Download:
pdf |
pdfWednesday
July 3, 1985
7-3-85
No. 128
Vol. 50
Pages 27409-27570
-
-
-
=
=
if
L-
-"
- -~
'~*Briefings
j= --
~' E '5and
- -cover
-
Selected Subjects
-
_
on How To Use the Federal RegisterFor information on briefings in Chicago, IL,New York, NY,
Washington, DC, see announcement on the inside
of this issue.
=
Administrative Practice and Procedure
Department
______________justice
=
Air Pollution Control
Protection Agency
___________Environmental
nimal Drugs
__________
S
Food and Drug Administration
Aviation Safety
Federal Aviation Safety
Community Development
= =
-~
W
___________Economic
~ -=
-
=M=
=
_______________National
~
=
=
_________
-
'Defense
=
~..* =
-General
Development Administration
Credit Unions
National Credit Union Administration
Exports
International Trade Administration
Fisheries
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Foreign Assets
Foreign Assets Control Office
overnment Employees
United States Information Agency
Government Procurement
Department
Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
CONTINUED INSIDE
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Selected Subjects
IT
Selected Subjects
FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday,
(not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays),
by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and
Records Adminilstration, Washington, DC 20408, under the
Federal Register Att {49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch.
15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the
Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making
available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by
Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and
Executive Orders and Federal agency documents having general
applicability and legal effect, documents required to be
published by act of Congress and other Federal agency
documents of public interest. Documents are on file for public
inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before
they are published, unless earlier filing is requested by the
issuing agency.
The Federal Register will be furnished by mail to subscribers
for $300.00 per year, or $150.00 for 6 months, payable in
advance. The charge for individual copies is $1.50 for each
issue, or $1.50 for each group of pages as actually bound. Remit
check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
20402.
Income Taxes
Internal Revenue Service
Loan Programs-Agriculture
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farmers Home Administration
Loan Programs-Health
Public Health Service
Loan Programs-Housing and Community Development
Farmers Home Administration
Marketing Agreements
Agricultural Marketing Service
Milk Marketing Orders
Agricultural Marketing Service
Over-the-Counter Drugs
Food and Drug Administration
Pesticides and Pests
Environmental Protection Agency
Radio and Television Broadcasting
Federal Communications Commission
Small Businesses
Small Business Administration
Surface Mining
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
There are no restrictions on the republication of material
appearing in the Federal Register.
Questions and requests for specific information may be directed
to the telephone numbers listed under INFORMATION AND
ASSISTANCE in the READER AIDS section of this issue.
How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the
page number. Example: 50 FR 12345.
THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO USE IT
FOR:
Any person who uses the Federal Register and
Code of Federal Regulations.
CHICAGO, IL
WHEN:
July 8 and 9; at 9 a.m. (identical sessions)
WHO:
The Office of the Federal Register.
WHERE:
WHAT:
Free public briefings (approximately 2 1/2 hours)
to present:
1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the
Federal Register system and the public's role
in the development of regulations.
2. The relationship between the Federal Register
and Code of Federal Regulations.
3. The important elements of typical Federal
Register documents.
4. An introduction to the finding aids of the
FR/CFR system.
Room 1654, Insurance Exchange Building,
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL.
WHY:
To provide the public with access to information
necessary to research Federal agency regulations
which directly affect them. There will be no
discussion of specific agency regulations.
RESERVATIONS: Call the Chicago Federal Information
Center, 312-353-4242.
NEW YORK, NY
WHEN:
July 9 and 10; at 9 a.m. (identical sessions)
WHERE:
2T Conference Room, Second Floor,
Veterans Administration Building, 252
Seventh Avenue (between W. 24th and W.
25th Streets), New York, NY.
RESERVATIONS: Call Arlene Shapiro or Steve Colon, New
York Federal Information Center,
212-264-4810.
WASHINGTON, DC
WHEN:
September (two dates to be announced
later).
Contents
Federal Register
Vol. 50, No. 128
Wednesday, July 3. 1985
27409
The President
Economic Development Administration
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
RULES
Generalized System of Preferences, amendments
(EO12524)
27419
Executive Agencies
27412
27411
27411
Agricultural Marketing Service
Energy Department
See also Energy Information Administration;
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
RULES
NOTICES
Milk marketing orders:
Southern Michigan
Oranges (Valencia) grown in Arizona and
California
Peaches grown in Washington; interim
Agriculture Department
See also Agricultural Marketing Service;
Commodity Credit Corporation; Farmers Home
Administration.
27488
Agency information collection activities under
OMB review
NOTICES
27483
27482
Military traffic management:
Unaccompanied baggage, international program;
procurement solicitation
Centers for Disease Control
NOTICES
27483
27490
Cardiovascular fetotoxicity and functional
teratogenesis; NIOSH meeting
Vessel sanitation inspection program; inquiry
Commerce Department
See Economic Development Administration;
Foreign-Trade Zones Board; International Trade
Administration; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
James River Channel Restoration Project, SD
Environmental Protection Agency
PROPOSED RULES
27462
27463
27456
Air quality implementation plans; approval and
promulgation; various States:
Illinois
Pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural
commodities; tolerances and exemptions, etc.:
Thiodicarb
Pesticides; tolerances in animal feeds:
Thiodicarb
NOTICES
NOTICES
27491
Forms; availability, etc.:
Oil and gas reserve system (EIA-23/23P/64A;
inquiry
Engineers Corps
Army Department
See also Engineers Corps.
NOTICES
Patent licenses, exclusive:
Battelle Memorial Institute
Energy Information Administration
NOTICES
27471
Economic development and adjustment assistance
grants; designation of areas; notification of public
officials; interim
27489
Toxic and hazardous substances control:
Premanufacture exemption approvals
Farmers Home Administration
RULES
27414
27416
27415
Commodity Credit Corporation
Loan and grant programs:
Closing loans secured by chattels
Disaster loan assistance programs; memorandum
of understanding with SBA
Rural housing (Section 502) policies, procedures
and authorizations; interest credit agreement
renewals
RULES
27413
Loan and purchase programs:
Sugar beets and sugarane
Defense Department
See also Army Department; Engineers Corps.
RULES
27560
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):
Planning for future competition, integrity of unit
prices, etc. (Circular 84-10); interim
Federal Aviation Administration
PROPOSED RULES
27528
NOTICES
27523
27523
NOTICES
27482
27481
27482
Meetings:
DIA Scientific Advisory Committee
Electron Devices Advisory Group
Science Board task forces (2 documents)
Airport radar services areas
Airport noise compatibility program:
Los Angeles International Airport, CA
Procurement:
Commercial activities performance (OMB A-76
implementation)
Federal Communications Commission
RULES
27438
Radio and television broadcasting:
Multiple and cross-ownership of AM, FM, TV,
and CATV systems
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Contents
IV
Health and Human Services Department
See Centers for Disease Control; Food and Drug
Administration; Health Care Financing
Administration; Public Health Service.
NOTICES
27526
Meetings; Sunshine Act
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
NOTICES
27487
27487
27488
27488
27484
27484
27488
27485
27486
27486
27485
Hearings, etc.:
El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Gas Gathering Corp.
Jan Energy Co.
Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.
Northern Natural Gas Co.
Small Hydro East
Southern Natural Gas Co.
Southern Natural Gas Co. et al.
Texas Gas Transmission Corp.
UER Marketing Co.
Natural gas companies:
Certificates of public convenience and necessity;
applications, abandonment of service and
petitions to amend
Health Care Financing Administration
PROPOSED RULES
27469
Medicare:
Hospital inpatient services, prospective
payments (Diagnosis Related Groups); correction
Indian Affairs Bureau
PROPOSED RULES
27456
Tribal government:
Rolls of Indians, preparation; correction
Interior Department
See also, Indian Affairs Bureau; Land Management
Bureau; Minerals Management Service; National
Park Service; Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement Office.
NOTICES
Federal Reserve System
NOTICES
27490
27490
Bank holding company applications, etc.:
Indiana National Corp. et al.
J. Carl H. Bancorporation
27492
Meetings:
National Strategic Materials and Minerals
Program Advisory Committee
Internal Revenue Service
RULES
Fiscal Service
NOTICES
27525
Interest rates:
Renegotiation Board and prompt payment rates
Food and Drug Administration
RULES
27421
27422
Animal drugs, feeds, and related products:
Tylosin
Tylosin and sulfamethazine
PROPOSED RULES
27552
27427
PROPOSED RULES
27457
27456
27525
27491
Foreign Assets Control Office
RULES
27420
Foreign assets control:
Embargo programs; technical amendments
27479
27475
27480
27476
27476
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
NOTICES
27471
27472
27472
27472
Applications, etc.:
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
Wisconsin
General Services Administration
RULES
27560
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR):
Planning for future competition, integrity of unit
prices, etc. (Circular 84-10); interim
Export licensing:
Commodity control list; police-model helmets;
foreign policy controls
NOTICES
RULES
27435
Organization and functions:
District Counsel, Anchorage, AK
International Trade Administration
NOTICES
27492
Income taxes:
Capital gains tax and passive investment income
tax with respect to corporations
Funded welfare benefit plans, treatment; cross
reference
NOTICES
Human drugs:
Smoking deterrent drug products (OTC)
Human drugs:
Oral proteolytic enzymes; approval withdrawn;
effective date stayed
Meetings:
Advisory committees, panels, etc.; date change,
etc.
Income taxes:
Funded welfare benefit plans, treatment
27473
Antidumping:
Steel wire nails fromChina
Poland
Yugoslavia
Countervailing duties:
Deformed steel bars for concrete reinforcement
from South Africa
Portland hydraulic cement and cement clinker
from Mexico
Foreign buyer program and domestic trade show
support
International Trade Commission
NOTICES
27495
27495
27496
27497
Agency information collection activities under
OMB review
Import investigations:
Apparatus for disintegration of urinary calculi
Cellular mobile telephones and subassemblies
from Japan
Dried salted codfish from Canada
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Contents
27498
27499
27498
27496
27500
27526
Iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada,
India, and China
Oil country tubular goods from Austria
64K Dynamic random access memory
components from Japan
Steel-consuming industries, effects of restraining
U.S. imports on
12-volt lead-acid type automobile storage
batteries from Korea
Meetings; Sunshine Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
PROPOSED RULES
27470
27470
27481
27500
27501
Marine mammals:
Taking incidental to commercial fishing
operations
National Park Service
NOTICES
27501
Fishery conservation and management:
Atlantic swordfish; correction
Northern anchovy
NOTICES
Interstate Commerce Commission
Motor carriers; control, purchase, and tariff filing
exemptions, etc.:
Aluminum Co. of America
Rail carriers:
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.;
passenger train operation
Railroad services abandonment:
Burlington Northern Railroad Co.
V
NOTICES
27493
World heritage properties list; U.S. nominations
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NOTICES
27502
27502
Export and import license applications for nuclear
facilities or materials
Operating licenses, amendments; no significant
hazards consideration; bi-weekly notices
Justice Department
RULES
27428
Pacific Northwest Electric Power and
Conservation Planning Council
Public safety officers' death benefits
Labor Department
See Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Land Management Bureau
NOTICES
27518
27519
NOTICES
27492
27493
27566
Environmental statements/resource management
plans:
Walker Resource Area, NV
Sale of public lands:
California; correction
Meetings:
Losses and Goals Advisory Committee
Resident Fish Substitutions Advisory Committee
Public Health Service
PROPOSED RULES
27465
Personnel:
National Health Service Corps private practice
loans
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Securities and Exchange Commission
PROPOSED RULES
NOTICES
Metal and nonmetal mine safety and health:.
Loading, hauling, and dumping standards;
hearings
27519
27519
27521
Applications, etc.:
Eaton & Howard Balanced Fund
Johnstown American Companies
Merrill Lynch Natural Resources Trust
Minerals Management Service
NOTICES
27493
Outer Continental Shelf; development operations
coordination:
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Small Business Administration
RULES
27418
Small business size standards:
Real estate agents; interim
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Office
RULES
27560
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR):
Planning for future competition, integrity of unit
prices, etc. (Circular 84-10); interim
NOTICES
27501
PROPOSED RULES
27461
Meetings:
Advisory Council
Permanent program submission:
Oklahoma
Trade Representative, Office of United States
NOTICES
National Credit Union Administration
RULES
27417
Federal credit unions:
Operational systems; CFR Part removed
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
RULES
27451
Motor vehicle safety standards:
Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment; replaceable bulb headlamp systems;
correction
27518
Import quotas and exclusions, etc.:
Nonrubber footwear
Transportation Department
See Federal Aviation Administratiofi; National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Treasury Department
See also Fiscal Service; Foreign Assets Control
Office; Internal Revenue Service.
Federal .Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Contents
VI
NOTICES
27524
Meetings:
Debt Management Advisory Committee
United States Information Agency
RULES
27422
Foreign Service Officers; appointment
NOTICES
27525
Meetings:
Public Diplomacy, U.S. Advisory Commission
Separate Parts in This Issue
27528
Part II
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration
27552
Part III
Department of Health and Human Services, Food
and Drug Administration
27560
27566
Part IV
Department of Defense, General Services
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space'
Administration
Part V
Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health
Administration
Reader Aids
Additional information, including a list of public
laws, telephone numbers, and finding aids, appears
in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Contents
CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE
A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in
the Reader Aids section at the end of this Issue.
15.......................................
27560
3 CFR
19 .......................................
27560
Executive Orders:
34 .......................................
27560
11888 (Amended by
52...........
27560
EO 12524) ..................... 27409
12524 .................................
27409
49 CFR
571 .....................................
27451
7 CFR
908 .....................................
27411
50 CFR
921 .....................................
27411
Proposed Rules:
1040 ...................................
27412
630 .....................................
27470
1435 ...................................
27413
662 .....................................
27470
1941 ...................................
27414
1944 ...................................
27415
1945 (2 documents) ........ 27414,
27416
12 CFR
723 .....................................
27417
13 CFR
121 .....................................
27418
302 .....................................
27419
14 CFR
Proposed Rules:
71 .......................................
27528
15 CFR
376.....................................
27420
399 .....................................
27420
21 CFR
558 (2 documents).......... 27421,
27422
Proposed Rules:
357 .....................................
27552
561 ..................................... 27452
22 CFR
501 .....................................
27422
25 CFR
Proposed Rules:
61 .......................................
27456
26 CFR
1.........................................
27427
Proposed Rules:
1 (2 documents) .............. 27456,
27457
28 CFR
32 .......................................
27428
30 CFR
Proposed Rules:
56.......................................
27566
57 .......................................
27566
936 .....................................
27461
31 CFR
500 .....................................
27435
505 ................ 27435
515 .....................................
27435
520 .....................................
27435
535.....................................
27435
540 .....................................
27435
40 CFR
Proposed Rules:
52 .......................................
27462
180.....................................
27463
42 CFR
Proposed Rules:
23 .......................................
27465
405 .....................................
27469
412 .....................................
27469
47 CFR
73.......................................
27438
76.......................................
27438
48 CFR
7.........................................
27560
VII
27409
Federal Register
Presidential Documents
Vol. 50, No. 128
Wednesday. July 3, 1985
Title 3-
Executive Order 12524 of July 1, 1985
The President
Amending the Generalized System of Preferences
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the
United States of America, including Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (the Trade
Act) (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.), as amended, section 604 of the Trade Act (19
U.S.C. 2483), and section 503(a)(2)(A) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (93
Stat. 251), and as President of the United States of America, in order to
designate, as provided by section 504(c)(6) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C.
2464(c)[6)), those countries that will be considered to be least-developed
beneficiary developing countries not subject to the limitations on preferential
treatment of eligible articles for purposes of the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP), after taking into account the considerations in sections 501
and 502(c) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2461 and 2462(c)); and to modify as
provided by sections 504 (a) and (c) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2464 (a) and
(c)) the limitations on preferential treatment of eligible articles from countries
designated as beneficiary developing countries, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. In order to designate the countries that will be considered to be
least-developed beneficiary developing countries, general headnote 3(c) of the
Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) (19 U.S.C. 1202) is modified by
adding the following new paragraph 3(c)(iv):
"(iv) The following beneficiary countries are designated as least-developed
beneficiary developing countries pursuant to section 504(c)(6) of the Trade Act
of 1974:
Bangladesh
BeniA
Bhutan
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Lesotho
Malawi
Maldives
Mali
Nepal
Niger
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Western Samoa
Yemen Arab Republic
(Sanaa)
Whenever an eligible article is imported into the customs territory of the
United States directly from one of the countries designated as a leastdeveloped beneficiary developing country, it shall be entitled to receive the
duty-free treatment provided for in subdivision (c)(ii) of this headnote without
regard to the limitations on preferential treatment of eligible articles in section
504(c) of the Trade Act, as amended (19 U.S.C: 2464(c));"
Sec. 2. Annex II of Executive Order No. 11888 of November 24, 1975, as
amended, listing articles that are eligible for benefits of the GSP when
imported from any designated beneficiary developing country, is further
amended by inserting in numerical sequence "734.56".
27410
Federal Register
/
Vol. 50, No. 128
/ Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Presidential Documents
Sec. 3. Annex III of Executive Order No. 11888, as amended, listing articles
that are eligible for benefits of the GSP when imported from all designated
beneficiary countries except those specified in general headnote 3(c)(iii) of the
TSUS, is further amended by striking out "734.56".
Sec. 4. General headnote 3(c)(iii) of the TSUS, listing articles that are eligible
for benefits of the GSP except when imported from the beneficiary countries
listed opposite those articles, is modified by striking out "734.56 . . . Haiti".
Sec. 5. The amendments made by this Order shall be effective with respect to
articles both: (1) imported on or after January 1, 1976, and (2) entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 4, 1985.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 1, 1985.
JFR Doc. 85-16106
Filed 7-2--85; 11:08 am]
Billing code 3195-01-M
27411
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 50, No. 128
Wednesday, July 3. 1985
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having
general applicability and legal effect, most
of which are keyed to and codified in
the Code of Federal Regulations, which is
published under 50 titles pursuant to 44
U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold
by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the
first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 908
[Valencia Orange Reg. 350, Amdt. 1;
Valencia Orange Reg. 351]
Valencia Oranges Grown in Arizona
and Designated Part of California;
Limitation of Handling
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Amendment 1 of Regulation
350 increases the quantity of fresh
California-Arizona Valencia oranges
that may be shipped to market during
the period June 28-July 4, 1985.
Regulation 315 establishes the quantity
of such fruit that may be shipped to
market during the period July 5-11, 1985.
The amendment and regulation are
needed to provide for orderly marketing
of fresh Valencia oranges for the periods
specified due to the marketing situation
confronting the orange industry.
DATE: Regulation 350, Amendment 1
(§ 908.650) is effective for the period
June 28-July 4, 1985. Regulation 351
(§ 908.651) is effective for the period July
5-11, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William J. Doyle, Chief, Fruit Branch,
F&V, AMS, USDA, Washington, D.C.
20250, telephone: 202-447-5975.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Findings.
These rules have been reviewed under
USDA procedures and Executive Order
12291 and have been designated a "nonmajor" rule. William T. Manley, Deputy
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service, has certified that these actions
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The amendment and the regulation
are issued under Marketing Order No.
908, as amended (7 CFR Part 908),
regulating the handling of Valencia
oranges grown in Arizona and
designated part of California. The order
is effective under the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). The actions
are based upon the recommendation
and information submitted by the
Valencia Orange Administrative
Committee (VOAC) and upon other
available information. It is hereby found
that these actions will tend to effectuate
the declared policy of the act.
The amendment and the regulation
are consistent with the marketing policy
for 1984-85. The committee met publicly
on June 25, 1985, to consider the current
and prospective conditions of supply
and demand and recommended a
quantity of Valencia oranges for the
specified weeks. The committee reports
the demand for Valencia oranges has
improved slightly but not enough to
justify shipments at a level equal to the
shipping schedule which was set in
March. The committee is expected to
modify its shipping schedule next week.
It is further found that it is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to give preliminary notice,
engage in public rulemaking, and
postpone the effective date until 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register
(5 U.S.C. 553), because there is
insufficient time between the date when
information upon which the regulations
are based became available and the
effective date necessary to effectuate
the declared policy of the act. Interested
persons were given an opportunity to
submit information and views on the
amendment and the regulation of an
open meeting. To effectuate the declared
policy of the act, it.is necessary to make
the regulatory provisions effective as
specified, and handlers have been
notified of the amendment and
regulation and their effective dates.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 908
Marketing agreements and orders,
California, Oranges (Valencia).
1. The authority citation for Part 7
CFR Part 908 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: (Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as
amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-674)
PART 908-[AMENDED]
2. Section 908.650 is added to read as
follows:
§ 908.650 Valencia Orange Regulation 350.
The quantities of Valencia oranges
grown in California and Arizona which
may be handled during the period June
28, 1985, through July 4, 1985, are
established as follows:
(a) District 1: 180,000 cartons;
(b) District 2: 270,000 cartons;
(c)District 3: Unlimited cartons.
3. Section 908.651 is added to read as
follows:
§ 908.651 Valencia Orange Regulation 351.
The quantities of Valencia oranges
grown in California and Arizona which
may be handled during the period July 5,
1985, through July 11, 1985, are
established as follows:
(a)District 1: 200,000 cartons;
(b) District 2: 300,000 cartons;
(c) District 3: Unlimited cartons.
Dated: June 27,1985
Thomas R.Clark,
Deputy Director,Fruitand Vegetable
Division, AgriculturalMarketingService.
[FR Doc. 85-15902 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-1
7 CFR Part 921
Handling of Fresh Peaches Grown In
Designated Counties In Washington;
Interim Amendment of the Grade
Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule ivith request
for comments.
SUMMARY: This interim final rule relaxes
the grade requirements for certain
shipments of Washington peaches.
These changes are designed to
maximize the marketing of fresh
peaches of suitable quality in the
interest of producers and consumers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1985. Comments
are due by July 31, 1985. The Director of
the Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference of
Washington Standards for Peaches in 7
CFR 921.318.
ADDRESS: Interested persons are invited
to submit written comments concerning
this interim rule. Comments must be
27412
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
sent in duplicate to the Docket Clerk,
Fruit and Vegetable Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Room 2069,
South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250.
Comments should reference the date
and page number of this issue of the
Federal Register and will be made
available for public inspection in the
Office of the Docket Clerk during regular
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William J. Doyle, Chief, Fruit Branch,
F&V, AMS, USDA, Washington, D.C.
20250, telephone: 202-447-5975.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
interim final rule has been reviewed
under Secretary's Memorandum 1512-1
and Executive Order 12291, and has
been designated a "non-major" rule.
William T. Manley, Deputy
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service, has certified that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The interim final rule is issued under
the marketing agreement and order No.
921 (7 CFR Part 921) regulating the
handling of fresh peaches grown in
designated counties in Washington,
effective under the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). This action
was recommended by the Washington
Fresh Peach Marketing Committee.
This action lowers minimum grade
requirements applicable to fresh
shipments of Washington peaches
during the period July 1, 1985, through
March 31, 1986 by permitting the
handling of peaches grading Washington
No. 2, if packed in a western lug box.
Effective since August 1, 1981,
§ 921.318 provides the minimum grade,
size, pack and container regulations
applicable to peaches handled under the
marketing order. Currently, it provides
that such peaches grade at least
Washington Extra Fancy Grade, except
that peaches which grade Washington
Fancy Grade or better may be handled if
they are packed in the western lug box
or the standard peach box. However,
the committee believes that there is a
demand for lower grade peaches
shipped to local markets for home
canning and immediate consumption.
The committee believes that the less
restrictive Washington No. 2 grade for
peaches shipped in the western lug box
would best further that objective as that
container is not used for interstate
shipments. This action would make
available additional quantities of
peaches of lower quality not permitted
to be shipped under current order
regulations. In order to maximize
consumption of the 1985 crop of
peaches, it is advantageous to establish
this change by July 1, 1985. Such an
effective date this year, with an
opportunity for the public to comment
on the interim rule for 30 days following
its issuance, would allow the committee
and handlers the opportunity to observe
the effect of this relaxation of
restrictions on the marketing of peaches
for the entire 1985 season.
An interim rule was effective during
the period August 6, 1984, through
March 31, 1985, which contained the
same relaxation of restrictions as stated
in this interim rule. However, shipments
of Washington peaches were well
underway by August 6, 1984, and there
was insufficient time for the committee
to evaluate the effect of this relaxation
of grade requirements.
The Secretary finds that upon good
cause shown it is impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest to give preliminary notice,
engage in other public procedures, and
postpone the effective date of this
interim final rule until 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register (5
U.S.C. 553), because of insufficient time
between the date when information
became available upon which this rule
is based and the effective date
necessary to effectuate the declared
policy of the act. Shipments of
Washington peaches are expected to
begin on or about the effective date of
this rule. Interested persons were given
an opportunity to submit information
and views on the changes at an open
meeting at which the committee
recommended implementation of the
requirements specified in this rule.
Handlers have been apprised of the
provisions and effective date of the
changes. In addition, this change
represents a relief of restrictions by
making more peaches available for sale,
and no useful purpose is served by
delaying the issuance of this interim
final rule. The interim final rule provides
a 30-day comment period. All comments
received will be considered prior to
finalization of this rule. It is found that
this rule will tend to effectuate the
declared policy of the act.
PART 921-f AMENDED]
2. Section 921.318 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 921.318 Peach Regulation 18.
(a) * . *
(1) Minimum grade. Such peaches
shall grade at least Washington Extra
Fancy Grade: Provided,That peaches
which grade Washington Fancy Grade
or better may be handled if they are
packed in the western lug box or the
standard peach box: And Provided
further, That for the period ending
March 31, 1986, peaches which grade
Washington No. 2 Grade or better may
be handled if they are packed in the
western lug box.
Thomas R.Clark,
Deputy Director,Fruitand Vegetable
Division, AgriculturalMarketing Service.
June 27, 1985.
[FR Doc. 85-15903 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BiLLiNG CODE 3410-02-M
7 CFR Part 1040
Milk In the Southern Michigan
Marketing Area; Order Suspending
Certain Provisions
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Suspension of rules.
SUMMARY: This action suspends for the
months of June through August 1985 the
requirement in the Southern Michigan
Federal milk order that a cooperative
association deliver to pool distributing
plants at least 50 percent of its
members' producer milk in order to
qualify its supply plants as pool plants
under the order. The suspension was
requested by a cooperative association
that represents producers supplying milk
to the fluid market. The action is needed
to ensure that dairy farmers who
historically have been associated with
the Southern Michigan market will
continue to share in the market's fluid
milk sales.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 921
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Agricultural Marketing Service,
Marketing Agreements and orders,
Washington, Peaches, Incorporation by
reference.
Richard A. Glandt, Marketing Specialist,
Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. 20250, (202) 447-4829.
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
Part 921 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as
amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Prior
document in this proceeding: Notice of
Proposed Suspension: Issued June 7,
1985, published June 13, 1985 (50 FR
24779).
Federal Register
/ Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
William T. Manley, Deputy
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service, has certified that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Such action lessens the
regulatory impact of the order on certain
milk handlers and tends to insure that
dairy farmers will continue to have their
milk priced under the order and thereby
receive the benefits that accrue from
such pricing.
This order of suspension is issued
pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), and of the order regulating the
handling of milk in the Southern
Michigan marketing area.
Notice of proposed rulemaking was
published in the Federal Register on
June 13, 1985, (50 FR 24779) concerning a
proposed suspension of certain
provisions of the order. Interested
parties were afforded opportunity to file
data, views, and arguments thereon. No
comments were received in opposition
to the proposed action.
After consideration of all relevant
information, including the proposal in
the notice, the comments received, and
other available information, it is hereby
found and determined that for the
months of June through August 1985 the
following provisions of the order do not
tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act;
1. In § 1040.7(b)(2) the words "if
transfers from such supply plant to
plants described in paragraph (b)(5) of
this section and by direct delivery from
the farm to plants qualified under
paragraph (a) of this section are:"
2. In § 1040(b)(2), paragraphs (i) and
(ii).
Statement of Consideration
This action makes inoperative for the
months of June through August 1985 the
provisions requiring a cooperative
association to deliver at least 50 percent
of its members' producer milk to pool
distributing plants, either through its
supply plants or directly from farms, in
order to qualify the supply plants as
pool plants. The suspension was
requested by Michigan Milk Producers
Association (MMPA), which represents
producers supplying the market.
This action is needed because milk
production in this market has
substantially increased since the end of
the milk diversion program on March 31,
and at the same time, Class I sales have
remained about the same. Market data
indicates that milk production increased
approximately 8.7 percent from March to
May 1985. At the same time, Class I
utilization, as a percentage of producer
milk, decreased from 43.0 percent to 39.4
percent.
The production of butter, condensed
milk and other Class III uses increased
from 211.4 million pounds in March to
212.6 million pounds in April 1985 and to
248.7 million in May 1985, or
approximately 17.0 percent from April to
May. MMPA submitted data to show
that most of this April to May increase
can be attributed to their members' milk.
For this same period, MMPA indicated
that their sales to fluid milk plants
remained unchanged.
With the closing of schools and the
elimination of the lunch programs, Class
I utilization for June 1985 is expected to
be even lower, and the situation is not
expected to improve much during the
balance of the summer. For the month of
May 1985, MMPA was not able to pool
its members' milk under the 50 percent
pooling requirements without excluding
one of their supply plants from their
pooling unit. The order provides that a
cooperative association may combine its
supply plants into a unit in order to meet
the 50 percent pooling requirement.
Because of the above, it is
inappropriate to maintain the
qualification requirement for a
cooperative association to deliver to
distributing plants at least 50 percent of
its members' producer milk in order to
qualify its supply plants as pool plants
under the order.
If the provisions were not suspended
for the months of June through August
1985, MMPA would encounter
considerable difficulty in pooling certain
supply plants and the milk of producers
who historically have been associated
with the Southern Michigan fluid
market. Without the suspension milk
would be shipped in an inefficient and
costly manner merely to assure its
continued pooling under the order. This
would disrupt the orderly marketing of
milk in the Southern Michigan marketing
area.
It is hereby found and determined that
thirty days' notice of the effective date
hereof is impractical, unnecessary and
contrary to the public interest in that:
(a) This suspension is necessary to
reflect current marketing conditions in
the marketing area in that substantial
quantities of milk from producers who
regularly supply the market otherwise
would be excluded from the marketwide
pool, thereby causing a disruption in the
orderly marketing of milk;
(b) This suspension does not require
of persons affected substantial or
extensive preparation prior to the
effective date; and
(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking was
given interested parties and they were
afforded an opportunity to file written
27413
data, views, or arguments concerning
this suspension. No comments were
filed in opposition to this action.
Therefore, good cause exists for
making this order effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1040
Milk marketing orders, Milk, Dairy
products.
PART 1040--[AMENDED]
The authority citation for Part 1040
continues to read as follows:
Authority: (Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as
amended; 7 U.S.C. 601--674).
It is therefore ordered,That the
following language in § 1040.7(b)(2) is
suspended for the months of June
through August 1985.
§ 1040.7 [Temporarily suspended In part]
1. In § 1040.7(b)(2) the words "if
transfers from such supply plant to
plants described in paragraph (b)(5) of
this section and by direct delivery from
the farm to plants qualified under
paragraph (a) of this section are:"
2. In § 1040.7(b)(2), paragraphs (i) and
(ii).
Effective date: July 3, 1985.
Signed at Washington, D.C. on: June 28,
1985.
Alan T. Tracy,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Marketing and
InspectionServices.
[FR Doc. 85-15985 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45'am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-M
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1435
[Amdt. 1]
Price Support Loan Program for 1983
Through 1985 Crops Sugar Beets and
Sugarcane
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation.
USDA.
ACTION: Interim rule.
SUMMARY: This interim rule amends the
regulations which govern the Price
Support Loan Program for 1983 Through
1985 Crops Sugar Beets and Sugarcane
to provide that sugar loan maturity
dates may be extended for a period
agreed upon by the Commodity Credit
Corporation and the processor but in no
event to a date later than September 30
following the date of loan disbursement.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 1985.
Comments must be received on or
before July 29, 1985 in order to be
assured of consideration.
27414
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
ADDRESS: Interested persons may send
comments to Director, Cotton, Grain,
and Rice Price Support Division,
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box
2415, Washington, D.C. 20013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Gill, Cotton, Grain, and Rice Price
Support Division, ASCS, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box
2415, Washington, D.C. 20013. Phone:
(202) 447-8480.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation (7 CFR Part
1435) have been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget in
accordance with the provisions of 44
U.S.C. Chapter 25 and have been
assigned OMB Number 0560-0093.
This interim rule has been reviewed
under USDA procedures established in
accordance with provisions of
Departmental Regulation 1512-1 and
Executive Order 12291 and has been
classified "not major". It has been
determined that these program
provisions will not result in: (1) An
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; (2) major increases in
costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local "
government agencies or geographic
regions; or (3) significant adverse effects
on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
on the ability of U.S. based enterprises
to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
The title and number of the Federal
Assistance Program to which this
interim rule applies are: TitleCommodity Loans and Purchases;
Number-10.051, as found in the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance.
It has been determined that the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this interim rule because
the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or
any other provision of law to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to the subject matter of this rule.
An Environmental Evaluation with
respect to the price support loan
program has been completed. It has
been determined that this action is not
expected to have any significant impact
on the quality of the human
environment. In addition, it has been
determined this action will not
adversely affect environmental factors
such as wildlife habitat, water quality,
and land use and appearance.
Accordingly, neither an Environmental
Assessment nor an Environmental
Impact Statement is needed.
This program/activity is not subject to
the provisions of Executive Order 12372
which requires intergovernmental
consultation with State and local
officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR
Part 3015, Subpart V. published at 48 FR
29115 (June 24, 1983).
Extending Sugar Loan Maturity Dates
The Agriculture and Food Act of 1981
(the "1981 Act"] amended section 201 of
the Agricultural Act of 1949 to require
that the Secretary of Agriculture support
prices of the 1983 through 1985 crops of
sugarcane and sugar beets through
nonrecourse loans. In general, price
support loans for the 1983 through 1985
crops of sugar beets and sugarcane
mature on the last day of the sixth
month following the month in which the
loan is disbursed, but in no event later
than September 30 following
disbursement of the loan. The 1984-crop
sugar price support loans are maturing
monthly. Current marketing conditions
indicate a substantial likelihood that
sugar pledged as loan collateral by
sugar processors may be forfeited to
CCC upon loan maturity. In order to
allow market conditions to strengthen
and thereby increase the possibility that
sug ar processors will redeem their
collateral at loan maturity, the
regulations at 7 CFR Part 1435 are being
amended to provide that sugar loan
maturity dates may be extended for a
period agreed upon by CCC and the
processor, but in no event to a date later
than September 30.
Interim Rule
PART 1435--[AMENDED]
Accordingly, the regulations at 7 CFR
Pal t 1435 are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 1435
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 201 and 401 et seq. of the
Agricultural Act of 1949. as amended (7
U.S.C. 1446. et seq.)
2. Section 1435.115 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 1435.115 Availability, disbursement, and
maturity of loans.
(d) Maturity of Loans. Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section,
a loan will mature on the last day of the
sixth month following the month in
which the loan is disbursed, but in no
event later than September 30 following
disbursement of the loan. Loan maturity
dates may be accelerated by CCC in
accordance with § 1435.117(b)(3) of this
subpart. Norwithstanding the foregoing,
CCC and the processor may agree upon
an earlier maturity date or a later
maturity date (but in no event later than
September 30 following disbursement of
the loan) if such maturity date will not
impair the effectiveness of the support
program, as determined by CCC.
Signed at Washington, D.C., on June 28,
1985.
John R. Block,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15949 Filed 6-28-85; 4:53 pm]
BILUNG CODE 3410-05-U
Need for Immediate Action
Farmers Home Administration
Since 1984-crop sugar price support
loans are maturing monthly and there is
a need for prompt action, it has been
determined that prior notice and
opportunity for public comment on the
subject matter of this rule are
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. Therefore, this final rule shall
become effective June 28, 1985.
However, comments with respect to this
interim rule are requested and should be
submitted on or before July 29, 1985 in
order to be assured of consideration.
This interim rule will be scheduled for
review so that a final document
discussing comments received and any
amendments required can be published
in the Federal Register as soon as
possible.
7 CFR Parts 1941 and 1945
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435
Loan programs/agriculture, Price
support programs, Sugar.
Closing Loans Secured by Chattels
AGENCY: Farmers Home Administration,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) amends its
regulations for closing loans secured by
chattels to provide for a change in
administrative instructions. This action
is necessary because the form Security
Agreements (Crops) is being obsoleted
and its function is being assumed by
Security Agreement (Chattels and
Crops). The intended effect is to remove
references to obsolete Form FmHA 4404A, "Security Agreement (Crops)" and
allow Form FmHA 440-4, "Security
Agreement (Chattels and Crops)" to
assume its function.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985,
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jane Corbett, Loan Officer, Farm Real
Estate and Production Division, Farmers
Home Administration, USDA, 14th and
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20250, telephone (202)
447-5044.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This final action has been reviewed
under USDA procedures established in
Departmental Regulation 1512-1 which
implements Executive Order 12291 and
has been determined to be exempt from
those requirements because it involves
only internal agency management. It is
the policy of this Department to publish
for comment rules relating to public
property, loan, grants, benefits, or
contracts notwithstanding the
exemption in 5 U.S.C. 533, with respect
to such rules. The amended regulation
removes references to obsolete Form
FmHA 440-4A, "Security Agreement
(Crops)," and allows Form FmHA 440-4,
"Security Agreement (Chattels and
Crops)," to serve the same function as
Form FmHA 440-4A in addition to its
present use. This form was completed
by FmHA personnel and its deletion is
an internal control on avoiding the
duplication of forms used for the same
purposes. Therefore, this action is not
published for proposed rulemaking since
it involves only internal Agency
management and publication for
comment is unnecessary.
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance Titles and Numbers are:
Emergency Loans-10.404 and Farm
Operating Loans-10.406.
This program/activity is not subject to
the provisions of Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental
consultation with State and local
officials. See 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V
(48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983) and FmHA
Instruction 1940-J, "Intergovernmental
Review of Farmers Home
Administration Programs and
Activities" (December 23, 1983).
This final action has been reviewed in
accordance with FmHA Instruction
1940-G, "Environmental Program."
FmHA has determined that this final
action does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment and,
in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.
L. 91-190, an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Port 1941
Crops, Livestock, Loan programsAgriculture, Rural areas, Youth.
:
7 CFR Part1945
Agriculture, Disaster assistance, Loan
programs-Agriculture.
Therefore, Chapter XVIII, Title 7,
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 1941-OPERATING LOANS
1. The authority citation for Part 1941
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1989; 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 CFR
2.23; 7 CFR 2.70.
Subpart A-Operating Loan Policies,
Procedures, and Authorizations
2. In Exhibit A of Subpart A,
Paragraph C is amended by removing
the entry for Form FmHA "4404A . . .Security Agreement
(Crops) . .. (*)" under the heading
'Docket Preparation'."
Subpart B-Closing Loans Secured by
Chattels
3. Section 1941.57 is amended by
revising Paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 1941.57
Security Instruments.
(c) Security instrumqntforms. (1)
Form FmHA 440-25, "Financing
Statement," or Form FmHA 440A-25,
"Financing Statement (CarbonInterleaved)"; and Form FmHA 440-4,
"Security Agreement (Chattels and
Crops)," will be used to obtain security
interests in chattel property in States
which have adopted the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), unless a State
supplement requires the use of other
forms.
PART 1945-EMERGENCY
4. The authority citation for Part 1945
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1989; 5 U.S.C. 301, 7 CFR
2.23; 7 CFR 2.76.
Subpart D-Emergency Loans
Policies, Procedures, and
Authorizations
5. Exhibit A of Subpart D is amended
by removing the entry for Form FmHA
"440-4A . . .Security Agreement
(Crops) . . . (*)" in the listing of forms
under Paragraph IV. D.
Dated: June 3, 1985.
Dwight 0. Calhoun,
Acting AssociateAdministrator,Formers
Home Administration.
[FR Doc. 85-15900 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-07-M
,27415
7 CFR Part 1944
Section 502 Rural Housing Loan
Policies, Procedures and
Authorizations
AGENCY: Farmers Home Administration,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) amends its
regulations regarding Section 502 rural
housing (RH) loans to authorize FmHA
State Directors to contract for the
annual review and processing of Interest
Credit Agreement (ICA) renewals. This
action is necessary to ensure timely
processing of interest credit renewals
within the 3-month annual review
period. The intended effect is to ensure
that all necessary information is
collected from eligible RH borrowers
and submitted to the FmHA Finance
Office to update the borrowers'
accounts prior to expiration of the
existing ICA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ruth Smith, Senior Loan Specialist,
Realty, Single Family Housing
Processing Division, Farmers Home
Administration, USDA, Room 5338,
South Agriculture Building, 14th and
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250,-telephone (202)
382-14868.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This
final action has been reviewed under
USDA procedures established in
Departmental Regulation 1512-1, which
implements Executive Order 12291, and
has been determined to be exempt from
those requirements because it involves
contracts and internal Agency
management. FmHA County Supervisors
currently are responsible for the annual
renewal of approximately 300,000 ICAs.
They must personally interview each of
these borrowers to assure that all
necessary information is collected and
that all sources of income are verified
and used to calculate the amount of
interest credit. For increased efficiency
in the Agency management of the
interest credit program, FmHA State
Directors will be authorized to contract
with contractors for the purpose of
expediting interest'credit renewals. The
contractor will not be authorized to
approve or disapprove an ICA. This
should enable the County Supervisors in
those FmHA County Offices with large
RH caseloads to render better
assistance to RH borrowers eligible for
interest credit.
It is the policy of this Department to
publish for comment rules relating to
27416
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
public property, loans, grants, benefits,
or contracts notwithstanding the
exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect
to such rules. This action, however, is
not published for proposed rulemaking
since it involves only the mechanical
processing of ICA's and as such is a
matter of internal Agency management.
Thus publication for comment is
unnecessary.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program affected by this
action is: 10.410 Low Income Housing
Loans.
This action does not adversely affect
any FmHA programs or projects which"
are subject to intergovernmental
consultation.
This document has been reviewed in
accordance with 7 CFR Part 1940,
Subpart G, "Environmental Program." It
is the determination of FmHA that this
action does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment and in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.
L. 91-190, an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1944
Home improvement, Loan programsHousing and community development,
Low and moderate income housingRental, Mobile homes, Mortgages, Rural
housing, Subsidies.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, Subpart A of Part 1944.
Chapter XVIII, Title 7 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 1944-HOUSING
Subpart A-Section 502 Rural Housing
Loan Policies, Procedures and
Authorizations
1. The authority citation for Subpart A
of Part 1944 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1480;7 CFR 2.23; 7 CFR
2.70.
2. In Section 1944.34, the introductory
paragraph of paragraph (h)(3) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 1944.34 Interest credit.
(h)* * "
(3) Interest credit renewal. Pursuant
to delegations of procurement authority
included in FmHA Instruction 2024-A
(available in any FmHA office). State
Directors are authorized to enter into
contracts for the review and processing
of interest credit renewals after prior
approval by the Administrator.
Contractors are responsible for interest
credit renewal actions covered by the
contract. Contractors will not be given
the authority to approve or disapprove
Interest Credit Agreements.
Dated: Tune 11, 1985.
Dwight 0. Calhoun,
Acting Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-15899 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 arni
BILLING CODE 3410-07-M
7 CFR Part 1945
Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Small Business
Administration and the Farmers Home
Administration
AGENCY: Farmers Home Administration,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) revises its
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between FmHA and the Small Business
Administration (SBA) pertaining to
Disaster Loan Assistance Programs for
disasters commencing on or after
October 1. 1983. This action is necessary
because of recent changes in the SBA
Act, as amended by Public Laws 98-270
and 98-369. The intended effect of this
action is to delineate circumstances and
prescribe procedures for FmHA and
SBA field offices to consider and follow
when referring certain farm loan
applicants from one Agency to the other
for disaster loan assistance, based on
declared/designated disasters that
occurred on or after October 1, 1983.
Adoption of the procedures set forth in
the MOU are necessary to avoid undue
delay and expense to applicants and
duplication of effort by the signatory
agencies.
requirements because it involves only
internal Agency management. The MOU
pertains to the circumstances that would
necessitate the referral of a disaster
loan applicant to SBA or the acceptance
of an applicant from SBA for loans
based on disasters that occurred on or
after October 1, 1983. The MOU also
pertains to the procedures for FmHA
and SBA field offices to follow when
referring loan applicants from one
Agency to the other.
It is the policy of this Department to
publish, for comment, rules relating to
public property, loans, grants, benefits,
or contracts notwithstanding the
exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect
to such rules. This action, however, is
not published for proposed rulemaking,
since it involves only internal Agency
management and publication for
comment is unnecessary.
This action does not directly affect
any FmHA programs or projects which
are subject to 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart
V, "Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs" review.
This document has been reviewed in
accordance with FmHA Instruction
1940-G, "Environmental Program." It is
the determination of FmHA that this
action does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment and in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.
L. 91-190; an Environmental Impact
Statement is not needed.
This action affects the following
FmHA program as listed in the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance:
10.404-Emergency Loans.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1945
Agriculture, Disaster assistance. Loan
programs-Agriculture.
Therefore, Chapter XVIII. Title 7.
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
PART 1945-EMERGENCY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.
1. The authority citation for Part 1945
continues to read as follows:
Morris Monesson, Deputy Director,
Emergency Division, FmHA, USDA.
Room 5420, South Agriculture Building,
Washington, D.C. 20250, Telephone (202)
382-1632. Alternate Contact: John
Gleason, Senior Loan Officer, FmltA,
USDA, Room 5424, Telephone (202) 3821651.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
action has been reviewed under USDA
procedures established in Departmental
Regulation 1512-1, which implements
Executive Order 12291, and has been
determined to be exempt from those
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1989:7 CFR 2.23; 7 CFR
2.70
Subpart D-Emergency Loan Policies,
Procedures and Authorizations
2. Exhibit B-1 of Subpart D of Part
1945 is added to read as follows:
Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Small Business
Administration (SBA) and the United
States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)-Farmers Home Administration
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985
(FmHA) Pertaining to Disaster Loan
Assistance Programs for Disasters
Commencing on or after October 1, 1983.
This Memorandum of Understanding
between Farmers Home Administration
and the Small Business Administration
results from Public Laws 98-270 and 98369. This legislation extended section
18(a) of the Small Business Act to
October 1, 1987. The relevant portion of
section 18(a) states that an agricultural
enterprise shall not be eligible for
physical disaster loan assistance from
SBA unless it is declined for, or would
be declined for, emergency loan
assistance from FmHA at substantially
similarinterest rates.
Pub. L. 98-270 also reduced SBA's
interest rates to a maximum 6f 8 percent
for those borrowers deemed to have
credit available elsewhere and 4 percent
for those borrowers without credit
available elsewhere. These interest rate
reductions have partially rendered
section 18(a) inoperative, as SBA and
FmHA interest rates on loans to
borrowers with credit available
elsewhere are no longer substantially
similar. Adoption of the procedures set
forth in this Memorandum of
understanding are necessary to avoid
undue delay and expense to applicants
and duplication of effort by the
signatory agencies.
The following procedures are
applicable to agricultural enterprises
seeking physical disasterloan
assistance from SBA or emergency (EM)
actual loss loan assistance from FmHA
for disaster which commenced on or
after October 1, 1983, and are so
declared a "Major Disaster" by the
President or declared a disaster area by
the Administrator of SBA.
1. Applicants making application to
SBA for physical disaster loans, or to
FmHA for EM loans, exceeding $100,000,
whether or not they can obtain credit
elsewhere, may file directly with FmHA
or with SBA, without a letter of referral,
because SBA interest rates to applicants
who have credit available elsewhere
and to those who have no credit
available elsewhere for amounts
exceeding $100,000 are substantially
lower than those of FmHA. However, if
during SBA's processing of an
application from an applicant unable to
get credit elsewhere, it becomes
apparent that the applicant's loan
eligibility at SBA is for less than
$100,000, the loan application will be
returned to the applicant with advice
that it be submitted to FmHA.
2. Applicants making application to
SBA for physical disaster loans of
$100,000 or less will be referred to
FmHA for assistance.
/ Rules and Regulations
27417
3. Applicants making application to
James C.Sanders,
FmHA for EM actual loss loans of
Administrator,Small Business
Administration.
$100,000 or less will:
a. If FmHA finds that an applicant has
Dated: January 23, 1985.
credit available elsewhere, be referred
Charles W. Shuman,
to SBA, by letter, stating that other
Administrator,FarmersHome
credit is available to the applicant. A
Administration.
determination by FmHA that the
Dated: January 31, 1985.
applicant has credit available elsewhere
Dwight 0. Calhoun,
will be accepted and binding on SBA.
Acting Associate Administrator.Farmers
b. If they do not meet FmHA's
Home Administration.
minimum loss requirements (physical
[FR Doc. 85-15901 Filed 7-2-85, 8:45 am]
and/or production losses), be referred to
BILUING CODE 3410-07-M
SBA, by letter, stating that the FmHA
minimum loss criterion, has not been
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
met. (In cases where applicants' loses
ADMINISTRATION
were sustained from disasters
commencingprior to October 1, 1983,
12 CFR Part 723
applicants will be advised that SBA has
substantially similar minimum loss
Federal Credit Unions; Operational
criteria as does FmHA; and therefore,
Systems; Removal of CFR Part
such applicants will not be referred to
AGENCY. National Credit Union
SBA for the reason of not having
Administration (NCUA).
sufficient losses to qualify for an EM
loan.)
ACTION: Final rule.
c. If determined ineligible by FmHA
SUMMARY: This action deletes Part 723,
for a credit reason(s) such as poor credit
Operational Systems, from the National
history, insufficient cash flow or
Credit Union Administration's Rules and
inadequate collateral, not be referred to
Regulations. While serving a useful
SBA.
purpose at the time of the promulgation,
d. If they are found ineligible by
the rule has been found to be of little
FmHA for a reason(s) of their status,
importance in today's environment.
such as: Certain aliens; corporations,
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
partnerships, and cooperatives not-being
ADDRESS: National Credit Union
primarily engaged in farming; or farm
Administration, 1778 G Street, NW,
owners who do not operate their own
Washington, DC 20456.
farms, be referred to SBA, by letter,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
stating the specific reason(s) for
F. Kushner, Office of Programs.
Martin
ineligibility, regardless of the amount of
(202) 357-1065.
Telephone:
is
the loan requested, or whether credit
INFORMATION:
SUPPLEMENTARY
or is not available elsewhere, or no
matter when the disaster commenced.
Background
Part 723, Operational Systems, was
This Memorandum of Understanding
adopted in 1974 when credit unions
supplements but does not replace the
were experimenting with numerous
Memorandum of Understanding
programs relating to electronic funds
between the two Agencies, dated
transfer systems. Since these sytems
September 26, 1980. That Memorandum
of Understanding continues in effect and were new to credit unions, it was
necessary for NCUA to closely monitor
is applicable only for disasters
the programs and determine their
commenced between July 31, 1980, and
potential impact on the credit union
September 30, 1983. Any physical
industry. The regulation, as currently
disaster loan applications received by
written, requires parties to submit pilot
SBA from agricultural enterprises as a
programs to NCUA for evaluation and
result of disasters which commenced on
approvaL After a review of the program
or after October 1, 1982, but prior to
NCUA can designate the proposal as a
October 1, 1983, which SBA accounts
pilot program and establish one or more
subsequent to the date of the signing of
pilot credit unions.
this Memorandum of Understanding,
Significant statutory and regulatory
will be processed by SBA under its
changes governing credit union
regulations in effect at the time of the
activities have occurred since this
commencement of the disaster: and are
regulation was adopted. The direction of
subject to the procedures set forth in
these changes has been to permit the
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above.
board of directors of each federal credit
union to determine the types of services,
1985.
June
10,
Dated:
27418
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
consistent with the powers stated in
section 107 of the Federal Credit Union
Act (12 U.S.C. 1757), it wishes to offer to
its members. Throughout the
deregulatory process, federal credit
union officials have continually
demonstrated the ability to make sound
business decisions, taking into account
the overall safety and soundness of their
credit union.
Accordingly, there is no longer a
demonstrated need to retain a regulation
that could limit the creativity of credit
union management and stifle innovative
ideas. Federal credit union officials
should feel free to experiment with new
services as long as they remain
cognizant of the limitations imposed by
the Federal Credit Union Act and the
NCUA Rules and Regulations and
consider the impact of any new
programs on the overall safety and
soundness of their credit union. When
considering any new program, credit
union officials should develop a detailed
plan, obtain a legal opinion if necessary,
and perform a cost analysis. When there
is any doubt of the legality of a new
program, credit unions are encouraged
to contact their regional office of the
NCUA to obtain an opinion on the
propriety of the program or service.
Regulatory Procedures
The NCUA Board hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small credit unions. Since the
elimination of the regulation will reduce
regulatory burden and does not create
any negative impact on credit unions,
the NCUA Board is issuing a final rule
without seeking comments from the
public.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule eliminates a paperwork
requirement currently in place and,
thereby, reduces the paperwork burden
of federal credit unions.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 723
Operational systems, Credit unions.
PART 723 [REMOVED]
Accordingly, Title 12 CFR Part 723 is
removed.
By the National Credit Union
Administration on the 12th day of June 1985.
Rosemary Brady,
Secretory of the NCUA Board.
[FR Doc. 85-15895 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
Small Business Size Standards; Size
Standard for Real Estate Agents
AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Emergency interim final rule.
SUMMARY: SBA is establishing an
interim emergency size standard for the
real estate agent industry of $1 million.
This size standard is necessary because
there is no standard for this industry. It
is needed to establish eligibility for real
estate firms for SBA financial assistance
programs.
DATE: Effective July 3, 1985. Comments
must be received August 2, 1985.
ADDRESS: Address all comments to:
Andrew A. Canellas, Director, Size
Standards Staff, Small Business
Administration, 1441 L Street, NW.,
Room 500, Washington, D.C. 20410.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Harvey D. Bronstein, Economist, Size
Standards Staff, (202) 653-6373.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SBA is
establishing a size standard for the real
estate agent industry, SIC-6531 on an
emergency basis in response to requests
for Economic Injury Disaster Loans
(EIDL). The Agency intends to consider
public comments before establishing a
permanent size standard. Because of the
urgency of disaster lending, however,
time does not permit the issuance of a
proposed rule before implementing this
final rule. By law, EIDL loans are limited
to small business, so a size standard is
necessary to determine the eligibility of
real estate agent firms for financial
assistance.
When examining the characteristics of
an industry for size standards purposes,
SBA normally relies on generally
accepted published statistical sources
such as the Census Bureau, Internal
Revenue Service, and others for a
description of industry structure. Data
on the number of firms, average firm
size by sales and employees,
distribution and range of firm sizes, and
so on, are essential for this task.
Because the normal statistical sources
provide little or no data on real estate
agents, SBA had to turn to trade sources
to obtain comparable information.
The National Association of Realtor's
(NAR) publications "Profile of Real
Estate Firms; 1984," "Membership
Profile 1984," and "Real Estate
Brokerage 1981," have proved quite
helpful. The Association says it has
100,000 members which are companies,
most of which are real estate agent
firms; this is estimated as covering
three-quarters of all firms in the
Industry. Another source which counts
numbers of firms is Dun &Bradstreet,
which estimates 75,000 in 1982. Based on
information presented in the "Profile of
Real Estate Firms", SBA has composed
the following table on firm size
distribution.
REAL ESTATE FIRMS BY SALES FORCE SIZE
CATEGORIES, 1984
Size of sales
force (percent)
5 or
less
persons
6-10
11-20
Firms ......................
50
23
Cumulative ............
'50
73
Sales force ............
10
12
Cumulative ...........
10
22
16
89
16
38
21-
Over
50
8
97
17
55
3
100
45
100
These data were compiled from a
survey of NAR members in which the
sample size was 1200 out of 6500 firms
contacted at random. Average firm size
as measured in salespersons was 10.
Within certain exceptions, SBA
usually tries to express size standards in
dollars, based on annual receipts. In the
real estate agent industry, receipts are
based on fees and commissions. These
receipts are distributed to the firm's
salespersons and to other participating
firms in a real estate transaction. The
residual from these distributions is
termed "Company Dollars"' and
according to NAR represents about 40
percent of the gross amount of fees and
commissions.
NAR's 1981 report provides detailed
financial information on real estate
agent firms. Its sample size, 417 firms, is
much smaller than the 1984 report and is
also biased, as it is overlyrepresentative of real estate agent firms
with better than average financial
performance. However, because it is the
latest report with such detailed
information, its results can be useful.
The report shows average firm size of
$271,000 in net receipts or Company
Dollars and 23.5 salespersons, for firms
in this sample. On a per salesperson
basis, this is $11,500 in Company
Dollars. These company dollars would
represent $28,800 in gross commissions
for 1981-
ICompany Dollars as defined by NAR represent
"the funds remaining from Gross Income after all
sales and listing commissions, including those to cobrokerage firms have been distributed."
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Derived by Gross
Commissions =
Company
Dollar
0.4
Adjusting this amount for inflation to
1984 results in $33,000 in gross
commissions.
The 1984 "Membership Prcfile"
indicates that median gross personal
income per salesperson is $15,000, based
on a mix of one-quarter part-time and
three-quarters full-time salespersons.
Since the salesperson's share of the
firm's total commissions is about 45
percent, the average salesperson brings
in about $33,000 in gross commissions.
Also, in discussions with NAR
economists and real estate agent firms,
it is believed that the current nationwide
average gross commissions or receipts
per salesperson are about $35,000.
Because this estimate is reasonably
close to the other derived figures, this
amount will be used to transpose the
firm size categories in the above table
from salespersons to receipts.
In the 1981 report, NAR informally
recognized four size categories of real
estate agent firms: small, medium, large,
and very large. These are not NAR's
official size categories nor were they
rigorously determined. They were used
for analytical purposes only. Measured
in terms of full-time equivalent sales
persons, the categories, respectively,
were: 10 or fewer, 11 to 30, 30 to 60, and
over 60 salespersons.
In determining a size standard, SBA
considered various alternatives. The
most commonly used size standard in
services is $3.5 million. This would be
approximately equivalent to 100
salespersons and would fall in the
extreme upper end of the size
distribution. Clearly $3.5 million is
inappropriate.
The above table also allows
examination of a 50 salespersons size
standard. Firms at or below this size
include 97 percent of all firms and 55
percent of sales. It is equivalent to about
$1.8 million in receipts. At this size, such
firms would probably do business from
3 or 4 establishments according to NAR
estimates. A 50 salesperson firm is well
within the large size category used by
NAR in its 1981 study. In addition, while
not a goal, SBA's size standards for all
industries in aggregate cover
approximately 40 percent of sales. Fiftyfive percent of industry sales would be
included by firms at a 50 salesperson
size standard.
A threshold in the firm size
distribution occurs between the small
and large NAR size categories at
between 10 and 30 salespersons. A size
standard of 20 salespersons would
include those in NAR's small category,
but only reach 89 percent of firms. In
general, SBA size standards reach 97 to
98 percent of firms.
Consequently, SBA is setting this
emergency size standard at the dollar
equivalent of 30 salespersons, $1 million
(based on fees and commissions). This
is below NAR's large size category.
Also, firms below this size standard
include about 93 percent of all firms and
45 percent of industry sales. Such a firm
would typically operate two
1,
establishments.
SBA's intent in measuring firm size for
this standard is that all sales and listing
commissions and fees to the firm from
all sources including other brokers be
included as receipts. The term
"Company Dollar," although widely
used in this industry, is a net figure and
does not indicate firm size for SBA
purposes.
Pursuant to the authority of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), this regulation is being
promulgated as a final rule. Due to the
urgent nature of disaster assistance,
SBA has determined that it is necessary
to establish this size standard quickly to
facilitate the efficient operation of the
disaster program. Publishing a proposed
rule and providing an opportunity to
comment before it can be promulgated
in final form would delay the necessary
assistance to the disaster victims, and
thus, would be contrary to the public
interest. SBA, however, intends to
accept public comments on this interim
emergency rule and will review them in
preparing a permanent size standard.
SBA has determined that this
regulation is a nonmajor rule as defined
by Executive Order 12291. The intent of
this action is to define the universe of
real estate agent businesses eligible for
financial assistance including EIDL
loans. In FY 1984, SBA made a total of
$85 million of EIDL loans in all
industries at an average loan size of
$77,000. The maximum loan size
permitted is $500,000. Because all
industries together accounted for $85
million in loans, the present action
pertaining to only one industry will have
an impact of far less than $100 million
per year. In addition, this regulation is
not likely to result in a major increase in
costs or prices or have a significant
adverse effect on the United States
economy.
SBA certifies pursuant to section 608
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. that this interim final rule is being
published pursuant to an emergency for
27419
the reasons indicated above, and the
SBA is therefore waiving the
requirements of section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. SBA will
publish a final regulatory analysis of its
final size standard in compliance with
section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, when the final size standard is
published. SBA also certifies that this
regulation contains no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements which are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121
Small businesses.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
contained in section 3(a) and 5(b)(6) of
the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)
and 634(b)(6).
1. The authority for Part 121 is revised
to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 3(a) and 5(b)(6), Small
Business Act, (15 U.S.C. 632(a) and 634(b)(6).
2. Section 121.2(c)(2) is amenddd by
adding the following entry to the table in
Division H, Major Group 65.
§ 121.2 [Amended]
(c) * * *
(2)*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
DIVISION H-FINANCE, INSURANCE AND REAL
ESTATE. MAJOR GROUP 65-REAL ESTATE
6531
Real estate agents and
managers.
$1 million (as measured
by gross fees and
commissions).
Dated: June 21, 1985.
James C. Sanders,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-15685 Filed 7-2-85: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development
Administration
[Docket No. 50582-5082]
13 CFR Part 302
Designation of Areas; Notification of
Officials
AGENCY: Economic Development
Administration (EDA), Commerce.
ACTION: Interim rule.
27420
SUMMARY:
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
This rule amends EDA's
regulations concerning notification by
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Development to local, State,
and national officials of redevelopment
area qualifying status, designation
status and modification or termination.
The amendments concern the time
when notification is to be given. Time
for giving notice and circumstances for
such notice are being changed to
promote inclusiveness and promptness.
DATES: Effective Date: July 3, 1985.
Comments by: September 3, 1985.
ADDRESS:
Send comments to the
Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building,
14th Street between Pennsylvania and
Constitution Avenues NW., Room 7800B,
Washington, D.C. 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Walter Archibald, Director, Office of
Compliance Review, Economic
Development Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Herbert C.
Hoover Building, 14th Street between
Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues
NW., Room 7329, Washington, D.C.
20230, (202) 377-2710.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EDA is
amending 13 CFR Part 302 on area
designation at Subpart D-Notice as to
when the Assistant Secretary is to notify
local, State and national officials.
Section 302.50(c) concerning notice of
termination, is being revised to add a
time for notice of modification. Notice of
termination or modification (except for
minor boundary changes) will be given
at the conclusion of the annual review of
area eligibility. If minor boundary
changes are being made, notice will be'
given whenever such actions occur.
Section 302.50(d) concerning notice of
qualification for area designation status,
is being changed to state that notice of
qualification will be given by the
Assistant Secretary whenever statistics
are received warranting such
qualification.
Because this rule relates to grants,
benefits, or contracts, it is exempt from
all requirements of section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553).
No other law requires that notice and
opportunity for comment be given for
the rule.
Accordingly, the Department's
General Counsel has determined and so
certified to the Office of Management
and Budget, that dispensing with notice
and opportunity for comment is
consistent with the APA and all other
relevant laws.
However, because the Department is
interested in receiving comments from
those who will benefit from
amendments to the rule being issued in
final, this rule is being issued as interim
final. Public comments on the interim
final rule are invited and should be sent
to the address listed in the "ADDRESS"
section above.
Comments received by September 3,
1985 will be considered in promulgating
a final rule.
Since notice and an opportunity for
comment are not required to be given for
this rule under section 553 of the APA (5
U.S.C. 553] or any other law, under
sections 603(a) and 604(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
603(a), 604(a)), no initial or final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has to be
or will be prepared.
Because this rule is exempt from the
requirements of section 553 of the APA,
it can be and is being made immediately
effective upon publication.
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12291
the Department must judge whether a
regulation is "major" within the meaning
of Section 1 of the Order and therefore
subject to the requirement that a
Regulatory Impact Analysis be
prepared. This regulation is not major
because it is not likely to result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions; or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
This rule does not contain a collection
of information for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 96511).
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 302
Community development.
PART 302-[AMENDED]
1. The authority for Part 302 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 701, Pub. L. 89-136, 79 Stat.
570 (42 U.S.C. 3211); sec. 1-105, DOC
Organization Order 10-4, as amended (40 FR
56702, as amended).
2. 13 CFR Part 302 Subpart D is
amended by revising paragraphs (c) and
(d) of section 302.50 to read as follows:
§ 302.50
Notification of public officials.
(c) Notice of termination or of
modification (other than minor
boundary adjustments) of area
qualification or designation status, will
be given at the conclusion of the annual
review of area eligibility. Notice of
minor boundary adjustment will be
made whenever such actions occur.
(d] Notice of qualification will be
given whenever statistics are received
by EDA warranting such qualification.
Dated: May 20, 1985.
Paul W. Bateman,
Deputy AssistantSecretaryfor Economic
Development.
4FR Doc. 85-15880 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-24-M
International Trade Administration
15 CFR Parts 376 and 399
[Docket No. 50455-50551
Foreign Policy Controls; Police-Model
Helmets
AGENCY: Office of Export
Administration, International Trade
Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Office of Export
Administration maintains the
Commodity Control List, which includes
all commodities subject to Department
of Commerce export controls, including
controls maintained for foreign policy
reasons.
Police-Model helmets are currently
controlled for reasons of foreign policy
(human rights/crime control) under
ECCN 5999B. However, it has been
determined that some policy-model
helmets are lined with materials
currently controlled under ECCNB
1746A and should, more appropriately,
be classified under this entry.
This rule amends the Export
Administration Regulations to state that
police-model helmets containing 50% or
more aromatic polyamide fiber by value
are included in ECCN 1746A and are
also subject to foreign policy controls
for reasons of human rights/crime
control.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective
July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Usrey, Exporter Assistance
Division, Office of Export
Administration, Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230
(Telephone: (202) 377-3856),
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Rulemaking Requirements
In connection with various rulemaking
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128
requirements, the Office of Export
Administration has determined that:
1. Since this regulation involves a
foreign affairs function of the United
States, the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553, requiring a notice of proposed
rulemaking, an opportunity for public
participation and a delay in effective
date are inapplicable.
2. This rule contains a collection of
information requirement under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. but does not impose.
any additional burden. The collection of
this information has been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
under control number 0625-0001.
3. Because a notice of proposed
rulemaking is not required to be
published for this rule, it is not a rule
within the meaning of section 601(2) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
601(2) and is not subject to the
requirements of that Act. Accordingly,
no initial or final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis has been or will be prepared.
4. Because this rule concerns a foreign
affairs function of the United States, it is
not a rule or regulation within the
meaning of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12291 and, accordingly, is not
subject to the requirements of that*
Order. Accordingly, no preliminary or
final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has
been or will be prepared.
Therefore, this regulation is issued in
final form. Although there is no formal
comment period, public comments on
this regulation are welcome on a
continuing basis.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Parts 376 and
399
Exports.
Accordingly, the Export
Administration Regulations (15 CFR Part
376 and 399) are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR
Part 376 is revised and 15 CFR Part 399
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 203, 206, Pub. L. 95-223,
Title 11,
91 Stat. 1626, 1628 (50 U.S.C. 1702,
1704). Executive Order No. 12470 of March 30,
1984 (49 FR 13099, April 3, 1984): Presidential
Notice of March 28, 1985 (50 FR 12513 March
29,1985).
PART 376-[AMENDED]
§ 376.14 [Amended]
2. Paragraph (a) of § 376.14 is
amended by revising the phrase"5680B, 4799B, 5998B and 5998B."-to
read-"5680B, 1746A (police-model
1 Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
helmets containing 50% or more
aromatic polyamide fiber by value only),
4799B, 5998B, and 5999B."
PART 399-[AMENDED]
§399.1 [Amended]
3. In Commodity Group 7, "Chemicals,
Metalloids, Petroleum Products and
Related Materials," of the Commodity
Control List (Supplement No. 1 to
§ 399.1), ECCN 1746A is amended by
revising the GL V $ Value Limit
paragraph and the Reason for Control
paragraph; and by adding a Special
Foreign Policy Controls paragraph and a
Technical Data paragraph, reading as
follows:
1746A Polymeric substances and
manufacturers thereof, as described in
this entry.
27421
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 558
New Animal Drugs for Use In Animal
Feeds; Tylosin
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending the
animal drug regulations to reflect
approval of a supplemental new animal
drug application (NADA) filed for Old
Monore Elevator & Supply Co., Inc.,
providing for the manufacture of 5-, 20-,
and 40-gram-per-pound tylosin premixes
used to make complete feeds for swine,
beef cattle, and chickens.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
GL V $ Value Limit: For police-model
helmets containing 50% or more
aromatic polyamide fiber by value, the $
value limit is $100 only to Australia,
Japan, New Zealand and members of
NATO and $0 to all other destinations.
For items other than such police-model
helmets, the $ value is $100 to Country
Groups T&V, except $0 for the People's
Republic of China; $0 for all other
destinations.
Processing Code: * * *
Reason for Control: National security;
crime control (foreign policy). Foreign
policy controls under this entry apply
only to police-model helmets.
SpecialLicenses Available: * * *
SpecialForeign Policy Controls:
Foreign policy controls apply to policemodel helmets controlled by this ECCN
to any destination except Australia,
Japan, New Zealand and members of
NATO. (See ECCN 5999B for foreign
policy controls 6n all other police model
helmets.)
Technical Data:Export of technical
data related to police-model helmets
containing 50% or more aromatic
polyamide fiber by value require a
validated license to all destinations
except Australia, Japan, New Zealand
and members of NATO.
Dated: April 2, 1985.
John K.Boidock,
Director,Office of Export Administration,
InternationalTrade Administration.
[FR Doc. 85-15874 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-OT-M
Benjamin A. Puyot, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-135), Food
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-4431414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Old
Monroe Elevator & Supply Co., Inc., Old
Monroe, MO 63369, is the sponsor of a
supplement to NADA 119-261 submitted
on its behalf by Elanco Products, Co.
The supplement provides for the
manufacture of 5-, 20-, and 40-gram-perpound tylosin premixes used to make
complete feeds for swine, beef cattle,
and chickens for use as in 21 CFR
558.625(f)(1)(i) through (vi). The firm
presently holds an approval under
NADA 119.261 for the manufacture of a
10-gram-per-pound tylosin premix for
such use. The supplement is approved
and the regulations are amended to
reflect the approval.
In accordance with the freedom of
information provisions of Part 20 (21
CFR Part 20) and § 514.11(e)(2)(ii) (21
CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii)), a summary of
safety and effectiveness data and
information submitted to support
approval of this application may be seen
in the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, Rm. 4-62, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.24 (d)(1)(i) (April 26, 1985; 50 FR
16636) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
27422
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
environmental impact statement is
required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Center for Veterinary Medicine, Part
558 is amended as follows:
PART 558-NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR
USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
Part 558 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 512, 82 Stat. 343-351 (21
U.S.C. 360b); 21 CFR 5.10 and 5.83.
2. Section 558.625 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(69) to read as
follows:
§ 558.625 Tylosin.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(69) To 026948: 5, 10, 20, and 40 grams
per pound, paragraph (f](1)(i) through
(vi) of this section.
*
*
*
,
Dated: June 25, 1985.
Marvin A. Norcross,
Acting Associate Directorfor Scientific
Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 85-15868 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 aml
BILLING CODE 4160-01-M
21 CFR Part 558
New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal
Feeds; Tylosin and Sulfamethazine
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending the
animal drug regulations to reflect
approval of a new animal drug
application (NADA) filed for Wayne
Feed Division, Continental Grain Co.
The NADA provides for manufacturing
premixes containing 5, 10, 20, or 40
grams per pound each of tylosin and
sulfamethazine used to make finished
swine feeds.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Benjamin A. Puyot, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-135), Food
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-4431414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wayne
Feed Division, Continental Grain Co.,
P.O. Box 459, Libertyville, IL 60048, is
sponsor of NADA 131-958 submitted on
its behalf by Elanco Products Co. The
NADA provides for the manufacture of
premixes containing 5, 10, 20, or 40
grams per pound each of tylosin (as
tylosin phosphate) and sulfamethazine
intended for use to subsequently make
finished swine feeds. The resulting feeds
are for use in maintaining weight gains
and feed efficiency in the presence of
atrophic rhinitis, lowering the incidence
and severity of Bordetella
bronchisepticarhinitis, preventing
swine dysentery (vibrionic), and
controlling swine pneumonias caused by
bacterial pathogens (Pasteurella
niultocida and/or Corynebacterium
oyogenes). The NADA is approved and
the regulations are amended to reflect
the approval. The basis for approval is
discussed in the freedom of information
summary.
