­tion of initiating events in pressurized water reactor and boiling water reac­tor plants for use in identifying design requirements.

Related Standard: ANSI N18.2-1973, Nuclear Safety Criteria for Design of Stationary Pressurized Water Reac­tors (ANS 51.1) and ANSI N212 (issued for trial use), Nuclear Safety Criteria for the Design of Stationary Boiling Water Reactors (ANS 52.1).

Earthquake Instrumentation Data Handling for Nuclear Power Plants (EM 706-5).

Scope. To specify the retrieval and processing of the instrumentation data recorded during an earthquake to de­termine whether the Operating Basis Earthquake has been exceeded.

Related Standard: ANS 2.10, Guide­lines for Retrieval, Review, Processing, and Evaluation of Records Obtained from Seismic Instrumentation.

Pressurized Water Reactor and Boil­ing Water Reactor Containment Spray System Design Criteria (EM 710-5).

Scope: To provide guidelines for the design, performance, testing, mainte­nance, instrumentation, and control

and acceptable methods for analyzing the heat removal and fission product removal effectiveness of light-water reactor containment spray systems.

Related Standard: ANSI N581 (not yet issued), Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor Contain­ment Spray Design Criteria.

Nuclear Analysis and Design of Con­crete Radiation Shielding for Nuclear Power Plants (EM 805-5).

Scope: To provide guidance on ac­ceptable methods for use in the design and analysis of concrete radiation shielding in nuclear power plants.

Related Standard: ANSI N403-1977, Guidelines on the Nuclear Analysis and Design of Concrete Radiation Shielding for Nuclear Power Plants.

Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Systems, Struc­tures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (FP 615-4).

Scope: To provide guidance on radio­active waste management systems, structures, and components at light- water reactor power plants.

Related Standard: None.Criteria for Safety-Related Perma­

nent Dewatering Systems (FP 811-4).Scope: To define acceptable geotech­

nical and hydrologic engineering design bases and criteria for perma­nent dewatering systems that are de­pended on to serve safety-related pur­poses, including consideration for fa­cility decommissioning.

Related Standard: None.Auditing of Quality Assurance Pro­

grams for Nuclear Power Plants (RS 035-2).

Scope: To provide guidance on audit­ing Quality Assurance programs for nuclear power plants.

Related Standard: ANSI N45.2.12- 1972, Requirements for Auditing of Quality Assurance Programs for Nu­clear Power Plants.

Criteria for Electric Instrumentation and Control System Portions of Pro­tection Systems, Protective Action Systems, and Auxiliary Supporting Features (RS 609-5).

Scope: To provide guidance in the design of electic instrumentation and control system portions of protection systems, protective action systems, and auxiliary supporting features.

Related Standard: IEEE Std 603- 1977, Criteria for Sasfety Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

Criteria for Lightning Protection for Nuclear Power Plants (RS 705-4).

Scope: To provide acceptable criteria for the design of lightning protection for nuclear power plants.

Related Standard: None.Application of Torque Switches in

Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valves (RS 801-4).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for correct ap-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 4 3 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36530

plication of torque switches in safety- related motor-operated valves to ensure compatibility of the valve as­sembly with the system’s operating conditions.

Related Standard: None.Qualification Test for Cable Pene­

tration Fire Stops for Use in Nuclear Power Plants (RS 809-5).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for establishing type tests for qualifying the perform­ance of cable penetration fire stops when mounted in rated fire barriers.

Related Standard: IEEE Std 634- 1978, Standard Penetration Fire Stop Qualification Test.

Meteorological Extreme Air Tem­peratures for the Design and Oper­ation of Nuclear Power Plants (SS 603-9).

Scope: To provide guidance to appli­cants concerning extreme ambient air temperatures and associated return in­tervals to be considered in the design temperatures of structures, compo­nents, and systems.

Related Standard: None.Extreme Wind Speeds in Coastal

Areas for the Design and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants (SS 604-9).

Scope: To provide guidance to appli­cants concerning speeds and associated recurrence intervals in coastal areas to be considered in the design wind speed specified for safety-related nuclear power plant structures, components, and systems.

Related Standard: None.Procedures and Criteria for Assess­

ing Soil Liquefaction Potential at Nu­clear Facility Sites (SS 718-4).

Scope: To provide criteria for identi­fying sites requiring detailed investiga­tion; to describe procedures and limita­tions and laboratory and field investi­gations; and to discuss analytical and empirical studies, margins of safety, and important issues.

Related Standard: None.Foundation and Earthwork Con­

struction for Nuclear Power Plants (SS 719-4).

Scope: To identify foundation and earthwork construction activities im­portant to safety and to describe pre­ferred practices, acceptable perform­ance criteria, control measures, and quality assurance requirements.

Related Standard: None.Snow and Ice Accumulations for the

Design and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants (SS723-4).

Scope: To provide guidance to appli­cants concerning snow and ice accumu­lation and associated recurrence inter­vals to be considered in the design basis specified for safety-related nucle­ar power plant structures, systems, and components.

Related Standard: None.Atmospheric Dispersion Models for

Potential Accident Consequence As-

NOTICES

sessments at Nuclear Power Plants (SS 724-4).

Scope: To provide guidance to appli­cants concerning procedures for deter­mining atmospheric dispersion condi­tions used in assessing consequences of potential reactor accidents made to de­termine the exclusion area, low popu­lation zone, and population center dis­tance as required by 10 CFR Part 100.

Related Standard: None.Functional Specification for Safety-

Related Valve Assemblies in Nuclear Power Plants (SC 704-5).

Scope: To provide functional specifi­cations for safety-related valve assem­blies in nuclear power plants.

Related Standard: ANSI N278. 1- 1975, Self-Operated and Power-Oper­ated Safety-Related Valves Functional Specification Standards.

Supplementary Procedures and In­formation Retrieval for Inservice Ex­amination Using Ultrasonic Testing for Flaw Characterization and to Mon­itor Flaw Growth in Reactor Vessel Welds (SC 705-4).

Scope: To provide recommendations and supplement the present ASME code procedure and information re­quirements so that greater consistency may be obtained between ultrasonic examination of flaws.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Requirements for Qualification

Tests and Production Tests for Piping and Equipment Snubbers (SC 708-4).

Scope: To provide guidance on the requirements for the qualification and production tests of piping and equip­ment snubbers with normal-condition load ratings not greater than 100,000 pounds.

Related Standard: None.Code Case Acceptability—ASME

Section XI, Inservice Inspection (SC 721-4).

Scope: To present the NRC staff po­sition on ASME Section XI Code Cases. The guide will be revised and updated to include the changing status of Section XI Code Cases.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Ultrasonic Testing of ASME Class 1

and 2 Austenitic Piping Systems (SC 802-4).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for the ultrason­ic testing of ASME Class 1 and 2 aus­tenitic piping systems.

Related Standard: None.Determining Prestressing Forces for

Inspection of Prestressed Concrete Containment Structures (SC 807-4).

Scope: To describe methods of deter­mining the prestressing forces for in­spection purposes.

Related Standard: None.Methods of Analysis and Design of

Reinforced Concrete Containment Structures (SC 808-4).

Scope: To provide information re­garding acceptable methods of analy­

sis and design of reinforced concrete containments, based primarily on Arti­cle CC-3000 of ASME Section III, Di­vision 2, Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments. In areas where the NRC finds provisions of the Code improper or insufficient for li­censing purposes, the staff will provide supplementary guidelines.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Construction and Testing of Con­

crete Containments (Articles CC-4000- 7000 of ASME Section III, Division 2, Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments) (SC 814-5).

Scope: To give the NRC staff’s posi­tion on the acceptability for NRC li­censing actions of Articles CC-4000- 7000 of ASME Section III, Division 2.

Related Standard: ASME Code.Geologic Mapping of Excavations

for Nuclear Power Plants (SS 805-4).Scope: To identify geologic condi­

tions and special or adverse founda­tion conditions that should be mapped in excavations to describe acceptable techniques for mapping and photo­graphing excavations. To describe ac­ceptable methods for presenting geo­logic maps and data to the NRC staff.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 2, RESEARCH AND TEST REACTOR

GUIDES

Emergency Planning for Research Reactor (SD 607-4).

Scope: To describe methods accept­able to the NRC staff for complying with requirements to develop emer­gency plans for research reactors.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 3, FUELS AND MATERIALS

FACILITIES GUIDES

Dose Models for Uranium Mills and UF« facilities (ES 802-4).

Scope: To prepare and publish stand­ard models for assessing doses from routine radioactive effluents from ura­nium mills and UF» facilities.

Related Standard: None.Nuclear Criticality Safety in the

Storage of Fissile Materials (FP 709- 5).

Scope: To provide guidance on nucle­ar eviticality safety in the storage of fissile materials.

Related Standard,: ANSI N16.5-1975, Guide for Nuclear Criticality Safety in the Storage of Fissile Materials.

¿Standard Format and Content of Li­cense Applications for UOa Fuel Fabri­cation Facilities (FP 716-4).

Scope: To provide specific guidance on the format and content of a license application for uranium in a fuel fabri­cation facility. Regulatory Guide 3.39, Standard Format and Content of Li­cense Applications for Plutonium Pro­cessing and Fuel Fabrication Plants, will be used as a starting document and will be revised to reflect applica­ble public comments and any differ-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36531

ences in requirements between license applications for mixed oxide facilities and those for UOa facilities.

Related Standard: None.Standard Format and Content of Li­

cense Applications for Class A (High- Level) Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal in a Deep Geologic Reposi­tory (FP 805-4).

Scope: To provide guidance concern­ing the format and content of applica­tions to license receipt, possession, storage, and disposal of Class A waste in deep geologic repositories.

Related Standard: None.Maintenance and Operation of Ura­

nium Mill Tailing Retention Systems (SC 722-4).

Scope: To provide guidlines for de­veloping operating procedures for ura­nium mill tailing retention systems.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 4 , ENVIRONMENTAL AND SITING

GUIDES

Preparation of Environmental Re­ports for High-Level Waste Repositor­ies (ES 724-4).

Scope: To provide a standard format and content for environmental reports to be submitted with license applica­tions for high-level waste repositories.

Related Standard: None.Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear

Fuel Cycle Facilities (SD 726-4).Scope: To provide guidance on suit- .

ability of sites for fuel cycle facilities.Related Standard: None. Geochrono-

logic Techniques Applied to Nuclear Power Plant Siting (SS 702-4).

Scope: To provide guidance to appli­cants and consultants on the use of geochronologic techniques in deter­mining the “absolute” age of geologic materials and dating fault movement.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 5, MATERIALS AND PLANT

PROTECTION GUIDES

Considerations for Establishing Tra­ceability of Special Nuclear Material Accounting Measurement Data (MP 801-4).

Scope: To provide guidance on tra­ceability with reference to calibration of material accounting measurement systems, propagation or error, deter­mination of bias, and preparation of working reference materials and their use by licensees.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 6, PRODUCT GUIDES

Identification Plaque for Irretriev­able Well Logging Sources (TP 702-4).

Scope: To define required specifica­tions for a permanent identification plaque for a well containing an irre­trievable, well-logging source.

Related Standard: None.

DIVISION 7, TRANSPORTATION GUIDES

Standard Format and Content for Applications for Approval of Packag­ing of Type B, Large Quantity, and Fissile Radioactive Material (TP 502- 4).

Scope: To provide the format and de­tails to be included in applications for approval of package design.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 8, OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

GUIDES

Health Physics Surveys at Medical Institutions (OH 708-4).

Scope: To describe the types and fre­quencies of health physics measure­ments to be made in medical institu­tions.

Related Standard: None.Health Physics Surveys at Uranium

Fuel Fabrication Plants (OH 709-4).Scope: To provide guidance regard­

ing health physics surveys that should be performed in uranium fuel fabrica­tion plants.

Related Standard: None.Bioassay at Uranium Mills (OH 710-

4).Scope: To provide guidance regard­

ing health physics surveys that should be performed in uranium mills.

Related Standard: None.Bioassay for Tritium (OH 713-4).Scope: To provide criteria for a tri­

tium bioassay program.Related Standard: None.Radiation Protection Training at

Nuclear Power Plants (OH 717-4).Scope: To describe the elements of a

training program, including content, frequency, and approach, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 19, §19.12, and 10 CFR Part 20, § 20.1(c)

Related Standard: None.Radiation Protection Training at

Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plants (OH 718-4).

Scope: To provide guidance regard­ing the content and frequency of radi­ation protection training.at uranium fuel fabrication plants.

Related Standard: None.' Radiation Safety Officer Qualifica­tions for Large-Scale Programs (OH 722-4).

Scope: To provide guidance on edu­cational and experience qualifications for radiation safety officers at materi­als license facilities.

Related Standard: None.DIVISION 10, GENERAL GUIDES

Preparation of Applications for the Use of Gamma Irradiators (OH 706-4).

Scope: To provide guidance to appli­cants on practices acceptable to the NRC staff for the design, installation, and operation of gamma irradiators.

Related Standard: None.

Preparation of License Applications for Medical Uses of Byproduct Materi­als (OH 723-4).

Scope: To provide information and guidance on submitting license appli­cations for medical uses of byproduct materials.

Related Standard: None.Preparation of Applications for Ra­

diography (TP 602-4).Scope: To provide guidance for li­

censing radiography programs.Related Standard: None.Preparation of Applications for Te­

letherapy (TP 608-4).Scope: To provide a format for prep­

aration of applications for telether­apy.

Related Standard: None.(5 UJS.C. 552(a))

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 8th day of August 1978.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

R o b e r t B. M in o g u e , Director, Office of

Standards Development[FR Doc. 78-22973 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01][Docket No. 50-312]

SACRAMENTO M UNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

Issuance o f Am endm ent to Facility O perating * License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission (the Commission) has issued amendment No. 21 to facility operat­ing license No. DPR-54 issued to Sac­ramento Municipal Utility District, which revised technical specifications for operation of the Rancho Seco Nu­clear Generating Station, located in Sacramento County, Calif.' The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.

The amendment to the technical specifications changes the sampling and monitoring requirements for gas­eous radioactive effluents by specify­ing the present environmental release points, imposing such requirements on an exhaust fan release point, and de­leting the sampling requirements for the condenser air ejector which does not release to the environment.

The application for the amendment complies with the standards and re­quirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropri­ate findings as required by the act and the Commission’s rules and regula­tions in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36532 NOTICES

The Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant envi­ronmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR § 51.5(d)(4) an environmen­tal impact statement, or negative dec­laration and environmental impact ap­praisal need not be prepared in con­nection with issuance of this amend­ment.

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated April 12, 1978, (2) amendment No. 21 to license No. DPR-54, and (3) the Commission’s re­lated safety evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspec­tion at the Commission’s public docu­ment room, 1717 H Street NW., Wash­ington, D.C., and at the Business and Municipal Department, Sacramento City-County Library, 828 I Street, Sac­ramento, Calif. A copy of items (2) and(3) may be obtained upon request ad­dressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regula­tory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactors.

Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 7th day of August 1978.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

R obert W. R eid, Chief, Operating Reactors

Branch No. 4, Division of Op­erating Reactors.

[FR Doc. 78-22970 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01]SAFEGUARDS AT NONPOW ER REACTORS

M eeting

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.ACTION: Meeting to discuss safe­guards requirements for nonpower re­actors.

In response to requests from licens­ees of nonpower reactors the Commis­sion is sponsoring a discussion on the subject of safeguards requirements for nonpower reactors. The meeting will be held on September 8, 1978 in the Chrysler Center on the North Campus of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., and will begin at 8:30 a.m.

The topics to be discussed will relate to: (1) the current requirements for safeguards of nonpower reactors as de­fined in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations; (2) the status of proposed rule changes in 10 CFR part 11 (42 FR 14880), 10 CFR part 73 (42 FR 3410, 42 FR 3421, 43 FR 22216), 10 CFR part 75 (43 FR 22365); and (3) Commission consideration of safeguard require­ments specifically for nonpower reac­tors.

Requests for additional information should be directed to Ms. Donna Zeeb, University of Michigan, 2301 Bonisteel Boulevard, North Campus, Ann Arbor, Mich., 48109, 313-764-6223.

Dated at Washington, D.C. this 10th day of August 1978, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Walter F. Pasedag, Acting Assistant Director for Re­

actor Safeguards, Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 78-22965 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01]

[Docket No. 50-206]SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. A N D

SAN DIEGO GAS A N D ELECTRIC CO.

Issuance o f A m endm ent to Provisional O perating License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission (the Commission) has issued amendment No. 35 to provisional oper­ating license No. DPR-13, issued to Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas and Electric Co. (the li­censee), which revised the technical specifications for operation of the San Onofre nuclear generating station, unit No. 1 (SO-1), (the facility) located in San Diego County, Calif. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.

The amendment reduces the value of the core peaking fact or (Fa) for de­termining the allowable incore axial offset limits as specified in §3.11.A of the technical specifications from 3.23 to 2.95. The amendment also changes the basis of specification 3.5.2 to re­flect the reduced value of Fa arid "the corresponding lower design maximum value of specific power of 13.97 kw/ft.

The application for amendment complies with the standards and re­quirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropri­ate findings as required by the act and the Commission’s rules and regula­tions in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

The Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant envi­ronmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declara­tion and environmental impact ap­praisal need not be prepared in con­nection with issuance of this amend­ment.

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated June 14, 1978, (2) amendment No. 35 to license No. DPR-13, and (3) the Commission’s re­lated safety evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspec­tion at the Commission’s Public Docu­ment Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C., and at the Mission Viejo Branch Library, 24851 Chrisanta Drive, Mission Viejo, Calif. 92676. A single copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis­sion, Washington, D.C. 20555, Atten­tion: Director, Division of Operating Reactors.

Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 4th day of August 1978.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Com­mission.

D ennis L. Ziemann, Chief, Operating Reactors

Branch No. 2, Division of Op­erating Reactors.

[FR Doc. 78-22969 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7590-01]

[Construction Permit Nos: CPPR 139, and 140]

U N IO N ELECTRIC CO., CALLAW AY PLANT, UNITS 1 A N D 2

A rgum ent on Issues Relating to Show CauseO rder o f A pril 3 , 1978 (a Revision o f Start­ing Time Re O ra l A rgum ent on August 23,1978)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, John F. Wolf, Chairman, Hugh K. Clark, Joseph F. Tubridy, in the matter of Union Electric Co., (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2).

In the original notice dated August 1, 1978, in the above captioned matter, the oral argument by counsel for the parties to this show cause proceeding was to begin at 10 a.m. e.d.t.

That time is now revised to 2 p.m. e.d.t., and as stated in the original notice of August 1, 1978, this proceed­ing will be heard in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Hearing room, Fifth floor, East-West Towers Building, 4350 East-West Highway, Be­thesda, Md., on Wednesday, August 23, 1978.

Issued at Bethesda, Md., this 10th day of August 1978.

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

J ohn F. Wolf, Chairman.

[FR Doc. 78-22966 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36533f

[4910-58]NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

[N-AR 78-33]ACCIDENT REPORTS; SAFETY

RECOMMENDATIONS A N D RESPONSES

M a r in e A c c id e n t R e po r t

The National Transportation Safety Board has released its report on the investigation into the grounding of the Greek tankship M/V DAUNTLESS COLOCOTRONIS in the Mississippi River about 4 miles below New Or­leans, La. The grounding occurred on July 22, 1977, when the ship struck a sunken barge.

The investigation report, No. NTSB- MAR-78-5, indicates that the bottom plating of the COLOCOTRONIS was fractured, permitting cargo oil from the tanker’s No. 5 center tank to enter its pumproom. Within minutes, cargo oil penetrated into the tanker’s engin- eroom and ignited. The fire spread from the engineroom to the accommo­dation spaces through a door which had been tied open. All 35 persons on­board escaped from the vessel; two persons were slightly injured. Fire damage in the accommodation spaces, water damage in the engineroom, and bottom structural damage was esti­mated to be $6 million.

Probable cause of the accident, as determined by the Safety Board, was the fracturing of the bottom plating of the COLOCOTRONIS as it dragged over a sunken barge, which had been declared a hazard to navigation but which had not been marked by the barge owner or the U.S. Coast Guard and had not been removed by the barge owner or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contributing to the se­verity of the accident was the failure of the crew to isolate the fire and their ineffective efforts to extinguish the fire initially in the engineroom. Contributing to the intensity of the fire was the flow of oil through an im­properly installed shaft through a wa­tertight bulkhead.

As a result of investigation into this accident, the Safety Board on July 24 issued eight recommendations, Nos. M-78-45 through 52, to the Coast Guard and three recommendations, Nos. M-78-53 through 55, to the Army Corps of Engineers, (see 43 FR 34221, August 3, 1978.) Among objectives of these recommendations are: Improved standards for defining a navigation hazard in the Mississippi; an annual summary of Mississippi wrecks which continue to be hazards to mariners; greater clarity in stating water depts over submerged wrecks; improved fire­fighting training for tanker crews, better foreign crew compliance with international fire drill requirements,

and enhanced fireproofing of foreign- flag tankers; and international agree­ment on an exterior display on all large ships which would show emer­gency personnel the ship’s interior layout.

P ip e l in e A c c id e n t R e p o r t s , B r ie f F o r m a t

The Safety Board has recently made available summary reports on 17 pipe­line accidents, ranging from an explo­sion at a gas processing plant to an ac­cident involving a gas meter and an automobile. The volume, entitled ‘‘Pipeline Accident Reports, Brief Format, Issue Number 1—1977” (NTSB-PAB-78-1), contains selected pipeline accidents which occurred during calendar years 1975, 1976, and 1977.

Note.—The brief reports of accidents in this publication contain essential informa­tion; more detailed data may be obtained from the original factual reports on file in the Washington office of the Safety Board. Upon request, factual reports will be repro­duced commercially at an average cost of 25 cents per page for printed matter, $1.50 per- page for black-and-white photographs, $4 per page for color photographs, plus post­age. Minimum reproduction charge is $1; an additional $4 user-service charge will be made for each order. The requester is asked to provide the name of carrier and the date and place of the accident. Requests should be directed to the Public Inquiries Section, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C. 20594.

Copies of this report may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151.

A v ia t io n S a f e t y R e c o m m e n d a t io n s

A-78-51 and 52.—'These recommen­dations, regarding runway configura­tions which contain displaced thresh­olds, were developed following Safety Board investigation of the accident in­volving Continental Air Lines, Inc., Flight 63 which, on June 3, 1977, struck powerlines and utility poles after takeoff from runway 21 at the Tuscson (Ariz.) International Airport. Although the aircraft was damaged substantially, it returned to the air­port and landed safely; there were no injuries. Investigation of the accident disclosed that the flightcrew failed to use the 500-foot displaced threshold area which was available for the ta­keoff.

The Safety Board is concerned that under .certain conditions, such as re­duced visibility, darkness, atypical taxiway-runway configurations, or pilot oversight, flightcrews may not realize that takeoff surfaces beyond a displaced threshold are available for takeoff and may be critical to a suc­cessful takeoff. The Board believes that uncommon taxiway-runway design, where the displaced threshold symbols do not immediately adjoin the

runway entrance and aircraft must be backtracked to the start of the takeoff area or where threshold lights desig­nate the beginning of the landing sur­face and the aircraft must be taxied past the threshold lights to the dis­placed threshold area, can lead to flightcrew unawareness of available runway lengths and result in unneces­sary hazardous situations.

The Board recognizes that airport diagrams, which are contained in read­ily available approach chart manuals, illustrate displaced threshold symbols. However, there may be instances when there is no need for flightcrews to con­sult the airport diagram before ta­keoff; therefore, the Board believes that other informational means should be provided to alert flightcrews that a displaced threshold is part of the runway plan. Accordingly, on August 8, the Safety Board recom­mended that the Federal Aviation Ad­ministration—

Require that all takeoff analysis data pages of operating gross weights in air carri­er manuals be footnoted to identify those runways which contain a displaced thresh­old. (A-78-51)

Require that all operators of certificated airports where runway designs feature a dis­placed threshold and taxiways enter the runway at points other than the runway’s end install an easily visible intersection sign which displays a displaced threshold nota­tion. (A-78-52)

A-78- 53 through 55.—A Columbia Pacific Airlines Beechcraft Model 99 attained an excessively steep climb im­mediately after takeoff last February 10 from Richland Airport, Washing­ton. The aircraft stalled and crashed, killing its 15 passengers and two crew­members. Examination of airplane components disclosed several faults within the airplane’s horizontal stabi­lizer trim system which cannot be re­lated to impact damage and are thus believed to have existed before the crash—a result of inadequate mainte­nance.

The Safety Board notes that the trim position indicator and trim-in- motion and out-of-trim warning sys­tems are minimum equipment list items. Only one of these items can be inoperative if the airplane is to be used to carry passengers. If the out-of- trim warning system is inoperative, pilots must visually check the stabiliz­er position before flight. Since the check must be done from outside the airplane and may not be part of a pilot’s normal routine, it may be inad­vertently omitted. These conditions could result in a crew’s initiating a ta­keoff with full noseup trim and be­coming unable to reduce control forces while using the trim system. Recent flight tests have shown that the air­plane performance and corrective con­trol forces which would be encoun­tered after takeoff with a full air-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36534 NOTICES

plane-noseup trim could result in a stall at low altitude from which the crew could not recover.

Since examination of two other Beechcraft 99 airplanes operated by the same company disclosed similar discrepancies in their horizontal stabi­lizer trim indicating and warning sys­tems, the Board concludes that timely action is needed to insure that other Beechcraft Model 99 aircraft do not have discrepancies which can induce a crew to take off in an out-of-trim con­dition. Accordingly, on August 11 the Safety Board recommended that thè Federal Aviation Administration—

Issue an Airworthiness Directive applica­ble to all Beech 99, 99A, A99, A99A, and B99 model aircraft to require an immediate one­time inspection of the horizontal stabilizer trim system to ascertain that all compo­nents of the system and its associated posi­tion-indicating and -warning circuits are operational within specified tolerances. (A- 78-53)

Require an inspection to insure that the primary and secondary mode of the horizontal stabilizer actuator are capable of deflecting the stabilizer under specified airloads. The exact instructions should be furnished by the Beech Aircraft Co. Inspection should be made as soon as the Beech instructions are available and repeated ajt 2,000-hour intervals. (A-78-54)

Change the minimum equipment list to make the out-of-trim warning system a mandatory requirement for flight. (A-78-55)

M a r in e S a f e t y R e c o m m e n d a t io n s

M-78- 56 through 61.—On December 17, 1976, the tankship SS Sansinena was pumping seawater ballast into its cargo tanks, preparing to depart Union Oil Co. Terminal Berth 46, Los Angeles Harbor, Calif. About 1938 P.s.t., a fire and explosion occurred; the main deck and midshiphouse were blown away from the ship and landed on the terminal property ashore, and the bow and stem sections of the ship sank at its berth. The ship was de­stroyed. Eight crewmembers were killed, and a security guard was listed as missing and presumed dead. The total losses resulting from this explo­sion, estimated to be $21.6 million, in­cluded damages to some 260 other ves­sels, mostly pleasure craft, and dam­ages to residents and commercial structures ashore, some of which were more than 3 miles from Berth 46. Berth 46 could not be used for more than 16 months.

Investigation showed that the chief mate started ballasting nine of the Sansinena’s cargo tanks about 2 hours before the explosion. While ballasting, the wind’s direction shifted so that it was coming from the ship’s stem and the wind speed decreased. The chief mate estimated the wind speed to have decreased to about 2 to 3 knots at the

time his watch ended, but apparently he was not aware that that wind speed was to low for vapor-emitting oper­ations according to the International Oil Terminal and Tanker Safety Guide, which was placed aboard the Sansinena for guidance in tankship safety practices. According to the mas­ter’s testimony, the ship may have taken on considerably more ballast than necessary to get underway.

The Board notes that safe design and operating practices for handling flammable cargo carried by tankships are to prevent flammable gases from occurring near the main deck and su­perstructures—the most likely places for gases to be ignited. Potential sources of ignition include sparks from dropping tools, static discharge be­tween ship and shore piping connec­tions, the hot exposed filament of a broken light bulb, and smoking by careless persons on the main deck. Al­though the specific ignition source was not determined in this case, there were numerous potential sources with which flammable gases near the main deck could have come in contact and resulted in a fire on deck.

As a result of the investigation of this accident, the Safety Board on August 4 recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard—

Establish minimum criteria for vapor- emitting operations on tank vessels carrying flammable cargoes in U.S. ports to include monitoring of vapor concentrations on deck and in enclosed spaces located above the cargo tanks, and stopping vapor-emitting operations when vapor concentrations exceed safe limits and under certain low wind velocity conditions. (M-78-56)

Require operators of tank vessels carrying flammable cargoes in U.S. ports to develop guidelines for the amount of ballast needed in cargo tanks for the expected range of op­erating conditions to minimize in-port bal­lasting of cargo tanks, and establish other ballasting requirements which may be im­posed when high velocity venting is in­stalled. (M-78-57)

Establish requirements for cargo tank vent systems on tank vessels carrying flam­mable cargoes in U.S. ports, including inde­pendent venting of each cargo tank; loca­tion, size, and height of vent outlets, with consideration of ship structures; means of protecting vent systems from flame entry, including proper fit and attachment of flame-quenching devices; and vent system configurations that provide ease of inspec­tion and maintenance. (M-78-58)

Require operators of tankships carrying flammable cargoes in U.S. ports to develop training plans for the instruction of persons responsible for cargo handling and vapor- emitting operations, to make these training plans available for Coast Guard review, and to train responsible persons in accordance with the plans, and appropriately document the training. (M-78-59)

Require the installation and use of closed cargo level gaging systems on tank vessels carrying flammable cargoes in U.S. ports. (M-78-60)

Test flame-quenching devices under condi­tions of vapor concentrations, constituen­

cies, and size of flammable regions that might occur on the main deck of a tank vessel, to determine the adequency of such devices. (M-78-H1)

R e s p o n s e s to S a f e t y R e c o m m e n d a t io n s

AviationA-76-51 through 55.—The Federal

Aviation Administration on July 20 ad­vised the Safety Board as to the status of FAA actions taken on recommenda­tions concerning the design of the ca­pacitance discharge strobe light system used on a Piper Aztec PA-23- 250 and other general aviation air­craft. The Board found that high energy potentials exist in this system which generate peak electrical cur­rents of 300 amperes and temperatures of 635° F.

In response to A-76-51, which asked FAA to conduct a special study into the ignition/explosion mechanism in­volved with strobe lamp systems to find and to correct any fault(s) which may exist in current designs, and in re­sponse to A-76-52, recommending issu­ance of a technical standard order on strobe light systems as soon as possi­ble, FAA reports that the SAE Com­mittee A-20 has issued document AS 8017, “minimum performance stand­ard for anticollision light systems.” FAA expects to establish a regulatory project for the development of such an order by December.

Recommendation A-76-53 asked FAA to review the design of fuel tank conduit and strobe-lamp assembly combinations to insure that they are vented properly, that vapors are isolat­ed, and that they are not susceptible to electrical or mechanical damage during refueling. FAA reports that its review of the fuel tank conduit and vent line damage did not reveal any cases of damage which could cause a fault in the system. FAA says that Gates Lear jet issued service bulletins and drawings of the wing tip tank and components to illustrate how the con­duit can be abused with a refueling nozzle, the maintenance manual now requires inspections in this area and a caution with respect to refueling pro­cedures. FAA plans no further action at this time.

In answer to A-76-54, which asked FAA to alert general aviation indus­tries and aircraft operators to the po­tential danger in the high levels of energy within the strobe light system, FAA reports that Advisory Circular AC 90-75, “strobe light system inspec­tion practices,” issued February 10, 1977, describes the hazards which can be generated by malfunctioning strobe lights and recommends procedures for inspection and servicing.

Recommendation A-76-55 asked for a review of current airworthiness dir­ectives on strobe light systems to

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36535insure that they are adequate. PAA notes that AD 77-02-04 was issued February 15, 1977, and includes the earlier model Beech airplanes noted in FAA letter of July 8, 1976.

Copies of document AS 8017, AC 90- 75, and AD 77-02-04 are attached to FAA’s response.

A- 77-69.—FAA letter of July 19 con­cerns the recommendation issued fol­lowing investigation of the crash of a Cessna 421A in mountainous terrain near Nogales, Ariz., on January 22, 1977. The recommendation asked FAA to revise the airman’s information manual (AIM) and to issue or revise other official guidance materials to clarify pilots’ and controllers’ respon- sibilites in implementing an instru­ment flight rules (IFR) departure from an airport which has a published IFR departure procedure.

FAA reports these actions taken since the accident occurred:

A general notice (GENOT) was sent FAA field activities to reemphasize procedures in FAA handbook 7110.10D for processing pilot requests for route elements, fixes, etc., that are not computer adapted (action to preclude repeat of the initial contributing factor in the accident).

An article on controller actions in regard to instrument departure procedures was published in the March 1977 issue of the Air Traffic Service (ATS) Bulletin.

A paragraph titled "Instrument Depar­ture” was published in the July 1978 AIM, part 1, under “Pilot/Controller Responsibil­ities.”

A proposed revision of FAA handbook 7110.65A, paragraph 350, is being drafted and will be sent to FAA regions, aviation groups and others, including the Safety Board, for comment. The revision will be constructed to improve clarity and ease of understanding of departure clearance proce­dures. Final disposition of the proposal will be sent to those who comment on it.

Marine■M-74-3 and M-74-9.—Letter of July

18 from the U.S. Coast Guard provides an update on recommendations issued following investigations, respectively, of the Tug CAROLYN and WEEKS Barge No. 254 collision with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge on September 21, 1972 and the foundering of the M/ V MARYLAND in Albemarle Sound, N.C., on December 18, 1971.

Recommendation M-74-3 asked Coast Guard to publish and make available to towboat operators guide­lines for safe operating procedures for towing operations, including methods of preplanning a voyage, the proper use of towing hawsers, and actions to be taken in various emergency situa­tions. M-74-9 recommended that Coast Guard structure the results of its towing vessel stability study into operating information which could be used as a guide by the operators of towing vessels. Coast Guard reports that the American Waterways Opera­

tors, Inc., Safety Committee is now re­viewing the draft publication, “A Guide to Safety in Towing,” the review anticipated to be completed by January 1979. Further response to these recommendations will be made after Coast Guard reviews any recom­mended changes and prior to April 1, 1979.

M-76-2 and M- 76-5.—Another letter dated July 18 from Coast Guard con­cerns recommendations issued follow­ing investigation of the collision and fire involving the SS C. V. SEA WITCH and SS ESSO BRUSSELS (Belgium) on June 2, 1973, in New York Harbor.

Recommendation M-76-2 asked Coast Guard to establish a require­ment for oceangoing vessels in desig­nated restricted waters such as New York Harbor to have the emergency steering station manned; this also should apply to foreign vessels. In re­sponse, Coast Guard states that, based on the President’s message of March 17, 1977, to Congress concerning meas­ures for reducing pollution caused by tanker accidents, Coast Guard pro­posed regulations (CGD 76-065, F e d e r ­a l R e g is t e r , May 17, 1977) to improve steering standards for oil tankers. These proposals included require­ments for rapid recovery of rudder control by means of improved steering gear control systems or by means of manning steering gear spaces.

The United States submitted these proposed regulations to the Inter-Gov­ernmental Maritime Consultative Or­ganization (IMCO) for consideration. As a result, several proposed modifica­tions to SOLAS 1974 were agreed upon at the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Preven­tion, 1978 (IMCO Document TSPP/ CONF/D/9 dated February 14, 1978). Coast Guard states that the major proposal concerning steering for tank­ers of 10,000 gross tonnage and upward would require two remote steering gear control systems separate­ly operable from the navigating bridge. This obviated the need for re­quirements pertaining to manning of steering gear spaces to facilitate rapid recovery of rudder control; therefore, manning of the steering gear room was omitted from further considera­tion. Accordingly, Coast Guard is now preparing implementing regulations that will require two remote steering gear control systems on all new and existing tankers, foreign and domestic, of 10,000 gross tonnage and upwards.

Further, Coast Guard reports that it will submit to IMCO proposals con­cerning improved steering capability on vessels other than tankers, both new and existing, foreign and domes­tic. Coast Guard does not intend to propose any additional steering gear regulations for existing vessels other

than tankers until IMCO’s work is completed. Work is continuing on pro­posed regulations to require all new domestic vessels including tankers to have two separate and independent control systems between the pilot house and steering gear room that will include duplication of differential units and associated feedback arrange­ments.

Recommendation M-76-5 called for Coast Guard to require all U.S. ocean­going vessels to establish written emergency prpeedures and alarms for loss of steering control; emergency drills for loss of steering control should be required and logged. In re­sponse, Coast Guard states that it now has a steering gear regulation project, No. 76 065, based on this recommenda­tion. A draft of the proposals was sub­mitted in the spring of 1976, but action awaits the outcome on an inter­national basis of the Presidential ini­tiatives pertaining to oil tanker pollu­tion prevention. The direction of inter­national action based on the Presiden­tial initiatives has been agreed upon.

Coast Guard notes that proposed changes to new and existing tankers as indicated in the Annex of TSPP/ CONF/D/2, Resolution 12 dated Feb­ruary 13, 1978, do not include require­ments for the steering failure alarm system for loss of steering control, pri­marily because most of the conferees believed that the rudder angle indica­tor, which is an instantaneous and continuous indicator of the actual rudder position, should be and is infact used universally. Coast Guard states that, in spite of the failure of the United States to obtain require­ments for a steering failure alarm system on an international basis, Coast Guard continues to work on pro­posed regulations for a steering failure alarm system for all new U.S. vessels. The proposed regulations will also in­clude requirements for the conduct and logging of emergency steering con­trol loss drills.

Further response to both recommen­dations M-76-2 and M-76-5 is prom­ised by July 1, 1979.

RailroadR-77-19.—Letter of July 21 from the

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) re­plies to the Safety Board’s inquiry of last April 26 concerning this recom­mendation which asked CTA to pro­vide a safe passageway between rapid transit cars when passengers are per­mitted or required to move from one car to another. The recommendation was issued following investigation of the death of a passenger who on April 10, 1977, fell from a CTA rapid transit train as it was leaving the Clinton sta­tion in Chicago, 111.

As indicated in its April 26 inquiry, the Safety Board is aware that track

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36536 NOTICES

curvature presents CTA with a unique mechanical problem to effect total clo­sure between the ends of cars. Advice from the Federal Railroad Administra­tion (FRA) and the American Public Transit Association (APTA) indicates that many rapid transit authorities are addressing the problem through warning signs, public announcements, and distribution of educational pam­phlets to the traveling public. The Board requested advice from CTA con­cerning contemplated remedial action, such as the installation of flexible belting between cars or alternate ac­tions as above mentioned.

In reply, CTA reports that at a meeting last September 14 in Wash­ington with representatives of FRA, APTA, and most of the rapid transit carriers, CTA decided to mark the pas­sageway between cars. Enclosed with CTA’s letter are photos and a sample of bilingual, three-color, double-faced decal, OP-1768; 2,200 of these have now been affixed to the end door window glass of all CTA cars to warn against crossing while the train is moving.

Concerning the idea of flexible belt­ing as an alternate to chains between end door openings of adjacent cars, CTA states that its experience with spring-type materials between cars had not been wholly satisfactory due to pinching and whipping hazards. CTA then asked APTA to make an in­dependent review of the idea. Their re­sponse indicates that chains are pref­erable to belting, offering superior performance with lowest maintenance. Points considered by APTA, and com­ments, are:

1. Ability to secure handhold: Chains offer good ability to grasp while belting, by its smooth nature, would be difficult to grasp.

2. Ability to retain persons: The belting would have to be flexible, as are the chains, to allow for relative motion between cars and therefore would have the same reten­tive ability.

3. Ability to resist vandalism: The belting would be susceptible to vandalism and abuse. Chains are very resistant to damage. Belting is also subject to deterioration from oil, sun, ozone and other weather related conditions; chains do not have this problem.

CTA concurs with APTA's statement and points out that no known availa­ble belting can stand up under repeat­ed cycling through the nearly 3-to-l ratio between extended to compressed length limits.

R-77-37 through 39— Letter of July 21 from the Federal Railroad Adminis­tration is in response to recommenda­tions issued following investigation into the collision of an Amtrak/Atchi­son, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway train and a tractor-cargo tank semi­trailer near Marland, Okla., on Decem­ber 15,1976.

In response to R-77-37, which rec­ommended that FRA require all head-

end locomotive units to be designed to prevent serious injury to crewmembers from penetration of flammable sub­stances into control compartments, FRA reports that in June 1974 Trans­portation Systems Center <TSC) in Cambridge, Mass., initiated a study for FRA entitled “Structual Design of a Crashworthy Locomotive Cab.” During the final phase of the study, a potential design fol* a crash survivable locomotive cab was developed, accord­ing to FRA. The final report of the study is under TSC review.

Also, FRA reports convening, on June 14, 1978, a public safety hearing on locomotives, a review of existing regulations, and the need for addition­al rules in that area. This 2-day hear­ing was the first of five hearings com­prising a railroad safety inquiry to evaluate the effectiveness of FRA’s regulatory program; final hearing is scheduled for November 1978. FRA is awaiting the final report on TSC’s lo­comotive crashworthiness study to de­termine the need for possible regula­tory action to safeguard locomotive cab occupants from the danger of entry of flammable substances into the cab.

Recommandation R-77-38 asked FRA to identify, in cooperation with the States, those grade crossings where inadequate warnings do not permit the prudent and careful driver to cross without risk of injury or death; and R-77-39 called for a pro­gram to protect the crossings which have been so identified, consideration to be given to adequate protection or reduction of train speeds in conditions of reduced visibility and/or signals that meet rail train movement situa­tions.

In response, FRA reports a review of its data bank to determine the avail­ability of pertinent variables for iden­tifying grade crossings which are inad­equately protected. At present, FRA’s data source does not contain informa­tion on motorist sight distances at grade crossings. FRA states that since this important variable obviously must be available, two initial steps have been taken to obtain the information. On a short-term basis, FRA is sponsor­ing at the TSC in Cambridge the de­velopment of a form detailing such items as sight distance to be voluntar­ily completed by State or local Gov­ernment offices. Such cooperation will be strictly voluntary, as FRA has no jurisdiction over the States.

Secondly, FRA representatives-met with Federal Highway Administration personnel to determine if sight dis­tance information could be obtained from that source. Under its ongoing grade crossing program, FHWA re­quires States to establish hazard rat­ings to prioritize grade crossing pro­jects if Federal funds are to be used.

FHWA determines the criteria but will not dictate the relative priority of par­ticular factors. At FRA’s request, FHWA agreed to incorporate sight dis­tance, train speed, and highway vehi­cle crossing time in the priority scheme. FRA notes that the effects of incorporating these variables in the FHWA program will be long-term only and will not result in a specific listing of crossings.

FRA notes that pertinent available data show the number of crossings in each State over which trains can oper­ate at various levels of maximum speed. For instance, trains can operate at a maximum speed of 50 to 59 m.p.h. over 9,233 crossings in the United States with passive warning devices. The information is further subdivided as multitrack or single track at cross­ings with passive warning signals. Copies of the data breakdown are at­tached to FRA’s response letter.

FRA indicates that its next action will be taken when the TSC form is available. The form was to have been completed last month.

Note; The above notice reports on Safety Board documents recently released and rec­ommendation response letters received. Single copies of the marine accident report and the Board’s recommendation letters in their entirety are available to the general public without charge. Copies of the full text of the responses to recommendations may be obtained at a cost of $4 for service and 10 cents per page for reproduction.

All request to the Board for copies must be in writing, identified by report or recom­mendation number and date of publication of this notice in the F ederal R egister. Ad­dress inquires to: Public Inquiries Section, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C. 20594.

Multiple copies of the marine accident report may be purchased by mail from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151.(Secs. 304(a)(2) and 307 of" the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-633, 88 Stat. 2169, 2172 (49 U.S.C. 1903, 1906)).)

M arg a r et L. F is h e r ,. Federal Register

Liaison Officer.A u g u s t 14,1978.