In accordance with the freedom of
information provisions of Part 20 (21
CFR Part 20) and § 514.11(e)(2)(ii) (21
CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii)), a summary of
safety and effectiveness data and
information submitted to support
approval of this application may be seen
in the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, Rm. 4-62, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.24(d)(1)(i) (April 26, 1985; 50 FR
16636) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Center for Veterinary Medicine, Part
558 is amended as followA:
PART 558-NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR
USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
Part 558 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 512, 82 Stat. 343-351 (21
U.S.C. 360b); 21 CFR 5.10 and 5.83.
§ 558.630 [Amended]
2. In § 558.630 Tylosin and
sulfamethazine in paragraph (b)(10) by
adding numerically the number
"034936."
Dated: June 26, 1985.-
Lester M. Crawford,
Director,Centerfor VeterinaryMedicine.
[FR Doc. 85-15866 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-M
UNITED STATES INFORMATION
AGENCY
22 CFR Part 501
Appointment of Foreign Service
Personnel
AGENCY: United States Information
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The United States
Information Agency is amending its
regulations covering the appointment of
Foreign Service personnel. These
amendments establish the new
procedures for employment in the
Foreign Service in the United States
Information Agency.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Mr. Barry Ballow, Chief, Policies and
Services Staff, Office of Personnel,
United States. Information Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20547, (202) 485-2645.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Foreign Service Act of 1980, enacted
October 17, 1980, revised, among other
provisions, the types of and
requirements for Foreign Service
appointment and realigned the Foreign
Service salary structure. USIA published
proposed regulations on April 24, 1985
(50 FR 16098) to implement the new
legislation which became effective
February 15, 1981. No comments were
received during the comment period
which ended May 24, 1985. Therefore,
Chapter V, Part 501 is amended to
update the mid-level FSO Candidate
program; add a new section regarding
the appointment of Overseas
Specialists; substitute experience
requirements for minimum age for midlevel entry as an FSO Candidate; revise
the maximum age requirement; and
cross-reference Part 11 of Title 22
regulations governing eligibility for
appointment as a Foreign Service
Officer and the junior level Career
Candidate program, prescribed jointly
by the Department of State and USIA.
Typographical errors have been
corrected, but the meaning and intent of
the regulations have not been changed.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 501
Government employees.
E.O. 12291 Federal Regulation
USIA has determined that this is not a
major rule for the purposes of E.O.
12291, Federal Regulation, because it
will not result in:
(1) An annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more;
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
(2) A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3) Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
In addition, this rule relates solely to
Agency personnel and falls under
section I(a)(3) of E.O. 12291.
Dated: June 21, 1985.
Charles Z. Wick,
Director, United States'Information Agency.
Accordingly, 22 CFR, Chapter V, Part
501, has been revised and is published
in its entirety.
PART 501-APPOINTMENT OF
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
Sec.
501.1
Policy.
501.2 Eligibility for appointment as Foreign
Service Officer.
501.3 Noncompetitive interchange between
Civil Service and Foreign Service.
501.4 Junior Level Career Candidate
Program (Class 6, 5, or 4].
501.5 Mid-Level FSO Candidate Program
(Class 3, 2, or 1).
501.6 Appointment of Overseas Specialists.
501.7 Appointment as Chief of Mission.
501.8 Reappointment of Foreign Service
Officers and Career Overseas
Specialists.
501.9 Interchange of FSOs between USIA
and other Foeign Affairs Agencies.
Authority: Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 3901 et seq.).
§ 501.1 Policy.
It is the policy of the United States
Information Agency that Foreign Service
Officers occupy positions in which there
is a need and reasonable opportunity for
interchangeability of personnel between
the Agency and posts abroad, and
which are concerned with (a) the
conduct, observation, or analysis of
information and cultural activities, or (b)
the executive management of, or
administrative responsibility for, the
overseas operations of the Agency's
program.
§ 501.2 Eligibility for appointment as
Foreign Service Officer.
Cross-reference: The regulations
governing eligibility for appointment as
a Foreign Service Officer are codified in
Part 11 of this title.
§ 501.3 Noncompetitlve Interchange
between Civil Service and Foreign Service.
(a) An agreement between the Office
of Personnel Management and the
Agency under the provisions of
Executive Order 11219 (3 CFR 1964-65
Comp. p. 303) provides for the
noncompetitive appointment of present
or former Foreign Service employees as
career or career conditional Civil
Service employees.
(b) Under this agreement former
career personnel of the Agency's
Foreign Service (FSCR, FSRU, FSIO,
FSS, FSO, or FP) and such present
personnel desiring to transfer, are
eligible, under certain conditions, for
noncompetitive career or careerconditional appointment in any Federal
agency that desires to appoint them. The
President has authorized the Office of
Personnel Management by executive
order to waive the requirements for
competitive examination and
appointment for such Agency career
Foreign Service personnel.
(c) A present or former Civil Service
employee may be appointed on a
competitive basis in any Foreign Service
class for which the employee has
qualified under the provisions of section
3947 of title 22, United States Code.
§ 501.4 Junior Level Career Candidate
Programs (Class 6, 5, or 4).
Cross-reference: The regulations
governing the junior level Career
Candidate program are codified in Part
11 of this title.
§ 501.5 Mid-level FSO Candidate Program
(Class 3, 2, or 1).
(a) General. The mid-level FSO
Candidate program, under the
provisions of section 306 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980, supplements the
junior-level Career Candidate program
to meet total requirements for Foreign
Service Officers at the mid-level in the
Foreign Service. Foreign Service limited
appointments of FSO Candidates are
made to Class 3, 2, or 1 for a period not
to exceed five years. Occasionally,
appointments may be offered at the
Class 4 level. The FSO Commissioning
Board will determine whether FSO
Candidates have performed at a
satisfactory level and demonstrated the
required level of growth potential and
competence, and will make a
recommendation on commissioning as
Foreign Service Officers. FSO
Candidates who are not recommended
for commissioning prior to the
expiration of their limited appointment
will be separated from the mid-level
program.
(b) Sources of Applicants. (1) The
United States Information Agency
draws a significant number of FSO
Candidates from Agency employees
who apply, and are found qualified by
the Board of Examiners for the Foreign
Service (BEX).
27423
(2) The Agency also draws
Candidates from outside applicants who
possess skills and abilities in short
supply in the Foreign Service and who
have capabilities, insights, techniques,
experiences, and differences of outlook
which would serve to enrich the Foreign
Service and enable them to perform
effectively in assignments both abroad
and in the United States. Minority
applicants are recruited for mid-level
entry under the COMRAT program.
Appointment from sources outside the
Agency is limited and based on intake
levels established in accordance with
total USIA FSO workforce and
functional requirements. Such
appointments are based on successful
completion of the examination process,
and existing assignment vacancies.
(c) Eligibility Requirement. (1) USIA
Employees. On the date of application,
employees must have at least three
years of Federal Government. service in
a position of responsibility in the
Agency. A position of responsibility is
defined as service as an Overseas
Specialist at Class 4 or above or as a
Domestic Specialist at GS-11 or above
within the Agency. The duties and
responsibilities of the position occupied
by the applicant must have been similar
or closely related to those of a Foreign
Service Officer in terms of knowledge,
skills, abilities, and overseas
experience. Agency Domestic and
Overseas Specialists must be no more
than 58 years of age on the date of
redesignation or appointment as an FSO
Candidate.
(2) Applicants Under Special
Recruitment Programs.Minority and
women applicants must be no more than
58 years of age, must have
approximately nine years of education
or experience relevant to work
performed in USIA, must be
knowledgeable in the social, political
and cultural history of the U.S. and be
able to analyze and interpret this in
elation to U.S. Government policy and
American life.
(3) Outside Applicants. On the date of
appointment, applicants must be no
more than 58 years of age, with nine
years of relevant work experience and/
or education, or proficiency in a
language for which the Agency has a
need, or substantial management
expertise. Relevant work experience is
defined as public relations work,
supervisory or managerial positions in
communications media, program
director for a museum or university-level
teacher of political science, history,
English or other relevant disciplines.
Appointments from these sources for the
limited vacancies available are made on
27424
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128
a competitive basis to fill specific
Service needs after ensuring that the
vacancies cannot be filled by Foreign
Service Officers already in the Foreign
Service Officer Corps.
(d) Application Procedures.(1)
Applicants must complete Standard
Form 171, Application for Federal
Employment; Form DSP-34, Supplement
to Application for Federal Employment;
a 1,000 word autobiography, a statement
affirming willingness and capacity to
serve at any post worldwide; and
transcripts of all graduate and
undergraduate course work and forward
them to the Special Recruitment Branch,
Office of Personnel (M/PDSE).
(2) The filing of an application for the
Foreign Service does not in itself entitle
an applicant to examination. The
decision to proceed with an oral
examination is made by a Qualifications
Evaluation Panel after determining the
applicant's eligibility for appointment
and reviewing the applicant's
qualifications including his/her
performance, and administrative files
(or equivalents), claimed language
proficiency and other background or
factors which may be related to the
work performed by FSOs. An oral
examination is given only in those cases
where the applicant is found to possess
superior qualifications, proven ability,
and high potential for success in the
Foreign Service.
(e) Examination Process. (1) Written
Examination. A written examination
will not normally be required of
applicants for FSO Candidate
appointments. However, if the volume of
applications for a given class or classes
is such as to make it infeasible to
examine applicants orally within a
reasonable time, such applicants may be
required to take an appropriate written
examination prescribed by the Board of
Examiners. Those who meet or exceed
the passing level set by the Board of
Examiners on the written examination
will be eligible for selection for the oral
examination.
(2) OralExamination. (i) Applicants
approved by the Qualifications
Evaluation Panel for examination will
be given an oral examination by a panel
of Deputy Examiners approved by the
Board of Examiners. The oral
examination is designed to enable the
Board of Examiners to determine
whether applicants are functionally
qualified for work in the Foreign Service
at the mid-level, whether they would be
suitable representatives abroad of the
United States, whether they have the
potential to advance in the Foreign
Service, and whether they have the
background and experience to make a
contribution to the Foreign Service. The
/
Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
oral examination is individually
scheduled throughout the year and is
normally given in Washington, D.C. At
the discretion of the Board of
Examiners, it may be given in other
American cities, or at Foreign Servite
posts, selected by the Board.
(ii) The panel will orally examine each
applicant through questioning and
discussion. There will also be a writing
exercise and an in-basket test.
Applicants taking the oral examination
will be graded according to the
standards established by the Board of
Examiners. The application of anyone
whose score is at or above the passing
level set by the Board will be continued.
The application of anyone whose score
is below the passing level will be
terminated. The applicant may,
however, reapply in 12 months by
submitting a new application.
(3) Foreign LanguageRequirement.
All applicants who pass the oral
examination will be required to take a
subsequent test to measure their fluency
in foreign languages, or their aptitude for
learning them (MLAT) for which a score
of 50 points (on a scale of zero to eighty)
is necessary to qualify for further
processing. No applicant will be
recommended for career appointment
who has not demonstrated such a
proficiency or aptitude. An applicant
may be selected, appointed and
assigned without first having
demonstrated required proficiency in a
foreign language, but the appointment
will be subject to the condition that the
employee may not receive more than
one promotion and may not be
commissioned as an FSO until
proficiency in one foreign language is
achieved.
(4)MedicalExamination.Those
applicants recommended by the Board
of Examiners for an FSO candidacy, and
their dependents who will reside with
them overseas, are required to pass a
physical examination at the Department
of State Medical Division.
(5) Security and Suitability
Considerations.A background
investigation or appropriate security
clearance update will be conducted on
each applicant, and no application may
be continued until a security clearance
has been granted.
(6) Class of Appointment. The Board
of Examiners fixes the entry level for
appointment as an FSO candidate.
(7)Certificationfor Appointment.
After completion of all aspects of the
examination, the Board of Examiners
certifies to the Agency successful
candidates for appointment as FSO
Candidates. Determinations of duly
constituted panels of examiners and
deputy examiners are final, unless
modified by specific action of the Board
of Examiners for the Foreign Service.
(8)FSO CandidateRegisters. (i) After
approval by the Board of Examiners,
and certification as to suitability and
security clearance by the Agency's
Director of Security, successful
applicants will have their names placed
on a register for the class for which they
have been found qualified.
Appointments to available openings will
be made from the applicants entered on
the register for the class of the position
to be filled. Inclusion on the register
does not guarantee eventual assignment
and appointment as an FSO Candidate.
Applicants who have qualified but have
not been appointed because of lack of
openings will be dropped from the
register 18 months after the date of
placement on it (or the completion of an
inside applicant's current overseas tour,
whichever is longer). Such applicants
may reapply for the program, but will be
required to repeat the entire application
process, including BEX testing.
(ii) Any applicant on the-register who
refuses an assignment offer will be
removed from the Register and will not
be eligible to reapply for the program for
seven years.
(iii) The Board of Examiners may
extend the eligibility period when such
extension is in its judgment justified in
the interest of the Foreign Service.
(f)Appointment as an FSO Candidate.
(1) An FSO Candidate will be given a
four-year Foreign Service limited
appointment. Agency Career Overseas
Specialists will be redesignated as FSO
Candidates for a period of four years.
The appointment or redesignation may
be extended for one year, but must be
terminated at the end of the fifth year.
The purpose of the FSO Candidacy is to
permit on-the-job evaluation of an
individual's suitability and capacity for
effective service as a Foreign Service
Officer.
(2) FSO Candidates will be assigned
to Generalist positions overseas, and
will compete for promotion with other
Generalist officers under the Annual
Generalist Selection Boards. FSO
Candidates at the Class 1 level may not
compete for promotion into the Senior
Foreign Service prior to commissioning
as an FSO.
(3) The FSO Candidacy may be
terminated during the four-year period
for unsatisfactory performance (22
U.S.C. 4011) or for such other cause as
will promote the efficiency of the
Service (22 U.S.C. 4010].
(g) Commissioning as a Foreign
Service Officer. (1) Upon completion of
three years' service (most of which will
have been overseas), the FSO Candidate
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
will be eligible for commissioning as a
Foreign Service Officer. The FSO
Commissioning Board will review all
FSO Candidates appointed on or after
March 1, 1980 and will recommend on
tenure.
(2) The criterion used for deciding
whether to recommend commissioning
of FSO Candidates is the Candidate's
demonstrated potential to perform
effectively as a Foreign Service Officer
in a normal range of generalist
assignments up through the Class 1
level. No quota or numerical limit is
placed on the number of affirmative
decisions.
(3) If recommended for
commissioning, and having satisfied the
language proficiency requirements, the
name of the FSO. Candidate will be
forwarded to the President and the
Senate and, upon approval, the FSO
Candidate will be commissioned as an
FSO.
(4) If the FSO Commissioning Board
does not recommend commissioning of
the FSO Candidate during its review, it
may recommend extension of the FSO
Candidacy to allow for a future review.
Under no circumstances will an FSO
Candidacy be extended to a total of
more than five years.
(5) Candidates not recommended for
commissioning or who have not satisfied
the language proficiency requirement
will be separated from the Service at the
expiration of their appointment.
However, FSO Candidates who were
appointed from within the Agency with
career status as a Domestic or Overseas
Specialist may exercise reappointment
rights to their previous category in lieu
of separation.
§ 501.6 Appointment of Overseas
Specialists.
(a) General.Members of the Agency's
Foreign Service appointed as Overseas
Specialists serve on rotational U.S.overseas assignments in the following
types of positions: General
Administration; Publication Writers and
Editors; Exhibit Managers; Printing
Specialists; English Teaching
Specialists; Correspondents; Engineers
for the Voice of America; Regional
Librarian Consultants; and Secretaries.
Appointees serve a trial period of
service as Specialist Candidates under
Foreign Service limited appointments (or
redesignation) for a period not to exceed
five years. Appointments are made to
F.S. classes 8 through 1. Specialist
Candidates are given career
appointments as Overseas Specialists
based on the recommendations of
Specialist Selection Boards. Specialist
candidates not recommended for
tenuring will be separated from the
Foreign Service, or reinstated in the
Civil Service.
(b) Sources of Applicants. Qualified
USIA domestic employees comprise a
significant recruitment source for
Overseas Specialist appointments. Such
employees will be given priority
consideration over outside applicants
when applying for Overseas Specialist
positions, when qualifications are
otherwise equal.
(c) EligibilityRequirements. All
applicant must be citizens of the United
States, and must be at least 21 years of
age and no more than 58 years of age at
the time of appointment. The 21-year
age requirement may be waived by the
Director, Office of Personnel (M/P or
VOA/P) when she or he determines that
the applicant's services are urgently
needed. USIA employee applicants must
also have at least three years of Federal
government experience and occupy a
position at the GS-11 level (or
equivalent) or above (GS-1O for
Electronic Technicians in the Voice of
America). All applicants must be
available for worldwide assignment to
positions in their occupational category.
(d) Application Procedures.(1)
Applications for all specialties except
secretarial should include a current SF171, Application for Federal
Employment; a DSP-34, Supplement to
Application for Federal Employment:
university transcripts; a 1,000 word
autobiographical statement which
should include mention of the
qualifications the applicant would bring
to the job and reason for desiring to
work for the Agency; and a statement
affirming willingness and capacity to
serve at any post worldwide.
(2) Special Requirements for Foreign
Service Secretaries.Secretarial
applicants must submit a current SF171, Application for Federal
Employment, and a 250 word essay on a
commonly understood subject to
demonstrate grammatical competence.
The following specific requirements
must be met by applicants: Ability to
type accurately at 60 words per minute;
four years of secretarial or
administrative experience (business
school or college training may be
substituted for up to two years of
required work experience); and
attainment of an acceptable score in
verbal ability and spelling tests.
Applicants will subsequently be given a
written examination to measure
administrative aptitude.
(e) ExaminationProcess-(1)
Application Review. All applications are
to be sent to the Special Recruitment
Staff, Office of Personnel (M/PDSE), or
to the Foreign Personnel Advisor (VOA/
PF) for Voice of America positions.
27425
(2) QualificationsEvaluation Panel.A
Qualifications Evaluation Panel will
evaluate the applicant's qualifications
including his/her performance and
administrative files (or equivalent),
claimed language proficiency and other
background or factors which may be
related to the work performed by an
Overseas Specialist Officer in the
relevant specialty.
(3) OralExamination. (i) Applicants
who are passed on by the Qualifications
Evaluation Panel to the Board of
Examiners will be given an oral
examination to evaluate the applicant's
total qualifications for service as an
Overseas Specialist in the desired
functional specialty.
(ii) The Board panel examining all
candidates except those of the Voice of
America will consist of one USIA
Overseas Specialist and two BEX
Deputy Examiners. For VOA candidates,
the panel will consist of the Foreign
Personnel Advisor, a BEX Deputy
Examiner assigned to the Voice of
America, and a Deputy Examiner
assigned to the Board of Examiners.
(iii) The panel will examine each
applicant through questioning and
discussion. Hypothetical problemsolving exercises, a writing exercise and
an in-basket test may also be required.
The panel will also recommend the F.S.
entry level for appointment. If the
panel's recommendation is unfavorable,
the application process will be
discontinued. An unsuccessful applicant
may apply again in 12 months.
(4) The same medical and security
requirements applicable to FSO
Candidates pertain to Specialist
Candidates.
(5) Overseas Specialist Candidate
Register. If an applicant is successful in
the examination, and medical and
security clearances have been
successfuly completed, his/her name
will be added to the appropriate
Overseas Specialist Register for a period
of 18 months, or completion of an inside
candidate's current tour of duty
overseas, whichever is longer, at the
Foreign Service class determined in the
examination process and based on
previous experience. Inclusion on the
register does not guarantee eventual
assignment and appointment as an
Overseas Specialist Candidate.
(f) Appointment as a Specialist
Candidate.(1) When the Office of
Personnel identifies an overseas
vacancy which cannot be filled from the
existing ranks of Overseas Specialists,
applicants on the Overseas Specialist
register will be considered for the
assignment. An applicant will not be
appointed unless an overseas position
27426
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
has been identified and a need for the
individual in the Foreign Service has
been certified by the Director, Office of
Personnel (M/P or VOA/P). Any
applicant selected from the Register who
refuses an assignment offer will be
dropped from the Register and
precluded from reapplying for a period
of seven years.
(2) Applicants will be given a Foreign
Service limited appointment (or
redesignation) for a period of four years
at the Foreign Service Class determined
in the examination process. The purpose
of this untenured appointment is to
allow the Agency to evaluate and assess
the Specialist Candidate's abilities and
future potential prior to offering career
appointment as an Overseas Specialist.
The limited appointment may be
extended for one additional year, but
must be terminated at the end of the
fifth year if the Candidate does not
obtain career tenure.
(3) The Candidate will receive the
orientation and training necessary to
serve overseas and will be assigned
overseas in a position in his or her
specialty. USIA Civil Service employees
selected as Overseas Specialist
Candidates will be appointed only if the
Agency element to which they are
currently assigned is willing to affirm in
writing that a position at the appropriate
level will be made available for the
employee should the candidacy end
unsuccessfully. USIA Civil Service
applicants will be appointed as
Overseas Specialist Candidates on or
about the date of their departure for post
of assignment or upon assumption of an
assignment (which has been identified
and will follow a period of orientation in
Washington). The Agency may also
assign a Candidate to a U.S.-based
position for an initial assignment of up
to 24 months when the Candidate will
spend the majority of his/her time
traveling overseas and will, except for
the U.S. basing, be fully functioning as
an Overseas Specialist. Specialist
Candidates will compete for promotion
by the Annual Overseas Specialist
Selection Board with other officers in
the same specialty and at the same class
level. Specialist Candidates at the Class
1 level are ineligible for promotion into
the Senior Foreign Service.
(4) The Specialist candidacy may be
terminated a any time for unsatisfactory
performance (22 U.S.C. 4011) or for such
cause as will promote the efficiency of
the Service (22 U.S.C. 4010).
(g) CareerAppointment as an
Overseas Specialist.In accordance with
section 3946 of title 22 United States
Code, the decision to offer a Specialist
Candidate a career appointment will be
based on the recommendation made by
the Annual Overseas Specialist
Selection Board which reviews all
employees in the Candidate's
occupational category and class level.
(1) Eligibility. Specialist Candidates
who have performed at least two years
of overseas service will be eligible for
review for career status at the time of
the Candidate's third Board review.
Candidates serving an initial tour in the
U.S. but spending the majority of time
working overseas will be credited with
up to one year's overseas service, but no
more than half of the time based in the
U.S. If a Specialist Candidate is not
recommended for career status during
the initial review, the Candidate may be
reviewed again when the next Annual
Overseas Specialist Selection Board
convenes if the initial Board so
recommends.
(2) Selection BoardReview. The
Selection Board(s) will review the
official performance file of the eligible
Specialist Candidates and in accordance
with established precepts, will
determine whether the Candidates
should be recommended for career
appointment as Overseas Specialists.
Recommendations by the Board will be
based on the Candidate's demonstrated'
aptitude and fitness for a career in the
Foreign Service in their occupational
specialties. No quota or numerical limit
is placed on the number of positive
career status decisions that can be made
by Selection Boards. The Specialist
candidacy will be terminated if the
Candidate fails to be recommended for
career status after'a second Board
review for tenuring. Candidates may be
terminated earlier than the expiration of
their limited appointment if so
recommended by the Board and
approved by the Director, Office of
Personnel (M/P or VOA/P). Specialist
Candidates recommended for career
status by the Selection Board will be
given Foreign Service career
appointments (or redesignation) as
Overseas Specialist, to take effect
within one month of the Board's
recommendation.
§ 501.7 Appointment as Chief of Mission.
(a) Appointment by President.Chiefs
of mission are appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. They may be
career members of the Foreign Service
or they may be appointed from outside
the Service.
(b) Recommendation of Foreign
Service CareerMembers. On the basis
of recommendations made by the
Director of USIA, the Secretary of State
from time to time furnishes the President
with the names of Foreign Service
career members qualified for
appointment as chiefs of mission. The
names of these officers, together with
pertinent information concerning them,
are given to the President to assist him
in selecting qualified candidates for
appointment as chiefs of mission.
(c) Status of Foreign Service Career
Members Appointed as Chiefs of
Mission. Foreign Service career
members who are appointed as chiefs of
mission retain their career status as
Foreign Service career members.
§ 501.8 Reappointment of Foreign Service
Officers and Career Overseas Specialists.
The President may, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate,
reappoint to the Service a former
Foreign Service Officer who is separated
from the Service. The Director (USIA)
may reappoint to the Service a former
career Overseas Specialist.
(a) Requirements for Reappointment.
(1) On the date of application, each
applicant must be a citizen of the United
States.
(2) No applicant will be considered
who has previously been separated from
the Foreign Service pursuant to Section
608 or 610 of the Foreign Service Act of
1980 (or predecessor Sections 633, 635,
or 637 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946,
as amended); or who resigned or retired
in lieu of selection out or separation for
cause.
Note.-This requirement will not apply
where it has been determined by the Foreign
Service Grievance Board under 3 FAM 660 or
by the Director, Office of Personnel, that the
separation or the resignation or retirement in
lieu of selection out or separation for cause
was wrongful; where reappointment is
determined by the Director, Office of
Personnel, as an appropriate means to settle
a grievance or complaint of a former Foreign
Service career member on a mutually
satisfactory basis; or where reappointment is
the indicated redress in a proceeding under 3
FAM 130 "Equal Employment Opportunity."
(b) Application. Apply by letter
addressed to the Director, Office of
Personnel. Include the standard
application forms, SF-171, Application
for'Federal Employment; and DSP-34,
Supplement to Application for Federal
Employment; and a brief resume of work
and other experience since resignation
from the Foreign Service. Whenever the
Director, Office of Personnel, finds that
the reappointment of one or more former
Foreign Service Career Members may be
in the best interest of the Service, all
application forms, along with the
available personnel files, will be
referred as appropriate to the Board of
Examiners for the Foreign Service which
will conduct an advisory evaluation of
the qualifications of each applicant.
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 128 / Vednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rtiles and Regulations
(c) Nature of Evaluation. (1) The
Board of Examiners' advisory
qualifications evaluation of FSO
applicants (i) will be based on a review
of all pertinent information relating to
the applicant's record of employment in
the Foreign Service and to subsequent
experience, as well, and (ii) will take
into consideration among other factors,
the rank of the applicant's
contemporaries in the Service in
recommending the class in which the
applicant will be reappointed under
section 308 of the Foreign Service Act of
1980.
(2) In consultation with the Foreign
Service Personnel Division (M/PF or
VOA/PF) and officials from the
pertinent Agency elements, the
Overseas Specialist applicant's total
qualifications and experience will be
evaluated based on the application and
an interview. On the basis of this review
and the recommendations of the
appropriate officials, the personnel
office will determine whether the
application should be continued and, if
so, will recommend the appointment .
class.
(d) Medical Examinationand Security
Investigation.Qualified applicants and
their dependents who will accompany
them overseas will be given a physical
examination. A security investigation
will also be conducted. The
reappointment action is subject to
completion of a satisfactory security
investigation and satisfactory medical
examination of the applicant and his/
her dependents.
(e) Selection for Reappointment.The
Director, Office or Personnel (M/P or
VOA/P), taking into consideration (1)
the qualifications and experience of
each applicant as outlined in the
qualifications evaluation performed by
the Board of Examiners for the Foreign
Service or the personnel office, (2) future
placement and growth potential, and (3)
the needs of the Service for the
applicant's skills determines which
applicant, or applicants, are qualified for
reappointment and the appointment
class that is considered to be
appropriate. An Overseas Specialist
may not be reappointed until and unless
an overseas assignment has been
identified. The Director, Office of
Personnel (M/P or VOA/P) is
responsible for initiating appointment
action. Any voluntary applicant who
refuses an offer of reappointment will
not be considered for reappointment
again.
§501.9 Interchange of FSOs Between
and Other Foreign Affairs Agencies.
USIA
Foreign
Service Officers (FSOs)
desiring transfer from one agency to
another may apply under the following
provisions:
(a) Applications. Applications for
interchange appointments should be
sent to the Board of Examiners for the
Foreign Service, Department of State,
Washington, D.C. 20520.
(b) Certificationand Approval. (1)
When a Foreign Service Officer of
another Foreign Affairs Agency wishes
to transfer to the U.S. Information
Agency, a certification of need is
required from the Director, Office of
Personnel, USIA, and approval is
required by the Director of Personnel for
the other Agency for the officer's release
to USIA.
(2) When a USIA FSO wishes to
transfer to another Foreign Affairs
Agency, a certification of need is
required from the Director of Personnel
of the other Agency, and approval is
required by the Director, Office of
Personnel, USIA, for the officer's release
to that Agency.
(3) A review by the Board of
Examiners for the Foreign Service will
certify the eligibility of candidates for
exchange. BEX will notify the Office of
Personnel, USIA when a Foreign Service
Officer of another Agency has been
approved for transfer and USIA will
process the necessary employment
papers.
(4) A new FSO appointment for
officers transferring between another
Foreign Affairs Agency and USIA is not
required.
[FR Doc. 85-15760 Filed 7-2-5; 8:45 aml
BILUNG CODE 8230-01-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[T.D. 80341
Treatment of Funded Welfare Benefit
Plans
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,
Treasury.
ACTION: Temporary regulations.
SUMMARY: This document contains
temporary regulations relating to
welfare benefit funds maintained
pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement. This action is necessary
because of changes to the applicable
law made by the Tax Reform Act of
1984. The regulations provide guidance
concerning limits on contributions to
and reserves of a welfare benefit fund
maintained pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement. The text of the
temporary regulations set forth in this
27427
document also serves as the text of the
proposed regulations cross-referenced in
the notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Proposed Rules section of this issue of
the Federal Register.
The temporary regulations apply
to contributions paid or accrued after
December 31, 1985, and are effective
after December 31, 1985.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
John T. Ricotta of the Employee Plans
and Exempt Organizations Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, Internal
Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20224
(Attention: CC:EE) (202) 566-4396 (not a
toll-free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains temporary
regulations relating to limits on
contributions to and the reserves of
welfare benefit funds maintained
pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement under section 419A(f)(5) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(Code), as added to the Code by section
511 of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 (26
U.S.C. 419A). The temporary regulations
will remain in effect until superseded by
final regulations on his subject.
Format
These temporary regulations are
presented in the form of questions and
answers. Taxpayers may rely on them
for guidance pending the issuance of
final regulations. No inference should be
drawn regarding issues not expressly
raised, or by the inclusion or exclusion
of certain questions.
Written comments are requested
regarding current funding practices and
requirements of collectively bargained
welfare benefit funds, and the need for
special rules in selected situations, such
as for collectively bargained funds
maintained by employers in declining
industries. In addition, comments are
requested regarding appropriate rules
for allocating the assets of a welfare
benefit fund between employees
covered by a collective bargaining
agreement and other employees.
Nonapplicability of Executive Order
12291.
The Treasury Department has
determined that this regulation is not
subject to review under Executive Order
12291.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
No general notice of proposed
rulemaking is required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
for temporary regulations. Accordingly,
27428
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not
apply and a Regulatory Impact Analysis
is not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR 1.401-0.1.425-1
Income taxes, Employee benefit plans
Pensions, Stock options, Individual
retirement accounts, Employee stock
ownership plans.
Adoption of Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 1 is
amended as follows:
PART 1-[AMENDED]
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for
Part 1 continues to read in part:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Para. 2. A new §l.419A-2T is added
immediately following § 1.416-1 to read
as follows:
§ 1.419A-2T Qualified asset account
limitation for collectively bargained funds.
(Temporary)
Q-1: What account limits apply to
welfare benefit funds that are
maintained pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement?
A-1: Contributions to a welfare
benefit fund maintained pursuant to one
or more collective bargaining
agreements and the reserves of such a
fund generally are subject to the rules of
sections 419, 419A, and 512. However,
neither contributions to nor reserves of
such a collectively bargained welfare
benefit fund shall be treated as
exceeding the otherwise applicable
limits of section 419(b), 419A(b), or
512(a)(3)(E) until the earlier of: (i) The
date on which the last of the collective
bargaining agreements relating to the
fund in effect on, or ratified on or before,
the date of issuance of final regulations
concerning such limits for collectively
bargained welfare benefit funds
terminates (determined without regard
to any extension thereof agreed to after
the date of issuance of such final
regulations), or (ii) the date 3 years after
the issuance of such final regulations.
Q-2: What is a welfare benefit fund
maintained pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement for purposes of
Q&A-1?
A-2: (1) For purposes of Q&A-1, a
collectively bargained welfare benefit
fund is a welfare benefit fund that is
maintained pursuant to an agreement
which the Secretary of Labor determines
to be a collective bargaining agreement
.and which meets the requirements of the
Secretary of the Treasury as set forth in
2 below.
paragraph
(2) Notwithstanding
a determination
by the Secretary of Labor that an
agreement is a collective bargaining
agreement, a welfare benefit fund is
considered to be maintained pursuant to
a collective bargaining agreement only if
the benefits provided through the fund
were the subject of arms-length
negotiations between employee
representatives and one or more
employers, and if such agreement
between employee representatives and
one or more employers satisfies section
7701(a)(46) of the Code. Moreover, the
circumstances surrounding a collective
bargaining agreement must evidence
good faith bargaining between adverse
parties over the welfare benefits to be
provided through the fund. Finally, a
welfare benefit fund is not considered to
be maintained pursuant to acollective
bargaining agreement unless at least 50
percent of the employees eligible to
receive benefits under the fund are
covered by the collective bargaining
agreement.
(3) In the case of a collectively
bargained welfare benefit fund, only the
portion of the fund (as determined under
allocation rules to be provided by the
Commissioner] attributable to
employees covered by a collective
bargaining agreement, and from which
benefits for such employees are
provided, is considered to be maintained
pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement.
(i)Notwithstanding the preceding
paragraphs and pending the issuance of
regulations setting account limits for
collectively bargained welfare benefit
funds, a welfare benefit fund will not be
treated as a collectively bargained
welfare benefit fund for purposes of
Q&A-1 if and when, after July 1, 1985,
the number of employees who are not
covered by a collective bargaining
agreement and are eligible to receive
benefits under the fund increases by
reason of an amendment, merger, or
other action of the employer or the fund.
In addition, pending the issuance of such
regulations, for purposes of applying the
50 percent test of paragraph (2) to a
welfare benefit fund that is not in
existence on July 1, 1985, "90 percent"
shall be substituted for "50 percent".
There is a need for immediate
guidance with respect to the provisions
contained in this Treasury decision. For
this reason, it is found impracticable to
issue this Treasury decision with notice
and public procedure under subsection
(b) of section 553 of Title 5 of the United
States Code or subject to the effective
date limitation of subsection (d) of that
section.
M. Eddie Heironimus,
Acting Commissionerof InternalRevenue.
Approved: June 28,1985
Ronald A. Pearlman,
Assistant Secretaryof the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 85-15940 Filed 7-1-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
28 CFR Part 32
Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits
AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs,
Justice.
ACTION: Final regulation.
SUMMARY: The regulations covering
public safety officers' death benefits and
the appendix to those regulations are
being amended to comply with statutory
amendments to the Public Safety
Officers' Benefits [PSOB] Act. The
Bureau of Justice Assistance has been
authorized to administer the PSOB
program. As a nomenclature change, this
Bureau has been substituted for the
"Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration" as the admininstering
agency. Other changes to the regulation
include provision of coverage to Federal
public safety officers; changes to
facilitate transactions with the
Department of Labor; and clarification
of "gross negligence" and "intoxication"
standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles A. Lauer, 202-724-7792.
Proposed
regulations were published for comment
on March 19, 1985. One comment was
received from a State police department
addressing several technical issues
relating to the measurement of a
decedent's blood alcohol level. The
department's comments will be helpful
in reviewing specific claims but did not
warrant a change in the proposed
regulations.
Two changes reflecting the coverage
of Federal public safety officers have
been made in the final regulations. The
heading and text of § 32.5 has been
amended to state that the Bureau of
Justice Assistance will give substantial
weight to the investigative findings of
not only State and local agencies, but
Federal agencies as well. In addition,
§ 32.6(b) has been amended to clarify
that deaths of Federal public safety
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
officers are covered only if they result
from injuries sustained on or after
October 12, 1984.
The final regulations also include the
following amendments proposed on
March 19.
1. The Justice Assistance Act of 1984,
Title II of Pub. L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837
(Oct. 12, 1984) eliminated the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration
and created a bureau which administers
the Public Safety Officers' Benefits
Program called the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. Accordingly, the references
to the "Administration" have been
replaced by the term "Bureau of Justice
Assistance" or "Bureau" to reflect the
statutory change in the organization's
terminology.
2. An amendment to the benefits
payable section, section 1201(e), is
intended to facilitate our financial
transactions with the Department of
Labor with respect to benefits payable
under 5 U.S.C. 8191. It relieves the
Department of Labor of the
administrative burden of reimbursing
the Department of Justice for amounts it
paid to PSOB survivors who are also
eligible for section 8191 benefits. The
Department of Labor need no longer
make actual disbursements to the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, every time
a claim is paid under both programs.
(The 5 U.S.C. 8191 program is a benefits
program for the families of State and
local law enforcement officers that is
administered by the Department of
Labor.) As explained by the Senate
Judiciary Committee Report on S.241
(96th Cong.), at 58, "under the new
language the Department of Labor need
only keep internal records of payments
that would have been made under the
section 8191 program, but for the PSOB
Act, until such time as those payments
exceed the benefits awarded to the
beneficiary in question under PSOB. At
that time, the Department of Labor will
begin to makes whatever actual
payments may still be due section 8191
beneficiaries. The amendment codifies a
recommendation of the General
Accounting Office." (S. Rept. No. 96-142
(May 14, 1979))
3. An additional circumstance has
been added to the Act under which a
benefit will not be paid to a public
safety officer's survivors. If a public
safety officer was performing his or her
duties in a grossly negligent manner at
the time of his or her death (section
1202(3)) no benefit shall be paid. This
clarification of "line of duty" death
changes the rule of law established in
Haroldv. UnitedStates, Ct. Cl. 424-79
(Decided Sept. 10, 1980), in which the
court ordered payment to a law
enforcement officer because the PSOB
Act contained no provision which
expressly denied benefits to survivors of
an officer when his death was caused by
his own negligence.
4. The definition of "intoxication" has
been amended to reflect statutory
amendments to section 1203(4) of the
Act. Under the predecessor Act,
coverage was denied if it could be
shown that intoxication was the
proximate cause of death. Establishing
or disproving "proximate cause" was
extremely difficult. As a result, some
claims had to be paid where officers
were highly intoxicated. This new
amendment eliminates the causation
requirement and instead replaces it with
a two-tiered approach in which blood
alcohol levels are determinative of
intoxication.
5. The PSOB Act now covers Federal
law enforcement officers and fire
fighters killed in the line of duty in the
same manner as it covers State and
local public safety officers. This
amendment is applicable to covered
Federal public safety officers who were
killed in the line of duty after October
11, 1984. This death benefit to survivors
of Federal public safety officers is in
addition to death benefits that may be
received under the Federal employee
workers' compensation law (FECA), 5
U.S.C. 8191.
This order is not a rule within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This order is not a
"major rule" as defined by section 1(b)
of Executive Order No. 12291, 3 CFR
Part 127 (1981). The collection of
information requirements contained in
the proposed regulation have been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget for review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3504(h).
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32
Administrative practice and
procedure.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Title 28 CFR Part 32, is
revised as set forth below:
PART 32-PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS'
DEATH BENEFITS
Subpart A-Introduction
Sec.
32.1 Purpose.
32.2 Definitions.
Subpart B-Officers Covered
32.3
Coverage.
32.4 Reasonable doubt of coverage.
32.5 Findings of State, local, and Federal
agencies.
32.6 Conditions on payment.
32.7 Intentional misconduct of the officer.
32.8 Intention to bring about death.
32.9
27429
Voluntary intoxication.
Subpart C-Beneficaries
32.10 Order of priority.
32.11 Contributing factor to death.
32.12 Determination of relationship of
spouse.
32.13 Determination of relationship of child.
32.14 Determination of relationship of
parent.
32.15 Determination of dependency.
Subpart D-Interim and Reduced Payments
32.16 Interim payment in general.
32.17 Repayment and waiver of repayment.
32.18 Reduction of payment.
Subpart E-Filing and Processing of Claims
32.19 Persons executing claims'.
32.20
Claims.
32.21
Evidence.
32.22
Representation.
Subpart F-Determination, Hearing, and
Review
32.23 Finding of eligibility or ineligibility.
32.24 Request for a hearing.
Appendix to Part 32-PSOB Hearing and
Appeal Procedures.
Authority: Sacs. 801(a) and 1204(a) of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3701, et seq., as amended
(Pub. L. 90-351, as amended by Pub. L. 93-83,
Pub. L. 93-415, Pub. L. 94-430, Pub. L.94-503,
Pub. L. 95-115, Pub. L. 96-157, and Pub. L. 98473).
Subpart A-introduction
§ 32.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this regulation is to
implement the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Act of 1976 which authorizes
the Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Assistance to pay a benefit of
$50,000 to specified survivors of public
safety officers found to have died as the
direct and proximate result of a personal
injury sustained in the line of duty. The
Act is Part J of Title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 3701, et seq., as amended
by Pub. L. 93-83, Pub. L. 93-415, Pub. L.
94-430, Pub. L. 94-503, Pub. L. 95-115,
Pub. L. 96-157, and Pub. L. 98-473.
§ 32.2 Definitions.
(a) "The Act" means the Public Safety
Officers' Benefits Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.
3796, et seq., Pub. L. 94-430, 90 Stat. 1346
(September 29, 1976), as amended.
(b) "Bureau" means the Bureau of
Justice Assistance of the Office of
Justice Programs (hereinafter referred to
as the Bureau or BJA).
(c) "Line of duty" means any action
which an officer whose primary function
is crime control or reduction,
enforcement of the criminal law, or
suppression of fires is obligated or
authorized by rule, regqlations,
condition of employment or service, or
27430
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
law to perform, including those social,
ceremonial, or athletic functions to
which the officer is assigned, or for
which the officer is compensated, by the
public agency he serves. For other
officers, "line of duty" means any action
the officer is so obligated or authorized
to perform in the course of controlling or
reducing crime, enforcing the criminal
law, or suppressing fires.
(d) "Direct and proximate" or
"proximate" means that the antecedent
event is a substantial factor in the result.
(e) "Personal injury" means any
traumatic injury, as well as diseases
which are caused by or result from such
an injury, but not occupational diseases.
f)-"Traumatic injury" means a wound
or the condition of the body caused by
external force, including injuries
inflicted by bullets, explosives, sharp
instruments, blunt objects or other
physical blows, chemicals, electricity,
climatic conditions, infectious diseases,
radiation, and bacteria, but excluding
stress and strain.
(g) "Occupational disease" means a
disease which routinely constitutes a
special hazard in, or is commonly
regarded as a concomitant of the
officer's occupation.
(h) "Public safety officer" means any
individual serving a public agency in an
official capacity, with or without
compensation, as a law enforcement
officer or a firefighter.
(i) "Law enforcement officer" means
any individual involved in crime and
juvenile delinquency control or
reduction, or enforcement of the law,
including but not limited to police,
corrections, probation, parole, and
judicial officers.
(j) "Virefighter" includes any
individual serving as an officiallyrecognized or designated member of a
legally-organized volunteer fire
department.
(k) "Child" means any natural,
illegitimate, adopted, or posthumous
child or stepchild of a deceased public
safety officer who, at the time of the
public safety officer's death, is:
(1) Eighteen years of age or under;
(2) Over eighteen years of age and a
student, as defined in section 8101 of
Title 5, United States Code; or
(3) Over eighteen years of age and
incapable of self-support because of
physical or mental disability.
(1)
"Stepchild" means a child of the
officer's spouse who was living with,
dependent for support on, or otherwise
in a parent-child relationship, as set
forth in § 32.13(b) of the regulations,
with the officer at the time of the
officer's death. The relationship of
stepchild is not terminated by the
divorce, remarriage, or death of the
stepchild's natural or adoptive parent.
(in) "Student" means an individual
under 23 years of age who has not
completed four years of education
beyond the high school level and who is
regularly pursuing a full-time course of
study or training at an institution which
is:
(1) A school or college or university
operated or directly supported by the
United States, or by a State or local
government or political subdivision
thereof;
(2) A school or college or university
which has been accredited by a State or
by a State recognized or nationally
recognized accrediting agency or body;
(3) A school or college or university
not so accredited but whose credits are
accepted, on transfer, by at least three
institutions which are so accredited for
credit on the same basis as if transferred
from an institution so accredited; or
(4) An additional type of educational
or training institution as defined by the
Secretary of Labor.
Such an individual is deemed not to
have ceased to be a student during an
interim between school years if the
interim is not more than four months
and if the student shows to the
satisfaction of the Bureau that the
student has a bona fide intention of
continuing to pursue a full-time course
of study or training during the semester
or other enrollment period immediately
after the interim or during periods of
reasonable duration during which in the
judgment of the Bureau the student is
prevented by factors beyond the
student's control from pursuing the
student's education. A student whose
23rd birthday occurs during a semester
or other enrollment period is deemed a
student until the end of the semester or
other enrollment period.
(n) "Spouse" means the husband or
wife of the deceased officer at the time
of the officer's death, and includes a
spouse living apart from the officer at
the time of the officer's death for any
reason.
(o) "Dependent" means any individual
who was substantially reliant for
support upon the income of the
deceased public safety officer.
(p) "Intoxication" means a
disturbance of mental or physical
faculties(1) Resulting from the introduction of
alcohol into the body as evidenced by {i)
a post-mortem blood alcohol level of .20
per centum or greater or (ii) a postmortem blood alcohol level of at least
.10 per centum unless the Bureau
receives convincing evidence that the
public safety officer was not acting in an
intoxicated manner immediately prior to
the officer's death; or
(2) Resulting from drugs or other
substances in the body.
(q) "Public agency" means the United
States, any State of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands of the United States,
Guam, American Samoa, the Trust
Territories of the Pacific Islands, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and any territory or possession
of the United States, or any unit of local
government, department, agency, or
instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
(r) "Support" means food, shelter,
clothing, ordinary medical expenses,
and other ordinary and customary items
for maintenance of the person
supported.
Subpart B-Officers Covered
§32.3 Coverage.
In any case in which the Bureau
determines under regulations issued
pursuant to this part, that a public safety
officer, as defined in § 32.2(h), has died
as the direct and proximate result of a
personal injury sustained in the line of
duty, the Bureau shall pay a benefit of
$50,000 in the order specified in § 32.10,
subject to the conditions set forth in
§ 32.6.
§ 32.4 Reasonable doubt of coverage.
The Bureau shall resolve any
reasonable doubt arising from the
circumstances of the officer's death in
favor of payment of the death benefit.
§ 32.5 Findings of State, local, and Federal
agencies.
The Bureau will give substantial
weight to the evidence and findings of
fact presented by State, local, and
Federal administrative and investigative
agencies. The Bureau will request
additional assistance or conduct its own
investigation when it believes that the
existing evidence does not provide the
Bureau with a rational basis for a
decision on a material element of
eligibility.
§ 32.6 Conditions on payment.
(a) No benefit shall be paid(1) If the death was caused by the
intentional misconduct of the public
safety officer or by such officer's
intention to bring about the officer's
death;
(2) If the public safety officer was
voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the
officer's death;
(3) If the public safety officer was
performing the officer's duties in a
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
grossly negligent manner at the time of
the officer's death;
(4) To any individual who would
otherwise be entitled to a benefit under
this part if such individual's actions
were a substantial contributing factor to
the death of the public safety officer; or
(5) To any individual employed in a
capacity other than a civilian capacity.
(b) The Act applies only to deaths
occurring from injuries sustained on or
after September 29, 1976, except that
deaths of Federal public safety officers
are covered only if they result from
injuries sustained on or after October 12,
1984.
§ 32.7 Intentional misconduct of the
officar.
The Bureau will consider at least the
following factors in determining whether
death was caused by the intentional
misconduct of the officer:
(a) Whether the conduct was in
violation of rules and regulations of the
employer, or ordinances and laws; and
(1) Whether the officer knew the
conduct was prohibited and understood
its import;
(2) Whether there was a reasonable
excuse for the violation; or
(3) Whether the rule violated is
habitually observed and enforced;
(b) Whether the officer had previously
engaged in similar misconduct;
(c) Whether the officer's intentional
misconduct was a substantial factor in
the officer's death; and
(d) The existence of an intervening
force which would have independently
caused the officer's death and which
would not otherwise prohibit payment
of a death benefit pursuant to these
regulationS.
§32.8 Intention to bring about death.
The Bureau will consider at least the
following factors in determining whether
the officer intended to bring about the
officer's own death:
(a) Whether the death was caused by
insanity, through an uncontrollable
impulse or without conscious volition to
produce death;
(b) Whether the officer had a prior
history of attempted suicide;
(c) Whether the officer's intent to
bring about the officer's death was a
substantial factor in the officer's death;
and
(d) The existence of an intervening
force or action which would have
independently caused the officer's death
and which would not otherwise prohibit
payment of a death benefit pursuant to
these regulations.
§ 32.9 Voluntary Intoxication;
The Bureau will apply the following
evidentiary factors in cases in which
voluntary intoxication is at issue in an
officer's death.
(a) The primary factor in determining
intoxication at the time the injury
occurred, from which death resulted, is
the post-mortem blood alcohol level.
(1) Benefits will be denied if the
decedent had a post-mortem blood
alcohol level of .20 per centum or
greater; or
(2) Benefits will be denied if the
decedent has a post-mortem blood
alcohol level of at least .10 per centum
but less than .20 per centum unless the
Bureau receives convincing evidence
that the public safety officer was not
acting in an intoxicated manner
immediately prior to his death.
(b) Convincing evidence includes, but
is not limited to: Affidavits or
investigative reports demonstrating that
the decedent's speech, movement,
language, emotion, and judgment were
normal (for the officer) immediately
prior to the injury which caused the
death.
(c) In determining whether an officer's
intoxication was voluntary, the Bureau
will consider:
(1) Whether, and to what extent, the
officer had a prior history of voluntary
intoxication while in the line of duty;
(2) Whether and to what degree the
officer had previously used the
intoxicant in question; and
(3) Whether the intoxicant was
prescribed medically and was taken
within the prescribed dosage.
Subpart C-Beneficiaries
§ 32.10 Order of priority
(a) When the Bureau has determined
that a benefit may be paid according to
the provisions of Subpart B and § 32.11
of Subpart C, a benefit of $50,000 shall
be paid in the following order or
precedence:
(1) If there is no surviving child of
such officer, to the surviving spouse of
such officer;
(2) If there are a surviving child or
children and a surviving spouse, onehalf to the surviving child or children of
such officer in equal shares, and onehalf to the surviving spouse;
(3) If there is no surviving spouse, to
the child or children of such officer, in
equal shares; or
(4) If none of the above, to the
dependent parent or parents, in equal
shares.
(b) If no one qualifies as provided in
paragraph (a) of this section, no benefit
shall be paid.
§ 32.11
Contributing factor to death.
(a) No benefit shall be paid to any
person who would otherwise be entitled
27431
to a benefit under this part if such
person's intentional actions were a
substantial contributing factor to the
death of the public safety officer.
(b) When a potential beneficiary is
denied benefits under subsection (a), the
benefits shall be paid to the remaining
eligible survivors, if any, of the officer as
if the potential beneficiary denied
benefits did not survive the officer.
§ 32.12 Determination of relationship of
spouse.
(a) Marriage should be established by
one (or more) of the following types of
evidence in the following order of
preference:
(1) Copy of the public record of
marriage, certified or attested, or by an
abstract of the public record, containing
sufficent data to identify the parties, the
date and place of the marriage, and the
number of prior marriages by either
party if shown on the official record,
issued by the officer having custody of
the record or other public official
authorized to certify the record, or a
certified copy of the religious record of
marriage;
(2) Official report from a public
agency as to a marriage which occurred
while the officer was employed with
such agency;
(3) The affidavit of the clergyman or
magistrate who officiated;
(4) The original certificate of marriage
accompanied by proof of its genuineness
and the authority of the person to
perform the marriage;
(5) The affidavits or sworn statements
of two or more eyewitnesses to the
ceremony;
(6) In jurisdictions where "common
law" marriages are recognized, the
affidavits or certified statements of the
spouse setting forth all of the facts and
circumstances concerning the alleged
marriage, such as the agreement
between the parties at the beginning of
their cohabitation, the period of
cohabitation, places and dates of
residences, and whether children were
born as the result of the relationship.
This evidence should be supplemented
by affidavits or certified statements
from two or more persons who know as
the result of personal observation the
reputed relationship which existed
between the parties to the alleged
marriage including the period of
cohabitation, places of residences,
whether the parties held themselves out
as husband and wife and whether they
were generally accepted as such in the
communities in which they lived; or
(7) Any other evidence which would
reasonably support a belief by the
27432
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Bureau that a valid marriage actually
existed.
(b) BJA will not recognize a claimant
as a "common law" spouse under
§ 32.12(a)(6) unless the State of domicile
recognizes him or her as the spouse of
the officer.
(c) If applicable, certified copies of
divorce decrees of previous marriages or
death certificates of the former spouses
of either party must be submitted.
§ 32.13 Determination of relationship of
child.
(a) In general.A claimant is the child
of a public safety officer if the
individual's birth certificate shows the
officer as the individual's parent.
(b) Alternative. If the birth certificate
does not show the public safety officer
as the claimant's parent, the sufficiency
of the evidence will be determined in
accordance with the facts of a particular
case. Proof of the relationship may
consist of(1) An acknowledgement in writing
signed by the public safety officer; or
(2) Evidence that the officer has been
identifed as the child's parent by a
judicial decree ordering the officer to
contribute to the child's support or for
other purposes; or
(3) Any other evidence which
reasonably supports a finding of a
parent-child relationship, such as(i] A certified copy of the public
record of birth or a religious record
showing that the officer was the
informant and was named as the parent
of the child; or
(ii) Affidavits or sworn statements of
persons who know that the officer
accepted the child as his; or
(iii) Information obtained from a
public agency or public records, such as
school or welfare agencies, which shows
that with the officer's knowledge the
officer was named as the parent of the
child.
(c) Adopted child. Except as may be
provided in paragraph (b) of this section,
evidence of relationship must be shown
by a certified copy of the decree of
adoption and such other evidence as
may be necessary. In jurisdictions
where petition must be made to the
court for release of adoption documents
or information, or where the release of
such documents or information is
prohibited, a revised birth certificate
will be sufficient to establish the fact of
adoption.
(d) Stepchild.The relationship of a
stepchild to the deceased officer shall be
demonstrated by(1) Evidence of birth to the spouse of
the officer as required by paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section; or
(2) If adopted by the spouse, evidence
of adoption as required by paragraph (c)
of this section; or
(3) Other evidence, such as that
specified in § 32.13(b), which reasonably
supports the existence of a parent-child
relationship between the child and the
spouse;
(4) Evidence that the stepchild was
either(i) Living with; or
(ii) Dependent for support, as set forth
in § 32.15; or
(iii) In a parent-child relationship, as
set forth in § 32.13(b), with the officer at
the time of the officer's death, and
(5) Evidence of the marriage of the
officer and the spouse, as required by
(d) Step-parent.The relationship of a
step-parent to the deceased officer shall
be demonstrated by(1)(i) Evidence of the officer's birth to
the spouse of the step-parent as required
by § 32.13 (a) and (b); or
(ii) If adopted by the spouse or the
step-parent, proof of adoption as
required by § 32.13(c); or
(iii) Other evidence, such as that
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, which reasonably supports a
parent-child relationship between the
spouse and the officer, and
(2) Evidence of the marriage of the
spouse and the step-parents, as required
§ 32.12.
§32.15 Determination of dependency.
(a) To be eligible for a death benefit
under the Act, a parent or a stepchild
not living with the deceased officer at
the time of the officer's death shall
demonstrate that he or she was
substantially reliant for support upon
the income of the officer.
(b) The claimant parent or stepchild
shall demonstrate that he or she was
dependent upon the decedent at either
the time of the officer's death or of the
personal injury that was a substantial
factor in the officer's death.
(c) The claimant parent or stepchild
shall demonstrate dependency by
submitting a signed statement of
dependency within a year of the
officer's death. This statement shall
include the following information(1) A list of all sources of income or
support for the twelve months preceding
the officer's injury or death;
(2) The amount of income or value of
support derived from each source listed;
and
(3) The nature of support provided by
each source.
(d) Generally, the Bureau will
consider a parent or stepchild
"dependent" if he or she was reliant on
the income of the deceased officer for
over one-third of his or her support.
Subpart D-lnterim and Reduced
Payments
§ 32.14 Determination of relationship of
parent.
(a) In general A claimant is the
parent of a public safety officer if the
officer's birth certificate shows the
claimant as the officer's parent.
(b) Alternative. If the birth certificate
does not show the claimant as the
officer's parent, proof of the relationship
may be shown by(1) An acknowledgement in writing
signed by the claimant before the
officer's death; or
(2) Evidence that the claimant has
been identified as the officer's parent by
judicial decree ordering the claimant to
contribute to the officer's support or for
other purposes; or
(3) Any other evidence which
reasonably supports a finding of a
parent-child relationship, such as:
(i) A certified copy of the public
record of birth or a religious record
showing that the claimant was the
informant and was named as the parent
of the officer; or
(ii) Affidavits or sworn statements of
persons who know the claimant had
accepted the officer as the claimant's
child; or
(iii) Information obtained from a
public agency or public records, such as
school or welfare agencies, which shows
that with the officer's knowledge the
claimant had been named as the parent
of the child.
(c) Adoptive Parent.Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section,
evidence of relationship must be shown
by a certified copy of the decree of
adoption and such other evidence as
may be necessary. In jurisdictions
where petition must be made to the
court for release of adoption documents
or information, or where release of such
documents or information is prohibited,
a revised birth certificate showing the
claimant as the officer's parent will
suffice.
by § 32.12.
§32.16 Interim payment Ingeneral.
(a) Whenever the Bureau determines
upon a showing of need and prior to
final action that the death of a public
safety officer is one with respect to
which a benefit will probably be paid,
the Bureau may make an interim benefit
payment not exceeding $3,000 to the
individual entitled to receive a benefit
under Subpart C of this part.
(b) The amount of an interim payment
under this Subpart shall be deducted
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985
Federal Register
/
Vol. 50, No. 128
from the amount of any final benefit
paid to such individual.
§ 32.17 Repayment and waiver of
repayment.
Where there is no final benefit paid,
the recipient of any interim benefit paid
under § 32.16 shall be liable for
repayment of such amount. The Bureau
may waive all or part of such repayment
considering for this purpose the
hardship which would result from such
repayment.
§ 32.18 Reduction of payment.
(a) The benefit payable under this part
shall be in addition to any other benefit
that may be due from any other source,
except(1) Payments authorized by section
12(k) of the Act of September 1, 1916, as
amended (D.C. Code, Sec. 4-622);
(2) Benefits authorized by section 8191
of Title 5, United States Code, providing
compensation for law enforcement
officers not employed by the United
States killed in connection with the
commission of a crime against the
United States. Such beneficiaries shall
only receive benefits under such section
8191 that are in excess of the benefits
received under this part: and
(3) The .amount of the interim benefit
payment made to the claimant pursuant
to § 32.16.
(b) No benefit paid under this part
shall be subject to execution or
attachment.
Subpart E-Filing and Processing of
Claims
§ 32.19 Persons executing claims.
(a) The Bureau shall determine who is
the proper party to execute a claim in
accordance with the following rules(1) The claim shall be executed by the
claimant or the claimant's legally
designated representative if the
claimant is mentally competent and
physically able to execute the claim.
(2) If the claimant is mentally
incompetent or physically unable to
execute the claim; and
(i) Has a legally appointed guardian,
committee, or other representative, the
claim may be executed by such
guardian, committee, or other
representative, or
(ii) Is in the care of an institution, the
claim may be executed by the manager
or principal officer of such institution.
(3) For good cause shown, such as the
age or prolonged absence of the
claimant, the Bureau may accept a claim
executed by a person other than one
described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
of this section.
(b) Where the claim is executed by a
person other than the claimant, such
/
Wednesday, July 3, 1985
person shall, at the time of filing the
claim or within a reasonable time
thereafter, file evidence of such person's
authority to execute the claim on behalf
of such claimant in accordance with the
following rules(1) If the person executing the claim is
the legally-appointed guardian,
committee, or other legally-designated
representative of such claimant, the
evidence shall be a certificate executed
by the proper official of the court of
appointment.
(2) If the person executing the claim is
not such a legally-designated
representative, the evidence shall be a
statement describing such person's
relationship to the claimant or the
extent to which such person has the care
of such claimant or such person's
position as an officer of the institution of
which the claimant is an inmate or
patient. The Bureau may, at any time,
require additional evidence to establish
the authority of any such person to file
or withdraw a claim.
§ 32.20 Claims.
(a) Claimants are encouraged to
submit their claims on BJA Form 3650/1,
which can be obtained from: Public
Safety Officers' Benefits Program,
Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Washington, DC 20531.
(b) Where an individual files Form
3650/1 or other written statement with
the Bureau which indicates an intention
to claim benefits, the filing of such
written statement shall be considered to
be the filing of a claim for benefits.
(c) A claim by or on behalf of a
survivor of a public safety officer shall
be filed within one year after the date of
death unless the time for filing is
extended by the Director for good cause
shown.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in
this part, the withdrawal of a claim, the
cancellation of a request for such
withdrawal, or any notice provided for
pursuant to the regulations in this part,
shall be in writing and shall be signed
by the claimant or the person legally
designated to execute a claim under
§ 32.19.
§ 32.21 Evidence.
(a) A claimant for any benefit or fee
under the Act and the regulations shall
submit such evidence of eligibility or
other material facts as is specified by
these regulations. The Bureau may at
any time require additional evidence to
be submitted with regard to entitlement,
the right to receive payment, the amount
to be paid, or any other material issue.
(b) Whenever a claimant for any
benefit or fee under the Act and the
regulations has submitted no evidence
/ Rules and Regulations
I Rules and Regulations
27433
27433
or insufficient evidence of any material
issue or fact, the Bureau shall inform the
claimant what evidence is necessary for.
a determination as to such issue or fact
and shall request the claimant to submit
such evidence within a reasonable
specified time. The claimant's failure to
submit evidence on a material issue or
fact as requested by the Bureau shall be
a basis for determining that the claimant
fails to satisfy the conditions required to
award a benefit or fee or any part
thereof.
(c) In cases where a copy of a record,
document, or other evidence, or an
excerpt of information therefrom, is
acceptable as evidence in lieu of the
original, such copy or excerpt shall,
except as may otherwise clearly be
indicated thereon, be certified as a true
and exact copy or excerpt by the official
custodian of such record, or other public
official authorized to certify the copy.
§ 32.22 Representation.
(a) A claimant may be represented in
any proceeding before the Bureau by an
attorney or other person authorized to
act on behalf of the claimant pursuant to
§ 32.19.
(b) No contract for a stipulated fee or
for a fee on a contingent basis will be
recognized. Any agreement between a
representative and a claimant in
violation of this subsection is void.
(c) Any individual who desires to
charge or receive a fee for services
rendered for an individual in any
application or proceeding before the
Bureau must file a written petition
therefore in accordance with paragraph
(e) of this section. The amount of the fee
the petitioner may charge or receive, if
any, shall be determined by the Bureau
on the basis of the factors described in
paragraphs (e) and (g) of this section.
(d) Written notice of a fee
determination made under this section
shall be mailed to the representative
and the claimant at their last known
addresses. Such notice shall inform the
parties of the amount of the fee
authorized, the basis of the
determination, and the fact that the
Bureau assumes no responsibility for
payment.
(e) To obtain approval of a fee for
services performed before the Bureau, a
representative, upon completion of the
proceedings in which the representative
rendered services, must file with the
Bureau a written petition containing the
following information(1) The dates the representative's
services began and ended;
(2) An itemization of services
rendered with the amount of time spent
in hours, or parts thereof:
27434
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
(3) The amount of the fee the
representative desires to charge for
services performed;
(4] The amount of fee requested or
charged for services rendered on behalf
of the claimant in connection with other
claims or causes of action arising from
the officer's death before any State or
Federal court or agency;
(5) The amount and itemization of
expenses incurred for which
reimbursement has been made or is
expected;
(6) The special qualifications which
enabled the representative to render
valuable services to the claimant (this
requirement does not apply where the
representative is an attorney); and
(7] A statement showing that a copy
of the petition was sent to the claimant
and that the claimant was advised of the
claimant's opportunity to submit his or
her comments on the petition to BJA
within 20 days.
(fQNo fee determination will be made
by the Bureau until 20 days after the
date the petition was sent to the
claimant. The Bureau encourages the
claimant to submit comments on the
petition to the Bureau during the 20-day
period.
(g) In evaluating a request for
approval of a fee, the purpose of the
public safety officers' benefits
program-to provide a measure of
economic security for the beneficiaries
thereof-will be considered, together
I
with the following factors(1) The services performed (including
type of service);
(2) The complexity of the case;
(3] The level of skill and competence
required in rendition of the services;
(4) The amount of time spent on the
case;
(5) The results achieved;
(6) The level of administrative review
to which the claim was carried within
the Bureau and the level of such review
at which the representative entered the
proceedings;
(7) The amount of the fee requested
for services rendered, excluding the
amount of any expenses incurred, but
including any amount previously
authorized or requested;
(8) The customary fee for this kind of
service; and
(9) Other awards in similar cases.
(h) In determining the fee, the Bureau
shall consider and add thereto the
amount of reasonable and unreimbursed
expenses incurred in establishing the
claimant's case. No amount of
reimbursement shall be permitted for
expenses incurred in obtaining medical
or documentary evidence in support of
the claim which has previously been
obtained by the Bureau, and no
reimbursement shall be allowed for
expenses incurred by the claimant in
establishing or pursuing the claimant's
application for approval of his fee.
Subpart F-Determination, Hearing,
and Review
§ 32.23 Finding of eligibility or Ineligibility.
Upon making a finding of eligibility,
the Bureau shall notify each claimant of
its disposition of his or her claim. In
those cases where the Bureau has found
the claimant to be ineligible for a death
benefit, the Bureau shall specify the
reasons for the finding. The finding shall
set forth the findings of fact and
conclusions of law supporting the
decision. A copy of the decision,
together with information as to the right
to a hearing and review shall be mailed
to the claimant at his or her last known
address.
§ 32.24 Request for a hearing.
(a) A claimant may, within thirty (30)
days after notification of ineligibility by
the Bureau, request the Bureau to
reconsider its finding of ineligibility. The
Bureau shall provide the claimant the
opportunity for an oral hearing which
shall be held within sixty (60) days after
the request for reconsideration. The
claimant may waive the oral hearing
and present written evidence to the
Bureau within sixty (60) days after the
request. The request for hearing shall be
made to the Director, Public Safety
Officers' Benefits Program, BJA,
Washington, D.C. 20531.
(b) If requested, the oral hearing shall
be conducted before a hearing officer
authorized by the Bureau to conduct the
hearing, in any location agreeable to the
claimant and the hearing officer.
(c) In conducting the hearing, the
hearing officer shall not be bound by
common law or statutory rules of
evidence, by technical or formal rules of
procedure, or by Chapter 5 of the
Administrative Procedures Act, but must
conduct the hearing in such manner as
to best ascertain the rights of the
claimant. For this purpose the hearing
officer shall receive such relevant
evidence as may be introduced by the
claimant and shall, in addition, receive
such other evidence as the hearing
officer may determine to be necessary
or useful in evaluating the claim.
Evidence may be presented orally or in
the form of written statements and
exhibits. The hearing shall be recorded,
and the original of the complete
transcript shall be made a part of the
claims record.
(d Pursuant to 42 U.S.C., the hearing
officer may, whenever necessary:
(1) Issue subpoenas;
(2) Administer oaths;
(3) Examine witnesses; and
(4) Receive evidence at any place in
the United States.
(e) If the hearing officer believes that
there is relevant and material evidence
available which has not been presented
at the hearing, the hearing officer may
adjourn the hearing and, at any time
prior to mailing the decision, reopen the
hearing for the receipt of such evidence.
(f) A claimant may withdraw his or
her request for a hearing at any time
prior to the mailing of the decision by
written notice to the hearing officer so
stating, or by orally so stating at the
hearing. A claimant shall be deemed to
have abandoned his or her request for a
hearing if he or she fails to appear at the
time and place set for the hearing, and
does not, within 10 days after the time
set for the hearing, show good cause for
such failure to appear.
(g) The hearing officer shall, within
thirty (30) days after receipt of the last
piece of evidence relevant to the
proceeding, make a determination of
eligibility. The determination shall set
forth the findings of fact and
conclusions of law supporting the
determination. The hearing officer's
determination shall be the final agency
decision, except when it is reviewed by
the Director under paragraph (h) or (i).
(h) The Director may, on his or her
own motion, review a determination
made by a hearing officer. If the Director
decides to review the determination, the
Director shall:
(1) Inform the claimant of the hearing
officer's determination and his or her
decision to review that determination;
and
(2) Give the claimant 30 days to
comment on the record and offer new
evidence or argument on the issues in
controversy.
The Director, in accordance with the
facts found on review, may affirm or
reverse the hearing officer's
determination. The Director's
determination shall set forth the findings
of fact and conclusions of law
supporting the determination. The
Director's determination shall be the
final agency decision.
(i) A claimant determined ineligible
by a hearing officer under paragraph (g)
may, within thirty (30] days after
notification of the hearing officer's
determination:
(1) Request the Director to review the
record and the hearing officer's
determination; and
(2) Comment on the record, and offer
new evidence or argument on the issues
in controversy.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
The Director shall make the final agency
determination of eligibility within thirty
(30) days after expiration of the
comment period. The notice of final
determination shall set forth the findings
of fact and conclusions of law
supporting the determination. The
Director's determination shall be the
final agency decision.
(j) No payment of any portion of a
death benefit, except interim benefits
payable under § 32.16 shall be made
until all hearings and reviews which
may affect that payment have been
completed.
Appendix to Part 32-PSOB Hearing
and Appeal Procedures
a. Notification to Claimant of Denial.
These appeal procedures apply to a
claimant's I request for reconsideration of a
denial made by the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits (PSOB) Office (the PSOB Office).
The denial letter will advise the claimant of
the findings of fact and conclusions of law
supporting the PSOB Office's determination,
and of the appeal procedures available under
§ 32.24 of the PSOB regulations. A copy of
every document in the case file that (1)
contributed to the determination, and (2] was
not provided by the claimant shall also be
attached to the denial letter, except where
disclosure of the material would result in a
clearly unwarranted invasion of a third.
party's privacy. The attached material might
typically include medical opinions offered by
the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, legal
memoranda from the Office of General
Counsel of the Office of Justice Programs, or
memoranda to the file prepared by PSOB
Office staff. A copy of the PSOB regulations
shall also be enclosed.
b. Receipt of Appeal. 1. When an appeal
has been received, the PSOB Office will
assign the case, and transmit the complete
case file to a hearing officer. Assignments
will be made in turn, from a standing roster,
except in those cases where a case is
particularly suitable to a specific hearing
officer's experience.
2. The PSOB Office will inform the
claimant of the name of the hearing officer,
request submission of all evidence to the
hearing officer, and send a copy of this
appeals procedure. If an oral hearing is
requested, the PSOB Office will be
responsible for scheduling the hearing and
making the required travel arrangements.
3. The PSOB Office will be responsible for
providing all administrative support to the
hearing officer. An attorney from the Office
of General Counsel (OCC) who has not
participated in the consideration of the claim
will provide legal advice to the hearing
officer. The hearing officer is encouraged to
solicit the advice of the assigned OCC
attorney on all questions of law.
4. Prior to the hearing, the hearing officer
shall request the claimant to provide a list of
expected witnesses, and a brief summary of
their anticipated testimony.
'As used in this procedure, the word "claimant"
means a claimant for benefits or, where appropriate,
the claimant's designated representative.
c. Designationof Hearing Officers. A. In an
internal instruction the BJA Director
designated a roster of hearing officers to hear
PSOB appeals..