[FR Doc. 78-23031 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01]SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

M odification o f an Existing System o f Records

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.ACTION: Notification of modification of system of records SEC-16, Com­plaint Processing System.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36537

SUMMARY: The Securities and Ex­change Commission proposes to modify an existing system of records, which was previously identified in the notices published in the F ed er a l R eg­is t e r , 41 FR 41563, on September 22, 1976, as SEC-16, Complaint Processing system. This proposed modification is being published for public comment.DATES: This amendment will become effective on October 6, 1978, unless comments are received on or before that date which would result in a con­trary or changed determination.ADDRESS: Comments on the modifi­cation to this system of records should be addressed to George A. Fitzsim­mons, Secretary, Securities and Ex­change Commission, 500 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20549. All comments received will be available for public inspection and copying in the Commission’s Public Reference Section, room 6101,1100 L Street NW., Washington, D.C.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julian T. Pierce, Office of the Gen­eral Counsel, Securities and Ex­change Commission, Washington,D.C., 202-755-1636.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commis­sion is proposing to modify the manner in which records from its Complaint Processing System may be retrieved. This modification will sup­plement and enhance the Commis­sion’s ability to analyze and compile data relating to complaints received from members of the public and other sources regarding broker-dealers and others who are subject to the Commis­sion’s regulatory jurisdiction.

The Commission’s Complaint Pro­cessing System is a computerized crossreference system that is indexed by the names of complainants, and by the names of the entities and individ­uals named in the complaints. Access to the information is obtained by means of computer programs which, at present, do not provide the ability to obtain information relating to the names of particular individuals; rather the computer has only the ability to list all the information contained in this system in alphabetical sequence. The proposed modification will enable the Commission to obtain records in the system on an individual name basis, and would enhance the useful­ness of this system of records.

SEC-16

System name:Complaint Processing System

(CMP)-SEC.

System location:Securities and Exchange Commis­

sion, Washington, D.C. 20549.Categories of individuals covered by the system:

Records are maintained on members of the public and others making com­plaints to the Commission against broker-dealers and others who are sub­ject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.Categories of records in the system:

Records contain the name of the complainant, the name of the entity and subject involved in the complaint, the type of complaint, and the dates relating to the disposition of the com­plaint.Authority for maintenance of the system:

Title 15, United States Code, 77e, 77f, 77g, 77j, 77n, and 77o; 78e, 78f, 781, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, and 78u; 79c, 79f, 79g, 79j, 79n, 79r, and 79s; 77eee, 77mmm, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, and 77uuu; 80a-8, 80a-20, 80a-29, 80a-32, 80a-40, 80a-44, and 80a-45; 80b-3, 80b- 4, 80b-12, and 80b-16.Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

These records and the information contained in these records may be used as follows:

1. By the SEC staff to analyze and compile data relating to, among other things, the frequency of complaints against particular entities or individ­uals. This data is reported to the Divi­sion of Enforcement for consideration.

2. To respond to inquiries from Members of Congress, the press or the public concerning the status of partic­ular complaints.

3. By SEC personnel for purposes of investigating possible violations of the Federal securities laws.

4. Where there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be re­ferred as a routine use, to the appro­priate agency, whether Federal, State, local, foreign or a securities self-regu­latory organization charged with the responsibility of investigating or pros­ecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation or order issued pur­suant thereto.

5. In any proceeding where the Fed­eral securities laws are hi issue or in which the Commission or past or pres­ent members of its staff is a party or otherwise involved in an official capac­ity.

6. In connection with investigations or disciplinary proceedings by a State securities regulatory authority or by a securities self-regulatory organization involving one or more of its members.

7. A record from this system of rec­ords may be disclosed as a “routine use’’ to a Federal, State or local gov­ernmental authority maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforce­ment information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information rel­evant to an agency decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employer, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issu­ance of a license, grant or other bene­fit.

8. A record from this system of rec­ords may be disclosed to a Federal, State or local governmental authority, in response to its request, in connec­tion with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investi­gation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the request­ing agency, to the extent that the in­formation is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency’s decision on the matter.

9. In connection with proceedings by the Commission pursuant to rule 2(e) of its rules of practice, 17 CFR 201.2(e).

10. When considered appropriate, recorcjjs in this system may be referred to a bar association or similar Federal, State or local licensing authority for possible disciplinary action.

11. As a data source for management information for production of sum­mary descriptive statistics and analyt­ical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained or for related person­nel management functions or manpow­er studies; may also be utilized to re­spond to general requests for statisti­cal information (without personal identification of individuals) under the Freedom of Information Act or to locate specific individuals for person­nel research or other personnel man­agement functions.

12. In connection with their regula­tory and enforcement responsibilities mandated by the Federal securities laws (as defined in section 21(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u(g)), or State or foreign law regulating securities or other related matters, records in this system of rec­ords may be disclosed to national secu­rities exchanges and national securi­ties associations that are registered with the Commission, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the Se­curities Investor Protection Corpora­tion, the Federal banking authorities, including but not limited to the Board

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36538of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Cur­rency, and the Federal Deposit Insur­ance Corporation, State securities reg­ulatory or law enforcement agencies or organizations, or regulatory or law enforcement agencies of a foreign gov­ernment.

13. Records in this system may be disclosed as a routine use to any trust­ee receiver, master, special counsel, or other individual or entity that is ap­pointed by a court of competent juris­diction, or as a result of an agreement between the parties in connection with litigation or administrative proceed­ings involving allegations of violations of the Federal securities laws (as de­fined in section 21(g) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u(g)) or the Commission’s rules of practice, 17 CFR 202.1 et seq. or otherwise, where such trustee, receiver, master, special counsel, or other individual or entity is specifically designated to perform par­ticular functions with respect to, or as a result of, the pending action or pro­ceeding or in connection with the ad­ministration and enforcement by the C om m ission of the Federal securities laws or the Commission’s rules of practice.

14. Records in this system may, in the discretion of the Commission’s staff, be disclosed to any person during the course of any inquiry or in­vestigation conducted by the Commis­sion’s staff, or in connection with civil

\ litigation, if the staff has reason to be­lieve that the person to whofh the record is disclosed may have further information about the matters related therein, and those matters appeared to be relevant at thè time to the sub­ject matter of the inquiry.

15. Records or information from rec­ords in this system may be included in reports published by the Commission pursuant to authority granted in the Federal securities laws (as defined in section 21(g) of the Securities Ex­change Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u(g)).

16. Records or information in rec­ords contained in this system may be disclosed to members of advisory com­mittees that are created by the Com­mission or by the Congess to render advice and recommendations to the Commission or to the Congress, to be used solely in connection with their of­ficial, designated functions.

17. Records or information in the records in this system may be dis­closed as a routine use to any person who is or has agreed to be subject to the Commission’s rules of conduct, 17 CFR 202.785-1 et seq., and who assists in the investigation by the Commis­sion of possible violations of Federal securities laws (as defined in section 21(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 Ü.S.C. 78u(g)), in the prep­aration or conduct of enforcement ac-

NOTICES

tions brought by the Commission for such violations, or otherwise in con­nection with the Commission’s en­forcement o r . regulatory functions under the Federal securities laws.

18. Disclosure may be made to a con­gressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.Policies and practices for storing, retriev­ing, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:Storage:

The records are maintained on mag­netic tape or cards and accessed by special computer programs on a peri­odic or “on request” basis.Retrievability: '

Information is retrievable by the name of the complainant, or the name of the entity or individual against whom the complaint is lodged.Safeguards:

Access to and use of these records are limited to those persons whose of­ficial duties require such access. Per­sonnel screening is employed to pre­vent unauthorized disclosure. Records are maintained in a building having a24-hour security guard.Retention and disposal:

Records are retained indefinitely.System Manager(s) and address:

Director, Office of Consumer Af­fairs, Securities and Exchange Com­mission, 1100 L Street NW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20549.Notification procedure:

All requests to determine whether this system of records contains a record pertaining to the requesting in­dividual may be made in person during normal business hours at the SEC Public Reference Room at 1100 L Street NW., Washington, D.C., or by mail addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Privacy Act Officer, Washington, D.C. 20549.Record access procedures:

Persons wishing to obtain informa­tion on the procedures for gaining access to or contesting the contents of these records may contact or address their inquiries to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Privacy Act Officer, Washington, D.C. 20549.Contesting record procedures:

See record access procedures above.Record source categories:

Information is received primarily from individuals through letters, tele­

phone calls, or personal visits to Com­mission offices.

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority.

S h ir l e y E. H o l l ïs , Assistant Secretary.

August 9,1978.[FR Doc. 78-23124 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01]PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

Proposed Am endm ent to a System o f Records

AGENCY; Securities and Exchange Commission.ACTION: Notification of amendment to a system of records.SUMMARY; The Securities and Ex­change Commission proposes to amend the system of records identified as SEC-36, investigatory files, and is publishing this amendment for public comment. The proposed amendment to routine use No. 6 will specify in greater .detail the types of associations or authorities to which the records contained in this system may, in ap­propriate circumstances, be referred.DATES: This amendment will become effective as proposed on September 14, 1978, unless comments are received on or before that date which would result in a contrary or changed determina­tion.ADDRESS: Comments should be ad­dressed to George A. Fitzsimmons, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 500 North Capitol Street, Washington. D.C. 20549. All comments received will be available for public in­spection and copying in the Commis­sion’s public reference section, room 6101, 1100 L Street NW, Washington, D.C.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julian T. Pierce, Office of the Gen­eral Counsel, Securities and Ex­change Commission, Whashington, D.C., 202-755-1636.

SUPPLEMENTATY INFORMATION: The proposed amendment to the system of records is a change in a por­tion of the language contained in the “Routine Uses of Records Maintained * * *” under the Commis­sion system of records entitled Investi­gatory Files, SEC-36. This amendment will specify that accounting associ­ations or other organizations engaged in self-regulatory authorities are in­cluded in the types of institutions to which these files may be referred. As a result of this amendment, the routine use will set forth more fully and pre­cisely the types of organizations and

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

institutions that may receive the files contained in this system.

SEC-36System name:

Investigatory files—SEC.System location:

Securities and Exchange Commis­sion, Washington, D.C. 20549. Main files may be maintained in the SEC re­gional or branch office which conduct­ed the investigation.Categories of individuals covered by the system:

Records are maintained on defend­ants, respondents, witnesses, and other individuals involved in investigations and enforcement actions instituted by the SEC.Categories of records in the system:

The system contains information gathered by the Commission’s staff in connection with investigations by it into possible violations of the Federal securities laws. Such information may be derived from materials filed with the Commission, court records, articles from publications, published financial data, corporate information, securities brokerage firm data, bank informa­tion, telephone data, information re­ceived from securities self-regulatory organizations, information supplied by individuals and Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement organiza­tions, and from other sources. This record also contains the work product of SEC personnel involved in the in­vestigation.Authority for maintenance of the system:

Title 15, United States Code, sec­tions 77s, 77t, 78u, 79r, 77uuu, 80a-41, 80b-9, and 17 CFR 202.5Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

These records and the information contained in these records may be used for the following:

1. By SEC personnel for purposes of investigating possible violations of the Federal securities laws.

2. In any proceeding where the Fed­eral securities laws are in issue or in which the Commission or past or pres­ent members of its staff is a party or otherwise involved in an official capac­ity.

3. In connection with investigations or disciplinary proceedings by a State securities regulatory authority or by a securities self-regulatory organization involving one or more of its members.

4. In connection with proceedings by the Commission pursuant to rule 2(e) of its rules of practice, 17 CFR 201.2(e).

NOTICES

5. Where there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by gen­eral statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the ap­propriate agency, whether Federili, State, local, foreign, or a securities self-regulatory organization charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implement­ing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

6. When considered appropriate, rec­ords in this system may be disclosed to a bar association, the American Insti­tute of Certified Public Accountants, a State accountancy board or other Fed­eral, State, or local licensing or over­sight authority, or professional associ­ation or self-regulatory authority per­forming similar functions, for possible disciplinary or other action.

7. A record from this system of rec­ords may be disclosed as a “routine use” to a Federal, State, or local gov­ernmental authority maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforce­ment information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information rel­evant to an agency decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employ­ee, the issuance of a security clear­ance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.

8. A record from this system of rec­ords may be disclosed to a Federal, State, or local governmental authori­ty, in response to its request, in con­nection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a securi­ty clearance, the reporting of an inves­tigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the request­ing agency, to the extent that the in­formation is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency’s decision on the matter.

9. As a data source for management information for production of sum­mary descriptive statistics and analyt­ical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained or for related person­nel management functions or manpow­er studies; may also be utilized to re­spond to general requests for statisti­cal information (without personal identification of individuals) under the Freedom of Information Act or to locate specific individuals for person­nel research or other personal man­agement functions.

10. To respond to inquiries from Members of Congress which relate to

36539

specific matters that the Commission has investigated.

11. To prepare and publish informa­tion relating to violations of the Fed­eral securities laws as provided in 15 U.S.C. 78u(a), as amended.

12. In connection with their regula­tory and enforcement responsibilities mandated by the Federal securities laws (as defined in section 21(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u(g)), or State or foreign laws regulating securities or other related matters, records in this system of jec- ords may be disclosed to national secu­rities exchanges and national securi­ties associations that are registered with the Commission, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the Se­curities Investor Protection Corp., the Federal banking authorities, including but not limited to the Board of Goven- ors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora­tion, State securities regulatory, or law enforcement agencies, or organiza­tions, or regulatory or law enforce­ment agencies of a foreign govern­ment.

13. Records in this system may >be disclosed as a routihe use to any trust­ee, receiver, master, special counsel, or other individual or entity that is ap­pointed by a court of competent juris­diction, or as a result of an agreement between the parties in connection with litigation or administrative proceed­ings involving allegations of violations of the Federal securities laws (as de­fined in section 21(g) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u(g)) or the Commission’s rules of practice, 17 CFR 202.1 et seq. or otherwise, where such trustee, receiver, master, special counsel, or other individual or entity is specifically designated to perform par­ticular functions with respect to, or as a result of, the pending action or pro­ceeding or in connection with the ad­ministration and enforcement by the Commission of the Federal securities laws or the Commission’s rules of practice.

14. Records in this system may, in the discretion of the Commission’s staff, be disclosed to any person during the course of any inquiry or in­vestigation conducted by the Commis­sion staff, or in connection with civil litigation, if the staff has reason to be­lieve that the person to whom the record is disclosed may have further information about the matters related therein, and those matters appeared to be relevant at the time to the sub­ject matter of the inquiry.

15. A record of information in this system may be disclosed to any person with whom the Commission contracts to reproduce, by typing, photocopy^ or other means, any record within this system for use by the Commission and

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36540 NOTICES

its staff in connection with their offi­cial duties or to any person who is uti­lized by the Commission to perform clerical or stenographic functions re­lating to the official business of the Commission.

16. Records or information from rec­ords in this system may be included in reports published by the Commission pursuant to authority granted in the Federal securities laws (as defined in section 21(g) of the Securities Ex­change Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u(g)).

17. Records or information in rec­ords contained in this system may be disclosed to members of advisory com­mittees that are created by the Com­mission or by the Congress to render advice and recommendations to the Commission or to the Congress, to be used solely in connection with their of­ficial, designated functions.

18. Records or information in the records in this system may be dis­closed as a routine use to any person who is or has agreed to be subject to the Commission’s rules of conduct, 17 CFR 202.785-1 et seq., and who has as­sists in the investigation by the Com­mission of possible violations of Feder­al securities laws (as defined in section 21(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u(g)), in the prep­aration or conduct of enforcement ac­tions brought by the Commission for such violations, or otherwise in con­nection with the Commission’s en­forcement or regulatory functions under the Federal securities laws.

19. Disclosure may be made to a con­gressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.Policies and practices for storing, retriev­ing, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:Storage:

Records are maintained in hard copy form or microform.Retrievability:

Records are accessed by individual name through computer search of the Commission’s Name-Relationship Index system.Safeguards:

Access to and use of these records are limited to those persons whose of­ficial duties requires such access. Per­sonnel screening is employed to pre­vent unauthorized disclosure. Files are maintained in buildings that have 24- hour security guards.Retention and disposal:

Records are retained in the Commis­sion’s files or periodically sent to Fed­eral Records Center for storage. They are destroyed after 25 years.

System manager(s) and address:Director, Division of Enforcement,

Securities and Exchange Commission, 500 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20549.Notification procedure:

All requests to determine whether this system of records contains a record pertaining to the requesting in­dividual may be made in person during normal business hours at the SEC Public Reference Room at 1100 L Street NW., Washington, D.C., or by mail addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Privacy Act Officer, Washington, D.C. 20549.Record access procedures:

Persons wishing to obtain informa­tion on the procedures for gaining access to or contesting the contents of these records may contact or address their inquiries to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Public Refer­ence Section, Washington, D.C. 20549.Contesting record procedures:

See Record access procedures above.Record source categories:

Information in these records is sup­plied by individuals, including where practicable, those to whom the infor­mation relates, witnesses, banks, cor­porations, or other entities during course of inquiry or investigation; in­formation supplied by stock ex­changes, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., Postal Inspec­tion Service, Department of Justice, State securities commissions, or other foreign, Federal, State, or local bodies and law enforcement agencies; infor­mation obtained from public sources, i.e., libraries, newspapers, television, radio, court records, filings with Fed­eral, State, and local bodies; informa­tion contained in filings made with the SEC pursuant to law and information from other offices within the Commis­sion.

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority.

. Shirley E. H ollis, Assistant Secretary.

Audusi 9, 1978.[FR Doc. 78-23125 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01]

[70-6190; Rel. No. 20654] A LA B A M A POWER CO.

Proposal To Acquire Nuclear Fuel by Lease

August 8,1978.Notice is hereby given that Alabama

Power Co. (“Alabama”), 600 North

18th Street, Birmingham, Ala. 35291, an electric utility subsidiary of the Southern Co., a registered holding company, has filed an application with this Commission pursuant to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (“act”), designating sections 9(a) and 10 of the act as applicable to the proposed transaction. All interest­ed persons are referred to the applica­tion, which is summarized below, for a complete statement of the proposed transaction.

In order to provide funds to finance a portion of the nuclear fuel (“fuel”) requirements of the Joseph M. Farley nuclear plant units No. 1 and No. 2 (“Farley units”) Alabama proposes to enter into arrangements whereby the Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association (“bank”) will es­tablish a line of credit to «provide funds to a trustee of an express trust established pursuant to a trust agree­ment (“trust agreement"). The trustee will use such funds to pay the costs of acquiring, processing, and fabricating the fuel, including reimbursement to Alabama of fuel costs incurred or to be incurred by Alabama. Alabama will transfer to the trustee its interest in the fuel and in procurement contracts in respect thereof. The trustee, as owner of the fuel, will lease the fabri­cated fuel to Alabama pursuant to a nuclear fuel lease (“lease”) described below. The line of credit will be in the aggregate principal amount of $60,000,000 and will expire March 31, 1982, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the credit agreement be­tween the trustee and the bank (“credit agreement”), which will pro­vide for the terms and conditions of the credit. On or before March 31 of each year, the trustee may request the bank to extend the expiration date for an additional year beyond its then 3- year term, with the bank to act on such request by June 30 of that year.

The trustee will effect the borrow­ings in accordance with instructions from Alabama, not inconsistent with the terms of the trust agreement and the «credit agreement, as to the amount and date from, or prepayment to, the bank. Each time the trustee borrows from the bank, the trustee will issue a finance bill draft having a maturity of from 1 to not more than 270 days. Each finance bill draft will be issued by the trustee at a discount equal to the sum of the bid rate on comparable maturities of major bank certificates of deposit, the interest equivalent of actual reserve require­ments on such certificates of deposit (or, in the case of finance bill drafts having a maturity of less than 30 days the reserve requirements shall be that of ineligible acceptance), taxes, if any, and a commission of IV* percent per annum.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

i The face value of the finance bill drafts generally will be in multiples of $100,000, the minimum value of any bill being $100,000 and the maximum value being $1,000,000. Finance bill drafts may be prepaid prior to maturi­ty if held in the bank’s portfolio and upon the payment of liquidation costs, if any, due to interest rate differen­tials and administrative costs of $50 per finance bill draft. In no event shall the maturity of a finance bill extend beyond the expiration of the line of credit.

A commitment fee of one-half of 1 percent per annum must be paid on the unutilized portion of the line of credit, on a 360-day basis, payable quarterly in arrears.

The trustee will purchase the fuel from time to time with the proceeds of the loan from the bank. The lease will require payments by Alabama, includ­ing rent, sufficient to fully amortize all costs and expenses of the trustee over the useful life of the fuel as it is consumed and requiring Alabama at the expiration of the line of credit to purchase the fuel, whether or not it is consumed, for an amount sufficient to retire all debts, interest, and fees of the trustee associated with the bank’s commitment. The trustee will assign to the bank substantially all rights and payments under the lease pursu­ant to an assignment agreement with the bank. If the lease is terminated for any reason, Alabama will be required to purchase the fuel immediately for an amount equal to the unamortized cost of the fuel and repay all associat­ed debts and any amounts outstanding under the line of credit, including ac­crued interest. The trustee will also be required to furnish the bank with a se­curity agreement (“security agree­ment”) giving the bank security inter­ests in the fuel and the lease.

If either of the Farley units ceases to operate for operational reasons for 24 consecutive months after having been placed in commercial operation, Alabama will be required either to purchase that respective unit’s fuel immediately for an amount equal to the unamortized cost of the fuel and repay any corresponding amounts out­standing under the line of credit or to purchase the fuel on a semiannual basis over the remaining life of the line of credit. The proceeds of such purchases, will be used to retire all amounts owing to the Bank.

A statement of the fees, commis­sions, and expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed transac­tion will be filed by amendment. The incurrence of the lease obligations by Alabama is subject to the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Com­mission. It is stated that no other State commission and no Federal com­mission, other than this Commission,

NOTICES

has jurisdiction over the proposed transaction.

Notice is further given that any in­terested person may, not later than September 1, 1978, 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 the filing 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 upon the applicants 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, as filed or as it may be amended, may be granted 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.

G eorge A. F itzsim m ons, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23071 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01][File No. 500-1]

ANCORP N AT IO N A L SERVICES ET AL.

Suspension o f Trading

August 10,1978.In the matter of trading in securities

of Ancorp National Services, Inc., Energy Reserve, Inc., Federated Com­munications Corp., Gladding Corp., Guardian Mortgage Investors, Hadron, Inc., Hovermarine Corp.^ and Movie- matic Industries Corp.

It appearing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the sum­mary suspension of trading in the se­curities of the above companies being traded on a national securities ex­change or otherwise is required in the public interest and for the protection of investors;

Therefore, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, trading in such securities on a national securities exchange or other­wise is suspended, for the period from

36541

12:35 p.m. (e.d.t.) on August 10, 1978, through August 19,1978.

By the Commission.G eorge A. F itzsim m ons,

Secretary.[FR Doc. 78-23072 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01][Rel. No. 20667; 70-6197]

GULF POWER CO.

Proposal To Issue and Sell First M ortgage Bonds a t C om petitive Bidding

August 10,1978.Notice is hereby given that Gulf

Power Co. (“Gulf”), 75 North Pace Boulevard, P.O. Box 1151, Pensacola, Fla. 32520, an electric utility subsidi­ary of the Southern Co., a registered holding company, has filed an applica­tion-declaration and an amendment thereto with this Commission pursu­ant to the Public Utility Holding Com­pany Act of 1935 (“act”), designating sections 6(a) and 7 of the act and rule 50 promulgated thereunder as applica­ble to the proposed transaction. All in­terested persons are referred to the application-declaration, which is sum­marized below, for a complete state­ment of the proposed transaction.

Gulf proposes to issue up to $25,000,000 principal amount of its first mortgage bonds of a series having a term of not less than 5 years nor more than 30 years ("bonds”) and to sell such securities at competitive bid­ding for a price to Gulf of not less than 98 percent nor more than 101% percent of the principal amount there­of plus accrued interest.

The bonds will be issued under the indenture dated as of September 1, 1941, between Gulf and the Chase Manhattan Bank (National Associ­ation) and the Citizens & Peoples Na­tional Bank of Pensacola, as trustees, as heretofore supplemented by various indentures supplemental thereto and as to be further supplemented by a supplemental indenture to be dated as of September 1,1978.

Gulf states that it is difficult to de­termine, under present bond market conditions, whether it would be more advantageous to sell bonds having a 30-year or some shorter term. It is pro­posed, therefore, that Gulf decide on the term of the bonds after the date of public invitation for proposals and then notify prospective bidders by telephone, confirmed in writing, of its decision, not less than 72 hours prior to the time of the bidding.

Gulf proposes to use the proceeds from the sale of the bonds, along with other funds, in financing its 1978 con­struction program, to retire $1,631,000 principal amount of first mortgage bonds in April 1978 and to reduce

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36542 NOTICES

notes payable. Other funds used or currently proposed to be used for such purposes include: (1) $9,000,000 of ad­ditional equity funds from Southern, (2) $1,500,000 of funds received in April 1978 from pollution control obli­gations issued by a public authority to finance certain of Gulf’s pollution con­trol facilities, and (3) funds expected to be accumulated from internal sources.

Gulf estimates that no additional fi­nancing will be required for construc­tion purposes during 1978 except for the issuance of short-term notes pay­able to be made after the sale of the bonds. It is estimated that no short­term notes payable will be outstanding at December 31, 1978.

The fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed trans­action are estimated at $192,000, in­cluding legal fees of $22,500 and ac­counting fees of $21,500. The fee of counsel for the purchasers of the bonds is estimated at $15,000 and will be paid by the successful bidders. The proposed transaction is subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida Public Serv­ice Commission. It is stated 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 September 6, 1978, 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 the filing 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 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 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.

Shirley E. Hollis, Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23073 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 ami

[8010- 01][70-6195; Rel. No. 20665]

IN D IA N A & M IC H IG A N ELECTRIC CO.

Proposed Issuance and Sale o f Notes to Banksand a Commercial Paper Dealer; Request fo rExemption Form Com petitive Bidding

August 10, 1978.Notice is hereby given that Indiana

& Michigan Electric Co. (“I&M”) 2101 Spy Run Avenue, Fort Wayne, Ind. 46801, an electric utility subsidiry com­pany of American Electric Power Co., Inc., a registered holding company, has filed with this Commission an ap­plication pursuant to the Public Util­ity Holding Company Act of 1935 (“Act”), designating section 6(b) of the Act and rules 50(a)(2) and 50(a)(5) promulgated thereunder as applicable to the proposed transaction. All inter­ested persons are referred to the appli­cation, which is summarized below, for a complete statement of the proposed transaction.

I&M requests that from the date of the granting of this application to January 1, 1980, the exemption from the provisions of section 6(a) of the Act afforded to it by the first sentence of section 6(b) of the Act, relating to the issuance of short-term notes, be in­creased to the extent necessary to cover the issuance and sale of notes to banks and commercial paper to a dealer in commercial paper in an ag­gregate amount not to exceed $125 million, all such indebtedness to mature not later than June 30, 1980. As of June 30, 1978, I&M had$47,600,000 aggregate principal amount of short-term debt outstand­ing.

I&M’s amended articles of accept­ance provide, inter alia, that I&M may not, without the consent of the hold­er^ of a majority of the total number of shares of cumulative preferred stock of all series then outstanding, issue any unsecured debt securities, as defined therein, if immediately after such issuance the total principal amount of all such unsecured debt se­curities (other than long-term unse­cured debt securities' not in excess of 10 percent of the capitalization of I&M) issued by I&M would exceed 10 percent of the capitalization of I&M. I&M received the consent of such holders of the cumulative preferred stock at a special meeting of share­holders held on October 13, 1976, at which meeting I&M was authorized to

incur additional short-term debt in excess of 10 percent (but together with long-term unsecured indebted­ness outstanding at the time of any computation not in excess of 20 per­cent) of the capitalization of I&M through December 30, 1980, with all such excess short-term debt maturing not later than June 30,1981.

It is stated that I&M has lines of credit with 39 named banks which total $295,990,000. For purposes of borrowing, these banks are of three classes. Each note to be issued to a class I bank will mature not more than 270 days after the date of issuance or renewal thereof, and will be prepaya­ble at any time without premium or penalty. I&M’s credit arrangements with these banks require it to main­tain compensating balances equal to a percentage of the line of credit made available by the bank plus a percent­age of any amount actually borrowed (generally not in excess of 10 percent of the line of credit and 10 percent of the amount borrowed). In most cases I&M maintains deposit balances for its operational and financial needs in amounts sufficient to satisfy any com­pensating balances required with re­spect to borrowings from such banks. Borrowings from a class I bank would generally bear interest at an annual rate not greater than the bank’s prime commercial rate in effect from time to time.

Each note to be issued to a class II bank will mature not more than 90 days after the date of issuance or re­newal thereof, and will be prepayable at any time without premium or pen­alty. I&M’s credit arrangements with these banks require it to maintain compensating balances of 5 percent of the line of credit and to pay a fee equal to 4 percent of the bank’s prime commercial rate then in effect on the size of the line. The combination of 5 percent compensating balances and a fee is generally equivalent to compen­sating balances not in excess of 10 per­cent of the line of credit made availa­ble. In addition, I&M must pay inter­est at the rate of 108.5 percent of the bank’s prime commercial rate then in effect on the borrowings. It is stated that if the balances maintained and the fees paid by I&M with and to the class I and II banks were maintained and paid solely to fulfill requirements for borrowings by I&M, the effective annual interest cost under either such arrangement, assuming full use of the line of credit, would not exceed 125 percent of the prime commercial rate in effect from time to time, or not more than 11.25 percent on the basis of a prime commercial rate of 9.0 per­cent.

With respect to the class III banks, I&M has a money market facility at each of two named banks in an aggre-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36543

gate amount of $25 million. These money market facilities do not repre­sent a formal commitment or engage­ment by these banks to I&M, but rep­resent merely the ability of I&M to re­quest unsecured borrowings, in the form of promissory notes, on a case- by-case basis. These money market fa­cilities are available for unsecured bor­rowings in domestic dollars and/or in Eurodollars for periods of up to 180 days after the date of issuance, and any such borrowings will be prepaya­ble at any time without premium or penalty. No compensating balances are required. The interest rate, which is presently to be negotiated on a case- by-case basis (using a 360-day year), is pegged to either the London Inter­bank offering rate plus a designated percent, if the borrowings are made in Eurodollars, or to a designated percent of the bank’s prime rate, if the bor­rowings are made in domestic dollars. It is stated that interest rates on these notes will be lower than the effective interest rates for borrowings made from class I and II banks, including the effect of any compensating bal­ances and fees paid.

It is further proposed that commer­cial paper will be sold directly by I&M to Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. (the “dealer”). The commercial paper will consist of promissory notes in de­nominations of not less than $50,000 nor more than $5 million, of varying maturities, with no maturity more than 270 days after the date of issue; such notes will not be repayable prior to maturity and will be sold at a dis­count rate not in excess of the dis­count rate per annum prevailing at the time of issuance for commercial paper of comparable quality and ma­turity. No commercial paper will be issued having a maturity of more than 90 days if such commercial paper would have ah effective interest cost ot I&M which exceeds the effective in­terest cost at which I&M could borrow from commercial banks. The Dealer will reoffer the commercial paper, at a discount rate Va of 1 percent per annum less than the discount rate at which such notes were purchased from I&M, to not more than 200 of the Dealer’s customers designated in a nonpublic list prepared by the Dealer in advance. No sales of such commer­cial paper will be made to any custom­er unless that customer has received up-to-date reports as to the credit posi­tion of I&M. It is expected that the Dealer’s customers will hold such com­mercial paper to maturity; but if any such customer wishes to resell I&M commercial paper prior to maturity, the Dealer; pursuant to a verbal repur­chase agreement, will repurchase the commercial paper and reoffer it to other customers on its nonpublic list.

The proceeds from the issue and sale of the notes will be used by I&M to re­imburse its treasury for past expendi­tures made in connection with its con­struction program and to pay part of the cost of its future construction pro­gram. I&M estimates its construction expenditures for the year 1978 and 1979 at $450 million (exclusive of the expenditures of its generating subsidi­ary).

I&M claims exemption from the competitive bidding requirements of rule 50 for the proposed issuance of notes to banks pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) thereof. Additionally, I&M re­quests exemption from the competi­tive bidding requirements of rule 50 for the proposed issue and sale of its commercial paper pursuant to para­graph (a)(5) thereof.

The fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed trans­action are estimated at $12,000. No 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 September 6, 1978, request 4n 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 ap­plication 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 upon the applicant 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 as filed or as it may be amended, may be granted 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 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.

S hirley E. Hollis, Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23074 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01]

[Rel. No. 20664; 70-6193]O H IO VALLEY ELECTRIC CORP.

Proposed Pollution C ontro l Financing

August 9,1978!Notice is hereby given that Ohio

Valley Electric Corp. (“OVEC”) P.O. Box 468, Piketon, Ohio 45661, an elec­tric utility subsidiary of Allegheny Power System, Inc., American Electric Power Co., Inc., and Ohio Edison Co., registered holding companies, has filed with this Commission an applica­tion-declaration pursuant to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (“Act”), designating sections 9(a), 10, and 12(d) of the Act and rule 44 promulgated thereunder as applica­ble to the proposed transaction. All in­terested persons are referred to the application-declaration, which is sum­marized below, for a complete state­ment of the proposed transaction.

OVEC and its wholly owned subsidi­ary Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp. (“IKEC”) were organized on October 1, 1952, to provide the power require­ments of the gaseous diffusion plant at Portsmouth, Ohio (“Portsmouth Plant”), now owned and operated by the Department of Energy (“DOE”). Such services are provided pursuant to a power agreement (“DOE Agree­ment”), as modified from time to time. The DOE Power Agreement provides, inter alia, that DOE will pay OVEC the entire cost of certain replacements of property and plant, including re­placements reasonably required to comply with any governmental pollu­tion control requirements. The DOE Power Agreement also provides that OVEC will use its best efforts to ar­range for financing pollution control replacements from sources of capital funds other than DOE unless DOE prefers to finance OVEC’s pollution control replacements directly. Under the DOE Power Agreement, DOE agrees to pay an amount equal to the principal component of any purchase price payment under an installment sale agreement relating to the pur­chase by OVEC of any pollution con­trol replacement, and an amount equal to the interest component of any such purchase price payment. The DOE Power Agreement terminates, unless extended at an earlier date, on March 31, 1979. OVEC and DOE are current­ly engaged in negotiations with re­spect to (1) modification No. 9 to the DOE Power Agreement which would extend its stated term to September 30, 1979, and, under certain circum­stances to December 31, 1979; and (2) another modification to the DOE Power Agreement which would extend its stated term to October 14, 1992, and contain certain other provisions.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36544 NOTICES

OVEC states that in order to comply with prescribed environmental quality control standards of the State of Ohio and the Federal Government it has under construction certain high effi­ciency electrostatic precipitators for particulate emission control and relat­ed facilities (the “Project”) to be in­stalled on the five units at its Kyger Creek Plant (“Plant”). It is estimated that the Project will cost approximate­ly $75 million of which approximately $383,000 had been expended as of March 31, 1978. By resolution adopted August 9, 1977, the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (“Authority”), which under the Ohio statutes is au­thorized to enter into agreements con­cerning the acquisition and construe-, tion of pollution control facilities, de­termined that it would authorize and issue one or more series of revenue bonds of the State of Ohio (“Revenue Bonds”) in the maximum aggregate amount of $75 million to finance the cost of the Project.

OVEC proposes to enter into an agreement of sale (“Agreement”) with the Authority under which the Au­thority will complete the construction and installation of the facilities com­prising the Project and will issue Rev­enue Bonds in an initial principal amount of up to $75 million (“Series A Bonds”) and additional Revenue Bonds in principal amounts which will, when added to the aggregate principal amount of Series A Bonds, not exceed $75 million in the aggre­gate, sufficient to cover the cost of construction of the Project. The pro­ceed from the sale of the Series A Bonds will be deposited by the Au­thority with a bank or trust company as trustee (“Trustee”) under an inden­ture to be entered into between the Authority and the Trustee (the “In­denture”) pursuant to which the Series A Bonds are to be issued and se­cured. Such proceeds will be applied to payment of the cost of construction of the Project.

The Agreement will also provide for the sale of the Project to OVEC, the payment by OVEC of the purchase price of the Project in installments over a term of years and the assign­ment and pledge to the Trustee by the Authority of its interest in and to the moneys (including the interest and principal components of the purchase price) receivable by the Authority under the Agreement. DOE and OVEC will consent to such assignment so that amounts equal to the interest and principal components of the purchase price payable by OVEC to the Author­ity will be paid by DOE directly to the Trustee. The Agreement also provides that OVEC will pay to the Authority as the purchase price for the Project interest and principal components in

*such amounts as will enable the Au­

thority to pay when due the principal and interest on the Series A Bonds, any additional bonds and any refund­ing bonds. The Agreement also obli­gates OVEC to pay the fees and charges of the Trustee, as well as cer­tain expenses of the Authority.

OVEC has the option to prepay the purchase price in whole (i) upon the occurrence of certain events by paying amounts sufficient to redeem all Reve­nue Bonds then outstanding, the fees and expenses of the Trustee and all other amounts payable under the In­denture, or (ii) by deposting moneys in the Bond Fund (as defined in the In­denture) or delivering to the Trustee governmental obligations sufficient in either case to provide for the release of the Indenture in accordance with its terms. Upon prepayment of the entire purhase price OVEC may termi­nate the Agreement. OVEC may also prepay the purchase price in part, such payments to be paid to the Trust­ee for deposit in the Bond Fund and credited against the purchase price and used for the redemption or pur­chase of outstanding Revenue Bonds in the manner and to the extent the outstanding Revenue Bonds are re­deemable pr subject to purchase as provided in the Indenture.

The Agreement provides that the purchase price will be required to be prepaid and all Revenue Bonds re­deemed in the event that (a) on or before February 28, 1978, neither a modification of the DOE Power Agree­ment providing for an extension of the term thereof through October 14, 1992, nor an interim arrangement for the supply by OVEC and/or IKEC of electric utility services to DOE at its existing gaseous diffusion plant near Portsmouth, Ohio, through June 29, 1978, in either case including contract provisions obligating DOE to pay di­rectly to the Trustee all interest com­ponents and principal components of the purchase price of the Project be­coming due during the term of such modification or interim arrangement, shall have become effective; (b) on or before the 31st day prior to the date on which any such interim arrange­ment or any succeding interim ar­rangement would otherwise terminate, neither a further interim arrangement for a period of 90 days or more, nor a modification of the DOE Power Agree­ment referred to in clause (a) above, in each case including the contract provi­sions referred to in clause (a) above, shall have become effective; (c) any modification of the DOE Power Agree­ment is executed by OVEC which has the effect of reducing or eliminating DOE’s obligation to make payments of interest components and principal components of the purchase price for the Project; or (d) the DOE Power Agreement shall be about to terminate

by action of DOE, as provided for in section 8.2 of said agreement.

It is stated that OVEC will take nec­essary action under its mortgage and deed of trust to release the electrostat­ic precipitators and related equipment which are part of the Project from the lien of its mortgage, and, after such re­lease, will convey them to the Authori­ty free and clear of the mortgage lien. OVEC will receive from the Bond pro­ceeds an amount equal to its original cost for the existing facilities so con­veyed.

It is contemplated that the Series A Bonds will be sold by the Authority pursuant to arrangements with a group of underwriters. Although OVEC will not be a party to the un­derwriting arrangements, it will not enter into the Agreement unless the terms of the Series A Bonds and their sale by the Authority are satisfactory to it. The Series A Bonds will be dated on or about the first day of the month in which they are issued, will bear in­terest semiannually and will mature not later than October 14, 1992. It is expected that the Series A Bonds will not be redeemable at the option of the Authority within 10 years from the date of their issue except under cer­tain circumstances. The Series A Bonds will be subject to mandatory re­demption under the terms specified in the Indenture.

The fees and expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed trans­action will be supplied by amendment. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and the Public Service Commis­sion of Kentucky have jurisdiction over the proposed transaction. 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 September 5, 1978, 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 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 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 r'ule 23 of the general rules and regulations promulgated under

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L . 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36545

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.

G eorge A. F itzsim m ons, Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23075 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01][Release No. 34-15056, S7-744]

MARKET STRUCTURE ISSUES CONCERNING STANDARDIZED OPTIONS TRADING

Extension o f Comment Period

On June 15, 1978, the Commission authorized the special study of the op­tions markets (“Options Study”) to invite public comments concerning nu­merous issues relating to the structure of the standardized options markets. Among other things, the Commission authorized the study to request public comments with regard to (i) the extent to which the trading of stan­dardized options and their underlying securities should be integrated on an exchange floor, (ii) whether, and under what circumstances, standard­ized options should be traded in the over-the-counter markets, and (iii) whether the New York Stock Ex­change should be permitted to list and trade standardized options.

Notice of the request for comments was given by Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-14854 (June 15, 1978) and by publication in the F ederal R egister (43 F R 2660 (June 21, 1978)). Interested persons were invited to submit written data, views, and argu­ments prior to August 21, 1978. The Options Study has received written re­quests for an extension of the com­ment period deadline from both the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the American Stock Exchange. Other interested persons have also indicated that an extension of the comment period would be in the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission today has authorized the Options Study to extend the period for the submission of written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing options mar­kets structure issues until September 22, 1978. However, no further exten­sion of time will be granted with re­spect to this matter.

By the Commission.Shirley E. H ollis,

Assistant Secretary.August 10,1978.

[FR Doc. 78-23076 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8010- 01][Rel. No. 34-15052; File No. SR-BSPS-78-3]

BRADFORD SECURITIES PROCESSING SERVICES, INC.

Self-R egulatory O rganizations; Proposed Rule Change

Pursuant to section 19 (b) (l).of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s (b) (1), as amended by Pub. L. No. 94-29, 16 ( June 4, 1975), notice is hereby given that on July 25, 1978, the above-mentioned self-regulatory organization filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a proposed rule change as follows:S tatement of the T erms of S ubstance

of the P roposed R ule Change

In delivering securities sold against pay­ment of the purchase price, when acting for or on behalf of participants, the Corpora­tion may require that the purchase price be paid by certified check, cashier’s check, bank draft, cash or Federal funds check, as the Corporation deems appropriate or as the Corporation is directed by the partici­pant for whom or on whose behalf it is acting.

Statement of B asis and P urpose

The purpose of the proposed rule change is to protect the interests of the participants and the Corporation. In delivering securities against pay­ment of the purchase price the Corpo­ration or the participant for which the Corporation may be acting may be concerned with such delivery because of the dollar sums involved, the finan­cial stability or capacity of the recipi­ent, the general reputation of the re­cipient, the nature of the market of the subject security at the time of de­livery or for other reasons. In such sit­uations prudence would call for addi­tional measures to assure payment of the purchase price. At present the rules of the Corporation do not clearly grant the Corporation the ability to act so on its own accord or when re­quested by participants. This rule change will clarify that situation.

This rule change will clarify the or­ganization’s capacity to safegrard se­curities and funds in its custody or control or for which it is responsible. The proposed rule change also pro­tects investors and the public interest by assuring payment for securities sold.

No comments were solicited or re­ceived on the proposed rule change.

BSPS is of the opinion that this rule change will not impose a burden on competition.

The foregoing rule change has become effective, pursuant to secton 19 (b) (3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protec­tion of investors, or otherwise in fur­therance of the purposes of the Secu­rities Exchange Act of 1934.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and argu­ments concerning the foregoing. Per­sons desiring to make written submis­sions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary of the Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the filing with respect to the foregoing and of all written submissions will be available for inspection and copying in the Public Reference Room, 1100 L Street NW., Washington, D.C. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the princi­pal office of the above-mentioned self- regulatory organization.

All submissions should refer to the file number referenced in the caption above and should be submitted on or before September 7,1978.

For the Commission by the division of market Regulation, pursuant to del­egated authority.

G eorge A. F itzsim m ons, Secretary.

August 10,1978.[FR Doc. 78-23077 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45]

[8010- 01][Rel. No. 34-15045; File No. SR-PHLX-77-

15; Amdt 2]PHILADELPHIA STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.

Self-R egulatory O rganizations; Proposed Rule Change

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l), as amended by Pub. L. No. 94-29,16 (June 4, 1975), notice is hereby given that on July 26, 1978, the above-mentioned self-regula­tory organization filed with the Com­mission amendments to File No. SR- PHLX-77-15,1 which was designed to conform- certain of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange ("Phlx”) rules to sec­tions of the Securities Acts Amend­ments of 1975 relating to the compari­son, clearance, and settlement of ex­change transactions. These amend-

1 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14254 (December 12,1977), 42 FR 63835 (De­cember 20,1977).

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36546merits pertain to those rules included in Pile No. SR-PHLX-77-15 on which the Commission did not act in its ap­proval order published in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14636, April 7, 1978 (43 FR 15819, April 14, 1978). In addition, Rule 1050, which was not included in File No. SR-PHLX-77-15, is also amended.

T ext of P roposed R ule Changes

The text of the proposed rule changes, as amended, is as follows (italics indicate new material and brackets indicate proposed deletions from the current rules):

By-Law 18-6. A member who shall be adjudged guilty by the Board of Gov­ernors of making a misstatement upon a material point to the Board of Gov­ernors or to a Standing or Special Committee of [the] this Corporation; or of making a misstatement upon a material point to the Board of Direc­tors [of Stock Clearing Corporation or] of the Options Clearing Corpora­tion with respect to the reporting, clearance or settlement of any transac­tion on the options trading floor of this Corporation; or of making on his application for membership a material misstatement to the Committee on Ad­missions may be suspended or expelled as the Board may determine.

Rule 274. In all deliveries of securi­ties other than securities deliverable pursuant to the rules of a registered clearing agency, the party delivering shall have the right to require the purchase money to be paid upon deliv­ery; if delivery is made by transfer, payment may be required at the time and place of transfer, [provided, how­ever, that payment on deliveries through Stock Clearing Corporation shall be made in conformity with its By-Laws and Rules.]

Rule 276. Each delivery of securities subject to tax on transfer or sale must be accompanied by a sales ticket [(in form approved by Stock Clearing Cor­poration)] stamped in accordance with the [laws of the United States, except that in the case of securities deliver­able to Stock Clearing Corporation, the preparation and delivery of sales tickets shall be in accordance with the By-Laws and Rules of Stock Clearing Corporation.] regulations of the appli­cable jurisdiction; provided, however, that as to securities delivered pursuant to the rules of a registered clearing agency, the rules of such clearing agency shall govern the payment of any such tax, unless otherwise pro­vided by law.

Rule 301. In settlement of round-lot contracts other than those to be settled pursuant to the rules of a registered clearing agency, the receiver of shares of stock shall have the option of re­quiring the delivery to be made either in certificates therefor or by transfer

V /NOTICES

thereof; except that in cases where personal liability attaches to owner­ship, the seller shall have the right to make delivery by transfer.

In settlement of odd-lot Contracts other than those to be settled pursuant to the rules of a registered clearing agency, the seller shall have the option of making delivery either in certificates therefor or by transfer thereof.

[If the receipt or delivery is made to Stock Clearing Corporation the right to require receipt or delivery by trans­fer shall be exercised only as pre­scribed in the By-Laws and Rules of Stock Clearing Corporation.]

The right to require receipt or deliv­ery by transfer shall not obtain while the transfer books are closed.

Rule 421. The party who is partially unsecured by reason of a change in the market value of the subject of an Exchange contract may demand from the other party the difference be­tween the contract price and thè market price. The party from whom such difference is demanded shall [im­mediately] pay the same [directly or through Stock Clearing Corporation] to the party who is partially unse­cured either directly or in accordance with the rules of the registered clearing agency through which clearance and settlement is to take place.

Such payments of differences shall bear no interest (unless by mutual agreement), except in the case of a loan of securities, when [sucri] the dif­ferences so paid shall be considered part of such loan.

Rule 1050. A member, member orga­nization or director of a member cor­poration who or which shall be ad­judged guilty in a proceeding under Article XVIII of the By-Laws of a vio­lation of any provision of the rules of the Options Clearing Corporation with respect to the reporting, clearance or settlement of any transaction on the options trading floor of this Corpora­tion, shall be subject to the same pen­alty or penalties as may be imposed for violation of an Exchange Rule.

S tatement of B asis and P urpose

The basis and purpose of the forego­ing proposed rule amendments is as follows:

Phlx submitted File No. SR-PHLX- 77-15 on November 15, 1977, in re­sponse to the Commission’s September 27, 1977, notice under Section 31(b) of the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975. Amendment No. 2 to SR-PHLX- 77-15 is intended to clarify the intent and scope of the rules included in the original filing which have not been ap­proved by the Commission. The amendments are based upon the standards of Sections 6(b)(5), 6(b)(8), llA(c)(5), and 17A(a)(2) of the Act as

they may be applicable to the various rules that are being amended.

No comments have been received from members or others on the pro­posed rule amendments.

Phlx believes that the proposed rule amendments will not impose any bur­dens on competition.

On or before September 21, 1978, or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the above-mentioned self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

(A) By order approve such proposed rule amendments or

(B) Institute proceedings to deter­mine whether the proposed rule amendments should be disapproved.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and argu­ments concerning the foregoing. Per­sons desiring to make written submis­sions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary of the Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the filing with respect to the foregoing and of all written submissions will be available for inspection and copying in the Public Reference Room, 1100 L Street NW., Washington, D.C. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the princi­pal office of the above-mentioned self- regulatory organization. All submis­sions should refer to the file number referenced in the caption above and should be submitted on or before Sep­tember 7,1978.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation pursuant to del­egated authority.

G eorge A. F itzsim m ons, Secretary.

August 9, 1978.[FR Doc. 78-23078 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4710-02]DEPARTMENT OF STATE

A gency fo r In ternational Developm ent

[Delegation of Authority No. 131]REGIONAL ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS

Delegation o f A uthority Regarding B ilateral and Regional Population Program«

Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by delegation of authority No. 104, as amended,. dated November 3, 1961, (26 FR 10608), from the Secre­tary of State, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. There is hereby delegated to the Assistant Administrator for Near East, the Assistant Administrator for Latin

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36547America and the Caribbean, the As­sistant Administrator for Africa and the Assistant Administrator for Asia, each for the countries or areas within their respective responsibilities, all of the authorities and functions which are specified in any regulation (pub­lished or unpublished), handbook, manual order, policy directive or de­termination, manual circular or circu­lar airgram or instruction or communi­cation of any nature, relating to the conduct of bilateral and regional pro­grams of population and family plan­ning.

Actions heretofore taken by officials designated herein are hereby ratified and confirmed.

This delegation of authority shall be effective immediately.

Dated: July 18, 1978.J ohn J . G illigan,

Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-23022 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-141DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

tCGD (78-109)]COAST GUARD MERCHANT VESSEL

PERSONNEL LICENSE TESTING PROGRAM

M eeting

This is to give notice that there will be an open meeting to discuss issues relating to the Merchant Vessel Per­sonnel License Testing Program. This meeting is in response to comments re­ceived concerning issues and areas of interest in the license testing program. Attendance is open to the-interested public.

The meeting will be held on Tues­day, September 26, and Wednesday, September 27, 1978, at the Coast Guard Institute, Federal Aviation Ad­ministration Aeronautics Center, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73169, begin­ning at 1 p.m. on September 26, with a tour of the facilities. Activities on Sep­tember 27 will commence at 9 a.m. to discuss areas of mutual interest. Those persons planning to attend should con­tact the Commanding Officer (mvp), Attn: CDR George Thompson, U.S. Coast Guard Institute, P.O. Substa­tion 18, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73169, or by calling 405-686-4417, no later than September 8, in order to provide sufficient space for those attending.

DATE: August 7, 1978.H. H. Bell,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Merchant Marine Safety.

[FR Doc. 78-22997 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-59]N ationa l H igh w ay Traffic S afety

Adm inistration

[Docket No. EX77-3; Notice 4] BRISTOL CARS, LTD.

Petition for Tem porary Exemption From M otor Vehcile S afety Standard

This notice grants the petition by Bristol Cars, Ltd., of London, England, for a temporary exemption of Bristol 412 passenger cars from 49 CFR 571.215 Motor Vehicle Safety Stand­ard No. 215, Exterior Protection. The company had applied for an exemp­tion on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship.

Notice of the petition appeared on May 4, 1978 (43 FR 19310) and an op­portunity afforded for public com­ment.

Petitioner is a manufacturer whose annual production of motor vehicles has not exceeded 150 units in the past 3 years. In 1977, it applied for (42 FR 16014) arid received (42 FR 42942) temporary exemptions from five Fed­eral motor vehicle safety standards. Its request for exemption from stand­ard No. 215, however, was denied with­out prejudice on the basis that insuffi­cient information had been submitted to support a finding that the company had, in good faith, attemtpted to comply with the standard. The compa­ny has applied once more for a 3-year exemption from standard No. 215. It submitted a drawing which purports to show that its bumper heights meet the impact height requirements of the standard.

The petitioner argued that it is un­likely to experience problems with engine movement damage at low-speed impact since it uses a Chrysler engine and motor mounts, and has no radia­tor fan in the impact area. Cost of en­gineering and testing for compliance was estimated at $75,000. Bristol had a net loss of approximately $92,000 in 1975 with a total accumulated loss of approximately $156,000 as of the end of that year. In its opinion, an exemp­tion would be in the public interest in allowing it to continue in business and to purchase engines, transmissions, and drive trains from a U.S. corpora­tion.

No comments were received on the petition.

Petitioner has informed the agency that it expects to sell no more than 25 passenger cars in the United States if an exemption is granted to it. NHTSA does not believe that the addition of such a small number of noncomplying vehicles to the motor vehicle popula­tion of the United States would result in any demonstrable degradation of safety, and finds that an exemption

from standard No. 215 is consistent with both the public interest in tempo­rarily exempting a small manufactur­er, and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Further, in view of petitioner’s finan­cial history, it is found that compli­ance with these requirements would cause substantial economic hardship in the possible monetary outlay re­quired for development and testing.

Yet the issue still remains of wheth­er the company has, in good faithu at­tempted to comply with the standard. As NHTSA interprets the intent of Congress in enacting section 123, relief from compliance should be granted to a manufacturer who can demonstrate that it has a current problem, that it understands the extent of its problem, and that it is working to resolve it. The company has admitted that it did not design its vehicles to conform to standard No. 215 which could be viewed as a per se admission that it has not, in good faith, attempted to meet Federal bumper requirements. Yet if the Bristol’s bumper system could be shown to approximate com­pliance with bumper height and pro­tective criteria requirements, or not to fall short of full compliance in any substantial respect, an argument of constructive good faith could be made on its behalf.

Bristol’s drawing purports to show that it meets bumper height require­ments, and it is of the opinion that the 412 is unlikely to experience problems with engine movement damage at low- speed impacts, presumably to the fuel and cooling system. After the close of the comment period, the company submitted photographs showing • the effect of an impact of 1,400 lbs (i.e., a Mini automobile) on the rear bumper “at about 15 to 20 mph.” The photo­graph shows that the center portion of the bumper is depressed approximate­ly 2 inches, and that all lamps with the exception of one of the two license plate lamps, are lit. The outage of the lamp is attributed to bulb failure.

Further, there is no apparent damage to the exhaust pipes or as to the trunk lid. Bristol states that the front bumper system is mounted in a similar fashion to the rear and that there is “no reason why a front impact of similar intensity should iriflict more damage than that experienced on the rear.” Although a mass of ,1,400 pounds is substantially less than the mass of the 412, the higher impact ve­locity of “15 to 20 mph” will result in a much higher force applied at the moment of impact. Upon review of Bristol’s data, the NHTSA believes it more likely than not that the 412’s bumper system would approximate compliance with standard No. 215 in a 5-mph frontal and rear impact, and that this can be viewed as a good faith

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36548 NOTICES

attempt by the manufacturer to pro­vide protection for safety-related sys­tems in low-speed impacts. Therefore, Bristol’s petition is granted. However, because standard No. 215 is revoked ef­fective September 1, 1978, the effec­tive date of 49 CFR 581, Bumper Standard, the exemption from stand­ard No. 215 will terminate with the standard.

Accordingly, NHTSA Exemption No. 78-3 previously granted Bristol Cars, Ltd.' is hereby amended to provide an exemption from 49 CFR 571.215, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, expiring Sep­tember 1, 1978.(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat. 1159 (15 U.S.C. 1410); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)

Issued on August 9, 1978.J oan Claybrook,

Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-22650 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4910-59]N ationa l H igh w ay Traffic S afety

Adm inistration

[Docket No. EX76-4; Notice 4] DAIHATSU M OTOR CO. LTD.

Petition for Tem porary Exemption From FederalM otor Vehicle S afety Standard

This notice announces an interpreta­tion through which Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. of Asaka, Japan, may certify compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Braking Systems. As such it is a denial of that company’s petition for a renewal of its exemption from that standard. The basis of the petition was that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission electric vehicle. Daihatsu’s previous exemp­tion was granted on August 23, 1976 (41 FR 35554) and expires on July 1, 1978.

Notice of the petition was published on March 27, 1978 (43 FR 12778) and an opportunity afforded for comment. The vehicle for which continued ex­emption was sought is the Daihatsu Trike, model B20, an electric tricycle which has been developed for short distance on-road use. The B20’s park­ing brake system will not hold it for 5 minutes on a 30-percent grade in the reverse direction as required by stand­ard No. 122. The company argued that this nonconformance does not degrade the overall safety of the vehicle. Its

'maximum climbing ability is only 10.5 percent which renders it unlikely ever to be parked on a grade that exceeds it. Its parking brake system, however, holds it in a reverse direction on a 20- percent grade, but the vehicle begins to slide at any grade exceeding 20 per­

cent. At the time Daihatsu applied for a renewal it had sold only 24 units under its exemption.

No comments were received on the petition.

The purpose of the braking require­ment is to insure that the parking brake system is sufficiently strong to hold a vehicle for at least 5 minutes on a 30-percent grade. It is not intended to dictate design requirements such as center of gravity location and tire design mandating that the vehicle itself have a limit of traction sufficient to hold it on a grade that is 30 percent or greater when its wheels are braked. Were NHTSA examining the Daihatsu for compliance with standard 122 the fact that the vehicle slid on a 30-per­cent grade, in the reverse direction, would not be considered a failure to meet the parking brake requirements. In NHTSA’s view, therefore, no fur­ther exemption is now needed for Dai­hatsu to certify compliance with standard No. 122 and for this reason its petition is denied.(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat. 1159 (15 U.S.C. 1410); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)

Issued on August 14, 1978.J oan Claybrook,

Administrator.[FR Doc. 78-23045 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[4810-22]DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

[053595]A M ERICA N MANUFACTURER’S PETITION

Receipt o f American M anufacturer’s Petition To Reclassify C ertain B attery-O perated Clock M ovem ents

August 11, 1978.AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, De­partment of the Treasury.ACTION: Notice of receipt of an American manufacturer’s petition.SUMMARY: The Customs Service has received a petition from an American manufacturer requesting the reclassi­fication of certain battery-operated clock movements, on the basis that the metal bearings used in the move­ments are substitutes for jewels.DATES: Interested persons may com­ment on this petition. Comments must be received on or before September 18, 1978.ADDRESS: Comments should be ad­dressed to the Commissioner of Cus­toms, Attention: Regulations and Legal Publications Division, U.S. Cus­toms Service, 1301 Constitution

Avenue NW., Room 2335, Washington, D.C. 20229.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Simon Cain, Classification and ValueDivision, U.S. Customs Service, 1301Constitution Avenue NW., Washing­ton, D.C. 20229, 202-566-5727.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:B ackground

A petition has been filed under sec­tion 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516) by an Ameri­can manufacturer of transiter battery- operated clock movements. The peti­tioner contends that certain battery- operated clock movements, which are currently classifiable under the provi­sion for assembled clock movements, measuring less than 1.77 inches in width, not constructed or designed to operate for over 47 hours without rewinding, having no jewels or only 1 jewel, in item 720.02 of the tariff schedules of the United States (TSUS), are more properly classifiable under the provision for assembled clock movements measuring less than 1.77 inches in width, having over 1 jewel, in item 720.04, TSUS, if not con­structed or designed to operate for over 47 hours without rewinding, or in item 720.08, TSUS, if constructed or designed to operate for over 47 hours without rewinding.

The proper tariff classification of the clock movements depends upon the number of jewels contained in the movement. Under schedule 7, part 2, subpart E, headnote 2(e), TSUS, the term “jewels” includes substitutes for jewels for tariff classification pur­poses. The petitioner contends that, because the metal bearings used in the battery-operated clock movement have a greater hardness than the surround­ing plate metal, thereby allowing the bearings to perform the same friction- reducing function as a jewel bearing, the metal bearings are substitutes for the jewel bearings, and are to be counted as “jewels” for tariff pur­poses. As a result, the battery-operat­ed clock movements would be properly classifiable under items 720.04 or 720.08, TSUS.

Comments

Pursuant to § 175.21(b) of the Cus­toms regulations (19 CFR 175.21(b)), the Customs Service invites written comments (preferably in triplicate) on this petition from all interested par­ties.

The American manufacturer’s peti­tion, as well as all comments received in response to this notice, will be avail­able for public inspection in accord­ance with §§ 103.8(b) and 175.21(a) of the Customs regulations (19 CFR 103.8(b), 175.21(a)) during regular

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36549business hours at the Regulations and Legal Publications Division, Headquar­ters, U.S. Customs Service, 1301 Con­stitution Avenue NW., Room 2335, Washington, D.C. 20229.

Authority

This notice is being published in ac­cordance with § 175.21(a) of the Cus­toms Regulations (19 CPR 175.21(a)).

Leonard Lehman, Assistant Commissioner,

Regulations and Rulings.[FR Doc. 78-23027 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[8320-01]VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

STATION COMMITTEE O N EDUCATIONAL ALLOWANCES

M eeting

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section V, review procedure and hear­ing rules, Station Committee on Edu­cational Allowances that on Thursday, September 7, 1978, at 8 a.m. the Denver Regional Office Station Com­mittee on Educational Allowances shall, in the hearing room of the Denver Veterans’ Administration re­gional office, conduct a hearing to de­termine whether Veterans’ Adminis­tration benefits to all eligible persons enrolled in LaVonne’s Academy of Beauty, 2162 South Colorado Boule­vard, Denver, Colo. 80222, and La­Vonne’s Academy of Beauty, 828 East 104th Avenue, Thornton, Colo. 80229 (formerly located at 1565 Glenarm Place, Denver, Colo. 80202) should be discontinued, as provided in 38 CFR 21.4134, because a requirement of law is not being met or a provision of the law has been violated. All interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at that time and place.

Dated: August 7,1978.N. B. Alverson,

Director, VA Regional Office, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo.

[FR Doc. 78-22988 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7035-01]INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

[Notice No. 699]ASSIGNMENT OF HEARINGS

August 14, 1978.Cases assigned for hearing, post­

ponement, 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.MC 45414 . (Sub-3), Metropolitan Coach

Service, Inc., now assigned September 20, 1978, at Boston, MA,. is canceled and transferred to modified procedure.

MC 105782 (Sub-9F), Hughes Refrigerated Express, Inc., now being assigned prehear­ing conference September 18, 1978, at the offices of the Interstate Commerce Com­mission, Washington, DC.

MC 49392 (Sub-7), Campbell’s Moving Co., Inc., now being assigned September 11, 1978 (5 days), at Philadelphia, PA, in a hearing room to be later designated.

MC 143999, Allied International Trucking Co., Inc., now being assigned September 20, 1978 (1 day), at Boston, MA, in a hear­ing room to be later designated.

MC 133689 (Sub-158), Overland Express, Inc., assigned for for hearing September 11, 1978, at New York City, NY, and will be held at room F-2220, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza.

MC 103993 (Sub-916), Morgan Drive-Away, Inc., is assigned for hearing September 12, 1978, at New York City, NY, and will be held at room F-2220, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza.

MC 113651 (Sub-260), Indiana Refrigerator Lines, Inc., is assigned for hearing Sep­tember 13, 1978, at room F-2220, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza.

MC 144142, Ebony Messenger Service, Inc., is assigned for hearing September 14, 1978, at New York City, NY, and will be held at room F-2220, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza.

MC 141804 (Sub-IOOF), Western Express, Division of Interstate Rental, Inc., is as­signed for hearing September 20, 1978, at Los Angeles, CA, and will be held at room 13114, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard.

MC 141804 (Sub-97), Western Express, Divi­sion of Interstate Rental, Inc., is assigned for hearing September 21,1978, at Los An­geles, CA, and will be held at room 10124, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Boule­vard.

MC 135611 (Sub-7), Walker & Whitted Transportation Co., Inc., is assigned for hearing September 18, 1978, at Los Ange­les, CA, and will be held at room 10124, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Boule­vard.

MC 138635 (Sub-46), Carolina Western Ex­press, Inc., is assigned for hearing Septem­ber 13, 1978, at Los Angeles, CA, and will be held at room 13114, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard.

«'MC-F-13235, Paramount Movers, Inc.—Pur­chase—Econo Movers and MC 31462 (Sub- 24), Paramount Movers, Inc., is assigned for hearing September 8, 1978, at Los An­geles, CA, and will be held at room 7212, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire-Boule­vard.

MC 139495 (Sub-308), National Carriers, Inc., is assigned for hearing September 11, 1978, at room 10124, Federal Building,

11000 Wilshire Boulevard, and will be held at Los Angeles, CA.

MC 142368 (Sub-8), Danny Herman Truck­ing, Inc., is assigned for hearing Septem­ber 12, 1978, at Los Angeles, CA and will be held at room 10124, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard.

MC 143949 (Sub-3), John Galt Line, Inc., is assigned for hearing September 7, 1978, at Los Angeles, CA and will be held at room 7212, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard.

MC 144060 (Sub-1), American Equipment Transportation Corp., is assigned for hear­ing September 6, 1978, at Los Angeles, CA, and will be held at room 7212, Federal Building, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard.

H. G. H omme, Jr., Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23065 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[1505-01]

[Notice No. 81]

M OTOR CARRIER TEMPORARY AUTHORITY APPLICATIONS

CorrectionIn PR Doc. 78-14925 appearing at

page 23076 in the issue for Tuesday, May 30, 1978, in the first column of page 23079, under No. MC 144347 (Sub-No. 1TA), “Dierks, AK” should have read “Dierks, AR”.

[7035-01]

[Notice No. 142]

M O TO R CARRIER TEMPORARY AUTHORITY APPLICATIONS

August 15,1978.The following are notices of filing of

applications for temporary authority under section 210a(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act provided for under the provisions of 49 CPR 1131.3. These rules provide that an original and six(6) copies of protests to an application may be filed with the field official named in the F ederal R egister publi­cation no later than the 15th calendar day after the date the notice of the filing of the application is published in the F ederal R egister. One copy of the protest must be served on the appli­cant, or its authorized representative, if any, and the protestant must certify that such service has been made. The protest must identify the operating authority upon which it is predicated, specifying the “MC” docket and “Sub” number and quoting the particular portion of authority upon which it relies. Also, the protestant shall speci­fy the service it can and will provide

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36550 NOTICES

and the amount and type of equip­ment it will make available for use in connection with the service contem­plated by the TA application. The weight accorded a protest shall be gov­erned by the completeness and perti­nence of the protestant’s information.

Except as otherwise specifically noted, each applicant states that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment re­sulting from approval of its applica­tion.

A copy of the application is on file, and can be examined at the Office of the Secretary, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C., and also in the ICC Field Office to which protests are to be transmitted.

M otor Carriers of P roperty

MC 51146 (Sub-602TA), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: SCHNEIDERTRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box 2298, 2661 South Broadway, Green Bay, WI 54306. Representative: John Patter­son, 2480 East Commercial Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308. Authority sought to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, stoves and relat­ed commodities as are dealt in or used by household appliance stores, from the facilities of White Consolidated Industries, Inc., at Grand Rapids, Greenville, and Belding, MI, to the fa­cilities of Western Auto Supply Co. at or near Delaware, OH; Salina, KA; Kansas City, MO; Chicago, IL; Temple, TX; Jacksonville, FL; Jack- son, MS; Owings Mills, MD; O’Fallon, MO, and Gastonia, NC, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operat­ing authority. Supporting shipper(s): Western Auto Supply Co., 2107 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64108 (Ray­mond F. Schaefer). Send protests to: Gail Daugherty, Transportation As­sistant, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, Bureau of Operations, U.S. Fed­eral Building & Courthouse, 517 East Wisconsin Avenue, Room 619, Milwau­kee, WI 53202.

MC 57591 (Sub-20TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: EVANS DELIVERY CO. INC., P.O. Box 268, Pottsville, PA 17901. Representative: Joseph F. Hoary, 121 South Main Street, Taylor, PA 18517. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities (except house­hold goods, commodities in bulk, com­modities requiring special equipment or handling, Classes A & B explosives), from Crawford and Hillside, NJ, to York, PA, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Bristol Myers Products, 225 Long Avenue, Hillside, NJ 07207. Send protests to: Paul J. Kenworthy, Dis­trict Supervisor, Interstate Commerce

Commission, Bureau of Operations, 314 U.S. Post Office Building, Scran­ton, PA 18503.

MC 58672 (Sub-2TA), filed June 12, 1978. Applicant: DUGAS EXPRESS CO., 101 Knox Street, Lewiston, ME 04240. Representative: Normand F. Doyon, 101 Knox Street, Lewiston, ME 04240. Authority sought to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over regular and irregular routes, transporting: (1) Wood stoves, supplies and related materials, be­tween Lewiston, ME, and Old Say- brook, CT; (2) insulation, paper used in the manufacture of insulation and related materials, between Lewiston, ME, and points in NH and MA; (3) Regular routes—general commodities (with no exceptions), between Lewis­ton, ME, and South Portland, ME, serving the intermediate points of Auburn, Danville Junction, New Glou­cester, Upper Gloucester, Gray, West Falmouth, and Portland, ME, from Lewiston over U.S. Hwy 202 to Gray, ME, thence over ME Hwy 26 to Port­land, ME, thence over U.S. Hwy 1 to South Portland and return over the same route, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seek­ing up to 90 days of operating authori­ty. Supporting shipper(s): (1) Diamond Machinery Co.,, Lewiston, ME, (2) Polar Bear Insulation Mfg. Co., Lewis­ton, ME, (3) L & A United Grocers, Inc., Lewiston, ME; and Polar Paints, Inc., Lewiston, ME, and Quoddy Moc­casins, Auburn, ME. Send protests to: Donald G. Weiler, District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, Bureau of Operations, 76 Pearl Street, Room 305, Portland, ME 04111.

MC 70557 (Sub-5TA), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: NIELSEN BROS., CARTAGE CO., INC., 4619 West Homer Street, Chicago, IL 60639. Rep­resentative: Carl L. Steiner, 39 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603. Au­thority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes,' transporting: Buildings, wall and insulating boards, and mate­rials and supplies used in the installa­tion thereof (except commodities in bulk), from the facilities of Armstrong Cork Co., at Pensacola, FL, to points in AL, LA, MS, TN, and TX, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an un­derlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): Armstrong Cork Co., Liber­ty & Charlotte Streets, Lancaster, PA 17604. Send protests to: Lois Stahl, District Supervisor, Interstate Com­merce Commission, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604.

MC 118989 (Sub-197TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: CONTAINERTRANSIT, INC., 5223 South 9th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53221. Repre­sentative: Rolland K. Draves (same ad­

dress as applicant). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Plastic containers, from the facilities of The Continental Group, Inc., in Kentwood and Grand Rapids, MI, to Lenexa, KS, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an un­derlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): The . Continental Group, Inc., 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017. (L. W. Myers) Send protests to: Gail Daugherty, Transportation As­sistant, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, Bureau of Operations, U.S. Fed­eral Building & Courthouse, 517 East Wiscônsin Avenue, Room 619, Milwau­kee, WI 53202.

MC 127042 (Sub-219TA), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: HAGEN, INC., P.O. Box 98-Leeds Station, 3232 Hwy 75 North, Sioux City, IA 51108. Repre­sentative: Robert G. Tessar, Director of Traffic, Hagen, Inc., P.O. Box 98- Leeds Station, Sioux City, IA 51108. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Cleaning, washing, polishing, and scouring compounds; waxes, janitor supplies, weed killers, and sodium hy­pochlorite solutions (except in bulk), in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from the facilities of In­dustrial Chemical Labs, Inc., in Omaha, NE, to Seattle and Spokane, WA, and Eugene, OR, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Industrial Chemical Labs, Inc., David J. Vivian, assistant to the president, 1015 North 14th Street, Omaha, NE 68102. Send protests to: Carroll Russell, District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Com­mission, Suite 620, 110 North 14th Street, Omaha, NE 68102.

MC 135874 (Sub-129TA), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: LTL PERISHA­BLES, INC., 550 East 5th Street South, South St. Paul, MN 55075. Rep­resentative: K. O. Petrick, 550 East 5th Street South, South St. Paul, MN 55075. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Foodstuffs, grill brick, and filter screens (except commodities in bulk), (2) packaging, materials and supplies, and (3) Commodities used in the man­ufacture of foodstuffs, grill brick, and filter screens (except commodities in bulk), in equipment equipped with me­chanical refrigeration, between Albert Lea, MN, on the one hand, and on the other, points in CT, DE, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MO, MD, MA, MI, NR, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, DC, and Denver, CO, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Sup­porting shipper(s): Miami Margarine

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . .160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36551Co., 5226 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45217. Send protests to: Delores A. Poe, Transportation Assistant, Inter­state Commerce Commission, Bureau of Operations, 414 Federal Building andJU.S. Court House, 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

MC 140986 (Sub-6TA), filed June 6, 1978. Applicant: GREAT NORTHERN TRUCK LINES, INC., Bank Street, Netcong, NJ 07857. Representative: Robert B. Pepper, 168 Woodbridge Avenue, Highland, Park, NJ 08964. Au­thority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting: Insulating products, and on return movements, materials and supplies used in the manufacturing and sales thereof (except in bulk), from Denville, NJ, to points in the United States (except AK and HI), for 180 days. Condition: Authority is limited to service ren­dered under a contract or continuing contracts, with Lamtec Corp. Support­ing shipper(s): Lamtec Corp., 7 Astro Place, Denville, NJ 07834. Send pro­tests to: Joel Morrows, District Super­visor, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, 9 Clinton Street, Newark, NJ 07102.

MC 141376 (Sub-4TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: CERTARO TRUCK­ING CO., 486-492 Twelfth Avenue, Pa­terson, NJ 07514. Representative: Joseph R. Siegelbaum, 17 Academy Street, Newark, NJ 07102. Authority sought to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Chemicals, clean­ing, washing, scouring and defoaming compounds, in temperature-controlled vehicles (except commodities in bulk), materials, equipment, and supplies used in the manufacture and sale of the foregoing commodities, in tem­perature-controlled vehicles (except commodities in bulk), between Harri­son and Kearny, NJ, on the one hand, and on the other, points in the United States east of, and including the States of MN, IA, MO, OK, and TX, under a continuing* contract, or con­tracts, with Drew Chemical Corp., for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Drew Chemical Corp., One Drew Chemical Plaza, Boonton, NJ 07005. Send pro­tests to: Joel Morrows, District Super­visor, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, Bureau of Operations, 9 Clinton Street, Room 618, Newark, NJ 07102.

MC 141739 (Sub-6TA), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: SPECIALIZEDTRUCKING SERVICE, INC., 2301 Milwaukee Way, Tacoma, WA 98421. Representative: Ronald R. Brader, 2301 Milwaukee Way, Tacoma, WA 98421. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Cellulose fibre products, insulating materials and chemicals and supplies

used in the manufacturing of insula­tion, between Logan, UT, on the one hand, and, points in the States of AZ, CA, OR, WA, ID, NV, CO, and MT, on the other, under a continuing con­tract, or contracts, with Bruce Allsop Insulation Co. and MTN Fiber Co., for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): Bruce Allsop Insulation Co. and MTN Fiber Co., 318 East 7th South, Logan, UT 84321. Send protests to: Hugh H. Chaffee, District Supervi­sor, Bureau of Operations, Interstate Commerce Commission, 858 Federal Building, Seattle, WA 98174.

MC 142359 (Sub-3TA), filed June 2, 1978. Applicant: PORT EAST TRANS­FER, INC., 1800 South Newkirk Street, Baltimore, MD 21214. Repre­sentative: Mel P. Booker, Jr., 118 North St. Asaph Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: General commodities, (except classes A and B explosives, commodities in bulk, household goods as defined by the Commission, and commodities which because of size or weight re­quire special equipment in containers or trailers), between Baltimore, MD, and points in its commercial zone, on the one hand, and, on the other, Laurel, MD, Washington, DC, Wil­mington, DE, Philadelphia, PA, Tren­ton and Newark, NJ, New York, NY, and points in their commercial zones, and points in Fairfax and Prince Wil­liam Counties, VA, Prince Georges, Baltimore, Howard and Montgomery Counties, MD, and Chester, Montgom­ery and Bucks, PA, for 180 days. Appli­cant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating au­thority. Supporting shipper(s): There are approximately (5) statements of support attached to the application which may be examined at the Inter­state Commerce Commission in Wash­ington, DC, or copies thereof which may be examined at the field office named below. Send protests to: Wil­liam L. Hughes, District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, 814-B Federal Building, Charles Center, 31 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201.

MC 142559 (Sub-29TA), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: BROOKSTRANSPORTATION, INC., 3830 Kelley Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114. Representative: John P. McMahon, 100 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Paper, paper products and woodpulp, (1) from Mobile, AL, to points in CT, DE, DC, IL, IN, ME, MD, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV, and

WI; and (2) from Westbrook, ME, to points in AL, DC, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, NC, OH, SC, TN, and WI; (3) from Chester, PA, to points in AL, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, NC, OH, SC, TN, and WI; (4) from Fort Edward and Albany, NY, to points in AL, DC, FL, GA, IN, KY, MD, MI, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA, and WI; (5) from Marinette and Oconto Falls, WI, to points in IL, IN, KS, MI, MO, OH, and PA; and (6) from Columbus, OH, to points in IL, IN, KS, KY and MO, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Scott Paper Company, Scott Plaza I, Philadelphia, PA 19113. Send protests to: James Johnson, District Supervisor, Inter­state Commerce Commission, 731 Fed­eral Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199.

MC 142911 (Sub-3TA), filed June 12, 1978. Applicant: FRAWLEY BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CORP., 182 Beach 114th Street, Rockaway Park, NY 11694. Representative: John M. Frawley (same address as applicant). Authority sought to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: Oil sam­ples, exploration samples, core sam­ples, jet fuel samples, gas samples, water samples, light oil samples, sup­porting documents, test results, com­puter printouts, payroll information and supporting documents, cash, checks, delivery receipts and invoices, (1) from Port Jefferson, NY, tp Sewaren, NJ, 'and West Orange, NJ, and return, (2) from Syracuse, NY, Renssalaer, NY, Bridgeport, CT, Fall River, MA; Waltham, MA, South Port­land, ME, and Linden Bank, NJ, to West Orange, NJ, and return. (3) from West Orange, NJ, to Valley Forge, PA, and Columbia, MD, and return, and from West Orange, NJ, to Baltimore, MD, Chesapeake, VA; Roanoke, VA; Richmond, VA; Newington, VA, and return, and from Vienna, VA, and Bal­timore, MD, to West Orange, NJ, and(4) from North Merrick, NY, to Sewaren, NJ, and return, under a con­tinuing cpntract, pr contracts, with Shell Oil Co., for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Shell Oil Co., 100 Executive Drive, West Orange, NJ 07752. Send protests to: Maria B. Kejss, Transpor­tation Assistant, Interstate Commerce Commission, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007.

MC 143701 (Sub-2TA), filed June 12, 1978. Applicant: WILLIAMOBERSTE, INC., 628 Walnut, P.O. Box 394, Blue Springs, MO 64015. Representative: Lester C. Arvin, 814 Centry Plaza Building, Wichita, KS 67202. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Paper bags, from the facilities of Westvaco Corp., Bag Division, New Or­leans, LA, to points in AR, AZ, CA,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36552 NOTICES

CO, NM, OK, TX, TN, MO, KY, IL, IN, MI, NE, IA, KS, GA, WI and OH; and (2) materials used in producing paper bags, from AR, AZ, CA, CO, NM, OK, TX, TN, MO, KY, IL, IN, MI, NE, IA, KS, GA, WI, OH, to the facilities of Westvaco Corp., Bag Divi­sion, New Orleans, LA, restricted to the points of origin and the destined States, for 180 days. Supporting shippers): Westvaco, 1400 Annuncia­tion Street, New Orleans, LA 70160. Send protests to: Vernon V. Coble, Dis­trict Supervisor, Room 600, 911Walnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.

I» MC 143846 (Sub-2TA), filed June 6,I 1978. Applicant: P. POSA, INC., 315

Feather Lane, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417. Representative: Piken & Piken, One Lefrak City Plaza, Flushing, NY 11368. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Drugs, medicines, cosmetics, toilet ar­ticles, advertising and promotional materials, equipment, materials, and supplies used in the manufacture and sale of such commodities, between points in the New York, NY, commer­cial zone and Glen Gardner, NJ, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IL, LA, NC, SC, TN, and TX, restricted to traffic moving under a continuing contract, or contracts, with Lanvin- Charles of the Ritz, Inc., Holmdel, NJ, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Support­ing shipper(s): Lanvin-Charles of the Ritz, Inc., Route 35, Holmdel, NJ 07733. Send protests to: Joel Morrows, District Supervisor, Interstate Com­merce Commission, Bureau of Oper­ations, 9 Clinton Street, Room 618, Newark, NJ 07102.

MC 144046 (Sub-2TA), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: STEWART’SSTONEY ACRES, INC., Rural Route 1, Box 112, Johnson Creek, WI 53038. Representative: Ronald Laitsch, P.O. Box 70, Watertown, WI 53094. Author­ity sought to operate as a contract car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Feed, and (2) feed ingredients, additives, supple­ments and medicine, in bags, in dry freight vans, from Howard Lake, MN, to points in IL on and north of IL Hwy 17, beginning at the IL-IN border to its junction with Interstate Hwy 74, and Interstate Hwy 74 to the IL-IA border, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with American Feeds & Livestock Co., Inc., for 180 days. Sup­porting shipper(s): American Feeds & Livestock Co., Inc., P.O. Box 137, Car- pentersville, IL 60110. (Paul W. Brandt) Send protests to: Gail Daugh­erty, Transportation Assistant, Inter­state Commerce Commission, Bureau

of Operations, U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse, 517 East Wisconsin Avenue, Room 619, Milwaukee, WI 53202.

MC 144841TA, filed June 1, 1978. Applicant: GOLDEN EAGLE TRANS­PORT COMPANY, INC., 505 West Allen Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773. Representative: Kellner & Stefflre, Greg P. Stefflre, 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1724, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Boat and utility trailers and the mate­rials, equipment and supplies used in the manufacture and sale thereof, (a) between the facilities of Roadrunner Trailers, Inc., and Roadrunner Trail­ers of Texas, Inc., located at or near San Dimas, CA, on the one hand, and, Dallas, TX, on the other; and (b) from the facilities of Roadrunner Trailers, Inc., and Roadrunner Trailers of Texas, Inc., at or near San Dimas, CA, and Dallas, TX, to points in the United States excluding HI and AK, restricted to traffic originating or ter­minating at the facilities of Roadrun­ner Trailers, Inc., or Roadrunner Trailers of Texas, Inc., under a con­tinuing contract or contracts, with Roadrunner Trailers, Inc., and/or Roadrunner Trailers of Texas, Inc., for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Support­ing shipper(s): Roadrunner Trailers, 505 West Allen Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773. Send protests to: Irene Carlos, Transportation Assistant, In­terstate Commerce Commission, Room 1321 Federal Building, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

MC 144874 (Sub-ITA), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: HARRY J. BERRY, d.b.a. BERRY TRUCKING, P.O. Box 658, Penns Grove, NJ 08069. Repre­sentative: Herbert Alan Dubin, 1320 Fenwick Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Fi­berglass and plastic articles, (except in bulk, in tank vehicles), from the facili­ties of the Fiberglass Equipment Divi­sion of Dart Environmental Services Co. at Penns Grove, NJ, to points in CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV, and DC, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed ah underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operat­ing authority. Supporting shipper(s):^ Dart Industries, Inc., Chemicals-Plas- tics Group, 8480 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA. 90048. Send protests to: John P. Lynn, Transportation Spe­cialist, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, 428 East State Street, Room 204, Trenton, NJ 08608.

MC 144901TA, filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: INTERMODAL SYSTEMS,

INC., P.O. Box 4952, Kansas City, MO 64120. Representative: Arthur J. Cerra, P.O. Box 19251, Kansas City, MO 64141. Authority sought to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Foodstuffs and agricultural com­modities as defined by section 203(b)(6) of the Interstate Commerce Act (except commodities in bulk), when moving in temperature con­trolled equipment between points in CA, OR, and AZ, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, and WI., restricted to shipments which involve substitu­tion of trailer on flat car service for over the road motor carrier service for a portion of the through movement, for 180 days. Common control may be involved. Supporting shipper(s): There are approximately (20) statements of support attached to the application which may be examined at the Inter-­state Commerce Commission in Wash­ington, D.C., or copies therof which may be examined at the field office named below. Send protests to: John V. Barry, District Supervisor, Inter­state Commerce Commission, 500 Fed­eral Building, 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.

MC 144902TA, filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: ACE BEVERAGE CO., 906 Aronson Avenue, P.O. Box 1933, Bill­ings, MT 59103. Representative: Charles A. Murray, Jr., 207A Behner Building, 2822 Third Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Malt beverages, from Milwaukee, WI, St. Paul MN; Los An­geles, CA; and Portland, OR, and points in their commercial zones, to Billings, MT; and (2) malt beverages, from St. Louis, MO; LaCrosse, WI; Milwaukee, WI, and St. Paul and Min­neapolis, MN; to Miles City, MT; and(3) fruit juices, from St. Paul, MN, to Billings and Miles City, MT, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with M&C Beverage, Inc., Fred Briggs Dis­tributing Co., and Dunham Distribut­ing, Inc., for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): (1) Marvin Mollgaard, president, M&C Beverage, Inc., P.O. Box 1181, 419 North Ninth Street, Miles City, MT 59301. (2) Pete Decker, secretary-treasurer, Fred Briggs Dis­tributing Co., 3925 First Avenue South, Billings, MT 59101. (3) Lyle Dunham, Dunham Distributing, Inc., 421 North 13th Street, Billings, MT 59101. Send protests to: Paul J. Labane, District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, 2602 First Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101.

MC 144913TA, filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: GERALD COMPTON,d.b.a. COMPTON TRUCKING CO., 5300 Kennedy Road, Forest Park, GA

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 3655330050. Representative: Virgil H. Snfith, Suite 12, 1587 Phoenix Boulevard, At­lanta, GA. Authority sought to oper­ate as a contract carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irrregular routes, transport­ing: Such merchandise as is marketed by Atlantic Zayre, Inc., at its retail outlets, between the facilities of Atlan­tic Zayre, Inc., at Forest Park, GA, on the one hand, and the retail stores of Atlantic Zayre, Inc., at Birmingham, AL, on the other hand, under a con­tinuing contract, or contracts, with At­lantic Zayre, Inc., for 180 days. Appli­cant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating au­thority. Supporting Shipper(s): Atlan­tic Zayre, Inc., 5300 Kennedy Road, Forest Park, GA 30050. Send protests to: Sara K. Davis, Transportation As­sistant, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, 1252 West Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30309.

MC 144945TA, filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: ALLEN LEE, d.b.a. A&L TRANSPORT, 11722 South Halsted Street, Chicago, IL 60628. Representa­tive: James R. Madler, 120 West Madi­son Street, Chicago, IL 60602. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Marble and stone products, between Chicago, IL, and La­crosse, WI, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Bernard Van Etten, Inc., president, Murphy Marble Co., Dalloy & Van Etten, Inc., 11756 South Hal­sted Street, Chicago, IL 60628. Send protests to: Lois M. Stahl, Transporta­tion Assistant, Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 South Dearborn Street, Room 1386, Chicago, IL 60604.

MC 144988TA, filed June 2, 1978. Applicant: WILLIE L. BECK, d.b.a. BECK HAULING SERVICE, 5160 Thistle Road SE., Smyrna, GA 30080. Representative: Willie L. Beck, 5160 Thistle Road SE, Smyrna, GA 30080. Authority sought to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: Cotton clothing (such as bib overalls, jackets, etc.); cotton piece goods, finished and/ or unfinished, clothing, hanging on hangers and accessories, in straight trucks only, between the facilities of Norstan Industries, Inc., at Atlanta, GA, and points in AL, FL, NC, SC and TN, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with Nortstan Industries, Inc., for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Sup­porting shippers(s): Norstan Indus­tries, Inc., 4400 Southland Circle NW., Atlanta, GA 30318. Send protests to: Sara K. Davis, Transportation Assist­ant, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, 1252 West Peachtree Street NW., Room 300, Atlanta, GA 30309.

MC 144833TA, filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: SOUTH RIVER BUS CO.,

148 Whitehead Avenue, South River, NJ 08882. Representative: Robert B. Pepper, 169 Woodbridge Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904. Authority sought to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, v transporting: Passengers, and their baggage, between Capitol Hotel, Lakewood, NJ, on the one hand, and, on the other, New York, NY, and Philadelphia, PA, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with Capitol Hotel, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Sup­porting shipper(s): Capitol Hotel, P.O. Box 420, Madison Avenue at 7th Street, Lakewood, NJ 08701. Send pro­tests to: Robert E. Johnston, District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Com­mission, Nine Clinton Street, Newark, NJ 07102.