1. The hearing officers are specifically
delegated the Director's authority to:
(i) Issue subpoenas;
(ii) Administer oaths;
(iii) Examine witnesses; and
(iv) Receive evidence at any place in the
United States the officer may designate.
d. Conduct of the OialHearing.A. If
requested, an oral hearing shall be conducted
before the hearing officer in any location
agreeable to the officer and the claimant.
1. The hearing officer shall call the hearing
to order and advise the claimant of (1) the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
supporting the initial determination; (2) the
nature of the hearing officer's authority; and
(3] the manner in which the hearing will be
conducted and a determination reached.
2. In conducting the hearing, the hearing
officer shall not be bound by common law or
statutory rules of evidence, by tebhnical or
formal rules or procedures, or by Chapter 5 of
the Administrative Procedure Act, but must
conduct the hearing in such a manner as to
best ascertain the rights of the claimant.
3. The hearing officer shall receive such
relevant evidence as may be introduced by
the claimant and shall, in addition, receive
such other evidence as the hearing officer
may determine to be necessary or useful in
evaluating the claim.
4. Evidence may be presented orally or in
the form of written statements and exhibits.
All witnesses shall be sworn by oath or
affirmation.
5. If the hearing officer believes that there
is relevant and material evidence available
which has not been presented at the hearing,
the hearing may be adjourned and, at any
time prior to the mailing of notice of the
decision, reopened for the receipt of such
evidence. The officer should, in any event,
seek to conclude the hearing within 30 days
from the first day of the hearing.
6. All hearings shall be attended by the
claimant and his or her representative, and
such other persons as the hearing officer
deems necessary and proper. The wishes of
the claimant should always be solicited
before any other persons are admitted to the
hearing.
7. The hearing shall be recorded, and the
original of the complete transcript shall be
made a part of the claims record.
8. The hearing will be deemed closed on
the day the hearing officer receives the last
piece of evidence relevant to the proceeding.
9. If the claimant waives the oral hearing,
the hearing officer shall receive all relevant
written evidence the claimant wishes to
submit. The hearing officer may ask the
claimant to clarify, or explain the evidence
submitted, when appropriate. The hearing
officer should seek to close the record no
later than 60 days after the claimant's request
for reconsideration.
e. Determination.1. A copy of the
transcript shall be provided to the claimant,
to the PSOB Office, and OGC after the
conclusion of the hearing.
2. The hearing officer shall make his, or
her, determination no later than the 30th day
27435
after the last piece of evidence has been
received. Copies of the determiation shall be
made available to the PSOB Office and OGC
for their review.
3. If either the PSOB Office or OGC
disagrees wth the hearing officer's final
determination, that office may request the
Director to review the record. If the Director
agrees to review the record, the Director will
send the hearing officer's determination, all
comments received form the PSOB Office,
OGC, or other sources (except where
disclosure of the material would result in an
unwarranted invasion of privacy], and notice
of his or her intent to review the record, to
the claimant. The Director will also advise
the claimant of his or her opportunity to offer
comments, new evidence, and argument to
the Director within 30 days after the receipt
of notification. The Director shall seek to
advise all parties of the final agency decision
within 30 days after the expiration of the
comment period.
4. If the PSOB Office and OCC agree with
the hearing officer's determination, or the
Director declines to review the record, the
hearing officer's determination will be the
final agency decision, and will be sent to the
claimant by the PSOB Office immediately.
5. If the hearing officer's determination is a
denial, all material that (1) contributed to the
determination and [2) was not provided by
the claimant shall be attached to the denial
letter, except where disclosure of the material
would result in a clearly unwarranted
invasion of a third party's privacy. The
claimant will be given an opportunity to
request the Director to review the record and
the hearing officer's decision and to offer
comments, new evidence, or arguement to the
Director within 30 days. The Director shall
advise all parties of the final agency decision
within 30 days after the expiration of the
comment period.
6. The PSOB Office will provide
administrative support to the hearing officer
and the Director throughout the appeal
process.
Lois Haight Herrington,
AssistantAttorney General,Office ofJustice
Programs.
[FR Doc. 85-15815 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-tB-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
31 CFR Parts 500, 505, 515, 520, 535,
and 540
Embargo Program Regulations;
Technical and Clarifying Amendments
AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Office of Foreign Assets
Control is making a number of technical
and clarifying amendments to the
regulations imp'lmenting the embargo
27436
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
programs it administers. None of the
changes will alter the manner in which
the office administers. any of these
programs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis M. O'Connell, Director, Office of
Foreign Assets Control, Department of
the Treasury, Washington, D.C. 20220,
202/376-0395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notices
of approval pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act are being inserted into
each set of regulations. Section 505.10 is
being amended to update its citations.
Sections 500.101 and 515.101 are being
amended to clarify their effect and to
delete references to 8 CFR Chapter II,
which no longer exists. Section
500.201(d) is being amended to eliminate
a reference to the People's Republic of
China (the "PRC") which is no longer
subject to the Foreign Assets Control
Regulations. Section 500.206 is being
removed because it relates to the PRC
and is therefore obsolete. The definition
of "national" in § § 500,302(a)(1) and
515.302(a)(1) is being changed to reflect
more accurately the Office's application
of that term. Section 515.301 is being
amended to correct a typographical
error. Section 500.321 is being amended
to delete "The Panama Canal Zone"
from the definition of "United States," in
order to reflect the change in the status
of the Canal Zone under the Panama
Canal Treaty. Section 500.329 and
§ 515.329 are being amended to clarify
their meaning. Sections 500.413 and
500.414 are being removed because they
relate solely to § 500.541, which no
longer exists. Section 515.413 is being
amended to delete a reference to
§ 515.541, which no longer extsts.
Sections 500.505, 500.506 and 500.507
and §§ 515.505, 515.506 and 515.507 are
being removed and replaced by new
§ § 500.505 and 515.505, in order to
simplify and clarify the operation of
these licenses. SeIttion 500.528(b) is
being amended to simplify its operation
in accordance with current office
practice. Section 515.559(b) is being
amended to update its citations. Section
515.560(i) is being removed because it no
longer has any effect. Subsections
500.561 (d) and (e)are being 'removed
because they relate to the PRC, which is
no longer subject to the Foreign Assets
Control Regulations.
Since the regulations involve a foreign
affairs function, the provisions of the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.
553, requiring notice of proposed
rulemaking, opportunity for public
participation, and delay in effective
date, are inapplicable. Similarly,
because the amendments are issued
with respect to a foreign affairs function
of the United States, they are not subject
to Executive Order 12291 of February 19,
1981, dealing with Federal Regulations.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Parts 500, 505,
515, 520, 535, and 540
Foreign assets, Foreign trade.
PART 500-[AMENDED]
31 CFR Part 500 is amended as
follows:
1. The "Authority" paragraph for Part
500 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5, 40 Stat. 415, as amended:
50 U.S.C. App. 5,E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR
1938-1943 Comp., p. 1174; E.O. 9989, 13 FR
4891, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 748, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 500.101 is revised to read as
follows:
§500.101 Relation of this part to other
laws and regulations.
(a) This part is independent of Parts
505, 515, 520, 530, 535 and 540 of this
Chapter. No license or authorization
contained in or issued pursuant to one
of those parts, or any other provision of
law, authorizes any transaction
prohibited by this part.
(b) No license or authorization
contained in or issued pursuant to this
part shall be deemed to authorize any
transaction prohibited by any law other
than the Trading With the Enemy.Act,
50 U.S.C. App. 5(b), as amended, the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22
U.S.C. 2370, or any proclamation, order,
regulation or license issued pursuant
thereto.
3. Section 500.201(d) is revised to read
as follows:
§500.201 Tra nsactions Involving
designated foreign countries or their
nationals; effective date.
(d) The term "designated foreign
country" means a foreign country in the
following schedule, and the terms
"effective date" and "effective date of
this section" mean with respect to any
designated foreign country, or any
national thereof, 12:01 a.m. eastern
standard time of the date specified in
the following schedule, except as
specifically noted after the country or
area.
Schedule
(1) North Korea, i.e., Korea north of
the 38th parallel of north latitude:
December 17, 1950.
(2) Cambodia: April 17, 1975.
(3) North Vietnam, i.e., Vietnam north
of the 17th parallel of north latitude:
May 5, 1984.
(4) South Vietnam, i.e., Vietnam south
of the 17th parallel of north latitude:
April 30, 1975, at 12:00 p.m. e.d.t.
§ 500.206 [Removed]
4. Section 500.206 is removed.
5. Section 500.302(a)(1) is revised to
read as follows:
§ 500.302 National.
(a) The term "national" shall include:
(1) A subject or citizen of a country or
any person who has been domiciled in
or a permanent resident of that country
at any time on or since the "effective
date," except persons who were resident
or domiciled there in the service of the
U.S. Government.
6. Section 500.321 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 500.321 United States; Continental
United States.
The term "United States" means the
United States and all areas under the
jurisdiction or authority thereof,
including U.S. trust territories and
commonwealths. The term "continental
United States" means the states of the
United States and the District of
Columbia.
7. Section 500.329 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 500.329 Person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.
The term "person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States"
includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located,
who is a citizen or resident of the United
States;
(b) Any person within the United
States as defined in § 500.330;
(c) Any corporation organized under
the laws of the United States or of any
state, territory, possession, or district of
the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, or
association, wherever organized or
doing business, that is owned or
controlled by persons specified in
paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.
§ 500.413 [Removed]
8. Section 500.413 is removed.
§ 500.414 [Removed]
9. Section 500.414 is removed.
10. Section 500.505 is revised to read
as follows:
§500.505 Certain persons unblocked.
(a) The following persons are hereby
licensed as unblocked nationals:
(1) Any individual resident in the
United States who is not a specially
designated national; and
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 /-Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Any corporation, partnership or
association that would be a designated
national solely because of the interest
thereip of an individual licensed in
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section as an
unblocked national.
(b) Individual nationals of a
designated country who take up
residence in the authorized trade
territory may apply to the Office of
Foreign Assets Control to be specifically
licensed as unblocked nationals.
(c) The licensing of any person as an
unblocked national shall not suspend
the requirements of any section of this
Chapter relating to the maintenance or
production of records.
§ 500.506 [Removed]
11. Section 500.506 is removed,
§500.507 [Removed]
12. Section 500.507 is removed.
13. Section 500.528(b) is revised to
read as follows:
§ 500.528 Certain transactions with
respect to blocked foreign patents,
trademarks and copyrights authorized.
(b) Payments effected pursuant to the
terms of paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this
section may not be made from any
blocked account.
§ 500.561 [Amended]
14. Section 500.561 is amended by
removing paragraphs (d) and (e).
15. New § 500.901 is added to read as
follows:
Subpart I-Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 500.901 Paperwork Reduction Act
notice.
The information collection
requirements in §§ 500.517(c), 500.527(c),
500.549, 500.550 (a) and (b), 500.551,
500.552, 500.554 (a) and (b), 500.556 (a)
and (b), 500.557, 500.558, 500.559, 500.560,
500.561, 500.562, and 500.801 have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act and assigned control
number 1505-0075.
PART 505---AMENDED]
31 CFR Part 505 is amended as
follows:
1. The "Authority" paragraph for Part
505 is amended to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5, 40 Stat. 415, as amended;
50 U.S.C. App. 5, E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR,
1938-1943 Comp., p. 1174; E.O. 9989, 13 FR
4891, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp. p. 748, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 505.10(b) is revised to read
as follows:
§ 505.10 Prohibitions.
(b) The merchandise is included in the
Commodity Control List of the U.S.
Department of Commerce (15 CFR Part
399) and identified by the code letter
"A" following the Export Control
Commodity Numbers, or of a type the
unauthorized eiportation of which from
the United States is prohibited by
regulations issued under the Arms
Export Control Act of 1976, 22 U.S.C.
2778, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., or successor acts
restricting the export of strategic goods.
Schedule
Albania
Bulgaria
Cambodia (Kampuchea)
Czechoslovakia
Estonia
German Democratic
Republic
East Berlin
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
North Korea
Outer Mongolia
People's Republic of
China
Poland and Danzig
Romania
Tibet
U.S.S.R.
Vietnam
PART 515-[AMENDED]
31 CFR Part 515 is amended as
follows:
1. The "Authority" paragraph for Part
515 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5,40 Stat. 415, as amended,
50 U.S.C. App. 5; Sec. 620(a), 75 Stat. 445, 22
U.S.C. 2370(a); Proc. 3447, 27 FR 1085, 3 CFR,
1959-1963 Comp., E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR
1938-1943 Comp., p. 1174; E.O. 9989, 13 FR
4891, 3 CFR 1943-1948 Comp., p. 748.
2. Section 515.101 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 515.101 Relation of this part to other
laws and regulations.
(a) This part is independent of Parts
500, 505, 520, 530, 535, and 540 of this
Chapter. No license or authorization
contained in or issued pursuant to one
of those parts, or any other provision of
law, authorizes any transaction
prohibited by this part.
(b) No license or authorization
contained in or issued pursuant to this
part shall be deemed to authorize any
transaction prohibited by any law other
than the Trading With the Enemy Act,
50 U.S.C. App. 5(b), as amended, the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 22
U.S.C. 2370, or any proclamation, order,
regulation or license issued pursuant
thereto.
3. Section 515.302(a)(1) is amended to
read as follows:
§ 515.302 National.
(a) The term "national" shall include:
(1) A subject or citizen of a country or
any person who has been domiciled in
or a permanent resident of that country
at any time on or since the "effective
27437
date," except persons who were resident
or domiciled there in the service of the
U.S. Government.
§ 515.311 [Amended]
4. Section 515.311 is amended by
changing the comma following the word
"bankers" to an apostrophe, so that the
sentence reads" . .,bankers'
acceptances ....
5. Section 515.329 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 515.329 Person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.
The term "person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States"
includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located,
who is a citizen or resident of the United
States;
(b) Any person within the United
States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation organized under
the laws of the United States or of any
State, territory possession, or district of
the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, or
association, wherever organized or
doing business, that is owned or
controlled by persons specified in
paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section:
6. Section 515.413 is revised as
follows:
§ 515.413 Furnishing technical advice to
American-owned foreign firms.
Section 515.201 of the regulations does
not prohibit an engineering firm in the
United States from providing technical
assistance to a person in a third country
with respect to specifications, quality
control, etc., although such advice may
result in purchases by that third country
of goods of Cuban origin. However, the
engineering firm may not itself procure
any such goods for its own account or
for that of the foreign person.
7. Section 515.505 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 515.505 Certain persons unblocked.
(a) The following persons are hereby
licensed as unblocked nationals.
(1) Any individual resident in the
United States who is not a specially
designated national; and
(2) Any corporation, partnership or
association that would be a designated
national solely because of the interest
therein of an individual licensed in
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section as an
unblocked national.
(b) Individual nationals of a
designated country who have taken up
residence in the authorized trade
territory may apply to the Office of
27438
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Foreign Assets Control to be specifically
licensed as unblocked nationals.
(c) The licensing of any person as an
unblocked national shall not suspend
the requirements of any section of this
Chapter relating to the maintenance or
production of records.
§ 515.506 [Removed]
8. Section 515.506 is removed.
§ 515.507 [Removed]
9. Section 515.507 is removed.
10. Section 515.559(b) is revised to
read as follows:
§ 515.559 Transactions by Americanowned or controlled foreign firms with
Cuba.
(b) The term "strategic goods" means
any item, regardless of origin, of a type
included in the Commodity Control List
of the U.S. Dapartment of Commerce (15
CFR Part 399) and identified by the code
letter "A" following the Export Control
Commodity Numbers, or of a type the
unauthorized exportation of which from
the United States is prohibited by
regulations issued under the Arms
Export Control Act of 1976, 22 U.S.C.
2778, or under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq., or successor
acts restricting the export of strategic
goods.
§ 515.560 [Amended]
11. Section 515.560(i) is removed, and
replaced by the notation "[reserved]."
12. New § 515.901 is added to read as
follows:
Subpart I-Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 515.901 Paperwork Reduction Act
notice.
The information collection
requirements in §§ 515.527(c), 515.542(c),
515.543, 515.544 (a) and (b), 515.545(a) (1)
and (2), 515.545(b), 515.546, 515.547,
515.548, 515.549 (a) and (b), 515.550,
515.551(a) (1), (2) and (3), 515.552(a) (1)
(2) and (3), 515.553, 515.554, 515.555,
515.556, 515.557, 515.558, 515.559, 515.560,
515.565, and 515.801 have been approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction
Act and assigned control number 15050075.
PART 520-4AMENDED]
31 CFR Part 520 is amended as
follows:
1. The "Authority" paragraph for Part
520 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5,40 Stat. 415. as amended;
50 U.S.C. App. 5; E.O. 8389, Apr. 10, 1940, 5 FR
1400, as amended by E.O. 8785, June 14, 1941,
6 FR 2897, E.O. 8832, July 26, 1941. 6 FR 3715,
E.O. 8963, Dec. 9, 1941, 6 FR 6348, E.O. 8998,
Dec. 26, 1941, 6 FR 6785, E.O. 9193. July 6.
1942, 7 FR 5205; 3 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp; E.O.
10348, Apr. 26, 1952, 17 FR 3769, 3 CFR, 19491953 Comp.. p. 871; E.O. 11281, May 13, 1966,
31 FR 7215, 3 CFR, 1966 Supp.. unless
otherwise noted.
Dated: June 27.1985.
Dennis M. O'Connell,
Director,Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Edward T. Stevenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary(Enforcement and
Operations).
[FR Doc. 85-15919 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
2. New § 520.901 is added as follows:
Subpart I-Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 520.901 Paperwork Reduction Act
notice.
The information collection
requirements in §§ 520.205(e) (1) and (5)
and 520.801 have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act and
assigned control number 1505-0075.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 76
[Docket Nos. 20521, 20548, etc.; FCC
85-252]
Multiple and Cross-Ownership of AM,
FM, TV, and CATV Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
PART 535-[AMENDED]
31 CFR Part 535 is amended as
follows:
1. The "Authority" paragraph for Part
535 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 201-207, 91 Stat. 1626; 50
U.S.C. 1701-1706; E.O. 12170.44 FR 65729;
EO. 12205, 45 FR 24099: E.O. 12211. 45 FR
26685; unless otherwise noted.
2. New § 535.905 is added to read as
follows: § 535.905 Paperwork Reduction Act
notice.
The information collection
requirements in § § 535.568 and 535.801
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget and assigned
control number 1505-0075.
PART 540-[AMENDED]
31 CFR Part 540 is amended as
follows:
1. The "Authority" paragraph for Part
540 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 201-207, 91 Stat. 1626,
50 U.S.C. 1701-1706: E.O. 12513.
2. New § 540.901 is added to read as
follows:
Subpart I-Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 540.901 Paperwork Reduction Act
notice.
The information collection
requirements in § § 540.504, 540.505,
540.540, 540.541, 540.601, and 540.602
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget and assigned
control number 1505-0089.
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
Commission, on reconsideration, revises
in part the standards for exempting from
attribution limited partnership intcests
in broadcast, cable television, ind
newspaper properties in the application
of the media multiple ownership rules.
In addition, the Commission, on its own
motion, clarifies certain matters relating
to the aggregation of ownership interests
and revises certain reporting
requirements relating to the attribution
standards. This action is necessary to
eliminate ambiguities and apparent
inconsistencies in the present attribution
standards, to simplify the regulatory
structure relating to attribution and to
provide additional guidance to persons
who are subject to these rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel Bergold, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 632-7792.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting, Television.
47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
In the matter of Corporate Ownership
Reporting and Disclosure by Broadcast
Licensees, Docket No. 20521; Amendment of
§ § 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636 of the
Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple
Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television
Broadcast Stations, Docket No. 20548:
Amendment § § 73.35, 73.240, 73.636 and
76.501 of the Commission's Rules relating to
Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, and
Television Stations and CATV Systems, BC
Docket No. 78-239: and Reexamination of the
Commission's Rules and Policies Regarding
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
the Attribution of Ownership Interests in
Broadcast, Cable Television and Newspaper
Entities, MM Docket No. 83-46, RM-3653,
RM-3695, and RM-4045.
Adopted: May 9, 1985.
Released: June 24, 1985.
By the Commission: Commissioner Rivera
not participating.
1. Before the Commission are petitions
for reconsideration of the Report and
Order ("Report') I in the abovecaptioned proceedings filed by the
American Council of Life Insurance
("Council") and Michael Couzens, P.C.
("Couzens") as well as various
oppositions filed against these
petitions. 2 After careful review of the
petitions, the responsive pleadings and
our Report, we are persuaded to modify
our attribution policy as it relates to
limited partnerships. Specifically, we
eliminate a threshold requirement that
nonattributable limited partnership
interests conform to the Revised
Uniform Limited PartrIership Act of 1976
("RULPA") 3 and clarify the meaning of
the further requirement contained in our
Report that the holders of such interests
not be materially involved in the
management or operation of the
partnership. We also extend the
temporary one year exception for
"passive investors" (i.e., investment
companies, insurance companies and
bank trust departments] whose interests
exceed the benchmark as a result of
involuntary acquisitions to interests
acquired as a result of the prudent
exercise of creditors rights. We decline,
however, to make any other changes
requested by the petitioners in the
policies established in the Report. In
addition, by our own motion, we clarify,
interalia, certain matters relating to the
aggregation of ownership interests and
revise certain reporting requirements.
1. Introduction
2. By the attribution rules the
Commission evaluates whether or not a
specific ownership or positional interest
conveys a degree of influence or control
to its holder sufficient.to warrant
limitation by the media multiple
ownership rules. The attribution rules in
essence constitute the means by which
' Report and Orderin MM Docket No. 83-46, 97
FCC 2d 997 (1984) [hereinafter referred to as
"Report"].
I The National Association of Broadcasters
("NAB"); McKenna, Wilkinson &Kittner
("McKenna") and William R. Varecha ("Varecha")
each filed an opposition to Couzens' petition. The
National Cable Television Association, Inc.
("NCTA") filed an opposition to Council's petition.
Couzens filed a reply to the oppositions of the NAB,
McKenna and Varecha.
3 Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act
section 101 et seq. (1976).
the media multiple
ownership rules are
4
implemented.
3. In its Report, the Commission made
a number of revisions to the standards
governing the means by which it
attributes interests in broadcast, cable
television and newspaper properties and
to the manner in which these interests
are reported. Eliminating the distinction
between "closely held" and "widely
held" corporations, the Commission
increased the basic ownership
benchmark for attribution to five percent
and raised the benchmark for "passive
investors" to ten percent. 5The
Commission determined that interests at
or above these benchmarks established
a rebuttable presumption of a
"cognizable interest" but an exception
was made for certain interests acquired
involuntarily on a temporary basis. In
order to reflect the more attenuated
interest in the licensee in situations
where the ownership interest of an
individual or entity is separated by
intervening corporations, the
Commission also adopted a "multiplier"
approach in determining attribution in
4 The Media multiple ownership rules involve
constraints on media ownership. These rules have
both national and local dimensions.
The national network/cable ownership rule
prohibits an individual or entity from owning,
operating or controlling a national television
network and cable television system. 47 CFR
76.501(a)[1) (1984). The Commission has proposed
deletion of this rule. Notice of ProposedRule
Making in CT Docket No. 82-434, 91 FCC 2d 76
(1982). Under the national 12 station rule, an
individual or entity is generally prohibited from
owning, operating or controlling more than 12 AM,
12 FM and 12 television stations as well as
television stations which, in the aggregate, can
reach more than 25 percent of the national
audience. Report and Orderin Gen. Docket No. 831009, FCC 84-350 (released August 3, 1984),
reconsid.grantedin part, FCC 84-638 (released Feb.
1. 1985), appealdocketed sub nam. National
Association of Block Owned Broadcasters v. FCC,
No. 85-1139 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 4, 1985).
In addition to these national rules, there are four
local media multiple ownership rules. The duopoly
rule procribes any individual or entity from owning,
operating or controlling two or more broadcast
stations in the same service area if the stations'
primary service signal contours overlap. The one-toa-market rule in effect limits common ownership,
operation or control of a radio and television station
in the same market. The newspaper/broadcast
cross-ownership rule, a variant of the one-to-amarket rule, similarly prohibits any individual or
entity from owning, operating, or controlling a
broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the
same market. The broadcast/cable cross-ownership
rule proscribes common ownership of a colocated
broadcast and cable television system. 47 CFR
73.3555 (a)-(c), 76.501 (1984). The substance of the
latter rule has recently been incorporated into the
Communications Act. Cable Communications Policy
Act of 1984, section 613(a), Pub. L No. 98-549, 98
Stat. 2779 (1984).
'The Commission also determined that it was
unnecessary to attribute an interest to minority
shareholders of a corporate licensee in situations
where that licensee has a single majority voting
stockholder.
27439
vertical ownership chains.6 In addition,
the Commission determined that
interests held in licensees in the form of
non-voting stock, whether or not
convertible to voting stock; warrants,
debentures and other convertible
interests; and debt and lease back
arrangements would not be attributed to
the owner.
4. With respect to trusts, the
Commission determined that the
attribution would be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis but specified the
criteria which would be used in making
such evaluations. The Commission
generally reaffirmed that officers and
directors would be attributed interests
in their licensees, but established a
mechanism whereby officers and
directors who are neither directly or
indirectly involved in the activities of
the broadcast licensee can be relieved
of this interest.
5. The Commission made a number of
determinations with respect to matters
relating to limited partnerships.
Comparing a typical limited partner to a
holder of debt or non-voting stock, the
Commission found that a typical limited
partnership interest confers no influence
or control over the license and therefore
"can be safely exempted from the
effects and implications of the
attribution rules."'7 Tacitly recognizing,
however, that this lack of influence or
control may not exist in all limited
partnerships, the Commission
determined that it was necessary to
established a mechanism by which "to
verify appropriate insulation of the
general partner from any possibility of
control or influence by the limited
partners."0 I The Commission found that
the provisions of the RULPA constituted
an appropriate threshold verification
standard and exempted from attribution
the limited partnership interests of
businesses conforming to this statute. 9
As a further requirement, the
Commission held that "[a]ny limited
partner relieved of attribution. . . may
not be involved in any material respect
in the management or operation of the
'While the Commission generally determined to
adopt the proposal to multiply successive
ownership interest in vertical ownership situations,
it declined to utilize this multiplier approach in
situations where any link represents a percentage
interest which exceeds 50 percent.
'Report 97 FCC 2d at 1022.
Old.
at 2023.
Oid. The Commission determined that limited
partnerships which did not conform to the
provisions of RULPA would be accorded
noncognizable status upon the submission of the
limited partnership agreement to the Commission
with an explanation as to how the agreement
satisfies its concerns. Id.
27440
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
broadcast, cable television, or
newspaper entity concerned."10
6. The Commission applied the
attribution rules adopted in its Report to
each of the media multiple ownership
rules. No modification was made,
however, in the attribution rules
applicable to the cable/telephone crossownership rule."
II. Decision on Reconsideration
A. Summary of Pleadings
7. While most elements of the
Commission's decision have not been
challenged, the Commission has been
asked to reconsider three aspects of its
Report. Specifically, we have been
requested: (1) To extend the scope of
this proceeding to encompass the
attribution rules applicable to our cable/
telephone cross-ownership rule, (2) to
"clarify" that the concept of a "distress
acquisition" encompasses interests
temporarily acquired as a result of the
prudent and necessary exercise of
foreclosure, conversion or creditor rights
and (3) to revise our treatment of limited
partners so that such persons are
treated as cognizable owners under the
attribution rules.
1. Telephone/Cable Cross-Ownership
Rule
8. Council requests the Commission to
revise the attribution standards
applicable to the telephone/cable crossownership rule. Council states that the
Commission expressed an intention to
establish a comprehensive framework
for the attribution standards applicable
to all of the Commission's multiple
ownership rules but nonetheless failed
to include attribution standards for
telephone/cable ownership rules within
the scope of its order. Citing the capital
intensive nature of both industries,
technological developments and the
AT&T divestiture, Council asserts that
the rationales underlying the
liberalization of the attribution
standards applicable to the media
multiple ownership rules should apply
with equal or greater force to the
telephone/cable cross-ownership rule.
While Council acknowledges that the
Notice of ProposedRule Making
7
("Notice")'
did not expressly propose
revisions to the telephone/cable
ownership rule, it concludes that
extention of the new attribution
standards to this rule would not run
afoul of the notice requirements of the
10 d.
1147
CFR 63.54
2
(1984).
1 Notice of ProposedRule Making In MM Docket
No. 83-46. FCC 83-46 (released Feb. 15. 1983). 48 FR
10082 (Mar. 10,1983) (hereinafter referred to as
"Notice 1.
Administrative Procedure Act"3 since
the Notice expressed the Commission's
intention to undertake a comprehensive
review of the attribution standards.
Even if the Commission were to
conclude that its Notice did not provide
the requisite statutory notice, however,
Council contents that the Commission
should still take steps in this proceeding
to extend the revised attribution
standards to the telephone/cable
ownership rule. Specifically, it suggests
that the Commission by order provide
the public with notice of its intention to
take the action requested by Council,
afford parties the opportunity to
comment on this proposal and extend
the attribution standards applicable to
the media multiple ownership rules to
the telephone/cable cross-ownership
rule unless substantial and compelling
reasons to refrain from acting in this
manner are presented by the
commenting parties.
9. NCTA opposes Council's request
that the attribution standards
promulgated in the Commission's Report
be made applicable to the telephone/
cable cross-ownership rule. NCTA
asserts that the Commission's objective
in establishing attribution benchmarks
for the multiple ownership rules was to
determine that degree of ownership
which will provide the potential ability
to influence programming decisions.
NCTA contends that purpose underlying
the telephone/cable cross-ownership
rule is to prevent a telephone carrier
from using its monopoly control over
telephone service to adversely affect
telephone company customers and
competing cable operators. Since the
purposes underlying these two rules are
entirely different, NCTA states that
there is no reason to assume that the
attribution benchmarks established for
the media multiple ownership rules
should be automatically extended to the
telephone/cable ownership rule. In
addition, NCTA takes issue with
Council's alternative proposal that the
Commission issue a further order
announcing its intention to incorporate
the attribution standards established in
its Report to the cable/telephone crossownership rule, stating that only a full
rule making proceeding would permit
the Commission to obtain the
information necessary to determine the
propriety of revising the ownership
benchmarks for that rule.
2. Temporary Involuntary Acquisitions
10. In its petition, Council also
requests the Commission to "clarify" the
scope of the exception accorded to the
135 U.S.C. 553(b) (1982).
involuntary acquisition of stock on a
temporary basis which exceeds the
benchmark. Council urges the
Commission to modify its
characterization of such interests as
"involuntary," stating that this
description could be interpreted to
exclude certain "distress" acquisitions
which are necessary to protect the
assets of the company or the interests of
its shareholders or policyholders.
Council urges the Commission to specify
that interests acquired "as a result of the
prudent and necessary exercise of
foreclosure, conversion, creditor or other
similar rights" 14are within the scope of
this exception. No parties in this
proceeding opposed Council's request.
3. Limited Partnership Interests
11. In its petition, Couzens requests
the Commission to reconsider its
decision to exempt limited partners from
the definition of cognizable ownership
and to treat limited partners in the same
manner as voting shareholders. Couzens
notes that neither voting shareholders
nor limited partners conduct the day-today business affairs of their respective
entities but that both types of owners,
through the retention of specific types of
power, may exercise a significant
amount of indirect control. For example,
Couzens states that the power of a
limited partner to elect or remove
general partners is comparable to the
power of voting shareholder to elect or
remove directors. Couzens compares the
power of voting shareholders to dissolve
the corporation or sell substantially all
of the corporate assets to the power of
limited partners to terminate the
partnership or approve the sale of its
assets. Couzens also contends that the
power of a voting shareholder to
approve amendments to the Articles of
Incorporation or to adopt, amend or
repeal the bylaws is similar to the power
of a limited partner to amend the
partnership agreement.
12. Couzens asserts that reliance on
the provisions of the RUPLA is
impractical, stating that the Commission
has failed to consider the administrative
resource impact in the use of a standard
which would require the Commission to
make difficult "control" determinations.
Couzens also suggests that if the Report
is interpreted to adopt the uniform law
as it may be subsequently amended, the
Commission may have impermissibly
delegated its authority. In contrast,
Couzens asserts that if the Report is
interpreted to adopt the current
14"Peition for Reconsideration in Part," filed by
American Council of Life Insurance (June 8,19841 at
7-8.
Federal Regster / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
provisions of the uniform act, the
Commission's standard is one which is
likely to be revised. In addition,
Couzens states that the Commission's
treatment of limited partnership
interests as noncognizable conflicts with
the congressional intent that partnership
interests should be recognized in
computing media ownership and
minority ownership preferences under
the statutory changes authorizing the
Commission to award licenses by a
process of random selection.' 5
13. McKenna, NAB and Varecha each
urge the Commission to reaffirm the
noncognizable status of limited
partnership interests. '1 Each of these
parties notes that limited partnerships
can provide a useful source of capital to
the broadcast industry and asserts that
the standard established by the
Commisssion's Report is appropriate.
14. Varecha takes issue with Couzens'
contention that limited partners possess
powers similar to those of corporate
shareholders. He contends that the
ability of a limited partner to replace a
general partner is at most a contingent
control right since Commission approval
under section 310(d) of the
Communications Act must be obtained
prior to such a transfer." In contrast,
Varecha states that the power of the
shareholders to replace the entire board
of directors ordinarily does not require
any Commission scrutiny since such a
change by itself does not constitute a
change in ownership or control under
section 310(d).
15. Varecha also notes that the
shareholders are the owners of the
corporation and that the board of
directors serve at the discretion and
solely for the benefit of the
shareholders. In contrast, Varecha
states that since both the general
partners and the limited partners are
joint owners, it is unusual for
partnership agreements to permit a
limited partner to replace a general
partner without cause. Moreover,
Varecha contends that a limited partner
who takes part in the control of the
business risks unlimited liability
whereas the efforts of a corporate
shareholder to influence or control the
business do not entail such a risk.
1547 U.S.C. 309(i) (1982).
"Should the Commission determine that
additional assurances of non-involvement may be
desirable. NAB asserts that the Commission should
expand the non-involvement requirement contained
in the Report to include those activities with which
it is concemed. NAB expressly states that the
Commission may wish to consider withdrawing its
reliance on RULPA in favor of a certification
approach.
1"47 U.S.C. 310(d) (1982).
16. Defending the Commission's
determination to use the RULPA as a
standard, NAB asserts that the method
in which "control" is defined under that
statute would not permit the limited
partner, by virtue of his or her
ownership status, to unduly influence
the licensee's operations, such as its
programming decisions, in a manner
which would concern the Commission.
NAB contends that the power to manage
the entity is given to the general
partners and that the specific activities
permitted to limited partners under the
statute constitute extraordinary matters
which would not enable the limited
partner to affect programming decisions
on a regular basis. NAB asserts that the
role of a limited partner is analogous to
that of a holder of debt or nonvoting
stock in a corporation and, therefore,
should not be subject to the attribution
rules. Similarly, McKenna asserts that
the limited partners in most limited
partnerships have virtually no power
over partnership affairs.
17. Each of the three parties opposing
Couzens' petition emphasizes that
conformance to the provisions of the
RULPA is merely a threshold standard.
They note that, in addition to
compliance with the model statute, a
limited partner seeking nonattributable
status is also required to refrain from
any material involvement in the
management or operation of the
business. The opponents to Couzens'
petition assert that this additional
requirement will sufficiently assure that
limited partners will not engage in the
types of activities which would warrant
attribution of their interests for purposes
of the media multiple ownership rules.
18. Finally, NAB and Varecha take
issue with Couzens' contention
regarding the conflict between the
Commission's treatment of the
ownership interests of limited partners
as noncognizable and the congressional
intent to recognize partnership interests
in computing preferences under the
lottery statute. These parties state that
at most the congressional statements
concerning the method of computing
preferences were addressed in a context
which differed materially from the
issues regarding which interests will be
attributed for purposes of the media
multiple ownership rules and
consequently are not dispositive in
determining the standards which should
be established in this proceeding.
19. Noting that the revised model act
does not specify the types of actions
which would constitute participation by
a limited partner in the affairs of the
business, in its reply, Couzens again
urges the Commission to withdraw its
27441
reliance upon the provisions of the
RULPA as a standard in determining
whether or not a limited partner should
be relieved from attribution. In addition,
it takes issue with the view that the
Report requires exempt limited partners
to refrain from material involvement in
the business. It asserts, instead, that
compliance with the provisions of the
RULPA, while inappropriate, is in fact
the sole standard promulgated in the
Report. Addressing Varecha's
contentions regarding the limitations
imposed by the Communications Act on
the ability of a limited partner to remove
a general partner, Couzens asserts that
this removal power is atypical and that
influence by a limited partner can be
exercised in other ways. Couzens warns
against reliance upon the powers of a
"typical" limited partnership, pointing
out that an exemption from attribution
for limited partnership interests will be
used in the future by persons who wish
to avoid the strictures of the multiple
ownership rules. In addition, Couzens
reiterates its position that the lottery
statute reflects a legislative intent that
limited partnership interests be
attributed.
20. Apparently modifying in part its
initial position that all limited
partnership interests should be
attributable, Couzens states that "the
oppositions are persuasive that such a
result is too harsh."18 It asserts that the
Commission should exempt from
attribution limited partnership interests
where the applicant demonstrates that
the "Articles of Limited Partnership" do
not include any powers of the limited
partners to participate in the conduct of
the business.
B. Discussion of the Issues on
Reconsideration
1. Telephone/Cable Cross-Ownership
Rule
21. We are not persuaded by Council's
suggestion that we should address in
this proceeding-either by action in this
Order or by issuance of supplementary
notice and subsequent order-the issue
of attribution standards applicable to
the telephone/cable cross-ownership
rule. First, contrary to Council's
contention, we do not believe that the
scope of the Notice in this proceeding
can reasonable be deemed to
encompass this issue. We note in this
regard that the Notice announced our
intention to review the attribution
standards applicable to what we
specifically characterized as the "media
11"Reply,"
1984) at 7.
filed by Michael Couzens, P.C. (July 27.
27442
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
multiple ownership rules." 19
Furthermore, in an earlier phase of this
proceeding, Council specifically
recognized that the attribution
standards governing the telephone/
cable cross-ownership rule were not
raised in the Notice. In fact, in its
comments responding to the Notice,
Council characterized the telephone/
cable cross-ownership rule as "[t]he
only ownership rule conspicuously
absent from the scope20 of this wideranging proceeding."
22. Secondly, we do not believe it is
either necessary or appropriate to
expand the scope of this proceeding in
order to consider the attribution issues
raised by Council. Traditionally, we
have addressed the attribution
standards applicable to the media
multiple ownership rules separately
from consideration of the appropriate
attribution standards governing the 2 1
telephone/cable cross-ownership rule.
We have done so largely because these
two categories of multiple ownership
rules relate at least in part to different
industries, affect the interests of
different parties, and have disparate
underlying objectives. 22 Council has
"Notice, supra n.12 at para. 3.
"Comments" filed by the American Council of
Life Insurance (April 25, 1983) at 16 (emphasis
2
added).
"The attribution standards applicable to the
telephone/cable cross-ownership rule were
addressed in the FinalReport and Orderin Docket
No. 18509, 21 FCC 2d 307, reconsid.grantedin part
22 FCC 2d 746 (1970). affd sub nom. General
Telephone Co.of the Southwest v. UnitedStates.
499 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1971). That order did not
address any issue relating to the attribution
standards applicable to the media ownership rules.
Similarly, when the Commission has revised the
attribution standards applicable to the media
multiple ownership rules, it has chosen not to
consider revisions to the attributions standards
applicable to the telephone/cable cross-ownership
rule. See, e.g., Report and Order In Docket No.
20520, 59 FCC 2d 970 (1976), reconsid.grantedin
part, 65 FCC 2d 336 (1977), aff'd sub nom. National
Citizens Committee for Broadcastingv. FCC, 559
F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir.). cerL denied,434 U.S. 987 (1977).
22A common objective underlying each of the
media multiple ownership rules is to promote .
diversity of program and service viewpoints and to
encourage diversity of expression of the
communications media. See, e.g., Report and Order
in Docket No. 8967. 18 FCC 288, 291 (1953): Second
Report and Orderin Docket No. 18110, 50 FCC 2d
1048 (1975). The objective underlying the telephone/
cable cross-ownership rule, in contrast, is to prevent
a telephone company from abusing its control over
its monopoly services and facilities in the
competitive CATV market. For example, all CATV
systems have to use the telephone company's pole
lines or conduit space, and the telephone/cable
cross-ownership rule reflects the Commission's
concern that were a telephone company permitted
to own a CATV systems in its operating area, it
could discriminate against competing CATV
systems in providing access to these facilities. Final
Report and Orderin Docket No. 18509, supra n.24.
the corporation. We concluded that this
would often result in situations where a
passive investor held voting stock in
blocks of 10 percent or more.
25. Notwithstanding this requirement,
we determinied that passive investors
could exceed the 10 percent benchmark
for a period not exceeding one year
without incurring an attributable
interest in the involuntary acquisition of
stock in certain narrowly defined
situations. The two situations described
in our Report which trigger the
exception are the acquisition by an
insurance company resulting from the
recapitalization of a company in which
it has invested and the acquisition by a
bank trust department resulting from the
execution of an estate.2' Common to
both situations is the element of lack of
control. A creditor has no control over
whether
or not a company in which it
rights.""s Notwithstanding our use of the
has invested will become bankrupt and
term "involuntary" to limit the scope of
require recapitalization. Similarly, a
the exception, Council suggests that the
bank trust department has no control
exception encompasses certain
over the type. and extent of a testator's
"voluntary" acquisitions which "are
stock holdings at the time of his or her
compelled by circumstances to protect
death. Because the institutional investor
company assets and the interests of the
is unable to either predict with
company's policyholders and
reasonable certainty or take action to
shareholders." 25 In the absence of
timely prevent the acquisition of
adverse comment to Council's
interests which would place it in
suggestion and upon further reflection
violation of the media multiple
on the circumstances leading to the
ownership rules, we provided a
exercise of creditors rights, a grant of
temporary exception to the attribution
Council's request is justified.
rules in this type of limited
24. We conclude that the
circumstance.
interpretation espoused by Council is
26. The acquisitions described in
not inconsistent with the purposes
Council's petition are similiar to those
underlying our attribution rules. As
described in our Report. Although the
noted above, we adopted an attribution
acceptance of collateral or similar
benchmark for "passive investors" that
actions which give rise to foreclosure,
is higher than the benchmark applicable
conversion or creditor rights is within
to non-passive investors. 2' The higher
the control of the passive investor, the
benchmark applied to the interests of
exercise of those rights is not triggered
passive investors reflects the fact that
by events within its control. The
this type of.investor generally obtains
institutional investor has fiduciary
stock solely for investment purposes
responsibilities to its investors to
and possesses no interest in controlling
maximize the investment and would be
the management or policies of the
in most instances constrained to
corporation. Yet in adopting this
exercise foreclosure actions. In any
benchmark, we necessarily recognized
event, a one year temporary exception
the need to attribute ownership of voting will satisfy the Commission's concerns
stock held even by passive investors in
that a passive investor is not using the
certain circumstances. We determined
foreclosure process to violate the
that "merely voting or trading large
multiple ownership rules and unlawfully
blocks of stock can affect the
concentrate the programming decisions
management of a company" 2 , even
of licensees in itself with concomitant
where the investor has no intention of
detrimental effects on media diversity.
exercising any influence or control over
While the institutional investor could
structure the transaction, by utilizing a
qualified trust or other insulating
"Report and Orderin MM Docket No. 84-1290.
FCC 85-179 (released April 19,1985).
mechanism, so that the interest acquired
" "Petition for Reconsideration in Part," supra
is exempt from attribution, that appears
n.14 at 7.
to be a cumbersome and costly
" ld.
mechanism
to impose on investors who
" See Report, 97 FCC 2d at 1013.
advanced no convincing reason to alter
this approach. In addition, we have
recently adopted a Report and Order in
MM Docket No. 84-1296 which, inter
alia, specifically declined to impose the
media ownership attribution standards
in cable/telephone cross-ownership
situations. 23 For these reasons,
therefore, we shall not use this
proceeding to expand the telephone/
cable cross-ownership attribution rule.
2. Involuntary Acquisitions of Stock on a
Temporary Basis
23. On reconsideration we are
persuaded to grant Council's request
that we clarify the "involuntary"
acquisition exception to the attribution
rules to include all interests temporarily
acquired "as a result of the prudent and
necessary exercise of foreclosure,
conversion, creditor or other similar
"Id. at 1012-13.
"Id. at 1013.
"Id. at 1017.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 12a
are merely exercising fiduciary
responsibilities. In short, like the
situations described in our Report,
exercise of creditor rights by passive
investors is triggered by events not
within its control. Therefore, a
temporary one year exception to the
effects of the multiple ownership rules is
warranted.
3. Limited Partnerships
27. Non-Attributable Status for
ProperlyInsulatedLimited Partnership
Interests. On reconsideration, we affirm
our initial determination to relieve from
attribution limited partnership interests
in entities that sufficiently insulate the
limited partner from influence or control
of partnership affairs. We remain
convinced that the exemption of
properly insulated limited partnership
interests furthers the public interest; this
exemption not only facilitates the
infusion of capital into broadcasting
enterprises but, in addition, it eliminates
unnecessary and potentially costly
regulation while still maintaining the
intergrity of the diversity rationale
underlying the multiple ownership rules.
28. Although under state law, a limited
partner is required to participate in
certain matters relating to the
business,- the performance of none of
these mandatory functions--either
singly or in the aggregate--by itself
provides the limited partner with an
ownership interest of concern to us for
purposes of the multiple ownership
rules. For example, the mere fact that
the limited partner has the right to
certain records and data concerning the
company 3, does not empower that
partner to influence or control the
company's affairs. Similarly, while the
limited partner does have to agree to the
provisions of the certificate of limited
partnership 32 and, under the Uniform
Limited Partnership Act of 1916
("ULPA"], authorize amendments to that
document 3, this power does not
inexorably lead to influence or control
over the business of the partnership.
Nor, in our view, is mandatory
participation by the limited partners in3
the admission of new general partners, '
" In regulating limited partnerships, forty-nine
states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands have adopted either the Uniform Limited
Partnership Act of 1916 [UNIFORM LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP ACT (1918)1 ("ULPA") or its
successor, RULPA, supra n.3.
3' RULPA sections 106&305 ULPA section 10.
"Id.
" ULPA section 25(b). The revised act does not
require il partners to sign amendments to the
certificate of limited partnership. RULPA section
204a}(2).
11See RULPA section 401; ULPA section 9te).
/
Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
by itself, sufficient to require the
attribution of a limited partnership
interest.3 5 Likewise, exercise of the other
mandatory rights of a limited partnersuch as the right to seek a judicial
dissolution or winding up of the
business 3, the right to compensation or
a share in the company's profits,37 and a
right to bring a derivative suit on behalf
of the partnership in situations where
the general partner refuses to take this
action as-would not, per se, materially
involve the limited partner in the
management or operation of the
business for purposes of the multiple
ownership diversity concerns.
Moreover, by distinguishing between
influential and non-influential
ownership interests, the exemption is
consistent with the objectives
underlying the attribution rules.
29- In support of its assertion that we
should presumptively attribute all
limited partnership interests, Couzens
compares the powers of a holder of a
limited partnership interest to that of a
voting shareholder. We find, however,
that a limited partnership is a distinct
form of business association with
unique characteristics 31 that justify the
differential treatment of limited
partnership interests for attribution
purposes. Perhaps the most critical
distinction between a limited
partnership interest and a voting
shareholder's interest is the broad
flexibility given to the partners of a
limited partnership to determine the
powers of a limited partner. Unlike the
rights accorded to a typical corporate
shareholder, the partners have the
ability to insulate the limited partner's
participation in the business by the
inclusion of specific restrictions in the
partnership agreement or the certificate
of limited partnership.
30. Further, we disagree with Couzens'
contention that our decision not to
presumptively attribute all limited
partnership interests in applying our
media multiple ownership rules is
inconsistent with the expressed intent of
This is particularly true in light of our
clarification in this Order that for such interest to be
noncognizable under the "no material involvement"
standard, the general partner must possess a veto
over such admissions. See pars. 46, infra.
"See ULPA section 10: RULPA section 802. The
RULPA provides that all partners can consent to a
non-judicial dissolution. RULPA section 801.
"See, e.g., ULPA section 10.
- See RULPA section 1001. There is no
comparable provisions in the ULPA.
9Similarly, the activities which limited partners
are required to perform under state law and the
ability of the partners to prescribe, within wide
boundaries. the powers of a limited partner
differentiates a limited partnership interest from
those interests which are automatically exempted
from our attribution rules.
27443
Congress and our own interpretation of
that intent. In this connection, Couzens
refers to the Conference Report 40
accompanying the lottery amendments
to the Communications Act 41and to the
Commission's reading of that Report in
its decisions implementing the lottery
provisions.42 Couzens correctly points
out that this legislative history, and our
subsequent actions in light thereof, have
resulted in our generally attributing
limited partnership interests in
computing lottery preferences. 43 The
Conference Report, however, is devoid
of any reference concerning the
attribution standards governing the
media multiple ownership rules.
Moreover, in our lottery decisions, we
expressly noted that the attribution
rules established for determining lottery
preferences were "not identical" to
those used in applying the media
multiple ownership rules." In sum, we
do not believe that Congressional
intentions or our decisions in the lottery
context constrain our treatment of
limited partnership interests in the
our media
distinct context of applying
5
multiple ownership rules.4
31. We also disagree with Couzens'
assertion that "the Commission's
insistence on lack of control by the
limited[ ] [partner]" is on a "collision
course" 46with the development of
limited partnership law. The
Commission does not "insist" that a
limited partner lack control over the
business. A company which is
controlled by a limited partner is free to
enter the broadcasting field; it is able to
obtain construction permits and
IH.R.Rep. No. 765, 97th Cong., 2d Seas. 45 119821.
4147 U.S.C. 309(i) (1982).
42Second Notice of ProposedRule Making in Gen.
Docket No. 81-768, 91 FCC 2d 911, 924 (19821;
Second Report and Order in Gen. Docket No. 81768, 93 FCC 2d 952. 978 (19831.
" Second Report and Orderin Geo. Docket No.
81-768, supra n.45.
'Id.
at n.35.
"We also reject Varecha's contention that Anax
Broadcasting,Inc., 87 FCC 2d 483 (1981), a transfer
of control case, requires us to exempt all limited
partnership interests from attribution. In Anax, the
limited partners were restricted to a purely passive
role in the business by virtue of the specific terms of
the limited partnership agreement. Id. at 488. As a
consequence, the mere fact that we found that a
transfer of specific interests governed by a
restrictive limited partnership agreement in Anax
did not constitute a transfer of control for purposes
of section 310(dj does not support the broad
proposition that all limited partners are de jure
incapable of exercising any material influence or
control over partnership affairs for purposes of the
diversity concerns underlying the multiple
ownership rules. See also P/ometco Enterprises.
Inc., FCC 85-30 (released February 6. 1985), appeal
docketed sub nom. Traylor v. FCC, No. 85-1099
(D.C. Cir., filed February 15, 1985).
16,"Petition for Reconsideration," filed by Michael
Couzens, P.C. (June 4, 1984] at 10.
27444
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
broadcast licenses from the Commission
on the same basis as any other
company. The sole effect of the
attribution criteria adopted in this
proceeding is that the interest of the
"active" limited partner in the limited
partnership is counted in the application
of the multiple ownership rules.
32. Moreover, the trend in limited
partnership law is neither to mandate
nor restrict the powers accorded to
limited partners. As we noted above, the
modern trend, as reflected in the
RULPA, is to give the partners flexibility
in determining intra-partnership
relations. Our decision to condition an
exemption from attribution upon the
adoption of appropriate restrictions on
the activities of a limited partner is fully
consistent with modern limited
partnership law as long as these
restrictions do not conflict with any
requirements of the applicable limited
partnership statute. Because the
relevant state statutes permit the
partners to agree to the restrictions
which would permit exemption from
attribution under our rules, the
"inconsistency" cited by Couzens does
not exist.
33. Finally, while retaining its position
that limited partnership interests should
be cognizable, Couzens suggests that we
should ameliorate even what Couzens
characterizes as the "harsh" result of
automatically attributing all limited
partnership interests by permitting an
applicant to demonstrate that the
"Articles of Limited Partnership" do not
empower the limited partner to
participate in the conduct of the
business. We will not adopt this adhoc
waiver approach. Not only would it
impose regulatory burdens on limited
partners who in fact lack the ability to
materially influence partnership affairs,
but it would also require the
Commission to make costly
administrative determinations on
specific requests filed by individual
applicants. We find that the better
approach is the one adopted herein in
which we specify the criteria which
would insulate a limited partner from
active involvement in the business and
grant an exemption from our attribution
rules upon certificationby the licensee
that the-limited partner is in compliance
with these criteria.47 It addresses
Couzens' legitimate concern that
influential limited partnership interests
be attributed but does so in a manner
which promotes administrative
efficiency and avoids unnecessary
regulation.
7
" See paras. 44-46. infro.
34. AppropriateStandardfor
Assessing A Cognizable Interest.
Although we decline to establish a rule
that presumptively attributes all limited
partnership interests, we are also not
altering our determination that some
types of limited partnership interests
should be cognizable. While many
limited partners may not possess the
ability to signficantly influence or
control partnership affairs, all limited
partners are not similiarly insulated.4
No party in this proceeding has disputed
that an exemption from attribution for
limited partners that have the power to
participate actively in the business
would contravene our regulatory
objectives nor has any party opposed
our determination that a mechanism is
needed to assure that the interests of
such limited partners remain
cognizable. 49The major dispute among
the parties is the proper standard to
effectuate these uncontroverted goals.
Accordingly, in this section, we shall
address in turn the two standards
established in our Report to determine
whether or not a specific limited
partnership interest is cognizable under
our attribution rules: the "conformance
to RULPA" standard and the "no
material involvement" standard.
35. "Conformonce-to-RULPA"
Standard.Upon further reflection, we
have determined that the threshbld
standard established in our Report
exempting from attribution those limited
partnerships which conform to the
"Our experience in assessing the ownership
structures of broadcast licensees reflects that the
role of limited partners varies significantly in
different broadcast entities. Compare Decision in
BC Docket No. 79-280, 90 FCC 2d 583 (1982) (general
partner has sole responsibility for all management
functions) and Anax BroadcastingInc., 87 FCC 2d
483, 488 (19811 (limited partners required to maintain
a purely passive role) with Merrimack Valley
Broadcasting,92 FCC 2d 508, 508, 615 (1982) (the
two limited partners are full time sales manager and
full time traffic sales manager, respectively) and
CreaterWichita Telecasting Inc., 90 FCC 2d 1048,
1052, reconsid denied,92 FCC 2d 780 (1982] (limited
partner is in "vital" position as assistant station
manager).
"While several parties, citing a statement in our
Report, emphasize that the "typical" limited partner
has no significant involvement in the management
of the company (Report, 97 FCC 2d at 1022), we do
not find this to be determinative. First, a tacit
assumption underlying this statement is that certain
"atypical" limited partners have significant
management responsibilities and we find that a
standard is necessary to separate these limited
partners from those that are effectively isolated
from participation in partnership affairs. Second, we
anticipate that multiple owners, in their evaluation
of different types of business organizations, will
properly take into consideration the rules we adopt
in this proceeding. If these persons perceive that
there are specific advantages in establishing
"atypical" limited partnerships due to the revision
of the attribution rules adopted in this proceeding,
we can expect the number of "active" limited
partners to increase significantly.
provisions of the RULPA is
inappropriate. We note that both the
petitioner, Couzens, and one of the
parties opposing the petition, NAB, have
suggested that we consider withdrawing
our reliance upon the revised model act.
There are three reasons why we find
that this threshold standard should be
eliminated.
36. First, it is unnecessary for us to
have two disparate standards which
both address the criteria used to
determine which limited partnership
interest should be exempted from
aftribution. As explained infra, we
believe our requirement that all
exempted limited partners refrain from
any material involvement in their
company's management and operations,
particularly as clarified on
reconsideration, is sufficient by itself to
meet out objectives. The retention of the
threshold standard interposes an
unnecessary layer of complexity into our
regulatory process, making the
attribution rules unduly complicated and
imposing unwarranted regulatory
burdens. The elimination of this
standard, therefore, will simplify our
regulatory processes without harm to
the objectives underlying our rules.
37. Second, we find that the provisions
of the RULPA fail to provide the persons
subject to the standard with adequate
guidance. There has been no uniform
interpretation of the statute and,
moreover, the scope of permissive
activities, in large part, is not contained
in the statute at all but rather is
determined by the terms of individual
partnership agreements. In addition, the
apparent inconsistency between RULPA
and the "no material involvement"
standard interjects ambiguity and
confusion into the attribution process.
38. Third, we have determined that
reliance on the provisions of the RULPA
is inconsistent with the objectives
underlying the attribution rules.
Contrary to our initial finding, we now
believe that the mere fact that a limited
partnership conforms to the provisions
of the RULPA does not provide
meaningful assurance that the limited
partner will lack the ability to
significantly influence or control
partnership affairs.
39. While the RULPA specifies that a
limited partner can participate in any of
the "safe harbor" activities enumerated
in that model statute without being
deemed to have taken part in the
"control" of the business,0 it is clear
that exercise of many of these activities
could involve the limited partner in the
affairs of'the partnership to a far greater
5RULPA section 303(b).
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
degree than is appropriate for one who
has been granted a total exemption from
attribution on the basis of the "passive"
nature of his or her equity holding. For
example, under the "safe harbor"
provisions, a limited partner could act
as a manager of a broadcast station. He
or she could also perform as a
consultant to assess the appropriate
pogramming format or to choose
individual programs for the broadcast
station. The safe harbor provisions
permit a limited partnei to "advise" the
general partner on the type of
programming he or she wants for the
station or on any other matters relating
to the business. If this "advice" is not
adopted, the limited partner could
participate in a decision to remove the
general partner.51 In fact, under the
"safe harbor" provisions, a limited
partner in certain instances could
possess the preemptory power to
remove a general partner 52 at any time
and for any reason.
40. Moreover, the "safe harbor"
provisions are merely examples of
activities which the model act permits
the limited partners to perform. 53 The
statute expressly sanctions the
performance of activities in addition to
the "safe harbor" provisions and the
judicial standards used in accessing the
scope of these "additional" activities
stem from a different policy rationale
We disagree with Varecha's assertion that,
because the transfer of a general partnership
interest is subject to Commission approval under
Section 310 of the Communications Act, the
contingent power of a limited partner to remove a
general partner is per se insufficient to constitute
"control." See 47 U.S.C. 310(d) (1982). While not
finding that prior Commission approval of the
replacement of a general partner would be
necessary for purposes of Section 310, a general
partner is likely to follow the advice of a limited
partner if he or she knows that the limited partner
possesses the power of removal even if his or her
replacement is subject to Commission approval.
Therefore, the power of removal, even if it is a
"contingent" right, potentially provides a limited
partner with the ability to control, or at least to
materially influence, partnership affairs. Moreover,
the power of removal is merely one of a number of
"safe harbor" provisions contained in the RULPA.
The revised act permits limited partners to engage
in other activities which provide them with the
-!bility to control or materially influence the
business.
"Section 303(b)(5)(v) of RULPA specifies that the
limited partner does not participate in the control of
the business by voting on the removal of a general
partner and section 302 provides that the right to
vote can be "on a per capita or other basis." RULPA
sections 302. 303(b)(5)(v) (emphasis addedl. If the
partnership agreement specifies that the right to
vote on the removal of a general partner is to be
based on the percentage of equity contribution and
if the limited partner contributed a majority of the
capital, the power of the limited partner to remove
the general partner would be absolute.
13RULPA at section 303(c). ,
than those policies
underlying the
5 4
attribution rules,
41. Furthermore, the model act, by its
express terms, permits a limited partner
to retain limited liability and to
participate "in the control of the
business" 55 as long as this participation
"is not substantially the same as the
exercise of the powers of a general
partner" 56 and creditors have no actual
knowledge of this control. The RULPA,
therefore, makes distinctions between
different degrees of "control." As long
as creditors lack the requisite
knowledge, the statute actually permits
a limited partner to exercise a "little"
control without giving up the benefits of
limited liability.
42. In sum, while the performance of
many of the "safe harbor" activities by a
limited partner would be fully consistent
with the RULPA, these activities would
allow for the possibility of influence or
control that would warrant attribution
of the limited partner. The fact that the
limited partner who exercised these
powers would nonetheless be attributed
under our "no material involvement"
standard, only serves to illustrate that
the retention of RULPA as a standard
both unduly complicates our regulatory
scheme and is unnecessary for the
"In evaluating activities beyond the scope of the
"safe harbor" provisions, the courts have adopted
either the "creditor reliance" standard or the
"powers" standard. See, generally,M. Piece,
"Limited Partner Control and Liability Under the
Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act", 32
Southwest L.J. 130 (1979). The sole purpose
underlying the "creditor reliance" standard Is to
provide partners with discretion in determining the
powers of limited partners so long as this discretion
does not result in injury to third parties. This
standard does not prevent limited partners from
becoming intimately involved in all aspects of the
busines3 as long as third parties are not misled to
their detriment. Because the "creditor reliance" test
is unconcerned with the potential of the limited
partner to materially influence or control the
management or operations of the business, that
policy diverges from the rationale underlying the
attributiun rules. See, e.g., FrigidaireSales
Corporationv. UnionProperties,14 Wash. App. 634,
544 P.2d 701 (1976), aff'd, 88 Wash. 2d 400, 562 P.2d
244 (1977).
The "powers" standard, which is the other
criterion used in interpreting the "control" test, is
also inadeluate in assessing whether or not a
particular interest should be subject to attribution
under the media multiple ownership rules. Although
this standard, unlike the "creditor reliance"
standard, does evaluate the actions and powers of
the limited partners, the line drawn by certain
courts applying the "powers" test permit the holder
of a limited partnership interest to possess the type
of power over partnership affairs which we find
inconsistent with an exemption from our attribution
rules. For example, some of the cases applying this
standard permit the limited partner to influence or
control the operations of the business as long as the
general partner possesses the authority to check br
to countermand the.actions of the limited partner.
See, e.g., Silvola v. Rowlett 129 Colo. 552. 272 P.2d
287 (1954).
11RULPA section 303(a).
6 Id.
27445
achievement of our regulatory
objectives. We conclude that the
continued use of the RULPA as a
threshold criterion in attribution
determinations for limited partnership
interests is no longer
advisable and we
57
herein eliminate it.
43. "No MaterialInvolvement"
Standard.In our Report, we determined
that no limited partner relieved from
attribution could be:
Involved in any material respect inthe
management or operation of the broadcast,
cable television, or newspaper entity
concerned. 5
Although Couzens erroneously
disputes its existence 5, no party has
questioned the propriety of this
standard. In fact, the three parties
substantively addressing this standard
agree that it provides an appropriate
mechanism to enable the Commission to
verify that limited partners who are
relieved from attribution will lack the
ability to influence or control
partnership affairs. We agree with this
assessment and therefore affirm that a
limited partner, to be exempt from
attribution, must refrain from
involvement in any material respect in
the management or operation of the
media activities.
44. Nonetheless, we believe it
appropriate to provide additional
guidance to limited partners as to what
kind of insulation is sufficient to exempt
a limited partnership interest from
attribution. This will enable limited
partners who wish to take advantage of
our exclusion to include within their
partnership agreement s the appropriate
" In light of this holding, there is no need for us to
consider Couzens' arguments that reliance on the
provisions of the RULPA is an impermissible
delegation of authority or that the standard is
impractical or administratively burdensome.
"'Report,97 FCC 2d at 1023. See 47 CFR 73.3555.
NOTE 2(f) (1984).
5
" The "no material involvement" standard is
expressly embodied in the text of our Report
(Report, 97 FCC 2d at 1023), in the recodification of
the substantive attribution rules [47 CFR 73.3555
NOTE 2(f)[1984)] and in the revision of the
regulations prescribing the reporting of attributable
interests. 47 CFR 73.3615(a) (1984).
"As the drafters of the RULPA have indicated,
"the certificate of limited partnership is confined
principally to matters respecting the addition and
withdrawal of partners and of capital, and other
important issues are left to the partnership
agreement." RULPA, Commissioner's Comment to
section 101. 6 U.L.A. 182 (1983 Supp.). Consequently,
we expect that the safeguards insulating an exempt
limited partner typically will be contained in the
partnership agreement. We are not precluding
partners, however, from incorporating these
safeguards in the certificate of limited partnership.
:.
if they so choose.
27446
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
safeguards which, in turn, would permit
a licensee to make the requisite
certification. Not only will our
guidelines provide greater certainty, but
they will also lessen the need for the
Commission to make costly adhoc
administrative determinations regarding
the adequacy of specific unsulating
mechanisms.
45. In establishing these standards, we
reiterate that our intention is neither to
restrict nor to prohibit, as a general
matter, the types of business activities
in which limited partners may engage. If
a limited partner is willing to have his or
her interest in the partnership attributed,
we have no intention, by this order, of
scrutinizing in any manner the activities
of that partner. Consequently, we do not
purport to prescribe either the kind or
extent of involvement of an attributed
limited partner in partnership affairs.
46. Moreover, depending upon the
extent, type and location of their other
media interests, we expect that certain
limited partners would choose to
incorporate within their partnership
agreement the insulating provisions
necessary to qualify for an exemption
from attribution, whereas other limited
partners would elect to acquire or retain
the capacity to influence the partnership
notwithstanding the application of our
attribution rules. Indeed, it is likely that
different limited partners, within the
same company, may reach different
conclusions regarding the need for an
exemption from attribution. As a
consequence, compliance with the
requirements described below is
restricted in scope to those limited
partners who wish to qualify for an
attribution exemption. We also wish to
make clear that these guidelines are not
incorporated into our rules and serve
only to indicate the type of insulation
the Commission will consider in
evaluating challenges to the exclusion.
47. We believe that it is appropriate to
provide the partners of a limited
partnership with flexibility in the
manner in which they draft their limited
partnership agreement. For example; the
partners, by establishing separate
classes of limited partners or prescribing
limitations applicable only to specified
limited partners, could formulate an
agreement in which the requisite
insulating provisions were limited in
scope to those partners desiring an
exemption from attribution. In such a
situation, the licensee would be able to
make the Certification necessary to
exempt the specific partners who meet
our "no material involvement" standard
notwithstanding the fact that there may
be other limited partners in the same
partnership who do not qualify for an
exemption. Limited partners who are not
adequately insulated would simply be
reported by the licensee as holding a
cognizable ownership interest.
48. To be relieved from attribution, the
limited partnership agreement should
specify that the exempt limited partner 61
cannot act as an employee of the limited
partnership if his or her functions,
directly or indirectly, relate to the media
enterprises of the company. 62 For
example, the interest of a limited
partner who acted as a station manager
would be attributed. We will also
require the limited partnership
agreement to bar an exempt limited
partner from serving, in any material
capacity, as an independent contractor
or agent with respect to the
partnership's media enterprises. By way
of illustration, an exempt limited partner
could not hold a management contract
for the station or act as an agent for the
station in procuring programming.
Moreover, the partnership agreement
should restrict exempt limited partners
from communicating with the licensee or
the general partner on matters
day-to-day operations
pertaining to the
63
of its business.
49. The partnership agreement should
also contain several provisions relating
to the voting power of the limited
partner. The partnership agreement may
permit the exempt limited partners to
vote on the admission of additional
general partners, but the agreement
should empower the general partner to
veto any such admission.64 In addition,
the partnership agreement should either
prohibit the exempt limited partner from
voting on the removal of a general
partner or limit this right to situations
where the general partner is subject to
bankruptcy proceedings, as described in
- 1Ifthe limited partner is not a natural person.
these restrictions apply to the constituent parts of
the limited partner, e.g., Its directors, officers,
partners. etc. Where applicable, in vertical chain
situations, our multiplier will be used. See 47 CFR
73.3555. NOTE 2(d) (1984).
62While a limited partner can also be a general
partner [see RULPA J 303(a)], the interest of such a
person in the business is attributable by virtue of,
the general partnership interest.
6This requirement is generally comparable to the
requirement that we imposed upon persons taking
advantage of our "passive investor" benchmark. In
our Report, we imposed the requirement that
passive investors "refrain[] from contact or
communication with the licensee on any matters
pertaining to the operation of its stations.... "
Report, 97 FCC at 1013. Compliance with the
provision we adopt here would restrict a limited
partner from voting on any matters relating to the
day;to-day operations of the business.
61The RULPA specifies that the written consent of
each partner is necessary for the admission of new
general partners into the business. RULPA § 401.
Therefore, under RULPA, the power to veto the
admission of new general partners is given to both
the limited partners and the general partners.
sections 402 (4)-(5) of the RULPA 6 or is
adjudicated incompetent by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
50, Moreover, with the exception of
permitting a limited partner to make
loans to, or act as a surety for the
business, the agreement should also bar
the exempt limited partner from
performing any services to the limited
partnership materially relating to its
media activities. 6 6 In addition, the
agreement should also state, in express
terms, that the exempt limited partner is
prohibited from becoming actively
involved in the management or
operation of the media businesses of the
partnership.61 Finally, in determining
the appropriate attribution of interests
to a limited partner, we will scrutinize
the close familial relationships of that
partner. In this regard, while we have
held that a "familial/business
relationship, standing alone, is
insufficient to create a presumption of
common control for purposes of
applying the mutiple ownership
rules," 68 we have evaluated the facts
and circumstances in specific cases to
determine whether or not it was
appropriate to attribute interests on the
69
basis of a close familial relationship.
We will continue to follow this
approach in dealing with attribution
based on familial relationships
generally. With respect to the specific
situation in which a marital relationship
is involved, we have previously
determined that the interest held by one
spouse are to be presumptively
attributed to the other. 70
5
RULPA § 402(4)(5). This restriction Is analogous
to our determination concerning trusts. In our
Report we stated that a person who "holds the
unrestricted power to replace a trustee ...
[will]
have the assets of that trust attribated to him.
unless such power is contingent upon some event
beyond that person's control." Report, 97 FCC 2d at
1024.
60 The RULPA, but not the ULPA, permits the
contribution of the limited partner, in whole or in
part, to be in the form of services. See RULPA
sections 101(2), 201 (5)-(6); ULPA § 4.
67 If a limited partner relieved from attribution
subsequently acts in a manner which contravenes
the Insulating provisions of the partnership
agreement or the certificate of limited partnerships,
or if that partner subsequently becomes materially
involved in the management or operations of the
partnership, the Commission will attribute the
limited partnership interest of the nonconforming
limited partner.
55 Alabama Radio Corporationand Deep South
BroadcastingCo., 69 FCC 2d 1256,1263 n.9 (1978)
[emphasis in original). See KTRB Broadcasting Co.,
46 FCC 2d 605. 607 (1974) and AlexanderKlein, 86
FCC 2d 423, 428 (1981).
69 See, e.g.. East Arkansas Broadcasters.Inc..
FCC 60-1283, 20 RR 934 (1960).
10 Alexander Klein, 88 FCC 2d at 426 (1981): Lady
SarahMcKinney Smith, 59 FCC 2d 398, 401 (1976):
Waters BroadcastingCorp.. 88 FCC 2d 1218-19.
Continued
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Notwithstanding the nearly conclusive
statute the Commission has accorded
this presumption in the past, 71 we will
henceforth permit this presumption to be
rebutted, on a case-by-case basis, in
appropriate circumstances. We find that
the inclusion of the above restrictions in
the limited partnership agreement,
coupled with proper consideration of
close familial relationships, provide
sufficient insulation to permit the
licensee or cable television system to
certify that the limited partner could not
be involved in any material respect in
the management
or operation of the
72
business.
III. Clarification and Revision on Our
Own Motion
51. On our own motion, we raise
certain matters addressed in our Report.
Specifically, we clarify matters
concerning the single majority
stockholder exception and revise certain
requirements governing the reporting of
ownership interests. 73 Additionally, we
rev'd on other grounds. 88 FCC 2d 1204, 1206 (1981),
set aside, 91 FCC 2d 1260 (1982). off'd sub nam.
West Michigan BroadcastingCo. v. Fcc, 735 F.2d
601 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert.denied, Case No. 84-7000
(March 4, 1985).
"
Id.
72 There are a number of powers which a limited
partner may exercise consistent with these
guidelines. A limited partner exempt from the
attribution rules can exercise all of the powers
mandated by either of the uniform acts. For
example, he or she may determine the contents of
the certificate of limited partnerships as well as
amendments to that document. Subject to the veto
of the general partner, the exempt limited partner
can vote on the admission of new partners. He or
she can petition for a judicial dissolution upon the
conditions specified by state law or file derivative
suits on behalf of the partnership.