MC 144917TA, filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: BAPTIST TRANSPORTA­TION CORP., 140-24 181st Street, Ja­maica, NY 11413. Representative: Sidney J. Leshin, 575 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Authority sought to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Passengers and their baggage, beginning and ending in New York, NY, and extending to all points in the United States (except AK and HI), under a continuing con­tract, or contracts, with Eastern Bap­tist Association, for 180 days. Support­ing shippers): Eastern Baptist Associ­ation, 275 Kingston Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11213. Send protests to: Maria B. Kejss, Transportation Assistant, Inter­state Commerce Commission, 26 Fed­eral Plaza, New York, NY 10007.

By the Commission.H. G. Homme, Jr.,

Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 78-23066 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7035-01]

[Notice No. 143]M O TO R CARRIER TEMPORARY AUTHORITY

APPLICATIONS

August 16, 1$78.The following are notices of filing of

applications for temporary authority under section 210a(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act provided for under the provisions of 49 CFR 1131.3. These rules provide that an original and six (6) copies of protests to an application may be filed with the field official named in the F ederal R egister publi­cation no later than the 15th calendar day after the date the notice of the filing of the application is published in th e F ederal R egister. One copy of the protest must be served on the appli­cant, or its authorized representative, if any, and the protestant must certify

that such service has been made. The protest must identify the operating authority upon which it is predicated, specifying the “MC” docket and “Sub” number and quoting the particular portion of authority upon which if relies. Also, the protestant shall speci­fy the service it can and will provide and the amount and type of equip­ment it will make available for use in connection with the service contem­plated by the TA application. The weight accorded a protest shall be gov­erned by the completeness and perti­nence of the protestant’s information.

Except as otherwise specifically noted, each applicant states that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment re­sulting from approval of its applica­tion.

A copy of the application is on file, and can be examined at the Office of the Secretary, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C., and also in the ICC field office to which protests are to be transmitted.

M otor Carriers of P roperty

MC 69397 (Sub-46TA), filed June 23, 1978. Applicant: JAMES H. HART­MAN & SON, INC., P.O. Box 85, U.S. Route 13, Pocomoke City, MD 21851. Representative: Wilmer B. Hill, Suite 805, 666 Eleventh Street NW., Wash­ington, DC 20001. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Plywood and composition board, from the facilities of Champion International Corp. at or near Charleston and Orangeburg, SC, to Paramus, Teterboro and Vineland, NJ, Albany, Arcade, Buffalo, Farmingdale, Melville, Olden, Rochester and Syra­cuse, NY; Allentown, Camp Hill, Har­risburg, Lettsdale, Johnstown, and Youngwood, PA, and Richmond and Roanoke, VA, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seek­ing up to 90 days of operating authori­ty. Supporting shipper(s): Champion International Corp., Kriightsbridge Drive, Hamilton, OH 45020. Send pro­tests to: W. C. Hersman, District Su­pervisor, Interstate Commerce Com­mission, 12th and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1413, Washington, DC 20423.

MC 110525 (Sub-1244TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: CHEMICALLEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 200, 520 E. Lancaster^ Avenue, Downingtown, PA 19335. Representa­tive: Thomas J. O’Brien, (same address as applicant). Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Sul-fon-ate OA5-S (washing compound, in liquid NOIBN), in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Copperhill, TN, to Woodward, OK, for 180 days. Appli­cant has also filed an underlying ETA

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L . 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36554 NOTICES

seeking up to 90 days of operating au­thority. Supporting shipper(s): Cities Service Co., P.O. Box 50360, Atlanta, GA 30302. Send protests to: T. M. Esposito Transportation Assistant, 600 Arch Street, Room 3238, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

MC 115654 (Sub-97TA), filed June 26, 1978. Applicant: TENNESSEECARTAGE CO., INC., P.O. Box 23193, Nashville, TN 37202. Representative: Henry E. Seaton, 915 Pennsylvania Building, 13 th & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Foodstuffs(except commodities in bulk), from the facilities utilized by Stokeley-Van Camp at Indianapolis, IN, to points in AL, KY, and TN, for 180 days. Sup­porting shipperCs): Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 9451 North Meridian Street, In­dianapolis, IN. Send protests to: Joe J. Tate, District Supervisor, Bureau of Operations, Interstate Commerce Commission, Suite A-422, U.S. Court House, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203.

MC 115841 (Sub-640TA), filed June 26, 1978. Applicant: COLONIAL RE­FRIGERATED TRANSPORTATION, INC., 9041 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110, Building 100, Knoxville, TN 37919. Representative: D. R. Beeler, 9041 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110, Building 100, Knoxville, TN 37919. Au­thority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting: Bananas, from Tampa, FL, and Charleston, SC, to points in GA, TN, KY, IL, IN, OH, MI, WI, MO, KS, NE, LA, and MN, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): (1) Turbana Banana Co., P.O. Box 34009, Coral Gables, FL 33134. (2) Chiquita Brands, Inc., 95 Chestnur Ridge Road, Montvale, NJ 07645. (3) Del Monte Bananas, P.O. Box 011940, Miami, FL 33101. Send protests to: Glenda Kuss, Transporta­tion Assistant, Bureäu of Operations, Interstate Commerce Commission, Suite A-422, U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37221.

MC 119654 (Sub-49TA), filed June 21, 1978. Applicant: HI-WAY DIS­PATCH, INC., 1401 West 26th Street, Marion, IN 46952. Representative: Norman R. Garvin, 1301 Merchants Plaza, Indianapolis, IN 46204. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Apple juice, vin­egar, and water, in containers, from Coloma and Hartford, MI, _to IL, IN, OH, and WI, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seek­ing up to 90 days of operating authori­ty. Supporting shipper(s): M. Steffen

Co., Inc., P.O. Box 368, Coloma, MI. 49038. Send protests to: J. H. Gray, District Supervisor, Bureau of Oper­ations, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, 343 West Wayne Street, Suite 113, Fort Wayne, IN 46802.

MC 124579 (Sub-24TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: WIKEL BULK EXPRESS, INC., Route 2, Huron, OH 44839. Representative: James Duvall, P.O. Box 97, 220 West Bridge Street, Dublin, OH 43017. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Soybean oil (in bulk, in tank vehicles), from the facilities of Cargill, Inc., at or near Sidney, OH, to the States of GA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MA NC, NY, NJ, OH, PA, TN, and VA, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Car­gill, Inc., 2400 Industrial Drive, Sidney, OH 45365. Send protests to: Keith D. Warner, District Supervisor, Bureau of Operations, Interstate Com­merce Commission, 313 Federal Office Building, 234 Summit Street, Toledo, OH 43604.

MC 12879 (Sub-32TA), filed June 12, 1978. Applicant: ARROWFREIGHTWAYS, INC., 150 Wood­ward Road SE., P.O. Box 25125, Albu­querque, NM 87125. Representative: Olif Q. Boyd (same address as appli­cant). Authority sought to operate as common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Swimming pools, and (2) materials, supplies, and equipment used or useful in the manufacture, sale, or distribu­tion of commodity named in (1) above, to or from the facilities of Pools En­terprises, d.b.a. Malibu Pools of New Mexico, Inc., located at Albuquerque, NM, and all points in the States of AZ, CA, CO, KS, NE, NM, OK, TX, UT, and WY, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): Pool Enter­prises, Inc., d.b.a. Malibu Pools of New Mexico, Inc., 6900 Washington NE., Albuquerque, NM 87109. Send protests to: District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, 1106 Federal Office Building, 517 Gold Avenue SW., Albuquerque, NM 87101.

MC 128527 (Sub-115TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: MAY TRUCKING CO., P.O. Box, 398, Payette, ID 83661. Representative: Timothy R. Stivers, P.O. Box 162, Boise, ID 83701. Author­ity sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting: Materials and supplies used in the manufacture of axle assemblies, (1) from Dayton and Tiffin, OH, Elkhart, Logansport, and Reynolds, IN, Chicago, IL, Mequon, WI, Jackson and Detroit, MI, Chatta­nooga, TN, and Montezuma, GA, to Seminole, OK, and (2) from Seminole, OK, to Chino, CA, Dayton, OH, and

Chattanooga, TN, for 180 days. Appli­cant does not intend to tack or inter­line authority. Supporting shipper(s): Kelsey Hayes, Axle & Brake Division, P.O. Box 1587, Seminole, OK 74868. Send protests to: Barney L. Hardin, District Supervisor, Interstate Com­merce Commission, Suite 110, 1471 Shoreline Drive, Boise, ID 83706.

MC 134084 (Sub-5TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: SHROCK TRUCK­ING, INC., P.O. Box 428, Hubbard, OR 97032. Representative: LawrenceV. Smart, Jr., 419 Northwest 23rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97210. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Lumber, from Longview and Everett, WA, and their commercial zones, to points in Marion, Clackamas, Yamhill, and Washington Counties, OR, and Springfield, OR, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): There are approximately five (5) statements of support at­tached to the application which may be examined at the Interstate Com­merce Commission in Washington, DC, or copies thereof which may be examined at the field office named below. Send protests to: A. E. Odoms, District Supervisor, Bureau of Oper­ations, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, 114 Pioneer Courthouse, 555 Southwest Yamhill Street, Portland, OR 97204.

MC 135874 (Sub-131TA), filed June 16, 1978s Applicant: LTL PERISHA­BLES, INC., 550 East 5th Street South, South St. Paul, MN 55075. Rep­resentative: K. O. Petrick, 550 East 5th Street South, South St. Paul, MN 55075. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Al­coholic beverages and materials and supplies used in the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages (except commodities in bulk), between Peoria, IL, on the one hand, and on the other, points in DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, and DC, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Sup­porting shipper(s): Hirmm Walker <& Sons, Inc., foot of Edmund Street, Peoria, IL 61601. Send protests to: De- lores A. Poe, Transportation Assistant, Interstate Commerce Commission, Bureau of Operations, 414 Federal Building and U.S. Court House, 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

MC 138869 (Sub-16TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: W. T. MYLES TRANSPORTATION CO., P.O. Box 321, 4481 Moreland Avenue, Conley, GA 30027. Representative: Archie B. Culbreth, Suite 202, 2200 Century Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30345. Authori-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36555ty sought to operate as a contract car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Dry animal and poultry feeds, mineral mixtures, tonics, medicines, insecticides, pesti­cides, feeders, and equipment, and ad­vertising matter, and premiums relat­ed to such commodities (except the transportation' of liquid commodities in bulk, from the facilities of Moor­man Manufacturing Co., at or near Quincy, IL, to points in NC, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with Moorman Manufacturing Co., for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an un­derlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): Moorman Manufacturing Co., 1000 North 30th, Quincy, IL 62301. Send protests to: Sara K. Davis, Transportation Assistant, Interstate Commerce Commission, 1252 West Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30309.

MC 139193 (Sub-86TA), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: ROBERTS & OAKE, INC., P.O. Box 1356, Sioux Falls, SD 57101. Representative: Robert P. Sack, P.O. Box 6010, West St. Paul, MN 55118. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Foodstuffs, frozen or other than frozen, and- canned goods (except commodities in bulk), from the pjantsite and facilities of Skyland Food Corp., at or near Delta, CO., to all points in the States of AZ, CA, IL, IA, KS, NE, OK, NM, MO, TX, UT, via irregular routes, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with Skyland Food Corp., for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): Skyland Food Corp., 9th and Dodge Street, Delta, CO. 81416 (Jack L. Ray, Sales Manager). Send protests to: J. L. Hammond, District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Com­mission, Bureau of Operations, Room 455, Federal Building, Pierre, SD 57501.

MC 139906 (Sub-12TA), filed Jane 27, 1978. Applicant: INTERSTATE CONTRACT CARRIER CORP., P.O. Box 30303, 2156 West 2200 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84125. Representative: Richard A. Peterson, P.O. Box 81849, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Children’s scooters, gym­nasium apparatus, and games„ and toys, from the facilities of Turco Man­ufacturing Co. in DuQuoin, IL, to points in the United States (except AK and HI), for 180 days. Applicant intends to tack the authority here ap­plied for to other authority held by it in MC 139906. Supporting shipper(s): Turco Manufacturing Co., 501 South Line Street, DuQuoin, IL 62832 (Welma Severs, Traffic Manager). Send protests to: Lyle D. Heifer, Dis­

trict Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, 5301 Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138.

MC 143267 (Sub-23TA), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: CARLTON EN­TERPRISES, INC., 4588 State Route 82, Mantua, OH 44255. Representative: Peter A. Greene, 900 17th Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Reinforced con­crete structures, (1) from the facilities of Spancrete Northeast, Inc., at Aurora, OH, to points in WV (except Wayne, Cabell, Mason, Kanawha, Jackson, Wood, Pleasants, Tyler, Wetzel, Marshall, Ohio, Brooke, and Hancock Counties), and (2) from the facilities of Spancrete Northeast, Inc., at Rochester, NY, to points in WV and to points in PA on and west of U.S. Hwy 219, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): Spancrete Northeast, Inc., 239 Treat Road, Aurora, OH 44202. Send protests to: James Johnson, District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, 731 Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199.

MC 143267 (Sub 25TA), filed June 26, 1978. Applicant: CARLTON EN­TERPRISES, INC., 4588 State Route 82, Mantua, OH 44255. Representative: Peter A. Greene, Caldwell & Greene, 900 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Plastic pipe and plastic pipe fittings, from the facilities of R & G Sloane Manufacturing Co. at Valley View, OH, to points in CT, DE, IL, IN, IO, KY, MD. MA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NY, NC, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, WV, WI, and DC, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Sup­porting shipper(s): R & G Sloane Manufacturing Co., 7606 North Cly- boume Avenue, Sun Valley, CA 91352. Send protests to: District Supervisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, 731 Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199.

MC 143836 (Sub-ITA), filed June 27, 1978. Applicant: BKK CORP., d.b.a. CHENCELLOR & OGDEN, P.O. Box 938, Long Beach, CA 90810. Represent­ative: Charles Schneider, P.O. Box 9338, Long Beach, CA 90810. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Hazardous waste materials, from Kitsap County, WA; Palm Beach County, FL; Duval Coun­ty, FL; Charleston County, SC; Nor­folk, VA; York County, VA; Charles County, MD; Monmouth County, NJ;

New London County, CT; Newport County, RI; Sagadahoc County, ME; Clark County, NV; Maricopa County, AZ; and Pima County, AZ; to West Co­vina, CA; for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): (1) The U.S. Na­val Underwater System Center, 12 Po- cono Road, Middletown, RI 02840; (2) BKK Corp., 3031 East I Street, Wil­mington, CA 90744; (3) Stauffer Chemi­cal Co., P.O. Box 1029, Henderson, NV 89015. Send protests to: Irene Carlos, Transportation Assistant, Interstate" Commerce Commission, Room 1321, Federal Building, 300 North Los Ange­les Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

MC 143995 (Sub-4TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: SLOAN TRANSPOR­TATION, INC., 6522 West River Drive, Davenport, IA 52802. Representative: James M. Hodge, 1980 Financial Center, Des Moines, IA 50309. Author­ity sought to operate as a contract car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Malt beverages, from the facilities of Olympia Brewing Co., at St. Paul, MN, to Galesburg, IL, under a continuing contract, or con­tracts, with G & M Distributors, Inc., of Galesburg, IL, for 180 days. Appli­cant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating au­thority. Supporting shipper(s): G & M Distributors, Inc., 200 North Linwood Road, Galesburg, IL 61401. Send pro­tests to: Herbert W. Allen, District Su­pervisor, Bureau of Operations, Inter­state Commerce Commission, 518 Fed­eral Building, Des Moines, IA 50309.

MC 144688 (Sub-2TA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: READY TRUCKING, INC., 4722 Lake Mirror Place, Forest Park, GA 30050. Representative: Lavem R. Holderman, of Peterson, Bowman, Larsen & Swanson, 521 South 14th Street, P.O. Box 81849, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Charcoal, wood chips, lighter fluid, and sawdust and wax-im­pregnated fireplace logs (except in bulk), (1) from the facilities of Hick­ory Charcoal, at or near Crossville, TN, to points in the States of AL, FL, GA, NC, and SC; and (2) from the fa­cilities of the Kingsford Co., at or near Dothan, AL and Burnside, KY, to points in the State of FL for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operat­ing authority. Supporting shipper(s): The Kingsford Co., 940 Common­wealth Building, P.O. Box 1033, Louis­ville, KY 40201. Send protests to: SaraK. Davis, Transportation Assistant, In­terstate Commerce Commission, 1252 West Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30309.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36556 NOTICES

MC 144878TA, filed June 12, 1978. Applicant: LESTER L. ELLIOTT, JR., d.b.a. Elliott Truck Service, P.O. Box 92, 412 Southwest Mills, Greenfield, IA 50849. Representative: Thomas E. Leahy, Jr., 1980 Financial Center, Des Moines, IA 50209. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Glass, (1) from Greenfield, IA, to points in IL, OH, KS, MN, MO, MI, OK, NE, SD, TX, and WI; and (2) from Bayport and Minneapolis, MN, to points in IA, IL, KS, MO, MI, OH, OK, NE, SD, TX, and WI; (3) equipment, materials, and supplies used in the manufacture of glass (except commod­ities in bulk), from Jeanette, PA; Greenland, TN; Nashville, TN; Dear­born, MI; Tulsa, OK; Rossford, OH; Laurinburg, NC; Carlisle, PA; Mount Zion, IL; Crystal City, MO; and Wich­ita Falls, TX; to Greenfield, IA, and Bayport and Minneapolis, MN, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with Cardinal Insulated Glass Co., for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(S): Cardinal Insulated Glass Co., Highway 25 North, Greenfield, IA 50849. Send protests to: Herbert W. Allen, District Supervisor, Bureau of Operations, Interstate Commerce Commission, 518 Federal Building, Des Moines, IA 50309.

MC 144892 (Sub-ITA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: O. L. DROEGE, d.b.a. 3-D TRUCKING, 8252 U.S. 27, Alex­andria, KY 41001. Representative: Mi­chael Spurlock, 275 East State Street, Columbus, OH 43215. Authority sought to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Coal (in bulk, in dump vehicles), from the facilities of B.B.S. Coal, Inc., at or near Clay City (Powell County), KY, to points in OH, under a continuing contract or con­tracts, with B.B.S. Coal, Inc., Cincin­nati, OH, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): Thomas P. Boeckley, Vice President, B.B.S. Coal, Inc., P.O. Box 11325, Cincinnati, OH. Send protests to: Linda H. Sypher, District Supervisor, Interstate Com­merce Commission, 426 Post Office Building, Louisville, KY 40202.

MC 144905 (Sub-ITA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: DARRELL SHIP- MAN, d.b.a., IMPERIAL SALES CO., Route 1, Box 10-A, Merkel, TX 79536. Representative: Harry F. Horak, 5001 Brentwood Stair Road, Room 109, Fort Worth, TX 76112. Authority sought to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Cement, in bags, from the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, com­mercial zone, as defined by the Com­

mission, to points in CA and NV, for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Supporting shipper(s): Trans-Continental Trade Co., 1908 E. Randol Mill Road, No. 212, Arlington, TX 76011. Send pro­tests to: Robert J. Kirspel District Su­pervisor, Room 9A27 Federal Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.

MC 144912 TA, filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: LEON R. GOLDSMITH, d.b.a. TERMINAL MOTOR EX­PRESS, 1711 East 15th Street, Los An­geles, CA 90021. Representative: Wil­liam J. Monheim, P.O. Box 1756, Whittier, CA 90609. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Foodstuffs, the transpor­tation of which is subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, in vehicles equipped with me­chanical refrigeration, moving in mixed loads at the same time in the same vehicle with commodities, the transportation of which would be exempt from economic regulation under the provisions of section 203(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act if they were to move exclusively in the vehicle, from Parsippany, NJ, to points in the New York, NY, commer­cial zone and points in VA, NC, and GA, to points in CA and UT, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): There are approximately (9) statements of sup­port attached to the application Which may be examined at the Interstate Commerce Commission in Washing­ton, DC, or copies thereof which may be examined at the field office named below. Send protests to: Irene Carlos, Transportation Assistant, Interstate Commerce Commission, Room 1321 Federal Building, 300 North Los Ange­les Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

MC 144983 TA, filed June 21, 1978. Applicant: JOSEPH JOHN O’BRIEN, JR., 3433 Progress Drive, Cornwells Heights, PA 19020. Representative: Robert J. Coyne, 8720 Georgia Avenue, No. 605, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Trucks, truck chassis, tractors in sec­ondary movements in driveaway serv­ice, from ports of entry located at Philadelphia, PA, Wilmington, DE, and Newark, NJ, to Cornwells Heights, PA; and truck, truck chassis, tractors in secondary movements in driveaway service, from Cornwells Heights, PA, to points in AL, AZ, CT, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, M£f, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, and WV. Restriction: Operations describedabove are limited to operations, under a continuing contract, or contracts,

with IVECO Trucks of North America, Inc., for 180 days. Applicant has also filed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating authority. Sup­porting shipper(s): IVECO Trucks of North America, Inc., 1730 Walton Road, Blue Bell, PA 19422. Send pro­tests to: T. M. Esposito, Transporta­tion Assistant, 600 Arch Street, Room 3238, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

P assenger C arriers

MC 143427 (Sub-ITA), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: WINSTON LIMOU­SINE SERVICE, INC., 41 Pembrook Drive, P.O. Box 43, Stony Brook, NY 11790. Representative: Sidney J. Leshin, 575 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Passengers and their baggage in special nonscheduled door-to-door service, limited to the transportation of not more than eleven passengers, in any one vehicle, restricted to passen­gers having .an immediately prior or subsequent movement in aircraft, be­tween points and places in Fairfield, New Haven and Middlesex Counties, CT, and John F. Kennedy and La- Guardia Airports, New York, NY, and Newark Airport, Newark, NJ, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s); There are twenty (20) statements of support at­tached to the application which may be examined at the Interstate Com­merce Commission, in Washington, DC, or copies thereof which may be examined at the field office named below. Send protests to: Maria B. Kejss, Transportation Assistant, Inter­state Commerce Commission, 26 Fed­eral Plaza, New York, NY 10007.

MC 144990 TA, filed June 23, 1978. Applicant: CHARLES A. HURST, d.b.a., GOOD TIME CHARTERS, 1416 South view Drive, Bluefield, WV. 25064. Representative: Stephen P. Swisher, 339-12th Street, Dunbar, WV 15064. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Passengers and baggage by motor vehi­cle in charter service, between points in Logan, McDowell, Mercer and Mingo Counties, WV, on the one hand, and on the other, points in the United States, for 180 days. Supporting shipper(s): There are approximately (11) statements of support attached to the application which may be exam­ined at the Interstate Commerce Com­mission in Washington, DC, or copies thereof which may be examined at the field office named below. Send pro­tests to: Frances A. Ciccarello, Secre­tary, Interstate Commerce Commis­sion, 3108 Federal Office Building, 500 Quarrier Street, Charleston, WV 25301.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36557By the Commission.

H. G. H om m e, Jr., Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 78-23067 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45]

[7035-01]

[Decisions Volume No. 19] DECISION-NOTICE

Decided: August 2,1978. vThe following applications are gov­

erned by Special Rule 247 of the Com­mission’s rules of practice (49 CFR § 1100.247). These rules provide, among other things, that a protest to the granting of an application must be filed with the Commission within 30 days after the date notice of the appli­cation is published in the F ederal R eg ister . Failure to file a protest, within 30 days, will be considered as a waiver of opposition to the applica­tion. A protest under these rules should comply with rule 247(e)(3) of the rules of practice which requires that it set forth specifically the grounds upon which it is made, con­tain a detailed statement of Protes­tant’s interest in the proceeding (as specifically noted below), and shall specify with particularity the facts, matters, and things relied upon, but shall not include issues or allegations phrased generally. A protestant should include a copy of the specific portions of its authority which protes­tant believes to be in conflict with that sought in the application, and de­scribe in detail the method—whether by joinder, interline, or other means— by which protestant would use such authority to provide all or part of the service proposed. Protests not in rea­sonable compliance with the require­ments of the rules may be rejected. The original and one copy of the pro­test shall be filed with the Commis­sion, and a copy shall be served con­currently upon applicant’s representa­tive, or upon applicant if no represent­ative is named. If the protest includes a request for oral hearing, such re­quest shall meet the requirements of section 247(e)(4) of the special rules and shall include the certification re­quired in that section.

Section 247(f) provides, in part, that an applicant which does not intend timely to prosecute its application shall promptly request that it be dis­missed, and that failure to prosecute an application under the procedures of the Commission will result in its dis­missal.

Further processing steps will be by Commission notice, decision, or letter which will be served on each party of record. Broadening amendments will not be accepted after the date of this publication.

Any authority granted may reflect administratively acceptable restrictive amendments to the service proposed below. Some of the applications may have been modified to conform to the Commission’s policy of simplifying grants of operating authority.

We find: With the exceptions of those applications involving duly noted problems (e.g., unresolved common control, unresolved fitness questions, and jurisdictional problems) we find, preliminarily, that each common carrier applicant has demon­strated that its proposed service is re­quired by the public convenience and necessity, and that each contract carri­er applicant qualifies as a contract car­rier and its proposed contract carrier service will be consistent with the public interest and the national trans­portation policy. Each applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the service proposed and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s regulations. This decision is not a major Federal action significantly af­fecting the quality of the human envi­ronment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

It is. ordered: In the absence of legal­ly sufficient protests, filed within 30 days of publication of this decision- notice (or, if the application later be­comes unopposed), appropriate au­thority will be issued to each applicant (except those with duly noted prob­lems) upon compliance with certain re­quirements which will be set forth in a notification of effectiveness of this de­cision-notice. To the extent that the authority sought below may duplicate an applicant’s existing authority, such duplication shall not be construed as conferring more than a single operat­ing right.

By the Commission, Review Board No. 1, Members Carleton, Joyce, and Jones.

H. G. H om m e, Jr., Acting Secretary.

MC 730 (Sub-416F), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: PACIFIC INTER­MOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., a corpo­ration, P.O. Box 958, Oakland, CA 94604. Representative: R. N. Cooledge (same address as applicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, between Free­port, TX, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Houston or Dallas, TX.)

MC 1668 (Sub-8F), filed July 7, 1978. Applicant: RITEWAY EXPRESS, INC., 285 Old Hook Road, Westwood, NJ 07675. Representative: John L. Alfano, 550 Mamaroneck Avenue, Har­

rison, NY 10528. Authority granted 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 Suffolk County, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, and points in Pike County, PA, those in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Sussex, and Union Counties, NJ, and those in Bronx, Dutchess, Kings, New York, Nassau, Orange, Queens, Putnam, Richmond, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster, and Westchester Counties, NY. (Hear­ing site: New York, NY.)

MC 4941 (Sub-39F), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: QUINN FREIGHT LINES, INC., 1093 North Montello Street, Brockton, MA 02403. Repre­sentative: John F. O’Donnell, P.O. Box 238, Milton, MA 02187. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Plasterboard joint systems, and materials, supplies, and products used in the installation, application and distribution of plaster­board joint systems, from Milford, VA, to points in ME, NH, VT, CT, RI, NY, MA, NJ, PA, DE, MD, WV, OH, and DC. (Hearing site: Boston, MA or Washington, DC.)

MC 36448 (Sub-6F), filed June 27, 1978. Applicant: MURFREESBORO FREIGHT LINE CO., a corporation, P.O. Box 1113, Murfreesboro, TN 37130. Representative: Val Sanford, P.O. Box 2757, Nashville, TN 37219. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, transporting: (A) Over irregular routes, packaging, and materials, equipment, and supplies used in the manufacture of packaging, between the facilities of Paramount Packaging Co., at Murfreesboro, TN, on the one hand, and, on the other, the facilities of Paramount Packaging Co., at or near Chalfont and Lansdale, PA; and (B) over regular routes, general com­modities (except classes A and B ex­plosives, commodities in bulk, and those requiring special equipment), (a) between Nashville and Smyrna, TN: From Nashville over unnumbered State Hwy (formerly TN Hwy 1) to Hilltop, TN, then over unnumbered State Hwy (formerly TN Hwy 102) to Smyrna; (b) between Nashville and Murfreesboro, TN, over unnumbered State Hwy (formerly TN Hwy 1); (c) between Memphis and Nashville, TN, over Interstate Hwy 40, restricted against the transportation of traffic which originates, is destined to, or in­terchanged at Nashville, serving Nash­ville for purposes of joinder only; and(d) between Memphis and Murfrees-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36558 NOTICES

boro, TN, from Murfreesboro over TN Hwy 96 to junction TN Hwy 100, then over TN Hwy 100 to junction U.S. Hwy 64, then over U.S. Hwy 64 to Memphis, as an alternate route for operating convenience only; and return over the same routes in (a) and (d), serving all intermediate points in (a) and (b), and serving no intermediate points, in (c) and (d). (Hearing site: Nashville or Murfreesboro, TN.)

N ote.—In part (2) applicant seeks to con­vert its certificates of registration Nos. MC 36448 (Sub-4 and -5) to certificates of public convenience and necessity. The evidence of record warrants granting the application as operations to be authorized herein are multi-State in nature, and issuance of a cer­tificate will be conditioned upon the coinci­dental cancellation at applicant’s written re­quest of the certificates of registration in Sub-4 and -5.

MC 41406 (Sub-83F), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: ARTIM TRANSPOR­TATION SYSTEM, INC., 7105 Kenne­dy Avenue, Hammond, IN 46373. Rep­resentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 805 McLachlen Bank Building, 666 Elev­enth Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Grain storage and grain drying bins, grain dryers; and (2) parts and acces­sories for the commodities in (1) above, from the facilities of Chicago Eastern Corp., at or near Marengo, IL, to points in AL, AR, PL, GA, IN, •IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, and WI; and (3) materials and supplies used in the manufacture, and distribution of the commodities named in (1) and (2) above (except commod­ities in bulk), in the reverse direction. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 43716 (Sub-33F), filed April 4, 1978. Applicant: BIGGE DRAYAGE CO., a corporation, P.O. Box 1657, 10700 Bigge Avenue, San Leandro, CA 94577. Representative: James H. Gul- seth, 100 Bush Street, San Franciso, CA 94104. Authority granted to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: (1) Equipment, materials, and supplies used for logging, mining, road building, and construction, and (2) iron and steel articles, as described in appendix V to the report in Descrip­tion in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 MCC 209 (1952), between points in San Bernardino, Imperial, Riverside, San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, CA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in NV, ID, and OR. (Hearing site: San Francisco, CA.)

N ote.—Applicant states that the purpose ' of this filing is to eliminate the gateway of points in Inyo, Kem, and Ventura Counties, CA.

MC 48441 (Sub-12F), filed May 19, 1978. Applicant: R.M.E. INC., P.O. Box

418, Streator, IL 61364. Representa­tive: E. Stephen Heisley, 666 Eleventh Street NW., No. 805, Washington, DC 20001. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Glass containers, from the facilities of Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co., Division of Dart Industries, at or near Streator, IL, to St. Louis, MO, and points in MI and IN. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 55896 (Sub-82F), filed June 14, 1978. Applicant: R-W SERVICE SYSTEM, INC., 20225 Goddard Road, Taylor, MI 48180. Representative: George E. Batty (same address as ap­plicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Automobile parts, and (2) materials and supplies used in the manufacture and assembly of motor vehicles (except commodities in bulk, in tank vehicles), from points in IN and OH, and those in the Lower Peninsula of MI, to Janesville, WI. (Hearing site: Detroit, MI.)

MC 57239 (Sub-33F), filed July 7, 1978. Applicant: RENNER’S EX­PRESS, INC., 1350 South West Street, Indianapolis, IN 46206. Representa­tive: Roland Rice, 1111 E Street NW., Suite 501, Perpetual Building, Wash­ington, DC 20004. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, 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), serving the facilities of Velsicol Chemical Corp., at or near St. Louis, MI, as an off-route point in connection with carrier’s presently authorized regular-route operations. (Hearing site: Detroit, MI or Indianapolis, IN.)

MC 59531 (Sub-107F), filed May 31, 1978. Applicant: AUTO CONVOY CO., a limited partnership, 3020 South Has­kell Avenue, Dallas, TX 75223. Repre­sentative: Eugene C. Ewald, 100 West Long Lake Road, Suite 102, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Motor vehicles, in secondary movements, in driveway service, from Shreveport, LA, to points in AR, LA, TN, OK, and TX. (Hearing site: De­troit, MI.)

MC 61825 (Sub-81F), filed July 3, 1978. Applicant: ROY STONE TRANSFER CORP., V.C. Drive, Post Office Box 385, Collinsville, VA 24078. Representative: John D. Stone (same address as applicant). Authority grant­ed to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Microfoam articles, from Wurtland, KY, to points in GA, NC,

and VA. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 63792 (Sub-30F), filed June 6, 1978. Applicant TOM HICKS TRANS­FER CO., INC., 710 North Post Oak, Suite 525, Houston, TX 77024. Repre­sentative: C. W. Ferebee (same address as applicant). Authority granted to op­erate as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Slab zinc spelter, from the fa­cilities of National Zinc Co., at Bartles­ville, OK, to points in AL, LA, MS, TX, KY, and TN. (Hearing site: Houston, TX or Tulsa, OK.)

MC 83539 (Sub-502F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: C & H TRANSPOR­TATION CO., INC., P.O. Box 270535, Dallas, TX 75227. Representative: Thomas E. James (same address as ap­plicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Agricultural machinery and imple­ments, and agricultural tools; and (2) parts and accessories for the commod­ities in (1) above, from points in Davis County, UT, to points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Salt Lake City, UT or Washing­ton, DC.)

MC 95540 (Sub-1023F), filed June 12, 1978. Applicant: WATKINS MOTOR LINES, INC., P.O. Bqx 1636, Lakeland, FL 33802. Representative: Benjy W. Fincher (same address as applicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, meat products and meat by­products, and articles distributed by meat packinghouses, as described in sections A and C of appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carri­er Certificates, 61 MCC 209 and 766, (except commodities in bulk, in tank vehicles, and hides), from the facilities of Hernando Packing Co., Division of Glover, Inc., at or near Memphis, TN, to points in KY, OH, OK, PA, NY, MA, NJ, and VA. (Hearing site: Mem­phis, TN or Washington, DC.)

MC 100666 (Sub-402F), filed June 15, 1978. Applicant: MELTON TURCK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 7666, Shreve­port, LA .7H07. Representative: Wil­burn L. Williamson, 280 National Foundation Life Building, Oklahoma City, OK 73112. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: (1) Pipe, pipe fittings, hy­drants, valves; and (2) accessories for the commodities named in (1) above, from the facilities of U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., at Bessemer and Bir­mingham, AL, to points in AR, MO, OK, and TX. (Hearing site: Birming­ham, AL or New Orleans, LA.)

MC 105045 (Sub-85F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: R, L. JEFFRIES

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

TRUCKING CO., INC., 1020 Pennsyl­vania Street, Evansville, IN 47701. Representative: Paul P. Sullivan, 711 Washington Building, Washington, DC 20005. Authority granted to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing stone, between the facilities of Cardiff & Western Marble, Inc., (1) in Harford County, MD, and (2) in Gun­nison County, CO, on the one hand, and on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 105269 (Sub-66F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: GRAFF TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., 2110 Lake Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49005. Representative: James W. Muldoon. 50 West Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215. Authori­ty granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting: Such com­modities as are manufactured, pro­cessed, or dealt in by manufacturers or converters of paper and paper prod­ucts, (except commodities in bulk), from Chillicothe, OH, to points in MI. (Hearing sites: Columbus, OH or Washington, DC.)

MC 106398 (Sub-814F) filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: NATIONAL TRAIL­ER CONVOY, INC., 525 South Main, Tulsa, OK 74103. Representative: Irvin Tull (same address as applicant). Au­thority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Plastic and rubber articles and acces­sories, from the facilities of ENTEK Corp. of American, at Irving, TX, to points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Dallas, TX.)

Note.—The certificate in this proceeing will be limited to a period expiring 3 years from the effective date thereof unless, not less than 2.5 years or more than 2.75 years from the date of issuance of the certificate, applicant files a petition for the extension of said certificate and demonstrates that it has been conducting operations in full com­pliance with the terms and conditions of its certificate and with the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commis­sion’s regulations thereunder.

MC 107515 (Sub-1160F*), filed July 3, 1978. Applicant: REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT CO., INC., P.O. Box 308, Forest Park, GA 30050. Repre­sentative: Alan E. Serby, Fifth Floor, Lenox Towers S, 3390 Peachtree Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30326. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Foodstuffs(except in bulk), in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from the facilities of Sunnyland Refining Co., at or near Birmingham, AL, to points in CT, DE, FL, GA, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC,

NOTICES

VT, VA, and DC. (Hearing site: Atlan­ta, GA.)

MC 109708 (Sub-87F), filed June 29, 1978. Applicant: INDIAN RIVER TRANSPORT CO., a corporation, doing business as Indian River Trans­port, Inc., P.O. Box AG, Dundee, FL 33838. Representative: Donald L. Stern, Suite 610, 6171 Mercy Road, Omaha, NE 78106. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting^ (1) Fruit juice concen­trate, in bulk, in tank vehicles, (a) from points in FL, to points in AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MN, MO, MS, OK, OR, TX, UT, VT, and WA, and (b) from points in TX, CA, GA, and NY, to points in FL; and (2) fruit juice and citrus oil, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in FL, to points in AL, CA, CT, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, VA, and WI. (Hearing site: Miami or Orlando, FL.)

MC 110525 (Sub-1248F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: CHEMICALLEAMAN TANK LINES, INC., a Dela­ware corporation, 520 East Lancaster Avenue, Downingtown, PA 19335. Rep­resentative: Thomas J. O’Brien (same address as applicant). Authority grant­ed to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Ashland, OH, to Brazil and North Vernon, IN. (Hearing site: Cleveland, OH.)

MC 111231 (Sub-240F), filed May 3, 1978. Applicant: JONES TRUCK LINES, INC., 610 East Emma Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764. Representative: Don A. Smith, P.O. Box 43, 510 North Greenwood, Fort Smith, AR 72902. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Roofing and roofing materials (except commodities in bulk), from Memphis, TN, to points in OK, AR, KS, IL, MO, IN, OH, KY, and IA, restricted to traf­fic originating at the named origin. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 111545 (Sub-254F), filed June 30, 1978. Applicant: HOME TRANSPOR­TATION CO., INC., P.O. Box 6426, Station A, Marietta, GA 30065. Repre­sentative: Robert E. Born (same ad­dress as applicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Air conditioning equipment, cooling or freezing ma­chines, evaporators, and condensers, and (2) parts, attachments, and acces­sories for the commodities named in (1) above, from Pryor, OK, to points in CA and those in the United States in and east of TX, OK, KS, NE, IA, and MN. (Hearing site: Atlanta, GA, or Washington, DC.)

36559MC 112520 (Sub-354F), filed June 16,

1978. Applicant: McKENZIE TANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 1200, Tallahas­see, FL 32302. Representative: ThomasF. Panebianco (same address as appli­cant). Authority granted to operate as common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Acid, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Bessemer, AL, to St. Marks, FL, and(2) spent acid, in bulk, in tank vehi­cles, in the reverse direction. (Hearing site: Tallahassee, FL, or Montgomery, AL.)

MC 113855 (Sub-437F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT, INC., a North Dakota Corp., 2450 Marion SE„ Rochester, MN 55901. Representative: Alan Foss, 502 First National Bank Building, Fargo, ND 58102. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: (1) Heat exchangers and equalizers for gases and liquids, and (2) equipment for washing and condi­tioning of gases and liquids, and (3) parts, attachments, and accessories, for use in the installation and oper­ation of the commodities in (1) and (2) above, from St. Bethlehem and Clarks­ville, TN, to points in MN, IA, MO, IL, WI, OK, TX, and NM. (Hearing site: Nashville, TN.)

MC 113855 (Sub-438F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT, INC., a North Dakota Corp., 2450 Marion Road SE., Roches­ter, MN 55901. Representative: Alan Foss, 502 First National Bank Build­ing, Fargo, ND 58102. Authority grant­ed to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Tractor attachments and parts, (2) fabricated steel prod­ucts, and (3) equipment, parts, and at­tachments used in the logging, forest­ry and construction industries, from the facilities of Medford Steel Division of C.S.C., Inc., at or near Medford, OR, to points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Portland, OR, or San Francisco, CA.)

MC 115904 (Sub-IOOF), filed June 1, 1978. Applicant: GROVER TRUCK­ING CO., a corporation, 1710 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Rep­resentative: Irene Warr, 430 Judge Building, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. Authority granted to operated as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Prefabricated log homes knocked down, from Englewood, CO, to points in the United States (except WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, UT, TX, MO, WI, NE, IA, NM, SD, KS, OK, AK, and HI). (Hearing site: Denver, CO, or Wash­ington, DC.)

MC 116077 (Sub-395F), filed May 31, 1978. Applicant: DSI TRANSPORTS, INC., 4550 Post Oak Place Drive, P.O.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36560 NOTICES

Box 1505, Houston, TX 77001. Repre­sentative: Pat H. Robertson, 500 West 16th Street, P.O. Box 1945, Austin, TX 78767. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Chemicals, in bulk, (a) from Taft, LA, to points in AR and KY, (b) from Lake Charles, LA, to points in OH, SC, VA, and WV, (c) from Baton Rouge, LA, to points in CA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, and VA, (d) from points in Harris County, TX, to points in AL, IL, MI, NY, NJ, OH, VA, and FL, and(e) from points in Brazoria County, TX, to points in NY and MI; (2) liquid chemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, (a) from Grammercy, LA, to points in TN, (b) from Norco, LA, to points in IN and AR, (c) from points in Chambers County, TX, to points in MI, (d) from Corpus Christi, TX, to points in TN, KY, and GA, and (e) from De Ridder, LA, to points in KY; (3) sodium chlor­ate, in bulk, from Columbus, MS, to points in KY; and (4) dry chemicals, in bulk, from Baton Rouge, LA, to points in KY, MO, and NC. (Hearing site: Houston, TX, or New Orleans, LA.)

MC 116915 (Sub-66F),* filed July 3, 1978. Applicant: ECK MILLER TRANSPORTATION CORP., a Ken­tucky, corporation, 1830 South Plate Street, Kokomo, IN 46901. Represent­ative: Fred F. Bradley, P.O. Box 773, Frankfort, KY 40602. Authority grant­ed to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and steel articles, between the facilities of Republic Steel Corp., at or near Gadsden, AL, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in TN, KY, MO, IL, IN, MI, OH, PA, and WV. (Hearing site: Birming­ham, AL, or Knoxville, KY.)

MC 117940 (Sub-280F), filed June 15, 1978. Applicant: NATIONWIDE CAR­RIERS, INC., P.O. Box 104, Maple Plain, MN 55359. Representative: Allan L. Timmerman, 5300 Hwy 12, Maple Plain, MN 55359. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Such commod­ities as are dealt in by retail and vari­ety stores (except foodstuffs, articles of unusual value, classes A and B ex­plosives, household goods as defined by the commission, commodities in bulk, and those requiring special equipment), (1) from points in CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, VA, and DC, to Seymour, IN; (2) from points in CT, DE, IN, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, VA, and DC, to Los Angeles, CA, Des Plaines, IL, New Hope, MN, North Kansas City, MO, Memphis, TN, and Dallas, TX; and (3) between the facili­ties of Ben Franklin, Division of City Products Corp., at or near Los Ange­les, CA, Des Plaines, IL, Seymour, IN,

Hunt Valley, MD, New Hope, MN, North Kansas City, MO, Memphis, TN, and Dallas, TX, restricted in (1) and (2) above to the transportation of traffic originating at the indicated ori­gins and destined to the named desti­nations. Condition: The certificate to be issued herein shall be limited in point of time to a period expiring 3 years from its date of issue, unless, prior to its expiration (but not less than 6 months prior to its expiration), applicant files a petition for perma­nent extension of the certificate show­ing that it has been in full compliance with applicable regulations. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 117940 (Sub-281F), filed June 15, 1978. Applicant: NATIONWIDE CAR­RIERS, INC., P.O. Box 104, Maple Plain, MN 55359. Representative: Allan L. Timmerman, 5300 Hwy 12, Maple Plain, MN 55359. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Such commod­ities as are dealt in by retail stores (except in bulk, in tank vehicles), be­tween the facilities of Montgomery Ward & Co., in the United States (except AK and HI). Condition: The certificate to be issued herein shall be limited in point of time to a period ex­piring 3 years from its date of issue, unless, prior to its expiration (but not less than 6 months prior to its expira­tion), applicant files a petition for per­manent extension of the certificate showing that it has been in full com­pliance with applicable regulations. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 118159 (Sub-273F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: NATIONAL RE­FRIGERATED TRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box 51366, Dawson Station, Tulsa, OK 74151. Representative: Warren L. Troupe, 2480 East Commer­cial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Rubber articles, plastic articles, and rubber and plastic products, from the facilities of Entek Corp. of America, at or near Irving, TX, to points in the United States (except AK and HI); and (2) materials and equipment used in the manufacture and distribution of rubber and plastic articles (except commodities in bulk), in the reverse di­rection. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 118159 (Sub-274F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: NATIONAL RE­FRIGERATED TRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box 51366, Dawson Station, Tulsa, OK 74151. Representative: Warren L. Troupe, 2480 East Commer­cial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Such commodities as are dealt in, or

used by, manufacturers and distribu­tors of cellulose materials and prod­ucts and paper and paper products, be­tween the facilities of Hampden Papers, Inc., at Holyoke, MA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AT., CT, DE, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NJ, NY, NC, PA, SC, TN, VA, and WV. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 118696 (Sub-13F), filed June 14, 1978. Applicant: FERREE FURNI­TURE EXPRESS, INC., 252 Wildwood Road, Hammond, IN 46324. Represent­ative: Carl L. Steiner, 39 South La­Salle Street, Chicago, IL 60603. Au­thority granted to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: New kitchen cabinets and vanities, from points in IN to points in NJ. (Hearing site: Indianapolis, IN.)