In addition to these activities, there are other
powers which a limited partner can possess and
still qualify for an exemption from attribution. An
exempt limited partner may vote on the removal of
a partner who is adjudicated an incompetent by a
court of competent jurisdiction or is subject to
bankruptcy proceedings as described in section 402
(4)-(5) of the RULPA. RULPA section 402 (4H5).
The exempt limited partner may make loans to, or
act as surety for, the business. He or she may vote
on the sale, exchange, lease, mortgage, pledge or
other transfer of all or substantially all of the assets
of the business other than in the ordinary course of
the business. In addition, the exempt limited partner
can vote on a change in the nature of the business
or petition the Commission for authority to
effectuate an assignment or transfer of control of
the company. An exempt limited partner can be a
customer of the partnership. Moreover, the exempt
limited partner, interolia, can also provide services
to the limited partnership as long as those activities
do not materially relate to the media activities of
the partnership.
" There is also a matter concerning ownership
reports which does not require revision but
warrants clarification. In our revisions to § 73.3615,
we specified that licensees owning multiple stations
with different anniversary dates could file a single
report on the date of their choice as long as the
reports are not more than one year apart. 47 CFR
7
3.3615(a) (1984). If the licensee selects the
anniversary date of a station and subsequently sells
clarify the applicability of the
divestiture requirements of § 76.501 of
our rules in situations where interests
grandfather under the cable crossownershp provisions pass to an heir or
legatee.
52. AggregationPolicy. Under our
aggregation policy a person with stock
in several separate acounts has a
cognizable interest if the sum of these
accounts is equal to or exceeds the
benchmark standard, even if each
account, when considered in isolation, is
below the benchmark. 74 The reason for
this policy is to prevent persons from
"evading our ownership constraint by
breaking down their interests into noncognizable discrete investments." 75
While it is clear that we aggregate
separate accounts to determine whether
or not a person has an attributable
interest, in our Report it is not clear
whether we aggregate separate accounts
to determine whether a single person
owns majority voting stock in the
corporation, thereby exempting from
attribution all other corporate
shareholders, regardless of the size of
their stock interests.
53. As long as the single majority
stockholder interest is reflected on the
face of the ownership report, 76 discrete
interests will be aggregated in
determining the applicability of the
"single majority stockholder"
exception. 77 The rationale underlying
that station, it can select the anniversary date of
another station as the date for the filing of its
ownership report so long as its reports are not filed
more than one year apart.
74 See Report, 97 FCC 2d'at 1026.
75 Notice, supro n.12 at para. 36.
76 Licensees are required to report all interests
which exceed the benchmark standard. In addition,
they are required to report discrete interests of a
person below the benchmark but which aggregated
exceed the benchmark in situations where those
interests are known to the licensee. Report, 97 FCC
2d at 1028-29. Therefore, if the discrete interests
constituting a majority share are either at or above
the benchmark or below the benchmark but known
to the licensee, they are subject to the reporting
requirements and a minority shareholder can take
advantage of the automatic "single majority
stockholder" exclusion. If the discrete interests
constituting the majority stockholding interest are
below the benchmark standard and unknown to the
licensee, the minority shareholder cannot take
advantage of the "single majority" exclusion. In
such a situation, however, the minority shareholder
can seek to rebut the presumption that the interest
should be deemed cognizable. See id at 1010-1i.
77 Under this rule, if an individual owns 100
percent interest in corporation A, which in turn
owns 35 percent stock of a licensee corporation and
the same individual owns 100 percent interest In
corporation B, which in turn owns 20 percent stock
of the same station, that individual will be deemed
to be a "single majority stockholder" in the
broadcast station and all other stockholders of the
licensee corporation will be relieved from
attribution.
27447
the exception is that the minority
corporate stockholders, "even acting
collaboratively, would be unable to
direct the affairs or activities of the
licensee on the basis of their
shareholdings." 78 The inability of the
minority corporate shareholders to
direct the affairs of the corporation is
not dependent upon whether the single
majority shareholder possesses majority
interest by virtue of a single majority
account or by virtue of two or more
stock accounts which, in the aggregate,
exceed 50 percent of the voting shares of
the corporation. Moreover, fundamental
fairness dictates that if we aggregate
discrete interests in determining
whether a person is subject to
attribution, we should similarly
aggregate discrete interests in
determining whether or not a person is
exempt from attribution. Therefore, for
both attribution and reporting purposes,
we will aggregate discrete interests in
application of the "single majority
stockholder" rule.
54. Because of the potential in limited
instances for the multiplier and
aggregation rules to result in more than
one single majority stockholder,
modification of the aggregation7 9rule in
certain situations is necessary.
Accordingly, only those de lure control
interests in intermediate corporations
and direct interests in licensees will be
aggregated in determining whether a
party has standing as a single majority
stockholder. 50
55. In addition, clarification is needed
as to the manner in which we implement
our aggregation policy in a situation
where the same person owns both
"passive investor" and general
78 Report, 97 FCC 2d at 1008-09.
7 For example, assume X has a 60% interest in
Corporation A which in turn has a 40% interest in a
licensee. X also has a 49% interest in Corporation B
which in turn has a 49% interest in the licensee.
Under the typical application of the multiplier and
aggregation rules, X would be attributed with a 64%
interest in the licensee [Corporation A's 40% interest
in the licensee added to the product of Corporation
B's 49% interest in the licensee and X's 49% interest
in Corporation B (49% X 49%=24%)]. Assume,
however, that Z owns the remaining 11% of the
licensee directly and the remaining 51% Interest In
Corporation B. Under these circumstances Z would
be attributed with Corporation B's 49% and his own
11% for a total ownership Interest in the licensee of
60%. Unless the aggregation procedures are
modified, both X and Z could be considered a single
majority stockholder.
10In the example described in footnote 79 above,
Z's de jure control of Corporation B would result in
the attribution to Z alone of Corporation B's 49%
Interest in the licensee which, when added to Z's
11% direct interest, would render Z the single
majority stockholder. X's 49% interest in
Corporation B would be disregarded for purposes of
determining the single majority stockholder.
27448
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
investment interests. e' In this type of
situation a bipartite standard will be
applied in order to ascertain whether or
not the interests are attributable. First.
the "passive investor" and general
benchmark interests will be separately
aggregated. If the sum of either group is
equal to or exceeds the benchmark
established in our Report for that type of
investment, the holder of the interests
has an investment which is cognizable
under the attribution rules. Second, if
the two sums individually are below the
relevant benchmarks, these two sums
will be added and the interests will be
attributed if the total is equal to or
exceeds the higher "passive investor"
benchmark of ten percent of the stock of
the corporation.8 2 Moreover, the licensee
11Persons holding Interests qualifying for
"passive investor" status are subject to the 10
percent benchmark with respect to that Interest
whether or not that person is Included within the
definition of a "passive investor." For example, an
individual holding the majority stock of an
insurance company which in turn owns 6 percent
stock in a broadcast station does not have a
cognizable interest in the station. While the
individual may not come within the strict definition
of "passive investor," his or her indirect ownership
interest in the station Is wholly the result of the
ownership of an entity which qualifies for "passive
investor" treatment. As a consequence, the
individual is subject to the 10 percent "passive
investor" benchmark. A contrary rule would
produce the anomalous result of having the owner
of a more remote Interest being subject to a more
rigorous standard than the owner of a direct
interest.
12-For example, assume that an individual owns a
majority of stock in the following four companies:
(1) An insurance company, which In turn owns 4
percent of the stock of the licensee corporation; (2)
an investment company, which in turn owns 2
percent of the stock the licensee corporation; (3)
Corporation A, which in turn owns 2 percent of the
stock of the licensee corporation and (4)
Corporation B, which in turn owns 1 percent of the
stock of the licensee corporation. To determine
whether or not this individual has an attributable
holding, one first adds the 4 percent holding of the
Insurance company and the 2 percent holding of the
investment company and ascertains that the 8
percent total is below the 10 percent "passive
investor" benchmark. Similarly, the 2 percent stock
holding of Corporation A is added to the 1 percent
stock holding of Corporation B; the 3 percent total is
below the 5 percent benchmark. Under the second
part of the standard, the a percent "passive
investment" total is added to the 3 percent "nonpassive investment" total to ascertain that the sum
of these figures is less than 10 percent. The owner of
these holdings, therefore, is not deemed to have an
attributable Interest in the licensee. If this person.
however, subsequently acquires majority stock
interest in a bank. the trust department of which In
turn owns 3 percent of the stock of the licensee, the
holdings of this person would be attributable
because the total of the 9 percent sum of the
"passive investment" stock and the 3 percent
general investment stock exceeds 10 percent: the
interests are subject to attribution even though the
separate "passive investment" and "general
investment" sums do not exceed their respective
benchmarks.
will be required to report any such
subbenchmark interests which, if
aggregated in the manner prescribed
above, exceed the attribution
benchmarks where those interests are
known to the licensee.
56. Single MajorityStockholder
Exemption. The "single majority
stockholder" exception unlike other
attribution exemptions, is based upon
the quantity of stock held by a third
person rather than upon the extent or
nature of the holder's own stock
interests. As a consequence, a minority
interest in excess of the otherwise
applicable attribution benchmark that
qualifies for an exemption from
attribution by virtue of the single
majority stockholder exception may
become cognizable if the majority
stockholder effectuates a transfer or
assignment which results in no single
individual or entity holding more than
fifty percent of the voting stock. The
availability of the single majority
stockholder exemption, therefore, may
be eliminated by actions of persons
other than the holder of that exemption.
57. Because the imposition of
unnecessary restraints upon the
alienability of stock interests disserves
the public interest, we will not consider
the existence of the single majority
stockholder exemption in evaluating
assignments or transfers requested by
the majority stockholder. As a
consequence, we will not prevent or
delay a single majority stockholder from
assigning or transferring stock merely
because the interest of a minority
stockholder may become cognizable as
a result of such an assignment or
transfer.
58. Our concern with unreasonable
restraints upon the alienability of stock
interests, however, does not imply that
we will fail in our obligation to
vigorously enforce our media multiple
ownership rules. A minority stockholder
who relies upon the single majority
stockholder exception has an
affirmative obligation to assure that the
interests which he or she possesses are
consistent with the limitations
embodied in our ownership rules.
Specifically, a minority stockholder has
the responsibility to take any corrective
action necessary in the event that the
elimination of th6 availability of the
single majority stockholder exception
places him or her in violation of the
media multiple ownership rules. For
example, he or she could effectuate a
partial assignment or transfer of the
non-conforming ownership interests or
place the interest in a trust which
qualifies for an exemption from
attribution. Given that the loss of a
previously available single majority
shareholder exemption may be
relatively precipitous and beyond the
control of the minority stockholder, we
will afford a transition period of up to
one year in which the affected minority
stockholder may cure any resulting
violation.
59. Ownership Reports. On our own
motion, we make four types of revisions
to the scope of the data which we
require to be submitted in the ownership
reports.83 Two types of changes are
corrections of inadvertent errors made
in the revisions of the text of § 73.3615 of
our rules. The other two changes
concern the persons required to file
ownership reports.
60. First, our Report specifies that
changes will be made to the reporting
requirements "to correspond to the new
attribution standards and methods
adopted herein." Yet the language of
our rule concerning the reporting
requirements in vertical ownership
situations does not completely
effectuate this intent.85 We therefore
revise § 73.3115 of our rules to conform
the reporting requirements to the
substantive attribution rules.
13It is proper for us to make these revisions on
our own motion. We note that the Notice specified
that the type of information that we require
licensees to submit in an ownership report is within
the scope of this proceeding. See, e.g., Notice, supra
n.12 at pars. 40. In addition, both the Administrative
Procedure Act and our own regulations exempt
rules of practice and procedure from the notice and
comment rulemaking requirements. 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A} (1982): 47 CFR 1.412(a)(5) [1984). In
Revision of Applicationfor ConstructionPermitfor
Commercial BroadcastStation. FCC 81-278
(released October 19, 1981). 50 RR 2d 381 (1981). we
held that revisions to the information required in the
application for a construction permit. Form 301. was
exempt from the notice of comment rulemaking
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Section 73.3815. which prescribes the scope and
material to be included in the ownership report,
Form 323. is such a rule. As we stated in revising
Form 301 on our own motion. "we are changing
neither substantive law or policy nor any underlying
Commission requirement pertaining to ultimate
public interest finding. Rather, we are revising the
form and manner in which this information is
submitted." Id. at 381.
"Report, 97 FCC 2d at 1028.
"The language of the revised rules adopted in our
Report does not incorporate an exception to the use
of a "multiplier" in situations where a link in the
ownership chain represents a percentage interest
which exceeds 50 percent: require the reporting of
corporate shareholders, officers and directors who
have an attributable interest through means of a
corporate partner at the second link of the vertical
ownership chain: or require reporting of attributable
interests above the second link. In the revisions to
Section 73.3615, we also clarify that the "multiplier"
is applicable only to corporate ownership interests
rather than to all types of interests in a vertical
ownership chain held by corporations. For example,
the "multiplier" does not apply to any ownership
interests in a partnership whether or not that
interest is held by a corporation.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
61. Second, we are deleting the term
"partner" which was inadvertently
added to § 73.3615(a)(3)(i) of our rules as
revised in our Report. By its terms,
§ 73.3615(a)(3)(i) elicits information on.
corporations, associations, trusts,
estates and receiverships. Since the
preceding provision, § 73.3615(a)(2),
specifically deals with partnerships, we
find it unnecessary to request
information on partners in
§ 73.3615(a)(3)(i)."
62. Third, upon further reflection, we
have decided to revise the scope of the
exemption granted to "50/50
partnerships" from the requirement that
ownership reports be filed annually37
While we continue to believe that it is
appropriate to exempt many "50/50
partnerships," we will require the filing
of annual reports for such partnerships
which do not consist entirely of natural
persons. This minor modification is
necessary in order to assure that we are
made aware of changes to attributable
interests in the partners in situations
where assignment or transfer
applications are not required. For
example, annual reports would provide
information on changes in the officers or
directors of a corporate partner.
63. In addition, we have determined to
extend this reporting exemption to
encompass all partnerships consisting
entirely of natural persons. Our rules
require prior Commission appioval of an
assignment or transfer of any
partnership interest."" Because we will
obtain adequate ownership information
on natural person partnerships in the
context of the assignment and transfer
process, we believe that we can safely
eliminate the annual reporting
requirement as it applies to all
partnerships composed entirely of
natural persons.
64. Fourth, upon further reflection, we
have decided to revise in one respect
the reporting requirements imposed
upon permittees. Our regulations
currently require a permittee to file an
initial Ownership Report shortly after
the grant of its application for a
construction permit. " Traditionally, we
had also required that a permittee both
file an ownership report on an annual
basis and within thirty days inform the
Commission of any ownership change
affecting the information contained in
that report by means of a supplemental
ownership report. In our Report, we
determined that the annual reporting
and supplemental filing requirements
were unnecessary to achieve our
47 CFR 73.3815[a)(3)(i) (1984).
"ReporL. 97 FCC 2d at 1032.
"See 47 CFR 73.3540(a), (f)(6) (1984).
- 47 CFR 73.3615(b) (1984).
regulatory objectives and, as a
consequence, eliminated these reporting
requirements. While we remain
convinced on reconsideration that the
reduction in the reporting burdens on
permittees is warranted, there is one
modification which in our view should
be made to the revised reporting
requirements now applicable to
permittees. In light of the substantial
effort necessary for the construction of
broadcast facilities, it is likely that
significant time will elapse between the
filing of the initial Ownership Report
and the commencement of commercial
broadcasting. Consequently, we believe
that supplemental information should be
filed when the permittee applies for a
broadcast license. We believe that the
slight administrative burden associated
with the filing of a single updated report
or the certificationof the accuracy of the
existing Report is clearly outweighed by
our increased ability to enforce the
media multiple ownership rules.
Therefore, we will require a permittee,
at the time at which it applies for a
station license, to file an updated
Ownership Report or to certify that the
data contained in its current Ownership
Report are unchanged.
65. Divestiture of Cable Interests
Transferred to Feirs or Lagatees.
Finally, as a ministerial matter, we are
taking the opportunity presented by our
amendment of the attribution notes to
§ 76.501 of the rules to add a note to that
section clarifying another matter. The
added note makes explicit our position
that cable interests grandfathered under
the cable cross-ownership provisions
need not be divested when those
interests are transferred to an heir or
legatee, whether by will or by intestacy,
provided that the degree or extent of
cross-ownership would not be increased,
by such transfer. The broadcast multiple
ownership rules have long contained a
note that specifically provides for such a
divestiture exception,- and nothing
suggests that the result would or should
be different where cable interests are
involved. Our action here serves simply
to memorialize our view in this regard
and to thereby remove any uncertainty
which might exist on this issue.
66. As prescribed by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. 9' we have prepared a
final regulatory flexibility analysis
("FRFA") which outlines the effect of
the substantive rules adopted in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order on
small entities. The FRFA is contained in
Appendix D.
27449
67. The requirements contained in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order have
been analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and
found to impose new or modified
requirements or burden on the public.
Implementation of any new or modified
requirement or burden will be subject to
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget as prescribed by the Act.
68. Accordingly, it is ordered, that
Parts 73 and 76 of the Commission's
Rules and Regulations are amended
effective July 31, 1985, as set forth in the
attached Appendices A, B, and C.
69. It is further ordered, that the
"Petition for Reconsideration in Part"
filed by the American Council of Life
Insurance is granted to the extent
described herein and is otherwise
denied.
70. It is further ordered, that the
"Petition for Reconsideration" filed by
Michael Couzens, P.C., is granted to the
extent described herein and is otherwise
denied.
71. It is further ordered, that the
Secretary shall cause this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to be printed in the
Federal Communications Commission
Reports.
72. Authority for the actions taken
herein is contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j),
303 and 405 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended.
Federal Communications Commission'
William J.Tricarico.
Secretary.
Appendix A
PART 73-[AMENDED]
47 CFR Part 73 is amended as follows:
The authority citation for part 73
continues to read:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat., as
amended, 1066, 1082; (47 U.S.C. 154, 303).
2. 47 CFR 73.3555 Note 2 is amended
by revising paragraph (g) and.by adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 73.3555
Multiple ownership.
Note 2:
*
*
*
*
*
(g)(1) A limited partnership interest shall
be attributed to a limited partner unless that
partner is not materially involved, directly or
indirectly in the management or operation of
the media-related activities of the partnership
and the licensee or system so certifies.
(2) In order for a licensee or system to
SSee § 73.3555. Note 4 (formerly § § 73.35, Note 8;
73.240, Note 8 and 73.636, Note 8).
" See 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (1982).
make the certification set forth in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, it must verify that the
partnership agreement or certificate of
27450
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
limited partnership, with respect to the
particular limited partner exempt from
attribution, establishes that the exempt
limited partner has no material involvement,
directly or indirectly, in the management or
operation of the media activities of the
partnership. The criteria which would assure
adequate insulation for purposes of this
certification are described in the
Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM
Docket No. 83-46, FCC 85-252 (released June
24, 1985). Irrespective of the terms of the
certificate of limited partnership or
partnership agreement, however, no such
certification shall be made if the individual or
entity making the certification has actual
knowledge of any material involvement of
the limited partners in the management or
operation of the media-related businesses of
the partnership.
(i) Discrete ownership interests will be
aggregated in determining whether or not an
interest is cognizable under this section. An
individual or entity will be deemed to have a
cognizable investment if:
(1) The sum of the interests held by or
through "passive investors" is equal to or
exceeds 10 percent; or
(2) the sum of the interests other than those
held by or through "passive investors" is
equal to or exceeds 5 percent; or
(3) the sum of the interests computed under
paragraph (i)(1) of this section plus the sum of
the interests computed under paragraph (i)(2)
of this section is equal to or exceeds 10
percent.
Appendix B
47 CFR Part 73 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 73
continues to read:
Authority: Sees. 4, 303, 48 Stat., as
amended, 1066, 1082; (47 U.S.C. 154, 303).
2. 47 CFR 73.3615 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a), (a)(1), the introductory
text of (a)(2), the introductory text of
(a)(3), (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(iv)(B), and (b) to
read as follows:
§ 73.3615 Ownership reports.
(a) Each licensee of a commercial AM,
FM, or TV broadcast station shall file an
Ownership Report on FCC Form 323
once a year, on the anniversary of the
date that its renewal application is
required to be filed. Licensees owning
multiple stations with different
anniversary dates need file only one
Report per year on the anniversary of
their choice, provided that their Reports
are not more than one year apart. A
licensee with a current and unamended
Report on file at the Commission may
certify that it has reviewed its current
Report and that it is accurate, in lieu of
filing a new Report. Ownership Reports
shall provide the following information
as of a date not more than 60 days prior
to the filing of the Report:
(1) In the case of an individual, the
name of such individual;
(2) In the case of a partnership, the
name of each partner and the interest of
each partner. Except as specifically
noted below, the names of limited
partners shall be reported. A limited
partner need not be reported, regardless
of the extent of its ownership, if the
limted partner is not materially
involved, directly or indirectly, in the
management or operation of the licensee
and the licensee so certifies.
[3) In the case of a corporation,
association, trust, estate or receivership,
the data applicable to each:
(i)(A) The name, residence,
citizenship, and stockholding of every
officer, director, trustee, executor,
administrator, receiver and member of
an association, and any stockholder
which holds stock accounting for 5
percent or more of the votes of the
corporation, except that an investment
company, insurance company, or bank
trust department need be reported only
if it holds stock amounting to 10 percent
or more of the votes, provided that the
licensee certifies that such entity has
made no attempt to influence, directly or
indirectly, the management or operation
of the licensee, and that there is no
representation on the licensee's board or
among its officers by any person
professionally or otherwise associated
with the entity.
(B) A licensee shall report any
separate interests known to the licensee
to be held ultimately by the same
individual or entity, whether those
interests are held in custodial accounts,
by individual holding corporations or
otherwise, if, when aggregated:
(1) The sum of all interests except
those held by or through "passive
investors" is equal to or exceeds 5
percent; or
(2) The sum of all interests held by or
through "passive investors" is equal to
or exceeds 10 percent; or
(3) The sum of the interests computed
under paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this
section plus the sum of the interests
computed under paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B)(2)
of this section is equal to or exceeds 10
percent.
(C) If the majority of the voting stock
of a corporate licensee is held by a
single individual or entity, no other
stockholding need be reported for that
licensee;
(iv)* * *
(B) Where X is not a natural person
and has attributable ownership interest
in the licensee under § 73.3555 of the
rules, regardless of its position in the
vertical ownership chain, an Ownership
Report shall be filed for X which, except
as specifically noted below, must
contain the same information as
required of a licensee. If X has a voting
stockholder interest in the licensee, only
those voting interests of X that are
cognizable after application of the
"multiplier" described in Note 2(d) of
§ 73.3555 of the rules, if applicable, shall
be reported. If X is a corporation,
whether or not its interest in the
licensee is by virtue of its ownership of
voting stock, the officers and directors
shall be reported. With respect to those
officers and directors whose duties and
responsibilities are wholly unrelated to
the licensee, and who wish to be
relieved of attribution in the licensee,
the name, title and duties of these
officers and directors, with statements
properly documenting that their duties
do not involve the licensee, shall be
reported.
(b) Except as specifically noted below,
each permittee of a commercial AM, FM
or TV broadcast station shall file an
Ownership Report on FCC Form 323 (1)
within 30 days of the date of grant by
the FCC of an application for original
construction permit and (2) on the date
that it applies for a station license. The
Ownership Report of the permittee shall
give the information required by the
applicable portions of paragraph (a) of
this section. A permittee with a current
and unamended Report on file at the
Commission may certify that it has
reviewed its current Report and it is
accurate, in lieu of filing a new Report.
Appendix C
47 CFR Part 76 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 76
continues to read:
Authority: Secs. 7, 303, 48 Stat., as
amended, 1066, 1082; (47 U.S.C. 154, 303).
2. 47 CFR 76.501(a) Note 2 is amended
by revising paragraph (g) and by adding
new paragraph (i) as follows:
§ 76.501 Cross-ownership.
(a)
*
Note 2:
*
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
(g)(1) A limited partnership interest shall
be attributed to a limited partner unless that
partner is not materially involved, directly or
indirectly, in the management or operation of
the media-related activities of the partnership
and the licensee or system so certifies.
(2] In order for a licensee or system to
make the certification set forth in paragraph
(g(ll) of this section, it must verify that the
partnership agreement or certificate of
limited partnership, with respect to the
particular limited partner exempt from
attribution, establishes that the exempt
limited partner has no material involvement,
directly or indirectly, in the management or
operation of the media activities of the
partnership. The criteria which would assure
adequate insulation for purposes of this
certification are described in the
Memorandum Opinion and Orderin MM
Docket No. 83-46, FCC 85-252 (released June
24, 1985). Irrespective of the terms of the
certificate of limited partnership or
partnership agreement, however, no such
certification shall be made if the individual or
entity making the certification has actual
knowledge of any material involvement of
the limited partners in the management or
operation of the media-related businesses of
the partnership.
(i) Discrete ownership interests will be
aggregated in determining whether or not an
interest is cognizable under this section. An
individual or entity will be deemed to have a
cognizable investment if:
(1) The sum of the interests held by or
through "passive investors" is equal to or
exceeds 10 percent; or
(2) The sum of the interests other than
those held by or through "passive investors"
is equal to or exceeds 5 percent: or
(3)The sum of the interests computed
under paragraph (i)(1) of this section plus the
sum of the interests computed under
paragraph (i](2) of this section is equal to or
exceeds 10 percent.
3.47' CFR 76.501(a) is amended by
adding a new Note 4 as follows:
Cross-ownership.
§ 76.501
(a)*
*
*
Note 4: Paragraph (a)(2) of this section will
not be applied so as to require the divestiture
of ownership interests proscribed herein
solely because of the transfer of such
interests to heirs or legatees by will or
intestacy, provided that the degree or extent
of the proscribed cross-ownership is not
increased by such transfer.
Appendix D
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis'
1. Need for and Objective of the Rule.
The reasons that the Commission
determined to revise the standards by
which it assesses whether or not to
attribute limited partnership interests
were to eliminate ambiguities and
apparent inconsistencies in the present
attribution standards, to simplify the
regulatory structure relating to
attribution and to assure that the
interests of limited patners which do in
fact possess the ability to materially
influence business affairs are taken into
account in the application of the media
multiple ownership rules. Small entities
benefit from the clarification and
simplification of the attribution
standards relating to limited partnership
interests.
2. Issues Raised in Response to the
InitialRegulatoryFlexibility Analysis.
No party to this proceeding raised any
issue specifically in response to either
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis contained in the Notice of
ProposedRulemaking or the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
contained in the Report and Order.
3. SignificantAlternatives Considered
and Rejected. The Commission
considered the proposal to
presumptively attribute all limited
partnership interests. Recognizing,
however, that many limited partners
lack the ability to materially influence
the management or operations of the
company-in which they have invested,
the Commission determined that this
approach would-impose unnecessary
costs both upon limited partners and the
Commission's processes.
The Commission rejected the notion
that it would retain the threshold
standard that exempts limited
partnership interests which, inter alia,
conform to the provisions of the Revised
Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 1976
("RULPA"). Because the Report and
Order requires thai a person seeking an
' Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
inter alia, requires an agency to prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis in instances in which
it is required to provide notice of a rule change and
in fact promulgates a final rule. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)
(1982).See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (1982). The rule changes
concerning the manner in which the Commission
attributes limited partnership interests, but not the
revisions to the data which are required to be
submitted in an Ownership Report. are within the
scope of section 604(a). See n.83, supro.
27451
exemption from attribution for a limited
partnership interest to refrain from any
material involvement in the
management or operations of the
business, the Commission found that
retention of the "conformance to
RULPA" standard was unnecessary. It
also determined that the use of two
disparate standards for assessing when
a limited partnership interest is exempt
from'attribution tends to engender
confusion and uncertainty. It found that
the "conformance to RULPA" standard
failed to provide a clear framework by
which persons holding limited
partnership interests could readily
ascertain whether or not their interests
were cognizable and that the activities
permitted by this standard were in fact
inconsistent with the policies underlying
the attribution standards.
4. PublicDissemination of this
Document. The attached Memorandum
Opinion and Order,which includes this
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, is
publicly available. This document can
be obtained at the Federal
Communications Commission, Office of
Public Affairs, Room 202, 1919 M St.
NW., Washington, D.C. 20554.
[FR Doc. 85-15735 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 81-11; Notice 13]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment
Correction
In FR Doc. 85-12357 beginning on page
21052 in the issue of Wednesday, May
22, 1985, make the following corrections:
1 1. On page 21056, in the first column,
in § 571.108 the third and fourth lines
from the bottom should read:
S4.1.1.36
* **
(a) * **
2. Also on page 21056, in the third
column, the Standard number at the
beginning of the next to last line should
read "S4.1.1.37".
BILLING CODE 1505-01-M
27452
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 50, No. 128
Wednesday, July 3, 1985
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the
proposed issuance of rules and
regulations. The purpose of these notices
is to give interested persons an
opportunity to participate in the rule
making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
21 CFR Part 561
[FAP OH5275, 3H5378/P369; PH-FRL 2859-
5]
Thlodicarb; Proposed Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
establish a feed additive regulation to
permit thiodicarb and its metabojite in
or on the commodities cottonseed hulls
and soybean hulls. The proposed
regulation to establish the maximum
permissible level for residues of this
insecticide in or on these commodities
was requested by Union Carbide
Agricultural Products Co., Inc.
DATE: Comments, identified by the
document control numbers [FAP
OH5275, FAP 3H5378/P369] must be
received on or before August 2, 1985.
ADDRESS:
Written comments by mail to:
Information Services Section, Program
Management and Support Division
(TS-767C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
In person, bring comments to: Rm. 236,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment
concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any
part or all of that information as
"Confidential Business Information"
(CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. A
copy of the comment that does not
contain CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidentiat
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public
inspection in Rm. 236 at the address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
By mail: Jay Ellenberger, Product
Manager (12), Registration Division
(TS-767C), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Office location and telephone number:
Rm. 202, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703557-2386].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
issued a notice published in the Federal
Register of October 28, 1980 (45 FR
71421), which announced that Union
Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc.,
P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709, had submitted a food additive
petition (FAP OH5275) to EPA proposing
that 21 CFR Part 561 be amended by
adding a regulation under section 409 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) establishing a tolerance
for residues of the insecticide thiodicarb
(dimethyl N, N'[thiobis [(methylimino)
carbonyloxy]]bis[ethanimidothioate) in
or on the feed commodities soybean
hulls at 0.4 part per million (ppm) and
cottonseed hulls at 0.8 ppm.
No comments were received in
response to the notice of filing.
Subsequently, the petition was
amended to include the metabolite
methomuyl (S-methyl N[methylcarbamoyl)oxy] thjoacetimidate)
in the tolerance expression.
The petition was later amended to
withdraw the request for a feed additive
tolerance on soybeans because the
tolerance proposal for the raw
agricultural commodity soybeans was
withdrawn. A new tolerance was
proposed for the raw agricultural
commodity soybeans resulting in the
need for a new food additive proposal
for soybean hulls.
In the Federal Register of February 2,
1983 (48 FR 4717), EPA issued a notice
that announced that Union Carbide
Agricultural Products Co., Inc., had
submitted a food additive petition (FAP
3H5378) to EPA proposing that 21 CFR
Part 561 be amended by adding a
regulation under section 409 of the
FFDCA establishing a tolerance for
residues of the insecticide thiodicarb
and its metabolite methomyl in or on the
feed commodity soybean hulls at 0.8
ppm.
No comments were received in
response to the notice of filing;
The metabolism studies in livestock
show that thiodicarb is metabolized in
steps by thiolysis to methomyl, followed
by hydrolysis to methomyloxime, which
is subsequently metabolized to
acetonitrile. Acetonitrile is then
metabolized to acetamide, which is then
hydrolyzed to acetic acid that enters the
intermediary metabolism cycle of these
animals, and is ultimately expired as
carbon dioxide. Plant metabolism
studies show that thiodicarb is likewise
metabolized to methomyl oxime and
then to acetonitrile and carbon dioxide,
both of which are volatilized.
Conversion of thiodicarb to acetamide
in plants has not been studied.
However, because of the long preharvest intervals (30-day phi for cottom
and 60 day phi for soybeans) and the
low level of detectable parent residues
on cotton and soybeans, EPA does not
expect detectable levels of acetamide to
occur in cottonseed and soybean hulls
as a result of the proposed use. A
feeding study shows that detectable
residues of thiodicarb and its methomyl
metabolite will not occur in eggs, milk,
fat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats,
hogs, horses, poultry, arid sheep as a
result of the proposed use on cotton and
soybeans. However, residues of
acetonitrile and acetamide could be
present in tissues, eggs, and milk at
maximum estimated levels of 0.002 ppm.
Acetamide has been characterized as a
carcinogen.
1.Toxicology of Acetamide
Four studies have been conducted
with acetamide that have demonstrated
a possible oncogenic effect. The first
study was conducted by F. T. Dessau
and B. Jackson in 1955. Two groups of
Rockland albino rats were treated with
a 40-percent solution of acetamide at a
rate of 4,000 mg/kg (equivalent to 40,000
ppm for younger rats or 80,000 ppm for
older rats) by intubation 5 days/week
for a period of 117 days (Group I) and
205 days (Group II). Histopathological
examination showed hepatocellular
irregularities in 5 of the 8 rats in Group I
and in 3 of 5 rats in Group II, which
were absent in the 10 control animals.
These irregularities consisted of a
greater variability of cellular and
nuclear size, giant nuclei, and the
presence of numerous mitoses, some of
unusual appearance. Benign
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.'128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
hepatocellular adenomas were also
found in two treated animals in Group
II.
Dessau and Jackson conducted a
second study in 1961, with three groups
of male Wistar albino rats. The test
duration was 12 months. Test material
was administered in a diet of ground
Wayne Laboratory Blox. Group I
consisted of 50 treated and 50 control
animals. The treated animals were
administered a diet containing 5 percent
(50,000 ppm) acetamide. Group II
consisted of four subgroups each
consisting of 25 rats. The three treated
subgroups received a 5 percent (50,000
ppm), 2.5 percent (25,000 ppm), and 1.25
percent (12,500 ppm) diet of acetamide.
The fourth subgroup received a control
diet. Group Ill consisted of 99 animals.
These animals were initially fed a 5percent diet of acetamide, and each
week two rats were taken off the test
diet and placed on a control diet for the
remainder of the testing period. In
Group I, 48 animals were evaluated with
hepatomas found in 4 of the animals. In
Group II, 1 of 18; 6 of 22; and 4 of 24
examined rats given a diet containing 5,
2.5, and 1.25 percent acetamide,'
respectively, exhibited hepatomas. In
Group III, hepatomas were found in 22
of the 81 rats examined. No hepatomas
were found in any of the control animals
of Group I or II.
In a study conducted by J.H.
Weisburger, R.S. Yamamoto, R.M. Glass,
and H.H. Frankel in 1969, 24 male
Wistar rats were administered 2.5
percent (25,000 ppm) acetamide in a diet
of Wayne Laboratory Blox. Eleven
animals were given the basal diet and
served as controls. Hepatomas were
found in 2 of 8 treated and 0 of 4 control
animals that were sacrificed after 12
months. The 16 animals remaining in the
treated group were maintained on the
basal diet for an additional 3 months.
Hepatomas were found in 7 of 16 treated
and 0 of 7 control rats that were
sacrificed after 15 months. The authors
also tested a 2.5 percent acetamide diet
supplemented with 5.6 percent arginine
and showed that arginine protects
against the development of hepatomas
in rats.
The fourth study with acetamide was
conducted by R.W. Fleischman et al. in
1980, with one test group of Fisher rats
and two test gr6ups of C57B1/6 mice.
Test animals were administered
acetamide in a diet of ground Wayne
Laboratory Blox for 12 months and
continued on a controlled diet of Wayne
Blox pellets for an additional 4 months.
Rats were administered 2.36 percent
(23,600 ppm) acetamide. Mice in Groups
I and II were administered 1.18 percent
(11,800 ppm) and 2.36 percent acetamide,
respectively. In acetamide-treated rats,
neoplastic nodules were noted in 1 of 47
males examined and 3 of 48 females
examined. Hepatocellular carcinomas
were noted in 41 of 47 treated male rats
and 33 of 48 female rats examined.
There were no abnormalities noted in
the 50 male or the 49 female control
animals. Malignant lymphomas were
noted in 7 of 50 male mice examined in
the low-dose group and 7 of 46 male
mice examined in the high-dose group
versus 0 and 95 of the matched controls.
There were no abnormalities noted in
female mice from either test group.
The Agency has evaluated the
acetamide studies and found each of
them to have deficiencies when
compared with current standards for
oncogenicity testing. Only a small
number of male rats were used and/or
examined in three of the four studies in
the test groups, or the controls, or both.
None of the studies provide a definitive
dose-response relationship, and none of
the studies meet EPA criteria for
technical adequacy. In all studies, the
exposure rates were extremely high.
This may have been responsible for the
excessive weight loss and mortality
noted in several of the studies.
Oxytetracycline (Terramycin) was
administered to test animals in the study
conducted by Weisburger et al. (1969).
This raises questions on the quality of
the animals used and the possibility of
adversely influencing the results of the
experiment. In the study conducted by
R. W. Fleischman et al. in 1980, the
results in mice are not considered valid.
In this study, males and females fed the
low dose (1.18%) diet were from a
different supplier than those given the
high dose (2.36%) or control diet, and
males from two suppliers were pooled
as controls. Also, the animals were
placed on test over a period of 13
months. These critical flaws preclude
any meaningful interpretation of the
results of this study. On the other hand,
it does not appeai that the technical
flaws in the rat study by Fleischman et
al should be considered substantially
worse than those of Weisburger et al or
Jackson and Dessau. Of the studies, the
Fleischman study offers the longest
duration (i,e., 16 months) and is the only
one which investigated acetamideinduced changes in females as well as
males. Although the incidence of
response in females was not as great as
in males, significant incidences of
hepatocellular carcinomas were
demonstrated in both sexes.
Although none of the four acetamide
studies meet current standards for
oncogenicity testing, the studies:
27453
collectively demonstrate that, at least
under certain conditions, long-term
dietary administration of acetamide at
high doses is associated with the
occurrence of liver tumors in rats.
There is evidence that dietary factors
and/or species-specific metabolic
processes may be involved in the
mechanism of the oncogenic responses
which were elicited under the conditions
of the experiments cited above. For
example, all of these experiments were
conducted using laboratory chow which
was obtained from the same supplier;
however, Weisburger et a] cited a
personal communication in which
Jackson reported that acetamide did not
cause liver tumors in rats when a basal
diet from a different supplier was used.
Also, Weisburger et al reported that
addition of arginine to the diet provided
almost complete protection against
acetamide-induced hepatic tumors in
rats.
However, the Agency believes it is
prudent to assume for present purposes
that acetamide is a possible human
carcinogen. Therefore, this document is
being published as a proposed rule and
provides the public with a 30-day public
comment period. EPA encourages
comments on the Agency's proposed
method for establishing the requested
food additive tolerances for thiodicarb
and its metabolite methomyl.
The Agency has evaluated the data
submitted in the petitions and other
relevant material on thiodicarb. The
toxicological data considered in support
of the tolerances include a 2-year rat
feeding/oncogenicity study with
thiodicarb that was negative for
oncogenic effects at the levels tested
(1.0, 3.0, and 10.0 mg/kg/day) and has
cholinesterase and chronic toxicity noobserved-effect levels (NOEL) of 10.0
and 3.0 mg/kg/day, respectively; a
mouse oncogenicity study that was
negative at the levels tested (1.0, 3.0, and
10.0 mg/kg/day); a 6-month dog feeding
study with a ChE and subchronic NOEL
of 15.0 mg/kg/day; a rat teratology study
that was negative at 30.0 mg/kg/day, the
highest dose tested (HDT); a mouse
teratology study that was negative at
200 mg/kg/day (HDT) and also had a
NOEL of 200 mg/kg/day for fetotoxicity;
a 3-generation rat reproduction study
with a NOEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day (HDT);
and an acute delayed neurotoxicity
study that was negative at 660 mg/kg
(HDT). Short-term assays indicated no
mutagenic potential.
II. Section 409 Tolerances
Under section 301 et seq. of FFDCA
(21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), it is unlawful to
introduce into (or deliver or receive in)
27454
27454
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
interstate commerce any food that is
adulterated. The term "food" includes
"articles used for food or drink for man
or other animals" and "articles used for
components of any such article" (21
U.S.C. 321(f)).
FFDCA section 402(a)(2)(C) states that
a food shall be deemed adulterated "if it
is, or bears or contains, any food
additive which is unsafe within the
meaning of [FFDCA] section 409:
Provided,That where a pesticide
chemical has been used on a raw
agricultural commodity in conformity
with an exemption granted or a
tolerance prescribeoi under (FFDCA
section 408) and such raw agricultural
commodity has been subjected to
processing such as * * * milling, the
residue of such pesticide chemical
remaining in or on such processed food
shall, notwithstanding the provisions of
sections 406 and 409, not be deemed
unsafe if such residue in or on the raw
agricultural commodity has been
removed to the extent possible in good
manufacturing practice and the
concentration 6f such residue in the
processed food when ready to eat is not
greater than the tolerance prescribed for
the raw agricultural commodity."
Thiodicarb is intended to be applied
to the raw agricultural commodities
cotton and soybeans. The hulls of
cottonseed and soybeans, separated in
the milling process, are used as animal
feed. Cottonseed hulls and soybean
hulls are thus processed foods.
Thiodicarb and, presumably, cottonseed
hulls and soybean hulls will be
distributed and sold in interstate
commerce. Although the Agency
proposes to establish tolerances under
FFDCA section 408 for thiodicarb and its
metabolites on cottonsepd and
soybeans, the thiodicarb residue levels
on cottonseed hulls and soybeans hulls
are greater than the proposed tolerance
levels on their parent raw agricultural
commodities. Accordingly, the proviso
to FFDCA section 402(a)(2](C) does not
apply, and separate food additive
regulations must be set for thiodicarb on
cottonseed hulls and soybean hulls in
order for these products not to be
adulterated within the meaning of
FFDCA section 402(a)(2)(C).
Finally, EPA'd regulations (409 CFR
162.7(d)(3)(v) and 162.184(a)(4)) allow
the issuance of a registration providing
for use of a pesticide product that will
result in residues on food or feed only if
any clearances required by the FFDCA
have first been obtained.
The EPA Administrator is vested with
responsibility for issuing food additive
regulations concerning pesticide
chemicals by Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1970. Section 409 states that a food
additive regulation may be issued either
in response to a petition or upon the
Administrator's own initiative. A food
additive regulation must prescribe the
conditions under which the additive
may be safely used, and may to that end
specify the maximum quantity which
may be used or permitted to remain in
or on food, the manner in which the
additive may be added to or used in or
on food, and any other requirements
deemed necessary to assure the safety
of the additive's use, FFDCA section
409(c)(1)(A). Under FFDCA section
409(c)(3), a food additive regulation may
not be issued if a fair evaluation of the
data before the Administrator "fails to
establish that the proposed use of the
food additive, under the conditions of
use to be specified in the regulation, will
be safe" (this is known as the "general
safety clause").
In addition to the requirement of the
general safety clause, section 409(c)(3)
also contains a specific criterion, called
the "Delaney clause," which (with an
important exception discussed later in
this document) provides that "no
additive will be deemed to be safe if it is
found to induce cancer when ingested
by man or animal." The Food and Drug
Administration, which has responsibility
for administering FFDCA section 409
with respect to all food additives other
than pesticides (and which, prior to
EPA's creation in 1970, also had
responsibility for pesticide food
additives) has interpreted the term
"additive" in section 409 as applying not
only to the parent food additive
compound (here, thiodicarb) but also to
other substances formed by metabolism
of the parent compound (here,
acetamide). (See the FDA document
entitled "Criteria and Procedures for
Evaluating Assays for Carcinogenic
Residues," published in the Federal
Resister of March 20, 1979 (44 FR 17070,
17081-82).) For the purposes of this
analysis, EPA adopts FDA's
interpretation, for the reason set forth by
FDA in that document. Thus, although
long-term feeding studies in which
thiodicarb was administered to animals
did not demonstrate any evidence of
oncogenicity, the potential oncogenicity
of acetamide, a metabolite of thiodicarb,
also must be considered with respect to
the Delaney clause. As stated earlier in
this document, acetamide has been
shown to induce cancer in animal
feeding studies. This conclusion is not
changed by the fact that the animals
received extremely high doses of
acetamide, nor by the deficiencies in the
conduct of the studies, although EPA
cannot conclude from the studies that
humans would be likely at risk from
ingestion of acetamide residues at the
levels that would result from the
proposed use of thiodicarb. For purposes
of FFDCA section 409, therefore, EPA
will analyze acetamide as a substance
"found to induce cancer when ingested
by * * * animal[s)."
The Delaney clause's prohibition on
the issuance of a food additive
regulation for a substance which has
been shown to induce cancer in animals
is subject to an important exception
with respect to pesticides such as
thiodicarb which will be present in the
feed of cattle or other animals which are
raised for the production of eggs, meat,
or milk for human consumption. FFDCA
section 409(c](3)(A] states that the
Delaney clause "shall not apply with
respect to the use of a substance as an
ingredient of feed for animals which are
raised for food production. if the
[Administrator] finds (i) that, under the
conditions of use and feeding specified
in the proposed labeling and reasonably
certain to be followed in practice, such
additive will not adversely affect the
animals for which such feed is intended,
and (ii) that no residue of the additive
will be found (by methods of
examination prescribed or approved by
the [Administrator] by regulations
* * *) in any edible portion of such
animal after slaughter or in any food
yielded by or derived from the living
animal."
FDA has analyzed extensively the
meaning of this exception (commonly
referred to as the "DES proviso") in a
document published in the Federal
Register of March 20, 1979 (44 FR 17070).
In that document, FDA concluded that
the proviso should be implemented by
requiring that residues of an oncogenic
compound should not be allowed to be
present in the total diet of humans
unless it can be verified by analytical
methodology that if such residues do
occur they will be present at a level less
than that which, by use of prescribed
methods of extrapolation from animal
bioassay data and a series of
conservative assumptions, yields an
excess cancer risk level that is deemed
insignificant (which FDA sets at the
level of one in a million, or 1 X 10- 9. The
FDA approach then goes on to set forth
a requirement for analytical
methodology that will allow FDA to
determine whether residues in any
edible tissue (meat, milk, or eggs) will
bear residue levels in excess of those
which would be equivalent to the
allowable total diet residue level.
EPA believes that the overall
approach to implementation of the "DES
proviso" set forth by FDA is a
reasonable one, and, with the
exceptions discussed later in this
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
document, proposes to adopt the
reasoning and methodology of the FDA
document in deciding whether to
promulgate the food additive regulation
proposed for thiodicarb.
Under FDA's approach, the allowable
level of the residue of concern in the
total diet, denominated S., can be
expressed as follows:
(Allowable excess
risk trom residue
in total ateti
(Food factor for
total diet]
(Extrapolation
slope)
A dose/response probability slope for
acetamide has been calculated and
extrapolated to the residue levels under
consideration. Using this slope
(3.30xlO-8ppb) -t , a food factor of I (i.e.,
the entire diet), and choosing an
allowable ri§k of 1 X 10 - 6 the associated
residue for acetamide in the total diet So
can be derived:
1X IOS.=
=30.0 ppb
(1)(3.30 10-8 ppb)'
Thus, using the procedures for risk
extrapolation specified in the FDA
document, an individual's diet
(estimated to be 1,500 gm/day) could
contain up to 30 ppb acetamide, and the
excess lifetime cancer risk would not
exceed 1 X 10- .
The FDA approach incorporates a
series of conservative assumptions to be
used in calculating the residue levels to
be allowed in the total diet and in
individual food items. The approach
assumes that: (1) Response is linear to
dose even at very low dose levels; (2)
each member of the public should be
protected from an individual excess risk
of a certain level; (3) an individual will
consume the commodity in question
every day for a lifetime; (4) each
quantity of the commodity consumed
will contain the regulated food additive
or metabolite at levels just under the
prohibited level; and (5) other competing
causes of illness or death to humans
should be disregarded in the
computation.
The 1979 FDA document also
acknowledges the difficulty of choosing
the appropriate level of risk deemed to
be insignificant, noting that it had
considered levels ranging from I in
20,000 to 1 in 100,000,000. FDA
concluded that "the acceptable risk
level should: (1)Not significantly
increase human cancer risk and (2)
subject to that constraint, be as high as
possible in order to permit the use of
carcinogenic animal drugs and food
additives as decreed by Congress." In
choosing the I in 1 million figure, FDA
noted that "[a] risk figure significantly
higher than 1 in 1 million, for example 1
in 10,000, might present a significant
additional risk of cancer to the public."
(44 FR 10792-10793)
Using FDA's procedure for calculation
of allowable levels in target tissues, S.,
one finds that Sm=SSo/T, where T is the
fraction of the total diet represented by
an individual edible tissue. One of the
most significant conservative
assumptions made by FDA is that eggs
constitute 33 percent of the daily diet of
humans; meat constitutes 33 percent of
the daily diet of humans; and milk
constitutes 100 percent of the daily
human diet. Thus,
27455
These concentrations in these
commodities, considering the dietary
consumption of meats and livers, would
not present an excess cancer risk
greater than 1 X 10- r utilizing the
experimental data discussed previously.
EPA has estimated that at the
proposed tolerance levels, acetamide
would be present in cattle liver and
poultry liver at maximum concentrations
of 1.8 ppb and 0.06 ppb, respectively.
These acetamide levels are well below
the above allowable levels for beef liver
and poultry liver as calculated under the
SOM procedure.
Union Carbide has submitted an
analytical method (gas-liquid
chromatography using a nitrogenphosphorus specific detector) for
detection of residues of acetamide in
beef and poultry liver. The lowest limits
of reliable measurement for acetamide
in beef and poultry liver are 770 ppb and
400 ppb, respectively. A copy of this
method will be made available upon
written request sent to the Information
Services Section at the address listed
Commodity
T
SS
above.
EPA proposes to find that this method
Milk
...........................................................
I S.= 30 ppb.
is adequate to detect residues of
M eat .........................................................
-v3 S.= 90 ppb.
Eggs .........................................................
V, S.= 90 ppb.
acetamide in beef and poultry liver that
would represent an unreasonable risk of
cancer to consumers of meat (muscle
These levels are the maximum
tissue) within the meaning of the 1979
concentrations of acetamide that can be
FDA document.
permitted in each of the individual
edible tissues. The allowable residue of
EPA has estimated the maximum
acetamide in milk using FDA's approach
expected levels of acetamide in milk
is 30 ppb based on milk constituting 100
and eggs resulting from thiodicarb use
percent of the total diet. Since meat is
on cotton and soybeans to be 0.3 ppb
assumed to constitute 33 percent of the
and 0.07 ppb, respectively. The levels
total diet, it may contain three times this
are well below those calculated using
level, or 90 ppb. Eggs are also assumed
the SOM procedures, i.e., 30 and 90 ppb
to constitute 33 percent of the diet and
as shown above. Union Carbide has
could likewise contain 90 ppb of
submitted data showing that acetamide
acetamide.
residues are present in milk and eggs
For meat, the liver was chosen as the
from animals not exposed to thiodicarb.
target tissue. (A target tissue is the
The source of the acetamide is
tissue selected to monitor for residues in
unknown. These data consisted of
the target animal.) Studies in which
samples purchased at local grocery
thiodicarb was fed to cattle and poultry
stores in 11 States. The acetamide
showed that acetamide, if present,
residues in these samples ranged from
would occur in greater concentration in
approximately 275 to 500 ppb in milk
the liver than in any other tissue. Beef
(average 400) and 75 to 350 ppb in eggs
liver was found to contain 17X the
(average 170). The maximum acetamide
concentration of acetamide as compared
residues in milk (0.3 ppb) and eggs (0.07
to meat (muscle). In poultry, the liver
ppb) that will result from the proposed
cntained 6X the concentration of
use of thiodicarb on cotton and
acetamide found in muscle. Thus, the
soybeans are much lower than these
"background" levels and are also much
allowable level for acetamide in beef
lower than the levels which would result
liver is 1,530 ppb (17X90 ppb) and that
in a cancer risk of 1x10 - .
in poultry liver is 540 ppb (6X90 ppb).
27456
Feddral Register / Vol. 50. No. 128 / Wednpdav
Union Carbide has requested that the,
Agency waive the requirement for a
method of analyzing for residues of
acetamide in milk and eggs. Based on
these data, the Agency tentatively
concludes that acetamide is ubiguitous
in milk and eggs. However, the Agency
is directing its Analytical Chemistry
Section to obtain milk samples
(pasteurized and unprocessed/
unpasteurized) and analyze for
acetamide residues using USDA's
pesticide-free dairy cattle. These data
are being developed during this
comment period and they may help the
Agency to determine whether acetamide
is of pesticide origin. Based on the
results of this work, the Agency may
conclude that further action is
necessary. A regulatory method capable
of measuring acetamide residues at
levels equivalent to a 1X 10- 6risk level
would be futile, since the amount of
ubiguitous acetamide present would
mask the expected negligible
conbtribution of acetamide from use of
thiodicarb on cotton and soybeans.
Therefore, the Agency is prepared to
waive at this time the requirement of
regulatory analytical methods for
analysis of acetamide in milk and eggs
under the SOM policy contingent upon
the work being conducted in order to
confirm the presence of acetdmide in
milk and eggs.
The Agency has determined that
Union Carbide has satisfied the
provisions of the "DES proviso."
Accordingly, EPA believes that it would
be proper to issue the proposed food
additive tolerances for thiodicarb.
The data -submitted in the petition and
all other relevant material have been
evaluated. Based on the information
considered by the Agency, it is
concluded that the pesticide can be
safely used in the prescribed manner
when such use is in accordance with the
label and labeling registered pursuant to
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act as amended (7 U.S.C.
136 et seq.). Therefore, it is proposed
that the feed additive regulation be
established as set forth below.
A related proposed rule (PP 0F2413,
Jul
3 19n5 / Prnnn c'!
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. The comments
must bear a notation indicating both the
subject and the petition and document
control number [FAP OH5275, 3H5378/
P369]. All written comments filed in
response to this notice of proposed
rulemaking will be available for public
inspection in the Information Service
Section at the address given above from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except legal holidays.
P,,lo0.
* 25082 in the issue of Monday, June 17,
1985, make the following corrections:
1. On page 25087, in the third column,
in § 61.4(b)[2), the date "October 15,
1985" in the sixth line should read "(120
days from date of publication)".
2. On the same page and in the same
column, in the first line of § 61.4(b)(3),
"applicant" should read "application".
BILLING CODE 1505-01-M
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 561
Feed additives, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: June 28, 1985.
Marcia E. Williams,
Acting AssistantAdministratorfor Pesticides
and Toxic Substances.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[EE-66-84I
PART 561-[AMENDED]
Therefore, 21 CFR Part 561 is
amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 561
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.
Treatment of Funded Welfare Benefit
Plans
2. Section 561.386 is revised, to read
as follows:
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
by cross reference to temporary
regulations.
§ 561.386 Thlodicarb.
Tolerances are established for
residues of thiodicarb (dimethyl, N, NK[thiobis[(methylimino) carbonyloxy]]bis
[ethanimidothioate] and its metabolite
methomyl in or on the following
processed feeds when present therein as
a result of application of this insecticide
to growing crops:
Feed
per
Part
million
Cottonseed hulls ................
Soybean hulls ....................
0.8
0.8
[FR Doc. 85-16086 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,
Treasury.
SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations
portion of this issue of the Federal
Register, the Internal Revenue Service is
issuing temporary regulations relating to
contributions to and reserves of welfare
benefit funds maintained pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement. The
text of those temporary regulations also
serves as the comment document for
this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Written comments and requests
for a public hearing must be delivered or
mailed by September 3, 1985. The
regulations are proposed to be effective
for contributions paid or accrued after
December 31, 1985.
DATES:
ADDRESS:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Send comments and requests
3F2793/P368) proposing to establish
25 CFR Part 61
for a public hearing to Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, Attn: CC:LR:T (EE-6684), 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20224.
tolerances for cottonseed at 0.4 ppm and
Preparation of Rolls of Indians
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
soybeans at 0.2 ppm under FFDCA
section 408 appears elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Correction
In FR Doc. 85-14397 beginning on page
John T. Ricotta of the Employee Plans
and Exempt Organizations Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, Internal
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20224,
Attention: CC:LR:T (EE-66-84),
telephone: 202-566-4396 (not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
retirement accounts, Employee stock
ownership plans.
M. Eddie Heironimus,
Acting Commissioner of InternalRevenue.
[FR Doc. 85-15941 Filed 7-1-85: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-M
Background
The temporary regulations provide
guidance concerning the limits on
contributions to and the reserves of
welfare benefit funds maintained
pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement under section 419A(f)(5) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(Code), as added to the Code by section
511 of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 (26
U.S.C. 419A). The proposed regulations
are issued under the authority contained
in section 7805 of the Code (26 U.S.C.
7805). For the text of the temporary
regulations, see FR Doc. 85-15940
published in the Rules and Regulations
portion of this issue of the Federal
Register.
Special Analyses
The Commissioner of Internal
Revenue has determined that this
proposed rule is not a major rule as
defined in Executive Order 12291 and
that a Regulatory Impact Analysis is
therefore not required. Although this
document is a notice of proposed
rulemaking which solicits public
comment, the Internal Revenue has
concluded that the regulations proposed
herein are interpretative and that the
notice and public procedure
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not
apply. Accordingly, these proposed
regulations do not constitute regulations
subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).
Comments and Requests for a Public
Hearing
Before adopting the temporary
regulations referred to in this document
as final regulations, consideration will
be given to any written comments that
are submitted (preferably 8 copies) to
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
All comments will be available for
public inspection and popying. A public
hearing will be held upon written
request to the Commissioner by any
person who has submitted written
comments. If a public hearing is held.
notice of the time and place will be
published in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR 1.401-0-1.425-1
Income taxes. Employee benefit plans,
Pensions, Stock options, Individual
26 CFR Part 1
27457
conform the Income Tax Regulations to
section 2 of the Subchapter S Revision
Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1669), as amended
by section 305(d)(3) of the Technical
Corrections Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2400)
and sections 102(d)(1), 474(r), and 721 (u)
and (v) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984
(98 Stat. 623, 844, and 971).
In General
Section 1374 imposes a tax on the
capital gains of certain S corporations.
The tax is imposed for any taxable year
Capital Gains Tax and Passive
in which the S corporation has a net
Investment Income Tax With Respect
to Certain S Corporations; Proposed
capital gain in excess of $25,000 for the
Rulemaking
taxable year if the amount of the net
capital gain exceeds 50 percent of the
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,
taxable income for such year and the
Treasury.
taxable income for such year is in
excess of $25,000.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The amount of the tax Is generally 28
SUMMARY: This document contains
percent of the amount of the net capital
proposed regulations relating to a tax
gain in excess of $25,000. However, in no
imposed on capital gains of certain S
case will the tax imposed by section
corporations and a tax Imposed on the
1374 on the corporation exceed the tax
excess net passive income of certain S
that would have been imposed by
corporations that have accumulated
section 11 on the corporation if the
earnings and profits from subchapter C
corporation were not an S corporation.
years. Changes to the applicable law
Section 1374(c) contains exceptions to
were made by the Subchapter S
the tax imposed by section 1374(a) and a
Revision Act of 1982, as amended by the
special rule in the case of property with
Technical Corrections Act of 1982 and
a substituted basis. Section 1374(d) and
the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The
§ 1.1374A-l(d) define the term "taxable
regulations would provide the public
income" for purposes of section 1374.
with the guidance needed to comply
Section 1375 imposes a tax on the
with the law as amended by these Acts.
excess net passive income of certain S
DATE: Written comments and requests to corporations that have subchapter C
comment orally at a public hearing must .earnings and profits. This tax can
generally be avoided by the corporation
be delivered or mailed by September 3,
distributin~g its subchapter C earnings
1985. The amendments under section
and profits before the close of the
1374 are generally proposed to be
taxable year. The tax is computed by
effective for taxable years beginning
multiplying the excess net passive
after December 31, 1982, and the
income by the highest rate of tax
amendments under section 1375 are
specified in section 11(b). Section
generally proposed to be effective for
1375(b) and § 1.1375A-1(b) define the
taxable years beginning after 1981.
term "excess net passive income." A
ADDRESS: Send comments and requests
to comment orally at a public hearing to: special rule contained in section 1375(c)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Attn: ensures that a net capital gain that is
taken into account under section 1375 in
CC:LR:T (LR-267-82), Washington, D.C.
computing the passive income tax will
20224.
not also be taken into account in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
determining the capital gains tax under
John G. Schmalz of the Legislation and
section 1374. Section 1375(d) provides
Regulations Division, Office of Chief
that the tax imposed by section 1375
Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, 1111
may be waived in certain limited cases
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
where an S corporation determined in
D.C. 20224 (Attn: CC:LR:T) (202-566-good faith that it had no subchapter C
3516, not a toll-free call).
earnings and profits at the end of a
taxable year and it is later determined
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
that it did have such earnings and
Background
profits. Section 1.1375A-l(d) provides
rules concerning this waiver.
This document contains proposed
amendments to the Income Tax
Comments and Public Hearing
Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) under
sections 1374 and 1375 of the Internal
Before adopting these proposed
Revenue Code of 1954. Generally, these
regulations, consideration will be given
proposed regulations are proposed to
to any written comments that are
[LR-267-821
27458
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
submitted (preferably eight copies) to
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
All comments will be available for
public inspection and copying. If one is
requested, a public hearing will be held
and a notice of time and place for the
public hearing will be published in the
Federal Register.
The collection of information
requirements contained in this notice of
proposed rul~making have been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments on
these requirements should be sent to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer
for Internal Revenue Service, New
Executive Office Building, Washington,
D.C. 20503. The Internal Revenue
Service requests that persons submitting
comments on these requirements to
OMB also send copies of those
comments to the Service.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 12291
The Commissioner of Internal
Revenue has determined that this
proposed rule is not a major rule under
Executive Order 12291 and that a
Regulatory Impact Analysis therefore is
not required. Although this document is
a notice of proposed rulemaking that
solicits public comment, the Internal
Revenue Service has concluded that the
regulations proposed herein are
interpretative and that the notice and
public procedure requirements of 5
U.S.C. 553 do not apply. Accordingly,
these regulations do not constituted
regulations subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6).
Drafting Information
The principal author of these
proposed regulations is John G. Schmalz
of the Legislation and Regulations
Division of the Office of Chief Counsel,
Internal Revenue Service. However,
personnel from other offices of the
Internal Revenue Service and Treasury
Department participated in developing
the regulations, both on matters of
substance and style.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR 1.1361A-11.1388-1
Income taxes, Small business,
Subchapter S corporation, Cooperatives.
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
The proposed amendments to 26 CFR
Part I are as follows:
PART 1-[AMENDED]
Paragraph 1. The authority for Part 1
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
§§ 1.1361-1 through 1.1361-16 [Removed)
Par. 2. Sections 1.1361-1 through
1.1361-16 are removed.
Par. 3. There are inserted immediately
after § 1.1348-3 the following new
§ § 1.1361A-0, 1.1374A-1, and 1.1375A-1
to read as follows:
§ 1.1361A-0 Effective date.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in
the regulations, the provisions of
§ § 1.1374A-1 and 1.1375A-1 apply to
taxable years beginning after December
31, 1982.
(b) The provisions of § § 1.1371-1
through/1.1378-3 apply to a qualified
casualty insurance electing small
business corporation and to a qualified
oil corporation for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 1982, and
the provisions of § § 1,1374A-1 and
1.1375A-1 shall not apply. See section
6(c) (2), (3), and (4] of the Subchapter S
Revision Act of 1982.
§ 1.1374A-1 Tax Imposed on certain
capital gains.
(a) Generalrule. Except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (c) of this section,
if for a taxable year beginning after 1982
of an S corporation(1) The net capital gain of such
corporation exceeds $25,000, and
(2) The net capital gain of such
corporation exceeds 50 percent of its
taxable income (as defined in paragraph
(d) of this section) for such year, and
(3) The taxable income of such
corporation (as defined in paragraph (d)
of this section) for such year exceeds
$25,000,
section 1374 imposes a tax (computed
under paragraph (b) of this section) on
the income of such corporation. The tax
is imposed on the S corporation and not
on the shareholders.
(b) Amount of tax. The amount of tax
shall be the lower of(1) An amount equal to the tax,
determined as provided in section
1201(a)(2), on the amount by which the
net capital gain of the corporation for
the taxable year exceeds $25,000, or
(2) An amount equal to the tax which
would be imposed by section 11 on the
taxable income of the corporation (as
defined in paragraph (d) of this section)
for the taxable year were it not an S
corporation.
No credit shall be allowable under part
IV of subchapter A of chapter I of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (other
than under section 34) against the tax
imposed by section'1374(a) and this
section. See section 1375(c)(2) and
§ 1.1375A-1(c)(2) for a special rule that
reduces the amount of the net capital
gain of the corporation for purposes of
this paragraph (b) in cases where a net
capital gain is taxed as excess net
passive income under section 1375. See
section 1374(c)(3) and paragraph
(c](1)(ii) of this section for a special rule
that limits the amount of tax on property
with a substituted basis in certain cases.
(c) Exceptions to taxation-(1)New
corporationsand corporationswith
election in effect for 3 immediately
precedingyears-(i)In general.If an S
corporation would be subject to the tax
imposed by section 1374 for a taxable
year pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section, the corporation shall,
nevertheless, not be subject to such tax
for such year, if:
(A) The election under section 1362(a)
which is in effect with respect to such
corporation for such year has been in
effect for the corporation's three
immediately preceding taxable years, or
(B) An election under section 1362 (a)
has been in effect with respect to such
corporation for each of its taxable years
for which it has been in existence,
unless there is a net capital gain for the
taxable year which is attributable to
property with a substituted basis within
the meaning of paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(ii) Amount of tax on net copitolgain
attributableto property with a
substitutedbasis.If for a taxable year of
an S corporation either paragraph
(c)(1)(i) (A) or (B) of this section is
satisfied, but the S corporation has a net
capital gain for such taxable year which
is attributable to property with a
substituted basis (within the meaning of
paragraph (c)(1)[iii) of this section), then
paragraph (a) of this section shall apply
for the taxable year, but the amounl of
tax determined under paragraph (b) of
this section shall not exceed a tax,
determined as provided in section 1201
(a), on the net capital gain attributable
to property with a substituted basis.
(iii)Property with substitutedbasis.
For purposes of this section, the term
"property with a substituted basis"
means:
(A) Property acquired by a
corporation ("the acquiring
corporation") during the period
beginning 36 months before the first day
of the acquiring corporation's taxable
year and ending on the last day of such
year;
(B) The basis of such property in the
hands of the acquiring corporation is
determined in whole or in part by
reference to the basis of any property in
the hands of another corporation; and
(C) Such other corporation was not an
S corporation throughout the period
beginning the later of:
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
(1) 36 months before the first day of
the acquiring corporation's taxable year,
or
(2) The time such other corporation
came into existence,
and ending on the date such other
corporation transferred the property, the
basis of which is used to determine, in
whole or in part, the basis of the
property in the hands of the acquiring
corporation.
(iv) Existence of a corporation.For
purposes of this section, a corporation
shall not be considered to be in
existence for any taxable year which
precedes the first taxable year in which
such corporation has shareholders or
acquires assets or begins business,
whichever is first to occur.
(v) References to priorlaw included.
For purposes of this paragraph (c), the
term "S corporation" shall include an
electing small business corporation
under prior subchapter S law, and the
term "election under section 1362 (a)"
shall include an election under section
1372 of prior subchapter S law.
(iv) Examples. The provisions of this
paragraph may be illustrated by the
following examples:
Example (1). M Corporation was organized
and began business in 1977. M subsequently
made an election under section 1362 (a)
which was effective for its 1984 taxable year.
If such election does not terminate under
section 1362 for its taxable years 1984, 1985,
and 1986, M is not subject to the tax imposed
by section 1374 for its taxable year 1987, or
for any subsequent year for which such
election remains in effect, unless it has, for
any such year, an excess of net long-term
capital gain over net short-term capital loss
attributable to property with a substituted
basis. If there is such an excess for any such
year. and the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section are met. M will be subject to
the tax for such year. If there is no such
excess for any year after 1986, M will not be
subject to the tax for any such year even
though the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section are met.
Example (2). N corporation was organized
in 1983, and was an S corporation for its first
taxable year. N is not subject to the tax
imposed by section 1374 for 1983. or for any
subsequent year for which its original
election under section 1362 (a) has not
terminated under section 1362 (d), unless, for
any such year, it has an excess of net longterm capital gain over net short-term capital
loss attributable to property with a
substituted basis and the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section are met.
(2) Treatment of certaingains of
options and commodities dealers-(i)
Exclusion of certain capitalgains. For
purposes of this section, the net capital
gain of any options dealer or
commodities dealer shall be determined
by not taking into account any gain or
loss (in the normal course of the
taxpayer's activity of dealing in or
trading section 1256 contracts) from any
section 1256 contract or property related
to such a contract.
(ii). Definitions. For purposes of this
paragraph (c)(2)(A) Options dealer.The term "options
dealer" has the meaning given to such
term by section 1256(g)(8).
(B) Commodities dealer.The term
"commodities dealer" means a person
who is actively engaged in trading
section 1256 contracts and is registered
with a domestic board of trade which is
designated as a contract market by the
Commodities Futures Trading
Commission.
(C) Section 1256 contracts.The term
"section 1256 contracts" has the
meaning given to such term by section
1256(b).
(iii) Effective dates-(A) In general.
Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) this paragraph (c)(2)
shall apply to positions established after
July 18, 1984, in taxable years ending
after such date.
(B) Specialrule for options on
regulatedfutures contracts.In the case
of any option with respect to a regulated
futures contract (within the meaning of
section 1256), this paragraph (c)(2) shall
apply to positions established after
October 31, 1983, in taxable years
ending after such date.
(C) Elections with respect to property
held on or before July 18, 1984. See
§ § 1.1256 (h)-lT and 2T for rules
concerning an election to have this
paragraph (c)(2) apply to certain
property held on or before July 18, 1984.
(d) Determinationof taxable
income-(1) Generalrule. For purposes
of this section, taxable income of the
corporation shall be determined under
section 63(a) as if the corporation were a
C corporation rather than an S
corporation, except that the following
deductions shall not apply in the
computation(i) The deduction allowed by section
172 (relating to net operating loss
deduction), and
(ii) The deductions allowed by part
VIII of subchapter B (other than the
deduction allowed by section 248,
relating to organization expenditures).
For any taxable year in which a tax
under this section is imposed on an S
corporation, the S corporation shall
attach a Form 1120 completed in
accordance with this paragraph (d) to its
tax return filed for such taxable year.
(2) Special rulefor net capitalgains
taxed as excess net passive income
under section 1375. See section
1275(c)(2) and § 1.1375A-1(c)(2) for a
- special rule that reduces the taxable
27459
income of the corporation for purposes
of section 1374(b)(2) and § 1.1374A1(b)(2) in cases where a net capital gain
is taxed as excess net passive income
under section 1375.
(e) Reduction in pass-thrufor tax
imposed on capitalgain. See section
1366(f)(2) for a special rule reducing the
S corporation's long-term capital gains
and the corporation's gain from sales or
exchanges of property described in
section 1231 for purposes of section 1366
(a) by an amount of tax imposed under
section 1374 and this section.
(f) Examples. The following examples
illustrate the principles of this section
and assume that a tax will not be
imposed under section 1375:
Example (1). Corporation M is an S
corporation for its taxable year beginning
January 1. 1983. For 1983, M has an excess of
net long-term capital gain over net short-term
capital loss in the amount of $30,000.
However, its taxable income for the year is
only $20,000 as a result of other deductions in
excess of other income. Thus, although the
excess of the net long-term capital gain over
the net short-term capital loss exceeds
$25,000 and also exceeds 50 percent of
taxable income, M is not subject to the tax
imposed by section 1374 for 1983 because its
taxable income does not exceed $25,000.
Example (2). Corporation N is an S
Corporation for its 1983 taxable year. For
1983, N has an excess of net long-term capital
gain over net short-term capital loss in the
amount of $30,000, and taxable income of
$65,000. Thus, although N's net capital gain
($30,000) exceeds $25,000, it does not exceed
50 percent of the corporation's taxable
income for the year (50 percent of $65,000, or
$32,500), and therefore N is not subject to the
tax imposed by section 1374 for such year.