MC 118922 (Sub-18F), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: CARTER TRUCK­ING CO., INC., P.O. Box 126, Locust Grove, GA 30248. Representative: W. Randall Tye, 1400 Candler Building, Atlanta, GA 30303. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Such commodities as are dealt in by agricultural equipment, in­dustrial equipment, apd lawn and lei­sure product dealers, between the fa­cilities of John Deere Co., at or near Conyers, GA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, TN, and VA, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with John Deere Co. of Conyers, GA. (Hearing site: Atlanta, GA.)

MC 118959 (Sub-175F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: JERRY LIPPS, INC., 130 South Frederick Street, Cape Gir­ardeau, MO 63701. Representative: Robert M. Pearce, P.O. Box 1899, Bowling Green, KY 42101. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Plastic, plastic articles, tin, tin articles, iron and steel articles, rubber, rubber articles, and resins (except commodities in bulk), between the facilities of Standard Container Co., at or near, Homerville and Valdosta, GA, Longwood and Jacksonville, FL, and Picayune, MS, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Atlanta, GA, or Nashville, TN.)

MC 119560 (Sub-18F), filed June 15, 1978. Applicant: SOUTHERN BULK HAULERS, INC., P.O. Box 278, Har- leyville, SC 29448. Representative: Frank A. Graham, Jr., 707 Security Federal Building, Columbia, SC 29201. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting:

< Lumber, from the facilities of West- vaco Lumber, Division of Westvaco Development Corp., at Summerville,

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36561SC, to Charleston SC, and points in PL, GA, KY, MD, NC, NJ, NY, OH, TN, PA, VA, and WV. (Hearing site: Columbia or Charleston, SC.)

MC 119670 (Sub-36F), filed June 8, 1978. Applicant: THE VICTOR TRAN­SIT CORP., 5250 Este Avenue, Cincin­nati, OH 45232. Representative: Ropert H. Kinker, 314 West Main Street, P.O. Box 464, Frankfort, KY 40602. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Glass containers and closures for glass containers, from the facilities of Owens-Illinois, Inc., at or near Gas City, IN, to Cincinnati, OH and Louis­ville, KY. (Hearing site: Cincinnati, OH.)

MC 119789 (Sub-490F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: CARAVAN REFRIG­ERATED CARGO, INC., P.O. Box 226188, Dallas, TX 75266. Representa­tive: Lewis Coffey, P.O. Box 226188, Dallas, TX 75266. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Panels, from the facili­ties of Panel Era Manufacturing Corp., at Dallas, TX, to points in CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT. (Hearing site: Dallas, TX.)

MC 119789 (Sub-49 IF), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: CARAVAN REFRIG­ERATED CARGO, INC., P.O. Box 226188, Dallas, TX 75266. Representa­tive: Lewis Coffey (same address as ap­plicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, oyer irregular routes, transporting: Ag­ricultural implements and agricultur­al tools, from the facilities of Union Fork and Hoe Co., at (1) Columbus, OH, to Atlanta, GA, Orlando, FL, Houston and Dallas, TX, Kansas City, MO, Des Moines, IA, Salt Lake City, UT, Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA, and Seattle, WA, and (2) Frank­fort, NY, to Columbus, OH, Des Moines, IA, Salt Lake City, UT, and Los Angeles, CA. (Hearing site: Colum­bus, OH.)

MC 119988 (Sub-148F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: GREAT WESTERN TRUCKING CO., INC., P.O. Box 1384, Lufkin, TX 75901. Representative: Hugh T. Matthews, 2340 Fidelity Union Tower, Dallas, TX 75201. Au­thority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Industrial oils and greases (except commodities in bulk), and (2) materi­als and equipment used in the manu­facture and distribution of the com­modities in (1) above (except commod­ities in bulk), between Los Angeles, CA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK, HI, and CA). (Hearing site: Dallas, TX.)

MC 119988 (Sub-149F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: GREAT WESTERN TRUCKING CO., INC., P.O. Box 1384, Lufkin, TX 75901. Representative: Hugh T. Matthews, 2340 Fidelity Union Tower, Dallas, TX 75201. Au­thority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Pa­perboard cartons, and materials and equipment used in the manufacture and distribution of paperboard car­tons, between Eutaw, AL, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK, HI, and AL). (Hearing site: Dallas, TX.)

MC 121060 (Sub-66F), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant ARROW TRUCK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 1416, Birming­ham, AL 35201. Representative: Wil­liam P. Jackson, Jr., P.O. Box 1240, Arlington, VA 22210. Authority grant­ed to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Pipe, valves, fittings, hydrants, and (2) parts and accessories for the commodities named in (1) above, from the facilities of U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., at or near Birming­ham, AL, to points in AR, CT, DE, DC, FL, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV, those in the United States in and west of ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, and TX, and those in GA south of Carroll, Fulton, Clayton, Henry, Newton, Morgan, Greene, Tali- ferro, Warren, McDuffie, and Rich­mond Counties, GA. (Hearing site: Bir­mingham, AL.)

MC 121496 (Sub-1 IF), filed May 24, 1978, and previously noticed in the F ederal R eg ister issue of June 22, 1978. Applicant: CANGO CORP., Suite 2900, 1100 Milam B u ild in g , Houston, TX 77002. Representative: E. Stephen Heisley, 805 McLachlen Bank Building, 666 11th Street NW„ Wash­ington, DC 20001. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Liquid chemicals and pe­troleum products, in bulk, between the facilities of Dow Chemical Co., in Bra­zoria County, TX, on the one hand, and on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Houston, TX.)

Note.—The purpose of this republication is to include TX as an authorized radial State.

MC 121654 (Sub-13F*), filed May 15, 1978. Applicant: COASTAL TRANS­PORT & TRANDING CO., a CORPO­RATION, P.O. Box 7438, Savannah, GA 31408. Representative: Richard M. Tettelbaum, Fifth Floor, Lenox, 3390 Peachtree Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30326. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, t r a n s p o r t i n g* Concrete products, from the facilities of Houdaille-Duval Wright, Co., Divi­

sion of Houdaille-Industries, Inc., at or near Jonesboro, GA, to points in at., KY, NC, SC, and TN. (Hearing site: Atlanta, GA.)

MC 123048 (Sub-404F), filed June 5, 1978. Applicant: DIAMOND TRANS­PORTATION SYSTEM, INC. 5021 21st Street, P.O. Box 1557, Racine, WI 53401. Representative: John L. Bruem- mer, 121 West Doty Street, Madison, WI 53703. Authority granted to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: (1) Aluminum articles, and (2) Ma­terials, equipment, and supplies used in the manufacture and distribution of the commodities named in (1) above (except commodities in bulk), between Williamsport, PA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Clevland, OH or Washington, DC.)

MC 123200 (Sub-IF), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: AKRON CARTAGE CO., INC., P.O. Box 143, Akron, OH 44309. Representative: John P. McMa­hon, 100 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215. Authority granted to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Meats, meat products and byprod­ucts, dairy products, and articles dis­tributed by meat packinghouses, as described in sections A, B, and C of ap­pendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 MCC 209 and 766 (except hides and com­modities in bulk), between Akron, OH, on the one hand, and, on the other, Columbus, OH, and points in Belmont, Jefferson, Monroe, and Washington Counties, OH, and Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, Ohio, Wetzel, and Wood Counties, WV. (Hearing site: Colum­bus, OH.)

MC 123407 (Sub-474F), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: SAWYER TRANS­PORT, INC., South Haven Square, U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, IN 46383. Rep­resentative: H. E. Miller, Jr., (same ad­dress as applicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, * by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Paneling, composition board, and wallboard, from Harvgy, IL, to points in IA, IN,-MI, and WI. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.

MC 123407 (Sub-475F), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: SAWYER TRANS­PORT, INC., South Haven Square, U.S. Hwy 6, Valparaiso, IN 46383. Rep­resentative: H. E. Miller, Jr. (same ad­dress as applicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Iron and steel arti­cles, from the facilities of Nucor Steel, a division of Nucor Corp., at or near Darlington, SC, to those points in the United States in and east of ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, and TX; and (2) materi-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36562als and supplies used in the manufac­ture of iron and steel articles (except commodities in bulk), in the reverse di­rection. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 124078 (Sub-833F), filed July 6, 1978. Applicant: SCHWERMANTRUCKING CO., a corporation, 611 South 28th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53215. Representative: Richard H. Pre- vette, P.O. Box 1601, Milwaukee, WI 53201. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Bentonite clay, in bulk, in tank vehi­cles, from Sandy Ridge, AL, to Mil­waukee, WI, and the facilities of American Colloid Co., at Albion, MI, and Columbus, OH. (Hearing site: Chi­cago, IL.)

MC 124211 (Sub-327F*), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: HILT TRUCK LINE, INC., P.O. Box 988, D.T.S., Omaha, NE 68101. Representative: Thomas L. Hilt (same address as appli­cant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Such commodities as are dealt in by manufacturers and distributors of plumbing fixtures, plumbing supplies, and paint materials (except commod­ities in bulk, and cast iron pressure pipe), between the facilities of the Wil­liam H. Harvey Co., at Omaha, NE, and points in Washington County, NE, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, AR, FL, GA, KY (except Louisville), LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, and TX. (Hearing site: Omaha, NE.)

MC 125335 (Sub-24F), filed July 3, 1978. Applicant: GOOD-WAY, INC., a Maryland corporation, P.O. Box 2283, York, PA 17405. Representative: Gailyn L. Larsen, 521 South 14th Street, P.O. Box 81849, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Such merchandise as is dealt in by wholesale and retail paint stores and supply houses (except in bulk), from Chicago, IL, to Kansas City and Leav­enworth, KS, and points in FL and MO, restricted to the transportation of traffic originating at the facilities of Standard T Chemical Co., Inc., at or near Chicago, IL, and destined to the indicated destinations. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL or Harrisburg, PA.)

MC 125335 (Sub-25F), filed July 3, 1978. Applicant: GOOD-WAY, INC., a Maryland corporation, P.O. Box 2283, York, PA 17405. Representative: Gailyn L. Larsen, 521 South 14th Street, P.O. Box 81849, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Frozen foods, from Grand Rapids and Lake Odessa, MI, to Bettendorf, I A, Bonner Springs and Kansas City, KS,

NOTICES

Garden City, NY, Richmond, VA, and points in Cumberland County, NJ, re­stricted to the transportation of traf­fic originating at the facilities of Lake Odessa Canning Co., a Division of Sea- brook Foods, Inc., at the named ori­gins and destined to the indicated des­tinations. (Hearing site: Camden, NJ or Harrisburg, PA.)

MC 125952 (Sub-3IF*), filed June 23, 1978. Applicant: INTERSTATE DIS­TRIBUTOR CO., a corporation, 8311 Durango SW., Tacoma, WA 98499. Representative: George R. LaBisson- iere, 1100 Norton Building, Seattle, WA 98104. Authority granted to oper­ate as a contract carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Such commodities as are dealt in by wholesale and retail food business houses (except in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration), from points in CA, to Portland, OR, under continuing contract with American- Strevell, of Portland, OR. (Hearing site: Portland, OR.)

MC 125985 (Sub-23F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: AUTO DRIVEAWAY CO., a Pennsylvania corporation, 310 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604. Representative: Ronald I. Fre­driksen (same address as applicant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Freight utility trucks, in driveaway service, from the facilities of Holiday Rambler Corp., in Elkhart County, IN, to points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 127840* (Sub-73F), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: MONTGOMERY TANK LINES, INC., 17550 Fritz Drive, Lansing, IL 60438. Representative: William H. Towle, 180 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60601. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, and recovered gly­cols, from Tallulah, LA, to those points in the United States on and east of a line beginning at the mouth of the Mississippi River and extending along the Mississippi River to its junc­tion with the western boundary of Itasca County, MN, then northward along the western boundaries of Itasca and Koochiching Counties, MN, to the international boundary line between the United States and Canada. (Hear­ing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 128205 (Sub-51F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: BULKMATICTRANSPORT CO. a corporation, 12000 South Doty Avenue, Chicago, IL 60628. Representative: Arnold L. Burke, 180 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60601. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting:

sugar, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Chicago, IL, to points in IA and WI. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

MC 129572 (Sub-4F), filed April 27, 1978, and previously noticed in the FR issue of June 6, 1978. Applicant: ANDICO, INC., 4291 West 3500 South Street, Granger, UT 84120. Represent­ative: Irene Warr, 430 Judge Building, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. Authority granted to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Pipe and pipe valves and fittings, beams, bar stock, sheet and plate metals (except oil field and pipe line commodities as defined in Mercer Extension—Oil Field Com­modities, 74 M.C.C. 459), and (2) equipment, materials, and supplies used in the machining or installation of the commodities described in (1) above, between points in UT, ID, WY, MT, CO, AZ, MN, NV, CA; OR, and WA, under a continuing contract with Pipe & Tube, Inc., of Granger, UT. (Hearing site: Salt Lake City, UT.)

N ote.—The purpose of this republication is to indicate the correct location of the con­tracting shipper.

MC 129624 (Sub-16F*), filed June 1, 1978. Applicant: ROUTE MESSEN­GERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., 2425 Bainbridge Street, Philadelphia, PA 19146. Representative: Alan Kahn, 1920 Two Penn Center Plaza, Philadel­phia, PA 19102. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Exposed and processed film, and photographic and reproduction equipment, materials, and supplies, (1) between Philadelphia, PA, and points in Atlantic County, NJ, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in At­lantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Salem, Camden, and Gloucester Counties, NJ, and (2) between points in Berks, Bucks, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Mont­gomery, Northampton, and Philadel­phia Counties, PA, restricted in (1) and (2) above to the transportation of traffic originating at or destined to the facilities of Eastman Kodak Co., and Kodak Processing Laboratory, Inc. (Hearing site: Philadelphia, PA, or Washington, DC.)

MC 133689 (Sub-207F), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: OVERLAND EX­PRESS, INC., 719 First Street SW., New Brighton, MN 55112. Representa­tive: Robert P. Sack, P.O. Box 6010, West St. Paul, MN 55118. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) trailer axles, (2) attachments and parts for trailer axles, (3) wheels, (4) trailer fenders, and (5) brake and suspension assem­blies and parts, from points in DE, KY, MI, OH, and PA, to points in MN,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36563ND, and SD. (Hearing site: St. Paul, MN.)

MC 134280 (Sub-6F), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: YOUNG’S EX­PRESS, INC., 1501 North Warwick Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21216. Repre­sentative: Brian S. Stem, 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 327, Arlington, VA 22201. Authority granted to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting fer­rous scrap metals, from the facilities of United Iron & Metal, Inc., at Balti­more, MD, to Milton, PA, under con­tinuing contract(s), with United Iron & Metal, Inc., of Baltimore, MD. (Hearing site: Baltimore, MD, or Washington, DC.)

MC 134286 (Sub-65F), filed June 14, 1978. Applicant: ILLINI EXPRESS, INC., P.O. Box 1564, Sioux City, IA 51102. Representative: Charles J. Kim­ball, 350 Capitol Life Center, 1600 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting dry spaghetti and macaroni products (except in bulk), from the facilities of C. F. Mueller Co., at or near Jersey City, NJ, to points in IN, MI, and OH. (Hearing site: Sioux City, IA, or Omaha, NE.)

Note.—The carrier must satisfy the Com­mission that its common control possibilities are either approved by the Commission or do not require Commission approval.

MC 134484 (Sub-18F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: EDWARD BROS., INC., P.O. Box 1684, Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Representative: Timothy R. Stivers, P.O. Box 162, Boise, ID 83701. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, meat products and meat by­products, and articles distributed by meat-packing houses, as described in sections A and C of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carri­er Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766, (except hides, and commodities in bulk), from the facilities of Columbia Foods, Inc., at or near Boise, ID, to points in MT. (Hearing site: Boise, ID.)

MC 134755 (Sub-154F*) filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: CHARTER EX­PRESS, INC., P.O. Box 3772, Spring- field, MO. Representative: Larry D. Knox, 600 Hubbell Building, Des Moines, IA 50309. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Meats, meat products and meat byproducts and articles dis­tributed by meat-packing houses, as described in sections A and C of Ap­pendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766, (except hides and commodities in bulk), from points in Ford County, KS, to points in AR, MS,

LA, AL, GA, FL, and TX. (Hearing site: Kansas City or St. Louis, MO.)

MC 136446 (Sub-120F), filed June 14, 1978. Applicant: PRINCETON MES­SENGER SERVICE, INC., U.S. Route 1, Princeton, NJ 08540. Representa­tive: Mel P. Booker, Jr., 118 North St. Asaph Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting such commodities as are dealt in by wholesale and retail supply houses and stores (except commodities in bulk), between Philadelphia, PA, on the (me hand, and, on the other, points in NJ. (Hearing site: Philadelphia, PA, or Washington, DC.)

Note.—Tacking is authorized at Burling­ton County, NJ, with carrier’s authority in MC 136446 (Sub-7), issued September 20, 1976. The following service is authorized: such commodities as are dealt in by whole­sale and retail supply houses and stores (except commodities in bulk), between Philadelphia, PA, and New York, NY.

MC 136818 (Sub-29F), filed May 17, 1978, and previously noticed in the FR issue of June 22, 1978. Applicant: SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., 335 West Elwood Road, P.O. Box 3902, Phoenix, AZ 85030. Representa­tive: Donald E. Fernaays, Suite 320, 4040 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85008. Authority granted to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: (1) iron and steel pipe, lined and coated steel pipe mortar, and concrete pipe, from Phoenix, AZ, to points in NM, CO, and UT; and (2) iron and steel pipe, from Albuquerque, NM, to Phoenix, AZ. (Hearing site: Phoenix, AZ.)

Note.—T he carrier must satisfy the Com­mission that its operations will not result in objectionable dual operations because of its authority under MC 136897. Also, the pur­pose of this republication is to correct the commodity description in part (1).

MC 136888 (Sub-12F), filed July 7, 1978. Applicant: NORMAN & SON, INC., P.O. Box 853, South Houston, TX 77587. Representative: Phillip Robinson, P.O. Box 2207, 1806 Rio Grande, Austin, TX 78768. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting brick, from the ports of entry located on the Interna­tional Boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Mexico at Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, to Houston, TX, restricted to the tansportation of traffic having a prior movement in foreign commerce. (Hearing site: Houston or Dallas, TX.)

MC 138635 (Sub-57F*), filed June 30, 1978. Applicant: CAROLINA WEST­ERN EXPRESS, INC., Box 3961, Gas­tonia, NC 28052. Representative: Eric Meierhoefer, Suite 423, 1511 K Street

NW., Washington, DC 20005. Authori­ty granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting: textiles and textile products, and materials and supplies used in the manufacture and sale of textiles and textile products, be­tween Abernathy, TX and points in NC and SC, in nonradial movements. (Hearing site: Charlotte, NC.)

MC 133802 (Sub-2F), filed June 23, 1978. Applicant: EMPAK TRANS­PORTATION CO., a corporation, 6200 North 16th Street, Omaha, NE 68110. Representative: Steven K. Kuhlmann, P.O. Box 82028, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority granted to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting (1) petro­leum, petroleum products, and such commodities as are sold in gasoline service stations (except commodities in bulk, in tank vehicles), from the fa­cilities of Exxon Co., U.S.A., a Division of Exxon Corp., at or near Bayonne and Bayway, NJ, and Pittsburgh, PA, to points in the United States (except AK and HI); and (2) materials, equip­ment, and supplies used in the manu­facture, and distribution of the com­modities named in (1) above, in the re­verse direction, under a continuing contract with Exxon Co., U.S.A., a Di­vision of Exxon Corp. of New York, NY. (Hearing site: Houston, TX.)

MC 138835 (Sub-32F), filed July 14, 1978. Applicant: -EASTERN REFRIG­ERATED TRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box 113, Crozet, VA 22932. Represent­ative: Harry J. Jordan, Suite 502, Solar Building, 1000 16th Street NW., Wash­ington, DC 20036. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting frozen foods, from Lake Odessa and Grand Rapids, MI, to points in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, NJ, restricted to the transportation of traffic destined to the facilities of Seabrook Foods, Inc. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 138882 (Sub-97F), filed June 20, 1978. Applicant: WILEY SANDERS, INC., P.O. Box 707, Troy, AL 36081. Representative: George A. Olsen, P.O. Box 357, Gladstone, NJ 07934. Author­ity granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes^ transporting conduit, asbes­tos fibre cement, and fittings for con­duit, from the plantsite of Cement As­bestos Products Company, at or near Ragland, AL, to points in CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MS, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, and DC. (Hear­ing site: St. Louis, MO, or Montgom­ery, AL.)

MC 138882 (Sub-98F), filed June 20, 1978. Applicant: WILEY SANDERS, INC., P.O. Box 707, Troy, AL 36081. Representative: George A. Olsen, P.O.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36564 NOTICES

Box 537, Gladstone, NJ 07934. Author­ity granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting (1) charcoal, charcoal briquets, hickory chips, ver- miculite, charcoal lighter fluid, com- pressed sawdust-wax impregnated fire­place logs, and (2) barbecue items and materials and equipment, used in the distribution of the above named com­modities, (except commodities in bulk), between Dothan, AL, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in FL, GA, TN, MS, AR, LA, TX, OK, SC, and NC. (Hearing site: Louisville, KY, or Montgomery, AL.)

MC 139006 (Sub-3F), filed June 7, 1978. Applicant: RAPIER SMITH, R.R, 5, Loretto Road, Bardstown, KY 40004. Representative: Robert H. Kinker, 314 West Main Street, Frank­fort, KY 40602. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: (l)(a) Vinyl or plastic siding, clapboard siding, plastic articles, paper articles, and building materials, (b) accessories and supplies for the commodities described in (lXa) above, from Bardstown, KY, to those points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, KS, NE, OK, and TX (except KY); and (2) materials and equipment used in the manufacture of the com­modities named in (lXa) above, in the reverse direction. (Hearing site: Louis­ville, KY.)

MC 139206 (Sub-5IF), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: F.M.S. TRANSPOR­TATION, INC., 2564 Harley Drive, Maryland Heights, MO 63043. Repre­sentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 805 McLachlen Bank Building, 666 11th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. Authority granted to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicl.e, over ir­regular routes, transporting: (1) Kitch­en cabinets, vanity cabinets, laminat­ed products, porcelain or enamel sinks and basins, sink tops and skids, (2) parts, components, and accessories for the commodities named in (1) above and (3) materials and equipments used in the manufacture and distribution of the commodities named in (1) above (except commodities in bulk), between Rosedale, MS, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI), under con­tinuing contract with Chromalloy American Corp., of Clayton, MO. (Hearing site: St. Louis, MO.)

MC 139206 (Sub-52F), filed June 13, 1978. Applicant: F.M.S. TRANSPOR­TATION, INC., 2564 Harley Drive, Maryland Heights, MO 63043. Repre­sentative: E. Stephen Heisley, 805 McLachlen Bank Building, 666 11th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. Authority granted to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: (1) Kitch­

en cabinets, vanity cabinets, laminat­ed products, porcelain or enamel sinks and basisn, sink tops, and skids, (2) parts, components, and accessories for the commodities named in (1) above, and (3) Materials and equipment, used in the manufacture, and distribution of the commodities named in (1) above (except commodities in bulk), between Tyrone, PA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI), under continuing contract with Chromalloy American Corporation, of Clayton, MO. (Hear­ing’site: St. Louis, MO.)

MC 139432 (Sub-9F*), filed June 23, 1978. Applicant: SUNRISE TRANS­PORTATION, INC., 9850 East High­way 120, Manteca, CA 95336. Repre­sentative: Robert B. Hankins, 1000 Ring Building, Washington, DC 20036. Authority granted to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: Soda ash and lime, in bulk, in tank and hopper- type vehicles, from the facilities of Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., at Wes­tend and Trona, CA, to points in AZ, NV, and NM, under a continuing con­tract with Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., of Los Angeles, CA. (Hearing site: San Francisco or Los Angeles, CA.)

MC 139658 (Sub-26F), filed July 11, 1978. Applicant: HARRY POOLE, INC., 2322 Kensington Road, Macon, GA 31201. Representative: Wm. Addams, Suite 212, 5299 Roswell Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30342. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) fertilizer and fertilizer materials, in bulk, in dump trucks, between the facilities of Pelham Phosphate Co., at or near Pelham, GA* and the facilities of Kerr-McGee Co., at or near Cotton- dale, FL; (2) slag, in bulk, in dump tnicks, from points in Jefferson County, AL, to (a) the facilities of Kerr-McGee Co. at or near Jericho, SC, and (b) those points in FL in and west of Jefferson County; and (3) fer­tilizer and fertilizer materials, in bulk, in dump trucks, between the facilities of Kerr-McGee Co., at or near Jericho, SC, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, FL, and GA. (Hearing site: Atlanta, GA.)

MC 140755 (Sub-53F), filed July 13, 1978. Applicant: BRAY TRANS­PORTS, INC., a Colorado corporation, 1401 North Little Street, P.O. Box 270,

-Cushing, OK 74023. Representative: Charles D. Midkiff (same address as applicant). Authority granted to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Petroleum products, in bulk, from points in OK to points in MO. (Hear­ing site: Oklahoma City, OK.)

MC 140800 (Sub-2F), filed June 16, 1978. Applicant: COLONIAL TRANS­PORTATION, INC., P.O. Box 448, McMinnville, TN 37110. Representa­tive: Robert L. Baker, 618 United American Bank Building, Nashville, TN 37219. Authority granted to oper­ate as a contract carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: (1) Electric motors, generators, brake drums, disk brakes, (2) parts for the commodities named in (1) above, and (3) materials and equipment, used in the manufacture of the commod­ities in (1) and (2) above (except com­modities in bulk), (1) between points in TN, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, AR, GA, IN, IA LA, MI, MN, TN, TX, and WI, and (2) between Watertown, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, AR, GA, IL, Ili, MO, MS, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX, VA, and WI, under continuing contract with Gould, Inc., of St. Louis, MO. (Hearing site: Wash­ington, DC.)

MC 140829 (Sub-120F*), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: CARGO CON­TRACT CARRIER CORP., P.O. Box 206, U.S. Hwy 20, Sioux City, IA 51102. Representative: William J. Hanlon, 55 Madison Avenue, Morristown, NJ 07960. Authority granted 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 (except hides and commodities in bulk), from the facili­ties of Dugdale Packing Co., at or near Darr, NE, to points in AL, CT, DE, FL, GA, ME, MD, MS, LA, NH, NJ, NY, NC, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, and DC, restricted to the transporta­tion of traffic originating at the named origin and destined to the indi­cated destinations. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 140898 (Sub-3F), filed June 23, 1978. Applicant: KENDRICKTRUCKING CORP., P.O. Box 19097, Louisville KY 40229. Representative: William P. Whitney, Jr., 708 McClure Building, Frankfort, KY 40601. Au­thority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Printed matter, from the facilities of the R. L. White Co., at Louisville, KY, to points in the United States (except Birmingham, AL, Atlanta, GA, Bloo­mington, Champaign, Peoria, and Springfield, IL, Fort Wayne, IN, Dayton and Toledo, OH, Erie and Philadelphia, PA, Charleston, SC, Chattanooga and Nashville, TN, Roa­noke, VA, Madison, WI, and points in their respective commercial zones, and AK and HI); and (2) paper and paper products, from points in the United

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36565States (except AK and HI), to the fa­cilities of the R. L. White Co., at Lou­isville, KY, restricted in (1) and (2) above to the transportation of traffic originating at the origins and destined to the indicated destinations. (Hearing site: Louisville or Lexington, KY.)

MC 141751 (Sub-3F), filed June 19, 1978. Applicant: M.P.C. TRUCKING, INC., Cold Stream Road, Kimberton, PA 19442. Representative: Alan Kahn, 1920 Two Penn Center Plaza, Philadel­phia, PA 19102. Authority granted to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: (1) Roofing and coating mate­rials, and paints, and (2) materials and equipment used in the manufac­ture and distribution of the commod­ities in (1) above, between Garland, TX, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, ID, KS, LA, MI, MO, NM, NV, OK, OR, TN, UT, WA, and WY, under a continuing contract with Monsey Products Co., Inc., of Kimberton, PA. (Hearing site: Washington, DC or Philadelphia, PA.)

MC 142145 (Sub-6F), filed July 5, 1978. Applicant: LINDSAY TRANS­PORTATION, INC., P.O. Box 156, Lindsay, NE 68644. Representative: Bradford E. Kistler, P.O. Box 82028, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority granted to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Steel buildings, hy­draulic presses, grain tanks, crop dryers, com cribs, and fencing; and (2) parts and accessories for the commod­ities in (1) above, from the facilities of Behlen Manufacturing Co., at or near Columbus, NE, to points in the United States (except AK, HI and NE); and(3) materials and iequipment used in the manufacture and distribution of commodities named in (1) and (2) above (except in bulk, in tank vehi­cles), in the reverse direction, under continuing contract with Behlen Man­ufacturing Co., Division of Wickes Corp., of Columbus, NE. (Hearing site: Omaha, NE.)

MC 142999 (Sub-7F), filed July 7, 1978. Applicant: TRANSPORT MAN­AGEMENT SERVICE CORP., Route 332 and Terry Drive, Newtown, PA 18940. Representative: Ronald N. Cobert, Suite 501, 1730 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Authority granted to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Chemicals(except in bulk), plastic articles, feed supplements, and dyes, (1) from Jamesburg, Findeme, Kearney, Carl- stadt, and Washington, NJ, to points in AL, AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, LA, MS, NM, NC, OR, SC, TN, TX, AND WA; and (2) from Charlotte, NC and Whi- testone, SC, to points in NJ and MA, under continuing contract in (1) and

(2) above, with BASF Wyandotte Corp., of Parsippany, NJ. (Hearing site: Washington, D.C.)

MC 144050 (Sub-IF), filed June 6, 1978. Applicant: COORS DISTRIBUT­ING CO. OF NORTH PLATTE, INC., 642 North Willow Street, North Platte, NE 69101. Representative: Joseph A. Shaughnessy, P.O. Box 8, North Platte, NE 69101. Authority granted to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Malt beverages, in containers, from Golden, CO, to Gering and North Platte, NE, under continuing contract with North Coors of West Ne­braska, Inc., of Gering, NE, and Coors Distributing Co. of North Platte, Inc., of North Platte, NE. (Hearing site: Lincoln or Omaha, NE.)

MC 144366 (Sub-IF), filed June 15, 1978. Applicant: FROST-PAK CO., a Corporation, P.O. Box 215, Swedes- boro, NJ 08085. Representative: Ches­ter A. Zyblut, 366 Executive Building, 1030 Fifteenth Street NW., Washing­ton, DC 20005. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Flour, bakery mixes, dessert preparations, gravies, bakery goods, potato products, and sugar substitutes (except in bulk), in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from Buffalo, NY, to Mechanicsburg, PA. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 144568 (Sub-IF), filed July 10, 1978. Applicant: S.W. TRANSPORT, INC., a Delaware corporation, 800 Ouellette Street, Marieville, PQ, Canada JOL 1JO. Representative: Donald E. Cross, 918 16th Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. Authority granted to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Bolts, nails, screws, nuts, washers, fasteners, wire, wire mesh, rods, bars, wire fabric, and, fencing, from Rouses Point, NY, to points in AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, and WI, under a continuing contract with Sivaco Wire & Nail Co., and Industrial Fasteners, Ltd., of Marieville, PQ, Canada. (Hearing site: Montpelier, VT or Burlington, VT.)

N ote.—(1) Applicant shall conduct sepa­rately its for-hire carriage and other busi­ness operations, (2) it shall maintain sepa­rate accounts and records for each oper­ation, and (3) it shall not transport property as both a private and for-hire carrier in the same vehicle at the same time.

MC 144580F, filed April 3, 1978. Ap­plicant: DICKEY TRANSFER & STORAGE, INC., 1430 South Parallel Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702. Represent­ative: James H. Gulseth, 100 Buch Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. Au­

thority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Used household goods, between points in Tulare, Kings, and Fresno Counties, CA, restricted to shipments having a prior or subsequent movement, in con­tainers, beyond the points authorized and further restricted to the perform­ance of pickup and delivery service in connection with the packing, crating, anc containerization or unpacking, un­crating, and decontainerization of such shipments. (Hearing site: Fresno, CA.)

MC 144731 (Sub-IF), filed June 15, 1978. Applicant: DAILEY TRUCK­ING, INC., 2935 Moreland Avenue., Conley GA 30027. Representative: Mi­chael J. Kovacich, 101 Trust Building., Decatur, GA 30030. Authority granted to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Floor covering installa­tion materials (except in bulk), from Conyers, GA, to points in the United States (except AK, HI, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, ND, OR, SD, UT, WA, and WY), under a continuing con­tract with Taylor Industries, of Con­yers, GA. (Hearing site: Atlanta, GA.)

MC 144732 (Sub-IF*), filed June 23, 1978. Applicant: S & S TRUCKING, INC., Alzada Star Route, Belle Fourche, SD 57717. Representative: Pete C. Shear (same address as appli­cant). Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Coal (1) from points in Campbell County, WY, to points in Crook County, WY, and (2) from points in Rosebud, Custer, and Powder River Counties, MT, to points in Crook County, WY and Butte County, SD. (Hearing site: Belle Fourche or Rapid City, SD.)

MC 144778 (Sub-2F), filed July 3, 1978. Applicant: HI-RAIL SERVICE CO. a corporation, 1819 Peachtree Road NE., Suite 622, Atlanta, GA 30309. Representative: Charlene M. Martin (same address as applicant). Authority granted to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: Repair and replacement parts for railroad cars, (1) between North Augusta, SC and Jacksonville, FL, on the one hand, and, on the other, Atlanta, Augusta, Duluth, Macon, Savannah, and Way- cross, GA; and (2) between Jackson­ville, FL, and North Augusta, SC, under a continuing contract with Trailer Train Co., of Chicago, IL. (Hearing site: Atlanta, GA or Chicago, IL.)

MC 144824 (Sub-IF), filed June 1, 1978. Applicant: GARY L. JOHNSON d.b.a. GARY L. JOHNSON TRUCK­ING, 1121 Sherman Avenue, Dallas, TX 75220. Representative: D. Paul

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36566 NOTICES

Stafford, Suite 1125 Exchange Park, Dallas, TX 75245. Authority granted to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (l)(a) Meat and cheese, and (b) agricultural commodities, the transportation of which is otherwise exempt from economic regulation under section 203(b)(6) of the Inter­state Commerce Act, when moving in mixed loads with the commodities named in (IXa), from the facilities of Skaggs Super Center, Inc., at or near Richardson, TX, to the facilities of Skaggs Super Center, at or near Okla­homa City and Tulsa, OK, Albuquer­que, NM, Lafayette and Baton Rouge, LA, and Little Rock, AR: (2) meat and cheese, from Carthage, MO; (3) meat from Wichita, KS, and Roswell, NM; and (4) bananas from Gulfport, MS, to the facilities of Skaggs Super Center, at on near Richardson, TX, under a continuing contract with Skaggs Super Center, Inc., of Richard­son, TX. (Hearing site: Dallas, TX.)

MC 144846 (Sub-2F), filed June 14, 1978. Applicant: TRANSTATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 3216 East Westminister, Santa Ana, CA 92703. Representative: David P. Christianson, 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Lamps and dis­play materials, from Charleroi, PA, to points in CA, OR, WA, AZ, and NV. (Hearing site: Huntington, PA.)

MC 144850P, filed June 5, 1978. Ap­plicant: JEROLD HARTH, Box 201, Osakis, MN 56360. Representative: Val M. Higgins, 1000 First National Bank Building, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Au­thority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Equipment and materials used in the manufacture of cement silos, from Plainfield, IL, to points in MN and ND; and (2) agricultural wheels, and parts of agricultural wheels, from Plainfield, IL, to points in MN, ND, and SD. (Hearing site: St. Paul, MN.)

MC 144880F, filed June 12, 1978. Ap­plicant: AJ TRUCKING SERVICE, INC., P.O. Box 545, Aberdeen, SD 57401. Representative: Steven K. Kuhlmann, P.O. Box 82028, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority granted to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Sugar (except in bulk), from Chaska, MN, to Denver, CO, Hutchin­son, KS, Kansas City and Springfield, MO, Omaha, NE, and Mason City, IA. (Hearing site: Minneapolis, MN or Sioux Falls, SD.)

N ote.—The carrier must satisfy the Com­mission that its common control possibilities are either approved by the Commission or do not require Commission approval.

MC 144971F, filed June 16, 1978. Ap­plicant: RAYMOND C. GRIFFITH, d.b.a. GRIFFITH TRANSPORT, P.O. Box 244, Esbon, KS 66941. Represent­ative: Eugene W. Hiatt, 207 Casson Building, 603 Topeka Boulevard, Topeka, KS 66603. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Feed, from Kansas City and St. Joseph, MO, to those points in KS bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the KS-NE State line and U.S. Hwy 81, then south' along U.S. Hwy 81 to intersection U.S. Hwy 24, then west along U.S. Hwy 24 to in­tersection U.S. Hwy 183, then north along U.S. Hwy 183 to the KS-NE State line, then east along the KS-NE State line to the point of beginning. (Hearing site: Salina or Topeka, KS.)

MC 144975F, filed June 30, 1978. Ap­plicant: ROAD RUNNER TRUCKING CO., INC., Perry Hill Road, Coventry, RI 02816. Representative: Ronald N. Cobert, Suite 501, 1730 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Authority granted to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Garden hose, plastic pellets, plasticizers, chemicals and scrap (except in bulk), from Brownsville, TN, to points in AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, RI, SD, SC, TX, UT, WA, WI, and WY; and (2) materials and equipment used in the manufacture and distribu­tion of the commodities described in (1) above (except in bulk), in the re­verse direction, under continuing con­tract with Teknor Apex Co., of Paw­tucket, RI. (Hearing site: Washington, DC or Boston, MA.)

P assenger Au t h o r ity

MC 52362 (Sub-5F), filed June 20, 1978. Applicant: MARINEL TRANS­PORTATION, INC., Ward Way, North Chelmsford, MA 01863. Representa­tive: Robert V. Cauchon, 100 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110. Authority granted to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Passengers and their baggage, in the same vehicle with passengers, between Westminster, MA, and Salem, NH, from Westminster over MA Hwy 2 to junction Interstate Hwy 495, then over Interstate Hwy 495 to junction Interstate Hwy 93, then over Interstate Hwy 93 to junc­tion NH Hwy 28, then over NH Hwy 28 to junction NH Hwy 97, then over NH Hwy 97 to Salem, and return over the same route, serving the intermediate point of Leominster, MA. (Hearing site: Boston >or Lowell, MA.)

B roker A u t h o r ity

MC 130509F, filed June 20, 1978. Ap­plicant: ROBERT LAMBERT, d.b.a. LAMBERT TOURS, 404 East Main Street, Suite 2-A, Ventura, CA 93001. Representative: Michael S. Rubin, 256 Montgomery Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104. Authority grant­ed to engage in operations, in inter­state or foreign commerce, as a broker, at Ventura, C'A, in arranging for the transportation by motor vehicle, of: Passengers and their baggage in the same vehicle with passengers in round trip special and charter operations, be­ginning and ending at Ventura, CA, and extending to points in the United States, including AK and HI. (Hearing site: Ventrua or Los Angeles, CA.)

[FR Doc. 78-22942 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

[7035-01][Volume No. 1103

PETITIONS, APPLICATIONS, FINANCE M A H E R S (IN C LU DING TEMPORARY AUTHORITIES), RAILROAD ABANDO NM ENTS, ALTERNATE ROUTE D EVIATIO NS, A N D INTRASTATE AP­PLICATIONS

August 11,1978.

P e t it io n s for M o d ific a tio n , I nter­pretatio n or R einstatem en t o f O p ­erating R ig h ts Au t h o r ity

The following petitions seek modifi­cation or interpretation of existing op­erating rights authority, or reinstate­ment of terminated operating rights authority.

All pleadings and documents must clearly specify the suffix (e.g. M1F, M2F) numbers where the docket is so identified in this notice.

An original and one copy of protests to the granting of the requested au­thority must be filed with the Com­mission within 30 days after the date of this notice. Such protests shall comply with special rule 247(e) of the Commission’s general rules of practice (49 CFR 1100.247)1 and shall include a concise statement of Protestant’s in­terest in the proceeding and copies of its conflicting authorities. Verified statements in opposition should not be tendered at this time. A copy of the protest shall be served concurrently upon petitioner’s representative, or pe­titioner if no representative is named.

MC 61592 (M2F) (notice of filing of petition to add an origin point), filed May 23, 1978. Petitioner: JENKINS TRUCK LINE, INC., P.O. Box 697, Jeffersonville, IN 47130. Representa­tive: E. A. DeVine, P.O. Box 737, Moline, IL 61265. Notice of filing of

Copies of special rule 247 (as amended) can be obtained by writing to the Secretary, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washing­ton, D.C. 20423.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

petition to add an additional origin point: Petitioner holds a motor common carrier certificate in MC 61582 (Sub-84), issued July 3, 1968, re­issued under MC 61592, lead certifi­cate, January 10, 1975, authorizing transportation, as pertinent, over ir­regular routes of: Incinerators, knocked down, and accessories there­for, including blow pipe (except those, the transportation of which, because of size or weight, requires the use of special equipment), from Memphis, TN, and points in the Memphis, TN, commercial zone, as defined by the Commission, to points in AZ, CO, IL, IN, KS, ME, MN, MT, NM, OH, PA, SD, VT, and WV. By instant petition, petitioner seeks to modify the above authority by adding the commodity description of environmental control equipment and parts and accessories therefor.

MC 61825 (Sub-60) (M1F) (notice of filing of petition to modify certificate by changing shipper and modifying territory), filed April 14, 1978. Peti­tioner: ROY STONE TRANSFER CORP., P.O. Box 385, Collinsville, VA 24078. Representative: John D. Stone (same address as petitioner). Petition­er holds a motor common carrier cer­tificate in MC 61825 (Sub-60) issued May 11, 1976, authorizing transporta­tion, over irregular routes, of: Food­stuffs (except frozen foodstuffs and commodities in bulk), from Red Creek, Egypt, Rushville, Waterloo, Fairport, Lyons, Newark, and Syracuse, NY, to points in GA, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV, and DC. Restriction: The oper­ations authorized herein are restricted to the transportation of shipments originating at the facilities of Com­stock Foods, Division of Borden, Inc., at the above-named origins and des­tined to the above-named destinations. By the instant petition, petitioner seeks to modify the above authority by adding Alton, Leicester, Le Roy, Shortsville, South Dayton, NY, as origin points and to modify the restric­tion to read: The operations author­ized herein are restricted to the trans­portation of shipments originating at the facilities of Curtice-Bums, Inc., at the above-named origins and destined to the above-named destinations.