Example (3). Assume that Corporation 0,
an S corporation, is subject to the tax
imposed by section 1374 for its taxable year
1983. For 1983, 0 has an excess of net longterm capital gain over net short-term capital
loss in the amount of $73,000, and taxable
income within the meaning of section 1374,
which includes capital gains and losses, of
$100,000. The amount of tax computed under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section is 28 percent
of $48,00 ($73,000--$25,000), or $13,440. Since
this is lower than the amount computed
under paragraph (b) (2) of this section, which
is $25,750 ($3,750+$4,500+ $7,500+$10,000).
$13,440 is the amount of tax imposed by
section 1374.
Example (4). Assume that in example (3)
the taxable income of 0 for 1983 is $35,000.
This results from an excess of deductions
over income with respect to items which
were not included in determining the excess
of the net long-term capital gain over the net
short-term capital loss. In such case, the
amount of tax, computed under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, is $5,550. Since this is
lower than the amount computed under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, $5,550 is the
amount of tax imposed by section 1374.
Example (5). Corporation P,an S
corporation, for its taxable year 1983 has an
27460
II
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, lulv 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
v
.
f
excess of net long-term capital gain over net
short-term capital loss in the amount of
$65,000 and has taxable income of $80,000. P's
election under section 1362 has been in effect
for its three immediately preceding taxable
years, but P.nevertheless, is subject to the
tax imposed by section 1374 for 1983 since it
has an excess of net long-term capital gain
over net short-term capital loss (in the
amount of $20,000) attributable to property
with a substituted basis. The tax computed
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, $11,200
(28 percent of $40,000 ($65,000-$25,000)), is
less than the tax computed under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, $17,750. However, under
the limitation provided in paragraph (c) of
this section which is applicable in this factual
situation, the tax imposed by section 1374 for
1983 may not exceed $5,600 (28 percent of
$20,000, the excess of net long-term capital
gain over net short-term capital loss
attributable to property with a substituted
basis).
§ 1.1375A-1 Tax Imposed when passive
Investment Income of corporation having
subchapter C earnings and profits exceed 25 percent of gross receipts.
(a) Generalrule. For taxable years
beginning after 1981, section 1375(a)
imposes a tax on the income of certain S
corporations that have passive
investment income. In the case of a
taxable year beginning during 1982, an
electing small business corporation may
elect to have the rules under this section
not apply. See the regulations under
section 1362 for rules on the election.
For purposes of this section, the term "S
corporation" shall include an electing
small business corporation under prior
law. This tax shall apply to an S
corporation for a taxable year if the S
corporation has(1) Subchapter C earnings and profits
at the close of such taxable year, and
(2) Gross receipts more than 25
percent of which are passive investment
income.
If the S corporation has no subchapter C
earnings and profits at the close of the
taxable year (because, for example,
such earnings and profits were
distributed in accordance with section
1368), the tax shall not be imposed even
though the S corporation has passive
investment income for the taxable year.
If the tax is imposed, the tax shall be
computed by multiplying the excess net
passive income (as defined in paragraph
(b) of this section) by the highest rate of
tax specified in section 11(b).
(b) Definitions-(1)Excess net
passive income- (i) In general.The
term "excess net passive income" is
defined in section 1375(b)(1), and can be
expressed by the following formula:
ENPi -NPIX×.
r
r
f
P1i-(.25.x GR)
NCG
Where:
ENPI= excess net passive income
NPl-=net passive income
Pll=passive investment income
GR= total gross receipts
(ii) Limitation. The amount of the
excess net passive income for any
taxable year shall not exceed the
corporation's taxable income for the
taxable year (determined in accordance.
with section 1374(d) and § 1.1374A1(d)).
(2) Net passive income. The term "net
passive income" means(i) Passive investment income,
reduced by
(ii) The deductions allowable under
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 which are directly connected
with the production of such income
(other than deductions allowable under
section 172 and part VIII of subchapter
B).
For purposes of the preceding sentence,
to be directly connected with the
production of income, an item of
deduction must have proximate and
primary relationship to the income.
Expenses, depreciation, and similar
items attributable solely to such income
qualify for deduction.
(3) Other definitions. The terms
"subchapter C earnings and profits,"
"passive investment income," and
"gross receipts" shall have the same
meaning given these terms in section
1362(d)(3) and the regulations
thereunder.
(c) Specialrules-(1) Disallowanceof
credits.No credit is allowed under part
IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Code (other than section 34) against the
tax imposed by section 1375(a) and this
section.
(2) Coordinationwith section 1374. If
any gain(i) Is taken into account in
determining passive income for
purposes of this section, and
(ii) Is taken into account under section
1374, the amount of such gain taken into
account under section 1374(b) and
§ 1.1374A-l(b) (1) and (2) in determining
the amount of tax shall be reduced by
the portion of the excess net passive
income for the taxable year which is
attributable (on a pro rata basis) to such
gain. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the portion of excess net
passive income for the taxable year
which is attributable to such capital gain
is equal to the amount determined by
multiplying the excess net passive
income by the following fraction:
NPI
Where:
NCG=net capital gain
NPI=net passive income.
(d) Waiver of tax in certain cases-(1)
In general.If an S corporation
establishes to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner that(i) It determined in good faith that it
had no subchapter C earnings and
profits at the close of the taxable year,
and
(ii) During a reasonable period of time
after it was determined that it did have
subchapter C earnings and profits at the
close of such taxable year such earnings
and profits were distributed.
the Commissioner may waive the tax
imposed by section 1375 for such
taxable year. The S corporation has the
burden of establishing that under the
relevant facts and circumstances the
Commissioner should waive the tax.
For example, if an S corporation
establishes that in good faith and using
due diligence it determined that it had
no subchapter C earnings and profits at
the close of a taxable year, but it was
later determined on audit that it did
have subchapter C earnings and profits
at the close of such taxable year, and if
the corporation establishes that it
distributed such earnings and profits
within a reasonable time after the audit,
it may be appropriate for the
Commissioner to waive the tax on
passive income for such taxable year.
(2) Corporation'srequest for a waiver.
A request for waiver of the tax imposed
by section 1375 shall be made in the
form of a ruling request and shall
contain all relevant facts to establish
that the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)
of this section are met. Such request
shall contain a description of how and
on what date the S corporation in good
faith and using due diligence determined
that it had no subchapter C earnings and
profits at the close of the taxable year, a
description of how and on what date it
ws determined that the S corporation
had subchapter C earnings and profits at
the close of the year and a description
(including dates) of any steps taken to
distribute such earnings and profits. If
the earnings and profits have not yet
been distributed, the request shall
contain a timetable for distribution and
an explanation of why such timetable is
reasonable. On the date the waiver is to
become effective, all subchapter C
earnings and profits must have been
I
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 128 I Wednesday, Tuly 3, 1985 I Proposed Rules246
Federal Reidster / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
distributed. Send requests for a waiver
to: Internal Revenue Service, Associate
Chief Counsel (Technical), Attention:
CC:IND:S, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
Washington, D.C. 20224.
(e) Reduction in pass-thrufor tax
imposed on excess net passive income.
See section 1366(f)(3) for a special rule
reducing each item of the corporation's
passive investment income for purposes
of section 1366(a) if a tax is imposed on
the corporation under section 1375.
(f) Example. The following example
illustrates the principles of this section:
Example. Assume Corporation M,an S
coporation, has for its taxable year total
gross receipts of $200,000, passive investment
income of $100,000, $60,000 of which is
interest income, and expenses directly
connected with the production of such
interest income in the amount of $10,000.
Assume also that at the end of the taxable
year Corporation M has subchapter C
earnings and profits. Since more than 25
percent of Corporation M's total gross
receipts are passive investment income, and
since Corporation M has subchapter C
earnings and profits at the end of the taxable
year, Corporation M will be subject to the tax
imposed by section 1375. The amount of
excess net passive investment income is
$45,000 ($90,000X (50,000/100,000)). Assume
that the other $40,000 of passive investment
income is attributable to net capital gain and
that there are no expenses directly connected
with such gain. Under these facts, $20,000 of
the excess net passive income is attributable
to the net capital gain ($45,000)X ($40,000/
$90,000)). Accordingly, the amount of gain
taken into account under section 1374(b)(1)
and the taxable income of Corporation M
under section 1374(b)(2) shall be reduced by
$20,000.
Roscoe L Egger, Jr.,
Commissionerof InternalRevenue.
IFR Doc. 85-15950 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 4830-0l-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 936
Register (49 FR 14674-14689). The
material consists of two documents. The
first document is a detailed plan
addressing the permitting aspects of the
Oklahoma program and the second
document is the State's plan for
implementing and maintaining the
inspection and enforcement components
of the approved State program.
This notice sets forth times and
locations'that the material is available
for public inspection, the comment
period during which interested persons
may submit written comments on the
documents and information pertinent to
the public hearing.
DATES: Written comments not received
on or before 4:00 p.m. on August 2, 1985
will not necessarily be considered. A
public hearing on the material as well as
.other aspects of the Oklahoma program
will be held on July 29, 1985 at the
address listed below under
"ADDRESSES". Any person interested in
making an oral or written presentation
at the hearing should contact Mr. Robert
Markey at the OSM Tulsa Field Office
by 4:00 p.m. on July 18, 1985.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be
held at the Federal Building, 125 South
Main Street, Muskogee, Oklahoma
74401.
Written comments should be mailed
or hand-delivered to: Robert L. Markey,
Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of
Surface Mining, Room 3432,33 West
Fourth Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.
See
"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION"
for addresses where copies of the
material and administrative record on
the Oklahoma program are available.
Each requestor may receive, free of
charge, one copy of each of the two
documents submitted by contacting the
OSM Tulsa Field Office listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert L. Markey, Director, Tulsa
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining,
Room 3432, 333 West Fourth Street,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, Telephone: (918)
581-7923.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Oklahoma Permanent Regulatory
Program Under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing
procedures for a public comment period
and for a hearing on material submitted
by the Oklahoma Department of Mines
in response to requirements placed upon
the State by the Director of OSM, and
published in the April 12, 1984 Federal
Copies
of the Oklahoma submission, the
Oklahoma program, and the
administrative record on the Oklahoma
program are available for review and
copying at the OSM offices and the
office of the State regulatory authority
listed below, Monday through Friday
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
holidays.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, Tulsa Field Office,
Room 3432, 333 West Fourth Street,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, 1100 L Street, NW.,
27461
Room 5124, Washington, D.C. 20240,
Telephone: (202) 343-4855.
Oklahoma Department of Mines, Suite
107, 4040 North Lincoln, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma 73105.
Background
Information pertinent to the general
background, revisions, modifications
and amendments to the proposed
permanent program submission as well
as the Secretary's findings, the
disposition of comments, and a detailed
explanation of the conditions of
approval of the Oklahoma program can
be found in the January 19, 1981, Federal
Register (46 FR 4910), in the April 2, 1982
Federal Register (47 FR 14152), in the
May 4, 1983 Federal Register (48 FR
14674), and in the March 18, 1985
Federal Register (50 FR 10759).
Additional information pertinent to
the action taken by the Director, OSM,
under the authority of 30 CFR Part 733
with regard to the status of Oklahoma's
permanent regulatory program was
published in the April 12, 1984 Federal
Register (49 FR 14674).
In the April 12, 1984 Federal Register
notice, the Director, OSM published his
findings and decision concerning the
status of the Oklahoma permanent
regulatory program. Based on his
evaluation and findings, the Director
determined that certain aspects of the
approved Oklahoma program were not
being administered in full compliance
with the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA). To ensure
that the adverse effects of surface
mining was controlled as required by
SMCRA and the State program, OSM
assumed responsibility for enforcement
of the inspection and enforcement
provisions of the approved program,
effective April 30, 1984. The Director
also placed certain requirements upon
Oklahoma as a prerequisite to resuming
full authority to implement the
provisions of the Oklahoma program.
Among the remedial action requirements
placed upon the State, the Director
required the State to submit to OSM a
detailed plan to resume full authority for
implementing the inspection and
enforcement functions of the approved
program. The State was also required to
submit to OSM a detailed plan
addressing all elements of the permitting
process as required by the Oklahoma
permanent regulatory program. Lastly,
the April 12, 1984 Federal Register
stated that the Director would consider
returning full program authority to
Oklahoma only after submission of the
two plans discussed above and
submission of a written petition to the
27462
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Director requesting the return of
authority to the State.
On November 2, 1984, the Oklahoma
Department of Mines submitted to OSM
a document entitled, Petition to Resume
State Inspection and Enforcement
Actions. (See OK-649 for petition). The
State submitted this petition to partially
fulfill the requirements placed upon it by
the Director in Section 30 CFR 936.19 as
published in the April 12, 1984 Federal
Register. The document, signed by the
Deputy Chief Mine Inspector of the
Oklahoma Department of Mines and the
Governor of Oklahoma, formally
petitions the Office of Surface Mining to
return full program authority to the State
upon conclusion of the required public
hearing.
The State also submitted to OSM on
May 13, 1985, a document entitled
Oklahoma PermittingPlan. (See OK670). The Plan addresses Oklahoma's
systems and procedures for processing
permit applications, calculating bond
amounts, releasing or forfeiting bonds
and adding and training qualified staff.
Oklahoma also submitted to OSM on
June 7,1985, its Inspection and
Enforcement Plan. (See OK-671). The
plan is a detailed narrative addressing
the procedures for implementing and
administering the various components of
the States inspection and enforcement
requirements.
The requirement to submit the two
detailed plans discussed above was part
of the remedial action requirements
placed upon the State by the Director at
30 CFR 936.18 in his April 12, 1984
decision concerning the status of the
Oklahoma program.
OSM is seeking comment on the
Oklahoma PermittingPlan and the
Oklahoma Inspection and Enforcement
Plan submitted by the State of
Oklahoma to partially satisfy the "733"
requirements placed upon it.
The full text of both documents
submitted by the Oklahoma Department
of Mines for OSM's consideration is
available for public review at the
addresses listed under ADDRESSES.
Additional Determinations
1. Compliance with the National
EnvironmentalPolicyAct: The
Secretary has determined that, pursuant
to section 702(d) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C.
1292(d), no environmental impact
statement need be prepared on this
rulemaking.
2. Executive Order No. 12291 and the
RegulatoryFlexibilityAct: On August
28, 1981, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) granted OSM an
exemption from sections 3. 4, 7, and 8 of
Executive Order 12291 for actions
directly related to approval or
conditional approval of State regulatory
programs. Therefore, this action is
exempt from preparation of a Regulatory
Impact Analysis and regulatory review
by OMB.
The Department of the Interior has
determined that this rule would not have
a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule would not
impose any new requirements; rather, it
would ensure that, the existing
requirements estab)ished by SMCRA
and the Federal rules would be met by
the State.
3. PaperworkReduction Act: This rule
does not contain information collection
requirements which require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
under 44 U.S.C. 3507.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 936
Coal mining, Intergovernmental
relations, Surface mining, Underground
mining.
Dated: June 27, 1985.
Jed D. Christensen,
Acting Director,Office of SurfaceMining.
[FR Doc. 85-15904 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 4310-05-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[A-5-FRL-2858-5J
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: USEPA proposes to
disapprove several revisions to the
Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for ozone. These proposed SIP revisions
request extended compliance schedules
for Arvey Corporation (Arvey), Moore
American Graphics (Moore American)
and Meyercord Company (Meyercord).
In the March 20, 1984, Federal Register
(49 FR 10277), USEPA proposed to
disapprove these actions because IEPA
did not have an approvable 1982
attainment demonstration for ozone.
USEPA today is proposing to disapprove
these SIP revisions because the State
has not demonstrated that these
compliance schedules are as expeditious.
as practicable.
DATE: Comments on these revisions and
on the proposed action must be received
by August 2, 1985.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revisions
are available at the following addresses
for review. (It is recommended that you
telephone Uylaine E. McMahan, at (312)
353-0396, before visiting the Region V
office): U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, Air and Radiation
Agency, 230 South Dearborn Street
(5AR-26), Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Comments on this proposed rule
should be addressed to: Gary Gulezian,
Chief, Regulatory Analysis Section, Air
and Radiation Branch (5AR-26) USEPA,
Region V, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Uylaine E. McMahan, (312) 353-0396.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On May
2, 1983, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted a
proposed revision to its ozone SIP for
seven laminators and coaters operated
by Arvey in Chicago, Illinois. This
proposed revision is in the form of a
February 10, 1983, Opinion and Order of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(IPCB) (PCB 82-9). This Opinion and
Order grants a variance from the
existing SIP requirements until
December 31, 1984, and provides a
legally enforceable compliance
schedule.
On May 27, 1983, IEPA submitted a
proposed revision to its ozone SIP for
three laminators and four coaters
operated by Moore American in
Bridgeview, Illinois. This proposed
revision is in the form of an April 12,
1983, Opinion and Order of the IPCB
(PCB 82-1). This Opinion and Order
grants a variance from the existing SIP
requirements until December 31, 1983,
and provides a legally enforceable
compliance schedule.
On April 20, 1983, IEPA submitted a
proposed revision to its ozone SIP for
pressure sensitive elastomeric films,
mylar polyester on silicone release
paper, and protective film overcoats
with either heat reactive or pressure
sensitive adhesives applied by
Meyercord at its facility in Chicago,
Illinois. This proposed revision is in the
form of a March 10, 1983, Opinion and
Order of the IPCB (PCB 82-53). This
Opinion and Order grants a variance
from the existing SIP requirements until
January 31, 1986, and provides a legally
enforceable compliance schedule.
Under the existing federally approved
SIP, each coating line unit for the
sources listed above is subject to the
emission control requirements contained
in Rule IPCB Rule 205(n)(1)(C) of
Chapter 2: Air Pollution of the IPCB
rules and Regulations. IPCB Rule
205(n)(1)(C) limits volatile organic
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
compound (VOC) emissions to 2.9
pounds of VOC per gallon. Final
compliance was required by December
31, 1982.
These sources are all located in the
Chicago urban ozone nonattainment
area, which has until December 31, 1987,
to attain the ozone national ambient air
quality standard. USEPA may approve
compliance date extensions for sources
in such an area, if the State
demonstrates that the extended
compliance date is as expeditious as
practicable, and will not prevent the
area from attaining the ozone standard
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the end of 1987.
In the March 20, 1984 Federal Register
(49 FR 10277), USEPA proposed to
disapprove these proposed SIP revisions
because the Illinois ozone SIP lacked an
approvable attainment demonstration
for the Chicago nonattainment area. The
attainment demonstration contained in
the State's 1982 ozone SIP was proposed
for disapproval in the February 3, 1983,
Federal Register. Subsequently, on
August 15, 1984, USEPA proposed to
approve the State's 1982 SIP attainment
demonstration.
In response to USEPA's March 20,
1984, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
IEPA commented that the reasons
advanced by USEPA for disapproval of
the proposed compliance schedule
changes in the March 20, 1984, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, no longer existed,
because Illinois had submitted an
approvable 1982 Ozone SIP attainment
demonstration. IEPA commented that
USEPA should, therefore, approve the
proposed compliance date extension,
without reproposal. If, however, there
were alternative grounds for
disapproval not stated in the March 20,
1984, Notice, the State commented that
USEPA should repropose in a
rulemaking which identified and
addressed these grounds.
Today, USEPA is publishing this
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking on Arvey, Moore American
and Meyercord, which identifies
alternative grounds for disapproval
which were not discussed in the earlier
proposed rulemaking.
Proposed Actions
Two major elements which need to be
considered in USEPA's review of
proposed compliance data extensions
are the expeditiousness of the schedule
and the likelihood of success associated
with the proposed compliance plan.
USEPA is proposing to disapprove
these SIP revisions because the State
did not provide adequate documentation
that the sources had been proceeding
expeditiously to develop complying
coatings. USEPA's review of each
source is summarized below:
Arvey Corporation
Arvey did not adequately document
that they had been proceeding
expeditiously to develop complying
coatings. Only limited information
regarding past compliance efforts was
submitted. Based upon the limited
information contained in the submittal,
it is doubtful that Arvey has been
proceeding expeditiously. Furthermore,
Arvey's efforts to reformulate complying
adhesives and coatings have clearly
failed, as evidenced by their decision to
utilize add-on control equipment to
achieve compliance. Therefore, there is
no basis for granting Arvey a
compliance date extension based upon
its reformulation program.
Arvey's program to achieve
compliance by April 1, 1985, through use
of incineration was not submitted as a
SIP revision. However, Arvey could
have readily achieved compliance by
December 31, 1982, through the use of
add-on controls.
Moore American Graphics
Moore American requested a variance
for a period of 1 year, with the
possibility of further extensions needed
due to the supplier's difficulty in
producing a working alternative lowsolvent technology. Moore American
has asserted that numerous tests were
conducted in developing acceptable
water-based coatings. However, the
documentation provided by the IEPA,
indicated two tests were recorded, one
on November 5, 1982, and a second in
the following month.
To obtain a compliance date
extension, the State must demonstrate
that the compliance plan (reformulation
to low-solvent coatings) is as
expeditious as practicable. IN USEPA's
judgment, it is not likely that this plan
has a significant likelihood of success.
Conducting only two tests since the
surface coating regulations have been
adopted (1979) cannot be considered
expeditious progress.
Meyercord Company
Meyercord did not adequately
document that they had been proceeding
expeditiously to develop complying
coatings during 1979, 1980, and 1981.
Meyercord's proposed compliance date
extension to January 31, 1986, is not
expeditious because the company is
now using an afterburner to achieve
compliance as of December 31, 1984. In
USEPA's judgment, they could have
readily achieved compliance by
December 31, 1982, through use of an
afterburner.
27463
In summary, this compliance date
extension is not approvable because
Meyercord's reformulation program was
not documented to be either expeditious
or likely to be sufficient to fully achieve
complaince successfully, and the
company is now using an afterburner to
achieve compliance.
Additional information concerning
USEPA's analysis of each SIP submittal
and the detailed basis for USEPA's
proposed disapproval is contained in the
technical support documents available
at USEPA's Region V office.
USEPA is providing a 30-day comment
period on this supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking. Public comments
received on or before August 2, 1985 will
be considered in USEPA's final
rulemaking. All comments will be
available for inspection during normal
business hours at the Region V office
listed at the front of this notice.
Under 5 U.S.C. Section 605(b), I certify
that this proposed disapproval will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it applies to three sources:
Arvey Corporation, Moore American,
and Meyercord Company.
Under Executive Order 12291, today's
action is not "Major". It has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, ozone, sulfur
oxides, nitrogen dioxide, lead,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, intergovernmental
relations.
(Secs. 110, 172 and 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7502, and
7601(a))
Dated: March 26, 1985.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-15923 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
40 CFR Part 180
[PP OF2413, 3F2793/P368; PH-FRL 2859-6]
Thiodicarb; Proposed Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA].
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document proposes the
establishment of tolerances for residues
of the insecticide thiodicarb and its
metabolites in or on the raw agricultural
commodities cottonseed and soybeans.
This proposed regulation to establish the
maximum permissible level for residues
of this insecticide in or on the
27464
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
commodities was requested by Union
Carbide Agricultural Products Company,
Inc.
DATE Comments must be received on or
before August 2, 1985.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments by mail to:
Information Services Section, Program
Management and Support Division
(TS-767C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
D.C. 2460.
In person, bring comments to: Rm. 236,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment
concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any
part or all of that information as
"Confidential Business Information"
(CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. A
copy of the comment that does not
contain CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice to the submitter. All
written comments will be available for
public inspection in Rm. 236 at the
address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
By mail: Jay Ellenberger, Product
Manager (12), Registration Division
(TS-767C), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Office location and telephone number:
Rm. 202, CM#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703557-2386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
issued a notice, published in the Federal
Register of October 28, 1980 (45 FR
71421), which announced that Union
Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc.,
P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709, had submitted a pesticide
petition [OF2413) to EPA proposing that
40 CFR Part 180.407 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of
the insecticide thiodicarb (dimethly N,
N'-[thiobis[(methyliminocarbonyloxyjbis[ethanimidothioate]) in
or on the raw agricultural commodities
cottonseed at 0.4 part per million (ppm),
soybean seed at 0.1 ppm, and soybean
straw at 0.2 ppm.
No comments were received in
response to the notice of filing.
Subsequently, this petiton was
amended to include the metabolite
methomyl (S-methyl N-
[(methylcarbamoyl)oxy]thioacetimidate)
in the tolerance expression.
This petition was later amended by
Union Carbide to withdraw its request
for a tolerance on soybean seed and
soybean straw. This resulted in a
separate petition for soybeans.
In the Federal Register of February 2,
1983 (48 FR 4717), EPA issued a notice
that announced that Union Carbide
Agricultural Products Co., Inc., had
submitted a pesticide petition 3F2793) to
EPA proposing that 40 CFR Part 180.407
be amended by establishing a tolerance
for residues of the insecticide thiodicarb
and its metabolite methomyl in or on the
raw agricultural commodity soybeans at
0.2 ppm.
No comments were received in
response to the notice of filing.,
The scientific data submitted in the
peititions and other relevant material
have been evaluated. A discussion of
the toxicological data considered in
support of these tolerances can be found
in a companion proposed rule (FAP
OH5275, 3H5378/P369) published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Based on a 2-year rat feeding study
showing a no adverse effect level
(NOEL) at a dose of 3.0 mg/kg/day and
using a safety factor of 100, the
acceptable daily intake (ADI) of
thiodicarb for humans is 0.03 mg/kg of
body weight/day. The theoretical
maximum residue contribution in the
human diet from the proposed
tolerances and a previously established
tolerance is 0.0452 mg/day, which
represents 2.5 percent of the ADI of the
chemical.
The metabolism of thiodicarb in
plants and animals is adequately
understood for purposes of the proposed
tolerances. A study in livestock shows
that acetamide, a potential carcinogen,
is produced as a part of the metabolism
process for thiodicarb. Conversion of
thiodicarb to acetamide in plants has
not been studied, although detectable
levels of acetamide are not expected in
cottonseed and soybeans as a result of
the proposed use.
Detectable residues of thiodicarb and
its methomyl metabolite are not
expected in fat, meat or meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses,
poultry, or sheep, or in milk or eggs as a
result of the proposed uses. However,
residues of acetamide could be present
at levels up to 0.002 ppm.
Four studies have been conducted
with acetamide that have demonstrated
an oncogenic effect in rats. Descriptions
of these studies can be found in the
companion proposed rule published
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The
Agency has conducted a quantitative
risk assessment using the multi-stage
procedures. The results of the most
recent study (Fleischman et a].,
1980)
with respect to Male rats provide the
basis for the most conservation
estimation of risk. Based on this study
the Agency has calculated an upper
bound estimate of total dietary risk of
approximately 10- 6[C] from acetamide
as a result of the use of thiodicarb on
the commodities cotton and soybeans.
The quantitative designation "10 -e'
indicates that the risk of developing
cancer is one in a million greater than
the risk if one was not exposed through
the diet to thiodicarb. However, this
number represents the upper bound
estimate of excess oncogenic risk at the
95 percent confidence level and the
actual risk may be lower. The
qualitative designation "C" refers to
EPA's weight-of-the evidence
classification which in this case shows
acetamide to be a "possible human
carcinogen". The assessment is also
based on the following assumptions:
1. The metabolic pathway of
.thiodicarb in humans is presumed to be
the same as that found in test animals,
and the highest value of risk obtainable
from the animal data is applicable to
humans.
2. All consumed residues of thiodicarb
are converted to acetamide (this is
unlikely as suggested by the available
data mentioned later in this document).
3. The total production of cotton and
soybeans in the United States will be
treated with thiodicarb, and all cotton
and soybean components will contain
thiodicarb residues at the full tolerance
level.
As stated above, however, EPA
believes that the actual risk is less that
10- . The available metabolism data
suggest that significant portions of
thiodicarb consumed by animals are not
converted to acetamide, but these data
were not sufficient to quantify
adequately the portions that are not
converted to acetamide. Therefore, the
full tolerance levels of thiodicarb were
used as the exposure levels in
determining the total dietary exposure
to acetamide. The toxicology data base
for thi6dicarb includes two valid
oncogenicity studies that were negative
for oncogenic effects. Further, it is the
Agency's opinion that the four
oncogenicity studies on acetamide are
insufficient to fully address the
oncogenic potential of acetamide. (Refer
to the companion document published in
this issue of the Federal Register for a
discussion of these studies.)
There are no regulatory actions
pending against the ,'qgistration of
thiodicarb. On the basis of the available
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
studies on acetamide and the chronic
oncogenicity studies for thiodicarb. the
Agency has concluded that the human
risk posed by the use of thiodicarb on
cotton and soybeans does not raise
prudent concerns of unreasonable
adverse effects and that a special
review under 40 CFR 162.11 is not
warranted.
An analytical method, liquid
chromatography, is available to
determine residues of thiodicarb and its
methomyl metabolite. Based on the
above information the Agency has
determined that the proposed tolerances
for residues of the pesticide in or on the
commodities would protect the public
health.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must
bear a notation indicating the document
control number [PP OF2413, 3F2793/
P3681. All written comments filed in
response to this petition will be
available in Rm. 236, CM 2, at the
address given above from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
legal holidays.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this proposed rule from
the requirements of section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96534, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the
Administrator has determined that
regulations proposing the establishment
of new tolerance or raising tolerance
levels or establishing exemptions for
tolerance requirements do not have a
sustantial number of small entities. A
certification statement to this effect was
published in the Federal Register of May
4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subiects in 40 CFR Part 180
Administrative practice and
1,cedure, Agricultural commodities,
Pesticides and pests.
Dated June 28,1985.
Matuia E.Williams,
Acting Assistant Administratorfor Pesticides
and Toxic Substances.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
Part 180 be amended as follows:
FART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180
continues to read as follows:
Avthcnrity: 21 U.S.C. 346a.
2. By amending § 180.407 by adding
and alphabetically inserting the raw
igricultural commodities cottonseed and
soybeans, to read as follows:
§ 180.407 Thlodlcarb; tolerances for
residues.
27465
s
significant
changes in those sections of
the PHS Act which are the legislative
authorities for the NHSC program.
Section 2709(a) of Pub. L. 97-35
Ports
transferred sections 753 and 755 from
Commodities
per
title VII of title III of the PHS Act and
million
redesignated them as sections 338C and
338E respectively. Section 2709(f) of Pub.
Cottonseed ...................
0.4 L. 97-35 amended section 338E of the
Soybeans ..........................................
0.2
PHS Act to authorize the Secretary to
make loans to scholarship individuals
who have completed 2 years of their
[FR Doc 85-16087 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
NHSC obligation and agreed to enter
BILLING CODE 6560-5--M
private practice in a health manpower
shortage area (HMSA). Section
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
2709(d)(3) of Pub. L 97-35 amended the
PHS Act by adding section 338C(e(1) to
HUMAN SERVICES
authorize the Secretary to make
arrangements for the use, lease or
Public Health Sorvice
acquisition of equipment and supplies
42 CFR Part 23
for individuals who have completed less
than 2 years of their NHSC obligation
National Health Service Corps; Private
and have agreed to enter private
practice in a HMSA. The update to the
Practice Entrance and Startup Loans
list of HMSAs was most recently
AGENCY: Public Health Service, HHS.
published in the Federal Register at 48
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
FR 37822 (August 19, 1983).
SUMMARY: This notice proposes new
Loans to Former Corps Members
regulations (Subparts B and C of Part 23,
The PPO special loan under section
42 CFR) to implement the provisions of
338E of the PHS Act is a one-time loan
section 338E of the Public Health
of $12,500 or $25,000 which may be used
Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 254p)
for acquiring equipment and supplies,
regarding special loans for former
renovating facilities, and for hiring
National Health Service Corps (NHSC)
nurses and other personnel to provide
members to enter private practice and
health services. A loan may be made to
the provisions of section 338C of the
a former NHSC member who has (1)
PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254n) regarding
completed at least 2 years of obligated
private practice startup loans. The law
service in the NHSC, (2) agreed in
requires that the Secretary of Health
writing to engage in the private full-time
and Human Services shall, by
clinical practice of his or her profession
regulation, set interest rates and
in a HMSA for a period of I or 2 years
repayment terms for private practice
depending on the amount of the loan, (3)
option (PPO) special loans. This notice
also makes several technical corrections agreed in writing to conduct his or her
practice in accordance with the
to Subpart A of 42 CFR Part 23.
provisions of section 338C(b)(1] of the
DATE: Comments must be received by
PHS Act, and (4) agreed to additional
August 2, 1985.
conditions as required by the Secretary.
ADDRESS: Comments must be addressed
Section 338E{c) requires the Secretary
to Director, Office of Policy
to prescribe by regulation the interest
Coordination, Bureau of Health Care
rates and repayment terms for these
Delivery and Assistance, Room 13-27,
loans. The regulations relating to PPO
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland
special loans to former Corps members
20857. Comments will be available for
are proposed in subpart B of Part 23.
examination by the public between 8:30
Private Practice Startup Loans
a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays, at this
Private practice startup loans (PPSL)
address.
under section 338C(e) of the PHS Act
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
very slightly from section 338E loans in
Mr. James Corrigan, Associate Bureau
terms of eligibility, use of loan funds,
Director for Legislation and Policy,
and the length of the period of the
Bureau of Health Care Delivery and
practice obligation. Startup loans are
Assistance, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room
made to persons with scholarship
7A-05, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301)
obligations who select the PPO as their
443-2380.
first assignment or who have completed
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
less than 2 years of their NHSC
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
scholarship obligation as assigned
1981, Pub. L. 97--35, made a number of
NHSC personnel. These loan funds may
*
*
*
*
4
27466
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
only be used for the purchase or lease of
equipment and supplies needed for the
provision of health services. In return for
the loan funds, the borrower incurs a
practice obligation which, unlike section
338E loans, may not exceed the
remaining.period of the borrower's
NHSC scholarship service obligation.
The regulations implementing the PPSL
program have been proposed in Subpart
C of Part 23.
Specific information on application
procedures and forms for either of these
programs may be obtained by writing to
the Director, National Health Service
Corps, 5600 Fisher Lane, Rockville,
Maryland 20857.
Interest Rate
A number of established interest rates
were examined in an attempt to
determine which one would represent
an adequate return on the principal
under competitive market conditions, be
attractive to the potential borrower to
encourage selection of the PPO, and be
easily identifiable by the public so that
potential applicant can make informed
choices and so that these regulations
will not need to be amended as the rate
changes. The Federal Reserve discount
rate was considered because it is
markedly lower than commercial rates
but still represents a fair return for the
Government. The Federal Reserve
discount rate does not fluctuate
significantly over time and is, therefore,
easy to forecast. Also, the discount rate
is routinely published in newspapers. At
this time, the Federal Reserve discount
rate is 9 percent.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has recently published a revised
circular No. A-70 regarding "Federal
Credit Policy" requiring Federal
managers to relate credit assistance
more closely to financial markets. The
Treasury Current Value of Funds (CVF)
rate was considered and selected
because this rate more closely satisifies
the requirements of OMB Circular No.
A-70. The CVF is favorable rate which
would promote NHSC program
objectives by encouraging scholarship
recipients to apply for these loans and
thereby extending the period of time
service is provided to persons in health
manpower shortage areas.
The CVF is an annual rate which
fluctuates with market conditions and
may be adjusted quarterly if market
conditions increase or decrease by 2
percent or more. The rate is accessable
through annual publication in the
Federal Register and through the
Treasury Department. The current CVF
rate is 9 percent.
Loan Repayment Terms
The loan repayment terms in these
regulations represent standard terms
that are generally used in financial
markets and are consistent with
departmental guidelines for loan
agreements. Interest would be charged
at the Treasury Current Value of Funds
rate in effect on April 1 immediately
preceding the date on which the loan is
awarded and would accrue from the
date the loan is made. The borrowers
would pay only interest for the first 2
years of the loan and, beginning with the
third year, would pay interest plus
principal for the remaining period of the
loan. Although the proposed regulations
provide for a maximum loan repayment
period of 10 years, loans are currently
being made with 5-year repayment
schedules. The Secretary may exercise
forbearance, upon the request of the
individual; however, in no event will
borrower be given more than 10 years,
from the date the loan was made, to
repay the loan.
Default
Under these regulations, a borrQwer
may be placed in default of his or her
loan agreement for: (1) The failure to
make scheduled payments; (2) the
failure to meet the terms and conditions
of the loan agreement or promissory
note; or (3) the institution of bankruptcy
proceedings. In the event of default, the
Secretary would be authorized to
accelerate payment of the loan.
Collection of the debt would be in
accordance with the Departmental
Claims Collection regulations set forth
in 45 CFR Part 30. Debt collection
mechanisms authorized under 45 CFR
Part 30 include, but are not limited to: (1)
Assessing interest and penalty and
administrative cost charges on overdue
debts; (2) reporting overdue debts to
credit reporting agencies; (3) referring
overdue debts to a collection agency
and/or the Department of Justice; and
(4) pursuing administrative or salary
offset. Nothing in these PPO Loan
regulations should be construed to result
in the abrogation of any authority the
Secretary would have under 45 CFR Part
30.
Corrections to Subpart A
In addition to the establishment of
subparts B and C, there are five areas in
the existing regulation at 42 CFR Part 23,
Subpart A, that require technical
correction:
1. Section 23.4(b)(5), as published,
erred by indicating that applicants for
assignment of Corps personnel must
request startup loans. This section
would be amended to indicate that such
applicants may request startup loans.
2. Section 23.6 would be amended to
delete the statement that the values
assigned to the criteria for determining
the entities to which NHSC personnel
will be assigned will be published
annually in the Federal Register. The
publication requirements are too
cumbersome and meet no perceived
need.
3. Section 23.6(b) would be amended
to delete paragraph (2), the factor related
to the use of physician assistants, nurse
practitioners, or expanded function
dental auxiliaries, from consideration in
determining the entities to which NHSC
personnel will be assigned. This factor
has been deleted from the PHS Act by
section 2703(c) of Pub. L. 97-35.
4. Section 23.7(a)(3) would be
amended by deleting "(a)(3)"
immediately after "section 334" so that
it would be applicable to entities which
are small health centers, as well as
those which are not. This would be
consistent with the provisions of section
334 of the PHS Act, as recently amended
by Pub. L. 98-194.
5. Section 23.10(a) be amended by
specifying that it applies to the waiver
of the reimbursement requirements of
section 334(a)(3) of the PHS Act; and
new § 23.10 (b) and (c)would be added
describing the waiver of the
reimbursement requirements of sections
334(f)(1) and 334(b](5)(A) of the PHS
Act, as recently added by Pub. L. 98-194.
The current § 23.10(b) would be
renumbered as § 23.10(d) and amended
to reflect the new authority provided by
Pub. L. 98-194 to grant prospective
waivers.
Determination Concerning Impact of the
Rule
The Secretary certifies, pursuant to
section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The reason for
the Secretary's certification is that the
regulation will affect only a small
number health care providers and
patients treated by those providers;
therefore, the Department has
determined that this notice of proposed
rulemaking does not require preparation
of a regulatory flexibility analysis.
The Secretary has also determined, in
accordance with Executive Order 12291
of February 17, 1981, entitled "Federal
Regulation," that the proposed rule does
not constitute a "major rule" because it
will not: have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; result
in a major increase in costs or prices for
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
consumers, any industries, any
governmental agencies or any
geographic regions; or have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic or export markets.
Sections 23.4(b)(5), and 23.34 (a), (f),
(h), and (i) of this proposed rule contain
information collection requirements. As
required by section 3504(h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we
have submitted a copy of this proposed
rule to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for its review of these
information collection requirements.
Other organizations and individuals
desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements
should direct them to the agency official
designated for this purpose whose name
appears in this preamble, and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office
Building (Room 3208), Washington, D.C.
20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for HHS.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 23
Government employees, Health
professions, Loan programs, Manpower,
Scholarships and fellowships.
Accordingly, 42 CFR Part 23 is
amended as set forth below.
Dated: February 21, 1985.
James 0. Mason,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Health.
Approved: May 6, 1985.
Margaret M. Heckler,
Secretary.
PART 23-NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICE CORPS
1. The authority citation for Part 23 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 333, 338E(c), and
338C(e)(1). Public Health Service Act. 90 Stat.
2272, as amended, 95 Stat. 905, 97 Stat. 1345
(42 U.S.C. 254f et seq.), 95 Stat. 912 (42 U.S.C.
254p(c)), 95 Stat. 910 (42 U.S.C. 254n(e)(1)).
Subpart A is proposed to be amended
as follows:
1. In § 23.4(b), paragraph (b)(5) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 23.4 How must an entity apply for
assignment?
(b) * * *
(5) If an entity wishes to request an
interest free loan (not to exceed $50,000)
under section 335(c) of the Act to assist
the applicant in establishing the practice
of the assigned National Health Service
Corps personnel, a detailed justification
of the amount requested must be
included.
§ 23.6 [Amended]
2. In § 23.6, (a) the word "and" is
added before the word "third" and the
words "and fourth" are removed in the
second sentence of the introductory text
of paragraph (b); (b) paragraph (b)(2) is
removed, and paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(4) are redesignated (b)(2) and (b)(3)
respectively; and (c) the last sentence
which follows paragraph (b)(4) is
removed.
§ 23.7 [Amended]
3. In § 23.7(a)(3), "(a)(3)" is removed
immediately after "section 334."
§ 23.10 [Amended]
4. In § 23.10:
(a) in the introductory text to
paragraph (a), "section 334" is removed
and "section 334(a)(3)" is inserted in lieu
thereof;
(b) the current paragraph "23.10(b)" is
renumbered as "23.10(d)" and "a
prospective or retrospective" is inserted
before "waiver."
(c) a new paragraph (b) is added:
(b) The Secretary may waive in whole
or in part the reimbursement
requirements of section 334(f)(1) of the
Act if he or she determines that the
National Health Service Corps site is a
small health center (as defined by
section 334(f)(5) of the Act) that needs
all or part of the amount otherwise
payable to(1) expand or improve its provision of
health services;
(2) increase the number of individuals
served;
(3) renovate or modernize facilities for
its provision of health services;
(4) improve the administration of its
health service programs; or
(5) establish a financial reserve to
assure its ability to continue providing
health services;
(d) a new paragraph (c) is added:
(c) Where the Secretary determines
that a National Health Service Corps
site is eligible for a waiver under
paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the
Secretary may waive the application of
the reimbursement requirements of
section 334(a)(3) of the Act and apply
the reimbursement requirements of
section 334(f)(1) of the Act. The
Secretary may waive in whole or in part
the reimbursement requirements of
section 334(f)(1) for such a site if he or
she determines that the National Health
Service Corps site meets the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
27467
section. Funds retained by a National
Health Service Corps site as a result of
such waiver must be used for the
purposes set forth in paragraphs (b) (1)
through (5) of this section.
It is further proposed to add Subparts
B and C to Part 23 to read as follows:
Subpart B-Private Practice Special Loans
for Former Corps Members
Sec.
23.21 Definitions.
23.22 What is the purpose of a private
practice loan?
23.23 Who is eligible to receive a private
practice option loan?
23.24 In what amounts are loans made?
23.25 How will interest rates for loans be
determined?
23.26 How is the loan repaid?
23.27 What happens if scheduled payments
are late?
23.28 What events constitute default?
23.29 What happens in the case of default?
23.30 May the loan be prepaid?
23.31 May loan payments be postponed or
waived?
23.32 What conditions are imposed on the
use of the loan funds?
23.33 What security must be given for these
loans?
23.34 What other conditions are imposed?
23.35 What criteria are used in making
loans?
Subpart C-Private Startup Loans
23.41 What conditions are applicable to
loans under this subpart?
Subpart B-Private Practice Special
Loans for Former Corps Members
§ 23.21 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, terms have
the same meanings as those given to
them in Subpart A, § 23.2. In addition:
"National Health Service Corps
scholarship recipient" means an
individual receiving a scholarship under
the Public Health and National Health
Service Corps Scholarship Training
Program authorized by section 225 of the
Act as in effect on September 30, 1977,
and repealed on October 1, 1977, or a
scholarship under the NHSC
Scholarship Program authorized by
section 338A of the Act, formerly section
751 of the Act.
"Private full-time clinical practice"
means the provision of ambulatory
clinical services for a minimum of 40
hours per week for at least 45 weeks a
year, including the provision of hospital
coverage services appropriate to meet
the needs of patients treated and to
assure continuity of care. The 40 hours
per week miust be performed in no less
than 4 days per week with no more than
12 hours of work being performed in any
24-hour period.
27468
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
§23.22 What Is the purpose of a private
practice loan?
The purpose of the private practice
loan is to assist NHSC scholarship
recipients in establishing private fulltime clinical practices in designated
health manpower shortage areas.
§ 23.23 Who Is eligible to receive a private
practice option loan?
(a) Eligibility for loans is limited to
NHSC scholarship recipients who have
completed at least 2 years of their
service obligations at a NHSC site.
NHSC scholarship recipients remain
eligible for loans under this subpart for 1
year after they have completed their
service obligations at a NHSC site.
(b) Scholarship recipients who are in
arrears 31 days or more on a Health
Professions Student Loan (42 U.S.C.
294m et seq.), Health Education
Assistance Loan (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.),
Nursing Student Loan (42 U.S.C. 297a et
seq.), or any other Federally guaranteed
or direct student loan are ineligible for
this loan program.
(c) NHSC scholarship recipients who
have received loans under either this
Subpart or Subpart C of this Part are
ineligible for loans under this Subpart.
§ 23.24 In what amounts are loans made?
The Secretary may make loans either
in the amount of $12,500, if the recipient
agrees to practice in accordance with
the loan agreement for a period of at
least 1 year but less than 2 years, or
$25,000, if the recipient agrees to
practice in accordance with the loan
agreement for a period of at least 2
years.
§ 23.25 How will Interest rates for loans be
determined?
Interest will be charged at the
Treasury Current Value of Funds (CVF)
rate in effect on April 1 immediately
preceding the date on which the loan is
approved and will accure from the date
the loan funds are disbursed to the
borrower.
§ 23.26 How is the loan repaid?
Payments shall be made at monthly
intervals, beginning 1 month from the
date-of the loan disbursement, in
accordance with the repayment
schedule established by the Secretary
and set forth in the loan agreement.
Only interest payments are required
during the first 2 years. The repayment
schedule may be extended in
accordance with § 23.31(a).
§ 23.27 What happens if scheduled
payments are late?
(a) Failure to make full payment of
principal and/or interest when due will
subject the borrower to the assessment
of administrative costs and penalty
charges, in addition to the regular
interest charge, in accordance with 45
CFR Part 30.
(b) Failure to make full payment of
principal and/or interest when due may
result in the Secretary placing the
borrower in default of the loan. See
§ 23.28(a).
§ 23.28 What events constitute default?
The following events will constitute
defaults of the loan agreement:
(a) Failure to make full payment of
principal and/or interest when due, and
continuance of that failure for a period
of sixty (60) days, or a lesser period of
time if the Secretary determines that
more immediate action is necessary in
order to protect the interests of the
Government.
(b) Failure to perform or observe any
of the terms and conditions of the loan
agreement and continuance of that
failure for a period of sixty (60) days.
(c) The institution of bankruptcy
proceedings, either voluntary or
involuntary, under any State or Federal
statute, which may adversely affect the
borrower's ability to comply with the
terms and conditions of the agreement
or the promissory note.
§ 23.29 What happens In the case of a
default?
(a) In the event of default, the
Secretary may declare the entire amount
owed (including principal, accrued
interest and any applicable charges)
immediately due and payable.
Collection of the amount owed will be
made in accordance with 45 CFR Part
30.
(b) The borrower is not entitled to
written notice of any default and the
failure to deliver written notice of
default in no way affects the Secretary's
right to declare the loan in default and
take any appropriate action under the
loan agreement or the promissory note.
(c) The failure of the Secretary to
exercise any remedy available under
law or regulation shall in no event be
construed as a waiver of his or her right
to exercise that remedy if any
subsequent or continued default or
breach occurs.
§ 23.30 May the loan be prepaid?
The borrower shall have the option to
prepay the balance of any part of the
loan, together with accrued interest, at
any time without prepayment penalty.
§ 23.31 May loan payments be postponed
or waived?
(a) Whenever health, economic, or
other personal problems affect the
borrower's ability to make scheduled
payments on the loan, the Secretary
may allow the borrower an extension of
time or allow the borrower to make
smaller payments than were previously
scheduled; however, interest will
continue to accrue at the rate specified
in the promissory note until the loan is
repaid in full. The loan must be fully
repaid within 10 years after it was
made.
(b) No waiver, full or partial, of
repayment of the loan will be granted;
except that the obligation of a borrower
to repay a loan shall be cancelled upon
the death or total and permanent
disability of the borrower, as
determined by the Secretary.
(c) In order to make a determination
under paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section,'the Secretary may require
supporting medical, financial, or other
documentation.
§23.32 What conditions are imposed on
the use of the loan funds?
(a) The borrower must use the total
amount of the loan to purchase or lease,
or both, equipment and supplies, to hire
authorized personnel to assist in
providing health services and/or to
renovate facilities for use in providing
health services in his or her private
practice. Equipment and supplies
purchased and/or leased, personnel
hired and facilities renovated shall be
limited to the items requested in the
loan application and approved by the
Secretary.
(b) The borrower must expend the
loan funds within 6 months from the
date of the loan or within such other
time as the Secretary may approve.
Documentation of the expenditure of
funds must be furnished to the Secretary
upon request.
§ 23.33 What security must be given for
these loans?
The Secretary may require the
borrower to pledge to the Secretary a
security interest in specified collateral.
§ 23.34 What other conditions are
imposed?
(a) The borrower must sign a loan
agreement describing the loan and
practice conditions, and a promissory
note agreeing to repay the loan plus
interest.
(b) The borrower must agree to enter
into private full-time clinical practice in
a HMSA for the time period specified in
the loan agreement.
(c) The borrower must accept
assignment, for the time period specified
in the loan agreement, under section
1842(b)(3(B}(ii) of the Social Security
Act as full payment for all services for
which payment may be made under part
B of title XVIII of that Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128
(d) The borrower must enter into an
appropriate agreement, for the time
period specified in the loan agreement,
with the State agency which administers
the State plan for medical assistance
under title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide services to individuals
entitled to medical assistance under the
plan.
(e) During the time period specified in
the loan agreement, the borrower must
provide health services to individuals at
the usual and customary rate prevailing
in the HMSA in which services are
provided; however, services must be
provided at no charge or at a nominal
charge to those persons unable to pay
for these services.
(f)The borrower must keep and
preserve all documents, including bills,
receipts, checks, and correspondence
which affect the operation of the private
practice and the expenditure of loan
funds for the period of the practice
obligation specified in the loan
agreement plus 3 years. Accounts will
be maintained under one of the
accounting principles identified by the
Secretary in the loan agreement.
(g) The borrower must provide the
Secretary and the Controller General of
the United States, or their
representatives, access during normal
working hours to accounts, documents,
and records for the purposes of audit or
evaluation; and must permit the
Secretary or his or her representative to
inspect the private practice at
reasonable times during the period of
the practice obligation specified in the
loan agreement plus 3 years. All
information as to personal facts and
circumstances about recipients of
services shall be held confidential, and
shall not be divulged without the
individual's consent except as may be
required by law or as may be necessary
to provide medical service to the
individual or to provide for medical or
fiscal audits by the Secretary or his or
her designee with appropriate
safeguards for confidentiality of records.
(h) For the entire period of loan
repayment, the borrower must acquire,
maintain, and when requested, must
provide the Secretary with copies of
policies of insurance on equipment and
supplies in amounts adequate to
reasonably protest the borrower from
risk, including public liability, fire, theft,
and worker's compensation.
(i) If the Secretary retains a security
interest pursuant to § 23.33, the
borrower must keep and preserve all
documents which affect that security
interest for the period of the loan
repayment and allow the Secretary or
his or her designee access, during
/
Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
normal working hours, to-those
documents.
(j) The borrower must maintain the
loan proceeds in a separate account
from his or her other transactions and
must agree to draw upon this account
and expend the loan proceeds in
accordance with § 23.32.
(k) The Secretary may impose other
conditions which he or she deems
appropriate under law or regulation to
protect the Government's interests.
§ 23.35 What criteria are used In making
loans?
Approval of loan applications will be
based on the criteria set forth below:
(a) The need in the HMSA for the
applicant's health profession as
determined under section 332 of the Act;
(b) The applicant's need for the loan
funds; and
(c) The comments from State or local
health professional societies on the
appropriateness of the applicant's
intended private practice; and
(d) The applicant's credit worthiness
and projected financial ability to repay
the loan.
Subpart C-Private Startup Loans
§ 23.41 What conditions are applicable to
loans under this subpart?
The regulations set out in Subpart B of
this part are fully applicable to loans
awarded under section 338C(e)(1) of the
Public Health Service Act, except as
noted below:
(a) Eligibility.(1) In lieu of § 23.23(a),
the following applies to loans made
under this subpart:
(i) Eligibility for loans is limited to
NHSC scholarship recipients who plan
to enter private practice and have not
begun fulfilling their scholarship service
obligation or are currently fulfilling their
scholarship service obligation under
section 338B of the Act and have
completed less than 2 years of this
obligation.
(2) In lieu of § 23.23(c), the following
applies to loans made under this
subpart:
(i) NHSC scholarship recipients who
have received loans under either this
subpart or subpart B of this Part are
ineligible for loans under this subpart.
(b) Loan amounts. (1) In lieu of § 23.24,
the following applies to loans made
under this subpart:
(i) The Secretary may make loans in
the amount of $12,500 if the recipient
agrees to practice in accordance with
the loan agreement for a period of at
least 1 year but less than 2 years or the
remaining period of the borrower's
NHSC scholarship servcie obligation,
whichever is shorter.
27469
(ii) The Secretary may make loans in
the amount of $25,000 if the recipient
agree to practice in accordance with the
loan agreement for a period of at least 2
years or the remaining period of the
borrower's NHSC scholarship service
obligation, whichever is shorter.
(c) Use of funds. (1)In lieu of
§ 23.32(a), the following applies to loans
made under this subpart:
(i)
The borrower must use the total
amount of the loan only to purchase or
lease, or both, the equipment and
supplies needed for providing health
services in his or her private practice.
Equipment and supplies purchased and/
or leased shall be limited to the items
requested in the loan application and
approved by the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 15537 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-M
Health Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Parts 405 and 412
[BERC-315-CNI
Medicare Program; Changes to the
Inpatient Prospective Payment System
and Fiscal Year 1986 Rates
AGENCY:
Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA), HHS.
ACTION: Correction of proposed rule.
SUMMARY:
This document corrects
technical errors that appeared in the
proposed rule published June 10, 1985,
which set forth changes to the Medicare
inpatient hospital prospective payment
system and the prospective payment
rates of FY 1986.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Philip Cotterill, (301) 594-8994.
In FR
Doc. 85-13972 beginning on page 24366
in the issue of Monday, June 10, 1985,
make the following corrections in the
table presented in the top half of page
24438:
1. In the column titled "Proposed
Wage Index", the percent change for the
West North Central Census Region,
"-0.23." is corrected to read "0.23."
2. In the column titled "Proposed DRG
Weights", the percent change for Rural
Hospitals, 0-99 Beds, "-0.11" is
corrected to read "-1.13."
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 1102, 1871, and 1886 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and
1395ww)
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Programs No. 13.773, Medicare-Hospital
Insurance)
27470
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Dated: July 1, 1985.
K. Jacqueline Holz,
Deputy Assistant Secretcryfor Management
Analysis and Systems.
[FR Doc. 85-16079 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 630
[Docket No. 50581-5081]
Foreign Fishing and Atlantic Swordfish
Fishery
Correction
In FR Doc. 85-13122 beginning on page
23159 in the issue of Friday, May 31,
1985, make the following correction.
§ 630.25 [Corrected]
On page 23167, third column, in
§ 630.25(c), fifth line, insert the following
after "described in":
"§ 630.21 during the VSC is not
allowed when the quota established
under".
BILLING CODE 1505-01-M
50 CFR Part 662
[Docket No. 50602-51021
Northern Anchovy Fishery; Preliminary
Determination
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), NOAA, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary
determination.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
preliminary determination of estimated
spawning biomass and harvest quotas
for the northern anchovy (Engraulis
mordax) fishery in the fishery
conservation zone (FCZ) for the 19851986 fishing season. The harvest quotas
have been determined by application of
the formulas in the Northern Anchovy
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and
implementing regulations. These
regulations require the announcement of
the estimated spawning biomass and
preliminary determination of harvest
quotas to be made on or about July 1
each year. A final determination will be
announced on or about August 1, 1985.
Public comments on the estimated
spawning biomass and preliminary
determination are invited.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 20, 1985.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
addressed to Mr. E. Charles Fullerton,
Director, Southwest Region, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 300 South
Ferry Street, Terminal Island, CA 90731.
Comments also may be made at the next
meeting of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council on July 10, 1985, at
the Holiday Inn-Crowne Plaza 5985
West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. William L. Craig (Fishery Biologist,
NMFS), 213-548-2518.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game and the
Southwest Fisheries Center, NMFS, the
Director of the Southwest Region, NMFS
(Regional Director) has made a
preliminary determination that the
spawning biomass of the central
subpopulation of northern anchovy is
estimated to be 521,000 metric tons (mt).
This preliminary determination is based
on Administrative Report Number LJ84-18, Southwest Fisheries Center,
NMFS. The report, currently under
review, documents the method used to
estimate the 1985 central subpopulation
of northern anchovy.
The biomass estimate is derived from
a method of estimating stock abundance
based on egg production which has been
fourid to be more accurate and costeffective than the original larvacensus
method used since the FMP was
implemented in 1978 through 1983.
Amendment 5 to the FMP, effective
April 8, 1984 (49 FR 9572, March 14,
1984), changed certain management
measures for determination of
commercial harvest quotas and adopted
the improved stock estimates. It also
deleted the reduction quota reserve
established by Amendment 4, because
the uncertainty inherent in the larvacensus method is substantially reduced
by using the egg production method.
The Regional Director has made the
following preliminary determinations for
the 1985-1986 fishing season, applying
the formulas in the FMP and in § 662.20
to calculate the harvest quotas and
expected processing levels:
1. The total U.S. harvest quota or
optimum yield (OY) of northern anchovy
is 144,900 mt plus an unspecified amount
for use as live bait.
2. The total U.S. harvest quota for
reduction purposes is 140,000 mt.
a. Of the total reduction harvest
qouta, 9,072 mt is reserved for the
reduction fishery in subarea A (north of
Pt. Buchon). The Maximum reduction
fishery in subarea A is the total
reduction quota minus the amount taken
in subarea B.
b. The reduction quota for subarea B
(south of Pt. Buchon) is 130,928 mt. The
reduction fishery in subarea B may be
limited to less than this amount if more
than 9,072 mt is taken in subarea A.
3. The U.S. harvest allocation for nonreduction fishing (i.e., fishing for
anchovy for use as dead bait and direct
human consumption) is 4,900 mt.
However, non-reduction fishing is not
limited until the total catch in both the
reduction and non-reduction fisheries
reaches the total harvest quota of
144,900 mt.
4. There is no U.S. harvest limit for the
live bait fishery.
5. The domestic annual processing
(DAP) capacity for the reduction and
non-reduction industry is 49,000 mt.
6. The amount allocated to joint
venture processing is zero because there
is no history of, nor are there
applications for, joint ventures.
7.The domestic annual harvest (DAH)
capacity for the reduction fishery is
49,000 mt.
8. The FMP states that the total
allowable level of foreign fishing
(TALFF) in the FCZ will be based upon
the U.S. portion of the OY minus the
DAH and minus that amount of
expected harvest in the Mexican fishery
zone which is in excess of that allocated
by the FMP. Since DAH plus this excess
harvest totals more than the U.S. OY,
the TALFF is zero.
A summary of the information on
which this preliminary determination is
based has been provided to the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council).
Consultations with the Council will
continue through July. In addition, the
Regional Director will consider, until
July 31, any evidence received from
domestic land-based processors that the
preliminary DAP should be modified. A
final determination of the harvest quotas
will be announced on or about August 1,
1985.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 662
Fish, Fisheries, Fishing.
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
Dated: June 28, 1985.
Carmen 1.Blondin,
DeputyAssistant AdministratorForFisheries
Resource Management,NationalMarine
FisheriesService.
[FR Doc. 85-15963 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
27471
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 50, No. 128
Wednesday, July 3, 1985
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and
investigations, committee meetings, agency
decisions and rulings, delegations of
authority, filing of petitions and
applications and agency statements of
organization and functions are examples
of documents appearing in this section.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forms Under Review by Office of
Management and Budget
June 28, 1985.
The Department of Agriculture has
submitted to OMB for review the
following proposals for the collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35) since the last list was
puiblished. This list is grouped into new
proposals, revisions, extensions, or
reinstatements. Each entry contains the
following information:
(1) Agency proposing the information
collection; (2) Title of the information
collection; (3] Form number(s), if
applicable; (4) How often the
information is requested; (5) Who will
be required or asked to report; (6) An
estimate of the number of reponses; (7)
An estimate of the total number of hours
needed to provide the information; (8)
An indication of whether section 3504(h)
of Pub. L. 96-511 applies; (9) Name and
telephone number of the agency contact
person.
Questions about the items in the
listing should be directed to the agency
person named at the end of each entry.
Copies of the proposed forms and
supporting documents may be obtained
from: Department Clearance Officer,
USDA, OIRM, Room 404-W Admin.
Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20250, (202) 4472118.
Comments on any of the items listed
should be submitted directly to: Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Desk
Officer for USDA.
If you anticipate commenting on a
submission but find that preparation
time will prevent you from doing so
promptly, you should advise the OMB
Desk Officer of your intent as early as
possible.
Extension
e Agricultural Research Service
Fruit Germplasm Resources Inventory
ARS 185
Once every 3 years
State of local governments; Farms; 500
responses 3,500 hours; not applicable
under 3504(h)
Dr. Miklos Faust (307) 344-3567
* Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
Federal Plant Pest and Noxious Weed
Regulations
PPQ Forms 525 and 526
On occasion
Individuals or households; State or local
governments; Businesses or other forprofit; Federal agencies or employees;
5,815 responses: 765 hours; not
applicable under 3504(h)
L.M. Sedgwick, Jr. (301) 436-8584
- Rural Electrification Administration
Accounting System Requirements for
REA Telephone Borrowers
REA Bulletin 461-1
Recordkeeping
Non-profit institutions; Small businesses
or organizations; 929 recordkeepers;
241,540 hours; not applicable under
3504(h)
Roland Heard (202) 382--8227
Jane A. Benoit,
DepartmentalClearanceOfficer.
[FR Doc. 85-15935 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Docket No. 22-851
Foreign-Trade Zone 70; Detroit, MI;
Application for Subzone at Mazda Auto
Plant In Flat Rock
An application has been submitted to
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the
Board) by the Greater Detroit ForeignTrade Zone, Inc., grantee of ForeignTrade Zone 70, requesting specialpurpose subzone status for the
automobile manufacturing plant of
Mazda Motor Manufacturing (USA)
Corporation (MMUC) in Flat Rock,
Michigan, adjacent to the Detroit
Customs port of entry. The application
was submitted pursuant to the
provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones
Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u,
and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR
Part 400]. It was formally filed on June
10, 1985.
The proposed subzone would be
located at Gibralter Rd. and Interstate
75 in Flat Rock, Wayne County,
Michigan, where a 350 acre facility is
under construction. It will employ 3500
persons to produce compact
automobiles. At the outset, about half
the value of the auto will involve foreign
parts and material such as engines,
transmissions, steering gears, brake
assemblies, steel and some subframe
components. The company plans to
substantially increase domestic sourcing
over the next few years. Some exports
are expected.
Zone procedures will allow Mazda to
avoid duty payments on the foreign
parts used in its exports. On its
domestic sales the company will be able
to take advantage of the same duty rate
available to importers of finished autos.
The duty rates on most of the
components ranges from 2.0 to 8.0
percent whereas the duty rate on
finished autos is 2.6 percent. Subzone
status will be an important factor in full
utilization of this plant.
In accordance with the Board's
regulations, an examiners committee
has been appointed to.investigate the
application and report to the Board. The
committee consists of: Dennis Puccinelli,
(Chairman), Foreign-Trade Zones Staff,
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 20230; William
Morandini, District Director, U.S.
Customs Service, North Central Region,
477 Michigan Ave., Detroit, MI 48226;
and Colonel Raymond T. Beurket,
District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer
District Detroit, P.O. Box 1027, Detroit,
MI 48231. Comments concerning the
proposed subzone are invited in writing
from interested persons and
organizations. They should be
addressed to the Board's Executive
Secretary at the address below and
postmarked on or before August 9, 1985.
A copy of the application is available
for public inspection at each of the
following locations:
U.S. Dept. of Commerce District Office.
445 Federal Bldg, 231 W. Lafayette,
Detroit, MI 48226
Office of the Executive Secretary,.
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 1529,
27472
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
14th and Pennsylvania NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dated: June 27, 1985
John 1.Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15891 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
[Docket No. 20-85]
Foreign-Trade Zone 23,.Erie County,
NY; Application for Subzone, Greater
Buffalo Press Ink Making Plant In
Chautauqua County
An application has been submitted to
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the
Board) by the County of Erie, New York,
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 23,
requesting special-purpose subzone
status for the ink manufacturing
facilities of Greater Buffalo Press, Ltd.
(GBP), in Chautaugua County, New
York, adjacent to the Buffalo Customs
port of entry. The application was
submitted pursuant to the provisions of
the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the
regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part
400). It was formally filed on June 10,
1985. A bill is pending in the N.Y.
Legislature concerning the applicant's
authority to make this application (N.Y.
State Senate Bill 5927).
The proposed subzone would involve
a site for GBP's ink making plant on a
site on Stegelska Ave. in Dunkirk, and
for a new facility under construction on
a 51-acre parcel on Middle Road to the
north of Dunkirk Airport in Sheridan.
The plant produces color inks for GBP's
high-speed comic and commercial
newspaper supplement printing
operations in the U.S. and Canada. With
the new facility, the company would
expand its operations to supply foreign
and domestic printers with its ink
products. The dry color pigments used in
GBP's ink making process are sourced
abroad.
Zone procedures would exempt GBP
from duty payments on the foreign
materials used in inks which are
exported. On inks used domestically, the
company would be able to take
advantage or the same duty rate
available to importers of ink. The rate
on pigments is 22.8 percent, whereas the
one on printing ink is 1.9 percent. The
cost savings from zone procedures
would help improve the international
competitiveness of GBP's domestic
facilities.
In accordance with the Board's
regulations, an examiners committee
has been appointed to investigate the
application and report to the Board. The
committee consists of: John J. Da Ponte,
Jr. (Chairman), Director, Foreign-Trade
Zones Staff, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;
Edward A. Goggin, Assistant Regional
Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service,
Northeast Region, 100 Summer Street,
Boston, MA 02110; and Colonel Robert
R. Hardiman, District Engineer, U.S.
Army Engineer District Buffalo, 1776
Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York 14207.
Comments concerning the proposed
subzone are invited in writing from
interested persons and organizations.
They should be addressed to the Board's
Executive Secretary at the address
below and postmarked on or before
August 6, 1985.
A copy of the application is available
for public inspection at each of the
following locations:
U.S. Department of Commerce District
Office, 1312 Federal Building, 111
West Huron Street, Buffalo, New York
14202
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 1529,
14th and Pennsylvania NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230.
Dated: June 27, 1985.
John J.Da Ponte Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15888 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-OS-M
[Docket No. 18-85]
Foreign-Trade Zone 57; Mecklenburg
County, NC; Application for Subzone
at IBM Printer and Electronic
Equipment Plant
An application has been submitted to
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the
Board) by the North Carolina
Departmen': of Commerce, grantee of
Foreign-Trade Zone 57, requesting
special-purpose subzone status for the
printer and electronic equipment
manufacturing plant of International
Busines Machines Corporation (IBM) in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
adjacent to the Charlotte, Customs port
of entry. The application was submitted
pursuant to the provisions of the
Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations
of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was
formally filed on June 5, 1985.
The plant is located at Interstate 85
and W. T. Harris Blvd. in Mecklenburg
County. The 1168-acre facility is used to
produce electronic banking equipment,
printers, and electronic assemblies,
employing 5000 persons. Foreignsourced parts comprise up to 5.0 percent
of finished product value and include
items such as motors, power supplies,
mechanical parts and electronic
components. Some 16 percent of the
finished products are exported.
Zone procedures will allow IBM to
avoid duty payment on the foreign parts
used in its exports. On domestic sales,
the company would be able to take
advantage of the same duty rate
available to importers of these finished
products. The duty rates on the imported
components used by IBM range from 4.0
to 11.0 percent, whereas the rates for the
finished equipment range from 4.0 to 4.3
percent. Subzone status will help make
products made at this plant more
competitive with those produced
abroad.
In accordance with the Board's
regulations, an examiners committee
has been appointed to investigate the
application and report to the Board. The
committee consists of: Dennis Puccinelli
(Chairman), Foreign-Trade Zones Staff,
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 20230; Howard C.
Cooperman, Deputy Assistant Regional
Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service,
Southeast Region, 99 S.E. 5th St., Miami,
FL 33131; and Colonel Wayne A.
Hanson, District Engineer, U.S. Army
Engineer District Wilmington, P.O. Box
1890, Wilmington, NC 28402.
Comments concerning the proposed
subzone are invited in writing from
interested persons and organizations.
They should be addressed to the Board's
Executive Secretary at the address
below and postmarked on or before
August 6, 1985. A copy of the application
is available for public inspection at each
of the following locations.
U.S. Customs Service, Port Director's
Office, 3224 Piper Lane. Charlotte, NC
28219
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 1529,
14th and Pennsylvania NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dated: June 27, 1985.
John J.Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15889 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-OS-M
[Docket No. 21-85]
Foreign-Trade Zone 41, Milwaukee, WI;
Application for Expansion of Subzone
41E for Bay Shipbuilding In Manitowoc
An application has been submitted to
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the
Board) by the Foreign-Trade Zone of
Wisconsin, Ltd. (FTZW); grantee of
Foreign-Trade Zone 41, requesting an
expansion of Subzone 41E to include a
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
site in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, within
the Manitowoc Customs port of entry.
The application was submitted pursuant
to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade
Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a81u), and the regulations of the Board
(15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed
on June 20,1985.
On May 6, 1985, the Board approved
Subzone 41E for the shipbuilding facility
of Bay Shipbuilding Corporation located
in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin (Board
Order 301, 50 FR 20251). Similar status is
now being requested for 5 equipment
storage and handling warehouses within
a complex located in Manitowoc
Harbor, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, which
are used for some of the shipyard's
storage and handling requirements. The
complex is owned by the Manitowoc
Company, Bay Shipbuilding's parent.
In accordance with the Board's
regulations, an examiners committee
has been appointed to investigate the
application and report to the Board. The
committee consists of: John J. Da Ponte,
Jr., Chairman, Director, Foreign-Trade
Zones Staff, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;
Clinton P. Littlefield, District Director,
U.S. Customs Service, North Central
Region, 628 E. Michigan St., Milwaukee,
WI 53202; and Colonel Raymond T.
Beurket, District Engineer, U.S. Army
Engineer District Detroit, P.O. Box 1027,
Detroit, MI 48231.
Comments concerning the proposed
subzone expansion are invited in writing
from interested persons and
organizations. They should be
addressed to the Board's Executive
Secretary at the address below and
postmarked on or before August 2, 1985.
A copy of the application is available
for public inspection at each of the
following locations:
U.S. Dept. of Commerce District Office,
517 East Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee,
WI 52302
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 1529,
14th and Pennsylvania NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dated: June 27, 1985.
John J.Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 15890 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-OS-M
International Trade Administration
Foreign Buyer Program; Support for
Domestic Trade Shows
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Implementation of the
Foreign Buyer Program.
.SUMMARY: This notice sets forth
objectives, circumstances and
application review criteria associated
with the Department's program to
support domestic U.S. trade shows.
DATE: These administrative procedures
were effective May 10, 1985.
ADDRESS:
Export Promotion Services/
Foreign Buyer Program, U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service (US&FCS),
International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 2806,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230 (202/377-0872).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Director, Marketing Development
Division, Export Promotion Services,
International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th &
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
D.C. 20230 (202/377-0872).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The International Trade
Administration of the Department of
Commerce is pleased to announce a
change in the Trade Fair Certification
Program and the establishment of the
new Foreign Buyer Program.
The new Foreign Buyer Program has
been established to select and promote
leading trade shows in the United States
in high-export potential industries. This
program supplants the Trade Fair
Certification Program for domestic (U.S.)
shows.
The Foreign Buyer Program was
created in order to give hands on
assistance to U.S. companies interested
in exporting, through increased
counseling, market analysis and
overseas promotion to potential buyers,
agents and distributors. Shows selected
for inclusion in the Foreign Buyer
Program will provide a venue for U.S.
companies interested in exporting and
expanding their products into
international markets.
The Trade Fair Certification Program
will continue to function as it has in the
past, but will shift to certify only
overseas shows. However, domestic
trade fairs taking place before December
31, 1986, are still eligible for Domestic
Trade Fair Certification if applications
are received no later than August 31,
1985.
As part of its mission to foster,
promote and develop U.S. commerce,
the Department has for many years
assisted U.S. firms participating in
domestic trade shows to meet with
potential foreign buyers, agents and
distributors.
27473
In keeping with this policy, the
Department has implemented the
Foreign Buyer Program. Under this
program, the Department will select and
promote domestic trade shows in highexport potential industries in order to
bring foreign buyers together with U.S.
firms. The program will also assist show
organizers in identifying and recruiting
new-to-market/new-to-export firms to
exhibit in these trade shows. Selection
of a trade show is one-time, e.g., a trade
show organizer seeking selection for a
recurring event, must submit a new
application for selection for each
occurrence of the event.
Because of limited resources
available, the Department will limit
selection to 10 events during fiscal year
1986 and 15 events in fiscal year 1987.
The Department will select those events
which in its judgment most clearly and
best meet the Department's objectives
as well as satisfying the general
selection criteria. For this reason, an
event not selected should not be viewed
as a finding that the event will not be
successful in promoting U S. exports.
Selection and Logo. Each successful
applicant will be provided copies of an
official U.S. Department of Commerce
logo and/or logo of the U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service for use in its
advertising promotional materials.
Selection is intended to indicate that the
Department has found these events to
be leading international trade shows
worthy of the participation by U.S.
exporting firms and promotion in
overseas markets by U.S. Embassies
and Consulates. Selection does not
extend or characterize the event as a
U.S. Government guarantee of the
success or the proper performance of the
undertakings of the organizer as to
participants or other persons or
organizations, nor does selection imply
an official endorsement of one trade
event organizer over others.
Departmentof Commerce Support of
Foreign Buyer ProgramEvents. The
support provided for selected events
may differ slightly depending on the
specific needs identified and agreed
upon by the Department and the show
organizer. Services will include but may
not be limited to special overseas
marketing efforts by staff of the Foreign
Commercial Service, such as contacting
key foreign government and private
sales prospects, publicity in appropriate
Departmental periodicals and the
identification of both new-to-market/
new-to-export U.S. companies by
US&FCS account executives and trade
specialists in District Offices.
GeneralSelection Criteria.Subject to
Departmental budget and resource
27474
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 1 Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
constraints, selection will be granted to
those events which, in the judgment of
the Department, most clearly and best
meet the following criteria:
a. Export Potential: The products and
services to be promoted at the trade
show shopld be from U.S. industries
which have high export potential as
determined by U.S. Department of
Commerce Sources.
b. International Interest: Trade shows
will be selected which meet the needs of
a significant number of overseas
markets covered by the U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service, correspond to
marketing opportunities as identified by
these posts, and which warrant the
attention and promotional efforts by
,those overseas posts. Previous foreign
audience attendance at the show may
be used as an indicator.
c. Scope: The event must offer a broad
spectrum of U.S. products and/or
services to U.S. exhibitors. Trade shows
with a majority of American firms
exhibiting will be given preference.
d. Stature: The trade show must be
clearly recognized within and by the
industry it covers, as a leading event for
the promotion of that industry's
products and services both domestically
and internationally and as a show place
for the latest technology or techniques in
that industry.
e. Exhibitor Interest. There must be a
clearly demonstrated interest on the
part of U.S. exhibitors to receive
international business visitors during
the trade show. A significant number of
these exhibitors should be new-toexport or seeking to expand into
additional foreign markets.
f. Logistics: The trade show site,
facilities transportation services and
availability of accommodations must be
inkeeping with the stature of an
international-class trade show.
g. Cooperation:Successful applicants
will be required to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding which
sets forth the Specific actions to be
performed by the show producer/owner
and the USDOC. There must be a
willingness on the part of the trade
show organizer to cooperate with the
US&FCS to further ITA export
expansion goals.
Specific DepartmentActions. For
selected shows the Department of
Commerce will:
a. Designate an account executive as
central point of contact to work with the
show organizer on all aspects of
promotion abroad and foreign buyer
assistance at the show. The Account
Executive will work with the show
organizer to develop a promotion
marketing plan and overall promotional
timetable which will identify activities
to be undertaken and dates by which
each activity should be completed.
b. Advise and work closely with all
interested U.S. Embassies and
Consulates to assure maximum trade
show promotion.
c. Promote industry trade show
participation through announcements in
key domestic and international
publications (e.g., regional, posts and
embassy commercial newsletters,
Business America, Export Promotion
Calendarand CommercialNews USA).
d. Provide show organizer with
specifications for a multi-language
brochure; distribute brochure to
appropriate U.S. Embassies and
Consulates.
e. Survey U.S. companies exhibiting at
the event to solicit and encourage them
to meet with foreign buyers attending
the show. Compile this information into
a "Evport Interest Directory", which
will contain the nam6 of the U.S.
company, products wishing to export
and area of business interest (agent/
distributor/immediate sales etc.),
geographic area(s) of world holding
major interest of the company, among
other p.-tinent information. This
document will be printed and
distributed to all U.S. Ermbassy and
Consular posts worldwide sixty (60)
days prXor to the event.
f. If available, provide Show
Organizer with mailing addresses of
potentkal new-to market/new-fo export
exhibitors.
g. Rev'ew with the show organizer
potential support by appropriate trade
associatiors, state development
agencies, banks, transportation
companies, chambers of commerce, and
other orgarzations.
h. Provide a final show report to both
the show organizer and promoting
Embassies/ Consulates not later than 90
days after the show ends.
1. Request US&FCS Domestic Offices
to provide export or marketing
counseling to those American
participants which have indicated a
need fc: su,.h counseling prior to the
event.
Services Provided at Trade Show Site
An account excutive will provide
managemcnt of on-site registration to
foreign buyers and post-organized
groups, facilitate matching foreign
buyers with interested exhibitors, and
counsel potential exporting firms
exhibiting at trade show about available
US&FCS products and services.
Request US&FCS Domestic Office to
provide a trade specialist for export
counseling assistance to U.S. firms at
the show.
Participate, as appropriate, in special
export service seminars specifically
aimed at new-to market/new-to-export
firms exhibiting at trade show.
Encourage with local bank and
financial institutions to have a
representiative available to provide
export finance counseling.
Provide counseling to exhibitors in a
designated area in the International
business Center where information on
all US&FCS products and services will
be available.
Specific Responsibilitiesof the Show
Organizer
Designate an official authorized to
work with the US&FCS account
executive on all aspects of the show
promotion.
Provide the US&FCS with a current
list of exhibitors, with name and
address of appropriate contact. The
name of contact should, if possible, be
the descision maker of the exhibiting
firm on international matters. The
exhibitor list should be on gummed
mailing labels.
Produce a multilingual promotional
brochure in the quantities specified by
the account executive. Draft of brochure
must be approved by the account
executive prior to printing. These
brochures are needed not less than 6
months prior to the show.
If available, provide to the US&FCS
names and addresses of foreign
attendees to previous shows. Provide a
list of per-registered foreign attendees at
the current show, including names,
addresses, and business interests. Both
lists to be provided by country and on a
mutually agreed date.
Establish a system whereby US&FCS
account executive are assured access to
all foreign attendees at time of
registration.
Establish an International Business
Center (IBC) at the show in a prominent
location. The IBC should include (a) a
separate registration area for foreign
vistors (b) appropriate furniture and
office equipment, (c) interpreters, (d)
registration staff and support. The IBC
must be given high visibility in show
catalog/program, floor plans, and by
strategically placed signs at the
exhibition entrance and on the
exhibition floor.
At an agreed date following the show,
provide the US&FCS with a registration
printout of the names and addresses of
the foreign attendees, by country.
When, Where and How To Apply for
Selection in the Foreign Buyer Program
Interested applicants who meet the
#
basic criteria outlined in this
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
announcement, should write a letter on
company or association letterhead and
submit three (3] complete sets of sample
promotional material. Letters and
promotional materials should be
submitted eighteen (18] months in
advance of the event.
Applications will be processed by the
Marketing Deveolpment Division of
Export Promotion Services and final
selection of events will be made by an
International Trade administration
(ITA) Committee, comprised of
representatives from Trade
Development, International Economic
Policy and U.S. and Foreign Commerial
Service, For Fiscal Year 1988 show
selection announcements will be made
by October 1, 1986. FBP shows selected
for fiscal year 1987 will be announced
in spring 1986.
Note.-Applications will be accepted after
October 1,1985 or earlier upon approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
of information collection.
Fee: The Department will charge a fee
of $1000 for shows selected and
promoted during fiscal year 1986. The
user fee is subject to change beginning
in fiscal year 1987.
Robert A.Taft,
Acting Managerfor Export Promotion
Services.
[FR Doc. 15898 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-25-M
[A-455-5021
Certain Steel Wire Nails From Poland
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: On the basis of a petition
filed in proper form with the United
States Department of Commerce, we are
initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
certain steel wire nails from Poland are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value. We
are notifying the United States
International Trade Commission (ITC)
of this action so that it may determine
whether imports of these products are
causing material injury, or threaten
material injury, to a United States
industry. If this investigation proceeds
normally, the ITC will make its
preliminary determination on or before
July 22, 1985, and we will make our
preliminary determination on or before
November 12, 1985.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
William Kane, Office of Investigations,
International Trade Administraton, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
377-1766.
-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 5, 185, we received a petition
in proper form filed by 10 domestic steel
wire nail manufacturers on behalf of the
U.S. domestic producers of such
merchandise. The petitioners are the
Atlantic Steel Company, Atlas Steel &
Wire Corporation, Continental Steel
Corporation, Davis Walker Corporation,
Dickson Weatherproof Nail Company,
Florida Wire &Nail Company, Keystone
Steel &Wire Company, Northwestern
Steel &Wire Company, Virginia Wire &
Fabric Company, and Wire Products
Company. In compliance with the filing
requirements of § 353.36 of the
Commerce Regulations (19 CFR 353.36],
the petition alleges that imports of the
subject merchandise from Poland are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and that these imports are causing
material injury, or threaten material
injury, to a United Stats industry.
The petitioners base the United States
price on 1984 and 1985 price quotations
received by unrelated U.S. purchasers
for steel wire nails produced in Poland.
Petitioners claim that Poland is a
state-controlled economy country within
the meaning of the Act. It alleges that
the state-controlled nature of the
industry and the consequent ability to
set prices without regard to production
costs does not permit a reliable
calculation of foreign market value
based either on sales or offers of sales
of the product under investigation in
Poland or to counties other than the
United States. Therefore, petitioners
request that the Department of
Commerce choose a surrogate country to
establish foreign market value. The
petitioners choose Greece and Italy as
the non-state-controlled economy
surrogate countries whose prices should
be used as the basis for determining
foreign market value.
To support their allegations of sales at
less than fair value, petitioners construct
the value of steel wire nails. In so doing,
petitioners rely on U.S. producers' cost
of production information including
costs of steel wire and other material
and fabrication inputs, adjusting labor
rates to reflect an average of those in
the proposed surrogate countries.
Based on the comparison of the
adjusted U.S. price of steel wire nails
27475
imported from Poland with the adjusted
cost of production of steel wire nails
produced in Poland, the petitioners
allege dumping margins ranging from
78.2 percent to 83.6 percent.
Initiation of Investigation
Under section 732(c) of the Act, we
must determine, within 20 days after a
petition is filed, whether it sets forth the
allegations necesssary for the initiation
of an antidumping duty investigation
and whether it contains information
reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
We examined the petition on certain
steel wire nails from Poland and have
found that it meets the requirements of
section 732(b) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 732 of the Act,
we are initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
certain steel wire nails from Poland are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value.
In the course of our investigation, we
will determine whether the economy of
Poland is state-controlled to an extent
that sales of such or similar
merchandise in the home market or to
third country markets do not permit
determination of foreign market value. If
it is determined to be a state-controlled
economy, we will then choose a nonstate-controlled economy surrogate
country for purposes of determining
foreign market value. If our investigation
proceeds normally, we will make our
preliminary determination by November
12, 1985.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by the
petition consists of one-piece steel wire
nails from Poland as currently provided
for in the Tariff Schedules of the United
States (TSUSA) under item numbers
646.25 and 646.26, and similar steel wire
nails of one-piece construction, whether
at, over or under .065 inch in diameter as
currently provided for in item number
646.3040; two-piece steel wire nails
provided for in item number 646.32; and
steel wire nails with lead heads
provided for in item number 646.36.
Notification of ITC
Section 732(d) of the Act requires us
to notify the ITC of this action and to
provide it with the information we used
to arrive at this determination. We will
notify the ITC and make available to it
all nonprivileged and nonconfidential
information. We will also allow the ITC
access to all privileged and confidential
information in our files, provided it
confirms that it will not disclose such
information either publicly or under an
27476
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
administrative protective order without
the consent of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration.
Preliminary Determination by ITC
The ITC will determine by July 22,
1985, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of certain steel
wire nails from Poland are causing
material injury, or threaten material
injury, to a United States industry. If its
determination is negative the
investigation will terminate; otherwise,
it will proceed according to statutory
procedures.
Dated: June 25, 1985.
Alan F. Holmer,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 85-15883 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
[C-791-005]
Deformed Steel Bars for Concrete
Reinforcement From South Africa;
Intention To Review and Preliminary
Results of Changed Circumstances
Administrative Review and Tentative
Determination To Revoke
Countervailing Duty Order
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Intention to Review
and Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Administrative Review
and Tentative Determinantion to Revoke
Countervailing Duty Order.
SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce believes there exist changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant an
administrative review, under section
751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, of the
countervailing duty order on deformed
steel bars for concrete reinforcement
({rebars")from South Africa. The
review covers the period from October
1,1984. The Department notified the
petitioner, Industrial Siderurgica, that
absent an affirmative statement of
interest, the Department would revoke
the countervailing duty order. We
received no response from the petitioner. This absence of an
affirmative statement of interest, after
notification, provides a reasonable basis
for the Department to revoke the order.
Therefore, we intend to revoke the
order. In accordance with the
Department's notification, the
revocation will apply to all rebars
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after October 1,
1984. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results
and tentative determination to revoke.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1984.
This notice does not cover
unliquidated entries of rebars from
South Africa which were entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
consumption prior to October 1, 1984,
Bafbara Williams or Philip Otterness,
and which were not covered in a prior
Office of Compliance, International
administrative review. The Department
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
will cover any such entries in a separate
of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230
review, if one is requested.
telephone: [202) 377-2786.
Interested parties may submit written
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
comments on these preliminary results
and tentative determination to revoke
Background
within 30 days of the date of publication
On October 28, 1982, the Department
of this notice and may request
of Commerce ("the Department")
disclosure and/or a hearing within five
published in the Federal Register (47 FR
days of the date of publication. Any
47900) a countervailing duty order on
hearing, if requested, will be held 45
deformed steel bars for concrete
days affer the date of publication or the
reinforcement from South Africa.
first workday thereafter. The
In a letter dated April 4, 1985, the
Department will publish the final results
Department requested an affirmative
of the review and its decision on
statement of interest in the order from
revocation, including its analysis of
the petitioner, Industrial Siderurgica.
issues raised in any such written
We stated that if we received no
comments or at a hearing.
response by May 4, 1985, we would
This intention to review,
assume that Industrial Siderurgica was
administrative review, tentative
no longer interested in maintenance of
the order. Under section 751 of the Tariff determination to revoke, and notice are
in accordance with sections 751(b) and
Act of 1930 ("the Tariff Act"), the
(c) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(b),
Department may revoke a
(c)) and sections 355.41 and 355.42 of the
countervailing duty order that is no
Commerce Regulations (19 CFR 355.41,
longer of interest to domestic interested
355.42).
parties.
Dated: June 27, 1985.
Scope of the Review
Alan F. Holmer,
Imports covered by the review are
Deputy Assistant Secretary,Import
shipments of South African rebars. Such
Administration.
merchandise is currently classifiable
[FR Doc. 85-15881 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
under items 606.7900 and 606.8100 of the
BILLING CODE 3510-DSTariff Schedules of the United States
Annotated. The review covers the
period from October 1, 1984.
[C-201-013]
Preliminary Results of the Review and
Portland Hydraulic Cement and
Tentative Determination
Cement Clinker From Mexico;
As a result of our review, we
Preliminary Results of Administrative
preliminarily determine that the absence Review of Countervailing Duty Order
of the petitioner's affirmative statement
AGENCY: International Trade
of interest in continuation of the
countervailing duty order on rebars from Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
South Africa, after notification, provides
a resonable basis for revocation of the
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of
order.
Administrative Review of
Therefore, we tentatively determine to Countervailing Duty Order.
revoke the order on this product
SUMMARY: The Department of
effective October 1, 1984. We intend to
Commerce has conducted an
instruct the Customs Service to proceed
administrative review of the
with liquidation of all unliquidated
countervailing duty order on portland
entries of this merchandise entered, or
hydraulic cement and cement clinker
withdrawn from warehouse, for
form Mexico. The review covers the
consumption on or after October 1, 1984,
period July 1, 1983, through December
without regard to countervailing duties
31, 1983, and 19 programs.
and to refund any estimated
countervailing duties collected with
As a result of the review, the
respect to those entries. The current
Department has preliminarily
requirement for a cash deposit of
determined the bounty or grant to be
estimated countervailing duties will
zero or de minimis for four firms and
continue until publication of the final
3.49 percent ad valorein for all other
results of this review.
firms for the period of review. Interested
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
grants since these loans are given only
on merchandise destined for export. We
found that the annual interest rate that
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
financial institutions changed borrowers
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
for FOMEX pre-export financing,
Alan Long, Stephen Nyschot or Norman
denominated in Mexican pesos, was
Kreutter, Office of Compliance,
International Trade Administration, U.S. either 7 or 8 percent during the period of
review. The annual interest rate for
Department of Commerce, Washington,
FOMEX export financing, denominated
D.C. 20230; telepone: (202) 377-2786.
in the currency of the importing country,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ranged from 3.5 to 10 percent during the
period of reveiw.
Background
Since we lacked information on
On September 21, 1983, the
effective FOMEX interest rates in this
Department of Commerce ("the
case, we chose nominal peso and dollar
Department") published in the Federal
rates as our benchmarks. For pesoRegister (48 FR 43063) a countervailing
.denominated loans we used as a
duty order on portland hydraulic cement benchmark for the commercial interest
and cement clinker form Mexico and
rate in Mexico the average of the
announced its intent to conduct an
nominal interest rates published
administrative review of the order. As
monthly by the Banco de Mexico in the
required by section 751 of the Tariff Act
IndicadoresEconomicos. For dollarof 1930 ("the Tariff Act"), the
denominated loans, we used interest
Department has now conducted that
information obtained from the U.S.
administrative review.
Federal Reserve Board. Based on this
information, we preliminarily determine
Scope of the Review
that, during the period of review,
Imports covered by the review are
comparable peso-denominated loans
shipments of Mexican portland
were available commercially at 64.43
hydraulic cement and cement clinker
percent and comparable dollarother than white, non-staining. Such
denominated loans were available at
merchandise is currently classifiable
12.66 percent. Using the weightedunder items 511.1420 and 511.1440 of the
average FOMEX pre-export and export
Tariff Schedules of the United States
rates, 7.73 percent and 5.76 percent, we
Annotated.
found the resulting interest differentials
The review covers the period July 1,
during the review period to be 56.70
1983, through December 31, 1983, and 19
percent for peso-denominated loans and
programs: (1)FOMEX; (2) Article 94 of
6.90 percent for dollar-denominated
the Banking Law; (3) CEPROFI; (4)
loans.
FONEI; (5) NDP preferential discounts;
Two exporters of this merchandise
(6) accelerated and immediate
used these programs during the period of
depreciation allowances; (7) NAFINSA:
review. Because one of them, Cementos
(8) border zone valued added tax; (9)
Anahuac del Golfo, was able to tie all
FONEP; (10) state tax incentives; (11)
FOMEX loans to exports to specific
FOMIN; (12) FOGAIN: (13) import duty
countries, we used only its FOMEX
reduction and exemptions; (14) export
loans on U.S. shipments and allocated
services offered by IMCE; (15) FIDEIN:
benefits over only the value of U.S.
(16) preferential vessel and freight rates; the
shipments during the period of review.
(17) commercial risk insurance; (18)
Since the other, Comentos de
government-financed technology
Chihuahua, could not tie its FOMEX perdevelopment under the National
export loans to exports to specific
Development Plan; and (19) CEDI.
countries and had no FOMEX export
loans, we used all of its pre-export loans
Analysis of Programs
and allocated the benefits over all
1) FOMEX
exports. We then weight averaged the
The Fund for the Promotion of Exports resulting ad valorem benefits by each
of Mexican Manufactured Products
company's proportion of the value of
("FOMEX") is a trust of the Mexican
Mexican exports to the U.S. of this
Treasury Department, with the National
merchandise (excluding exports from
Bank of Foreign Trade acting as trustee
firms with zero or de minimis aggregate
for the program since August 1, 1983.
benefits). On this basis, we preliminarily
The National Bank of Foreign Trade,
determine the benefit from FOMEX perthrough financial institutions, makes
export loans to be 1.36 percent, and from
FOMEX loans available at preferential
FOMEX export loans to be 1.24 percent,
rates to manufacturers and exporters for for a total benefit during the review
two purposes: pre-export (production)
period of 2.60 percent ad valorem.
financing and export financing. We
On April 1, 1984, the Banco de Mexico
consider both pre-export and export
raised the interest rates for FOMEX preexport and export financing to 19.30
FOMEX loans to be export bounties or
27477
percent and 7.10 percent, respectively.
To calculate the estimated duty deposit
rate, we compared the new FOMEX
interest rates to our most recent
commercial benchmarks. The interest
differential for peso-denominated loans
is 42.40 percent, and for dollardenominated loans, 7.02 percent. On this
basis, we preliminarily find, for
purposes of cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties, a FOMEX beneift
of 2.26 percent ad valorem.
2) Article 94 of the Banking Law
The Banco de Mexico determines the
precentages of deposits at credit
institutions that those institutions must
depost at the Banco de Mexico and must
invest in other types of assets. Section 2
of Article 94 of the General Law of
Credit Institutions and Auxiliary
Organizations ("the Banking Law")
establishes that up to 25 percent of a
bank's total deposits must be funneled
as loans into specially designated
sectors of economic activity. Loans
granted under section 2 are obtained at
below-market interest rates.
In Circular 1842/79, the Banco de
Mexico established 12 categories of
industries that are eligible to obtain
financing under section 2 of Article 94.
Most categories carry their own
maximum interest rates, set by the
Banco de Mexico. Category 12 consists
only of exports of manufactured
products and during the period of review
carried a maximum interest rate equal to
the Costo Procentual Promedio minus 5
points, which is below the comparable
commercial rate.
We consider financing obtained at the
preferential interest rate under category
12 to constitute an export bounty or
grant because it is given only on
merchandise destined for export.
Producers of portland hydraulic cement
and cement clinker received financing
under category 12 during the period of'
review. To calculate the benefit from
these peso-denominated loans, we used
as a benchmark the same average
commercial interest rate as for the
FOMEX pre-export loans. The resulting
interest differential for these Article 94
loans during the review period is 11.23
percent.
Since these article 94 loans are based
on shipments to specific countries, we
allocated the benefits that each
company received on its exports to the
U.S. over the value of that company's
total exports of the merchandise to the
U.S. during the period of review. We
then weight averaged the resulting ad
valorem benefits by each company's
proportion of the value of Mexican
exports to the U.S. of this merchandise
2?4?8
27478Feea
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
eitrIVl50No12IWensaJl3,18
Nocs
(excluding exports from firms with zero
or de minimis aggregate benefits). On
this basis, we preliminarily determine
the benefit from Article 94 loans to be
0.13 percent ad valorem.
3) CEPROFI
Certificates of Fiscal Promotion
("CEPROFI") are tax certificates that
are used to promote the goals of the
National Development Plan ("NDP") and
are granted in conjunction with
investments in designated industrial
activities and geographic regions.
CEPROFI certificates can be used to pay
a variety of federal tax liabilities.
Article 25 of the decree that
established the basic authority for the
issuance of CEPROFI's, published in the
Diario Oficial on March 6, 1979, requires
each recipient to pay a 4 percent
supervision fee. The 4 percent
supervision fee is "paid in order to
qualify for, or to receive," the
CEPROFI's. Therefore, it is an allowable
offset from the gross bounty or grant, as
defined by section 771(6)(A) of the Tariff
Act.
Portland hydraulic cement and cement
clinker firms received CEPROFI benefits
under three provisions: "Category I,"
which makes CEPROFI certificates
available for manufacture and
processing of construction and capital
goods; "Category II," which makes
CEPROFI certificates available for
particular industrial activities; and a
third provision, which makes CEPROFI
certificates available for the purchase of
Mexican-made equipment.
The Department held in the final
affirmative countervailing duty
determination on bricks from Mexico (49
FR 19564, May 8, 1984) that a CEPROFI
certificate granted for the purchase of
Mexican-made equipment was not a
bounty or grant since such certificates
are available to any company that
purchases Mexican-made equipment.
We consider the other two types of
CEPROFI certificates to be domestic
subsidies and we allocated the benefits
each company received from the
Category I and Category II CEPROFI
programs, less the 4 percent supervision
fee, over the total value of each firm's
sales to all markets during the period of
review. We then weight averaged the
resulting ad valorem benefits by each
company's proportion of the value of
Mexican exports to the U.S. of this
merchandise (excluding exports from
firms with zero or de minimis aggregate
benefits). On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the benefit from the CEPROFI
program to be 0.47 percent ad valorem.
4) FONEI
The Fund for Industrial Development
("FONEI") is a specialized financial
development fund, administered by the
Banco de Mexico, which grants longterm loans at below-market rates.
FONEI loans are available under
various programs having different
eligibility requirements. The plant
expansion program is designed for the
creation, expansion, or modernization of
enterprises in order to promote the
efficient production of goods capable of
competing in the international market or
to meet the objectives of the NDP, which
include industrial decentralization. We
consider this FONEI loan program to
confer a bounty or grant because it
restricts loan benefits to those
enterprises located outside the Zone
IliA.
Only Cementos de Chihuahua had
FONEI loans for plant expansion
outstanding during the period of review.
Cementos de Chihuahua received a tenyear fixed-rate loan in October 1973, a
ten-year variable-rate loan in September
1981, and an eight-year variable-rate
loan in September 1982.
We used as our benchmark for the
fixed-rate FONEI loan granted in 1973
the commercial rate for comparable
peso-denominated loans in 1973, 14
percent. Cementos de Chihuahua
completed the repayment of the 1973
FONEI loan on October 1, 1983. We
determine that the benefit from this loan
is the interest savings realized by
Cementos de Chihuahua during the
period of review.
We treated the variable rate FONEI
loans as a series of short-term loans. To
calculate the benefits from these pesodenominated loans, we used as a
benchmark the same average
commercial interest rate as for FOMEX
pre-export loaps.
We allocated the benefits resulting
from the fixed- and variable-rate FONEI
loans over the total value of Cementos
de Chihuahua's sales fo all markets. We
then weight averaged the resulting ad
valorem benefits by each company's
proportion of the value of Mexican
exports to the U.S. of this merchandise
(excluding exports from firms with zero
or de minimis aggregate benefits). On
this basis we preliminarily determine
the benefit from FONEI loans to be 0.04
percent ad valorem.
5) NDP Preferential Discounts
Preferential discounts are granted
under the NDP to companies located in
specific regions or engaged in certain
priority activities. During the period of
review, Cementos de Chihuahua
received credits equal to a 15 percent
discount on its purchases of natural gas,
and Cementos Portland Nacional
received credits equal to a 10 percent
discount on its purchases of heavy fuel
oil.
The Department allocates benefits
from preferential programs such as this
to the period in which cash savings
occur. (See final affirmative
countervailing duty determination on
carbon black from Mexico (48 FR 29564,
June 27, 1983)). We consider the benefits
from this program to be equal to the
total value of the credits received. We
allocated the total value of the credits
received by each firm during the period
of review over the value of that firm's
sales to all markets during the period.
We then weight averaged the resulting
ad valorem benefits by each company's
proportion of the value of Mexican
exports to the U.S. of this merchandise
(excluding exports from firms with zero
or de minimis aggregate benefits). On
this basis, we preliminarily determine
the benefit from preferential discounts
to be 0.25 percent ad valorem.
6) Accelerated and Immediate
Depreciation
For purposes of economic
development, the Mexican Treasury
Department may grant accelerated
depreciation allowances and immediate
depreciation altowances to industries in
certain geographic regions or to
industries for certain designated
industrial activities. Cementos Anahuac
and Cementos Anahuac del Golfo used
accelerated and/or immediate
depreciation in 1983. To calculate the
resulting benefits, we deducted the
amount of depreciation otherwise
allowable from total depreciation.
During 1983, Cementos Anahuac and
Cementos Anahuac del Golfo had no
taxable income after normal
adjustments against which to apply
accelerated and immediate depreciation.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that there were no countervailable
benefits from either the accelerated or
immediate depreciation programs during
the period of review.
7) NAFINSA
Nacional Financiera, S.A.
("NAFINSA") is an investment bank
that acts as a financial agent of the
federal government. Among other
activities, NAFINSA provides long-tern
loans to companies for industrial
projects.
Cementos de Chihuahua had two
NAFINSA long-term loans outstanding
during the period of review. The
Department held such loans not to be
countervailable in the final affirmative
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
countervailing duty determination on oil
country tubular goods from Mexico (49
FR 47054, November 30, 1984).
8) Border Zone Value Added Tax
The Mexican Treasury Department
mandates a 6 percent value added tax
("IVA") for taxable activities within 20
kilometers of an international boundary
or in the free zones of Baja California,
portions of Sonora and portions of
Campeche. There is an IVA of 15
percent in the remainder of the country.
Petitioners allege that the lower IVA
rate in effect for certain regions of
Mexico constitutes a countervailable
subsidy program since it is not generally
available. The Department hed such
reduced IVA rates not to be
countervailable in the final affirmative
countervailing duty determination on
lime from Mexico (49 FR 35672,
September 11, 1984). We have no
information which would now lead us to
alter -that decision.
9) Other Programs
We also examined the following
programs and preliminarily find that
exporters of portland hydraulic cement
and cement clinker did not use them
during the review period:
(A) National Pre-investment Fund for
Studies and Projects ("FONEP");
(B) State tax incentives;
(C) National Industrial Development
Fund ("FOMIN");
(D) Guarantee and Development Fund
for Medium and Small Industres
("FOGAIN");
(E) Import duty reductions and
exemptions;
(F) Export services offered by the
Mexican Institute of Foreign Commerce
{"IMCE");
(G) Trust for Industrial Parks, Cities,
and Commercial Centers ("FIDEIN");
(H) Preferential vessel and freight
rates;
(I) Commercial risk insurance;
[J)
Government-financed technology
development under the NDP; and
K) Tax Rebate Certificates ("CEDI").
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine the bounty or
grant to be zero for Comentors
Guadalajara, Cementos Mexicanos, and
Cementos Ahahuac and 0.40 percent ad
valorem for Cementos Hidalgo. The
Department considers any rate less than
0.50 percent ad valorem to be de
minimis. For all other firms, we
preliminarily determine the bounty or
grant to be 3.49 percent ad valorem.
The Department intends to instruct
the Customs Service to assess no
countervailing duties on shipments of
this merchandise from the four firms
with a zero or de minimis rate of benefit,
and countervailing duties of 3.49 percent
of f.o.b. invoice price on shipments from
all other firms entered, or withdrawn
from warehouses, for consumption on or
after July 8, 1983, the date of the
Department's affirmative preliminary
determination, and exported on or
before December 31, 1983.
The Department intends to instruct
the Customs Service not to collect a
cash deposit of estimated countervailing
duties, as provided-by section 751(a)(1)
of the Tariff Act, on shipments from the
four firms and to collect 3.15 percent of
the entered value on shipments from all
other firms entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review.
These deposit requirements shall remain
in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative
review.
Interested parties may submit written
comments on these preliminary results
within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice and may request .
disclosure and/or a hearing within 10
days of the date of publication. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 45
days after the date of publication or the
first workday thereafter. Any request for
an administrative protective order must
be made no later than 5 days after the
date of publication. The Department will
publish the final rusults of this
administrative review including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
any such written comments or at a
hearing.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)
of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1765(a)(1))
and section 355.41 of the Commerce
Regulations (19 CFR 355.41).
Dated: June 27,1985.
Alan F. Holmer,
Deputy Assistant SecretaryImport
Administration.
[FR Doc. 85-15882 Filed 7-2--85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
[T570-503]
Certain Steel Wire Nails From the
People's Republic of China (PRC)
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: On the basis of a petition
filed in proper form with the United
States Department of Commerce, we are
initiating an antidumping duty
27479
investigation to determine whether
certain steel wire nails from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value. We are notifying
the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) of this action so that
it may determine whether imports of
these products are causing material
injury, or threaten material injury, to a*
United States industry. If this
investigation proceeds normally, the ITC
will make its preliminary determination
on or before July 22, 1985, and will make
our preliminary determination on or
before November 12, 1985.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.
William Kane, Office of Investigations,
International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone; (202)
377-1766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 5,1985, we received a petiticn
in proper form filed by 10 domestic steel
wire nail manufacturers on behalf of the
U.S. domestic producers of such
merchandise. The petitioners are the
Atlantic Steel Company, Atlas Steel &
Wire Corporation, Continental Steel
Corporation, Davis Walker Corporation,
Dickson Weatherproof Nail Company,
Florida Wire & Nail Company, Keystone
Steel & Wire Company, Northwestern
Steel & Wire Company, Virginia Wire &
Fabric Company, and Wire Products
Company. In compliance with the filing
requirements of § 353.36 of the
Commerce Regulations (19 CFR 353.36),
the petition alleged that imports of the
subject merchandise from the People's
Republic of China are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value within the meaning
of section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), and that these
imports are causing material injury, or
threaten material injury, to a United
States industry.
The petitioners base the United States
price on 1984 and 1985 price quotations
received by unrelated U.S. purchasers of
Chinese steel wire nails.
Petitioners claim that the PRC is a
state-controlled economy country within
the meaning of the Act. They allege that
the state-controlled nature of the
industry and the consequent ability to
set prices without regard to production
costs prevent a reliable calculation of
foreign market value based either on
sales or offers of sales of the product
under investigation in the PRC or to
274A80
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
countries other than the United States.
Therefore, petitioners request that the
Department of Commerce choose a
surrogate country to establish foreign
market value. The petitioners choose
India and Singapore as the non-statecontrolled economy surrogate countries
whose prices should be used as the
basis for determining foreign market
value.
To support their allegations of sales at
less than fair value, petitioners construct
the value of steel wire nails. In so doing,
petitioners rely on U.S. producers' cost
of production information including
costs of steel wire and other material
and fabrication imputs, adjusting labor
rates to reflect an average of those in
the proposed surrogate countries.
Based on the comparison of the
adjusted U.S. price of steel wire nails
imported from the PRC with the
adjusted cost of production of Chinese
steel wire nails, the petitioners allege
average dumping margins ranging from
60.1 percent to 85.8 percent.
Initiation of Investigation
Under section 732(c) of the Act, we
must determine, within 20 days after a
petition is filed, whether it sets forth the
allegations necessary for the initiation
of an antidumping duty investigation
and whether it contains information
reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
We examined the petition on certain
steel wire nails from the PRC and have
fund that it meets the requiremefnts of
section 732(b) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 732 of the Act,
we are initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
certain steel wire nails from the PRC are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value.
In the course of our investigation, we
will determine whether the economy of
the People's Republic of China is statecontrolled to an extent that sales of such
or similar merchandise in the home
market or to third country markets do
not permit determination of foreign
market value. If it is determined to be a
state-controlled economy, we will then
choose a non-state-controlled economy
surrogate country for purposes of
determining foreign market value. If our
investigation proceeds normally, we will
make our preliminary determination by
November 12, 1985.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by the
petition consists of: One-piece steel wire
nails as currently provided for in the
Tariff Schedules of the United States
(TSUSA) under item numbers 646.25 and
646.26, and similar steel wire nails of
one-piece construction, whether at, over
or under .065 inch in diameter as
currently provided for in item number
646.3040: two-piece steel wire nails
provided for in item number 646.32; and,
steel wire nails with lead heads
provided for in item number 646.36.
Notification of ITC
Section 732(d) of the Act requires us
to notify the ITC of this action and to.
provide it with the information we used
to arrive at this determination. We will
notify the ITC and make available to it
all nonprivileged and nonconfidential
information. We will also allow the ITC
access to all privileged and confidential
information in our files, provided it
confirms that it will not disclose such
information either publicly or under an
administrative protective order without
the consent of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration.
Preliminary Determination by ITC
The ITC will determine by July 22,
1985, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of certain steel
wire nails from the PRC are causing
material injury, or threaten material
injury, to a United States industry. If its
determination is negative the
investigation will terminate; otherwise,
it will proceed according to statutory
procedures.
Alan F. Holmer,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
June 25, 1985.
[FR Doc. 85-15884 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-OS-M
[A-479-501]
Certain Steel Wire Nails From
Yugoslavia
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: On the basis of a petition
filed in proper form with the United
States Department of Commerce, we are
initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
certain steel wire nails from Yugoslavia
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value. We
are notifying the United States
International Trade Commission (ITC)
of this action so that it may determine
whether imports of this merchandise are
causing material injury, or threaten
material injury, to a United States
industry. If this investigation proceeds
normally, the ITC will make its
preliminary determination on or before
July 22, 1985, and we will make our
preliminary determination on or before
November 12, 1985.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Kane, Office of Investigations,
International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
377-1766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 5, 1985, we received a petition
in proper form filed by 10 domestic steel
wire nail manufacturers on behalf of the
U.S. industry producing such
merchandise. The petitioners are the
Atlantic Steel Company, Atlas Steel &
Wire Corporation, Continental Steel
Corporation, Davis Walker Corporation,
Dickson Weatherproof Nail Company,
Florida Wire & Nail Company, Keystone
Steel & Wire Company, Northwestern
Steel & Wire Company, Virginia Wire &
Fabric Company, and Wire Products
Company. In compliance with the' filing
requirements of § 353.36 of the
Commerce Regulations (19 CFR 353.36],
the petition alleges that imports of the
subject merchandise from Yugoslavia
are being, or are likely to be sold in the
United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the act),
and that these imports are causing
material injury, or threaten material
injury, to a United States industry.
The petitioners base the United States
price aon 1984 and 1985 price quotations
received by unrelated U.S. purchasers
for steel wire nails produced in
Yugoslavia.
For foreign market value, petitioners
construct a value for Yugoslavian steel
wire nails based on U.S. producers'
material and fabrication costs adjusted
for differences in labor costs based on
prevailing labor rates in Greece as an
economy comparable to Yugoslavia, as
Yugoslavian labor rates were not
publicly available.
Based on a comparison of U.S. price
and foreign market value using the
foregoing methodology, the petitioners
allege an average dumping margin of
88.1 percent.
Initiation of Investigation
Under section 732(c) of the Act, we
must determine, within 20 days after a
petition is filed, whether it sets forth the
allegations necessary for the initiation
of an antidumping duty investigation
and whether it contains information
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128
reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
We examined the petition on certain
steel wire nails from Yugoslavia and
have found that it meets the
requirements of section 732 (b) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with
section 732 of the Act, we are initiating
an antidumping duty investigation to
determine whether certain steel wire
nails from Yugoslavia asre being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less then fair value. If our investigation
proceeds normally, we will make our
preliminary determination by November
12, 1985.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by the
petition consists of one-piece steel wire
nails as currently provided for in the
Tariff Schedules of the United States
(TSUS) under item numbers 646.25 and
646.26, and similar steel wire nails of
one-piece construction, whether at, over
or under .065 inch in diameter as
currently provided for in item number
646.3040; two-piece steel wire nails
provided for in item number 646.32; and
steel wire nails with lead heads
provided for in item number 646.36.
Notification of ITC
Section 732(d) of the Act requires us
to notify the ITC of this action and to
provide it with the information we used
to arrived at this determination. We will
notify the ITC and make available to it
all nonprivileged and nonconfidential
information. We will also allow the ITC
access to all privileged and confidential
information in our files, provided it
confirms that it will not disclose such
information either publicly or under an
administrative protective order without
the consent of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration.
Preliminary Determination by ITC
The ITC will determine by July 22,
1985, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of certain steel
wire nails from Yugoslavia are causing
material injury, or threaten material
injury, to a United States industry. If its
determination is negative the
investigation will terminate; otherwise,
it will proceed according to statutory
procedures.
Alan F.Holmer,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
A dministration.
June 25, 1985.
[FR Doc. 85-15885 Filed 7-2-85: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
/ Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
27481
Regional Director, Northeast Region,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
National Marine Fisheries Service, 14
Administration
Elm Street, Gloucester, Massachusetts
Receipt of Application for a Small
01930-3799; and
Take-Commercial Fishing Exemption
Regional Director, Southeast Region,
Notice is hereby given that the
National Marine Fisheries Service,
following application has been received
9450 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg,
to take marine mammals incidental to
Florida 33702.
the pursuit of commercial fishing
Interested parties may submit written
operations within the Fishery
comments on the application within
Conservation Zone of the United States,
thirty (30) days of the date of this'notice
as authorized by the Marine Mammal
to the Assistant Administrator for
Protection Act of 1972 as amended (16
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
U.S.C. 1361-1407) (MMPA).
Service, Washington, DC 20235.
The South Atlantic Fishery
Dated: June 27, 1985.
Management Council has applied on
Carmen 1.Blondin,
behalf of fishermen participating in the
Deputy AssistantAdministratorfor Fisheries
swordfish gillnet fishery of the North
ResourceManagement,NationalMarine
Atlantic Ocean, for a small take
FisheriesService, NationalOceanic and
exemption to the general permit
Atmospheric Administration.
requirements of the MMPA. This
[FR Doc. 85-15962 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
exemption is permitted by settion
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
101(a)(4) of that act. The applicant
requests on annual total take of 100
marine mammals (75 North Atlantic, 25
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Sea) of the
following species:
Office of the Secretary
Atlantic white-side dolphilLagenorhynchus acutus
DOD Advisory Group on Electron
Bottlenosed dolphin-Tursiops
Devices; Meeting
truncatus
SUMMARY: Working Group B
Common dolphin-Delphinusdelphis
(Microelectronics) of the DoD Advisory
Dwarf sperm whale-Kogia simus
Group on Electron Devices (AGED)
False killer whale-Pseudorca
announces a closed session meeting.
crassidens
Goosebeaked whale-Ziphius
DATE: The meeting will be held at 9:00
cavirostris
a.m., Tuesday, 30 July 1985.
Minke whale-Balaenoptera
ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at
acutorostrata
Palisades Institute for Research
Northern bottlenosed whaleServices, Inc., 2011 Crystal Drive, One
Hyperoodon ampullatus
Crystal Park, Suite 307, Arlington,
Pilot whale--Globiocephalaspp.
Virginia 22202.
Pygmy killer whale-Feresaattenuata
Pygmy sperm whale-Kogia breviceps
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Risso's (Grampus) dolphin-Grampus
Becky Terry, AGED Secretariat, 2011
griseus
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
Rough-toothed dolphin-Steno
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
bredanensis
mission of the Advisory Group is to
Spinner dolphin-Stenellalongirostris
provide the Under Secretary of Defense
Spotted dolphin-Stenellaplogiodon
for Research and Engineering, the
Striped dolphin-Stenella coeruleoalba Director, Defense Advanced Research
If this exemption is granted, the
Projects Agency and the Military
Council will be responsible for
Departments with technical advice on
collecting reports on incidental takes.
the conduct of economical and effective
research and development programs in
Gillnet vessels not carrying a U.S.
government observer will be required to the area of electron devices.
keep detailed logs concerning location,
The Working Group B meeting will be
date of entanglement and species and
limited to review of research and
number of marine mammals killed,
development programs which the
seriously injured or released uninjured.
military propose to initiate with
The Council will submit a report
industry, universities or in their
annually on the takings.
laboratories. The Microelectronics area
includes such programs as integrated
The application is available for
review in the following offices:
circuits, charge coupled devices and
memories. The review will include
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
classified program details throughout.
National Marine Fisheries Service,
In accordance with section 10(d) of
3300 Whitehaven Street NW.,
Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C.
Washington, DC;
27482
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 t Notices
App. H section 10(d) (1982)), it has been
determined that this Advisory Group
meeting concerns matters listed in 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1982), and that
accordingly, this meeting will be closed
to the public.
Dated: June 28, 1985.
Patricia H. Means,
OSD Federal agJsterLiaison Off ,.er,
Departmcntof Defensa.
[FR Doc. 83-15946 Filed 7-2-85; &45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-01-M
Defense Intelligence Agency Scientific
Advisory Committee; Closed Meeting
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (d) of section 10 of Pub. L
92-463, as amended by Section 5 of Pub.
L. 94-409, notice is hereby given that a
closed meeting of a panel of the DIA
Scientific Advisory Committee has been
scheduled as follows:
DATES: August 7, 1985 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.
ADDRESS: The DIAC, Boiling AFB, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lt
Col Harold D. Linton, USAF, Executive
Secretary, DIA Scientific Advisory
Committee, Washington, D.C. 20301
(202/373-4930).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The
entire meeting is devoted to the
discussion of classified information as
defined in section 552b(c](1), Title 5 of
the U.S. Code and therefore will be
closed to the public. Subject matter will
be used in a special study on Space
Activities.
Dated: June 28, 1985.
Patricia H. Means,
OSD FederalRegisterLiaisonOfficer,
Departuerit of Defzrrue.
[FR Doc. 85.-15945 Filed 7-2--65; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE U10-0-
Defense Science Board Task Force on
Conflict Environment; Advisory
Committee Meetings
SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board
Task Force on Conflict Environment will
meet in closed session on 12-13
September and 17-18 October 1985 in
the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
The mission of the Defense Science
Board is to advise the Secretary of
Defense and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering
on scientific and technical matters as
they affect the perceived needs of the
Department of Defense. At these
meetings the Task Force will continue to
receive classified briefings an Conflict
Environment and to discuss preparation
of their report.
In accordance with Section 10(dJ of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Pub. L 92-463. as amended (5 U.S.C.
App. I1, (1982)), it has been determined
that this DSB Panel meeting, concerns
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c){1)
(1982], and tbat accordingly this meeting
will be closed to the public.
Dated: Jane 28, 1985.
Patricia K-Means,
OSD FederalRegisterLiaison Officer,
Departmentof Defense.
[FR Doc. 85-15944 Filed 7-2--85 8:45 amI
BILLING COD: 38IN0-11M
Defense Science Board Task Force on
Follow-on Forces Attack; Advisory
Committee Meetings
SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board
Task Force on Follow-on Forces Attack
will meet in closed session on 24-25 July
and 5-6 September 1985 in the Pentagon,
Arlington, Virginia.
The mission of the Defense Science
Board is to advise the Secretary of
Defense and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering
on scientific and technical matters as
they affect the perceived needs of the
Department of Defense. At this meeting
the Task For-e will continue to examine
the technical and programmatic aspects
as well as conceptual applications of the
capabilities and systems to accomplish
attacking follow-on forces.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C.
App. 11, (1982)), it has been determined
that this DSB Panel meeting, concerns
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)[1)
(19821, and that accordingly this meeting
will be c!)sed to the public.
1985.
Dated: June 83,
Patricia H. Means,
OSD Federal RegisterLioison Officer,
Departmentof Defense.
[FR Doc. 85-15943 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 ami
BILLING CODE 3610-01-M
Department of the Army
Military Traffic Management;
International Program
AGENCY: Military Traffic Management
Command (MTMC) Army, DOD.
ACTION: Notice of expansion of the
solicitation for movement of
international commercial air
unaccompanied baggage (UB] under the
Direct Procurement Method (DPM). The
DPM commercial air solicitation was
first announced in the Federal Register
dated October 3, 1984 (49 FR 39095).
SUMMARY.
The MTMC conducted a test
for movement of DPM UB via
commercial air from Ft. Benning
Georgia, and Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, to
Frankfurt, Germany. The test period
covered 6 months (April I-September
30, 1985).
Results of the test concluded that this
is an effective and efficient method for
movement of UB. As a result, MTMC
has elected to expand the DPM Air
Solicitation program worldwide.
This solicitation will standardize the
service performed by the commercial air
freight forwarders/carriers. The
solicitation will eliminate the present
Memorandum of Understanding, dated
January 14, 1981, between certain air
carriers and MTMC. Carriers/
forwarders will be requested to submit
single factor rates to include the
following services:
a. Pickup shipment at origin
contractor's facility.
b. Land transportation to origin
airport.
c. Air transportation from airport at
origin to destination area.
d. Land transportation from
destination airport to destination
contractor's facility.
e. Processing of shipment through
appropriate customs.
f. Expeditious movement and delivery
to ultimate destination warehouse as
directed by the installation
transportation officer.
The air freight forwarders/carriers
submitting the most favorable offer will
be awarded all traffic moving via DPM
commercial air, between the origin/
destination points. Estimated tonnages
will be provided. However, there is no
guarantee that any tonnages will move
under this solicitation. The government
reserves the right to use any method of
shipment, i.e., DPM MAC, Code J, and
Code 8.
Rates submitted will be for a 6-month
period with an option for cancellation at
designated periods within the cycle.
The solicitation package will be
distributed in July for rates effective
October 1, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC1T
LTC Robert P. Coleman or Ms. Naomi
King, HQ, Military Traffic Management
Command, Attn: MT-PPC (Room 408),
5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church,
Virginia 22041-5050, (202) 756-2577.
Joseph R.Marotta,
Colonel, GS, Directorof PersonalProperty.
[FR Doc. 85-15936 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
Corps of Engineers, Department of
the Army
Intent To Prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed James River Channel
Restoration Project
AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Omaha District.
Sponsor: South Dakota Department of
Water and Natural Resources, Pierre,
South Dakota.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS).
SUMMARY: 1. The proposed action is tor
restore the flow capacity of the James
River to near the 1922 capacity, to
improve recreational access and to
preserve natural and cultural values
along the river. The South Dakota
Department of Water and Natural
Resources has applied to the Corps of
Engineers for permits under section 404
of the Clean Water Act and Section 10
of the River and Harbor Act of 1899.
2. Flow capacity of the channel will be
increased by selected removal of
accumulated sediment, log jams and
debris and man-made obstructions.
Methods of clean out include hydraulic
and mechanical dredging, and snagging
and clearing.
3. Alternatives being evaluated by the
applicant include:
a. Remove log jams, debris and manmade obstructions only
b. Remove log jams, debris, man-made
obstructions and accumulated sediment
deposits
c. Construct high flow channel bypasses and remove log jams, debris, and
man-made obstructions where needed
d. No action
All of the above alternatives, except
no action, assume acquisition of public
areas for recreation and conservation
purposes. Rights to these areas will be
acquired from adjacent landowners
through donations or easements and fee
purchases from willing sellers.
Alternatives available to the Corps of
Engineers include:
a. Approve the permit application
b. Denial of the permit application
c. Approve the permit application with
some modification
4. Since 1980 the sponsor has
conducted public meetings in order to
develop a feasible project, and has
obtained state and local funding
support. In late 1984 the sponsor
received a federal permit to conduct a
test dredging operation in an upper
reach of the river near Stratford, South
Dakota. Dredging and environmental
monitoring operations began in late 1984
and are continuing in 1985. The purpose
of the dredging test is to determine
operational and environmental
feasibility. A federal and state agency
EIS scoping meeting was held on May
22-23 to address concerns relating to
fish and wildlife, water quality, stream
hydraulics, and riparian and wetland
ecosystems. Additional scoping of
issues to be addressed in the EIS is
desired from local agencies and the
general public AItthis time.
In additional to meeting the
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act, the project
must comply with section 10 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1899, with the
Historic Preservation Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, section 404
of the 1977 Clean Water Act, the
National Wild and Scenic River Act,
Executive Order 11988 regarding Flood
Plains, Executive Order 11593 regarding
Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment, Executive Order
11930 regarding Wetlands, and CEQ
Memorandum of August 1976, Analysis
of Impacts on Prime and Unique
Farmlands.
5. Scoping meetings for the DEIS are
scheduled for 12:30 pm and 7:00 pm on
Thursday, July 18 and Friday, July 19 in
four cities along the James River.
The meeting schedule is as follows:
Thursday, July 18, 12:30 pm
Sheraton Motor Inn, 1400 8th Avenue,
Northwest, Aberdeen, South Dakota
3rd Avenue and Wisconsin
Southwest, Huron, South Dakota
Friday, July 19, 12:30 pm
Mitchell Holiday Inn, Havens and
Ohlman, Mitchell South Dakota
Friday, July 19 7:00 pm
Sheraton Motor Inn, East Highway 50,
Yankton, South Dakota
The participation of the public and all
interested government agencies is
invited.
The Omaha District estimates that the
DEIS will be released for public review
in early 1986.
ADDRESS: Questions about the proposed
action, DEIS, or scoping meetings should
be directed to Richard Gorton: Chief,
Environmental Analysis Branch; Omaha
District, CE; 6014 U.S. Post Office and
Courthouse; Omaha, Nebraska 681024978, phone (402) 221-4598.
Dated: June 24. 1985.
Arvid L. Thomsen,
Chief,PlanningDivision, Omaha District.CE.
[FR Doc. 85-15877 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-62-M
27483
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Information Administration
Oil and Gas Reserve System Forms;
Request for Comments
AGENCY: Energy Information
Administration, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Request for comments on the
extension of the Oil and Gas Reserve
System Forms.
SUMMARY: As part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, conducts a consultation
progran to provide the general public
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed and continuing reporting
forms. This program helps to ensure that
requested data can be provided in the
desired format, reporting burden is
minimized, reporting forms are clearly
understood, and the impact of collection
requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed.
At this time EIA solicits comments on
the extension of its Oil and Gas Reserve
System forms. The three forms which
constitute the Oil and Gas Reserve
system are described in the
Supplemental Information Section of
this Notice. They are the Form EIA-23,
"Annual Survey of Domestic Oil and
Gas Reserve," the Form EIA-23P, "Oil
and Gas Well Operator Update Report,"
and the Form EIA--64A, "Annual Report
of the Origin of Natural Gas Liquids
Production." Interested persons are
asked to review these forms, especially
the proposed elimination of schedule B
of Form EIA-23, and provide comments
to the contact person described below.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by EIA within 30 days of the
publication of this notice.
ADDRESS: Comment should be sent to
Mr. Paul Chapman at the address listed
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Paul Chapman, Dallas Field Office,
Office of Oil & Gas, Energy Information
Administration, 1114 Commerce Street,
Room 804, Dallas, Texas 75242-2899,
Telephone (214] 767-2200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Request for Comment
I. Background
In accordance with provisions of the
Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91), the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) is responsible for
carrying out comprehensive national
27484
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
energy data programs including the
compilation and dissemination of
economic and statistical information.
EIA's Oil and Gas Reserves system in
designed to provide information for use
by the Congress, Federal and State
agencies, industry, and other interested
parties on the status of proved reserves
of crude oil, natural gas and lease
condensate. In keeping with its
responsibilities, EIA is planning to
request a 3-year extension of the three
forms used to gather information for this
system.
The Form EIA-23 collects information
on the proved reserves of crude oil,
natural gas, and lease condensate from
a sample of operators of domestic crude
oil and/or gas wells. All data, except for
natural gas commitment status
information, are reported on a total
operated basis. The total operated
reporting basis of schedule A includes
total reserves and production associated
with wells operated by an individual
operator. Schedule B of the form collects
natural gas commitment status data on a
gross working interest ownership basis,
which includes the respondents'
working interest in a given property plus
the proportionate share of any royalty
intercAt associated with the working
interest. EIA is proposing the
elimination of the Schedule B, in the
absence of a convincing rationale for its
continuation, as a means of reducing
respondent burden.
The Form EIA-23P, "Oil and Gas Well
Operator Update Report," is designed to
determine the status (active or inactive)
and approximate level of production for
domestic oil and gas well operators
currently on the operator frame for the
Form EIA-23. Removal of inactive firms
and knowledge of the approximate size
of active operators is necessary to
reduce both the sample size and the
sampling errors of future EIA-23
surveys. Form EIA-.64A, "'Annual Report
of the Origin of Natural Gas Liquids
Production," is designed to collect
information on the volume of natural gas
received and the natural gas liquids
extracted at gas processing plants, by
areas of origin, and the total gas
skrinkage resulting from the natural gas
liquids extracted by the plants. EIA does
not proprose, at this time, any changes
to either Form EIA-23P or ETA-64A.
(As a potential respondent)
(1) Taking into consideration the
proposed change in Form EIA-23, how
many hours, including time for review,
computation, preparation, and
administrative review, will it take your
firm to complete and submit each of the
three forms.
(2) Again, taking into consideration
the proposed change to Form EIA-23,
estimate the cost of filin? these forms,
including direct and indirect cost
associated with the data collection.
Direct costs should include all one-time
and recurring costs, such as
development, assembly, equipment
ADP, and other administrative costs.
(3) Do you know of any other Federal
State or local agencies which collect
similar data? If yes, please identify these
agencies.
(4) Do you support the proposed
change to Form EIA-23? Are there
additional changes that you would
recommend?
(5) Apart from the proposed change to
Form EIA-23, are there any other
changes or modifications that you would
recommend for Form EIA-23, or Form
EIA-23P, or Form EIA-64?
(6) What other suggestions do you
have for improving these three forms?
(As a potential user)
(1) Do you need data at the levels of
aggregation that would be available
using the modified Form EIA-23; that is,
do the categories, frequency, and
geographic detail reflect your needs?
(2) Do you need any of the elements of
information that would be eliminated by
this proposal? For what purposes would
you use these data?
(3) How could these forms be
improved to better meet your specific
data needs?
(4) Are there alternative sources of
data? Do you now use them? What are
their deficiencies?
EIA is also interested in receiving
comments on the need for the collection
of this information. Comments or
summaries of comments will be
provided in EIA's submission to the
Office of Management and Budget
requesting a 3-year extension of these
data collections and will become a
matter of public record.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 28,
11. Request for Comments
1985.
EIA invites the public to comment on
this proposal within 30 days of the
publication of this notice. The following
general guidelines are provided to assist
in the preparation of responses.
Dr. H. A. Merklein,
Administrator,EnergyInformation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 85-15947 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RP85-1 13-0011
Northern Natural Gas Co., Division of
InterNorth, Inc.; Request for Waiver
June 26, 1985.
Take notice that on June 3, 1985,
Northern Natural Gas Company,
Division of InterNorth, Inc. (Northern)
requested a waiver of the provisions of
order No. 399, requiring lump-sum
payments to each jurisdictional
customer to flow through Btu refunds
received from first sellers. Northern
asserts that its total Btu refund is de
minimis, that the rate impact is
insignificant, and that administrative
costs clearly outweigh the benefits of
lump-sum refunds. Northern proposes to
include the Btu refund in its next
regularly scheduled PGA filing.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a motion to
intervene or a protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825
North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,
D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214]. All such motions or protests
should be filed on or before July 3, 1985.
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 motion to.
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available
for public inspection.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15929 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Project No. 7328-001]
Small Hydro East; Surrender of
Preliminary Permit
June 28, 1985
Take notice that Small Hydro East,
Permittee for the proposed Crystal Falls
Project No. 7328, requested by letter
dated May 29, 1985, that its preliminary
permit be terminated. The preliminary
permit was issued on June 18, 1984, and
would have expired on November 30,
1985. The project would have been
located on the Phillips Brook in Coos
County, New Hampshire.
The Permittee filed the request on
May 29, 1985, and the preliminary permit
for Project No. 7328 shall remain in
effect through the thirtieth day after
Federal Register
/ Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
issuance of this notice unless that day is
a Saturday, Sunday or holiday as
described in 18 CFR 385.2007. in which
case the permit shall remain in effect
through the first business day following
that day. New applications involving
this project site, to the extent provided
for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on
the next business day.
Kenneth F. Plumb.
APPENDIX
Filing
C mpany
date
C
5/16/85 Southern Natural
Gas Co.
5/20185 Locust Ridge Gas
CO.
5121/85 Natural Gas
Pipeline Co. of
America.
5/31/85 South Gdorgia
Natural Gas Co.
6/10/85 ... do ...........
6/10/85 - do .........................
6/10/85 Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line
Corp.
6/19/b5 Cimarron
Transmission Co.
6/20/85 Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Co.
6/20/85 Arkansas
Oklahoma Gas
Corp.
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15930 Filed 7-2-85: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Docket Nos. RP85-153-000 et all
Southern Natural Gas Co. et al.; Filing
of Pipeline Refund Reports and
Refund Plans
Type
Dockot No.
feo
ing
p
RP85-153-000.
Report.
RP84-86-006.
Do.
RP85-99-001
Do.
RP85-9-000
Do.'
RP81-25-004.._:.
RP80-136-008
TA85-2-29-005
Do.
Do.
Do.
RP85-100-001
Do.
RP85-94-002
Do.
RP85-105-001-...
DO.'
Refunds resulting from Btu Measurement Adjustments.
Each company will retain its basic Docket No. and SubDocket Nos. will be assigned to any future Btu refund
reports.
June 26, 1985.
Take notice that pipelines listed in the
Appendix hereto have submitted to the
Commission for filing proposed refund
reports or refund plans. The date of
filing, docket number, and type of filing
are also shown on the Appendix.
Any person wishing to do so may
submit comments in writing concerning
the subject refund reports and plans. All
such comments should be filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington, D.C. 20426, on or before
July 3, 1985. Copies of the respective
filings are on file with the Commission
and available for public inspection.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
[FR Doc. 85-15931 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Docket No. C164-106-002 et al.]
Sun Exploration and Production
Company et a14 Applications for
Certificates, Abandonments of Service
and Petitions To Amend Certificates'
June 28, 1985.
Take notice that each of the
'This notice does not provide for consolidation
for hearing of the several matters covered herein.
27485
Applicants listed herein has filed an
application or petition pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for
authorization to sell natural gas in
interstate commerce or to abandon
service as described herein, all as more
fully described in the respective
applications and amendments which are
on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
make any protest with reference :o said
applications should on or before July 16,
1985, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20426, petitions to intervene or
protests in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (1 CFR
385.211, .214). All protests filed with the
Commission will be considered by it in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken but will not serve to make the
protestants parties to the proceeding.
Persons wishing to become parties to a
proceeding or to participate as a party in
any hearing therein must file petitions to
intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules.
Under the procedure herein provided
for, unless otherwise advised, it will be
unnecessary for Applicants to appear or
to be represented at the hearing.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
Scvretary.
Pressure
DoktN.addtdfldI
Applicant
Docket No. and dated Mod
I Purchaser and location
C164-106-002, D, June 17, 1985.... Sun Exploration and Production Company, P.O. Box
2880. Dallas. Texas 75221-2880.
CIt4-476-001. E. June 21, 1985.. Anadarko Production Company (Succ. in Interest to
Sun Exploration & Production Company), P.O. Box
1330. H uston, Texas 77251-1330.
C185-507-000. (G-17918),
B, Upion Texas Petroleum, A Division of Allied CorpoJune 14, 1985.
ration, P.O. Box 2120. Houston, Texas 772522120.
C185-509-000
(C175-269).
B. Sun Exp;oration and Production Company.:...................
June 17. 1985.
C185-510-000 (C180-95), B, June Geo. Oil and Gas Company of Houston, P.O Boz
17, 1985.
2511. Houston, Texas 77001.
C85-511-000, B, June 18, 1985... Hufo
lS, 1016 Andrews Highway, Midland, Texas
79701.
CI85-512-000, B, June 18. 1985...
l'!85-517-000, A, June 19, 1955.... Felmont Oi Corporation, 6 East 43rd Street, New
York. N.Y. 10017.
C185-518-000, A, June 19. 1985., Case-Pomeroy Oil Corporation, P.O. Box 1511, Midland, Texas 79702.
C185-519--000 (CI69-1224). B., Tenrreco Oil Company, P.O. Box 2511, Houston,
June 20, 1985.
Texas 77001.
C162-46"-000. D, June 24, 1985.... Sun Exploration and Production Company .....................
C166-470-002, 0, June 24, 1985 ..-
do .
..
.
.
.
.
....
C16-470-003, D, June 24, 1985 ... Sun Exploration and Production Company, P.O. Box
I
2880. Dallas, Texas 75221-2880.
Northern Natural Gas Company, Ozone, of al. Fied,
Crockett County, Texas.
Trunkline Gas Company, East Cameron Block 338,
Offstore Louisiana, OCS-G-2063.
Lone Star Gas Company, Sec. 4-T2N-R4W,
Carter--'ox Field, Stephens County, Ok!al na.
=b base
Price per 1,000 ft
...........................
)
(3)............
...................
14.73
.................
...........................
Northern Natural Gas Company, Mocane Field, (4)_..
Beaver County. Oklahoma.
Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Blue Cloud Field.
.
.
.
.............................
Rio Blanco County, Colorado.
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, Panhandle ( )
... .73
...............
.....................................
Mol Field, Mcore County, Texas. •
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, Panhand:e
.........
.....
..................................................
Carson Field, Carson County, Texas.
Natural Gas Pipeline Company ol America. Vermil14.73
..................
..........................
.
(....
ion Block 277. Offshore Louisiana.
( ._ ...
_ . ....................... ....... . .....
14.73
.-....do .......
................
...............................
......
.....
........
.. ................................
.s
. ..........
,...................
Montara-Dakota Utilies, Ralttlesrake Fied, Washake County. Wyoming.
(
)....
.
................
.....
.................
.. . .........
Northern Natural Gas Company, Sitka Field. Clark
County, Kansas.
( 0).......
.........
........
.......................
..
...
..........
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, Red Oak-Norris
Field, LeFlore County, Oklahoma.
.
.................
.......
C(l)..............................................
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, Red Oak Field,
LeFoe County, Oklahoma.
2746
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
Docket No. and dated filed
Applicant
Purchaser and location
Price per 1,000 It
Pressure
base
C185-502-000 (Cl79-237). B, Gulf Oil Corporation, P.O. Box 2100, Houston, Gas Gathering Corporation, Bayou Bouillon Field, (2) . ................................................................
St. MartIn Parish, Louisiana.
Texas 77252.
June 10, 1985.
I Assignment of C. E. Davidson lease to Vernon E. Faulconer.
2 Byassignment, executed on 6-14-84, effective 5-1-84, Applicant acquired 3.169371% of working interest in East Cameron Block 338, Offshore, Louisiana, OCS-G-2063, which was
dedicated under a contract dated I 1-11-76 byand between Clark Oil Producing Company (predecessor in interest to Sun) and Trunkline Gas Company.
I Union Texas's interest in the lease dedicated to R.S. 54 was assigned to Singer.Fleischaker Oil Co-effective 1-1-69. The primary term of the contract expired on 1-26-79.
4 Assignment of acreage under contract to P. F. Beeler.
Sale of dedicated properties to Ouinoco Petroleum, Inc. on 1-1-84.
Seller and Purchaser have mutually agreed to termination of the basic gas contract.
Applicant is filing under Gas Purchase Contract dated 3-14-85.
Termination of contract.
Quitclaim and Bill of Sale to Egret Energy Corporation of Section 13, T33S. R22W, Clark County, Kansas.
10Partial Assignment and Bill of Sale to Kaiser-Francis Oil Company of'Johnnie Remer Unit and James Craig Unit.
*' Partial Assignment and Bill of Sale to John P. Dean of Fisher Gas Unit.
12 Gas Gathering Corporation (G.G.C.) advised Gulf that their resale contract with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) expired on 4-26-85 but was extended to 6-1-8d.
GG.C. also advised Gult that G.G.C. could not recommend the acceptance of an offer being made by Transco tot an additional five year period beginning 6-1-85 and advised that if Gulf did
not wish to agree to the offer made by Transco, G.G.C. could not accept Gulf's natural gas after 6-1-85. G.G.C. further indicated that if Gulf approved they would agree to an alternative
market with Monterey Pipe Line Company (Monterey). G.G.C. stated that it is their intention to file on abandonment for their sale of natural gas to Transco and requested Gulf do the same to
enable them to sell the gas they purchase from Gulf to Monterey.
Filing Code: A-Initial Service. B-Abandonment. C-Amendment to add acreage. D-Amendment to delete acreage. E-Total Succession. F-Partial Succession.
[FR Doc. 85-15932 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Docket No. TA85-2-18-000 and TA85-218-0011
Texas Gas Transmission Corp.; Notice
of Proposed Changes in FPC Gas
Tariff
June 25, 1085.
Take notice that Texas Gas
Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas)
on June 21, tendered for filing FortyNinth Revised Sheet No. 7 and Twelfth
Revised Sheet No. 7-B to its FPC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
The tariff sheets are proposed to be
effective July 1, 1985, and reflect
primarily the impact of Texas Gas'
exercise of "market-out" provisions in
certain gas purchase agreements
-effective July 1, 1985.
Texas Gas requests waiver of the
notice requirements to make its rates
effective July 1, 1985. Waiver of the PGA
time-of-filing requirements is also
requested to permit the proposed rates
to become effective outside of the semiannual schedule in effect for Texas Gas.
Copies of the filing were served upon
the company's jurisdictional customers
and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a motion to
intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Commission, 825 North Capitol
Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). All
such motions or protests should be filed
on or before July 3,1985. 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 motion to intervene. Copies
of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public
inspection.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15933 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
activities, the Commission will assert
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
and 108 rates under the Natural Gas
[Docket No. C185-521-0001
UER Marketing Co.; Application for
Blanket Limited Term Certificate and
Limited Partial Abandonment
Authorization
June 27,1985.
Take notice that on June 21, 1985, UER
Marketing Company, P.O. Box 1478, 600
Travis, Houston, Texas 77001, filed an
application pursuant to Sections 4 and 7
of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 717c, 717f, and the provisions
of 18 CFR Part 157, for a blanket limitedterm certificate of public convenience
and necessity authorizing UER
Marketing to conduct a short-term spot
sales marketing program, hereinafter
referred to as USA, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
Approval would (1) authorize the sale
of natural gas for resale in interstate
commerce; (2) permit limited-term,
partial abandonment of certain natural
gas sales; (3) confer pre-granted
abandonment authorization for sales of
natural gas made pursuant to the
requested certificate; (4) authorize
transportation of natural gas by pipeline
companies able and willing to
participate in the USA program; and (5)
confer pre-granted abandonment
authorization for the transportation
service allowed under the requested
certificate. UER Marketing also requests
the Commission to declare that, with
respect to UER Marketing and its
Natural Gas.Act jurisdiction only over
sales for resale and tranportation not
otherwise exempt from the NGA.
Under the USA program, UER
Marketing proposes to sell natural gas
qualifying for the section 102, 103, 107,
Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 3301-3432. Only contractually
committted gas will be sold, UER
Marketing and participating producers
will seek temporary releases of gas from
the purchasers in order to meet market
demand for natural gas sales. Releasing
purchasers will be absolved from takeor-pay liability. Arrangements for
transporting the released gas will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
make any protest with reference to said
application should on or before July 15,
1985, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, in Washington,
DC. 20426, petition to intervene or a
protest in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure [18 CFR
385.211 and 385.214). 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. Person's wishing to become
parties to a proceeding or to participate
as a party in any hearing therein must
file a petition to ihtervene in accordance
with the Commission's rules.
Under the procedure herein provided
for, unless Applicant is otherwise
advised, it will be unnecessary for
Applicant to appear or to be represented
at the hearing.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15934 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
[Docket No. PR85-58-004J
El Paso Natural Gas Co.; Tariff Filing
June 28,1985.
Take notice that on June 25, 1985 El
Paso Natural Gas Company ("El Paso")
tendered for filing, pursuant to Part 154
of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("Commission")
Regulations Under the Natural Gas Act
and in accordance with the Stipulation
and Agreement in Settlement of Rate
Proceedings ("Stipulation and
Agreement") filed concurrently by El
Paso at Docket Nos. PR85-58-000, RP85129-000, RP85-130-000, RP85-140-000,
and CP79-224-005 and 006, the revised
and original tariff sheets to its FERC
Gas Tariff identified on the attached
Appendix.
El Paso states that the tendered tariff
sheets serve to implement the settlement
of rate and other issues as agreed to in
the Stipulation and Agreement and
requests that the Commission grant such
waiver of its rules, regulations and
orders as may be necessary to permit
the tendered tariff sheets to become
effective July 1, 1985, as provided for in
said Stipulation and Agreement.