MC 111729 (Sub-520, -543, -555, -571, -595, and -622) (M1F) (notice of peti­tion to modify restriction), filed: May 22, 1978. Petitioner: PUROLATOR COURIER CORP., 3333 New Hyde Park Road, New Hyde Park, NY 11040. Representative: Peter A. Greene, 900 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. Petitioner holds motor common carrier certificates in MC 111729 (Sub- 520, -543, -555, -571, -595, and -622) issued as follows: March 2, 1978, No­vember 17, 1977, February 21, 1978, March 18, 1978, November 21, 1977,

NOTICES

and May 4, 1977, respectively authoriz­ing transportation: (A) In the Sub-520 certificate—over irregular routes, of: General commodities (except articles of unusual value, classes A and B ex­plosives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, those requiring special equip­ment, and commercial papers, docu­ments and written instruments as used in the business of banks and banking institutions), (1) between points in IA, MN, ND, and SD; and (2) between points in SD, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in NE subject to sev­eral restrictions including the follow­ing: “Restricted against the transpor­tation of packages weighing more than 50 pounds, with each package or arti­cle considered a separate and distinct shipment.” By the instant petition, pe­titioner seeks to modify the foregoing restriction by deletion of the phrase “with each package or article consid­ered as a separate and distinct ship­ment.”

(B) In the Sub-543 certificate—over irregular routes, of: General commod­ities (except articles of unusual value, classes A and B explosives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, those requiring special equipment, cash letter, com­mercial documents, business records, audit and accounting media, and ad­vertising materials), (1) between points in DE, MD, VA, WV, and DC; and (2) between points in PA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in DE, MD, VA, WV, and DC subject to sever­al restrictions including the following: “Restricted against the transportation of packages weighing more than 50 pounds with each package or article considered a separate and distinct shipment.” By the instant petition, pe­titioner seeks to modify the foregoing restriction by deletion of the phrase “with each package or article consid­ered a separate and distinct ship­ment.”

(C) In the Sub-555 certificate—over irregular routes, of: General commod­ities (except household goods, com­modities in bulk, explosives, articles of unusual value, and commodities which because of their size and weight re­quire special equipment; and commer­cial paper, documents, and written in­struments as are used in the business of banks and banking institutions), (1) between points in AR and LA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in TX and OK; (2) between points in NM on the one hand, and, on the other, points in TX and OK; and (3) between points in TX, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in OK subject to sev­eral restrictions including the follow­ing: “No service shall be provided for the transportation of packages weigh­ing more than 50 pounds and each package or article shall be considered

36567

a separate and distinct shipment.” By the instant petition, petitioner seeks to modify the foregoing restriction by deletion of the phrase “and each pack­age or article shall be considered a sep­arate and distinct shipment.”

(D) In the Sub-571 certificatë—over irregular routes, of: General commod­ities moving in courier service (except articles of unusual value, classes A and B explosives, commodities in bulk, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities requiring special equipment; and commercial papers, documents, and written instru­ments as are used in the business of banks and banking institutions), be­tween points in IA, KS, MO, and NE subject to several restrictions includ­ing the following: “Restricted against the transportation of packages weigh­ing more than 50 pounds, with each package or article considered to be a separate and distinct shipment.” By the instant petition, petitioner seeks to modify the foregoing restriction by deletion of the phrase “with each package or article considered to be a separate and distinct shipment.”

(E) In the Sub-595 certificate—over irregular routes, of: General commod­ities (except household goods as de­fined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, explosives, articles of unusual value, and commodities which because of their size or weight require the use of special equipment, and commercial paper, documents, and written instru­ments as are used in the business of banks and banking institutions), be­tween points in CO and WY subject to several restrictions including the fol­lowing: “No service shall be provided for the transportation of packages weighing more than 50 pounds and each package or article shall be consid­ered a separate and distinct ship­ment.” By the instant petition, peti­tioner seeks to modify the foregoing restriction by deletion of the phrase “and each package or article shall be considered a separate and distinct shipment.”

(F) in the Sub-622 Certificate—over irregular routes, of general commod­ities (except those of unusual value, classes A and B explosives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, those which be­cause of size or weight require the use of special equipment, and commercial papers, documents and written instru­ments as are used in the business of banks and banking institutions), be­tween Spokane, WA, on the one hand, and, on the other, Lewiston and Moscow, ID, subject to several restric­tions including the following: “Re­stricted against the transportation of packages or articles weighing more than 50 pounds with each package or article considered a separate and dis­tinct shipment.” By the instant peti-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36568 NOTICES

tion, petitioner seeks to modify the foregoing restriction by deletion of the phrase “with each package or article considered a separate and distinct shipment.”

Petitioner states that the proposed modifications to the above-described certificates will not effect the present weight limitations but will only elimi­nate unnecessary multiple documenta­tion and assessment of multiple per shipment minimum charges.

MC 113429 (Sub-3) (M1F) (notice of filing of petition to modify permit) filed May 26, 1978. Petitioner: MIKE CONTRIS d.b.a. CONTRIS TRUCK­ING, Route 1, Harrod, OH. Represent­ative: James Duvall, P.O. Box 97, 220 West Bridge Street, Dublin, OH 43017. Petitioner holds a motor contract car­rier permit in MC 113420 (Sub-3), issued January 4, 1978, authorizing transportation over irregular routes: Machine parts and materials used in the manufacture or repair of construc­tion equipment (except bulk commod­ities and commodities which because of size or weight requires special han­dling and the use of special equip­ment), between Lima, OH on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the Unites States (except AK, HI, and OH). Restricted to the transportation of shipments not exceeding 5,000 pounds moving from one consignor to one consignee on a single day. Under a continuing contract or contracts with Clark Equipment Co. of Lima, OH. By the instant petition, petitioner seeks to delete the restrictions “commodities which because of size or weight re­quires special handling and the use of special equipment”, and “shipments not exceeding 5,000 pounds moving from one consignor to one consignee in a single day”.

MC 115311 (Sub-49) (M2P) (notice of filing of petition to modify certificate), filed May 30, 1978. Petitioner: J & M TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., P.O. Box 488, Milledgeville, GA 31061. Rep­resentative: Edward Wolcott, P.O. Box 872, Atlanta, GA 30301. Petitioner holds a motor common carrier certifi­cate in MC 115311 (Sub-49) issued March 2, 1967, authorizing transporta­tion over irregular routes of Sugar (except in bulk, in tank vehicles), (1) from Gramercy, LA, to points in FL, GA, NC, SC, and TN, (2) from Houma, LA, to points in AL and MS, (3) from Reserve, Houma, Mathews, and Su­preme, LA, to points in FL, GA, and TN, and (4) from Reserve, LA, to points in NC and SC. By the instant petition, petitioner seeks to add New Orleans, LA, as an origin point in (3) and (4) above.

MC 129467 (M1F) (notice of filing of petition to modify permit), filed Feb­ruary 1, 1978. Petitioner: B-N, INC., P.O. Box 232, El Dorado, KS 67042.

Representative: Clyde N. Christey, Suite 514, Capitol Federal Building, 700 Kansas Avenue, Topeka, KS 66603. Petitioner holds a motor con­tract carrier permit in MC 129467, issued June 23, 1978, authorizing transportation, over irregular routes, of industrial asphalt, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Augusta and El Dorado, KS, to Kansas City, MO, under a con­tinuing contract(s) with Trumbull As­phalt Co. of Kansas City, MO, and Pester Refining Co. of El Dorado, KS. By the instant petition, petitioner seeks to modify the above authority by adding CertainTeed Corp. as an ad­ditional contracting shipper.

MC 139113 (M1F) (notice of filing of petition to modify permit), filed May 23, 1978. Petitioner: HUDSONTRANSPORTATION, INC., P.O. Box 847, Troy,'AL 36081. Representative: William Jackson, Jr., P.O. Box 1240, Arlington, VA 22210. Petitioner holds a motor contract carrier permit in MC 139113 issued April 3, 1978, authoriz­ing transportation, over irregular routes, of: (1) Mayonnaise, salad dress­ing and salad dressing products, mus­tard, ketsup, jelly, tartar sauce, gela­tin, and gelatin products, from the fa­cilities of Brundidge Foods, Inc., at Brundidge, AL, and Troy, AL, to points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, MO, KS, OK, and TX (except points in ME, VT, and NH); and (2) materials, equipment and sup­plies used in the manufacture and dis­tribution of the commodities named in (1) above, from points .in the United States in and east of MN, IA, MO, KS, OK, and TX (except points in ME, VT, and NH), to the facilities of Brundidge Foods, Inc., at Brundidge, AL, and Troy, AL, under a continuing contract, or contracts, in (1) and (2) above with Brundidge Foods, Inc., of Brundidge, AL, (3) Such commodities as are dealt in by wholesale, retail, and chain gro­cery and food business houses, from points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, MO, KS, OK, and TX (except points in ME, VT, NH) to the facilities of Benson Wholesale Co., Inc., at or near Geneva, AL, under a continuing contract(s) with Benson Wholesale Co., Inc.,' of Geneva, AL, (4) Such commodities as are dealt in by wholesale, retail, and chain grocery and food business houses, from points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, MO, KS, OK, and TX (except points in ME, VT, and NH), to the fa­cilities of Institutional Distributors, Inc., at or near Geneva, AL, under a continuing contracts) with Institu­tional Distributors, Inc., of Geneva, AL (5) Such commodities as are dealt in by wholesale, retail, and chain gro­cery and food business houses, from points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, MO, KS, OK, and TX (except points in ME, VT, and NH), to

the facilities of Southland Grocery Co., Inc., at or near Columbus, GA, under a continuing contract(s) with Southland Grocery Co., Inc., of Co­lumbus, GA, (6) Such commodities as are dealt in by wholesale, retail and chain grocery and food business houses, from points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, MO, KS, OK, and TX (except points in ME, VT, and NH), to the facilities of E. J. Keefe, Inc., at or near Lakeland, FL, under a continuing contracts) with E. J. Keefe, Inc., of Lakeland, FL. Re­striction: The authority granted herein is restricted against the trans­portation of shipments in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigera­tion, and further restricted against the transportation of commodities in bulk. By the instant petition, petitioner seeks to modify the above authority by deleting the restriction which reads “restricted against the transportation of shipments in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration.”

MC 139495 (Sub-116) (M1F) (Sub- 182) (M1F), (Notice of filing of peti­tion to modify Certificates to substi­tute a point), filed May 26, 1978. Peti­tioner: NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., 1501 East Eighth Street, P.O. Box 1358, Liberal, KS 67901. Representa­tive: Herbert Alan Dubin, 1320 Fen­wick Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Petitioner was issued Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity au­thorizing it to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting, in MC 139495 (Sub-116) issued November 14, 1977, (1) crude rubber and hoses from the fa­cilities of Electric Hose & Rubber Co., at or near Wilmington, DE, to Alliance and McCook, NE; and (2) hoses (a) from the facilities of Electric Hose & Rubber Co. at or near Wilmington, DE, to points in CA, and (b) from the facilities of Electric Hose & Rubber Co. at or near McCook and Alliance, NE, to points in CA, WA, OH, GA, and PA; and in MC 139495 (Sub-182) issued May 17, 1978, hose from Olney, TX, to Los Angeles, CA, Elmhurst, IL, and Wilmington, DE. By the instant peti­tion, petitioner seeks to substitute Cornwells Heights, PA, wherever Wil­mington, DE, appears in the authori­ty.R epu blica tion s of G rants of O perat­

in g R ig h ts A u t h o r ity P r io r toCer tific a tio n

The following grants of operating rights authorities are republished by order of the Commission to indicate a broadened grant of authority over that previously noticed in the F ederal R eg ister .

An original and one copy of a peti­tion for leave to intervene in the pro­ceeding must be filed with the Com­mission within 30 days after the date

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36569of this F ederal R eg ister notice. All pleadings and documents must clearly specify the "F” suffix where the docket is so identified in this notice. Such pleading shall comply with Spe­cial Rule 247(e) of the Commission’s General Rules of Practice (49 CFR 1100.247) addressing specifically the issue(s) indicated as the purpose for republication, and including copies of intervemor’s conflicting authorities and a concise statement of interven- or’s interest in the proceeding setting forth in detail the precise manner in which it has been *prejudiced by lack of notice of the authority granted. A copy of the pleading shall be served concurrently upon the carrier’s repre­sentative, or carrier if no representa­tive is named.

MC 2368 (Sub-69) (republication), filed October 19, 1977, published in the F ederal R eg ister issue of Decem­ber 8, 1977, and republished this issue. Applicant: BR ALLEY -WILLETTTANK LINES, INC., P.O. Box 495, Richmond, VA 23204. Representative: William T. Marshburn (same address as applicant). A decision of the Com­mission, review board No. 1, decided July 26, 1978, and served August 1, 1978, finds that the present and future public convenience and necessity re­quire operation, by applicant, in inter­state or foreign commerce, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Vegetable oils and vegetable oil prod­ucts, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from the facilities of Cargill, Inc., at or near Gainesville, GA,-to those points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, NE, KS, OK, and TX; and (2) vegeta­ble oils, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in AL, AR, DE, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, FL, NJ, NY, and PA, to the facilities of Cargill, Inc., at or near Gainesville, GA, that applicant is fit, willing, and able prop­erly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The purpose of this republication is to modify the commodity and territorial description.

MC 103993 (Sub-892) (republication), filed May 16, 1977, published in the F ederal R eg ister issue of June 30, 1977, and republished this issue. Appli­cant: MORGAN DRIVE-AWAY, INC., 28651 U.S. 20 West, Elkhart, IN 46514. Representative: Paul D. Borghesani (same address as applicant). A decision of the Commission, review board No. 2, decided July 10, 1978, and served July 31, 1978, finds that the present and future public convenience and necessi­ty require operation, by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1)

Trailers designed to be drawn by pas­senger automobiles (except travel trailers and camping trailers), in ini­tial movements, from New Ulm, MN, Eupora, MS, Concord, NH, Jay, OK, Lancaster, WI, and points in AR, CA, CO, LA, NY, NC, OR, SC, TN, and VA, to points in the United States (except AK and HI); and (2) buildings, com­plete or in sections, mounted' on wheeled undercarriages, from origins which are points of manufacture, from Concord, NH, and points in CO, NY, NC, SC, and VA, to points in the United States (except AK and 'HI), that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The purpose of this republication is to modify the commodity and territorial description.

MC 107002 (Sub-522) (republication), filed November 8, 1977, published in the F ederal R eg ister issue of January 26, 1978, and republished this issue. Applicant: MILLER TRANSPORT­ERS, INC., P.O. Box 1123, Jackson, MS 39205. Representative: John J. Borth, P.O. Box 8573, Battlefield Sta­tion, Jackson, MS 39204. A decision of the Commission, review board No. 1, served July 25, 1978, and served July 28, 1978, finds that the present and future public convenience and necessi­ty require operation, by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Vegetable oils arid vegetable oil prod­ucts, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from the facilities of Cargill, Inc., at or near Gainesville, GA, to those points in the United States in and east of MN, IA, NE, KS, OK, and TX; and (2) vegeta­ble oils, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in AL, AR, DE, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MN, MS, MO, NE, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, and VA, to the facilities of Cargill, Inc, at or near Gainesville, GA, that applicant is fit, willing, and able prop­erly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The purpose of this republication is to modify the commodity and territorial description.

MC 121817 (republication), filed March 31, 1977, published in the F ed­eral R eg ister issue of April 28, 1977 as Alaska docket 77-114-MC/O, and republished this issue; Applicant: ANDY’S FLYING SERVICE, INC., P.O. Box 307, Kenai, AK 9961J. Repre­sentative: Andrew E. Hoge, 3201 “C” Street, Suite 706, Anchorage, AK 99503. A decision of the Commission, review board No. 4, decided July 14, 1978, and served July 21, 1978, finds

that applicant may conduct operations in interstate or foreign commerce within limits which do not exceed the scope of the intrastate operations for which applicant holds certificate A- 555, embraced in the order dated May 26, 1978, issued by the Alaska Trans­portation Commission, which autho­rizes operations as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, solely within the State of Alaska in the transportation of: General commodities having a prior or subsequent movement by air by Andy’s Flying Service, Inc., or when Andy’s Flying Service, Inc., is the agent for the air freight forwarder of the shipment. Between the Kenai and/or Soldotna Municipal Airports, and all points and places within a twenty-five (25) mile radius thereof. Restriction: Service is restricted to shipments of 1,500 pounds or less. The applicant is authorized to unitize this authority with its present authority to provide service to, from and between all points under the combined authori­ties. The purpose of this republication is to reflect applicant’s actual grant of authority.

MC 126305 (Sub-87) (republication), filed November 22, 1977, published in the FR issue of January 26, 1978, and republished this issue. Applicant: BOYD BROS. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., R.D. 1, Clayton, AL 36016. Representative: George A. Olsen, P.O. Box 357, Clayton, AL 07934. A decision of the Commission, Review Board No. 1, decided July 17, 1978, and served July 19, 1978, finds that the present and future public convenience and ne­cessity require operation, by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Molded rubber products and parts and accessories therefor (except commod­ities in bulk), from the facilities of Murray Rubber Co., in ft arris County, TX, to points in NJ, OH, VA, AL, GA, PA, NC, NY, MI, LA, AR, FL, KY, and TN; and (2) materials and equipment used in the manufacturing, processing, and distribution of the commodities named in (1) above (except commod­ities in bulk), in the reverse direction, that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The purpose of this republication is to broaden the origin point by the addi­tion of KY and TN in part (1) above.

MC 130475 (republication), filed Jan­uary 23, 1978, published in the FR issue of March 9, 1978, and repub­lished this issue. Applicant: ELEA­NOR YORK, d.b.a. YORK TOURS, 148 North Front Street, Medford, OR 97501. Representative: Starling R. Reese, 1220 North Ross Lane, Med-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36570 NOTICES

ford, OR 97501. A decision of the Com­mission, Review Board No. 2, decided June 29, 1978, and served July 17, 1978, finds that the present and future public convenience and necessity re­quire operations by applicant in inter­state or foreign commerce as a broker by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, in the transportation of Pas­sengers and their baggage, in special or charter operations, between points in the United States (including AK and HI), that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The purpose of this republication is to modify the commodity and territorial description.

MC 134477 (Sub-196) (republication), filed November 11, 1977, published in the FR issue of December 30, 1977, and republished this issue. Applicant: SCHANNO TRANSPORATION, 5 West Mendota Road, West St. Paul, MN 55118. Representative: Robert P. Sack, P.O. Box 6010, West St. Paul, MN 55118. A decision of the Commis­sion, Review Board No. 2, decided June 8, 1978, and served July 5, 1978, finds that the present and future public convenience and necessity re­quire operations by applicant in inter­state or foreign commerce as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, in the transpor­tation of Foodstuffs (except commod­ities in bulk), from the facilities of Sanna Division of Beatrice Foods Co., located at or near Cameron, Eau Claire, Menomonie, Vesper, and Wis­consin Rapids, WI, to points in GA, KY, NC, SC, and TN, restricted to the transportation of traffic originating at the named origin facilities and des­tined to the named destination, that applicant is fit, willing, and able prop­erly to perfrom such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The purpose of this republication is to add SC as a destinations, point.

MC 143616 (Sub-4) (republication), filed January 25, 1978, published in the FR issue of March 2, 1978, and re­published this issue. Applicant: M & S TRANSPORT LINES, INC., P.O. Box 417, Sultana, CA 93666. Representa­tive: Dwight L. Koerber, Jr., 805 McLachlen Bank Building, 666 11th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. A decision of the Commission, Review Board No. 1, decided July 17, 1978, and served August 1, 1978, finds that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operations by applicant in interstate or foreign com­merce as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, in the transportation of Adhesives, spray lu­

bricating oil, caulking compounds, putty, plaster, wood filler, covering and filler materials, synthetic resins, foam insulation compounds, and foundry core compounds, (except com­modities in bulk), from Basinbridge, NY, to points in TX and CA, under a continuing contract or contracts with Borden Chemical Division of Borden, Inc.,*of Columbus, OH, will be consist­ent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; that applicant is fit, willing, and able prop­erly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The purpose of this republication is to modify the commodity description.

M otor Carrier , B ro ker , W ater C ar­r ie r and F reig h t F orwarder O per ­ating R ig h ts A pplic a tio n s

The following applications are gov­erned by Special Rule 247 of the Com­mission’s General Rules of Practice (49 CFR 1100.247). these rules provide, among other things, that a protest to the granting of an application must be filed with the Commission within 30 days after the date of notice of filing of the application is published in the F ederal R eg ister . Failure to season­ably file a protest will be construed as a waiver of opposition and participa­tion in the proceeding. A protest under these rules should comply with section 247(e)(3) of the rules of prac­tice which requires that it set forth specifically the grounds upon which it is made, contain a detailed statement of protestant’s interest in the proceed­ing (including a copy of the specific portions of its authority which protes­tant believes to be in conflict with that sought in the application, and de­scribing in detail the method—wheth­er by joinder, interline, or other means—by which protestant would use such authority to provide all or part of thé service proposed), and shall speci­fy with particularity the facts, mat­ters, and things relied upon, but shall not include issues or allegations phrased generally. Protests not in rea­sonable compliance with the require­ments of the rules may be rejected. The original and one copy of the pro­test shall be filed with the Commis­sion, and a copy shall be served con­currently upon applicant’s representa­tive, or applicant if no representative is named. All pleadings and documents must clearly specify the “F” suffix where the docket is so identified in this notice. If the protest includes a request for oral hearing, such requests shall meet the requirements of section 247(e)(4) of the special rules, and shall include the certification required therein.

Section 247(f) further provides, in part, that an applicant who does not

intend timely to prosecute its applica­tion shall promptly request dismissal thereof, and that failure to prosecute an application under procedures or­dered by the Commission will result in dismissal of the application.

Further processing steps will be by Commission decision which will be served on each party of record. Broad­ening amendments will not be accept­ed after the date of this publication except for good cause shown, and re­strictive amendments will not be en­tertained following publication in the F ederal R egister of a notice that the proceeding has been assigned for oral hearings.

Each applicant states that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment resulting from approval of its application.

MC-200 (Sub-304F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: RISS INTERNA­TIONAL CORP. (a Delaware corpora­tion), 903 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64106. Representative: Rodger J. Walsh, 903 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64106. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Meat, meat products, meat by­products, and, articles distributed by meat packinghouses as described in sections A and C of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carri­er Certificates, 61 MCC 209 and 766 (except hides and commodities in bulk), from the facilities of MBPXL Corp., at Nebraska City, NE, to points in AR, CT, DE, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI, and DC. (Hearing site: Omaha, NE or Kansas City, MO).

MC 14215 (Sub-13F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: SMITH TRUCK SERVICE, INC., P.O. Box 1329, Steu­benville, OH 43952. Representative: James R. Stiverson, 1396 West Fifth Avenue, Columbus, OH 43212. Author­ity sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting Lime and li­mestone products, in bulk, from points in OH and KY on and east of Inter­state Hwy 65 to Weirton, WV. (Hear­ing site: Columbus, OH.)

MC 16961 (Sub-9F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: HUTCHINS TRUCK­ING CO., a corporation, 1000 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04102. Repre­sentative: Peter L. Murray, 30 Ex­change Street, Portland, ME 04111. Authority granted to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting such mer­chandise as is dealt in by wholesale, retail and general grocers, and food business houses (except commodities in bulk), between South Portland, ME, on the one hand, and, on the other, the facilities of Hannaford Bros. Co.,

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36571located at points in Vermont. (Hearing site: Portland, ME, or Boston, MA.)

MC 52861 (Sub-42F), (correction), filed April 14, 1978, previously noticed in the F ederal R egister issue o f July 20, 1978. Applicant: WILLS TRUCK­ING, INC., 5755 Granger Road, Cleve­land, OH 44131. Representative: PaulF. Beery, 275 East State Street, Co­lumbus, OH 43215. Authority granted to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Scrap metals, in dump vehicles, between points in IL, IN, OH, MI, PA, KY, and WV, in nonradial movement. (Hearing site: Columbus, OH.)

Note.—The purpose of this republication is to include the State of IL, which was omitted' from the previous F ederal R egis­ter notice.

MC 57239 (Sub-28F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: RENNER’S EX­PRESS, INC., 1350 South West Street, Indianapolis, IN 46206. Representa­tive: Roland Rice, 501 Perpetual Build­ing, 1111 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over regular routes, transporting: gen­eral commodities, (except articles of unusual value, classes A and B explo­sives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and commodities requiring special equipment), (A) between Coldwater, MI, and Sturgis, MI, serving all inter­mediate points as follows: From Cold- water over U.S. Hwy 12 to Sturgis, and return over the same route, (B) be­tween Lansing, MI, and St. Johns, MI, serving all intermediate points as fol­lows: From Lansing over U.S. Hwy 27 to St. Johns and return over the same route, (C) between Angola, IN, and Adrian, MI, serving no intermediate points: From Angola over U.S. Hwy 20 to junction OH Hwy 109, then over OH Hwy 109 to junction MI Hwy 52, then over MI Hwy 52 to Adrian, and return over the same route; and (D) between Angola, IN, and Morenci, MI, serving no intermediate points: From Angola over U.S. Hwy 20 to junction OH Hwy 108, then over OH Hwy 108 to junction MI Hwy 156, then over MI Hwy 156 to Morenci, and return over the same route. (Hearing site: Detroit, MI.)

MC 59856 (Sub-81F), filed: April 14, 1978. Applicant: SALT CREEK FREIGHTWAYS, a corporation, 3333 West Yellowstone, Casper, WY 82602. Representative: John R. Davidson, Room 805, Midland Bank Building, Billings, MT 59101. Authority granted 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, com­

modities in bulk, and those requiring special equipment, between Cody, WY, and junction of U.S. Hwy 310 and MT Hwy 308 near Bridger, MT: From Cody, WY, over WY Hwy 120, MT Hwys 397 and 308 to the junction of U.S. Hwy 310 and MT Hwy 308 and return over the same route, serving no intermediate points, as an alternate route to carrier’s otherwise authorized regular route, for operating conven­ience only. (Hearing site: Cody, WY, or Billings, MT.)

Note.—Common control may be involved.MC 65019 (Sub-8F), filed April 14,

1978. Applicant: BEATRICE MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., 123 Court Street, Be­atrice, NE 68310. Representative: JackL. Shultz, P.O. Box 82028, Lincoln, NE 68501. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Store fixtures, from the facilities of Store Kraft Manufacturing Co. locat­ed at or near Beatrice, NE, to points in OK and TX. (Hearing site: Lincoln, NE.)

MC 98864 (Sub-5F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: EDWARD SITAR TRUCKING CO., INC.', 2501 South Artesian, Chicago, IL 60608. Repre­sentative: H. Neil Garson, 3251 Old Lee Highway, Suite 400, Fairfax, VA 22030. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (a) Steel sheets and steel plates, pickled and oiled, used in the manufacture of battery trays and battery parts, from the warehouse facility of the Robin­son Steel Co. at East Chicago, IN to the plant site of the Westinghouse Electric Corp., KW Battery Division at London, KY; (b) Battery trays and bat­tery parts, from the plant site of the Westinghouse Electric Corp., KW Bat­tery Division at London, KY, to the plant site''of the Westinghouse Elec­tric Corp., KW Battery Division at Skokie, IL; (c) Batteries and battery parts, from the plant site of the Wes­tinghouse Electric Corp. KW Division at Skokie, IL, to the plant site of the Westinghouse Electric Corp. KW Divi­sion at London, KY. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

Note.—Applicant holds a Certificate of Registration in Docket No. MC 98864 (Sub-1) Applicant in Docket No. MC 98864 (Sub-2) seeks conversion of its Certificate of Reg­istration to a Certificate of Public Conven­ience and Necessity...

MC 102616 (Sub-947F), filed March 31, 1978 (correction). Published in the F ederal R egister issue of June 22, 1978, and republished as corrected this issue. Applicant: COASTAL TANK LINES, 250 N. Cleveland Massillon Road, Akron, OH 44313. Representa­tive: David F. McAllister (same address as applicant). Authority sought to op­erate as a common carrier by motor

vehicle, over irregular routes trans­porting: Commodities in bulk between points in the United States (except AK and HI.) (Hearing site: Houston, TX, or Chicago, IL.)

Note.—The purpose of th is republication is to clarify the authority sought.

MC 104654 (Sub-159F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box 469, Belleville, IL 62222. Representative: Edward G. Villalon, 1032 Pennsylvania Building, Pennsylvania Avenue and 13th Street NW., Washington, DC 20004. Authority sought to engage in operation, in interstate or foreign com­merce, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Petroleum products, in bulk, from Light, AR, to points in AR, ftfO, IL, TN, and KY. (Hearing site: St. Louis, MO, or Little Rock, AR.)

MC 103698 (Sub-798F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: NATIONALTRAILER CONVOY, INC., 525 South Main, Tulsa, OK 74103. Representa­tive: Irvin Tull, 525 South Main, Tulsa, OK 74103. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Composition board, from the facilities of the Celotex Corp., at or near Elizabethtown, KY, to points in CT, RI, MA, NH, VT, ME, NY, and NJ. (Hearing site: Tampa, FL.)

MC 106497 (Sub-154F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: PARKHILLTRUCK CO., a corporation, P.O. Box 912, Joplin, MO 64801. Representative: A. N. Jacobs, P.O. Box 113, Joplin, MO 64801. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Commodities, the transportation of which because of their size or weight requires the use of special equipment or handling, and parts of commodities, the transportation of which because of their size or weight requires the use of special equipment or handling; and (2) self-propelled articles, each weighing15,000 pounds or more, and related machinery, tools, parts, and supplies moving in connection therewith (re­stricted to self-propelled articles which are transported on trailers), be­tween points in WI, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in IL, IN, and KY. (Hearing site: Milwaukee, WI.)

Note.—Common control may be involved.MC 106497 (Sub-155F), filed April

14, 1978. Applicant: PARKHILLTRUCK CO., a corporation, P.O. Box 912, Joplin, MO 64801. Representative: A. N. Jacobs, P.O. Box 113, Joplin, MO 64801. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Commodities, the transportation of which because of size or weight re­quires the use of special equipment,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L . 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36572 NOTICES

and related machinery, parts, and re­lated contractors' materials and sup­plies when their transportation is inci­dental to the transportation by carrier of commodities which be reason of size or weight require the use of special equipment; (2) self-propelled articles, each weighing 15,000 pounds or more, and related machinery, tools, parts, and supplies moving in connection therewith—restricted to commodities which are transported on trailers; be­tween points in MT and ID, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in WY, CO, NM, KS, OK, TX, LA, AR, MO, IA, WI, IL, IN, and KY. (Hearing site: Salt Lake City, UT.)

N ote.—Common control may be involved.MC 108053 (Sub-145F), filed April

14, 1978. Applicant: LITTLE AU­DREY’S TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., P.O. Box 129, Fremont, NE 68025. Representative; Arnold L. Burke, 180 North LaSalle Street, Chi­cago, IL 60601. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Meats, meat products, meat byproducts and articles distributed by meat packinghouses (except hides and commodities in bulk), as defined in sections A and C of Appendix I to the report in Descriptions in Motor Carri­er Certificates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766. From the facilities of Wilson Foods Corp. at Monmouth, IL, to points in AR, ID, MT, NV, UT, and WY. Re­stricted to the transportation of traf­fic originating at the above named ori­gins and destined to the named desti­nations. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

N ote,—Common control may be involved.MC 109397 (Sub-414F), filed April

14, 1978. Applicant: TRI-STATEMOTOR TRANSIT CO., a corpora­tion, P.O. Box 113, Joplin, MO 64801. Representative: A. N. Jacobs (same ad­dress as applicant). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Iron and,[ steel gabions (except in bulk), from Reno, NV, to points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Reno, NV.)

N ote.—Common control may be involved.MC 110659 (Sub-26F), filed April 14,

1978. Applicant: COMMERICAL CAR­RIERS, INC., 975 Virginia Street, West, Charleston, WV 25302. Repre­sentative: John M. Friedman, 2930 Putnam Avenue, Hurricane, WV 25526. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Malt beverages, in containers and used empty containers upon return from Cleveland and Columbus, OH to Hun­tington, WV. (Hearing site: Charles­ton, WV.)

MC 113855 (Sub-419F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: INTERNATION­AL TRANSPORT, INC., 2450 Marion Road SE., Rochester, MN 55901. Rep­resentative: Alan Foss, 502 First Na­tional Bank Building, Fargo, ND 58102. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, in interstate or foreign commerce, transporting: Air­craft ground support equipment, bag­gage and cargo handling equipment and vehicles therefore, passenger load­ing and aircraft servicing mainte­nance vehicles and equipment and re­lated parts for all above, from Van Nuys, CA, to points in the United States, including AK (but excluding HI). (Hearing site: Los Angeles, CA.)

N ote.—Common control may be involved.MC 115975 (Sub-28F), filed April 14,

1978. Applicant: C.B.W. TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC., P.O. Box 48, Wood River, IL 62985. Representative: Ernest A. Brooks II, 1301 Ambassador B u ild in g, St. Louis, MO 63101. Author­ity sought to operate as a contract car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Petroleum oils and grease, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Bakerstown, PA, Woodhaven, MI, and Jefferson County, TX, to points in the United States (except AK and HI), under a continuing con­tract or contracts with Mobil Oil Corp. (Hearing site: Washington, DC.)

MC 117574 (Sub-312F) (correction), filed March 31, 1978. Published in the F ederal R eg ister issue of June 8, 1978 and republished as corrected this issue. Applicant: DAILY EXPRESS, INC., P.O. Box 39, 1076 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013. Representa­tive: James W. Hagar, P.O. Box 1166, 100 Pine Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Commodities, the transportation of which because of size or weight, re­quire the -use of special equipment, and related materials, supplies, and parts of such commodities when their transportation is incidental, thereto; and (2) self-propelled articles, each weighing 15,000 pounds or more, and related machinery, tools, parts, and supplies, moving in connection there­with; and (3) iron, steel, and alumi­num articles, between points in CT, DE, IL, IN, IA, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV, WI, and DC, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, and TN. The purpose of this correction is to remove the restriction of “restricted to the transportation of self-propelled ar­ticles transported on trailers.” (Hear­ing site: Washington, DC or Chicago, IL.)

N ote.—The carrier m ust satisfy th e Com­mission th a t its common control possibilities are either approved by th e Commission or do not require Commission approval.

MC 119974 (Sub-75F), filed April 3, 1978. Applicant: LCL TRANSIT CO., 949 Advance Street, Green Bay, WI 54304. Representative: L. F. Abel, P.O. Box 949, Green Bay, WI 54305. Au­thority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregu­lar routes, transporting: Vegetable oils and vegetable oil products in bulk, in tank vehicles, between Decatur, IN, on the one hand, and, on the other, Kansas City, KS, and points in IL, IN, IA, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH, and WI. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL or Washing­ton, DC)

MC 121496 (Sub-lOF), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: CANGO CORP., Suite 2900, 1100 Milam Building, Houston, TX 77002. Representative: E. Stephen Heisley, 805 McLachlen Bank Building, 666 Eleventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. Authority sought to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Petroleum and petroleum products, vehicle sealer and/or sound deadener compounds, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in Marion County, TN to points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Pittsburgh, PA or Wash­ington, DC.)

MC 121783 (Sub-2F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: WEST-PAK, INC., 3987 San Pablo Avenue, P.O. Box 8704, Emeryville, CA 94662. Repre­sentative*: Walter H. Walker III, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2550, San Francisco, CA 94111. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over regular 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), restricted to packages each weighing not more than 100 pounds, and further restricted against the transportation of more than 500 pounds in the aggregate from one con­signor at one location to one consignee at one location during a single day, (1) between Redding, CA, and the interna­tional boundary line between the United States and the Republic of' Mexico over Interstate Hwy 5, (2) be­tween Calpella and Los Angeles, CA, over U.S. Hwy 101, (3) between San Francisco and Pacifica, CA, over CA Hwy 1, (4) between Santa Cruz and San Clemente, CA, over CA Hwy 1, (5) between San Francisco, CA, and Elko, NV, over Interstate Hwy 80, (6) be­tween San Diego, CA, and Las Vegas, NV, over Interstate Hwy 15, (7) be­tween San Rafael and Santa Cruz, CA, over CA Hwy 17, (8) between Sacra-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36573mento, CA, and Carson City, NV, over U.S. Hwy 50, (9) between Reno and Carson City, NV, over U.S. Hwy 395, (10) between Truckee, CA, and Tahoe Valley, CA, over CA Hwy 89, (11) be­tween Placerville and Sonora, CA, over CA Hwy 49, (12) between Sonora and Modesto, CA, over CA Hwy 108, (13) over CA Hwy 120, between junction Interstate Hwy 5 and CA Hwy 120 and Oakdale, CA, (14) between Stockton and Jackson, CA, over CA Hwy 88, (15) over CA Hwy 124, between Plymouth, CA, and junction CA Hwys 124 and 88, near lone, CA, (16) between Lodi and Lockeford, CA, over CA Hwy 12, (17) over CA and NV Hwys 28, between Tahoe City, CA, and junction Inter­state Hwy 50 and Nevada Hwy 28, near Spooner’s Summit, NV, (18) over CA Hwy 99, between Red Bluff, CA, and junction Interstate Hwy 5 and CA Hwy 99 at Wheeler Ridge, CA, (19) over CA Hwy 20 between Williams, CA, and junction California Hwy 20 and Interstate Hwy 80 near Cisco, CA, (20) between Orland and Chico, CA, over CA Hwy 32, (21) between Marys­ville and Roseville, CA, over CA Hwy 65, (22) over CA Hwy 45 between junc­tion CA Hwys 45 and 32, near Hamil­ton City, CA, and Knight’s Landing, CA, (23) over CA Hwy 113, between Knight’s Landing, CA, and junction CA Hwy 113 and Interstate Hwy 80,(24) over CA Hwy 4, between junction CA Hwy 4 and Interstate Hwy 80 near Pinole, CA, and junction Interstate Hwy 5, near Stockton, CA, (25) over CA Hwy 37, between junction U.S. Hwy 101 and CA Hwy 37, near Novato, CA, and junction CA Hwy 37 and In­terstate Hwy 80 near Vallejo, CA, (26) between Calpella and Upper Lake, CA, over CA Hwy 20, (27) over CA Hwy 29, between Upper Lake, CA, and junction CA Hwy 29 and Interstate Hwy 80 near Vallejo, CA, (28) over CA Hwy 12, between Santa Rosa, CA, and junction CA Hwys 12 and 29 near Napa, CA, (29) over CA Hwy 24, between Oak­land, CA, and junction CA Hwys 24 and 4, near Concord, CA, (30) over In­terstate Hwy 680, between junction In­terstate Hwys 680 and 80 at Cordelia, CA, and junction CA Hwy 17 near Fre­mont, CA, (31) over Interstate Hwy 580, between San Lorenzo, CA, and junction Interstate Hwys 580 and 5, (32) between San Francisco, and San Jose, CA, over Interstate Hwy 280, (33) over CA Hwy 152, between Gilroy, CA, and junction CA Hwys 152 and 99, near Chowchilla, CA, (34) over CA Hwy 156, between junction CA Hwys 156 and 152 and junction U.S. Hwy 101 and CA Hwy 156, near San Juan Bau­tista, CA, (35) between Hollister and Squaw Valley, CA, over CA Hwy 180, (36) between Squaw Valley and Tulare, CA, over CA Hwy 63, (37) be­tween San Lucas and Exeter, CA, over CA Hwy 198, (38) over CA Hwy 65, be­

tween Exeter, CA, and junction CA Hwys 65 and 99, near Oildale, CA, (39) over CA Hwy 43, between Selma, CA, and junction CA Hwy 43 and Inter­state Hwy 5, (40) between Tracy, and Maricopa, CA over CA Hwy 33, (41) over CA Hwy 132, between junction CA Hwy 132 and Interstate Hwy 580 and Modesto, CA, (42) between Gus- tine and Merced, CA, over CA Hwy 140, (43) over CA Hwy 70, between junction CA Hwys 70 and 149 near Oroville, and Marysville, CA, (44) over CA Hwy 46, between Paso Robles, CA, and junction CA Hwys 46 and 99, near Famoso, CA, (45) over CA Hwy 166, be­tween Maricopa, CA, and junction CA Hwys 166 and 99 near Wheeler Ridge, CA, (46) over CA Hwy €6, between junction Interstate Hwy 5 and CA Hwy 66, near Glendale, CA, and San Bernardino, CA, (47) over Interstate Hwy 10, between junction Interstate Hwys 5 and 10 and Redlands, CA, (48) over CA Hwy 60, between junction CA Hwy 60 and Interstate Hwy 5 and Riv­erside, CA, (49) over CA Hwy 71, be­tween junction CA Hwy 71 and Inter­state Hwy 10 near La Verne, CA, and junction CA Hwy 71 and Interstate Hwy 15, near Murrieta Hot Springs, CA, (50) between Buena Park and Riv­erside, CA, over CA Hwy 91, (51) over CA Hwy 91, between junction CA Hwys 55 and 91, near Olive, CA, and Santa Ana, CA, (52) over Interstate Hwy 405, between San Fernando, CA, and junction Interstate Hwys 405 and 5, near Irvine, CA, (53) between San Juan Capistrano and Perris, CA, over CA Hwy 74, (54) over CA Hwy 78 be­tween junction CA Hwy 78 and Inter­state Hwy 5, near Oceanside and Es­condido, CA, (55) between San Diego and El Cajon, CA, over Interstate Hwy 8, (56) over Interstate Hwy 505, be­tween junction Interstate Hwys 505 and 5, near Dunnigan, CA, and junc­tion Interstate Hwy 80 and Interstate Hwy 505 near Vacaville, CA, and (57) between Monterey and Salinas, CA over CA Hwy 68, serving off-route points in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Madera, and Ventura Coun­ties, CA, and points in San Diego County, CA, west of Interstate Hwys 395 and 805 and points in the Los An­geles Basin Territory. (Hearing site: San Francisco, CA.)

Note.—T he purpose of th is application is to convert from certificate of registration to certificate of public convenience and neces­sity.

MC 123681 (Sub-34F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: WIDING TRANS­PORTATION, INC., P.O. Box 03159, Portland, OR 97203. Representative: Earle V. White, 2400 SW. Fourth Avenue, Portland, OR 97201. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­

rier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Commodities, which by reason of size or weight re­quire special handling or the use of special equipment, and commodities which do not require special handling or the use of special equipment when moving in the same shipment on the same bill of lading as commodities which by reason of size of weight re­quire special handling or the use of special equipment, (2) self-propelled articles (except new passenger auto­mobiles in truckaway service), trans­ported on trailers, and related machin­ery, tools, parts, and supplies moving in connection therewith, (3) iron and stell articles as decribed in appendix V to the Commission’s report in Descrip­tions in Motor Carrier Certificates, Ex parte MC 45, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766,(4) pipe other than iron or steel, to­gether with fittings; and (5) construc­tion materials (except commodities in bulk); between points in CA and NV, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in OR, WA, and ID. (Hearing site: Portland, OR.)

Note.—(a) Applicant will tack authority sought with Canadian operating authority at ports of entry on the international boundary line between the United States and Canada in WA and ID; and (b) by joinder of proposed authority with that issued in MC 123681 (sub-17) applicant will provide .through service between MT, on the one hand, and, on the other, CA and NV via OR and WA.

MC 125951 (Sub-35F), filed April 4, 1978. Applicant: SILVEY REFRIGER­ATED CARRIERS, INC., 7000 West Center Road, Suite 325, Omaha, NE 68106. Representative: Robert M. Cimino (same address as applicant). Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Frozen fish, frozen onion rings, and frozen bakery products (except in bulk), from the facilities used by Boston Bonnie, Inc., and Boston Bonnie Bakers, Inc., at or near Boston, MA, to points in NE, KS, MO, MN, OH, IL, PA, KY, IN, CO, IA, AR, MI, and WV. (Hearing site: Boston, MA.)

Note.—Applicant holds contract carrier authority in MC 135033, therefore dual op­erations may be involved.

MC 126358 (Sub-22F), filed March 31, 1978, and previously noticed in the F ederal R eg ister issue of June 29, 1978. Applicant: LAWRENCE L. BEN­NETT, d.b.a. BENNETT TRUCKING CO., P.O. Box 526, Hawkinsville, GA 31036. Representative: Paul M. Dan- iell, P.O. Box 872, Atlanta, GA 30301. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Veneer, from Hawkinsville, GA, to points in AL, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WI; and (2) lumber (except plywood and veneer),

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36574 NOTICES

from Hawkinsville, GA, to points in AL, NC, SC, TN, and VA. (Hearing site: Jacksonville, FL.)

Note.—Common control may be involved. This republication indicates the correct sub­number of this proceeding.