El Paso states that copies of the filing
have been served upon all parties of
record in Docket Nos. RP85-58-000,
RP85-129-000, RP85-130-000, RP85-140000, and CP79-224-005 and 006, and,
otherwise, upon all interstate pipeline
system customers of El Paso and all
interested state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a motion to
intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825
North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,
D.C., 20426, in accordance with
§ § 385.214 and 385.211 of this Chapter.
All such motions or protests should be
filed on or before July 5, 1985. 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 motion to intervene. Copies
of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public
inspection.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
Appendix-El Paso Natural Gas
Company
FirstRevised Volume No. 1
First Revised Sheet No. 1
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 100
Original Sheet No. 101
Original Sheet Nos 102 through 199'
First Revised Sheet No. 200
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 210
First Substitute Second Revised Sheet
No. 211
First Substitute Second Revised Sheet
No. 212
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 213
Subslitute First Revised Sheet No. 220
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 221
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 222
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 223
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 224
First Revised Sheet No. 225
First Revised Sheet No. 230
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 231
First Revised Sheet No. 232 1
First Revised Sheet No. 240
Original Sheet Nos. 242 through 249 1
Original Sheet No. 250
Original Sheet No. 251
Original Sheet No. 252
Original Sheet No. 253
Original Sheet No. 254
Original Sheet No. 255
Original Sheet No. 256
Original Sheet Nos. 257 through 299 1
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 355
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 356
OriginalVolume No. 1-A
First Revised Sheet No. I
First Revised Sheet No. 20
Original Sheet No. 21
Original Sheet No. 22
Original Sheet No. 23
Original Sheet No. 24
Original Sheet Nos 25 through 99'
First Revised Sheet No. 101
First Revised Sheet No. 102
First Revised Sheet No. 103
First Revised Sheet No. 1041
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Sheet Nos. 105 through 109 '
Sheet No. 110
Sheet No. 111Sheet No. 112
Sheet No. 113
Sheet No. 114
Sheet No. 115
Sheet No. 116
Sheet Nos. 117 through 119'
Sheet No. 120
Sheet No. 121
Sheet No. 122
Sheet No. 123
Sheet No. 124
Sheet Nos. 125 through 199'
Sheet No. 309'
Sheet No. 310
Sheet No. 311
Sheet No. 312
Sheet No. 313
Sheet No. 314
Sheet No. 315
' These tariff sheets are not attached to the
Stipulation and Agreement being filed concurrently
herewith and are tendered as part of this filing for
pagination purposes only.
-27487
Original Sheet No. 316
Original
Original
Original
Original
Sheet No. 317
Sheet No. 318
Sheet No. 319
Sheet Nos. 320 through 399'
Third Revised Volume No. 2
Substitute Twenty-ninth Revised Sheet
No. 1-Dl
First Substitute Fourteenth Revised
Sheet No. 1-D.2
Second Revised Sheet No. 1-E
Original Volume No. 2A
Substitute Thirtieth Revised Sheet No.
1-C
[FR Doc. 85-15926 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Docket No. TA85-1-13-002]
Gas Gathering Corp.; Corrected Filing
June 25, 1985.
Take notice that on June 3, 1985, Gas
Gathering Corporation (GGC) tendered
for filing a corrected FERC Form No.
542-PGA with supporting data which
included Twenty-third Revised Sheet 8
of 8 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Rate
Schedule No. 2-Supplement No. 24. The
revised sheet reflects an effective date
of January 1, 1985. GGC states that the
changes rectify certain errors discovered
through various meetings and
discussions among GGC, the
Commission Staff, and GGC's sole
jurisdictional sale for resale customer,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation, the only parties involved in
the above-referenced proceeding.
According to § 381.103(b)(2)(iii) of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR
381.103(b)(2){iii)), the date of filing is the
date on which the Commission receives
the appropriate filing fee, which in the
instant case was not until June 18, 1985.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a motion to
intervene or a protest with the Federal
Energy Commission, 825 North Capitol
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). All
such motions or protests should be filed
on or before July 3, 1985. Protests will be
considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to tfe proceeding.
Any person wishing to become a party
must file a motion to intervene. Copies
of this filing are on file with the
27488
II
I
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
I
Commission and are available for public
[FR Doc. 85-15927 Filed 7-2-85 8:45 am]
unnecessary for Applicant to appear or
to be represented at the hearing.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15928 Filed 7-2-85: 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 6717-01-M
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
inspection.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
[Docket No. C185-515--000
Jan Energy Co.; Application for
Commission Authorization Relating to
JanGas
June 28, 1985.
Take notice that on June 19, 1985, Jan
Energy Company (Jan), of 322 E.
Lancaster Avenue, Wayne,
Pennsylvania 19087, filed an application
for certain authorizations required in
connection with the proposed "JanGas".
Jan specifically requests that the
Commission grant the following: (1)
Authority for the sale of gas by Jan for
resale in interstate commerce, specified
in Tenneco Oil Co., et al., 28 FERC
61,383 (September 26, 1984), modified,
29 FERC 1 61,334 (December 21, 1984);
(2) blanket abandonment authority
permitting the temporary release of gas
to producers who elect to participate in
JanGas; (3) permission for Jan to fulfill
certain reporting requirements
contained in the Commission's generic
SMP order except those contained in
Ordering Paragraph (V), Subparagraphs
(2), (5)[5] and [71; (4) permission to
assume the Part 284 reporting
requirements normally imposed on
pipelines; (5) a declaration that
participation in JanGas will not alter the
existing jurisdictional status under the
NCA of participating intrastate and
Hinshaw pipelines; and (6) waiver of the
48-hour post transaction requirement set
forth in 18 CFR 284.4.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
make any protest with reference to said
application should on or before July 15,
1985, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20426, petitions to intervene or
protests in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.211, 385.214). All protests filed with
the Commission will be considered by it
in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make the
protestants parties to the proceeding.
Persons wishing to become parties to a
proceeding or to participate as a party in
any hearing therein must file petitions to
intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules.
Under the procedure herein provided
for, unless otherwise advised, it will be
[Docket No. RP8S-166-000]
Southern Natural Gas Co.; Compliance
Filing
June 28, 1985.
Take notice that on June 25, 1985.
Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern] tendered for filing First
Revised Sheet No. 30D to its FERC Gas
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
Southern states that this filing is being
made pursuant to Ordering Paragraph
(B) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's June 7,1985 order in
Docket No. CP85-44-OW and that the
revised sheet sets forth the rates to be
effective under its Flexible Discount
Rate Schedule during July of 1985.
Southern is requesting an effective date
of July 1, 1985.
Southern indicates that copies of the
filing have been mailed to all its
jurisdictional purchasers and interested
state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a motion to
intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825
North Capitol Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214). All such motions or protests
should be filed on or before July 5, 1985.
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 motion to
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available
for public inspection.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15924 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Docket No. TA85-5-5-002]
Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.;
Rate Filing Pursuant to Tariff Rate
Adjustment Provisions
June 28,1985.
Take notice that on June 26, 1985,
Midwestern Gas Transmission
Company (Midwestern) filed Substitute
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 5 Original
Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff, to
be effective, under certain conditions,
July 1, 1985.
Midwestern states that the purpose of
the filing is to reflect PGA rate
adjustments for its Southern System
based on (1) rate changes filed by
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a
Division of Tenneco Inc. (Tennessee),
and (2) various purchases of gas directly
from producer-suppliers.. Midwestern
states that Substitute Fourteenth
Revised Sheet No. 5 will replace
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 5 filed in
Docket Nos. TA85-5-5--0 on May 31,
1985 to be effective July 1, 1985 provided
the Commission permits the rates
reflected in Natural Gas Pipeline
Company of America's June 19, 1985
PGA to become effective.
Midwestern states that copies of the
filing have been mailed to all of its
jurisdictional customers and affected
state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to
protest said filing should file a motion to
intervene or a protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825
North Capitol Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214). All such motions or protests
should be filed on or before July 5, 1985.
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 motion to
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available
for public inspection.
Kenneth F. Plumb,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15925 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE $717-01-1
Office of General Counsel
Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive
Patent License; Battelle Memorial
Institute
Notice is hereby given of an intent to
grant to Battelle Memorial Institute, of
Columbus, Ohio, a partially exclusive
license to practice the invention
described in U.S. Patent No. 4,376,598,
entitled "In-Situ Vitrification of Soil,"
and corresponding patent applications
in Great Britain, France, Canada, Italy,
Japan, and Federal Republic of
Germany. The patent is owned by the
United States of America, as
represented by the Department of
Energy (DOE).
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
The proposed license will be partially
exclusive, i.e. limited to fields of use
other than radioactive waste
management and subject to a license
and other rights retained by the U.S.
Government. DOE intends to grant the
license, upon a final determination in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), unless
within 60 days of this notice the
Assistant General Counsel for Patents,
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
20585, receives in writing any of the
following, together with supporting
documents:
(i) A statement from any person
setting forth reasons why it would not
be in the best interests of the United
States to grant the proposed license; or
(ii) An application for a nonexclusive
license to the invention in which
applicant states that he has already
brought the invention to practical
application or is likely to bring the
invention to practical application
expeditiously in a field of use other than
radioactive waste management.
The Department will review all
written responses to this notice, and will
grant the license if, after expiration of
the 60-day notice period, and after
consideration of written responses to
this notice, a determination is made, in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), that
the license grant is in the public interest.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 27,
1985.
J.Michael Farrell,
GeneralCounsel.
[FR Doc. 85-15948 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-U
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPTS-59195A; FRL-2858-6
Certain Chemicals; Approval of Test
Marketing Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's
approval of two applications for test
marketing exemptions (TMEs) under
section 5(h)(6) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), TME-85-48, and
TMF,-85-49. The test marketing
conditions are described below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.
Robert Jones, Premanufacture Notice
Management Branch, Chemical Control
Division (TS-794), Office of Toxic
Substances. Environmental Protection
Agency, Rn. E-611E, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202-382-3395).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Section
5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to
exempt persons from premanufacture
notification (PMN) requirements and
permit them to manufacture or import
new chemical substances for test
marketing purposes if the Agency finds
that the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use and
disposal of the substances for test
marketing purposes will not present any
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment. EPA may impose
restrictions on test marketing activities
and may modify or revoke a test market
exemption upon receipt of new
information which casts significant
doubt on its finding that the test
marketing activity will not present any
unreasonable risk of injury.
EPA hereby approves TME-85-48 and
TME--85-49. EPA has determined that
test marketing of the new chemical
substances described below, u~der- the
conditions set out in the TME
applications, and for the time period and
restrictions specified below, will not
present any unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment. The
production volume, use and the number
of customers must not exceed that
specified in the applications.
The following additional restrictions
apply to TME-85-48, and TME-85-49. A
bill of lading accompanying each
shipment must state that use of the
substance is restricted to that approved
in the TME. In addition, the Company
shall maintain the following records
until five years after the dates they are
created, and shall make them available
for inspection or copying in accordance
with section 11 of TSCA:
1. The applicant must maintain
records of the quantity of the TME
substance produced and must make
these records available to EPA upon
request.
2. The applicant must maintain
records of the dates of shipment to each
customer and the quantities supplied in
each shipment, and must make these
records available to EPA upon request.
3. The applicant must maintain copies
of the bill of lading that accompanies
each shipment of the TME substance.
T-85-48
Dote of Receipt: May 15, 1985.
Notice of Receipt May 24, 1985 (50 FR
21503).
Applicant: Sohio Engineered
Materials Company.
Chemical: Aluminum arsenate.
Use: Controlled doping of silicon
wafers.
Production Volume: 500 pounds.
Number of Customers: 100.
27489
Worker Exposure:During
manufacture, 2 workers may be exposed
dermally up to 2 hours per day for less
than 10 days. During use 1-2 workers
per site at up to 100 sites may be
exposed dermally for 1-2 hours per day
for less than 10 days.
Test Marketing Period.Twelve
months.
Commencing on: June 26, 1985.
Risk Assessment: EPA identified
moderate to high health and
environmental concerns based on acute
and chronic toxicity of arsenate salts.
Because of the nature of the use for the
substance, and because the substance
has a negligible vapor pressure and will
be handled in a cast solid form, no
significant human exposure is expected
under test marketing conditions. In
addition, the chemical is not expected to
be absorbed through the skin. EPA
identified no releases to water for the
TME substance. Therefore, the TME
substance will not present any
unreasonable risk of injury to health-or
the environment.
Public Comments: None.
T-85-49
Date of Receipt: May 15, 1985.
Notice of Receipt: May 24, 1985 (50 FR
21503).
Applicant: Sohio Engineered
Materials Company.
Chemical: Yttrium arsenate.
Use: Controlled doping of silicon
wafers.
Production Volume: 500 pounds.
Number of Customers:100.
Worker Exposure: During
manufacture, 2 workers may be exposed
dermally up to 2 hours per day for less
than 10 days. During use, 1-2 workers
per site at up to 100 sites may be
exposed dermally for 1-2 hours per day
for less than 10 days.
Test MarketingPeriod:Twelve
months.
Commencing on: June 26, 1985.
Risk Assessment: EPA identified
moderate to high health and
environmental concerns based on acute
and chronic toxicity of arsenate salts.
Because of the nature of the use for the
substance, and because the substance
has a negligible vapor pressure and will
be handled in a cast solid form, no
significant human exposure is expected
under test marketing conditions. In
addition, the chemical is not expected to
be absorbed through the skin. EPA
identified no releases to water for the
TMIE substance. Therefore, the TME
substance will not present any
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment.
Public Comments: None.
27490
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
The Agency reserves the right to
" rescind approval or modify the
conditions and restrictions of an
exemption should any new information
come to its attention which casts
significant doubt on its finding that the
test marketing activities will not present
any unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment.
Dated: June 26, 1985.
Edwin F. Tinsworth,
Acting Director,Office of Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. 85-15920 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Indiana National Corp. et al.;
Acquisitions of Companies Engaged In
Permissible Nonbanking Activities
The organizations listed in this notice
have applied under § 225.23 (a)(2) or (f)
of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR
225.23 (a)(2) or (f)) for the Board's
approval under section 4(c)(8) of the
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843(c)(8)) and § 225.21(a) of Regulation
Y (12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or
control voting securities or assets of a
company engaged in a nonbanking
activity that is listed in § 225.25 of
Regulation Y as closely related to
banking and permissible for bank
holding companies. Unless otherwise
noted, such activities will be conducted
throughout the United States.
Each application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing, it will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
express their views in writing on the
question whether consummation of the
proposal can "reasonably be expected
to produce benefits to the public, such
as greater convenience, increased
competition, or gains in efficiency, that
outweigh possible adverse effects, such
as undue concentration of resources,
decreased or unfair competition,
conflicts of interests, or unsound
banking practices." Any request for a
hearing on this question must be
accompanied by a statement of the
reasons a written presentation would
not suffice in lieu of a hearing,
identifying specifically any questions of
fact that are in dispute, summarizing the
evidence that would be presented at a
hearing, and indicating how the party
commenting would be aggrieved by
approval of the proposal.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated for the application or the
offices of the Board of Governors not
later than July 25, 1985.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(Franklin D. Dreyer, Vice President) 230
South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois
60690:
1. IndianaNational Corporation,
Indianapolis, Indiana, to acquire through
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Indian
Mortgage Company 21.1 percent of the
voting shares of Keystone Mortgage
Corporation, Indianapolis, Indiana,
thereby engaging in the production of
single family mortgage loans pursuant to
§ 225.25(b)(1). These activities would be
conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana and
Greenwood, Indiana.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City (Thomas M. Hoenig, Vice President)
925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City,
Missouri 64198:
1. Nebanpo, Inc., Wallace, Nebraska,
to retain shares of American
must include a statement of why a
written presentation would not suffice in
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically
any questions of fact that are in dispute
and summarizing the evidence that
would be presented at a hearing.
Comments regarding this application
must be received not later than July 26,
1985.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(Franklin D. Dreyer, Vice President) 230
South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois
60690:
1. J. CarlH. Bancorporation,Earling,
Iowa; to become a bank holding
company by acquiring 100 percent of the
voting shares of Farmers Trust and
Savings Bank, Earling, Iowa.
James McAfee,
Associate Secretaryof the Board.
[FR Doc. 85-15888 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
Corporation, North Platte, Nebraska,
thereby acting as agent (or underwriter)
with respect to insurance limited to
assuring repayment of the outstanding
balance due on a specific extension of
credit by a bank holding company or its
subsidiary in the event of the death or
disability of the debtor, pursuant to
section 4(c)(8)(A) of the Act.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
Jams McAfee,
SUMMARY: CDC is considering making
changes in the Vessel Sanitation
Inspection Program relating to sanitation
inspections of cruise ships and other
passenger vessels. Public comment is
requested on the proposed changes.
DATE: Comments must be received on or
before October 1, 1985.
ADDRESS: Comments may be mailed to
Director, Division of Quarantine,
Centers for Disease Control, 1600 Clifton
Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
System, June 27, 1985.
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 85-15887 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
J. Carl H. Bancorp.; Formation of;
Acquisition by; or Merger of Bank
Holding Companies
The company listed in this notice has
applied for the Board's approval under
section 3 of the Bank Holding Company
Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and § 225.14 of the
Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.24) to
become a bank holding company or to
acquire a bank or bank holding
company. The factors that are
considered in acting on the applications
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12
U.S.C. 1842(c)).
The application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing, it will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
express their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank indicated for that
application or to the Offices of the
Board of Governors. Any comment on
an application that requests a hearing
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control
Vessel Sanitation Inspection Program
AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), Public Health, HHS.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurence S. Farer, M.D., Director,
Division of Quarantine, Center for
Prevention Services, CDC, 1600 Clifton
Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CDC
Vessel Sanitation Inspection Program is
conducted under the authority of
Sections 361(a) and 366(c) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264(a) and
269(c)), and Title*42, Part 71, of the Code
of Federal Regulations.
For many years the Public Health
Service has conducted sanitation
inspections of passenger cruise vessels.
This Vessel Sanitation Inspection
Program is designed to minimize health
risks, especially those which might lead
to gastrointestinal disease outbreaks, for
Federal Register
/
Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
American travelers and the American
There is no formal review procedure in
public.
the current program.
Although gastrointestinal disease
(5) Publication of numerical scores for
outbreaks at sea are not common,
vessels not meeting the CDC standard.
passenger ships are unique in having a
Presently, published results indicate
large aggregation of people in a
only if CDC standard was or was not
relatively isolated situation, in being the
met.
only source of food and water for
Comment is requested on the
passengers and crew while at sea, and
proposed changes in the Vessel
in having limited medical facilities.
Sanitation Inspection Program.
The current program, under the
Interested parties may receive copies of
auspices of CDC's Division of
the current inspection form, the
Quarantine, is based on the World
biweekly publication containing
Health Organization's "Guide to Ship
inspection results, and a proposed staff
Sanitation," augmented by CDC
manual containing the changes, by
recommendations for sanitation and
writing to the address above.
surveillance developed in collaboration
Dated: June 25, 1985.
with industry representatives.
Donald
R. Hopkins, M.D.
Unannounced inspections, performed
Acting Director,Centersfor DiseaseControl.
semi-annually, now focus on the
[FR Doc. 85-15870 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
following six areas; Water, refrigeration,
BILLING CODE 4160-18-M
food preparation, potential
contamination of food, personal
cleanliness of food handlers, and the
Cardiovascular Fetotoxicity and
vessel's cleanliness and state of repair.
Functional Teratogenesis; Open
Vessels which fail to meet the CDC
Meeting
standard (score of 85 or above out of a
possible total score of 100) receive
The following meeting will be
unannounced reinspections at more
convened by the National Institute for
frequent intervals. A summary of the
Occupational Safety and Health
results of these inspections is published
(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease
every 2 weeks and distributed to local
Control (CDC) and will be open to the
health departments, the media, and the
public for observation and participation,
travel industry. Detailed inspection
limited only by the space available:
reports are available on request.
Date: July 19, 1985.
At the represent time, CDC is
Time: 9 a.m.-12 noon.
reviewing the procedures for these
Place: Auditorium, Robert A. Taft
inspections. The following changes are
Laboratories, 4676 Columbia Parkway,
being considered:
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
(1) Revision of the inspection scoring
Purpose: To review and discuss a
system: The current system is based on
*proposed study which will examine the
42 inspection items, 32 of which are
effects of ethylene glycol monomethyl
critical for meeting the CDC standard.
ether on ornithine decarboxylase
The proposed system is based on 37
activity in the neonatal and fetal rat.
inspection items, 11 of which are critical
Viewpoints and suggestions from
for meeting the CDC standard.
industry, organized labor, academia,
(2) Revision of the method for
other government agencies, and the
restoring credit for certain deficiencies
public are invited.
corrected during the inspection: The
Additional information may be
current method restores full credit for
obtained from: Mark Toraason, Ph.D.,
deficiencies corrected during the
Division of Biomedical and Behavioral
inspection. The proposed method
Science, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia
restores full credit only for correction of
Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226,
structural or equipment deficiencies,
Telephones: FTS: 684-8357; Commercial:
and partial credit for correction of
513/684-8357.
deficiencies of a behavioral nature
Elvin Hilyer,
which may be subject to recurrence.
Associate Directorfor PolicyCoordination,
(3) Implementation of an affidavit
Centersfor DiseaseControl.
procedure for vessel management to
[FR Doc. 85-15921 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
obtain restoration of credit-by attesting
BILLING CODE 4160-19-M
to correction of certain deficiencies
subsequent to the inspection. There is
no provision in the current program for
Food and Drug Administration
ship management to attest to the
correction of any deficiency by affidavit. Advisory Committee; Amendment of
(4) Implementation of a review system
Notice
to allow vessel management to contest a
deficient item or an inspection score.
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration.
27491
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending an
advisory committee meeting notice of
the Ophthalmic Devices Panel to reflect
a change in the agenda and the meeting
date. The panel will meet on July 15
only. The announcement of the
Ophthalmic Devices Panel meeting,
which was published in the Federal
Register of June 24, 1985 (50 FR 26051), is
revised to read as follows:
Ophthalmic Devices Panel
Date, time, andplace.July 15, 9 a.m.,
North Auditorium, Health and Human
Services Bldg., 330 Independence Ave.
SW. (entrance on C St.), Washington,
DC.
Type of meeting and contactperson..
Open public hearing, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.;
open committee discussion, 10 a.m. to
12:30 p.m.; closed committee
deliberations, 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.;
Mary Elizabeth Jacobs, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ460), Food and Drug Administration,
8757 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20910, 301-427-7320.
Generalfunction of the committee.
The committee reviews and evaluates
available data on the safety and
effectiveness of devices currently in use
and makes recommendations for their
regulation. The committee also reviews
data-on new devices and makes
recommendations regarding their safety
and effectiveness and their suitability
for marketing.
Agenda-Open publichearing.
Interested persons may present data,
information, or views, orally or in
writing, on issues pending before the
committee. Those desiring to make
formal presentations should notify the
contact person before July 1, and submit
a brief statement of the general nature
of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of
proposed participants, and an indication
of the approximate time required to
make their comments.
Open committee discussion.The
committee will discuss issues relating to
approvals of premarket approval
applications (PMA's) for intraocular
lenses (IOL's) and neodymium:yttriumaluminum-garnet (nd:YAG) lasers. The
committee will also discuss PMA's for
contact lenses and other ophthalmic
devices, and requirements for PMA
approval. Comments received on the
discussion held at the May 13 panel
meeting on ultraviolet light (UV) effects
on the eye and labeling issues for UVabsorbing IOL's and the draft contact
lens solution guidelines will also be
27492
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
discussed. Copies of the revised contact
lens guidelines will be available to
interested persons.
Closed committee deliberations.The
committee will review trade secret or
confidential commercial information
regarding a PMA for an IOL. This
portion of the meeting will be closed to
permit discussion of this information (5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)).
Dated: June 27, 1985.
Mervin H.Shumate,
Acting Associate Commissionerfor
RegulatoryAffairs.
[FR Doc. 85-15867 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-M
[Docket No. 75N-0139]
Oral Proteolytic Enzymes; Withdrawal
of Approval of New Drug Applications;
Temporary Stay of Effective Date
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is providing
notice that, with respect to the drug
products Papase, Chymoral, Ananase,
and Avazyme, the Commissioner's
decision withdrawing approval of
certain oral proteolytic enzyme products
has been temporarily stayed so that the
drug sponsors can seek a judicial stay
pending appeal.
ADDRESS: The parties' submissions, the
Commissioner's decision, including the
final order, and all other documents
related to the decision may be seen in
the Dockets Management Branch (HFA305), Food and Drug Administration, Rm.
4-62, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20857, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.
Robert J. Rice, Jr., Division of
Regulations Policy (HFF-221), Food and
Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-3480.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of June 11, 1985 (50 FR
24581), FDA announced the availability
of the decision by the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs to withdraw approval of
the new drug applications for five Otrug
products containing oral proteolytic"
enzymes, effective July 1, 1985. The
NDA's are for Orenzyme, Chymoral,
Papase, Ananase, and Avazyme.
Warner-Lambert Company (NDA 12293, Papase), Armour Pharmaceutical
Company (NDA 12-178, Chymoral),
William H. Rorer, Inc. (NDA 12-527,
Ananase), and Wallace Laboratories,
Division of Carter-Wallace, Inc. (NDA
12-626, Avazyme) petitioned for a stay
of the effective date of the
Commissioner's decision, pending
judicial review of the decision. MerrillDow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NDA 11-783,
Orenzyme) indicated that it did not
intend to seek a stay.
By letters dated June 21 and June 24,
1985, the Commissioner denied those
petitions for a stay on the basis that the
criteria for granting a stay in 21 CFR
10.35(e) had not been met. In the
exercise of this discretion, the
Commissioner granted a limited,
temporary stay so that the drug
sponsors have an opportunity to seek a
judicial stay. With respect to each
petitioning firm, the temporary stay will
expire automatically on July 10, 1985, if
by that date the firm has not petitioned
the Court of Appeals for a stay,
accompanied by a request for expedited
briefing and consideration. If the firm
does so petition on or before that date,
the temporary stay will continue in
effect until the court rules on the request
for a stay.
The parties' submissions and the
agency's orders are on public display in
the Dockets Management Branch
(address above).
FDA is providing notice.of the
Commissioner's decision to grant a
limited, temporary stay in accordance
with § 10.35(f) of the regulations.
Dated: June 28,1985.
10:30-Conclusion-Reports from
working groups; new business,
discussion of future agenda
Statements are invited from groups
and members of the general public who
have an interest in mining, minerals or
materials issues. To ensure that time
will be available to hear such
statements, prospective witnesses are
requested to notify the Committee
contact (see below) of their intention to
appear. Written statements for the
record should be submitted prior to
August 15, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.
Gully Walter, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. Room 6650,
(202) 343-2136.
Dated: June 21, 1985.
Gully Walter,
ForExecutive Director.
[FR Doc. 85-15905 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 aml
BILLING CODE 4310-10-M
Bureau of Land Management
[INT RMP/FEIS 85-21]
Availability of the Proposed Walker
Resource Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement,
Carson City District, NV
Mervin H.Shumate,
June 26,1985.
Acting Associate Commissionerfor
Regulatory Affairs.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
[FR Doc. 85-15968 Filed 7-1-85; 10:33 am]
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the
Proposed Walker Resource Management
Plan and Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Carson City District, Nevada.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Strategic Materials and
Minerals Program Advisory Committee
Meeting
Notice is hereby given, in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, that the National Strategic
Materials and Minerals Program
Advisory Committee (NSMMPAC) will
meet on Wednesday, July 17, 1985 from
9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon, or until
business is concluded. The meeting will
convene in Room 7000 A &B, Main
Interior Building, .18th &C Streets, NW,
Washington, D.C.
It will be open to the public, however,
facilities and space to accomodate
members of the public are limited.
The proposed agenda is:
9:00--0:00--Chairman's introductory
remarks; discussion of
accomplishments and goals
10:00-10:30-Briefing on Office of
Technology Assessment report
"Strategic Materials: Technologies to
Reduce U.S. Import Vulnerability"
Interior.
accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Carson City District of
the Bureau of Land Management has
prepared a combined final
environmental impact statement and
proposed resource management plan for
the Walker resource management
planning area. Wilderness
recommendations in the plan are
preliminary and subject to change
during administrative review.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed resource management plan is
designed to guide future management
actions within the Walker resource
SUMMARY: In
management planning area.The
planning area encompasses 1.9 million
acres of public land largely in Mineral
County, and parts of Lyon and Douglas
Counties of Nevada. The document
describes the proposed resource
management plan and contains written
and oral comments received during the
public review period and responses to
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, Julv 3. 1985 / Notices
those comments, and changes which
were made as a result of public
comment.
A 30-day public review period will
end August 9, 1985. During that period
any portion of the plan, with the
exception of the wilderness
recommendations, may be protested as
outlined in 43 CFR, 1610.5-2. All protests
should be sent to: Director, Bureau of
Land Management, 18th and C Streets,
NW., Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Matthiessen, Walker Resource
Area Manager, Bureau of Land
Management, 1050 E. William St., Ste.
335, Carson City, NV 89701, (702) 8821631.
Copies of the draft document are
available for review at the following
locations:
Office of Public Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, 18th and C Streets,
Washington, DC 20240
Bureau of Land Management, Elko
District Office, 2002 Idaho Street,
Elko, Nevada 89801, (702) 638-4071
Bureau of Land Management, Nevada
State Office, 300 Booth Street, Reno,
Nevada 89520, (702) 784-5448
Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas
District Office, 4765 West Vegas
Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102, (702)
385--6403
Bureau of Land Management,
Winnemucca District Office, 705 East
4th Street, Winnemucca, Nevada
89445, (702) 623-3676
Carson City Library, 900 N. Roop Street,
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Government Publications Dept.,
University of Nevada, Reno, Reno
Library, Reno, Nevada 89557
Bureau of Land Management, Ely
District Office, Star Route 5, Box 1,
Ely, Nevada 89301, (702) 289-4865
Bureau of Land Management, Carson
City District Office, 1050 E. William
Street, Suite 335, Carson City, Nevada
89701, (702) 882-1631
Bureau of Land Management, Battle
Mountain District Office, North 2nd
and Scott Streets, Battle Mountain,
Nevada 89820, (702) 635-5181
University of Nevada, Reno, Getchell
Library, Reno, Nevada 89507
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, James
R. Dickinson Library, 4505 Maryland
Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
Mineral County Library, 1st and D
Streets, Hawthorne, Nevada 89415
Lyon County Library, 20 Nevin Way,
Yerington, Nevada 89447
Nevada State Library, Library Building,
Carson City, Nevada 89710
Edward F. Spang,
State Director,Netado.
[FR Doc. 85-15860 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 ap
BILLING CODE 4130-HC-M
274.qR
27493
Sale of Public Lands; Sisklyou County,
CA
Exploration/Development Plans Unit;
Phone (504) 838-0875.
Correction
In FR Doc. 85-8506 beginning on page
14029 in the issue of Tuesday, April 9,
1985, make the following correction:
On page 14029, in the table, in the
fourth land description from the bottom,
'
"NEY4SWY4, NWI/4SE "4should have
read "SW V4SW 4".
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 1506-01-M
Minerals Management Service
Development Operations Coordination
Document
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of the receipt of a
proposed development operations
coordination document (DOCD).
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. has submitted a
DOCD describing the activities it
proposes to conduct on Lease OCS-G
5062, Block 861, Mobile Area, offshore
Louisiana and Mississippi. Proposed
plans for the above area provide for the
development and production of
hydrocarbons with support activities to
be conducted from an onshore base
located at Pascagoula, Mississippi.
DATE: The subject DOCD was deemed
submitted on June 18, 1985. Comments
must be received within 15 days of the
date of this Notice or 15 days after the
Coastal Management Section receives a
copy of the DOCD form the Minerals
Management Service.
ADDRESSES:
A copy of the subject
DOCD is available for public review at
the Office of the Regional Director, Gulf
of Mexico OCS Region, Minerals
Management Service, 3301 North
Causeway Blvd., Room 147, Metairie,
Louisiana (Office Hours: 9 a.m. to 3:30
p.m., Monday through Friday). A copy of
the DOCD and the accompanying
Consistency Certification are also
available for public review at the
Coastal Management Section Office
located on the 10th Floor of the State
Lands and Natural Resources Building,
625 North 4th Street, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana (Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday). The
public may submit comments to the
Coastal Management Section, Attention
OCS Plans,Post Office Box 44396, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana 70805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Michael J. Tolbert; Minerals
Management Service; Gulf of Mexico
OCS Region; Rules and Production;
Plans, Platform and Pipeline Section;
The
purpose of this Notice is to inform the
public, pursuant to Sec. 25 of the OCS
Lands Act Amendments of 1978, that the
Minerals Management Service is
considering approval of the DOCD and
that it is available for public review.
Additionally, this Notice is to inform the
public, pursuant to Section 930.61 of
Title 15 of the CFR, that the Coastal
Management Section/Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources is
reviewing the DOCD for consistency
with the Louisiana Coastal Resources
Program.
Revised rules governing practices and
procedures under which the Minerals
Management Service makes information
contained in DOCDs available to
affected states, executives of affected
local governments, and other interested
parties became effective December 13,
1979, (44 FR 53685). Those practices and
procedures are set out in revised Section
250.34 of Title 30 of the CFR.
Dated: June 20,1985.
John L. Rankin,
RegionalDirector,Gulf of Mexico OCS
Region.
[FR Doc. 85-15865 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-M
National Park Service
Potential 1986 U.S. World Heritage
Nominations
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice and request for public
comment.
SUMMARY: On March 4, 1985, the
Department of the Interior, through the
National Park Service, set forth in a
public notice the process and schedule
that will be used in calendar year 1985
to identify and prepare U.S. nominations
to the World Heritage List (50 FR 8680).
In addition, the March 4 notice
identified the criteria and requirements
that U.S. properties must satisfy before
nomination of World Heritage status,
and solicited public comments and
suggestions regarding cultural and
natural properties that should be
considered as potential U.S.
nominations this year. This notice
announces and invites comment on the
potential 1986 U.S. World Heritage
nominations as described below.
In addition, responses to the March 4
notice identified properties which are
not presently included on the U.S.
Indicative Inventory of Potential Future
Nominations to the World Heritage List;
27494
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
normally a prerequisite to be considered
for nomination. Due to the lateness of
comments received on these properties,
the Department will continue to study
the properties in question regarding their
suitability for possible addition to the
U.S. Indicative Inventory. The Federal
Interagency Panel for World Heritage
will review the properties at its July
meeting and will make final
recommendations regarding possible
additions to the Inventory. Proposed
additions to the Inventory will be
announced in the Federal Register with
a request for review and comment.
DATES:
Written comments or
recommendations regarding any
property listed herein as a potential 1986
U.S. World Heritage nominations must
be received within 30 days after
publication of this notice to ensure full
consideration. The final list of proposed
1986 nominations will be selected from
among the potential nominations, and
will be published in the Federal
Register. A draft nomination document
will be prepared for any property
selected as a proposed nomination. In
November 1985, the Federal Interagency
Panel for World Heritage will review the
accuracy, completeness, and suitability
of the draft 1986 nomination(s)
documentation and will make
recommendations to the Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks. The Assistant
Secretary subsequently transmits any
approved nominqtion(s) on behalf of the
United States to the World Heritage
Committee Secretariat, through the
Department of State, by December 15 for
evaluation by the World Heritage
Committee in a process that could lead
to inscription on the World Heritage List
by fall 1986. Notice of transmittal of U.S.
nominations will be published in the
Federal Register.
Decisions with regard to possible
additions to the U.S. Indicative
Inventory will be based upon comments
.received and upon further study and will
be announced in the final Federal
Register notice, as outlined above, of
this year's procedure.
ADDRESS: Written comments or
recommendations should be sent to the
Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, P.O. Box
37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127.
Attention: World Heritage Convention773.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. David G. Wright, Associate Director,
Planning and Development, National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, P.O. Box 37127, Washington,
D.C. 20013-7127, Telephone: (202) 3436741.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
.
Convention Concerffing Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage,
now ratified by the United States and 85
other countries, has established a
system of international cooperation
through which cultural and natural
properties of outstanding universal
value to mankind may be recognized
and protected. The Convention seeks to
put into place an orderly approach for
coordinated and consistent heritage
resource protection and enhancement
throughout the world.
Participating nations identify and
nominate their sites for inclusion on the
World Heritage List, which currently
includes 186 cultural and natural
properties. The World Heritage
Committee judges all nominations
against established criteria.
Under the Convention, each
participating nation assumes
responsibility for taking appropriate
legal, scientific, technical,
administrative, and financial measures
necessary for the identification,
protection, conservation, and
rehabilitation of World Heritage
properties situated within its borders.
In the United States, the Department*
of the Interior is responsible for
directing and coordinating U.S.
participation in the World Heritage
Convention. The Department
implements its responsibilities under the
Convention in accordance with the
statutory mandate contained in Title IV
of the National Historic Preservation
Act Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-515;
16 U.S.C. 470a-1, a-2). On May 27, 1982,
the Interior Department published in the
Federal Register the policies and
procedures which it uses to carry out
this legislative mandate (47 FR 23392).
The rules contain additional information
on the Convention and its
implementation in the United States,
and identify the specific requirements
that U.S. properties must satisfy before
they can be nominated for World
Heritage status, i.e., the property must
have previously been determined to be
of national significance, its owner must
concur in writing to its nomination, and
its nomination must include evidence of
such legal protections as may be
necessary to ensure preservation of the
property and its environment.
The Federal Interagency Panel for
World Heritage assists the Department
in implementing the Convention by
making recommendations on U.S. World
Heritage policy, procedures, and
nominations. The Panel is chaired by the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, and includes
representatives from the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, the National Park
Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service within the Department of the
Interior; the President's Council on
Environmental Quality; the Smithsonian
Institution; the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation; National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce; Forest
Service; Department of Agriculture; the
U.S. Information Agency, and the
Department of State.
Potential 1986 U.S. World Heritage
Nominations
The Department of the Interior,
through the National Park Service, has
identified the following as potential 1986
U.S. nominations to the World Heritage
List. A brief description is provided for
each potential nomination, along with
the World Heritage criteria that it
appears to satisfy. The final list of
proposed 1986 U.S. nominations to the
World Heritage List will be selected
from among the potential nominations
included herein. Identification of a
property as a potential 1986 nomination
does not confer World Heritage status
on it. A draft nomination document v ill
be prepared for each property that is
ultimately selected as a proposed 1986
nomination. The Department encourages
all interested parties to comment and
make recommendations on the potential
nominations, as these comments and
additional evaluation will serve as the
basis for identifying proposed 1986
nominations.
The following have been identified as
potential 1986 U.S. World Heritage
nominations:
I. Cultural Properties
Polynesian
Nan Madol, Island of Ponape. (6°55 ' N;
158"15' E). A prehistoric city, dating from
900-1400 A.D., constructed of large
carved basalt blocks. The site is the best
preserved, and most impressive,
monument to Polynesian culture.
Criteria:(iii) Bears a unique or at least
exceptional testimony to a civilization
which has disappeared.
Hawaiian
Pu'uhonua 0 Honaunau National
Historical Park, Hawaii. (19°25 ' N;
155*55 , W). This area (formerly known
as City of Refuge National Historical
Park) includes sacred ground, where
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 /.Notices
vanquished Hawaiian warriors,
noncombatants, and kapu breakers were
granted refuge from secular auithority.
Prehistoric housesites, royal fisbponds,
and spectacular shore scenery are
features of the park. Criteria:(iii) Bears
unique or at least exceptional testimony
to a civilization which has disappeared;
(vi) directly or tangibly associated with
events or with ideas or beliefs of
oitstanding universal significance.
II. Natural Properties
HawaiianIslands
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,
(19-20' N ! 55-20' W). Contains
outsta:I.ilug examples of active and
recent voj.jnism, along with luxuriant
vegetational development at its lower
elevations. Criteria:(i) An outstanding
example illustrating the earth's
evolutionary history, (ii) an outstanding
example of significant geological
processes, and (iii) contains superlative
natural phenomena, formations, and
areas of exceptional natural beauty.
Haleakala National Park, Hawaii.
(20°40 ' N; 156°10 W). Ranging from sea
level to 3000 m, has a great variety of
habitats. Of international botanical
significance, over 95 percent of the
species, and 20 percent of the genera of
flowering plants are found nowhere else
on earth. Criteria: (i) An outstanding
example representing major stages of
the earth's evolutionary history, (ii)
oetstanding example representing
ongoing biological evblution; (iii)
contains superlative natural beauty..
North America Warm Deserts
This proposal incorporates five U.S.
properties into a potential theme
nomination. At the request of the
Federal Interagency Panel, the
Department will begin discussions with
the Mexican Government regarding
possible cooperation in assessing the
representation of this theme on the
World Heritage list. The U.S. properties
are:
Big Bend National Park, Texas. (29"25'
N; 103*11' W). With many excellent
examples of mountain systems and deep
canyons formed by a major river. A
variety of unusual geological formations
are found here with many vegetation
types--dry coniferous forests,
woodland, chaparral, and desertassociated with them. Criteria: (ii) An
outstanding example of significant
geological processes and biological
evolution, and (iii) contains superlative
natural phenomena, formations, and
arcas of exceptional natural beauty.
Saguaro National Monument, Arizona.
(32°10 ' N; 110°40 ' W). Giant saguaro
cactus, unique to the Sonoran Desert of
southern Arizona and northwestern
Mexico, reach up to 50 feet in height in
the cactus forests in this park. Criteria:
(ii) An outstanding example of biological
evolution; (iii) contains superlative
natural phenomena.
Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, Arizona. (32*0' N; 112°50 '
W). Contains block-faulted mountains
separated by wide alluvial valleys,
along with playas, lava fields, and
sands. It includes representative
examples of the Sonoran Desert found in
this region and nowhere else in the
United States. Criteria: (ii) An
outstanding example of biological
evolution; (iii) contains superlative
natural phenomena.
Joshua Tree National Monument.
California. (33°50 ' N; 116*0, WI, located
at the junction of Mohave and Sonoran
Deserts, contains an unusually rich
variety of desert plants, including
extensive stands of Joshua trees, set
amongst striking granitic formations.
Criteria: (ii) An outstanding example of
biological evolution; (iii) contains
superlative natural phenomena and
formations.
Death Valley National Monument,
California/Nevada. (36°30 ' N; 11700 W).
A large desert area, which is nearly
surrounded by high mountains, contains
the lowest point in the Western
Hemisphere. It is highly representative
of Great Basin/Mohave Desert
(mountain and desert) ecosystems.
Criteria: (ii) An outstanding example of
significant geological processes and
biological evolution; (iii) contains
superlative natural phenomena.
SierraNevada
Sequoia/Kings Canyon National
Parks, California. (36040' N; 118°30 W).
A combination of two adjoining national
parks, this tract includes Mount
Whitney, the tallest mountain in the
United States outside of Alaska, Mineral
King Valley, and two enormous canyons
of the Kings River. Groves of giant
sequoia, the world's largest living things,
are found here. Criteria: (ii) An
outstanding example of significant
geological processes and biological
evolution; (iii) contains superlative
natural phenomena and areas of
exceptional natural beauty.
Dated: June 7, 1985.
J.Craig Potter,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 85-15937 Filed 7-2-85: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
27495
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-221]
Certain Apparatus for the
Disintegration of Urinary Calculi;
Change of the Commission
Investigative Attorney
Notice is hereby given that, as of this
date, Gary j. Rinkerman, Esq. and
Denise T. DiPersio, Esq., of the Office of
Unfair Import Investigations will be the
Commission investigative attorneys in
the above-cited investigation.
The Secretary is requested to publish
this notice in the Federal Register.
Dated: June 21, 1985.
Respectfully submitted.
Arthur Wineburg,
Office of UnfairImport Investigations.
[FR Doc. 85-15966 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
Agency Form Submitted for OMB
Review
AGENCY: In accordance with the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the
Commission has submitted a proposal
for the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review.
Purpose of information collection: The
proposed information collection is a
"generic clearance" under which the
Commission can issue questionnaires
for the following types of investigations:
countervailing duty, antidumping,
escape clause, escape clause review,
market disruption and "interference
with programs of the USDA."
Summary of proposal:
(1) Number of forms submitted: three.
(2) Title of forms: Sample Producer's
Sample Importer'sand Sample
Purchaser'squestionnaires(i.e., the
"samples" are an aggregate of the
information that is likely to be collectcd
in a series of questionnaires issued
under the generic clearance).
(3) Type of request: extension.
(4) Frequency of use: on occasion.
(5) Description of respondents:
Businesses or farms that produce, import
and/or purchase products under
investigation.
(6) Estimated annual number of
respondents: 4,000.
(7) Estimated total annual number of
hours to complete the forms: 100,000.
(8) Information obtained from the
forms that qualifies as confidential
business information will be so treated
by the Commission and not disclosed in
27496
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
a manner that would reveal the
individual operations of a firm.
Additional information or comment:
Copies of the proposed forms and
supporting documents may be obtained
from Debra Baker (tel. no. 202-5230284). Comments about the proposal
should be directed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: Ms.
Francine Picoult). If ybu anticipate
commenting on the proposal but find
that time to prepare comments will
prevent you from submitting them
promptly you should advise OMB of
your intent as soon as possible. Ms.
Picoult's telephone number is (202) 395-
7231. Copies of any comments should be
provided to Charles Ervin (United States
International Trade Commission, 701 E
Street, NW. Washington, DC 20436).
Issued: June 27, 1985.
By order of the Commission.
Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary.
IFR Doec. 85-'15952 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-82-M
1332-214I
Effects of Restraining U.S. Steel
Imports on the Exports of Selected
Steel-Consuming Industries
AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Institution of investigation and
scheduling of public hearing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 25, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jose Mendez (202-523-1792), Research
Division, Office of Economics, U.S.
International Trade Commission,
Washington, DC 20436 (telephone 202523-0275).
Background
The Commission instituted the
investigation No. 332-214 under section
332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1332(b)) following receipt on May 2, 1985
of a request therefore from the
Committee on Finance of the United
States for the purpose of gathering and
obtaining information on the effects of
restraining U.S. steel imports on the
exports of selected U.S. steel consuming
industries. In accordance with the
Committee's request, the study will first
identify the domestic export industries
that are most dependent upon steel
inputs, including but not limited to
producers of steel products such as steel
shipping containers, drums and barrels.
For the identified industries, it will then
undertake an assessment of the effects
of the steel import restraints on their
costs of production, exports, and
investment decisions.
Public Hearing
A public hearing in Connection with
this investigation will be held at the U.S.
International Trade Commission
Building, 701 E Street NW., Washington,
DC, beginning at 10:00 a.m., on October
8, 1985. All persons shall have the right
to appear, by counsel or in person, to
present information and to be heard.
Requests to appear at the public hearing
should be filed in writing with the
Secretary to the Commission not later
than the close of business (5:15 p.m.) on
September 23, 1985. All persons desiring
to appear at the hearing and make oral
presentations should file prehearing
briefs. The deadline for filing prehearing
briefs is September 25, 1985.
Written Submissions
In lieu of or in addition to
appearances at the public hearing,
interested parties are invited to submit
written statements concerning the
investigation. Commercial or financial
information which a party desires the
Commission to treat as confidential
must be submitted on separate sheets of
paper, each clearly marked
"Confidential Business Information" at
the top. All submissions requesting
confidential treatment must conform
with the requirements of § 201.6 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). All written
submissions, except for confidential
business information, will be made
available for inspection by interested
persons. To be assured of consideration
by the Commission, written statements
should be received no later than
September 25, 1985. All submissions
should be addressed to the Secretary at
the Commission's office in Washington,
DC.
Posthearing briefs must be submitted
not later than the close of business on
October 15, 1985. A signed original and
14 true copies of each submission must
be filed with the Secretary to the
Commission in accordance with § 201.8
of the Commission's Rules (19 CFR
201.8).
Hearing-imparied persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting our TDD
terminal on (202) 724-0002.
Issued: June 28,1985.
By order of the Commission.
Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary.
IFR Doec. 85-15953 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
[investigation No. 731-TA-207 (Final)]
Cellular Mobile Telephones and
Subassemblies Thereof From Japan
AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Institution of a final
antidumping investigations and
scheduling of a hearing to be held in
connection with the investigation.
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of final
antidumping investigation No. 731-TA207 (Final) under section 735(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to
determine whether an industry in the
United States is materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, or the
establishment of an industry in the
United States is materially retarded, by
reason of imports from Japan of cellular
mobile telephones and subassemblies
thereof, classified under items 685.28
and 685.32 of the Tariff Schedules of the
United States,1 which have been found
by the Department of Commerce, in a
preliminary determination, to be sold in
the United States at less than fair value
(LTFV). Unless the investigation is
extended, Commerce will make its final
LTFV determination on or before August
19, 1985, and the Commission will make
its final injury determination by October
9, 1985, (see sections 735(a) and 735(b) of
the act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(a) and 1673d(b)).
For further information concerning the
conduct of this investigation, hearing
procedures, and rules of general
application, consult the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure, part
207, subparts A and C (19 CFR Part 207),
and part 201, subparts A through E (19
CFR Part 201, as amended by 49 FR
32569, Aug. 15, 1984).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Reavis (202-523-0296), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 701 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC. 20436.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background-This investigation is
being instituted, as a result of an
affirmative preliminary determination
by the Department of Commerce that
imports of cellular mobile telephones
from Japan are being sold in the United
States at less than fair value within the
meaning of section 731 of the act (19
U.S.C. 1673). The investigation was
requested in a petition filed on
These tariff items were enacted in the Trade
and Tariff Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-573, effective
January 1, 1985; item 685.29, referenced in
investigation No. 731-TA-207 (Preliminary) was
stricken from the TSUS.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
November 5, 1984 by Motorola Inc.,
Schaumburg, IL. In response to that
petition the Commission conducted a
preliminary antidumping investigation
and, on the basis of information
developed during the course of that
investigation, determined that there was
a reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States was materially
injured by reason of imports of the
subject merchandise (49 FR 5"0316, Dec.
27, 1984).
Participationin the investigation.Persons wishing to participate in this
investigation as parties must file an
entry of appearance with the Secretary
to the Commission, as provided in
§ 201.11 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.11),
not later than twenty-one (21) days after
the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Any entry of
appearance filed after this date will be
referred to the Chairwoman, who will
determine whether to accept the late
entry for good cause shown by the
person desiring to file the entry.
Service list.-Pursuant to § 201.11(d)
of the Commission's rules (19 CFR
201.11(d)), the Secretary will prepare a
service list containing the names and
addresses of all persons, or their
representatives, who are parties to this
investigation upon the expiration of the
period for filing entries of appearance.
In accordance with § 201.16(c) of the
rules (19 CFR 201.16(c)), each document
filed by a party to the investigation must
be served on all other parties to the
investigation (as identified by the
service list), and a certificate of service
must accompany the document. The
Secretary will not accept a document for
filing without a certificate of service.
Staff report.-A public version of the
prehearing staff report in this
investigation will be placed in the public
record on August 20, 1985, pursuant to
§ 207.21 of the Commission's rules (19
CFR 207.21).
Hearing.-The Commission will hold
a hearing in connection with this
investigation beginning at 10:00 a.m. on
September 5, 1985, at the U.S.
International Trade Commission
Building, 701 E Street NW., Washington,
DC. Requests to appear at the hearing
should be filed in writing with the
Secretary to the Commission not later
than the close of business (5:15 p.m.) on
August 21, 1985. All persons desiring to
appear at the hearing and make oral
presentations should file prehearing
briefs and attend a prehearing
conference to be held at 10:00 a.m. on
August 29, 1985, in room 117 of the U.S.
International Trade Commission
Building. The deadline for filing
prehearing briefs is September 2, 1985.
Testimony at the public hearing is
governed by § 207.23 of the
Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.23). This
rule requires that testimony be limited to
a nonconfidential summary and analysis
of material contained in prehearing
briefs and to information not available
at the tine the prehearing brief was
submitted. Any written materials
submitted at the hearing must be filed in
accordance with the procedures
described below and any confidential
materials must be submitted at least
three (3) working days prior to the
hearing (see § 201.6(b)(2) of the
Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.6(b)(2),
as amended by 49 FR 32569, Aug. 15,
1984)).
Written submissions.-All legal
arguments, economic analyses, and
factual materials relevant to the public
hearing should be included in prehearing
briefs in accordance with § 207.22 of the
Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.22).
Posthearing briefs must conform with
the provisions of § 207.24 (19 CFR
207.24) and must be submitted not later
than the close of business on September
12, 1985. In addition, any person who
has not entered an appearance as a
party to the investigation may submit a
written statement of information
pertinent to the subject of the
investigation on or before September 12,
1985.
A signed original and fourteen (14)
copies of each submission must be filed
with the Secretary to the Commission in
accordance with § 201.8 of the
Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.8). All
written submissions except for
confidential business data will be
available for public inspection during
regular business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15
p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary to the
Commisoon.
Any business information for which
confidential treatment is desired must
be submitted separately. The envelope
and all pages of such submissions must
be clearly labeled "Confidential
Business Information." Confidential
submissions and requests for
confidential treatment must conform
with the requirements of § 201.6 of the
Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.6, as
amended by 49 FR 32569, Aug. 15, 1984).
Authority: This investigation is being
conducted under authority of the Tariff Act of
1930, title VII. This notice is published
pursuant to § 207.20 of the Commission's
rules (19 CFR 207.202).
Issued: June 24,1985.
By order of the Commission.
Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 15956 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
27497
[Investigation No. 731-TA-199 (Final)l
Certain Dried Salted Codfish From
Canada
Determination
On the basis of the record I developed
in the subject investigation, the
Commission 2 determines, pursuant to
section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), that the
establishment of an industry in the
United States is materially retarded by
reason of imports from Canada of
certain dried heavy salted codfish,
provided for in item 111.22 of the Tariff
Schedules of the United States, which
have been found by the Department of
Commerce to be sold in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV).
Background
The Commission instituted this
investigation effective January 29, 1985,
following a preliminary determination
by the Department of Commerce that
imports of certain dried heavy salted
codfish from Canada were being sold at
LTFV within the meaning of section 731
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673). Notice of the
institution of the Commission's
investigation and of a public hearing to
be held in connection therewith was
given by posting copies of the notice in
the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission,
Washingt6n, DC, and by publishing the
notice in the Federal Register of
February 21, 1985 (50 FR 7236). The
hearing was held in Washington, DC, on
May 20, 1985, and all persons who
requested the opportunity were
permitted to appear in person or by
counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determination in this investigation to the
Secretary of Commerce on June 27, 1985.
The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 17i1
(July 1985), entitled "Certain Dried
Salted Codfish from Canada:
Determination of the Commission in
Investigation No. 731-TA-199 (Final)
Under the Tariff Act of 1930, Together
With the Information Obtained in the
Investigation."
Issued: June 27, 1985.
Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15957 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
'The record is defined in § 207.2(i) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(i)).
IVice Chairman Liebeler dissenting.
27498
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
[Investigation No. 731-TA-270
(Preliminary)]
64K Dynamic Random Access Memory
Components From Japan
AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Institution of a preliminary
antidumping investigation and
scheduling of a conference to be held in
connection with the investigation.
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of preliminary
antidumping investigation No. 731-TA270 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U:S.C.
1673b(a)) to determine whether there is
a reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured, or is threatened with material
injury, or the establishment of an
industry in the United States is
materially retarded, by reason of
imports from Japan of 64K dynamic
random access memory devices (64K
DRAMs), of the N-channel metal oxide
semiconductor type, provided for in item
687.74 of the Tariff Schedules of the
United States, which are alleged to be
sold in the United States at less than fair
value. As provided in section 733(a), the
Commission must complete preliminary
antidumping investigations in 45 days,
or in this case by August 8, 1985.
For further information concerning the
conduct of this investigation and rules of
general application, consult the
Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, Part 207, subparts A and B
(19 CFR Part 207), and Part 201, subparts
A through E (19 CFR Part 201, as
amended by 49 FR 32569, Aug. 15, 1984).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George L. Deyman (202-523-0181).
Office of fnvesigations, U.S.
Interratior.l Trade Ccm-=ssi;n, 701 E
Street NW., Washington, DC 20436.
Heariag-iLpired individuals are
advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contactng the
Commission's TDD termina! on 202-7240002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON:
BccL-goind.-This investigation is
being instituted in response to a petition
filed on June 24, 1985, by Micron
Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, on behalf of
merchant manufacturers of 64K DRAMs.
Participationin the investigation.Persons wishing to participate in this
investigation as parties must file an
entry of appearance with the Secretary
to the Commission, as prcvided in
§ 29l1.11 of the Commission's rules (19
CFR 201.11), not later than seven (7)
days after publication of this notice in
Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.6, as
the Federal Register. Any entry of
amended by 49 FR 32569, Aug. 5, 1984).
appearance filed after this date will be
referred to the Chairwoman, who will
Authority: This investigation is being
determine whether to accept the late
conducted under authority of the Tariff Act of
entry for good cause shown by the
1930, title VII. This notice is published
person desiring to file the entry.
pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission's
Service list.-Pursuantto § 201.11(d)
rules (19 CFR 207.12).
of the Commission's rules (19 CFR
Issued: June 28,1985.
201.11(d)), the Secretary will prepare a
By order of the Commission.
service list containing the names and
R. Mason,
Kenneth
their
addresses of all persons, or
Secretary.
representatives, who are parties to this
[FR Doc. 85-15960 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
investigation upon the expiration of the
period for filing entries of appearance.
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
In accordance with § 201.16(c) of the
rules (19 CFR 201.16(c), as amended by
49 FR 32569, Aug. 15, 1984), each
[Investigations Nos. 701-TA-249
document filed by a party to the
(Preliminary) and 731-TA-262 through 265
investigation must be served on all other (Prelimlnary)]
parties to the investigation (as identified
Iron Construction Castings From
by the service list], and a certificate of
Brazil, Canada, India, and the People's
service must accompany the document.
The Secretary will not accept a •
Republic of China
document for filing without a certificate
Determinations
of service.
Conference.-The Commission has
On the basis of the record Ideveloped
scheduled a conference in connection
in investigation No. 701-TA-249
with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on
(Preliminary), the Commission
July 15, 1985, at the U.S. International
determines, pursuant to section 703(a) of
Trade Commission Building, 701 E Street
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
NW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing
1671b(a)), that there is a reasonable
to participate in the conference should
indication that an industry in the United
contact George L. Deyman (202-523States is materially injured by reason of
0481) not later than July 11, 1985, to
imports from Brazil of certain heavy iron
arrange for their appearance. Parties in
construction castings,z provided for in
suppcrt of the imposition of antidumping
of the Tariff Schedules of the
duties in this investigation and parties in item 657.09
[TSUS), which are alleged
States
United
opposition to the imposition of such
by the Government of
subsidized
to
be
duties will each be collectively allocaked
Brazil. In addition, the Commission
one hour within which to make an oral
determines that there is no reasonable
presentation at the conference.
indication that an industry in the United
Written submissions.-Any person
States is materially injured or
may submit to the Commission on or
threatened with material injury,3 or that
before July 18, 1985, a written statement
of information pertinent to the subject of the establishment of an industry in the
United States is materially retarded, 4 by
the investigation, as provided in § 207.15
reason of imports from Brazil of certain
of tI-e Commission's rules (19 CFR
light iron con3truction castings,'
207.15). A signed original and fourteen
(14) copies of each submission must be
IThL record is defined in § 207.2(i) of the
filed with the Sccreta;y to the
Commission's Rules of Prautice and Procedure (19
Commission i: accordance with § 201.8
CFR 207.21i)).
of the rules (19 CFR 201.8, as amended
'For the purposes of this investigation, the term
by 49 FR 32569, Aug. 15, 1984). All
"certain heavy iron construction castings" is limited
for
wriftcn submissicns except
to manhole covers, rings and frames; catch basin
grates and frames; and cleanout covers and frames.
confilen'ial basiness data will be
Such castings are used for drainage or access
avallable for pablic inspection during
purposes forpublic utility, water, and sanitary
regular business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15
systems.
p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary to the
' Chairwoman Stern and Commissioner Lodwick
found only a reasonable indication of a threat of
Commission.
injury to the heavy iron construction
material
Any business information for which
castings industry.
confidential treatment is desired must
' Chairwoman Stern and Commissioner Eckes
be submitted separately. The envelope
found a reasonable indication of a threat of material
injury to the light iron construction castings
and all pages of such submissions must
domestic industry.
be clearly labeled "Confidential
'For the purposes of this investigation, the term
Business Information." Confidential
"certain light iron construction castings" is limited
submissions and requests for
to valve, service, and meter boxes. Such castings
are placed below ground to encase water, gas or
confidential treatment must conform
other valves, or water or gas meters.
with the requirements of § 201.6 of the
Federal Register
/ Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
v
Ill
provided for in TSUS item 657.09, which
are alleged to be subsidized by the
Government of Brazil.
On the basis of the record s developed
in the .subject investigations, the
Commission determines, pursuant to
section 733(a) of the Tariff Act'of 1930
(19 U.S.C 1673b(a)), that there is a
reasonable indication that industries in
the United States are materially injured
by reason of imports from Brazil
(investigation No. 731-TA-262
(Preliminary)), 7 1Canada (investigation
No. 731-TA-263 (Preliminary)), India
(investigation No. 731-TA-264
(Preliminary)), and the People's Republic
of China (investigation No. 731-TA-265
(Preliminary)) of certain heavy apd light
iron construction castings,o10 provided
for in TSUS item 657.09, which are
alleged to be sold in the United States at
less than fair value (LFTV)."
Background
On May 13, 1985, petitions, were filed
with the Commission and the
Department of Commerce by counsel oh
behalf of the Municipal Castings Fair
Trade Council alleging that an industry
in the United States is materially injured
or threatened with material injury by
reason of subsidized imports of certain
iron construction castings from Brazil
and by reason of imports from Brazil,
Canada, India, and the People's
Republic of China of such castings
which are being sold at LTFV.
Accordingly, effective May 13, 1985, the
Commission institued preliminary
"The record is defined in § 207.2(i) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(i)).
7
Commissioner Eckes found a reasonable
indication of a threat of material injury to the
domestic industry from imports of light iron
construction castings from Brazil (investigation No.
731-TA-262 (Preliminary)).
'Chairwoman Stern finds only a reasonable
indication of threat of material injury regarding
imports from Brazil, and a reasonable indication of
material injury or that regarding imports from
Canada, India, and the People's Republic of China.
'For the purposes of these investigations, the
term "certain heavy iron construction castings" is
limited to manhole covers, rings and frames; catch
basin grates and frames; and cleanout covers and
frames. Such castings are used for drainage or
access purposes for public utility, water, and
sanitary systems.
,0For the purposes of these investigations, the
term "certain light iron construction castings" is
limited to valve, service, and meter boxes. Such
castings are placed below ground to encase water,
gas or other valves, or water or gas meters.
"Commissioner Lodwick found a reasonable
indication of a threat of material injury to the
domestic industries from the subject imports in
investigations Nos 731-TA-202, 263, 264, and 265
(Preliminary).
I
27499
Il l
countervailing duty and antidumping
investigations under the provisions of
the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine
whether there is a reasonable indication
that an industry in the United States is
materially injured, or is threatened with
material injury, or the establishment of
an industry in the United States is
materially retarded, by reason of
imports of such merchandise into the
United States.
Notice of the institution of the
Commission's investigations and of a
public conference to be held in
connection therewith was given by
posting copies of the notice in the Office
of the Secretary, U.S. International
Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
and by publishing the notice in the,
Federal Register of May 22, 1985 (50 FR
21148). The conference was held in
Washington, DC, on June 5, 1985, and all
persons who requested the opportunity
were permitted to appear in person or
by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determinations in these investigations to
the Secretary of Commerce on June 27,
1985. The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 1720
(June 1985), entitled "Iron Construction
Castings From Brazil, Canada, India,
and the People's Republic of China,"
Determinations of the Commission in
Investigations Nos. 701-TA-249 and
731-TA-262 through 265 (Preliminary)
Under the Tariff Act of 1930, Together
With the Information Obtained in the
Investigations.
Issued: June 28, 1985.
By order of the Commission:
Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15958 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
[Investigation No. 701-TA-240 (Final)]
Oil Country Tubular Goods From
Austria
AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Institution of a final
counter.vailing duty investigation.
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of final
countervailing duty investigation No.
701-TA-240 (Final) under section 705(b)
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1671d(b)} to determine whether an
industry in the United States is
materially injured, or is threatened with
I
material injury, or the establishment of
an industry in the United States is
materially retarded, by reason of
imports from Austria of oil country
tubular goods.' provided for in items
610.32, 610.37, 610.39, 619.40, 610.42,
610.43, 610.49, and 610.52 of the Tariff
Schedules of the United States, which
have been found by the Department of
Commerce, in a preliminary
determination, to be subsidized by the
Government of Austria. Unless this
investigation is extended, Commerce
will make its final subsidy
determination by August 7, 1985 and the
Commission will make its final injury
determination by September 23, 1985
(see sections 705(a) and 705(b) of the act
(19 U.S.C. 1671d(a) and 1671d(b))).
For further information concerning the
conduct of this investigation, hearing
procedures, and rules of general
application, consult the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure, Part
207, subparts A and C (19 CFR Part 207),
and part 201, subparts A through E (19
CFR Part 201, as amended by 49 FR
32569, Aug. 15, 1984).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vera Libeau (202-523-0368), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 701 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting our TDD
terminal on (202) 724-0002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.-This investigation is
being instituted as a result of an
affirmative preliminary determination
by the Department of Commerce that
certain benefits which constitute
subsidies within the meaning of section
701 of the act (19 U.S.C. 1671) are being
provided to manufacturers, producers,
or exporters in Austria of oil country
tubular goods. The investigation was
requested in a petition filed on February
28, 1985 by United States Steel Corp. In
response to that petition the
Commission conducted a preliminary
countervailing duty investigation and,
on the basis of information developed
'For purposes of this investigation, "oil country
tubular goods" includes drill pipe, causing, and
tubing for drilling oil or gas wells, of carbon or alloy
steel, whether such articles are welded or seamless,
whether finished or unfinished, and whether or not
meeting American Petroleum Institute (API)
"
specifications.
27500
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
[investigation No. 731-TA-261
during the course of that investigation,
(Preliminary)]
determined that there was a reasonable
indication that an industry in the United
12-Volt Lead-Acid Type Automotive
States was materially injured by reason
Storage Batteries From the Republic
of imports of the subject merchandise
of Korea
(50 FR 16173, April 24, 1985).
Determination
Participationin the investigation.On the basis of the record ' developed
Persons wishing to participate in this
in the subject investigation, the ,
investigation as parties must file an
Commission unanimously determines,
entry of appearance with the Secretary
pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff
to the Commission, as provided in
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that
§ 201.11 of the Commission's Rules of
there is no reasonable indication that an
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.11),
industry in the United States is
not later than twenty-one (21) days after
materially injured, or threatened with
the publication of this notice in the
material injury, or that the
Federal Register. Any entry of
establishment of an industry in the
appearance filed after this date will be
United States is materially retarded, by
referred to the Chairwoman, who will
reason of imports from the Republic of
determine whether to accept the late
Korea (Korea) of 12-volt lead-acid type
entry for good cause shown by the
automotive storage batteries, provided
person desiring to file the entry.
for in item 683.05 of the Tariff Schedules
Service list.-Pursuant to § 201.11(d)
of the United States, which are alleged
of the Commission's rules (19CFR
to be sold in the United States at less
201.11(d)), the Secretary will prepare a
than fair value (LTFV).
service list containing the names and
Background
addresses of all persons, or their
representatives, who are parties to this
On May 8, 1985, a petition was filed
investigation upon the expiration of the
with the Commission and the
period for filing entries of appearance.
Department of Commerce by General
In accordance with § 201.16(c) of the
Battery International Corporation,
rules (19 CFR 201.16(c), as amended by
tlleging that an industry in the United
49 FR 32569, Aug. 15, 1984), each
States is materially injured or
document filed by a party to the
threatened with material injury by
reason of LTFV imports of 12-volt leadinvestigation must be served on all other
acid type automotive storage '
parties to the investigation (as identified
replacement batteries from Korea.
by the service list), and a certificate of
Accordingly, effective May 8, 1985, the
service must accompany the document.
Commission instituted preliminary
The Secretary will not accept a
antidumping investigation No. 731-TAdocument for filing without a certificate
261 (Preliminary).
of service.
Notice of the institution of the
Hearing,staff report, and written
investigation and of a
Commission's
submissions.-The Commission will
public conference to be held in
hold a public hearing in connection with
connection therewith was given by
this investigation; the time and place of
posting copies of the notice in the Office
the hearing will be announced at a later
of the Secretary, U.S. International
date. A public version of the prehearing
Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
staff report in the investigation will be
and by publishing the notice in the
placed in the public record prior to the
Federal Register of May 15, 1985 (50 FR
hearing, pursuant to § 207.21 of the
20301). The conference was held in
Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.21). The
Washington, DC, on May 30, 1985, and
dates for filing prehearing and
all persons who requested the
posthearing briefs and the date for filing
opportunity were permitted to appear in
other written submissions will also be
person or by counsel.
announced at a later date.
The Commission transmitted its
Authority: This investigation is being
determination in this investigation to the
conducted under authority of the Tariff Act of Secretary of Commerce on June 24, 1985.
1930, title VII. This notice is published
The views of the Commission are
pursuant to § 207.20 of the Commission's
contained in USITC Publication 1710
rules (19 CFR 207.20, as amended by 49 FR
(June 1985), entitled "12-Volt Lead Acid
32569, Aug. 15, 1984).
Type Automotive Storage Batteries from
the Republic of Korea: Determination of
Issued: June 24, 1985.
the Commission in Investigation No.
By order of the Commission.
731-TA-261 (Preliminary) Under the
Kenneth R.Mason,
Secretary.
IThe record is defined in § 207.2(i) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
(FR Doc. 85-15959 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
CFR 207.2(i)).
Tariff Act of 1930, Together With the
Information Obtained in the
Investigation."
Issued: June 28, 1985.
By order of the Commission.
Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15961 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION
[I.C.C. Order No. P-84]
Rail Carriers; Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Railway Co.; Passenger Train
Operation
To: The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company.
It appearing,that the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) has established through
passenger train service between New
Orleans, Louisiana and Los Angeles,
California, and between Chicago,
Illinois and Los Angeles, California, via
San Antonio, Texas. The operation of
these trains requires the use of the tacks
and other facilities of Southern Pacific
Transportation Company (SP). A portion
of the SP tracks near Tucson, Arizona,
are temporarily out of service because
of a derailment. An alternate route is
available via The Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway Company between
Los Angeles, California and El Paso,
Texas, via Barstow, California.
It is the opinion of the Commission
that the use of such alternate route is
necessary in the interest of the public
and the commerce of the people; that
notice and public procedure herein are
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest; and that good cause exists for
making this order effective upon less
than thirty days' notice.
It is ordered,
(a) Pursuant to the authority vested in
me by order of the Commission decided
April 29, 1982, and of the authority
vested in the Commission by section
402(c) of the Rail Passenger Service Act
of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 562(c), The Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
(ATSF) is directed to operate trains of
the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) between Los
Angeles, California, via Barstow,
California, and a connection with
Southern Pacific Transportation
Company at El Paso, Texas.
(b) In executing the provisions of this
order, the common carriers involved
shall proceed even though no
agreements or arrangements now exist
between them with reference to the
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
compensation terms and conditions
applicable to said transportation. The
compensation terms and conditions
shall be, during the time this order
iemains in force, those which are
voluntarily agreed upon by and between
said carriers; or upon failure of the
carriers to so agree, the compensation
terms and conditions shall be as
hereafter fixed by the Commission upon
petition of any or all of the said carriers
in accordance with pertinent authority
conferred upon it by the Interstate
Commerce Act and by the Rail
Passenger Service Act of 1970, as
amended.
(c) Application. The provisions of this
order shall apply to intrastate, interstate
and foreign commerce.
(d) Effective date. This order shall
become effective at 11:00 p.m. (MDT),
June 12, 1985.
(e) Expiration date. The provisions of
this order shall expire at 11:59 p.m.
(EDT), June 13, 1985, unless otherwise
modified, amended, or vacated by order
of this Commission.
This order shall be served upon The
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway
Comapny and upon the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak), and a copy of this order shall
be filed with the Director, Office of the
Federal Register.
Issued at Washington, D.C., June 12, 1985.
Interstate Commerce Commission.
Bernard Gaillard,
Agent
[FR Doc. 85-15876 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
[Docket No. MC-F-16291]
Aluminum Co. of AmericaContinuance in Control-Rea Magnet
AGENCY: Interstate Commerce
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed exemption.
SUMMARY: Aluminum Company of
America (Alcoa), a non-carrier holding
company and Rea Magnet Wire
Company, Inc. (Rea Magnet), a whollyowned subsidiary which seeks initial
carrier authority under Docket No. MC183733, have filed a petition for
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 11343(e) to
allow Alcoa to continue in control of
Rea Magnet upon Rea Magnet obtaining
motor carrier status. Alcoa presently
controls four short-line railroads, the
Bauxite and Northern Railway
Company, the Massena Terminal
Railroad Company, the Point Comfort
and Northern Railway Company, and
the Rockdale Sandow & Southern
Railroad Company as well as two motor
carriers, the Buckeye Molding Company
(Buckeye) (No. MC-153900) and the
Penn Way Trucking Company (Penn
Way) MC-180522). Approval for Alcoa's
existing control of Buckeye and Penn
Way was obtained in prior proceedings
docketed as Nos. MC-F-15741 and MCF-16017 respectively. As a result of
Alcoa's continued control of Rea
Magnet, once the latter becomes a
regulated carrier, Alcoa will then be in
control of seven common carriers.
Continuance in control of a carrier, by a
person that is not a carrier but that
controls any number of carriers, may be
carried out only under Commission
regulation or under an exemption from
regulation. See 49 U.S.C. 11343(a)(5)
11343(e).
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 23, 1985.
ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original
plus 10 copies) referring to Docket No.
MC-F-16291 to:
(1) Office of the Secretary, Case Control
Branch, Interstate Commerce
Commission, Washington, DC 20423
(2) Petitioners' representative: Paula J.
Jesion, Esq., Sullivan & Associates,
180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite
1700 Chicago, IL 60601
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Louis E. Gitomer, (202) 275-7245.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Alcoa
and Rea Magnet seek exemption under
49 U.S.C. 11343(e) and the Commission's
regulation in Ex Parte No. 400 (Sub-No.
1), Proceduresfor HandlingExemptions
Filedby Motor Carriersof Property,
Under 49 U.S.C. 11343, 367 I.C.C. 113
(1982), 47 FR 53303 (November 24, 1982).
A copy of the petition may be
obtained from petitioners'
representative, or it may be inspected at
the Washington, DC office of the
Interstate Commerce Commission during
normal business hours.
Decided: June 20,1985.
By the Commission, Heber P. Hardy,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
James H. Bayne,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15896 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-1-M
[Docket No. AB-6 (Sub-No. 236)A]
Burlington Northern Railroad Co.Abandonment-Between Zeeland, ND
and Eureka, SD
The Commission has found that the
public convenience and necessity permit
Burlington Northern Railroad Company
(BN) to abandon BN's 19.22-mile rail line
between milepost 44.8 near Zeeland, ND
and milepost 25.58 at Eureka, SD. The
27501
certificate authorizing this abandonment
will be effective within 30 days, unless
within 15 days after this publication the
Commission also finds that: (1) A
financially responsible person has
offered assistance (through subsidy or
purchase) to enable the rail service to be
continued; and (2) it is likely that the
assistance would fully compensate the
railroad.
Any financial assistance offer must be
filed with the Commission and served
concurrently on the applicant, with
copies to Mr. Louis Gitomer, Room 5417,
Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington, DC 20423, no later than 10
days from publication of this Notice.
Any offer previously made must be
remade within this 10-day period.
Information and procedures regarding
financial assistance for continued rail
service are contained in 49 U.S.C. 10905
and 49 CFR 1152.27.
James H. Bayne,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15897 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 85-44]
NASA Advisory Council; Meeting
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub.
L. 92-463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
announces a forthcoming meeting of the
NASA Advisory Council.
DATE AND TIME: July 24, 1985, 9 a.m. to 5
p.m., and July 25, 1985, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
ADDRESS: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Federal Building
6, Maryland Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20546, Room 7002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Nathaniel B. Cohen, Code LB.
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, DC 20546
(202/453-8335].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
NASA Advisory Council was
established as an interdisciplinary group
to advise senior management on the full
range of NASAs programs, policies, and
plans. The Council is chaired by Mr.
Daniel J. Fink and is composed of
twenty-five members. Standing
committees containing additional
members report to the Council and
provide advice in the substantive areas
27502
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
of aeronautics, life sciences, space
applications, space and earth sciences,
space systems and technology, and
history, as they relate to NASA's
activities.
Visitors will be admitted to the
meeting room up to its capacity, which
is approximately 60 persons including
Council members and other participants.
Visitors will be requested to sign a
visitor's register.
Type of meeting: Open.
Agenda
July 24, 1985
9 a.m.-Introduction to Meeting
9:10 a.m.-Agency Program Planning
Overview
9:30 a.m.-Space Science and
Applications Planning
11:15 a.m.-Space Station Planning
I p.m.-Space Flight Planning
2 p.m.-Tracking and Data Systems
Planning
3:45 p.m.-Aeronautics and Space
Technology Planning
4:30 p.m.-Commercial Programs
Planning
5 p.m.-Adjourn
July 25, 1985
8:30 a.m.-NASA Institutional Planning
9:30 a.m.-Planning Discussion
10 a.m.-NASA University Program
11:30 a.m.-History Committee Report
1 p.m.--Other Business
3 p.m.-Adjourn
L. W. Vogel,
Director,Logistics Management and
Information ProgramsDivision, Office of
Management.
June 27, 1985.
[FR Doc. 85-15859 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Applications for Licenses to Export
and Import Nuclear Facilities or
Materials
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b) "Public
notice of receipt of an application"
please take notice that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has received the
following applications for export and
import licenses. Copies of the
applications are on file in the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's Public
Document Room located at 1717 H
Street NW., Washington, D.C.
A request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene may be filed within 30
days after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Any request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene
shall be served by the requestor or
petitioner upon the applicant, the
Executive Legal Director, U.S Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20555, the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and the
Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of
State, Washington, D.C. 20520.
In its review of applications for
licenses to export production or
utilization facilities, special nuclear
materials or source material, noticed
herein, the Commission does not
evaluate the health, safety or
environmental effects in the recipient
nation of the facility or material to be
exported. The table below lists all new
major applications.
Dated this 26th day of June 1985 at
Bethesda, Maryland.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marvin R. Peterson, Acting Assistant
Director,
Export/Importand InternationalSafeguards,
Office of InternationalPrograms.
NRC EXPORT APPLICATIONS
[FR Doc. 85-15917 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Applications and Amendments to
Operating Licenses Involving No
Significant Hazards Consideration; BiWeekly Notice
Background
Pursuant to Pub. L. 97-415, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission [the
Commission) is publishing this regular
bi-weekly notice. Pub. L. 97-415 revised
section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), to require
the Commission to publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued, under a new provision of section
189 of the Act. This provision grants the
Commission the authority to issue and
make immediately effective any
amendment to an operating license upon
a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This bi-weekly notice includes all
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued, since the date of publication of
the last bi-weekly notice which was
published on June 19, 1985 (50 FR 25480),
through June 24, 1985.
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND
PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT
HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
DETERMINATION AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
The Commission has made a proposed
determination that the following
amendment requests involve no
significant consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR
50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed
amendments would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination. The Commission will not
normally make a final determination
unless it receives a request for a
hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
By August 2, 1985, the licensee may
'file a request for a hearing with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license and
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written petition
for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission's "Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or an Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board, designated
by the Commission or by the Chairman
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition and the Secretary or the
designated Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board will issue a notice of hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR § 2.714, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) The nature of the
petitioner's right under the Act to be
made a party to the proceeding: (2) the
nature and extent of the petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (3) the possible
effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the
petitioner's interest. The petition should
also identify the specific aspect(s) of the
subject matter of the proceeding as to
which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has filed a petition for
leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the
petition without requesting leave of the
Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the
first prehearing conference scheduled in
the proceeding, but such an amended
petition must satisfy the specificity
requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to
the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner
shall file a supplement to the petition to
intervene which must include a list of
the contentions which are sought to be
litigated in the matter, and the bases for
each contention set forth with
reasonable specificity. Contentions shall
be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. A
petitioner who fails to file such a
supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to
present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the
Commission may issue the amendment
and make it immediately effective,
notwithstanding the requqst for a
hearing. Any hearing held would take
place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the
amendment involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 30-day notice period.
However, should circumstances change
during the notice period such that failure
to act in a timely way would result, for
example, in derating or shutdown of the
facility, the Commission may issue the
license amendment before the
expiration of the 30-day notice period,
provided that its final determination is
that the amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will consider all
pubilc and State comments received
before action is taken. Should the
Commission take this action, it will
publish a notice of issuance and provide
for opportunity for a hearing after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed with
the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch, or may
be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C., by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last
ten (10) days of the notice period, it is
requested that the petitioner promptly so
inform the Commission by a toll-free
telephone call to Western Union at (800)
325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
The Western Union operator should be
given Datagram Identification Number
3737 and the following message
addressed to (Branch Chief): petitioner's
27503
name and telephone number; date
petition was mailed; plant name; and
publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. A copy of
the petition should also be sent to the
Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear
-Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20555, and to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave
to intervene, amended petitions,
supplemental petitions and/or requests
for hearing will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission, the presiding officer or the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
designated to rule on the petition and/or
request, that the petitioner had made a
substantial showing of good cause for
the granting of a late petition and/or
request. That determination will be
based upon a balancing of the factors
specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and
2.714(4).
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public
Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C., and at the local
public document room for the particular
facility involved.
Boston Edison Company, Docket No. 50293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,
Plymouth, Massachusets
Date of amended request: April 15,
1983, as revised May 14, 1985.
Descriptionof amendment request:
The May 14, 1985 submittal supersedes
the April 15, 1983 submittal which was
previously noticed in the Federal
Register on August 23, 1983.(48 FR
38390). The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications by
incorporating revised radiological
effluent and environmental monitoring
limiting conditions for operation, action
statements and surveillance
requirements. The proposed changes are
in response to NRC requests of July 11,
and November 15, 1978. The proposed
changes are intended to implement the
design objectives and requirements of 10
CFR 50.34(a), 10 CFR 50.36a, 10 CFR Part
20, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A General
Design Criteria 60 and 64 and 40 CFR
Part 190.
Basis for proposedno significant
hazardsconsiderationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
for the application of standards for
determining whether a significant
hazards consideration exists by
providing examples of amendments that
are considered not likely to involve
significant hazards considerations (48
FR 14870). One such amendment
27504
Federal Register
involves a change to make a license
conform to changes in the regulations,
where the license change results in very
minor changes to facility operations
clearly in keeping with the regulations.
The change proposed by the licensee
is intended to implement: 10 CFR
50.34(a), which pertains to Design
Objectives for equipment to control
releases of radioactive materials in
effluents from nuclear power reactors;
10 CFR 50.36a, which pertains to
Technical Specifications of effluents
from nuclear power reactors; 10 CFR
Part 20, which pertains, in part, to the
controlled release of radioactive
materials in liquid and gaseous
effluents; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A,
General Design Criteria 60, which
pertains to control of releases of
radioactive materials to the
environment, and 64, which pertains to
monitoring radioactively releases; and
40 CFR Part 190, which pertains to
radiation doses to the public from
operations associated with the entire
uranium fuel cycle. This amendment,
therefore, reflects changes to make the
Pilgrim license conform to changes in
the regulations. Since the licensee is
presently obligated by these regulations
to control and limit offsite releases of
radioactive materials to levels which are
as low as is reasonably achievable, the
license change will only result in very
minor changes in facility operations
which are clearly in keeping with the
regulations.
Therefore, since the application for
amendment involves proposed changes
that are similar to an example for which
no significant hazards consideration
exists, the staff has made a proposed
determination that the application for
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room
location:Plymouth Public Library, North
Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360.
Attorney for licensee: W.S. Stowe,
Esq., Boston Edison Company, 800
Boylston Street, 36th Floor, Boston,Massachusetts 02199.
NRC Branch Chief-Domenic B.
Vassallo.
Consumers Power Company, Docket No.
50-155, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix
County, Michigan
Date of amendment request:
November 1, 1984, as supplemented on
May 16, 1985.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment requests
changes that are primarily
administrative in nature. Included are:
(1) Modification of the calibration
frequency of dose-rate measuring
instruments, (2) re-numbering of a
/ Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
previously motor-operated valve whose
operator has been modified to convert to
a manually-operated valve (this change
is administrative since the valve will
continue to remain in the locked-open
position), (3) addition of H4 fuel to the
Table of Core Operation Limitations
(this change is editorial since H4 fuel is
identical to H3 fuel values currently
included in the table), and (4) other
minor editorial or typographical
corrections.
Basis forproposedno significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of the
standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing
certain examples (48 FR 14870, April 6,
1983). One of the examples (1) of actions
not likely to involve a significant
hazards consideration relates to a
purely administrative change to the
Technical Specifications such as a
change to achieve consistency
throughout the Technical Specifications,
correction of an error, or a change in
nomenclature. This example applies to
changes (2), (3) and (4) described above.
Thus, the staff proposes to determine
that the changes involve no significant
hazards consideration.
The staff has examined the proposed
change regarding calibration frequency
for dose-rate measuring instruments.
Additional supporting information was
obtained via telephone calls with the
licensee. This information was then
formally submitted to the NRC by letter
dated May 16, 1985. The proposed
modification would reduce the required
calibration frequency of portable gamma
monitors on the high range scales
(20R/hr] from once every 3 months
to once every 6 months. Calibration on
these high range scales must be done by
shipping the instruments offsite to a
calibration facility. Due to the high
source intensity necessary to calibrate
these scales, background radiation
results in radiation exposure to
laboratory personnel during the
calibration process. Thus, calibration on
these scales should not be performed
too frequently. Based upon the above
discussion, the staff proposes to
determine that the proposed change
would not involve a significant hazards
consideration determination since it (1)
does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of a
previously evaluated accident, (2) does
not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from an
accident previously evaluated, and (3)
does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Local Public Document Room
location:North Central Michigan
College, 1515 Howard Street, Petoskey,
Michigan 49770.
Attorney for licensee: Judd L. Bacon,
Esquire, Consumer Power Company, 212
West Michigan Avenue, Jackson,
Michigan 49201.
NRC Branch Chief-John A. Zwolinski.
Consumers Power Company, Docket No.
50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren
County, Michigan
Date of amendment request:June 14,
1985.
Descriptionof amendment request:
The proposed amendment would change
the existing Technical Specification for
heatup, cooldown, and hydrostatic test
of the reactor vessel by adjusting the
pressure/temperature limits to account
for the effects of irradiation of the
Palisades reactor vessel materials. The
methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.99,
Revision 2 is used as the basis for the
new, more restrictive limits.
Basis for proposedno significant
hazardsconsiderationdetermination:
-The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of the
standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing
certain examples (48 FR 14871, April 6,
1983). One of the examples (ii) of actions
not likely to involve a significant
hazards consideration relates to
changes constituting an additional
limitation, restriction, or control not
presently included in the technical
specifications. Although there are
pressure/temperature limits presently
included in the technical specifications,
the changed limits are more restrictive
to account for increased irradiation of
the reactor vessel and to maintain the
margin of safety. Revised pressure/
temperature limits are required to meet
the reactor vessel fracture toughness
requirements in 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix G. This would result in a
higher temperature requirement for the
corresponding reactor vessel pressure.
Use of the proposed new limits, since
they place more stringent limits on
operation, would maintain the required
margin of safety to the nil-ductility
transition temperature for the reactor
vessel material.
Therefore, since the proposed changes
are similar to example (ii), the staff
proposes to determine that the proposed
changes would not involve a significant
hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room
location: Van Zoeren Library, Hope
College, Holland, Michigan 49423.
Attorney for licensee: Judd L. Bacon,
Esquire, Consumers Power Compahy,
212 West Michigan Avenue, Jickson,
Michigan 49201.
NRC Branch Chief: John A. Zwolinski.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket
No. 50-409, La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor, Vernon County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 11,
1984.
Descriptionof amendment request:
Resulting from the review of Multi-Plant
Action Item B-24, Venting and Purging
of Containment while at Full Power, the
NRC requested on April 30, 1984 that
Dairyland Power Cooperative (the
licensee) submit revised technical
specifications (TS) for containment
ventilation isolation valve operability
and isolation time, limiting ccnditions
for operation, surveillance requirements,
and periodic replacement of resilient
valve seats. These TS and related bases
for the specifications were submitted by
the licensee on July 11, 1984.
Existing TS at La Crosse require that
for containment integrity to exist, all
penetrations required to be isolated
during accident conditions must be
capable of being closed by an operable
containment automatic isolation valve
or closed by at least one manual valve,
blind flange, or deactivated automatic
valve secured in the closed position. The
reactor building isolation system must
be tested for proper operation prior to
every cold startup, but not required
more often than at 30-day intervals. In
addition to these existing requirements,
the licensee's July 11, 1984 request
proposed additional TS including (1)
operability of containment ventilation
valves based upon isolation time, (2)
limiting conditions for operation when
valves are found to be inoperable, (3)
surveillance requirements which include
testing after maintenance or repair and
periodic replacement of resilient valve
seat rings and (4) associated bases for
these specifications.
Basis for proposedno significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
for making these determinations by
providing certain examples (April 6,
1983, 48 FR 14870). One of the examples
(ii) of actions involving no significant
hazards consideration relates to a
change that constitutes an additional
limitation, restriction, or control not
presently included in the technical
specifications. The proposed changes
fall within this example since they are
all additional requirements not currently
included in the TS. On this basis, the
staff proposes to determine that the
application does not involve a
significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room
location:La Crosse Public Library, 800
Main Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin
54601.
Attorney for licensee: O.S. Heistand.
Jr., Esquire, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
1800 M Street NW., Washington, D.C.
20036.
NRC Branch Chief: John A. Zwolinski.
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: April 23,
1985.
Descriptionof amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications for operation of
the auxiliary feedwater system: (1) To
delete the requirement that the Motor
Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps be
automatically started in Mode 3 due to a
loss of main feedwater pump signal, (2)
to add statements for ACTION to be
taken if more than one auxiliary
feedwater pump is inoperable, (3) to
clarify surveillance requirements to
allow acceptance of discharge pressures
based on calculational adjustments of
test data to account for variations from
a fluid temperature of 60 °F, and (4) to
correct surveillance requirements by
deleting verification of pumps starting
from the control room and by
verification of correct valve position for
non-automatic and automatic valves
depending upon the operation condition
at the time of verification. The
amendments would also make an
administrative change to add the term
"independent" to the Unit 2 Technical
Specification to accurately describe the
Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps.
. Basis for proposed no significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of the
standards for determining whether the
license amendments involve no
significant hazards considerations by
providing certain examples (48 FR
14871). One of these examples (vi) is a
change which either may result in some
increase to the probability or
consequences of a previously analyzed
accident or may reduce in some way a
safety margin, but where the results of
the change are clearly within all
acceptance criteria with respect to the
system or component specified in the
Standard Review Plan. The changes to
delete the requirement that the Motor
Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps be
automatically started in Mode 3 due to a
loss of main feedwater pump signal, to
clarify the surveillance requirements to
allow calculational adjustments to
discharge pressures to account for
variations from a fluid temperature of
60°F, and to correct surveillance
requirements for starting pumps from
the control room and verification of
27505
correct valve position depending upon
the operation conditions are all directly
related to this example as follows.
During normal plant startup upon
entering Mode 3, the "loss of main
feedwater pump" instrumentation trip
logic now automatically starts the Motor
Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps
although delivery to the steam
generators is not required. When water
is required, it is usually added slowly at
the direction of the operator. This
acceptable operation has been
recognized by the staff and was
corrected in the later versions of the
Westinghouse Standard Technical
Specifications. The change to allow
acceptance of discharge pressures based
on calculational adjustments of test data
to account for variations from a fluid
temperature of 60 *F is to allow
comparison of pump performance
corrected for water density effects on
discharge pressure. The staff has found
the calculational adjustments
acceptable but only if the fluid
temperature measurement techniques
are demonstrated to be substantially
improved (See S. Varga, NRC, letter to J.
Dolan, IMEC, dated April 11, 1985). The
last changes under this example would
remove the requirement to start the
pumps from the control room (actually a
redundant requirement to the definition
of Operability under Section 1.6. of the
Technical Specifications) and to verify
the correct position of valves depending
upon operating conditions. Nonautomatic valves can be verified to be in
their correct position at any time but
automatic values in the auxiliary
feedwater systems may be at any
position until reactor power reaches
about 10% at which time the valves in
the flow path can be verified fully open
and the pumps in automatic control. The
staff has recognized this acceptable
operation and the later versions of the
Westinghouse Standard Technical
Specifications have been corrected.
Another example (ii) provided by the
Commission is a change that constitutes
an additional limitation, restriction, or
control not presently included in the
technical specifications. The proposed
change to add statements for ACTION
to be taken if more than one auxiliary
feedwater pump is inoperable is directly
related to this example. The current
Technical Specifications address actions
if only one pump is inoperable; the
proposed change will address different
requirements if two or all three of the
pumps are inoperable.
The Commission has also provided an
example (i) of a purely administrative
change to technical specifications. The
change to the Unit 2 description of the
27506
Federal Register
Auxiliary Feedwater System to include
the word "independent" will make both
Units the same and consistent with the
wording of the Standard Technical
Specification. This change is directly
related to the example. On this basis,
the Commission proposed to determine
that the amendments involve no
significant hazards considerations.
Local Public Document Room
location:Maude Reston Palenske
Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St.
Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Attorney far licensee: Gerald
Charnoff, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts
and Trovridge, 1800 M Street NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
NRC Branch &hjief: Steven A. Varga.
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50-315 and 59-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Berrien County, Michigan
Dote of amendment request: May 10,
1985.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would revise
the Technical Specifications relating to
the electrical power systems and in
response to the Generic Letter No. 83-28,
add surveillance requirements to
periodically test the undervoltage trip
attachments and shunt trip attachments.
The changes to the electrical power
system would more precisely identify
the required battery banks, define the
full electrolyte level as up to the bottom
of the maximum level indication mark,
define shutduwn for battery service
tests to be MODES 5 or 8, for Unit 1
eliminate a surveillance pertaining to
battery recharging time to be consistent
with the Unit 2 requirements, eliminate
the battery service test if a performance
discharge test is performed, delete a
footnote which designates when AC
power sources are turned off or on as a
result of a design change in the critical
reactor instrumentation distribution
design, and delete refeiences to tie
breakers and stindby circuits to connect
battery trains.
Basisfor propcsd no significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of the
standards for determining whether
amendments involve no significant
hazards consideration by providing
certain examples (48 FR 14871). One of
these examples (i) is a purely
administrative change to Technical
Specifications. Three of the proposed
changes are somewhat related to this
example in that the changes all involve
minor clarification of statements with
example in that the changes all involve
minor clarification of statements with no
/ Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wedresday, July 3, M.l85 / Notices
change in intent or requirements. These
interference from the second AC source,
therefore, there is no need to have this
are the changes to more precisely
second source turned off. The redesign
identify the required battery banks, the
change to define the full electrolyte level of the CR11) sipply involves adding a
transformer and separating the 600V AC
up to the bottom of the maximum level
supply from the inverter. This new
indicator mark, and the change to define
equipment is In addition to previous
shutdown for battery service tests to be
equipmejt and on this basis may
MODES 5 or 6. Another example (ii) is a
increase the probability of an accident
change that constitutes an additional
limitation, restriction, or control not
but the system design is in accordance
with previously acceptable criteria. The
presently included in the Technical
last change under this example (iv) is
Specifications. The proposed change to
the change to delete references to the tie
add surveillance requirements for the
Undervoltage Trip Attachments and
breakers and standby circuits to connect
Shunt Trip Attachments is directly
battery trains. Mechanical interlocks
related to this example. Generic Letter
could not be provided for the manually
83.28 proposed these attachments and
operated switches, therefore, the tie
appropriate surveillance requirements
breakers between trains were
as a means of satisfying a portion of the
disconnected. Disconnecting the tie
NRC concerns following the anticipated
breakers removes a licensee backup
transients without scram event at the
system which might be used in the event
Salem facility.
of a complete loss of one battery but the
The remaining four proposed changes
NRC has not given credit to ties
are related to the example [iv) which is
between trains and considers the
a change which may either result in
disconnect to improve safety by
some increase to the probability or
assuring redundancy and separation of
consequences of a previously-analyzed
equipment. On the above basis, the
accident or may reduce in some way a
Commission proposes to determine that
safety margin, but where the results of
the anieniments involve no significant
the change are clearly within all
hazurds consideration.
acceptable criteria with respect to the
Local PublicDocument Room
system or component specified n the
location: Maude Reston Palenske
Standard Review Plan. The change on
Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St.
Unit 1 to eliminate a surveillance
Joseph, Michigan 49085.
pertaining to battery recharging time is
Attor;-ey for licensee: Gerald
also accompanied by the addition of a
Charroff, Esquire, Shaw, Pittrnan, Potts
surveillance requirement for new
and Trowbridge, 1300 M Street NW.,
batteries which is consisteni with the
Washington, D.C. 20036.
Unit 2 requirement. The results of the
NRCBrat;ch Cief.Steven A. Varga.
new Unit I surveillance requirement is
clearly within the criteria found
acceptable by the staff for the Unit 2
Mississippi Power & Light Company,
requirements. The change to eliminate
Middle South Energy, Inc., Mississippi
Electic Power Association, Docket No.
the battery service test if a performance
discharge test is performed would result
50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit
is less actual testing, however, the
1, Claiborne County, Mississippi
performance discharge test profile
envelopes the battery service test profile
Date of amendment request: May 15,
and completion of the performance
1985.
discharge test ensures adequate
Description of amendment request:
capacity to meet the requirements of the
The amendment would revise Figure
battery serv ice test. The staff has
6.2.1-1 "Offsite Organization" and
previously found this acceptable and the
Figure 6.2.2-1 "Unit Organization" in the
Technical
Specifications
Standard
Technical Specifications by deleting the
acknowledge deiledon of the battery
service test it the performance discharge positions of Manager, Nuclear Human
Resources, and Administrative
test is performed. The third change
Supervisor, respectively. The
related to this example is the deletion of
responsibilities and functions of the
a footnote which requires an AC power
Manager, Nuclear Human Resources.
source be turned off when certain
would be assigned to a new position of
batteries are undergoing a load test. The
Manager of Employment in the
licensee has redesigned the critical
Mississippi Power & Light (MP&L)
reactor instrumentation distribution
(CRID) system so that the GRID cabinets Company's Personnel Department. The
responsibilities of the Administrative
continue to receive 120 Volt power from
Supervisor would be assigned to a new
two sources but the inverter supplying
position of Personnel Supervisor
power to the CRID will no longer
reporting to the Manager of Employment
connect both sources. The inverter can
The new position of Manager of
load the batteries alone without
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
Employment would be enhanced by the
addition of two positions for nuclear
recruiting while retaining the
responsibilities of the present position of
the Manager of Nuclear Human
Resources. The Personnel Supervisor
and staff would remain on site and
would continue to provide personnel
services for the plant under the Manager
of Employment.
Basisfor proposedno significant
hazardsconsiderationdetermination:
The primary function of the Manager,
Nuclear Human Resources, is to recruit
and develop employees for the Nuclear
Production Department (NPD) of MP&L.
The change would place this position
(with the title changed to Manager of
Employment) under the MP&L Personnel
Department thereby making the entire
resources of the Personnel Department
available to support the functions of this
position. The Manager of Employment
would be the same person now assigned
to the position of Manager, Nuclear
Human Resources. The Manager of
Employment would retain responsibility
for three positions conducting NPD
position task analyses and would be
given responsibility for two new
positions having responsibility for
recruiting employees for the Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station and other nuclearrelated activities. The Personnel
Supervisor and staff at Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station will continue to provide
personnel services for the plant under
the Manager of Employment. The
proposed change would increase the
availability to the Nuclear Production
Department of MP&L's resources in
recruitment and development of
employees. Because this change would
not affect plant equipment design, safety
criteria or safety analyses and would
enhance human resource management,
this change does not significantly
increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated or create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated, nor
does it involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes to determine that
these changes do not involve a
significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location:
Hinds Junior College, McLendon
Library, Raymond, Mississippi 39154.
Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esquire, Bishop, Liberman,
Cook, Purcell, and Reynolds, 1200 17th
Street, NW., Washington. D.C. 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: Elinor C.
Adensam.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company et
al., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, New
London County, Connecticut
27507
Action statement which requires a
temporary fire barrier/penetration seal
be installed for a period not to exceed 30
days. If the barrier cannot be repaired
within the specified time period, the
Date of amendment request: May 28,
licensee proposes to provide the
1985.
Commission a special report outlining
Description of amendment request:
the cause of the barrier inoperability
The proposed changes to the Technical
and the plans and schedules for
Specifications would make changes
restoring the barrier to functional status.
relative to fire protection systems
A Special Report category is proposed
including fire detectors, fire water pump
to be added to Section 6.9.2. The
diesels, spray and/or sprinkler systems,
Surveillance Requirements of Section
hose stations, and penetration fire
4.7.10 pertaining to fire barrier
barriers.
penetration seals are revised to reflect a
reduction in the numbers of seals
Revisions to Section 3/4.3.7 and Table
subject to visual inspection. Should any
3.3-10 are proposed to reflect the
of the seals in the inspection sample be
installation of additional fire detection
nonfunctional, additional inspections
instrumentation in the Auxiliary
are to be performed.
Building and Containment. Action and
Surveillance Requirements for the
Basis for proposedno significant
instrumentation located in containment
hazardsconsiderationdetermination:
have been added. Specific Surveillance
The Commission has provided guidance
Requirements for supervised and nonfor making a no significant hazards
supervised instrumentation circuits have" consideration determination (48 FR
also been incorporated.
14870). Example (i) of this guidance is a
Revision to Surveillance Requirement
purely administrative change to
Section 4.7.9.1.3 pertaining to the diesel
technical specifications: for example, a
driven fire pumps is made to reflect the
change to achieve consistency
as-built design of the diesel starting
throughout the technical specifications,
system which uses two independent 12correction of an error, or a change in
volt batteries.
nomenclature. The proposed wording
The list of spray and/or sprinkler
change to Surveillance Requirement
systems in Section 3.7.9.2 has been
Section 4.7.9.1.3 reflects the as-built
updated to reflect additions to the plant
battery design of two 12-volt batteries
fire protection systems.
rather than the 24-volt battery. This
Technical Specification Section 3/
change is similar to example (i) of the
4.7.9.3, Fire Hose Stations, is revised, in
guidance by correcting an error. The
part, to reflect provisions of the
addition made to Section 6.9.2 provides
Standard Technical Specifications (STS)
consistency throughout the Technical
for Combustion Engineering nuclear
Specifications by listing a reporting
steam supply systems (NUREG-0212,
requirement committed to in another
Revision 2) and the operability for fire
Section and is therefore similar to
hose stations in Containment during
Example (i).
operational MODES 5 and 6.
Example (ii) of the guidance relates to
Specifically, the licensee intends to
a change that constitutes an additional
locate fire hose station equipment
limitation, restriction or control not
outside Containment when in MODES
presently included in the technical
1-4. Table 3.7-2 has also been updated
specifications: for example, a more
to include new hose stations.
stringent surveillance requirement. The
Revision to Technical Specification
inclusion of additional surveillance and
Section 3/4.7.10. Penetration Fire
control equipment would be similar to
Barriers, is made to reflect the need to
protect redundant safe shutdown related example (ii); therefore, the additional
fire detection instrumentation included
systems and equipment as required by
in Table 3.3-10 and the additional spray
Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50. The
and/or sprinkler systems contained in
Applicability statement has been
Section 3.7.9.2 would be included under
revised to account for different
this example.
equipment requirements during various
plant operating MODES as specified in
Example (vi) of the guidance relates to
other portions of the Technical
a change which either may result in
Specifications. The Action statement for
some increase to the probability or
a non-functional fire barrier reflects the
consequences of a previously analyzed
S§TS with slight modifications to the
accident or may reduce in some way a
frequency of a fire watch patrol given an
safety margin, but where the results of
operable fire detection or suppression
the change are clearly within all
system on both sides of a nonacceptable criteria with respect to the
functional fire barrier. In addition, a
system or component specified in the
third provision is proposed for the
Standard Review Plan: for example, a
27508
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
change resulting from the application of
a small refinement of a previously used
calculational model or design method.
The changes to Sections 3/4.3.3.7 and 3/
4.7.9.3 are consistent with the STS as
endorsed by Chapter 16 of the Standard
Review Plan and, therefore, are similar
to example (vi). The proposed changes
to Section 3/4.7.10 are consistent with
Draft Revision 3 of the STS and are
within the acceptance criteria specified
in the Standard Review Plan and are
therefore similar to example (VI).
The revised Surveillance
Requirements in Section 3/4.7.10 take
into account operating experience with
penetration seal material and
manufacturer's technical data on seal
degradation over time. Operating
experience and manufacturer's data
indicate that there is no degradation
with age and there are virtually no
maintenance requirements for fire
barrier penetration seals when properly
installed. Plant design changes receive a
fire protection review. This review
specifically addresses the need to
reinstate any new or existing fire barrier
penetration seals as part of the work
closeout requirements. This provision
provides assurance that maintenance
and construction work will not result in
non-functional fire barriers. Semi-annual
fire inspections conducted by American
Nuclear Insurers, fire inspections by the
licensee's Fire Protection Engineering
Section and monthly inspections
conducted by Millstone Station Services
personnel provide a random check of
penetration seals above and beyond the
proposed Surveillance Requirements of
Specification 4.7.10.b. For the reasons
stated above, the proposed changes to
the Surveillance Requirements in
Section 3/4.7.10 would not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. For these same reasons, the
proposed change would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated or involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above considerations,
the staff proposes to determine that the
proposed changes do not involve a
significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room
location:Waterford Public Library, Rope
Ferry Road, Route 156, Waterford,
Connecticut.
Attorney for licensee: Gerald Garfield,
Esq., Day, Berry and Howard, One
Constitution Plaza, Hartford,
Connecticut 06103.
NRC Branch Chief: Edward J. Butcher,
Acting.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit, 1
Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: June 6,
1985.
Descriptionof amendment request:
The amendment would add new
technical specifications addressing the
surveillance requirements related to the
licensee's solid radioactive waste
Process Control Program (PCP).
Specifically, the requirements will state
that the PCP shall be used to verify the
solidification of radioactive waste.
Basis for proposedno significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of the
standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing
certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of
the examples, (ii), of actions not likely to
involve a significant hazards
consideration relates to changes that
constitute additional restrictions or
controls not presently included in the
technical specifications. The proposal to
add technical specifications addressing
the surveillance requirements related to
the licensee's solid radioactive waste
PCP comes under example ii because
there are presently no surveillance
requirements. Based upon the above, the
staff proposes to determine that the
application does not involve a
significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room
location:W. Dale Clark Library, 215
South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska
68102.
Attorney for licensee: Leboeuf, Lamb,
Leiby, and MacRae, 1333 New
Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington,
D.C. 20036.
NRC Branch Chief-Edward J. Butcher,
Acting.
Power Authority of The State of New
York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point
Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New
York
Date of amendment request:April 23,
1985.
Descriptionof amendment request:
The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications Sections 2.1,
2.3, 3.1, 3.10 and 5.3. The proposed
changes are in support of the Cycle 4/5
refueling, which is scheduled to
commence on June 7, 1985. The Cycle 4/
5 refueling would involve the first of a
three-phase fuel design transition from
the Westinghouse 15X15 low parasitic
(LOPAR) design to the 15X15 Optimized
Fuel Assembly (OFA) design and an
introduction of Wet Annular Burnable
Absorber (WABA) rods into the core.
The OFA fuel design results in an
increased rod drop time of 2.4 seconds'
as compared to a 1.8 second rod drop
time for the LOPAR assembly. The
accident re-analyses necessitated by the
increased rod drop time have been
submitted for review. The re-analyses
have been performed assuming
asymmetric steam generator tube
plugging levels. The proposed Technical
Specification revisions also include a
modified F delta H limit equation
reflecting an increased partial power
multiplier and a provision for the use of
WABA rods in the core.
Basisfor proposedno significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of these
standards by providing certain
examples (48 FR 14870). One of the
examples of actions not likely to involve
a significant hazards consideration
relates to a change which either may
result is some increase to the probability
or consequences of a previously
analyzed accident or may reduce in
some way a safety margin, but where
the results of the change are clearly
within all acceptable criteria with
respect to the system or component
specified in the Standard Review Plan
(Example vi). The amendment would
allow the first of a three-phase fuel
design transition from the Westinghouse
15X15 LOPAR fuel design to the 15X15
OFA design and ah introduction of
WABA rods into the core. To
demonstrate full compatibility of the
OFA and LOPAR fuel assemblies, the
licensee has provided mechanical,
nuclear, thermal-hydraulic, and accident
evaluations. The results of the licensee's
evaluations appear to be consistent with
the criteria specified in the Standard
Review Plan sections involving Fuel
System Design (4.2), Nuclear Design
(4.3), Thermal and Hydraulic Design
(4.4), and Accident Analysis (Chapter
15) and were performed using methods
previously reviewed and approved by
the staff. Therefore, the staff proposes to
determine that the amendment does not
involve a significant hazards
consideration.
Local Public Document Room
location: White Plains Public Library,
100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New
York 10601.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Charles M.
Pratt, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York 10019.
NRC Branch Chief: Steven A. Varga.
Public Service Co. of Colorado, Docket
No. 50-267, Fort St. Vrain Nuclear
Generating Station, Platteville, Colorado
Date of amendment request: May 22,
1985.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
Descriptionof amendment request:
The proposed change to the Technical
Specifications incorporates a new
requirement which will allow the
performance of Xenon stability testing.
The purpose of the testing is to show
that power perturbations will be
dampened.
Basisfor proposedno significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of these
standards by providing certain
examples (48 FR 14870). The examples
of actions that are considered not likely
to involve significant hazards
considerations include changes that
constitute an additional limitation,
restriction, or control not presently
included in the Technical Specifications.
Since the proposed change adds a
requirement to provide controls during
the performance of a test, which is part
of the originally required rise-to-power
testing, the staff proposes to determine
that the proposed action does not
involve a significant hazards
consideration.
Local Public Document Room
location: Greeley Public Library, City
Complex Building, Greeley, Colorado.
Attorney for licensee: Bryant
O'Donnell, Public Service Company of
Colorado, P.O. Box 840, Denver,
Colorado 80201.
NRC Branch Chief-Eric H. Johnson.
Southern California Edison Company et
al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3, San Diego County,
California
Date of Amendment Request: January
25, 1984 and August 7, 1984 (Reference
PCN-97).
Descriptionof Amendment Request:
The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification 3/4.6.4.1,
"Hydrogen Monitors," which concerns
the operability of hydrogen monitors
and defines periodic tests to verify
operability. These monitors would be
used to measure hydrogen concentration
within the containment following an
accident. The proposed change consists
of three parts as follows:
(a) T.S. 3.6.4.1 states that the two
independent hydrogen monitors must be
operable and defines the actions to be
taken when one monitor is inoperable.
Since T.S. 3.6.4.1. does not address
inoperablity of both monitors, plant
shutdown would be required in
accordance with the technical
specifications. The proposed change
adds an action statement to T.S. 3.6.4.1
which provides conditions under which
both hydrogen monitors could be
inoperable and shutdown would not be
required. A period of forty-eight hours
will be allowed during which at least
one hydrogen monitor must be returned
to operable status. If this condition is
not met, the plant must be shutdown
within the following six hours.
(b) The proposed change would add
an action statement to T.S. 3.6.4.1 which
will provide an exception to the
applicability of T.S. 3.0.4 when only one
hydrogen monitor is operable. T.S. 3.0.4
prohibits upward mode changes while
relying on the provisions of the action
statement. Since Modes 1 and 2 (Power
Operation and Start-up, respectively)
require that two hydrogen monitors be
operable, the plant may not enter Mode
1 or Mode 2 if one of the hydrogen
monitors is inoperable. The proposed
exception to T.S. 3.0.4 will allow the
plant to enter a higher operational mode
with one of the two hydrogen monitors
inoperable.
(c) T.S. 4.6.4.1 requires that the
hydrogen monitors must be tested
regularly by performing channel
functional tests and channel
calibrations. A channel functional test
involves the simulation of a signal to the
hydrogen monitor. Channel calibration
entails verification of the hydrogen
monitor's accuracy by applying known
concentrations of hydrogen to the
monitor's sensor. Currently, T.S. 4.6.4.1
requires that 1% and 4% hydrogen
concentration gases be used. During the
channel calibration some of the
containment isolation valves are
required to be open, which reduces
containment integrity for the period of
calibration.
The proposed change to T.S. 4.6.4.1
would substitute a 0% hydrogen
concentration gas for the 1% hydrogen
concentration gas used for channel
calibration. The 0% hydrogen
concentration gas requires less testing
time than the 1% hydrogen
concentration gas, thereby minimizing
the time period during which the
containment isolation valves are open
and increasing containment integrity. In
addition, the hydrogen monitor
manufacturer (General Electric)
recommends the use of a 0% hydrogen
concentration gas and one other
concentration of hydrogen gas (e.g., 4%)
for channel calibration.
Basisfor ProposedNo Significant
Hazards ConsiderationsDetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of standards
for determining whether a significant
hazards consideration exists by
providing certain examples (48 FR
14870) of amendments that are
considered not likely to involve
significant hazards considerations.
Example (vi) relates to a change which
27509
either may result iri some increase to the
probability or consequences of a
previously-analyzed accident or may
reduce in some way a safety margin, but
where the results of the change are
clearly within all acceptance criteria
with respect to the system or component
specified in the Standard Review Plan
(SRP). Example (i) relates to a purely
administrative change to technical
specifications: for example, correction of
an error.
SRP Section 6.2.5 "Combustible Gas
Control In Containment," provides
acceptance criteria for hydrogen
monitors. SRP 6.2.5 references NUREG0737 "Clarification of TMI Action Plan
Requirements" for specific requirements
for hydrogen monitors. NUREG-0737
requires technical specifications for the
hydrogen monitors. Acceptable mode
technical specifications satisfying the
NUREG-0737 requirements were
provided to licensees in NRC Generic
Letter 83-37 dated November 1, 1983.
NRC Generic Letter 83-37 delineates
the NRC staff requirements for
Technical Specifications for hydrogen
monitors and provides an action
statement which allows both hydrogen
monitors to be inoperable with the
condition that at least one monitor must
be restored to operable status within
seventy-two hours. The proposed
change described in part (a) above,
would allow both hydrogen monitors to
be inoperable for a period of forty-eight
hours during which at least one monitor
must be restored to operable status. This
proposed change is consistent with
Generic Letter 83-37, but is more
restrictive in that it allows only fortyeight hours for the restoration of the
hydrogen monitor's operability, rather
than seventy-two hours. Because
proposed change (a) above is consistent
with Generic Letter 83-37, it meets the
acceptance criteria of SRP Section 6.2.5
and is similar to Example (vi) of 48 FR
14870.
The hydrogen monitors constitute
post-accident monitoring
instrumentation performing the same
general function as the accident
monitoring instrumentation in T.S.
3.3.3.6. Technical Specification 3.3.3.6,
"Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,"
provides an exception to the
applicability of T.S. 3.0.4 while
complying with the action statements for
any of the accident monitoring
instruments covered by T.S. 3.3.3.6.
Consistent with technical specifications
for other accident monitoring
instrumentation, the proposed change
will allow an exception to T.S. 3.0.4 but
only with one hydrogen monitor
inoperable, whereas T.S. 3.3.3.6 would
27510
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
otherwise provide an exception to T.S.
3.0.4 with either one or both hydrogen
monitors inoperable. Because proposed
change (b) above, achieves consistency
within the technical specifications, it is
similar to example (i) of 48 FR 14870.
The hydrogen monitor manufacturer
(General Electric) recommends the use
of a 0%hydrogen concentration gas and
one other concentration of hydrogen gas
(e.g., 4%) for channel calibration. The
proposed change described in part (c),
above, calls for the use of the
manufacturer-recommended
concentrations of hydrogen gas for
channel calibration, rather than the use
of the currently specified 1% and 4%
hydrogen concentration gases. Proposed
change (c) above, meets the no
significant hazards criteria established
in 10 CFR 50.92 in that operation with
the proposed amendment would not:
(1) Involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously conducted.
Specifically, the proposed change will
result in equal or better calibration,
thereby giving readings that are at least
as good as the previous method of
calibration.
(2) Create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated. This
instrument does not perform any preaccident function. Therefore, it meets
this criteria.
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The proposed change
does not reduce a safety margin, since
the monitor's function will not be
impaired by calibration in accordance
with the manufacturer's
recommendation.
Local PublicDocument Room
Location:San Clemente Library, 242
Avenida Del Mar, San Clemente,
California 92672.
Attorney for licensees: Charles R.
Kocher, Esq., Southern California Edison
Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue,
P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, California
91770, and Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, Attn.: David R. Pigott, Esq., 600
Montgomery Street, San Francisco,
California 94111.
NRC Branch Chief: George W.
Knighton.
Southern California Edison Company et
al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3, San Diego County,
California
Date of Amendment Request: March
18, 1985 (Reference PCN-188).
Descriptionof Amendment Request:
The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification 3/4.3.2,
"Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System Instrumentation." Technical
Specification 3/4.3.2 requires that
Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System (ESFAS) instrumentation
channels be operable and defines a
number of functional tests and response
time tests that must be conducted
periodically in order to verify
operability. Specification 3/4.3.2
identifies the instruments required for
the Toxic Gas Isolation System (TGIS).
The TGIS is actuated when
concentrations of toxic gases (e.g.
chlorine, butane/propane or ammonia)
in the control room supply ducts exceed
the concentration setpoints. Upon
receipt of a TGIS signal, the control
room heating ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) system is
automatically isolated. The setpoints are
selected such that the toxic gas
concentration in the control room will
not exceed allowable limits during the
first two minutes after the detector
responds. This provides adequate
protection for the control room
operators by allowing sufficient time to
don protective gear.
Recently, Amendments 29 and 18 to
the operating licenses for San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 and 3,
respectively, deleted the requirement for
TGIS carbon dioxide instrumentation.
Analysis in support of this amendment
demonstrated that the maximum control
room concentration of carbon dioxide at
any time without control room isolation
would be 11,000 ppm. The carbon
dioxide instrumentation was deleted
because the licensee demonstrated that
the protective action limit of 50,000 ppm
for carbon dioxide would never be
exceeded. However, through an
oversight Amendments 29 and 18 did not
delete all references to carbon dioxide
instrumentation from the technical
specifications, but only deleted the
reference to the carbon dioxide
instrumentation from Table 3.3-4,
"ESFAS Instrumentation Trip Values."
The TGIS carbon dioxide
instrumentation is also included in
Table 3.3-3, "ESFAS Instrumentation,"
and Table 4.3-2, "ESFAS
Instrumentation Surveillance
Requirements". The proposed change
corrects this oversight by deleting the
remaining references to the TGIS carbon
dioxide instrumentation from these
tables.
Basisfor ProposedNo Significant
Hazards ConsiderationDetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
concerning the application of standards
for determining whether a significant
hazards consideration exists by
providing certain examples (48 FR
14870) of amendments that are
considered not likely to involve
significant hazards considerations.
Example (i) relates to a purely
administrative change to the technical
specifications: For example a. change to
achieve consistency throughout the
technical specifications, correction of an
error or a change in nomenclature. The
proposed change described above, by
deleting the remaining references to
TGIS carbon dioxide instrumentation,
which should have been removed by
Amendments 29 and 18, corrects an
error and achieves consistency within
the technical specifications. Therefore
the proposed change is similar to
example (i) of 48 FR 14870 and thus the
NRC staff proposes to determine that
this change does not involve a
significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room
Location: San Clemente Library, 242
Avenida Del Mar, San Clemente,
California 92672.
Attorney for licensees: Charles R,
Kocher, Esq., Southern California Edison
Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue,
P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, California
91770 and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe,
Attn.: David R. Pigott, Esq., 600
Montgomery Street, San Francisco,
California 94111.
NRC Branch Chief-George W.
Knighton.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50483, Callaway Plant, Unit No. 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: May 17,
1985.
Descriptionof amendment request:
The purpose of the proposed
amendment request is for: (1) A one-time
extension for the performance of Type C
tests on 59 containment isolation valves
(this would require a one-time
exemption from Appendix I to Part 50),
(2) deletion of isolation time
requirements from Table 3.6-1 for the
main steam isolation valves and main
feedwater isolation valves, and (3)
editorial changes to valve function
descriptions and system designators in
Table 3.6-1.
Basis for proposedno significant
hazardsconsiderationsdetermination:
(1) Appendix I to Part 50 requires that
Type C tests by performed during each
reactor shutdown for refueling but in no
case at intervals greater than 2 years.
The 59 containment isolation valves
were last tested between August and
December of 1983. The licensee has
requested an exemption that would
result in the testing being performed
during the first refueling outage for
Callaway, currently, scheduled to occur
during April-June of 1986. The licensee's
amendment application addresses the
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
short length of exposure of the subject
Virginia Electric and Power Company et
valves to an operating environment and
al., Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units No. I
the favorable previous local leak rate
and No. 2, Louisa County, Virgina
test measurements. Based on these
considerations, the approximately eight
Date of amendments request:
month extension in time for the
February 14, 1985.
performance of Type C tests will not
Descriptionof amendments request:
involve a significant increase in the
The proposed change would eliminate
probability of valve failure and will,
from the NA-1&2 Technical
therefore, not increase the probability or
Specifications (TS) the rod bow penalty
consequences of any previously
on the nuclear enthalpy hot channel
analysed accident.
factor. The proposed change is made
Since the proposed extension will not
possible by an improved fuel rod
impact isolation valve integrity, will not
bowing evaluation methodology that has
affect the method of plant operation,
demonstrated that the presently
and will not affect equipment important
specified rod bow penalty on 17x17 Rgrid fuel can be reduced. This improved
to safe operation, the proposed
amendment does not create the
methodology has been reviewed and
approved by the NRC in its letter dated
possibility of a new and different
December 29, 1982 from C. 0. Thomas
accident from any previously evaluated.
(NRC) to E. P. Rahe, Jr., (Westinghouse)
Since the lngth of exposure to an
and entitled "Acceptance for
operating environment is small and the
Referencing of Licensing Topical Report
previous local leak rate test
WCAP-8691(P)/WCAP-8692(NP)". The
measurements were favorable, the
total retained DNBR Margin for 17x17
proposed amendment will not
fuel is quantified to be 9.1%. The new Rsignificantly reduce any margins of
grid rod bow penalties when added
safety.
together are substantially less than 9.1%.
(2) and (3) On April 6, 1983 the NRC
Therefore, removal of the presently
published guidance in the Federal
specified TS rod bow penaltyis
Register (48 FR 14870) concerning
compensated for by implementation of
examples of amendments that are not
the NRC-approved rod bow penalties.
likely to involve significant hazards
Basis for proposedno significant
considerations. This amendment request
hazardsconsiderationdetermination:
is similar to the example of a purely
The Commission has provided guidance
administrative change to the technical
concerning the no significant hazards
specifications that may involve a change
consideration by providing certain
to achieve consistency throughout the
examples (48 FR 14870). Example (vi) of
technical specifications, correction of an
a no significant hazards consideration
error, or a change in nomenclature. The
involves a change which may reduce in
isolation time requirements for the main
some way a safety margin, but where
steam and main feedwater isolation
the results of the change are clearly
valves are more appropriately
within all acceptable criteria with
addressed in other sections of the
respect to the system as specified in the
,Standard Review Plan. Although the
technical specifications, and the
instant amendment would permit a
editorial changes to valve function
descriptions are parely administrative in reduction of the retained DNBR margin
due to the removal of the rod bow
nature. The proposed changes to the
penalty on the nuclear enthalpy hot
technical specifications satisfy the
channel factor, the reduction is
criteria of this example.
compensated for by implementation of
Based on the foregoing, the requested
the NRC-approved rod bow penalties,
amendment does not present a
.which provides for adequate and for
significant hazards.
some factors with additional available
Local PublicDocument Room
margin. On this basis, the staff proposes
locations:Fulton City Library, 709
to determine that the proposed
Market Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251
amendment does not involve significant
and the Olin Library of Washington
hazards considerations.
University, Skinker and Lindell
Local PublicDocument Room
Boulevards, St. Louis, Missouri 63130.
locations:Board of Supervisors Office,
Attorney for licensee: Gerald
Louisa County Courthouse, Louisa,
Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Virginia 23093 and the Alderman
Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, NW.,
Library, Manuscripts Department,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22901.
NRC Branch Chief.-B.J. Youngblood.
Attorney for licensee: Michael W.
Maupin, Esq., Hunton, Williams, Gay
27511
and Gibson, P.O. Box 1535, Richmond,
Virginia 23212.
NRC Branch Chief-Edward J. Butcher,
Acting.
Wisconsin Pubic Service Corporation,
Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Nuclear
Power Plant, Kewaunee County,
Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: May 30,
1985.
Descriptionof amemdment request:
License amendment would provide
revised Techncial Specifications (T.S.)
to direct the plant Quality Control
Group to report to higher level plant
management. In addition, would
eliminate blank T.S. pages and would
incorporate other minor administrative
and editorial changes in T.S.
Basisfor proposedno significant
hazards considerationdetermination:
The Commission has provided guidance
for the application of the standards in 10
CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples
(48 FR 14870) of actions likely to involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Examples of actions involving no
significant hazards consideration are
changes that relate to:
(i) A purely administrative change to
technical specifications: for example, a
change to achieve consistency
throughout the technical specifications,
correction of an error, or a change in
nomenclature, and
(ii) A change that constitutes an
additional limitation, restriction, or
control not presently included in the
technical specifications: for example, a
more stringent surveillance requirement.
The changes eliminating blank T.S.
pages and other minor administrative
and editorial changes are encompassed
in example (i).
The T.S. change to direct the Quality
Control Group to report to a higher level
of plant management enhances the
authority of this group and represents an
additional control not presently
.included in the T.S., as indicated in
example (ii).
Since the application for amendment
involves proposed changes that are
similar to examples for which no
significant hazards consideration exists,
the staff has made a proposed
determination that the application for
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:University of Wisconsin
Library Learning Center, 2420 Nicolet
Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301.
Attorney for licensee: Steven E.
Keane, Esquire, Foley and Lardner, 777
East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53202.
27512
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
condition would be added requiring that
the FPP not be changed so as to
PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NOTICES
significantly decrease the level of fire
OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE
protection in the plant without the
OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING
Commission's approval and that all
LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO
changes be submitted annually to the
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS
Commission along with the updated
CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION
FSAR. See 10 CFR 50.71.
AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
Date of publication of individual
The following notices were previously
notice in Federal Register. June 14, 1985
published as separate individual
(50 FR 24969).
notices. The notice content was the
Expirationdate of individualnotice:
same as above. They were published as
July 15, 1985.
individual notices because time did not
Local Public DocumentRoom
allow the Commission to wait for this biCrystal River Public Library,
location:
weekly notice. They are repeated here
668 NW First Avenue, Crystal River,
because the bi-weekly notice lists all
Florida.
amendments proposed to be issued
Florida Power Corporation et al.,
involving no significant hazards
Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice
No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus
in the Federal Register on the day and
County, Florida
page cited. This notice does not extend
Date of amendment request: April 25,
the notice period of the original notice.
1985.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam
amendment would revise the Technical
Neck Plant, Middlesex County,
Specifications (TSs) to support the
Connecticut
operation of Crystal River Unit 3 at full
rated power during the upcoming Cycle
Date of amendment request; June 11,
6 operation. The proposed amendment
1985.
requests changes in the following areas:
Descriptionof amendment request:
1. Reactor core safety limits and trip
The proposed amendment would revise
setpoints for reactor thermal power and
the technial specifications to update the
axial power imbalance.
pressure/temperature limit curves for
hydrostatic and leak rate testing and for
2. Minimum boric acid and borated
water volumes.
heatup and cooldown rates. All of these
curves are being updated to show the
3. Regulating and axial power shaping
required limitations out to 22.0 effective
rod group insertion limits.
full power years.
4. Axial power imbalance limits.
Date of publication of individual
5. Reactor Protection System response
notice in Federal Register: June 18, 1985
time testing requirements.
(50 FR 25364).
6. Deletion of specific requirements
Expiration date of individualnotice:
pertaining to Cycle 5.
July 18,1985.
In support of the license amendment
Local Public Document Room
request
for operation of Crystal River
location:Russell Library, 123 Broad
Unit 3 during Cycle 6, the licensee
Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457.
submitted, as an attachment to the
NRC Branch Chief-John A. Zwolinski.
application, a Babcock &Wilcox (B&W)
Florida Power Corporation et aL,
Report, BAW-1860, dated April 1985. A
Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit
summary of the Cycle 6 operating
No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus
parameters along with a safety analysis
County, Florida
are included therein.
For Cycle 6 Crystal River Unit 3 will
Date of amendment request: February
operate with 60 fresh fuel assemblies
27, 1985, as revised May 24, 1985, and
similar to the fuel used in Cycle 5.
June 7, 1985
Additionally, Cycle 6 will incorporate
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
longer less absorbing Inconel (gray)
amendment would move the Fire
axial power shaping rods (APSRs)
Service System tables from the
instead of the silver-indium-cadmium
Technical Specifications (TSs) to the
(black) APSRs used used previously.
Fire Protection Plan (FPP) to allow
The NOODLE code was used in
timely implementation of operability
determining core physics parameters
and surveillance requirements. The
affected Technical Specifications are the and the LYNX-T code, which uses
crossflow methods, in the thermalFire Detection Instrumentation (TS
hydraulic analyses. Other analytical
3.3.3.7), Deluge and Sprinkler Systems
methods have been used and accepted
(TS 3.7.11.2) and Fire Hose Stations (TS
for previous cores.
3.7.11.4). Also a Fire Protection license
NRC Branch Chief Steven A. Varga.
Date of publicationof individual
notice in Federal Register. June 13, 1985
(50 FR 24849).
Expiration date of individualnotice:
July 15, 1985.
Local PublicDocument Room
location: Crystal River Public.Library,
668 N.W. First Avenue, Crystal River,
Florida.
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF
AMENDMENT TO FACILITY
OPERATING LICENSE
During the period since publication of
the last bi-weekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
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.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
and Opportunity for Hearing in
connection with these actions was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated. No request for a hearing or
petition for leave to intervene was filed
following this notice.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
made a determination based on the
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendments, (2) the amendments, and
(3) the Commission's related letters,
Safety Evaluations and/or
Environmental Assessments as
indicated. 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 local public document rooms
for the particular facilities involved. A
copy of items (2) and (3) may be
obtained upon request addressed to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Licensing.
Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2,
Westchester County, New York
Date of applicationfor amendment:
December 14, 1984.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the Technical
Specifications to incorporate the
requirements to perform augmented
inservice inspection of the IP-2 reactor
vessel during the second ten year
inspection interval. The augmented
inspection is required as a result of a
flaw indication reported on the IP-2
reactor vessel during the cycle 6/7
refueling outage. In accordance with
Section XI of the ASME Code the
amendment requires the inspection to be
performed at a frequency of three times
over the next ten years. Should any
additional inspection demonstrate that
the flaw in within the Section XI
allowable for which no augmented
inspection is required, the amendment
allows the requirement for augumented
inspection to become void.
Date of issuance: June 6, 1985.
Effective date: June 6,1985.
Amendment No.: 95.
FacilitiesOperatingLicense No. DPR26: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: February 27, 1985 (50 FR 7984)
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:White Plains Public Library,
100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New
York, 10610.
Consumers Power Company, Docket No.
50-155, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix
County, Michigan
Date of applicationfor amendment:
November 8, 1984, which supersedes
provious submittals dated October 27,
1981, December 15, 1981 and December
16, 1983.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment incorporates technical
specification changes to ad,' a
description of an operating requirements
for the new stack gas monitoring system.
Date of issuance:June 10, 1985.
Effective date:June 10, 1985.
Amendment No. 75.
Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR6. This amendment revised the license
and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: February 27, 1985 (50 FR 7984).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location: North Central Michigan
College, 1515 Howard Street, Petoskey,
Michigan 49770.
Consumers Power Company;,%Docket No.
50-155, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix
County, Michigan
Date of applicationfor amendment:
November 14, 1984.
Brief descriptionof amendment:The
amendment modifies the Technical
Specifications to include the recently
modified Reactor Enclosure Treated
Waste Line Isolation Valve, CV-4049, as
an automatic containment isolation
valve in the list of automatic
containment isolation valves which are
local leak rate tested.
Date of issuance:June 7, 1985.
Effective date: June 7, 1985.
Amendment No. 74.
Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR6. This amendment revised the license
and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: February 27, 1985 (50 FR 7985).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room
Location: North Central Michigan
College, 1515 Howard Street, Petoskey,
Michigan 49770.
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket
No. 50-409, La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor, Vernon County, Wisconsin
Date of applicationfor amendment:
September 29, 1982.
Brief descriptionof amendment:
Revises technical specifications
regarding reactor coolant system safety
valves to incorporate new requirements
for operability and surveillance testing.
Date of Issuance: June 7, 1985.
Effective date: June 7, 1985.
Amendment No. 43.
ProvisionalOperatingLicense No.
DPR-45. Amendment revised the
Appendix A Technical Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: October 26, 1983 (48 FR 49583).
The Commission's related evaluation
for the license amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7,
1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:La Crosse Public Library, 800
27513
Main Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin
54601.
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket
No. 50-409, La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor, Vernon County, Wisconsin
Date of applicationfor amendment:
October 18, 1984 as revised on January
10, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment:
Modifies license conditions to remove
specific quantity limitations for
radioactive byproduct, source, or special
nuclear material used for sample
analysis or instrumental calibration or
associated with radioactive apparatus
or components.
Date of Issuance: June 5. 1985.
Effective date: June 5, 1985.
Amendment No. 42.
ProvisionalOperatingLicense No.
DPR-45.Amendment revised the
license.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12143).
The Commission's related evaluation
for the license amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5,
1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:La Crosse Public Library, 800
Main Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin
54601.
Duquezne Light Company, Docket No.
50-334, Beaver Valley Power Station,
Unit No. 1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania
Date of applicationfor amendment:
November 3, 1983 and supplemented by
letters dated July 31, 1984 and March 21,
1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
only requirements left in Appendix B are
those that have to do with infrared
aerial photography and soil sampling,
and related administrative
requirements. The amendment
eliminates Appendix B in its entirety,
leaving Appendix A, which becomes the
only appendix to the Beaver Valley Unit
1 Operating License.
Date of issuance:June 24, 1985.
Effective date: June 25, 1985.
Amendment No. 93.
FacilityOperatingLicense No. DPR66. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in the Federal
Register: September 28, 1984, (49 FR
38398).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received. None.
27514
27514
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
An Environmental Assessment has
been prepared in accordance with 10
CFR 50.12(b) and a finding of No
-Significant Impact made dated June 21,
1985 (50 FR 25806).
Local Public Document Room
locations: B.F. Memorial Library, 663
Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa,
Pennsylvania 15001.
GPU Nuclear Corporation, Docket No.
50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New
Jersey
Date of applicationfor amendment:
July 19, 1984, as supplemented by the
agreement in meeting minutes dated
February 22, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amenmdent: The
amendment authorizes Appendix A
Technical Specification (TS) changes
pertaining to the primary containment
atmosphere to (1) reduce the maximum
oxygen limit from less than 5%to less
than 4% in TS 3.5.A.6 and add
appropriate, text to its Bases and (2)
correct a typographical spelling error in
the Bases of TS Section 4.5.
Date of issuance:June 7, 1985.
Effective date: June 7, 1985.
Amendment No. 86.
ProvisionalOperatingLicense No.
DPR-16. Amendment revised the
Appendix A Technical Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in the Federal
Register. March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12145).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contianed in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 7,1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received. No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:Ocean County Library, 101
Washington Street, Toms River, New
Jersey 08753.
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company,
Docket No. 50-315, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, Berrien
County, Michigan.
Date of applicationfor amendment:
March 1, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
amendment revises the Technical
Specifications to account for increased
flow in the pump bypass line. The
specific changes add to footnote to the
Safety Injection System single pump
flow requirements to (1) indicate
combined loops 1, 2, 3, and 4 cold leg
flow is to be less than or equal to 640
gpm to be consistent with the
containment analysis and (2) total flow,
including miniflow, is not to exceed 700
gpm to be consistent with-the limits in
the ECCS analysis.
Date of issuance:June 24, 1985.
Effective date: June 24, 1985.
Amendment No. 84.
FacilityOperatingLicense No. DPR58. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in the Federal
Register: May 21, 1985 (50 FR 20981).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received. None.
Local Pu6licDocument Room
location:Maude Reston Palenske
Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St.
Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company.
Docket No. 50-311, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of applicationfor amendment:
December 5, 1984, as supplemented
January 24, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
amendment revises the Technical
Specifications to (1) permit changing the
well cooling water backwash automatic
valves to manual valves and to keep
them locked shut, (2) correct some
inconsistencies in the present
specifications and as-built logic circuits
for Groups 6 and 7 containment isolation
valves, and (3).make the Technical
Specifications clearer and more
complete.
Date of issuance: June 11, 1985.
Effective date: June 11, 1985.
Amendment No. 123.
FacilityOperatingLicense No. DPR49. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in the Federal
Register: February 27, 1985 (50 FR 7992).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room
location:Cedar Rapids Public Library,
500 First Street, S.E., Cedar Rapids, Iowa
52401.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,
Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego
County, New York
Date of applicationfor amendment:
October 1, 1984.
Brief description of amendment:The
revision to the Technical Specifications
adds Limiting Conditions for Operation
and surveillance requirements for the
Control Room Air Treatment System,
updates the testing requirements for the
absorber filters that are a part of the
Control Room Air Treatment and the
Emergency Ventilation systems, and
changes the testing frequencies for the
above mentioned system.
Date of issuance:June 11, 1985.
Effective date: June 11, 1985.
Amendment No.: 73.
Facility OperatingLicense No DPR63. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register. February 27, 1985 (50 FR 7946).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:State University College at
Oswego, Penfield Library-Documents,
Oswego, New York 13126.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company et
al., Docket No. 50-338, Millstone
Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 2, Town
of Waterford, Connecticut
Date of applicationfor amendment:
February 6, 1985 as supplemented June 5
and June 11, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
revisions to the Technical Specifications
modify the allowable region of operation
when the cre power distribution is
monitored by the Excore Detector
Monitoring System. These revisions
reflect changes in Cycle 7 operating
characteristics and allow operation in
fuel Cycle 7.
Date of issuance: June 19, 1985.
Effective date: June 19, 1985.
Amendment No.: 99.
Facility OpeatingLicense No. DPR65. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12132 at
12150). The June 5, 1985 letter provided
the final Cycle 7 reload characteristics
and the June 11, 1985 letter provided a
Technical Specification page which was
inadvertently left out of the February 6,
1985 submittal and provided addition
clarfication. Neither letter revised the
initial noticing action.
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 1985.
No significant hazards Consideration
comments received: No.
Attorney for licensee: Gerald Garfield,
Esq., Day, Berry and Howard, One
Constitution Plaza, Hartford,
Connecticut 06103.
Local Public Document Room
location:Waterford Public Library, Rope
Ferry Road, Route 156, Waterford,
Connecticut.
Federal Register
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company et
al., Docket No 50-336, Milistone Nuclear
Power Station Unit No. 2, Town of
Waterford, Connecticut
Date of applicationfor amendment:
April 2, 1985.
Brief description of amendment: Thi*
amendment modified the Technical
Specifications by changing the chlorine
detection system setpoint, eliminating
the date associated with Regulatory
Guide 1.95, changing the control room
emergency ventiflation system flow rate,
specifying the removal efficiency of the
charcoal adsorber, and the insertion of
control room radiation monitoring
information.
Date of issuance:June 19, 1985.
Effective date: June 19, 1985.
Amendment No.: 100.
Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR65. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: April 23, 1985 (50 FR 15997 at
16007). The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluat'on dated
June 19, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Attorney for licensee: Gerald Garfield,
Esq., Day, Berry and Howard, One
Constitution Plaza, Hartford,
Connecticut 06103.
Philadelphia Electric Company, Public
Service Electric and Gas Company,
Delmarva Power and Light Company,
and Atlantic City Electric Company,
Dockets Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units
Nos. 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania
Date of applicationfor amendments:
October 1, 1981,
Brief descriptionof amendments: The
changes to the Technical Specifications
permit the following:
(1) Changes in the "Remarks" column
of Table 3.2.B to provide indication that
an interlock applies to both the Residual
Heat Removal (RHR) and Core Spray
Systems.
(2) A clarification pertaining to the
Suppression Chamber High Level trip
setting in accordance with Mark I
containment studies (Table 3.2.B).
(3) A revision concerning the
surveillance requirements for floe
Primary Containment Isolation Signal
(PCIS) and Low Pressure Coolant
Ijection (LPCI) interlock switch to
correct an error by requiring more
stringent requirements (Table 4.2.B).
(4) Correct the calibration frequency
for Reactor Level Instrumentation which
had inadvertently been changed under
previous amendments (Table 4.2.F).
/ Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 */ Notices
(5) A revision to Appendix B thermal
mapping reporting frequency from 30
days to annually. In addition, this
section is revised to more clearly specify
the required events necessary to initiate
thermal mapping monitoring and exempt
data collection during periods when
river and weather conditions preclude
safe data gathering (Appendix B,
Section 3.1).
Date of issuance: June 10, 1985.
Effective Date: June 10, 1985.
Amendment Nos.: 109 and 112.
Facility OperatingLicenses Nos.
DPR-44 and DPR-56. Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in the Federal
Register: April 25, 1984 (49 FR 17868).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:Governmcnt Publications
Section, State Libraiy of Pennsylvania,
Education Building, Commonwealth and
Walnut Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Public Service Electric and Gas
Company, Docket No. 50-311, Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2,
Salem County, New Jers3y
Date of applicationfor amendment:
October 15, 1904.
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
amendment revises the sodium
hydroxide test flow rate for Unit 2 to
agree with the value for Unit 1.
Date of issuance: June 13, 1985.
Effective Date:June 13, 1985.
Amendment No.: 38.
FacilityOperatingLicense No. DPR75: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in the Federal
Register: April 23, 1985 (50 FR 16C11).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 13, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments have been rece;ved: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:Salem Free Library, 112 West
Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079.
Rochester Gas and Electric Coropration,
Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of applicationfor amendment:
December 19, 1983.
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
amendment revises the second and
subsequent 10 year interval start dates
of the Quality Group B and C programs
of the Inservice Inspection Program and
the program for High Energy Piping
Outside Containment, to coincide with
27515
the interval of the Quality Group A
program. The change also incorporates
inspections intervals for the Inservice
Pump and Valve Testing Program, with
corresponding interval start dates for
the second and subsequent intervals.
Date of issuance:June 19, 1985.
Effective Date: June 19, 1985.
Amendment No.: 5.
Facility OperatingLicenses No. DPR18 Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in the Federal
Register: April 25, 1984 (49 FR 17871).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a .
Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room
location: Rochester Public Library, 115
South Avenue, Rochester, New York
14610.
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation,
Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne, County, New York
Date of amendment request: March 30,
1984.
Descriptionof amendment request:
The amendment will bring the Technical
Specifications into conformance with 10
CFR 50.72, 50.73, and 50.49.
Date of issuance:June 7, 1985.
Effective date:June 7, 1985.
Amendment No.:4.
Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR18. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: May 23, 1984 (49 FR 21837).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
.comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room
location:Rochester Public Library, 115
South Avenue, Rochester, New York
14610.
Attorney for licensee: Harry H. Voigt,
Esquire, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and
MacRae, 1333 New Hampshire Avenue,
NW., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C.
20036.
NRC Branch Chief-John A. Zwolinski.
Southern California Edison Company,
Docket No. 50-206, San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit No. 1, San
Diego County, California
Date of application-foramendment:
April 9, 1985.
Brief description of amendment.-The
amendment requires that a steam
generator inspection be performed
during the refueling outage scheduled to
begin no later than Nov ember 30, 1985.
. 27516
2Federat Register"/ Vol. 50, No. 128 /Wednesday,
eate of issuance: June 5, 1985.
Effective date: June 5, 1985.
Amendment No.: 89
ProvisionalOperatingLicense No.
DPR-13: Amendment revised the license
condition 3.E.
. Date "finitialnotice in Federal
Register: May 1, 1985 (50 FR 18587).
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Rbom
location:San Clemente Public Library,
242 Avendia Del Mar, San Clemente,
California 92672.
Washington