MC 128273 (Sub-301F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: MIDWESTERN DISTRIBUTION, INC., P.O. Box 189, Fort Scott, KS 66701. Representative: Elden Corban, P.O. Box 189, Fort Scott, KS 66701. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Paper and paper products and products produced or distributed by manufacturers and converters of paper and paper products (except commod­ities in bulk, in tank vehicles), (1) from Hartford City, IN, Ypsilanti, MI, and Evendale, Excello, Franklin, Hamil- tion, Lockland, Miamisburg, Middle- town, Norwood, Sharonville, and West Carrollton, OH, to those points in the United States in and east of WI, IL, KY, TN, and MS, and Minneapolis,MN, St. Louis, MO, and East St. Louis, IL, and points in St. Louis County,MO, (2) from the facilities of Beckett Paper Co. at Hamilton, OH, to points in ID, WI, MI, IN, OH, those points in IL on and north of U.S. Hwy 36, PA, NY, VT, ME, RI, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DE, MD, VA, WV, TN, MS, AL, GA, and FL, and Kansas City and Wichita, KS, Louisville, KY, New Orleans and Baton Rouge, LA, St. Louis, MO, Okla­homa City and Tulsa, OK, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Houston, TX, and Minneapolis and St. Paul,MN, and (3) from the facilities of Brown Bridge Mills, Inc., at Troy, OH, Howard Paper Mills, Inc., at Dayton and Urbana, OH, Crystal Tissue Co., at Middletown, OH, Duro Paper Bag Manufacturing Co., at Covington, Ludlow, and Erlanger, KY, and French Paper Co., at Niles, MI, to points in the United States (except AK and HI). (Hearing site: Cincinnati, OH, or Washington, DC.)

MC 133689 (Sub-192F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: OVERLAND EX­PRESS, INC., 719 First Street SW., New Brighton, MN 55112. Representa­tive; Robert P. Sack, P.O. Box 6010, West St. Paul, MN 55118. Applicant seeks authority as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Foodstuffs(except commodities in bulk) and plas­tic and rubber articles when moving in mixed shipments with foodstuffs, from the facilities of Ross Laborato­ries, Division of Abbott Laboratories, located at or near Altavista, VA to points in IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO,NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI. (Hearing site: St. Paul, MN.)

MC 134035 (Sub-22F) (correction), filed April 3, 1978. Published in the F ederal R eg ister issue of June 22,

1978, and republished as corrected in this issue. Applicant: DOUGLAS TRUCKING CO., a corporation, High­way 75 South, P.O. Box 698, Corsi­cana, TX 75110. Representative: Clint Oldham, 1108 Continental Life Build­ing, Fort Worth, TX 76102. Authority sought to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Candy and confectionery, between Lufkin, TX, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States (except AK and HI); and (2) machinery, equip­ment, materials, and supplies, used in the manufacture and distribution of the commodities in (1) above, from points in the United States (except AK and HI), to Lufkin, TX. (Hearing site: Dallas or Houston, TX.)

Note.—The purpose of this correction is to make the movement in (1) radial.

MC 135797 (Sub-132F), filed April13, 1978, and previously noticed as Sub— 112F in the F ederal R eg ister issue of July 27, 1978. Applicant: J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box 200, Lowell, AR 72745. Representative: Paul R. Bergant, 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Such commodities as are manufac­tured, distributed, or used by manu­facturers of sporting goods and recre­ational equipment (except commod­ities in bulk), between the facilities of Frabill Manufacturing Co., at Milwau­kee, WI, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in GA, OR, WA, NV, UT,ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MN, IA,MO, AR, LA, WI, IL, KY, TN, MS, MI, IN, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, OH, WV, VA, PA, NY, MD, NJ, CT, MA, NH, ME, RI, DE, and VT. (Hearing Site: Mil­waukee, WI).

N ote.—This republication indicates the correct sub-number.

MC 135874 (Sub-135F), filed April14. 1978. Applicant: LTL PERISHA­BLES, INC., 550 East Fifth Street South, South St. Paul, MN 55075. Rep­resentative: K.O. Petrick, 550 East Fifth Street South, South St. Paul, MN 55075. Authority sought to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Foodstuffs, (except commodities in bulk), in vehicles equipped with me­chanical refrigeration, from Garden City Park, NY, to points in OH, MI, IL, IN, WI, MN, NE, ND, SD, MO, and KS. (Hearing site: New York City, NY.)

Note.—Common control may be involved.MC 136511 (Sub-22F), filed April 14,

1978. Applicant: VIRGINIA APPALA­CHIAN LUMBER CORP. 9640 Tim- berlake Road, Lynchburg, VA 24502. Representative; E. Stephen Heisley,

805 McLachlen Bank Building, 666 11th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: New furniture and furniture parts, from points in Davidson, Graham, and Guilford Counties, NC, to points in OK and TX. (Hearing site: Charlotte, NC or Washington, DC.)

MC 136602 (Sub-7F), filed April 13, 1978. Applicant: ARIZONA WEST­ERN TRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box F (Guadalupe Road), Chandler, AZ 85224. Representative: A. Michael Bernstein, 1441 East Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85014. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, over irregular routes, transporting: Agricul­tural chemicals, soil conditioners, amendments and fertilizers, between points in AZ, CA, CO, ID, NV, NM, TX, and UT. (Hearing site: Phoenix or Tucson, AZ.)

Note.— The purpose of this application is to convert applicant’s permits to certificates of public convenience and necessity.

MC 138328 (Sub-60F), filed: March 9, 1978 (correction), published in the FR issue of June 22, and republished as corrected in this issue. Applicant: CLARENCE L. WERNER, d.b.a. WARNER ENTERPRISES, 1-80 and Hwy 50, P.O. Box 37308, Omaha, NE 68137. Representative: Donna Ehrlich (same address as applicant). Authority sought to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Plastic materials and plastic articles, and materials, equipment and supplies used in the manufacture, distribution and sale of plastics and plastic articles (except commodities in bulk, in tank vehicles, (1) from points in LA and TX to points in the United States (except AK and HI); (2) from Farmingdale and New Hyde Park, NY, to points in the United States (except AK, HI, and NY); and (3) from Marietta, OH, to points in the United States (except AK, HI and OH). (Hearing site: New York, NY.)

Note.—Applicant now holds contract au­thority under MC 133233; therefore, dual operations may be involved.

Note.—The purpose of this correction is to remove the “size and weight” restriction.

MC 138635 (Sub-53F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: CAROLINA WEST­ERN EXPRESS, INC., Box 3961, Gas­tonia, NC 28052. Representative: Eric Meierhoefer, Suite 712, 1511 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Authori­ty sought to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Candy and con­fectionery N.O.I. (1) from the facilities of E. J. Brach & Sons, Inc., located at or near Chicago and Sullivan, IL, to Reno, NV, and points in NC, SC, TN,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36575PL, VA, and GA; and, (2) from the fa­cilities of E. J. Brach & Sons, Inc., lo­cated at or near Reno, NV, to points in CA, WA, OR, and AZ. (Hearing site: Chicago, IL.)

Note.—Applicant holds contract carrier authority in MC 136464 and sub numbers thereunder; therefore, dual operations may be involved.

MC 139439 <Sub-2F), filed: April 14, 19.78. Applicant: WILLIAM ED­WARDS, INC., County Road 1920, Verona, VA 24482. Representative: George A. Olsen, P.O. Box 357, Glad­stone, NJ 07934. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Yams, fabrics, materials, equipment and supplies used or useful in the manufacture, sale, and distribu­tion of yarns and fabrics (except com­modities in bulk) between Staunton and Waynesboro, VA, and Wayne, NJ, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, MD, DE, KY, WV, AL, PL, NJ, PA, MA, CN, RI, NY, ME, NH, VT., under con­tinuing contract or contracts with United Yam Products Co., Inc., Spun- tex, Inc., Amerfab, Inc., Pibrespun, Inc., Amerspun Corp. of Wayne, NJ. (Hearing site: Washington, DC, or New York, NY.)

MC 140024 (Sub-104F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: J. B. MONTGOM­ERY, INC., 5565 East 52d Avenue, Commerce City, CO 80022. Represent­ative: Charles J. Kimball, 350 Capitol Life Center, 1600 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Paper and paper prod­ucts, from ports of entry on the United States-Canadian Boundary, at or near Champlain, NY, to Dallas and Grant Prairie, TX; Lincoln, NE; Elk Grove Village, IL; Los Angeles, CA; and New Orleans, LA; and points in their commercial zones. (Hearing site: Denver, CO, Chicago, IL, or Burling­ton, VT.)

Note.—Common control may be involved.MC 141764 (Sub-7F), filed April 14,

1978. Applicant: BLACKHAWK EN­TERPRISES, INC., 3149 Depot Road, Hayward, CA 94545. Representative: William D. Taylor, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2550, San Francisco, CA 94111. Authority sought to operate as a con­tract carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir­regular routes, transporting: Cleaning compounds, food supplements, vita­mins, cosmetics, plastic articles, print­ed materials, and merchandise (except commodities in bulk), from the facili­ties used by Shaklee Corp. at or near Hayward, CA, to Atlanta, GA, under a continuing contract with Shaklee Corp., of Hayward, CÀ. (Hearing site: San Francisco, CA.)

MC 142516 (Sub-llF), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: ACE TRUCKING CO., INC., 1 Hackensack Avenue, Kearny, NJ 07032. Representative: George A. Olsen, P.O. Box 357, Glad­stone, NJ 07934. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Window glass, from the port of Newark, NJ, and the port of New York, NY, and its commercial zone, to Chicago, IL, under a continuing con­tract or contracts with Amworth In­dustries Corp, and Jazel Corp. (Hear­ing site: New York, NY, or Washing­ton, DC.)

MC 142686 (Sub-6F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: MID-WESTERN TRANSPORT, INC., 10506 South Shoemaker, Santa Fe Springs, CA. Representative: Miles L. Kavaller, 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315, Bever­ly Hills, CA 90212. Authority sought to operate as a contract carrier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, trans­porting: Adhesives, sealants, coatings, paints, industrial waxes, floor mainte­nance equipment, specialty chemicals, hot melts, resins, dextrine emulsions, polymers, grouts, floor tile and carpet adhesives, caulks, wood glues, floor po­lishing and scrubbing machines, power sweepers, vacuum sweepers, industrial chemicals and waxes and detergents, disinfectants, hand cleaners, rug shampoos, upholstery shampoos, and floor sealers, and materials and sup­plies used in the manufacture and dis­tribution thereof, except in bulk,

(1) Between Decatur and Palatine, IL; Clinton, IA; and Kansas City, KS, on the one hand, and on the other, Denver, CO (Littleton), La Mirada, south San Francisco and Newark, CA; Portland, OR; and Everett, WA; and

(2) Between Clariton, PA; Schenec­tady, NY; Chicago (Palatine), IL; Boston (Marlboro), MA; Baltimore, MD; Edison, NJ; Cincinnati (Blue Ash), OH; Detroit, MI; and Buffalo, NY, on the one hand, and on the other, St. Louis, MO; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO (Littleton); La Mirada, Newark and South San Fran­cisco, CA and Portland, OR; and

(3) Between points in FL, GA, NC, SC, AL, MS, New Orleans, LA, Dallas (Mesquite), Houston, and Beaumont, TX, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, La Mirada, south San Francisco, Newark, CA, and Portland, OR; and

(4) Between La Mirada, Newark and south San Francisco, CA, and Port­land, OR, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in OR, WA, MT, UT, WY, and ID.

(5) Between Fridley (Minneapolis), MN, Grand Rapids, MI, Chicago (Pala­tine), IL, and Philadelphia, PA, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Kansas City, KS, Denver (Littleton),

La Mirada, and south San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA.

Under continuing contract or con­tracts with H. B. Fuller Co. (Hearing site: Portland, OR.)

Note: Common control may be involved.MC 143868 (Sub-IF), filed April 14,

1978. Applicant: R.E.T.E.N.O. CARRI­ERS, INC., 2001 North Tyler, Suite H, South El Monte, CA 91733. Represent­ative: William J. Monheim, P.O. Box 1756, Whittier, CA 90609. Authority sought to operate as a contract carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Coil steel, in vehi­cles, equipped with, mechanical refrig­eration, and bar steel, from Aliquippa and Farrell, PA, Youngstown, OH, In­dianapolis, IN, and Chicago, IL, to the ports of entry on the International Boundary Line between the United States and Canada located at or near Blaine, WA, restricted to traffic having a subsequent movement in for­eign commerce to Burnaby and Victo­ria, BC, Canada, under a continuing contract, or contracts, with Windsor Machine Co., Ltd., or Burnaby, BC, Canada. (Hearing site: Los Angeles, CA.)

MC 144463 (Sub-IF), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: PIERSON TRUCK­ING CO., a corporation, 7355 South­east Johnson Creed Boulevard, P.O. Box 22141, Milwaukie, OR 97222. Rep­resentative: Lawrence V. Smart, Jr., 419 Northwest 23d Avenue, Portland, OR 97210. Authority sought to oper­ate as a common carrier, by motor ve­hicle, over irregular routes, transport­ing: Rust preventative pipe line coat­ing and coal tar products from the fa­cilities of Koppers Co. at or near Fon­tana, CA, to points in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, OR. (Hearing site: Portland, OR.)

MC 144547F (corrected), filed March 31, 1978. Published in the F ederal R eg ister issue of June 29, 1978, and republished, as corrected this issue. Applicant: DURA-VENT TRANS­PORT CORP., 2525 El Camino Real, Redwood City, CA 94064. Representa­tive: Barry Roberts, 888 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. Authori­ty sought to operate as a contract car­rier, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting, vent pipe and f i t ­tings, flashings, chimney assemblies, stovepipes, wood burning fireplaces, and wood burning stoves, from Red­wood City, CA, to points in the United States (except AK and HI). Under con­tinuing contract or contracts with Dura-Vent Corp. (Hearing site: San Francisco, CA, or Washington, DC.)

Note.—The purpose of this correction is to substitute vent pipe and fittings, flash­ings, wood burning fireplaces, and wood burning stoyes for the commodity “metal products.”

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36576 NOTICES

MC 144640 <Sub-2F), filed April 14, 1978. Applicant: AGRICULTURAL SERVIQES ASSOCIATION, INC., Washington Street, Bells, TN 38006. Representative: Charles Ephraim,1250 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. Authority sought to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: (1) Foods and food products, (A) from Bells, Hum­boldt, Rossville, and Memphis, TN, to points in the United States (except AZ, CA, ID, MT, AK, HI, NM, NV, OR, WA, and WY); (B) from Clark, SD, and Rochester, NY, to Little Rock, AR; (C) from Brockport, NY, to Little Rock, AR; Florence, AL; Atlanta, GA; and Memphis, TN; (D) from Darien, WI, to Houston, TX, and Schenectady, NY; and (E) from Metairie, LA, to Humboldt, TN. (2) Materials, supplies, and ingredients used in the prepara­tion, packaging and distribution of foods and food products, from points in the United States (except AZ, CA, AK, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, WA, and WY) to points in TN and Browns­ville, TX. (3) Canned goods, (A) from Mobile, AL; New Orleans, LA; Tren­ton, MO; and Houston TX, to Jackson, TN; (B) from Fond du Lac and Gillett, WI to Memphis, TN. (4) Frozen bread, from Dallas, TX, to Memphis, TN. (Hearing site: Memphis, TN; New York, NY; Orlando, FL.)

P assenger Applic a tio n s

MC 144537F, filed April 5, 1978. Ap­plicant: MARVIN Y. NEELY and NANCY B. NEELY, a partnership, d.b.a. SHUN-PIKE TOURS, 100 South County Line Road, Telford, PA 18969. Representative: Dennis Helf, Sixth and Chestnut Streets, Perkasie, PA 18944. Authority sought to operate as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, transporting: Passengers and their baggage, in the same vehicle with passengers, limited to the transportation of not more than 12 passengers in any 1 vehicle, in spe­cial operations, between New York, NY, and points in Bucks, Montgomery, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties, PA. (Hearing site: Philadelphia, PA.)

B roker Appl ic a tio n

MC 130496F, filed April 11, 1978. Ap­plicant: SPRINGFIELD AUTO­MOBILE CLUB, a corporation, 755 Bechtle Avenue, Springfield, OH 45504. Representative: James R. Sti- verson, 1396 West Fiftft Avenue, P.O. Box 12241, Columbus, OH 43212. Au­thority sought to engage in operation in interstate or foreign commerce as a broker at Springfield, OH, to sell or offer to sell the transportation of pas­sengers and their baggage in round trip special and charter operations, be­ginning and ending at points in Clark

County, OH, and extending to points in the United States including AK and HI. (Hearing site: Columbus, OH.)

F inance Applic a tio n s

The following applications seek ap­proval to consolidate, purchase, merge, lease operating rights and properties, or acquire control through ownership of stock, or rail carriers of motor carri­ers pursuant to sections 5(2) or 210a(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act.

An original and two copies of pro­tests against the granting of the re­quested authority must be filed with the Commission within 30 days after the date of this F ederal R egister notice. Such protests shall comply with Special Rules 240(c) or 240(d) of the Commission’s General Rules of Practice (49 CFR 1100.240) and shall include a concise statement of Protes­tant’s interest in the proceeding. A copy of the protest shall be served concurrently upon applicant’s repre­sentative, or applicant, if no represent­ative is named.

MC-F-13545. Authority sought for purchase by RITEWAY TRANS­PORT, INC., 2131 West Roosevelt, Phoenix, AZ 85005, of the properties and operating rights of THOMAS C. HEDLUND d.b.a. TELLURIDE TRANSFER, P.O. Box 326, Telluride, CO 81435. Transferor’s attorney: Charles J. Kimball, 350 Capitol Life Center, 1600 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203; Transferee’s attorney: Wil­liam H. Shawn, 1730 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Operating rights sought to be purchased: General commodities, with exceptions, as a common carrier over irregular routes between an area embracing all or part of Montrose, San Miguel, Dolores, Montezuma, La Plata, San Juan, Ouray, Hinsdale, Archuleta, and Min­eral Counties, CO, on the one hand, and all points in CO, on the other, subject to certain territorial and serv­ice restrictioris, and general commod­ities, with exceptions, between Grand Junction and Rico, CO, between Delta and Rico, CO, and between Montrose and Rico, CO, as more fully described in Certificate MC 79148 and (Sub-2). Transferee is authorized to operate pursuant to Certificate MC 1334 and subsequent subnumbers as a common carrier in the States of AZ, CO, NM, and UT. Application has been filed for temporary authority under section 210a(b).

Note.—MC 1334 (Sub-20F) is a directly re­lated matter.

MC-F-13678F. Authority sought for purchase by COLDWAY CARRIERS, INC., P.O. Box 2038, Clarksville IN 47130, of the operating rights of KEN­TUCKY TRANSPORT CORP, 400 Sherburn Lane, Louisville, KY 40207,

and for acquisition by HUBERT T. WILLIS, 501 South Second Street, Louisville, KY 40202, of control of such rights through the purchase. Ap- plicants’attomey: George M. Catlet, 708 McClure Building, Frankfort, KY 40601. Operating rights sought to be purchased: Such merchandise as is dealt in by wholesale, retail, and chain grocery and food business houses, and, in connection therewith, equipment, materials, and supplies, used in the conduct of such business as a contract carrier between points and places within the territory bounded by a line beginning at Madison, IN, and extend­ing in a southeasterly direction through Carrollton, KY, Paris, Mount Sterling, and Jackson to Neon, KY, then in a southwesterly direction through Cumberland, Harlan, Middlesboro, KY, and Jellico, TN, to Shelbyville, TN, then west to Colum­bia, TN, then north through Franklin to Nashville, TN, then in a northwest­erly direction through Clarksville, TN, to Mayfield, KY, then in a northeast­erly direction through Paducah, KY, Carmi, and Mt. Carmel, IL, Peters­burg, IN, and French Lick to Mitchell, IN, and then east through Scottsburg, IN, to Madison, including the points named. Between points and places in the above-specified territory on the one hand, and, on the other, points and places within the territory bound­ed by a line beginning at Mt. Carmel, IL, and extending in a northeasterly direction through Terre Haute, IN, to Indianapolis, IN, then in a southeast­erly direction to the Ohio Rivier at a point 1 mile east of Lawrenceburg, IN, then across the river and along the south bank thereof to Covington, KY (including Cincinnati, OH), then south through Falmouth to Cynthiana, KY, then in a southeasterly direction through Carlisle to Jenkins, KY, then in a southwesterly direction through Morristown, TN, Knoxville, McMinn­ville, and Manchester to Fayetteville, TN, then west through Pulaski, to Memphis, TN, and then in a north­easterly direction through Hickman and Paducah, KY, and Carmi, IL, to Mt. Carmel, including the points named. Such merchandise as is dealt in by wholesale, retail, and chain gro­cery and food business concerns, and in connection therewith, equipment, materials, and supplies used in the conduct of such business, over irregu­lar routes, between points and places in the territory bounded by a line be­ginning at Madison, IN, and extending in a southeasterly direction through Carrollton, Paris, and Mt. Sterling, KY, to Jackson, KY, then in a north­erly direction to Morehead, KY, then in a northeasterly direction through Flemingsburg, KY, to Falmouth, KY, and then in a westerly direction through Dry Ridge, KY, to Madison.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

Between points and places in the above described territory on the one hand, and points and places in that part of KY bounded by a line begin­ning at Falmouth, KY, and extending in a southerly direction to Cynthiana, KY, then in a southeasterly direction through Carlisle, KY, to Jenkins, KY, and then in a northwesterly direction through Flemingsburg, KY, to Fal­mouth, on the other. Service herein authorized is an extension of said car­rier’s existing operations. Restriction: The transportation service specified above must be performed under indi­vidual contracts or agreements, with persons (as defined in section 203(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act), who operate retail stores, the business of which is the sale of food. Foodstuffs (except meat), in containers, when moving in vehicles equipped with me­chanical refrigeration, between Louis­ville, KY, on the one hand, and, on the other, Chicago and Joliet, IL, points in New York, NY, commercial zone as de­fined by the Commission and points in PA on and east of U.S. Hwy 220, except Bethlehem. Foodstuffs (except meat), in containers, between Bethle­hem, PA, on the one hand, and, on the other, Louisville, KY, and Cincinnati, OH. Frit and pigment, in bags, from Baltimore, MD, to Louisville, KY, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. Restriction: The operations authorized herein are limited to a transporation service to be performed, under a con­tinuing contract, or contracts, with SCM Corp, on behalf of its Durkee Foods Division and Chemicals/Metal- lurgicals Division. Vendee is author­ized to operate as a common carrier in AL, AR, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME,- MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, and NE. Application has been filed for temporary authority under section 210a(b).

MC-F-13680F. Authority sought for purchase by BEKINS VAN LINES CO., 333 South Center Street, Hillside, IL 60162, of a portion of the operating rights of STERNBERGER MOTOR CORP., 45-50 Court Square, Long Island City, NY, and for acquisition by the Bekins Co., 1335 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, of con­trol of such rights through the pur­chase. Applicant’s attorneys: MarvinS. Maltzman, 777 Flower Street, Glen­dale, CA 91202; Russell S. Bernhard, 1625 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006; Edward G. Villalon, Suite 1032, Pennsylvania Building, Washington DC 20004. Operating rights sought to be purchased are authorized under Certificate MC 46219 and subs as fol­lows: Irregular routes (1) Lead, (a) New and used household and office furniture. Between New York, NY, on

NOTICES

the one hand, and, on the other, points in NY, CT, DE, MD, PA, MA, NJ, RI, and DC; (b) New furniture, be­tween New York, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in NH, VT, VA, and WV; (2) Sub-3, (a) New furniture, from Hampton, VA, to points in AL, DE, FL, GA, LA, MD, MS, SC, WV, and DC, with no trans­portation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized; (3) Sub 5, (a) Utility cabinets, between Philadelphia, PA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in CT, DE, MD, NJ, NY, VA, and DC; (b) New fur­niture and furniture frames, between Philadelphia, PA, on the one hand, and, on the other, Wilmington, DE, Baltimore, MD, Washington, DC, New York, NY, and points in CT and VA;(c) New furniture and furniture frames, between points in Philadel­phia, PA; (d) Paper-wrapped, uncrated steel utility cabinets, from Philadel­phia, PA, to points in VT, RI, WV, and NC, with no transportation for com­pensation on return except as other­wise authorized; (e) Uncrated steel utility cabinets, from Philadelphia, PA, to points in MA, with no transpor­tation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized; (f ) Un­crated store and office furniture or fix ­tures, between New York, NY, and points in Westchester County, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in CT, MA, NJ, NY, PA, and RI; Sub-6, (a) New furniture, uncrated, from points in Erie County, NY, to New York, NY, and points in PA, NJ, DE, MD, and DC; and from New York, NY, to Atlantic City, NJ, Baltimore, MD, points in NY and DC, and those in that part of PA east of a line begin­ning at the PA-NY State line and ex­tending along U.S. Hwy 11 to Le- moyne, PA, then along Interstate Hwy 83 (formerly portion U.S. Hwy 111) to junction PA Hwy 295 (formerly por­tion U.S. Hwy 111), then along PA Hwy 295 via Strinestown and Zions View, PA, to junction unnumbered highway (formerly portion U.S. Hwy 111), then along unnumbered highway to junction Interstate Hwy 83 (former­ly U.S. Hwy 111) then along Interstate Hwy 83 to junction unnumbered high­way (formerly portion U.S. Hwy 111), then along unnumbered highway via Jacobus and Shrewsbury, PA, to the PA-MD State line, including points on the indicated portions of the highways specified; and (b) Rejected shipments of new furniture, uncrated, from the destination points specified in the two paragraphs next above to the respec­tive origin points; (c) New furniture, uncrated, between Fall River, MA, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in NY, NJ, PA, and CT. From Meriden, CT, to points in MA, NJ, RI, and NY, and that part of PA on the east of U.S. Hwy 11; and from New

36577

Haven, CT, to Washington, DC, Balti­more, MD, and points in CT, MA, RI, NY, NJ, and points in that part of PA on and east of U.S. Hwy 1; and (d) Re­fused or damaged shipments of the im­mediately above-specified commodity, from the destination points in the two paragraphs next above to New Haven and Meriden, CT, respectively; (3) New office furniture, from Herkimer, NY, to New York, NY, Newark and Camden, NJ, Philadelphia, PA, Balti­more, MD, and Washington, DC, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized;(f) Furniture frames, springs, cotton, moss and fiber, from New York, NY, to New Haven, CT, with no transporta­tion for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized; (g) Cabinets, between Orleans, VT, and New Haven, CT; (h) Uncrated new and used furniture, between New York, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in that part of PA west of a line beginning at the PA-OH State line and extending along U.S. Hwy 422 to junction U.S. Hwy 219, and then along U.S. Hwy 219 to the PA- MD State line; (i) New furniture, un­crated, as defined by the Commission, from the site of the Roxbury Furni­ture Co., Inc., plant at Windsor, NY, to New York, NY, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized.

(4) Sub 8(a) New furniture, from North Bennington and East Arlington, VT, to points in VW and VA; and (b) Damaged, defective or returned ship­ments of new furniture, from the des­tination points specified next above, to North Bennington and East Arlington, VT; (c) New furniture, from points in Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Court* ties, NY, to points in CT, MA, and RI, with no transportation for compensa­tion on return except as otherwise au­thorized. From points in Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Counties, NY, to New York, NY; and; from points in Chau­tauqua and Cattaraugus Counties, NY, to points in PA, and those in the New York, NY, commercial zone, as defined by the Commission in 1 MCC 665; and from Warren and Youngsville, PA, to points in OH, PA, those in the New York, NY, commercial zone, as defined by the Commission in 1 MCC 665, and those in that part of NY bn and west of U.S. Hwy 15; and (d) Damaged and defective shipments of new furniture; from the destination points specified under the commodity next above to their respective origin points; (e) New furniture, uncrated, from Jamestown, NY, to points in Nassau and Suffolk counties, NY, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized; (f) Defective or damaged shipments of new furniture, uncrated, from the respective destina­tion points specified under the com-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L . 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36578 NOTICES

modity next above, to tjieir respective origin points; (g) New furniture, un­crated, from Jamestown, NY, to points in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, with no transportation for compensa­tion on return except as otherwise au­thorized; (h) Defective or damaged shipments of new furniture, uncrated, from the respective destination points specified under the commodity next above, to their respective original points; (i) New furniture, and new household equipment, from James­town, Brocton, Celoron, Falconer, Frewsburg, Mayville,. Randolph, and Salamanca, NY, and Warren and Youngsville, PA, to New York, NY, and points in MD, NJ, PA, and DC; and (j) Returned, damaged, defective, or rejected shipments of the commod­ities specified immediately above, from New York, NY, and points in MD, NJ, PA, and DC, to Jamestown, Brocton, Celoron, Falconer, Frewsburg, May­ville, Randolph, and Salamanca, NY, and Warren and Youngsville, PA; (k) Voting machines, between Jamestown, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, New York, NY, and points on Long Island, NY, west of a line extend­ing south from Hempstead Harbor through Roslyn, Hempstead, and Bal­dwin, NY, to the Atlantic Ocean, in­cluding the points specified, From Ja­mestown, Brocton, Celoron, Falconer, Frewsburg, Mayville, Randolph, and Salamanca, NY, and Warren and Youngville, PA, to New York, NY, and points in MD, NJ, PA, and DC: and (1)' Returned, damaged, defective or re­jected shipments of voting machines, from the destination points specified immediately above, to Jamestown, Brocton, Celoron, Falconer, Frews­burg, Mayville, Randolph, and Sala­manca, NY, and Warren and Youngs­ville, PA; (m) Voting machines, uncrat­ed, between Jamestown, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in DE. From Jamestown, NY, to points in VA and WV; and (n) Used voting ma­chines, uncrated, from points in VA and WV, to Jamestown, NY; (o) New furniture (uncrated) as defined in ap­pendix II to the Commission’s report in Ex Parte No. MC-45, Descriptions in Motor Carrier Certificates, 61 MCC 209, 271, from New' York, NY, to points in Cattaraugus and Chatauqua Counties, NY; and (p) Damaged, defec­tive, rejected, or returned articles of new furniture (uncrated); from points in Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Coun­ties, NY, to New York, NY; (5) Sub 9 (a) Voting machines, uncrated, and voting machine accessories, between Jamestown, NY, New York, NY, DC, and points in ME, NH, VT, NJ, PA, VA, WV, and DE; (6) Sub 10 (a) Un­crated new furniture, from points in KY, LA, NC, SC, and TN, to Alexan­dria, VA, and New York, NY, with no transportation for compensation on

return except as otherwise authorized; (b) Household furnishings (except new furniture), from points in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, SC, and TN, to Alexan­dria, VA, and New York, NY; and (c) New furniture and household furnish­ings, uncrated (or crated when moving in the same vehicle with uncrated), from Alexandria, VA, and New York, NY, to points in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, SC, and TN.

(7) Sub 11G (a) New furniture, from points in CT, to points in NJ, NY, and PA, with no transportation for com­pensation on return except as other­wise authorized. From points in MA, to points in NY, PA, and NJ, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in NJ, to points in NY, PA, DE, MD, NC, SC, AL, FL, GA, LA,MS, and WV, and DC, with no trans­portation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in New York, to points in VT, NH, MA, OH, CT, NJ, PA, MD, DE, VA, and WV, and DC, with no trans­portation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in New Hampshire, to points inNJ, PA, NY, and WV, with no trans­portation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in VT, to points in NJ, PA, NY, and WV, with not transportation for compensation on return except as oth­erwise authorized; From points in PA, to points in NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, NH, DE, MD, VA, WV, AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, and OH, and DC, with no transportation for compensa­tion on return except as otherwise au­thorized. From points in MD, to points in NJ, PA, NY, and OH, with no trans­portation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in DE, to points in NJ, PA, NY, and OH, with no transportation for compensation on return except as oth­erwise authorized. From points in WV, to points in NY, NJ, and PA, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in VA, to points in NJ, with no transportation for compensa­tion on return except as otherwise au­thorized; (b) New furniture, uncrated, from points in New York, to points in RI and ME, with no transportation for compensation on return except as oth­erwise authorized. From points in RI, to points in NY, with no transporta­tion for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in DC, to points in CT, MA, RI, PA, VT, NH, OH, and ME, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in WV, to points in ME, and NH, with no transportation for compensation on return except as oth­erwise authorized, from points in KY, to points in PA, NY, and ME, with no

transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in LA, to points in PA, NY, ME, and OH, with no transporta­tion for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in NC, to points in PA and NY, with no transportation for compensa­tion on return exeept as otherwise au-/ thorized; (c) New furniture, uncrated (or crated when moving in the same vehicle with uncrated). From points in NJ, to points in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, SC, and TN, with no transporta­tion for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. From points in NY, to points in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, SC, and TN, with no transportation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized;(8) Sub 12 (a) New home furniture, un­crated, between points in NC, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in AL, GA, and FL. The foregoing au­thorities have also been the subject of numerous gateway elimination letter notices published in the F ederal R eg­ist e r and are included in the proposed purchase. Transferee presently holds 48 State common carrier authority as a household goods carrier under Cer­tificate MC 52793 and Subs, and in Fi­nance Docket MC-F-13141 the Com­mission has approved the acquisition by transferee of certificate MC 126372 and subs of Surefine Transportation Co. authorizing the transportation of new furniture, appliances, etc., gener­ally throughout the Western United States. The Bekins Co. is not a carrier but it controls and owns all of the stock of transferee and several other household goods carriers holding au­thority from the Commission. Applica­tion has been filed for temporary au­thority under section 210 a(b). (Hear­ing: Washington, DC, or Los Angeles, CA.)

MC-F 13681F. Authority sought for purchase by NORTHWEST TRANS­PORT SERVICE, INC., 5231 Monroe Street, Denver, CO 80216, of a portion of the operating rights of RINGSBY TRUCK LINES, INC., 3980 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207, and for ac­quisition by NW TRANSPORT SERV­ICE, INC., and in turn Donn D. McMorris and Jerry D. McMorris also of 5231 Monroe Street, Denver, CO, of control of such rights through pur­chase. Applicants attorneys Leslie R. Kehl, 1600 Lincoln Center Building, 1660 Lincoln Street, Denver, CO, for transferee and Russell R. Sage, 400 Overlook Building, 6121 Lincolnia Road, Alexandria, VA 22313, for trans­feror. Operating rights sought to be transferred: Regular routes, General commodities with usual exceptions (1) Between Spokane, WA and Boise, ID, serving intermediate points between Spokane, WA, and Lewiston, ID, and between Boise and Caldwell, ID, inclu-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTIGES 36579sive of the points specified and off- route points of Clarkston, Richland, Hanford, Handford Engineer Project and White Bluffs, WA. Prom Spokane over U.S. Hwy 195 via Pullman, WA, to junction U.S. Hwy 95 (also from Pull­man over WA Hwy 270 to the WA-ID State line, then over ID Hwy 8 to Moscow, ID, and then over U.S. Hwy 95 to junction U.S. Hwy 195), then over U.S. Hwy 95 to junction U.S. Hwy 30 near Fruitland, ID, then over U.S Hwy 30 to Boise, and return (alternate route authority also held). (2) Serving the Brownlee Dam site, the Ox Bow Dam site, and the Hells Canyon Dam site, and points in OR and ID, within 5 miles of each point, as off-route points in connection with carrier’s regular route operations between Spokane, WA, and Boise, ID. Restricted to traf­fic originating at or destined to desig­nated dam sites or 5 mile radius. (3) Between Pasco, WA, and Lewiston, ID, serving intermediate point of Walla Walla, WA, and off-route points of Milton-Freewater, OR, and Umatilla County, OR, points within 15 miles of Milton-Freewater: From Pasco over U.S. Hwy 12 to Lewiston, and return.(4) Serving site of Lower Monumental' Dam near Ayer, WA, and 15 mile radius of dam. (5) Serving Wawawai, WA, and site of Lower Granite Project Dam near Wawawai. Irregular routes: General commodities usual exceptions between Boise, ID, and Lucky Peak Dam, ID, and points within 7 miles: General commodities except petro­leum products in bulk and household goods. (1) Between points in that part of Baker and Malheur Counties, OR, within 50 miles of Weiser, ID, on one hand and on other points in Washing­ton, Adams, Valley, Gem, Canyon, and Payette Counties, ID: (2) Between points in that part of ID and OR, within 50 miles of Weiser, ID, includ­ing Weiser: Chemicals and radioactive materials from site of Atomic Energy Commission near Hanford, WA, to the Atomic Energy Reactor Testing Sta­tion and Reservation near Arco, ID, and empty containers on return, re­stricted against through shipments in­volving other designated authorities of carrier. Vendee is authorized to oper­ate as a common carrier in AZ, CO, ID, NE, NM, UT, and WY. Application has been filed for temporary authority under section 210a(b). (Hearing site: Salt Lake City, UT, Spokane, WA, or Denver, CO.)

MC-F 13683F. Authority sought for purchase by NANCE & COLLUMS, INC., P.O. Drawer J, Femwood, MS 39635, of a portion of the operating rights of BERRY TRANSPORTA­TION, INC., P.O. Box 2147, Longview, TX 75601, and for acquisition by JOHN L. NANCE AND JOHNNY H. NANCE, all of P.O. Drawer J, Fem- wood, MS 39635, of control of such

rights through the purchase. Appli­cant’s attorney: Harold D. Miller, Jr., P.O. Box 22567, Jackson, MS 39205. Operating rights sought to be pur­chased: Malt beverages and materials and supplies ordinarily dealt in by malt beverage distributors, as a common carrier over irregular routes from Memphis, TN, to points in Avoyelles, Bossier, Caddo, Concordia, De Soto, Lafourche, Natchitoches, Ra­pides, Sabine, St. Bernard, Vernon, and Webster Parishes, LA, and from New Orleans, LA, to Blytheville and Paragould, AR. Restriction: The oper­ations authorized immediately above are restricted against the transporta­tion of imported malt beverages. Malt beverages and promotional supplies, except in bulk, from the plantsite and warehouse facilities of the Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., at Memphis, TN, to El Dorado, Ft. Smith, and Pine Bluff, AR, and Greenville, and Vicksburg, MS, and empty malt beverage contain­ers, from El Dorado, Ft. Smith, and Pine Bluff, AR, and Greenville and Vicksburg, MS, to' the plantsite and warehouse facilities of the Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., at Memphis, TN. The op­erating rights involved do not dupli­cate any authority of Vendee. Vendee is authorized to operate as a common carrier, over irregular routes from cer­tain points in LA and MS, to points in AL, AR, FL, IL, KY, MO, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WV. Application has been filed for temporary authority under section 210a(b).

MC-F 13684F. Authority is sought for purchase by PACIFIC INTER­MOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., 25 North Via Monte, Walnut Creek, CA 94598, of a portion of the operating rights of Delta Lines, Inc., 609 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, and for acquisition by IU Transportation Services, Inc. and IU International Corp., 1500 Walnut Street, Philadel­phia, PA 19102, of control of such rights through the purchase. Appli­cant’s representatives, John C. Brad­ley, Suite. 1301, 1600 Wilson Boule­vard, Arlington, VA 22209, and H. Beatty Chadwick, 1500 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. Operating rights sought to be transferred: (A) General commodities, with exceptions, as a common carrier over regular routes (1) between Mt. Vernon, WA, and Sedro Woolley, WA serving the in­termediate and off-route points of Burlington and Clear Lake, WA, and serving Mt. Vernon and points within 3 miles of Mt. Vernon for purposes of joinder only: from Mt. Vernon over U.S. Hwy 99 to Burlington, WA, then over unnumbered Hwy to Sedro Wool- ley, and return over the same route, and from Mt. Vernon over U.S. Hwy 99 to junction Washington Hwy 538, then over Washington Hwy 538 to junction Washington Hwy 9, then over Wash­

ington Hwy 9 via Clear Lake, WA, to Sedro Woolley, and return over the same route; (2) between Anacortes WA, and Stanwood, WA, serving all in­termediate points (except Mt. Vernon and points within 3 miles of Mt. Vernon), and the off-route point of La- Conner, WA, and serving Mt. Vernon and points within 3 miles of Mt. Vernon for purposes of joinder only: from Anacortes over Washington Hwy 536 to Mt. Vernon, then over U.S. Hwy 99 to junction Washington .Hwy 530 near Conway, then over Washington Hwy 530 to Stanwood, and return over the same route; (3) between Seattle, WA, and Bellingham, WA, serving the intermediate points of Everett and those between Mt. Vernon and Bel­lingham, WA, with service at Belling­ham, Mt. Vernon and points within 3 miles of Mt. Vernon restricted to joinder only: from Seattle, WA over U.S. Hwy 99 to Bellingham, WA, and return over the same route; (4) be­tween Bellingham, WA, and the boundary line between the United States and Canada, serving the inter­mediate point of Femdale, WA, and points on U.S. Hwy 99 between Fern- dale and Bellingham, WA, restricted to traffic moving to or from points north of Femdale; service at Belling­ham, restricted to traffic moving to and from points north of Femdale; all other intermediate points without re­striction; and the off-route points of Pleasant Valley, Haynie, Birch Bay, and Cottonwood, WA: from Belling­ham over U.S. Hwy 99 to the boundary line between the United States and Canada, and return over the same route; (5) as an alternate route for op­erating convenience only, between Bel­lingham, WA, and the boundary line between the United States and Canada near Lynden, WA, serving no interme­diate points: from Bellingham over Al­ternate U.S. Hwy 99 to the boundary line between the United States and Canada, and return over the same route. (B) Fresh and frozen fish, in­cluding shell fish, as a common carrier over irregular routes from the bound­ary line between the United States and Canada near Point Roberts, WA, to Point Roberts, WA, with no trans­portation for compensation on return except as otherwise authorized. Trans­feree is authorized to operate as a motor common carrier in all States in the United States (except AK and HI). Common control may be involved. Ap­plication has been made for temporary authority under section 210a(b) of the Act. (Hearing site: San Francisco, CA.)

MC-F-13686F. Authority sought for purchase by MARSH EXPRESS, INC., P.O. Box 447, Glassboro, NJ 08028, of the operating rights of Barry Trans­portation Co., Inc., d.b.a. Barry Truck­ing Co., P.O. Box 147, Rutherford, NJ 07070, and for acquisition by John N.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36580 NOTICES

Stokley and William H. Stokley, also of P.O. Box 447, Glassboro, NJ 08028, of control of such rights through the purchase. Applicant’s attorneys: Mi­chael R. Werner, P.O. Box 1409, 167 Fairfield Road, Fairfield, NJ 07006, and Oscar Leschinski, 625 Main Avenue, Passaic, NJ 07055. Operating rights sought to be transferred: Certif­icate No. MC-10984, authorizing the transportation of general commodities, with the usual exceptions, as a motor common, carrier over regular routes, between New York, NY, and Trenton, NJ, serving all intermediate points; and the off-route points in Nassau County, NY, and those in Hudson, Essex, Bergen, and Passaic Counties, NJ; from New York over U.S. Hwy 1 to Trenton, and return over the same route. Vendee is authorized to operate as a common carrier in PA and NJ. Ap­plication has been «filed for temporary authority under section 210a(b).

MC-F-13687F. Authority sought by NORTHEAST DELIVERY, INC., P.O. Box 127, Taylor, PA 18517, to pur­chase a portion of the operating rights of Strickland Transportation Co., Inc., 11353 Reed Hartman Highway, Cincin­nati, OH 45241. Applicants’ attorneys: Edward G. Bazelon, 39 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603, and Milton H. Bortz, 11353 Reed Hartman High­way, Cincinnati, OH 45241. Operating rights sought to be transferred: Gener­al commodities, with exceptions, as a common carrier, over regular routes, between Cleveland, OH, and Newark, NJ, serving the intermediate point of New York, NY; between Philadelphia, PA, and Beach Haven and Bamegat City, NJ, serving all intermediate points and specified off-route points; between New York, NY, and Atlantic City, NJ, serving various specified in­termediate and off-route points; be­tween Manahawkin, NJ, and Beach Haven and Bamegat City, NY, serving all intermediate points and specified off-route points; and over irregular routes, between New York, NY on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties, NY; from New York, NY, to Newburgh and Middletown, NY, and between points in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Union, Midd­lesex, Monmouth, Hunterdon, and Somerset Counties, NY, on the one hand, and, on the other, New York, NY, as more specifically described in docket MC 59680 (Sub-143). Northeast Delivery, Inc., presently holds no au­thority from the Interstate Commerce Commission; however, William Gilch­rist, Jr., owns all the outstanding capi­tal stock of transferee, and is the gen­eral manager of Transways Co., a motor contract carrier authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission in certificate MC 135182 (Sub-1) and Transways Co., is authorized to oper­

ate in the States of PA, NY, and NJ. Application has been filed for tempo­rary authority under section 210a(b).

MC-F-13696F. Authority sought for control and merger by ST. JOHNS- BURY TRUCKING CO., INC., 87 Jef­frey Avenue, Holliston, MA 01746, of the operating authorities of York Transportation Co., Inc., P.O. Box 707, York, PA 17402, and for acquisition by S.J.T. Inc., 87 Jeffrey Avenue, Hollis­ton, MA 01746, of control of such rights. Applicants’ attorneys: Francis P.' Barrett, Barrett & Barrett, 60 Adams Street, Milton, MA 02187, for Transferee and Creager & Button, P.A., 1329 Pennsylvania Avenue, Ha­gerstown, MD 21740 for Transferor. Operating Rights sought to be con­trolled and merged: General commod­ities, with the usual exceptions, over regular routes, between York, PA, and New York, NY, serving the intermedi­ate points between and including Trenton, NJ, and New York, NY, re­stricted to eastbound movements, and those between and including Lancaster and York, PA, restricted to westbound movements, and the off-route points of Mineola and White Plains, NY and those in New York State, in the New York, NY, commercial zone, as defined by the Commission, those in New Jersey within 20 miles of New York, NY, and those within 30 miles of York, PA. From York, over U.S. Hwy 30 to Philadelphia, PA, then over U.S. Hwy 1 to New York, NY, and return over the same route; between Paoli, PA, and junction PA Hwy 43 and U.S. Hwy 1, serving no intermediate points, as an alternate route for operating con­venience only: from Paoli over U.S. Hwy 202 to junction PA Hwy 43, then over PA Hwy 43, to junction U.S. Hwy 1, and return over the same route; Regular and irregular routes: Iron and steel chains and parts, hardware and mechanics’ tools, between York, PA, and Bridgeport, CT, serving no inter­mediate points, from York over the above-specified regular route to New York, NY, then over irregular routes to Bridgeport; and from Bridgeport over irregular routes to New York and then over the above-specified route to York. Transferee operates as a common carrier over regular and irreg­ular routes in the States of CT, DE, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, DC. S.J.T., Inc., holds no authority from the Commission. S.J.T., Inc., is con­trolled by Sun Carriers, Inc., and Sun Carriers, Inc., is controlled by Sun Co., Inc., both of Radnor, PA. Application has been filed for temporary authority under section 210a(b). (Hearing site: Boston, MA, or Washington, DC.)

O perating R ig h ts A p p l ic a t io n s ) D i ­rectly R elated to F inance P roceed­ings

The following operating rights application s) are filed in connection with pending finance applications under section 5(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, or seek tacking and/or gateway elimination in connection with transfer applications under sec­tion 212(b) of the Interstate Com­merce Act.

An original and two copies of pro­tests to the granting of the authorities must be filed with the Commission within 30 days of this notice. All pleadings and documents must clearly specify the “F” suffix where the docket is so identified in this notice. Protests shall comply with Special Rule 247(e) of the Commission’s Gen­eral Rules of Practice (49 CFR 1100.247) and include a concise state­ment of protestant’s interest in the proceeding and copies of its conflicting authorities. Verified statements in op­position should not be tendered at this time. A copy of the protest shall be served concurrently upon applicant’s representative, or applicant if no rep­resentative is named.

Each applicant states that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment resulting from approval of its application.

MC 1334 (Sub-20F), filed August 1, 1978. Applicant: RITEWAY TRANS­PORT, INC., 2131 West Roosevelt, Phoenix, AZ 85005. Representative: William H. Shawn, Suite 501, Wash­ington, DC 20036. Authority is sought to operate as an irregular-route motor common carrier transporting: (1) Gen­eral commodities (except those of un­usual value, classes A and B explo­sives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and commodities requiring special equipment), between points in AZ, on the one hand, and, on other, points in CO. (2) Machinery equipment, materi­als and supplies used in, or in connec­tion with, the discovery, development, production, refining, manufacture, processing, storage, transmission and distribution of natural gas and petro­leum and their products and by-prod­ucts, and the construction, operation, repair, servicing, maintenance, and dis­mantling of pipelines, including the stringing and picking up thereof, and heavy or bulk articles that require the use of special equipment, between points in CO, on the one hand, and, on the other, (a) Monticello, UT, and points in UT within 100 miles thereof; (b) points in AZ and those within 200 miles of Phoenix and Lupton, AZ; (c) points in McKinley, San Juan, and Va­lencia Counties, NM. Gateways: (1) Hopi Indian Reservation in AZ and Montezuma County, CO, (2) (a) Four Corners, NM, and Four Corners, CO,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36581

(b) Four Comers, NM, and Four Comers, CO, (e) Cortez and Durango, CO. (Hearing site: Phoenix, AZ, Grand Junction, CO, and Denver, CO.)

N ote.—This matter is directly related to the section 5 finance proceeding in MC-F- 13545 published in a previous section of this F ederal R egister issue. The purpose of this application is to eliminate the gateways of the Hopi Indian Reservation in AZ and Montezuma County, CO, in Part (1) of this application, and the gateways of Four Comers, NM, and Four Corners, CO, in Part (2) (a) and (b) and Cortez and Durango, CO, in Part (2)(c).

MC 110689 (Sub-9F) (Correction), filed April 26, 1978, previously noticed in the F ederal R egister issue of July 20, 1978. Applicant: AIRWAYTRUCKING CO., a corporation, 1605 Chapin Road, Montebello, CA 90022. Representative: Fred H. Mackensen, 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Authority sought to operate as a common carri­er, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, in the transportation of A. General commodities (except those of unusual value, classes A and B explo­sives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, those requiring special equipment, and motor vehicles), between all points within the following described areas: 1. Beginning at the point the Ventura County-Los Angeles County boundary line intersects the Pacific Ocean; then northeasterly along said county line to the point it intersects CA Hwy 118, ap­proximately 2 miles west of Chats- worth; easterly along CA Hwy 118 to Sepulveda Boulevard, northerly along Sepulveda Boulevard to Chatsworth Drive; northeasterly along Chatsworth Drive to the corporate boundary of the city of San Fernando; westerly and northerly along said corporate bound­ary of the city of San Fernando to Maclay Avenue; northeasterly along Maclay Avenue and its prolongation to the Angeles National Forest boundary; southeasterly and easterly along the Angeles National Forest and San Ber­nardino National Forest boundary to Mill Creek Road (CA Hwy 38); wester­ly along Mill Creek Road to Bryant Street; southerly along Bryant Street to and including the unincorporated community of Yucaipa; westerly along Yucaipa Boulevard to Interstate Hwy 10; northwesterly along Interstate Hwy 10 to Redlands Boulevard; north­westerly along Redlands Boulevard to Barton Road; westerly along Barton Road to La Cadena Drive; southerly along La Cadena Drive to Iowa Avenue; southerly along Iowa Avenue to CA Hwy 60; southeasterly along CA Hwy 60 and U.S. Hwy 395 to Nuevo Road; easterly along Nuevo Road via Nuevo and Lakeview to CA Hwy 79; southerly along CA Hwy 79 to CA Hwy 74; then westerly to the corporate boundary of the city of Hemet; south­

erly, westerly and northerly along said corporate boundary to the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe right-of-way; southerly along said right-of-way to Washington Road; southerly along Washington Road through and includ­ing the unincorporated community of Winchester to Benton Road; westerly along Benton Road to Winchester Road (CA Hwy 79) to Jefferson Avenue; southerly along Jefferson Avenue to U.S. Hwy 395; southerly along U.S. Hwy 395 to the Riverside County-San Diego County boundary line; westerly along said boundary line to the Orange County-San Diego County boundary line; southerly along said boundary line to the Pacific Ocean; northwesterly along the shore­line of the Pacific Ocean to point of beginning, including the point of March Air Force Base.

2. Beginning at the point the San Francisco-San Mateo County line meets the Pacific Ocean; then easterly along said county line to a point 1 mile west of CA Hwy 82; southerly along an imaginary-line 1 mile west of and par­alleling CA Hwy 82 to its intersection with Southern Pacific Co. right-of-way at Arastradero Road; southeasterly along the Southern Pacific Co. right- of-way to Pollard Road, including in­dustries served by the Southern Pacif­ic Co. spur line extending approxi­mately 2 miles southwest from Simla to Permanente; easterly along Pollard Road to West Parr Avenue; easterly along West Parr Avenue to Capri Drive; southerly along Capri Drive to Division Street; easterly along Division Street to the Southern Pacific Co. right-of-way; southerly along the Southern Pacific right-of-way to the Campbell-Los Gatos city limits; easter­ly along said limits and the prolonga­tion thereof to South Bascom Avenue (formerly San Jose-Los Gatos Road); northeasterly along South Bascom Avenue to Foxworthy Avenue; easterly along Foxworthy Avenue to Almaden Road; southerly along Almaden Road to Hillsdale Avenue; easterly along Hillsdale Avenue to CA Hwy 82; north­westerly along CA Hwy 82 to Tully Road; northeasterly along Tully Road and the prolongation thereof to White Road; northwesterly along White Road to McKee Road; southwesterly along McKee Road to Capitol Avenue; northwesterly along Capitol Avenue to CA Hwy 238 (Oakland Road); norther­ly along CA Hwy 238 to Warm Springs; northerly along CA Hwy 238 (Mission Boulevard) via Mission San Jose and Niles to Hayward; northerly along Foothill Boulevard and MacAr- thur Boulevard to Seminary Avenue; easterly along Seminary Avenue to Mountain Boulevard; northerly along Mountain Boulevard to Warren Boule­vard (CA Hwy 13); northerly along Warren Boulevard to Broadway Ter­

race; westerly along Broadway Terrace to College Avenue; northerly along College Avenue to Dwight Way; eas­terly along Dwight Way to the Berke- ley-Oakland boundary line; northerly along said boundary line to the campus boundary of the University of California; westerly, northerly and easterly along the campus boundary to Euclid Avenue; northerly along Euclid Avenue to Marin Avenue; westerly along Marin Avenue to Arlington Avenue; northerly along Arlington Avenue to San Paglo Avenue (CA Hwy 123); northerly along San Paglo Avenue to and including the city of Richmond to Point Richmond; south­erly along an imaginary line from Point Richmond to the San Francisco waterfront at the foot of Market Street; westerly along said waterfront and shoreline to the Pacific Ocean; southerly along the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean to point of beginning

3. Beginning at an imaginary line at a point approximately 4 miles north of La Jolla on the Pacific Coast shoreline running east to Miramar on U.S. Hwy 395, then following an imaginary line running southeasterly to Lakeside on CA Hwy 67; then southerly on County Road S 17 (San Diego County). And between said territories serving all points on and within 10 miles laterally of Interstate Hwy 5, between Stockton and San Diego; U.S. Hwy 101, or CA Hwy 1, between Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA; CA Hwy 99 between Stockton and Wheeler Ridge and CA Hwy 4 between its junction with the Interstate Hwy 80 near Pinole, CA and Stockton, CA.

B. Such commodities as are neces­sary or incidental to the establish­ment, maintenance or dismantling of oil, gas or water wells, pipelines, refin­eries, and cracking or casinghead plants; equipment and materials used in or for construction of farming, or maintenance thereof, between points on and within 50 miles laterally of the following described highways; 1. U.S. Hwy 101, U.S. Hwy 101 By-Pass or CA Hwy 1 between OR-CA State line and Los Angeles; Interstate Hwy 5 and/or CA Hwy 99, Interstate Hwy 10 and CA Hwy 111, between OR-CA State line and the CA ports of entry on the In­ternational Boundary Line between the United States and the Republic of Mexico. 2. CA Hwy 299 between Red­ding and Alturas, CA; 3. U.S. Hwy 395 between the OR-CA State line and the CA-NV State line, via Alturas and Johnstonville; 4. CA Hwy 36 between Junction Interstate Hwy 5 near Red Bluff, CA, and Junction U.S. Hwy 395 at Johnstonville; 5. CA Hwy 20 be­tween Marysville, CA, and junction In­terstate Hwy 80; 6. Interstate Hwy 80 between San Francisco and CA-NV State line; 7. U.S. Hwy 50 between Sac­ramento, CA, and CA-NV State line; 8.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36582 NOTICES

U.S. Hwy 395 between CA-NV State line at Topaz Lake and junction Inter­state Hwy 15 near Hesperia; 9. Inter­state Hwy 15 between junction with U.S. Hwy 395 and San Diego; 10. CA Hwy 11 to junction Interstate Hwy 210 to junction Interstate Hwy 10 to junc­tion Interstate Hwy 15 to junction In­terstate Hwy 40 between Los Angeles and Needles, CA; 11. Interstate Hwy 10 between Los Angeles, CA and CA-AZ State line. (Hearing site: Los Angeles, CA.)

N ote.—The purpose of this application is to convert a Certificate of Registration to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Ne­cessity. This application is directly related to three section 5(2) finance proceedings, docketed MC-P 13589, MC-F 13590, and MC-F 13591; each published in a previous section of this F ederal R egister issue. The purpose of this correction is to indicate the correct authority sought in A. above.

M otor Carrier Alternate R oute D ev ia tio n s

The following letter-notices to oper­ate over deviation routes for operating convenience only have been filed with the Commission under the Deviation Rules—Motor Carrier of Property (49 CFR 1042.4(c)(ll)).

Protests against the use of any pro­posed deviation route herein described may be filed with the commission in the manner and form provided in such rules at any time, but will not operate to stay commencement of the pro­posed operations unless filed within 30 days from the date of this F ederal R eg ister notice.

Each applicant states that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment resulting from approval of its request.

M otor C arriers of P roperty

MC 107576 (Deviation No. 7), SILVER WHEEL FREIGHTLINES, INC., 1321 Southeast Water Avenue, Portland, OR 97214, filed July 5, 1978, as amended July 31, 1978. Carrier pro­poses to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, of general commod­ities, with certain exceptions, over a deviation route as follows: From Pen­dleton, OR, over OR Hwy to the OR- WA State line, then over WA Hwy 125 to junction U.S. Hwy 12, then over U.S. Hwy 12 to Lewiston, ID, and return over the same route for operat­ing convenience only. The notice indi­cates that the carrier is presently au­thorized to transport the same com­modities over a pertinent service route as follows: From Pendleton, OR, over Interstate Hwy 80N to La Grande, OR, then over OR Hwy 82 to Enterprise, OR, then over OR Hwy 3 to the OR- WA State line, then over WA Hwy 129 to junction U.S. Hwy 12, then over U.S. Hwy 12 to Lewiston, ID, and return over the same route.

MC 107576 (Deviation No. 8), SILVER WHEEL FREIGHTLINES, INC., 1321 Southeast Water Avenue, Portland, OR 97214, filed July 5, 1978, as amended July 31, 1978. Carrier pro­poses to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, of general commod­ities, with certain exceptions, over a deviation route as follows: From Boise, ID over ID Hwy 55 to junction U.S. Hwy 95 at New Meadows, ID, then over U.S. Hwy 95 to Lewiston, ID, and return over the same route for operat­ing convenience only. The notice indi­cates that the carrier is presently au­thorized to transport the same com­modities over a pertinent service route as follows: From Boise, ID, over Inter­state Hwy 80N to La Grande, OR, then over OR Hwy 82 to Enterprise, OR, then over OR Hwy 3 to the OR- WA State line, then over WA Hwy 129 to junction U.S. Hwy 12 at Clarkston, WA, then over U.S. Hwy 12 to Lewis­ton, ID, and return over the same route.

MC 107576 (Deviation No. 9), SILVER WHEEL FREIGHTLINES, INC., 1321 Southeast Water Avenue, Portland, OR 97214, filed July 5, 1978, as amended July 31, 1978. Carrier pro­poses to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, of general commod­ities, with certain exceptions, over a deviation route as follows: From Uma­tilla, OR, over U.S. Hwy 730 to junc­tion U.S. Hwy 12, then over U.S. Hwy 12 to Lewiston, ID, and return over the same route for operating conven­ience only. The notice indicates that the carrier is presently authorized to transport the same commodities over a pertinent service route as follows: From Umatilla, OR, over U.S. Hwy 730 to junction U.S. Hwy 395 (formerly OR Hwy 32) east of Umatilla, OR, then over U.S. Hwy 395 to junction In­terstate Hwy 80N near Stanfield, OR, then over Interstate Hwy 80N to La" Grande, OR, then over OR Hwy 82 to Enterprise, OR, then over OR Hwy 3 to the OR-WA State line, then over WA Hwy 129 to junction U.S. Hwy 12, then over U.S. Hwy 12 to Lewiston, ID, and return over the same route.

MC 107576 (Deviation No. 10), SILVER WHEEL FREIGHTLINES, INC., 1321 Southeast Water Avenue, Portland, OR 97214, filed July 5, 1978, as amended July 31, 1978. Carrier pro­poses to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, of general commod­ities, with certain exceptions, over a deviation route as follows: From Spo­kane, WA over U.S. Hwy 195 to junc­tion U.S. Hwy 95 near Lewiston, ID, then over U.S. Hwy 95 to Lewiston, ID, then over U.S. Hwy 12 to Clarkston, WA, then over WA Hwy 129 to the OR-WA State line, then over OR Hwy 3 to Enterprise, OR and return over the same route for operating conven­

ience only. The notice indicates that the carrier is presently authorized to transport the same commodities over a pertinent service route as follows: From Spokane, WA over U.S. Hwy 195 to junction WA Hwy 127 near Colfax, then over WA Hwy 127 to junction U.S. Hwy 12, then over U.S. Hwy 12 to Walla Walla, WA, then over WA Hwy 125 to the OR-WA State line, then over OR Hwy 11 to Pendleton, OR, then over Interstate Hwy 80N to La- Grande, OR, then over OR Hwy 82 to Enterprise, OR, and return over the same route.

MC 109533 (Deviation No. 18), OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION CO., P.O. Box 1216, Richmond, VA 23209, filed August 3, 1978. Carrier proposes to operate as a common car­rier, by motor vehicle, of general com­modities, with certain exceptions, over a deviation route as follows: From junction Interstate Hwy 95 and VA Hwy 207 over VA Hwy 207 to junction U.S. Hwy 301, then over U.S. Hwy 301 to junction MD Hwy 3, then over MD Hwy 3 to Baltimore, MD, and return over the same route for operating con­venience only. This notice indicates that the carrier is presently author^ ized to transport the same commod­ities over a pertinent service route as follows: From junction Interstate Hwy 95 and VA Hwy 207 over Interstate Hwy 95 to Washington, DC, then over U.S. Hwy 1 to Baltimore, MD and return over the same route.

M otor C arrier Alternate R oute D ev ia tions

The following letter-notices to oper­ate over deviation routes for operating convenience only have been filed with the Commission under the Deviation Rules—Motor Carrier of Passengers (49 CFR 1042.2(c)(9)).

Protests against the use of any pro­posed deviation route herein described may be filed with the Commission in the manner and form provided in such rules at any time, but will not operate to stay commencement of the pro­posed operations unless filed within 30 days from the date of this F ederal R eg ister notice.

Each applicant states that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment resulting from approval of its request.

M otor C arriers of P assengers

MC 109014 (Deviation No. 3), GREAT SOUTHERN COACHES, INC., P.O. Box 849, Jonesboro, AR 72401, filed August 2, 1978. Carrier’s representative: Herman W. Huber, 101 East High Street, Jefferson City MO 65101. Carrier proposes to operate as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage and ex­press and newspapers in the same ve-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

NOTICES 36583hide with passengers, over a deviation route as follows: Prom Perryville, MO, over Interstate Hwy 55 to St. Louis, MO, and return over the same route for operating convenience only. The notice indicates that the carrier is presently authorized to transport pas­sengers and the same property over a pertinent service route as follows: Prom Perryville, MO, over MO Hwy 51 across the Chester-Mississippi River Bridge at Chester, IL, then over IL Hwy 3 to East St. Louis, IL, then over the St. Louis Municipal Bridge to St. Louis, MO, and return over the same route.

M otor Carrier Intrastate Application (s )

The following applications(s) for motor common carrier authority to operate in intrastate commerce seek concurrent motor carrier authoriza­tion in interstate or foreign commerce within the limits of the intrastate au­thority sought, pursuant to section 206(a)(6) of the Interstate Commerce Act. These applications are govened by special rule 245 of the Commission’s general rules of practice (49 CPR 1100.245), which provides, among other things, that protests and re­quests for information concerning the time and place of State Commission hearings or other proceedings, any subseqent changes therein, and any other related matters shall be directed to the State Commission with which the application is filed and shall not be addressed to or filed with the Inter­state Commerce Commision.

California docket No. 58232 filed July 14,1978. Applicant: WEST—PAK, INC., 3987 San Pablo Avenue, P.O. Box 8704, Emerywille, CA 94602. Rep­resentative: Daniel W. Baker, 100 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA 94111. Cer­tificate of public convienience and ne­cessity sought to operate a freight service, as follows: Transportation of: General commodities, in packages or parcels not weighting more than 100 poiunds, except the following: (a) Used household goods and personal effects not packed in accordance with the crated property requirements; (b) Livestock; (d) Liquids, compressed gases, commodities in semi-plastic form and commodities in suspension in liquids in bulk, in tank trucks, tank trailers, tank semi-trailers or a combi­nation of such highway vehicles; (d) Commodities when transported in bulk in dump trucks or in hopper-type trucks; (e) Commodities when trans­ported in motor vehicles equipped for mechanical mixing in transit; (f) Logs;(g) Fresh fruits and vegetables; (h) Automobiles, trucks, busses, and trail­er coaches and campers. Between all­

points and places on and within 15 miles of the following route: (1) Inter­state Hwy 5 between Redding and the United States-Mexican border; (2) U.S. Hwy 101 between Calpella and Los An­geles; (3) California State Hwy 1 be­tween San Francisco and Pacifica; (4) California State Hwy 1 between Santa Cruz and San Clemente; (5) Interstate Hwy 80 between San Francisco and the Califomia-Nevada stateline; (6) In­terstate Hwy 15 between San Diego and the Califomia-Nevada stateline;(7) California State Hwy 17 between San Rafael and Santa Cruz; (8) U.S. Hwy 50 between Sacramento and the Califomia-Nevada stateline; (9) Cali­fornia State Hwy 89 between Truckee and Tahoe Valley; (10) California State Hwy 49 between Placerville and Sonora; (11) California State Hwy 108 between Sonora and Modesto; (12) California State Hwy 120 between junction with Interstate Hwy 5 and Oakdale; (13) California State Hwy 88 between Stockton and Jackson: (14) California State Hwy 124 between Plymouth and junction with Califor­nia State Hwy 88 near lone: (15) Cali­fornia State Hwy 12 between Lodi and Lockeford; (16) California State Hwy 28 between Tahoe City and the Cali­fomia-Nevada stateline;

(17) California State Hwy 99 be­tween Red Bluff and junction with In­terstate Hwy 5 at Wheeler Ridge; (18) California State Hwy 20 between Wil­liams and junction with Interstate Hwy 80 near Cisco; (19) California State Hwy 32 between Orland and Chico; (20) California State Hwy 65 between Marysville and Roseville; (21) California State Hwy 45 between junc­tion with California State Hwy 32 near Hamilton City and Knight’s Landing:(22) California State Hwy 113 between Knight's Landing and junction with Interstate Hwy 80; (23) California State Hwy 4 between junction with In­terstate Hwy 80 near Pinole and junc­tion with Interstate Hwy 5 near Stock- ton; (24) California State Hwy 37 be­tween junction with U.S. Hwy 101, near Novato and junction with Inter­state Hwy 80, near Vallejo; (25) Cali­fornia State Hwy 20 between Calpella and Upper Lake; (26) California State Hwy 29 between Upper Lake and junc­tion with Interstate Hwy 80, near Val­lejo; (27) California State Hwy 12 be­tween Santa Rosa and junction with California State Hwy 29 near Napa; (28) California State Hwy 24 between Oakland and junction with California State Hwy 4, near Concord; (29) Inter­state Hwy 680 between junction with Interstate Hwy 80 at Cordelia and junction with California State Hwy 17 near Fremont; (30) Interstate Hwys 580 and 205 between San Lorenzo and junction with Interstate Hwy 5. (31) Interstate Hwy 280 between San Fran­cisco and San Jose; (32) California

State Hwy 152 between Gilroy and junction with California State Hwy 99, near Chowchilla; (33) California State Hwy 156 between junction with Cali­fornia State Hwy 152 and junction with U.S. Hwy 101, near San Juan Bautista. (34) California State Hwy 180 between Hollister and Squaw Valley; (35) California State Hwy 63 between Squaw Valley and Tulare; (36) California State Hwy 198 between San Lucas and Exeter; (37) California State Hwy 65 between Exeter and junction with California State Hwy 99, near Bakersfield; (38) California State Hwy 43 between Selma and junction with Interstate Hwy 5; (39) California State Hwy 33 between Tracy and Mar­icopa; (40) California State Hwy 132 between junction with Interstate Hwy 580 and Modesto; (41) California State Hwy 140 between Gustine and Merced; (42) California State Hwy 70 between junction with California State Hwy 149 near Oroville and Marysville; (43) California State Hwy 46 between Paso Robles and junction with California State Hwy 99 near Famoso; (44) Cali­fornia State Hwy 166 between Mari­copa and junction with California State Hwy 99 near Wheeler Ridge; (45) California State Hwy 66 between Junction with Interstate Hwy 5 near Glendale and San Bernardino; (46) In­terstate Hwy 10 between junction In­terstate Hwy 5 and Redlands; (47) California State Hwy 60 between junc­tion with Interstate Hwy 5 and River­side; (48) California State Hwy 71 be­tween junction with Interstate Hwy 10 near La Verne and junction with In­terstate Hwy 15 near Murrieta Hot Springs; (49) California State Hwy 91 between Buena Park and Riverside; (50) California State Hwy 55 between junction with California State Hwy 91, near Olive and Newport Beach; (51) Interstate Hwy 405 between San Fer­nando and junction with Interstate Hwy 5 near Irvine; (52) California State Hwy 74 between San Juan Capis­trano and Perris; (53) California State Hwy 78 between junction with Inter­state Hwy 5 near Oceanside and Es­condido; (54) Interstate Hwy 8 be­tween San Diego and El Cajon; (55) In­terstate Hwy 505 between junction with Interstate Hwy 5 near Dunnigan and junction with Interstate Hwy 80 near Vacaville; (56) California State Hwy 68 between Monterey and Sali­nas. Through routes and rates may be established between any and all points described in the authority above. In performing the service herein author­ized, carrier may make use of any and all streets, roads, highways and bridges necessary or convenient for the performance of said service. Intra­state, interstate and foreign commerce authority sought. Hearing: Date, time and place not yet fixed. Requests for procedural information should be ad-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36584 NOTICES

dressed to California Public Utilities Commission, California State Build­ing, 350 McAllister Street, San Fran­cisco, CA 94102, and should not be di­rected to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

By the Commission.H. G. Homme, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 78-22^45 Filed 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36585

________________ sunshine act m eetingsThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices of meetings published under the “ Government in the Sunshine A ct" (Pub. L., 94-409), 5 U.S.C.

552b(e)(3).

CONTENTS

ItemFederal Deposit Insurance

Corporation............................. l, 2Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission............. ............... 3Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission 4Renegotiation Board.................. 5 , 6

[6714-01]

1

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.

Pursuant to the provisions of subsec­tion (e)(2) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(2)), notice is hereby given that at its closed meeting held at 10 a.m. on Friday, August 11, 1978, the Corpora­tion’s Board of Directors unanim ously determined, on motion of Chairman George A. LeMaistre, seconded by Di­rector William M. Isaac (Appointive), with Mr. Cantwell F. Muckenfuss, III, acting in the place and stead of Direc­tor John G. Heimann (Comptroller of the Currency), concurring in the motion, that Corporation business re­quired its addition to the agenda for consideration at that meeting, on less than seven days’ notice to the public, of a recommendation regarding the liquidation of assets acquired by the Corporation from the Hamilton Na­tional Bank of Chattanooga, Chatta­nooga, Tenn. (Case No. 43,621-L).

By the same unanimous vote, the Board moved from the agenda for the open meeting scheduled for 10:30 a.m. that day to the agenda for the closed meeting all recommendations regard­ing the liquidation of a bank’s assets acquired by the Corporation in its ca­pacity as receiver, liquidator, or liqui­dating agent of those assets (Case Nos. 43,470-L (Amended), 43,602-L, 43,603- L, 43,614-L, 43,615-L, 43,616-L, and a memorandum regarding the Hamilton Bank and Trust Co., Atlanta, Ga.).

The Board’s actions were predicated upon its determination that the rec­ommendations were appropriate for consideration in a meeting closed to the public observation, pursuant to subsections (c)(9)(B) and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and (c)(10)), since the public interest did not require con­

sideration of the recommendations in a meeting open to public observation.

The Board further determined, by the same unanimous vote, that no ear­lier notice of the changes in the sub­ject matter of the meeting was practi­cable.

Dated: August 11,1978.F ederal D epo sit I nsurance

C orporatio n ,Alan R . M iller ,

Executive Secretary.(S-1653-78 Filed 8-15-78; 2:01 p.m.]

[6714-01]

2

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.

N otice of C hange in S ubject M atter of Agency M eeting

Pursuant to the provisions of subsec­tion (e)(2) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(2)), notice is hereby given that at its open meeting held at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, August 11, 1978, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Board of Di­rectors unanimously determined, on motion of Chairman George A. Le­Maistre, seconded by Director WilliamM. Isaac (Appointive), with Mr. Cantwell F. Muckenfuss, III, acting in the place and stead of Director JohnG. Heimann (Comptroller of the Cur­rency), concurring in the motion, that Corporation business required the ad­dition of the following matters to the agenda for consideration at the meet­ing, on less than 7 days’ notice to the public:

Resolution expressing the consensus of the Board of Directors regarding interest-rate ceiling parity among all depositary institu­tions.

Memorandum and resolution proposing the extension of the comment period on a pro­posed revision of Part 336 of the Corpora­tion’s rules and regulations, entitled “Em­ployee Responsibilities and Conduct.”

Memorandum and resolution relating to the Corporation’s guaranty of relocated em­ployee real estate bridge loans.

Memorandum proposing the relocation of the Dallas Regional Office.

On motion of Director Isaac, second­ed by Mr. Muckenfuss, the board also determined that Corporation business required its adoption at the meeting,

on less than 7 days’ notice to the public, of a resolution honoring Chair­man LeMaistre on the occasion of his retirement scheduled for August 15, 1978.

By earlier vote of the Board of Di­rectors cast at its closed meeting held at 10 a.m. that same day, the Board, on motion of Chairman LeMaistre, seconded by Director Isaac, with Mr. Muckenfuss concurring, moved from the agenda for the open meeting to the agenda for the closed meeting all recommendations regarding the liqui­dation of a bank’s assets acquired by the Corporation in its capacity as re­ceiver, liquidator, or liquidating agent of those assets (Case Nos. 43,470-L (Amended), 43,602-L, 43,603-L, 43,614- L, 43,615—L, 43,616—L, and a memo­randum regarding the Hamilton Bank and Trust Co., Atlanta, Ga.).

The Board further determined, by majority vote, that no earlier notice of the changes in the subject matter of the meeting was practicable.

Dated: August 11,1978.F ederal D e po sit I nsurance

C orporation ,A lan R . M iller ,

Executive Secretary.[S-1654-78 Filed 8-15-78; 2:01 pm]

[6740-02]

3

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.

“FEDERAL REGISTER” CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 43 FR 36030, published August 14, 1978.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 10 a.m., August 16, 1978.CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The following item has been added.

Item No., Docket No., and Company

M-2. RM78, State of Louisiana first use tax—increased rate filings.

K en n eth F . P lum b , Secretary.

[S—1657-78 Filed 8-15-78; 3:30 pm]

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L . 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36586

[7600-01]

4

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION.TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Thursday, August 24, 1978.

PLACE: Room 1101, 1825 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: This meeting is subject to being closed by a vote of the Commis­sioners taken at the beginning of the meeting.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Discussion of specific cases in the Commission adjudication process.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE IN­FORMATION:

Mrs. Nori Heuberger, 202-634-7970.

Dated: August 14, 1978.

[S-1652-78 Filed 8-15-78; 2:01 pm]

SUNSHINE ACT MEETINGS

[7910-01]

5

RENEGOTIATION BOARD.DATE AND TIME: Monday, August 14, 1978; 10 a.m.PLACE: Conference Room, 4th Floor, 2000 M Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20446.STATUS: Closed to public observa­tion.MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Pri­ority Cases.CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE IN­FORMATION:

Kelvin H. Dickinson, Assistant Gen­eral Counsel-Secretary, 2000 M Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20446, 202-254-8277.Dated: August 14,1978.

G oo d w in C hase, Chairman.

[S-1655-78 Filed 8-15-78; 2:25 pm]

[7910-01]6

RENEGOTIATION BOARD. “FEDERAL REGISTER” CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 43 FR 35620, August 10, 1978.PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday August 15, 1978; 10 a.m.CHANGE IN MEETING: Matter 18 is added to the previously announced agenda.MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

18. Request permission to withdraw its waiver of the commercial exemp­tion for respective years: Burroughs Corp., fiscal year ended December 31, 1974 and 1975.STATUS: Open to public observation. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE IN­FORMATION:Kelvin H. Dickinson, Assistant Gen­eral Counsel-Secretary, 2000 M Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20446, 202-254-8277.Dated: August 15,1978.

G o o d w in C hase, Chairman.

[S—1656-78 Filed 8-15-78; 2:25 pm]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

THURSDAY, AUGUST 1 7 , 1978 PART II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife

Service

WHOOPING CRANESProposed Critical H abitat

36588 PROPOSED RULES

[4310-55]DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and W ild life Service

[5 0 CFR Part 17]

ENDANGERED A N D THREATENED WILDLIFE A N D PLANTS

Proposed Critical H ab ita t fo r the W hooping Crane

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Proposed rule.SUMMARY: The Service proposes eight additional areas as critical habi­tat in Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota for the endangered whooping crane (Gras americana) to those areas already de­termined to be critical habitat as pub­lished in the F ederal R egister of May 15, 1978 (43 FR 20938). If finalized, this rule would provide Federal protec­tion of these areas under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and will further assure the conserva­tion of the whoping crane.DATES: Comments from the public must be received by October 16, 1978. Comments from the Governors of five States must be received by November15,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Keith M. Schreiner, Associate Director—Federal Assistance, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Depart­ment of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240, 202-343-4646.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Background

In the F ederal R egister of May 15, 1978 (43 FR 20938-20942), the Service determined critical habitat in nine areas in six States for the whooping crane. The eight areas proposed in the present rule are separate and in addi­tion to those nine areas already deter­mined. The Service was petitioned on November 22, 1976, by the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society to add six of these areas to those previ­ously proposed in December 1976.

The service has thoroughly reviewed this petition, and a supplement dated September 29, 1977, and agrees that sufficient data was presented to war­rant this proposed rulemaking. Addi­tional data which covers the fall mi­gration records of 1977 for the whoop­ing crane as well as older confirmed m ig ra t io n records which have only re­cently come to the Service’s attention are a lso included in the data base for this proposal.

Whooping cranes in the natural (Aransas—Wood Buffalo) flock num­bered 70 individuals (10 subadults

from 1977 and 60 adult-plumaged birds from previous ypars) on April 1, 1978. This flock annually migrates from September to early December to the wintering grounds on or near Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Tex. During April and May the flock migrates along the same narrow route toward the only nesting area left in the wild: Wood Buffalo National Park, North­west Territories, Canada. The areas herein proposed are important as roosting and feeding area during this magnificent bird’s migration.

Critical H abitat

Section 7 of the act, entitled “Inter­agency Cooperation,” states:

The Secretary shall review other pro­grams administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this act. All other Federal departments and agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this act and by taking such action nec­essary to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeop­ardize the continued existence of such en­dangered species and threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as ap­propriate with the affected States, to be critical.

A definition of the term “critical habitat” was published jointly by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Na­tional Marine Fisheries Service in the F ederal R egister of January 4, 1978 (43 FR 870-876) to be codified in 50 CFR Part 402 and is reprinted below:

Critical habitat means any air, land, or water area (exclusive of those existing man­made structures or settlements which are not necessary to the survival and recovery of a listed species) and constituent elements thereof, the loss of which would appreciably decrease the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a listed species or a distinct seg­ment of its population. The constituent ele­ments of critical habitat include, but are not limited to: Physical structures and topogra­phy, biota, climate, human activity, and the quality and chemical content of land, water, and air. Critical habitat may represent any portion of the present habitat of a listed species and may include additional areas of reasonable population expansion.

As specified in these same regula­tions for interagency cooperation, the Director will consider the physiologi­cal, behavioral, ecological, and evolu­tionary requirements for survival and recovery of listed species in determin­ing what areas or parts of habitat are critical. These requirements include, but are not limited to:

(1) Space for individual and popula­tion growth and for normal behavior;

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional br physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,

or rearing of offspring; and generally,(5) Habitats that are protected from

disturbances or are representative of the geographical distribution of listed species.

Of the five factors, three directly pertain to the eight areas in this pro­posal. The three factors are summa­rized below:

(1) All areas proposed in this rule would provide food, water, and other nutritional or physiological needs of the whooping crane during spring or fall migration. Insects, crayfish, frogs, small fish, and other small animals as well as some aquatic vegetation and some cereal crops in adjacent crop­lands appear to be major items taken during the migration period.

(2) Generally, whooping cranes (as do most other cranes in the world) re­quire an open expanse for nightly roosting. This habit of using sand and gravel bars or very shallow water in rivers and lakes for nightly roosting appears to be one of the major factors in whooping crane habitat selection. Cranes observed during migration are most often found within short flight distances (frequently 15 miles or less) of wetlands that offer open sand or gravel bars for nightly roosting. Such roosting areas can be found when some of the large reservoirs in the area are at or below normal pool level and large bars of sediments are ex­posed, particularly at the mouths of major contributing streams and rivers.

(3) Whooping cranes do not readily tolerate disturbances to themselves or their habitat. A human on foot can quickly put a crane to flight at dis­tances over one-quarter of a mile. Loss of large expanses of wetlands and shooting were the major factors in causing the massive declines of whoop­ing cranes in the late 1800’s. The one common feature uniting the vast ma­jority of confirmed sightings of this crane in migration is their proximity to wetlands that provide undisturbed roosting sites.

E ffects of the R ulemaking

The eight areas delineated in this proposal or in the May 15, 1978, deter­mination (43 FR 20938-20942) do not include the entire habitat of the whooping crane, and modifications of the critical habitat designations may be proposed as a result of further studies. In accordance with section 7 of the act, all Federal departments and agencies would be required to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them would not result in the destruction or modifica­tion of the critical habitat of the en-

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L. 43, N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

dangered whooping crane. Also, in ac­cordance with section 7 of the act, Federal agencies would have to con­sult with the Secretary of the Interior with respect to any action which may affect any of these critical habitats, if finalized. Consultation pursuant to section 7 would be carried out using the procedures contained in the “interagency cooperation regulations" which were published in the F ederal R egister on January 4, 1978 (FR 870- 876) and will be codified under 50 CFR part 402.

P ublic C om m ents S olic ited

The Director intends that the rules finally adopted will be as accurate and effective as possible in the conserva­tion of the endangered whooping crane. Therefore, any comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, private interests, or any other interests, or any other interested party concerning any aspect of these proposed rules are hereby solicited. Comments particular­ly are sought concerning:

(1) The location of and the reasons why any habitat of this species should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided for by sec­tion 7 of the act;

(2) Additional information concern­ing the range, distribution, or habitat or food preferences of this species.

Pursuant to section 4(b) of the act, the Director will notify the Governors of Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota with re­spect to this proposal and request their comments and recommendations before making final determination.

Final promulgation of the - regula­tions on the critical habitat will take into consideration the comments and any additional information received by the Director, and such communica­tions may lead him to adopt final reg­ulations that differ from this proposal.

A draft environmental impact assess­ment has been prepared in conjunc­tion with this proposal. It is on file in the Service’s Office of Endangered Species, 1612 K Street NW., Washing­ton, D.C., and. may be examined during regular business hours or ob­tained by mail (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—OES, Washington, D.C.20240). A determination will be made at the time of final rulemaking as to whether this is a major Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The primary author of this proposed rulemaking is Jay M. Sheppard, Office of Endangered Species, 202-343-7814.

PROPOSED RULES

R egulations P rom ulgation

Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend § 17.95(b), part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by adding the below critical habitat of the w h o o p ing

Kansas. Phillips County. Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge.

36589crane to thè critical habitat published on May 15,1978 (43 FR 20938):

* * * * *(b) Birds. * * *

WRooping Crane (.Grus Americana)

Montana. Roosevelt and Sheridan Coun­ties. Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

FEDERAL REGISTER, V O L 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

36590 PROPOSED RULES

Nebraska. Brown, Keya Paha, and Rock Counties. T. 32 N., R. 18 W.; T. 32 N., R. 19 W.; T. 32 N., R. 20 W.J T. 32 N., R. 21 W.; and T. 32 N., R. 22 W.

North Dakota. (1) Northwest North Dakota Zone. Burke, Divide, Mountrail, Renville, Ward, and Williams Counties. Starting on the international border at the northern terminus of U.S. 85 proceeding due east to the northeast comer of Renville County; thence southward along the Ren- ville-Bottineau County line to the south­western comer of Bottineau County; thence continued southward from the northeast comer of T. 158 N., R. 84 W. to the south­east comer of T. 157 N., R. 84 W.; thence westward along the 14th standard parallel to North Dakota Route 40 about 2 miles south of Tioga; thence north along Route 40 to its intersection with North Dakota Route 50 about 2 miles south of McGregor; thence generally westward along Route 50 to its in­tersection with U.S. 85 near Appam; and thence generally northward along U.S. 85 to the starting point at the international border.

(2) Lake Sakakawea Zone. Dunn, McKen­zie, McLean, Mountrail, Ward, and Williams Counties. All areas that would be inundated or surrounded by the maximum pool level of Lake Sakakewea by Garrison Dam, in­cluding all lands and waters of Audubon Na­tional Wildlife Refuge and Garrison Dam, a manmade structure.

(3) Lake Ho Zone. Dunn County. Secs. 27- 34, T. 145 N., R. 94 W.; and sec. 6, T. 144 N., R.94W.

(4) Oahe Reservoir Zone. Burleigh, Emmons, Morton, and Sioux Counties. All areas in North Dakota that would be inun­dated or surrounded by the maximum pool level of Oahe Reservoir by Oahe Dam, South Dakota.

South Dakota. Campbell, Corson, Dewey, Haakon, Hughes, Potter, Stanley, Sully, Walworth, and Ziebach Counties. All areas in South Dakota that would be inundated or surrounded by the maximum pool level of Oahe Reservior by Oahe Dam, including all adjacent lands and waters of Pocasse Na­tional Wildlife Refuge and Oahe Dam, a manmade structure.

Note.—The Service has determined that this document does not contain a major action requiring preparation of an economic impact statement under Executive Order 11949 and OMB Circular A-107.

Dated: July 17,1978.K eith M. S chreiner,

Acting Director,' Fish and Wildlife Service.

[PR Doc. 78-22787 Piled 8-16-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VO L. 43 , N O . 160— THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1978

ORDER NOW!

Directory ofFederal Regional Structure

Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Service

General Services Administration

Price: $2.30

Compiled by Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration

Order from Superintendent o f Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Directory of Federal Regional Structure[Revised as of May 1,1978]

The Directory serves as a guide to the regional administrative structure of the departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

Designed to provide the public with practical information about regional offices, the Directory is particularly useful to citizens residing outside the Nation’s Capital.

Included in the Directory is a map showing the 10 standard Federal regions followed by tables listing the key personnel, addresses, and telephone numbers for agencies with offices in those regions. In addition, maps and tables are provided for those agencies with regional structures other than that of the standard regional system.

MAIL ORDER FORM To:

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Enclosed find $_____________ _ (check, money order).Please send m e_________ copies o f Directory o f Federal Regional Structure, a t $2.30 per copy.Stock No. 022-003-00949-3

Name _________________________________________________________________________

Please charge th is order stree, address __ _________________________________ ______________________________to my D eposit A ccoun tNo. _________________________ City and State_________ __________________ _______________ ZIP Code_______________

FOR USE OF SUPT. DOCS.Quantity Charges

M a ile dT o M a il L a te r

S u b

R e fu n d

P o s ta g e

H a n d lin g

FOR PROMPT SHIPMENT, PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE ADDRESS ON LABEL BELOW INCLUDING YOUR ZIP CODE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRIMTtolG OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402

OFFICIAL BUSINESSName

Street addressPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

City and State ZIP Code

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

375SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK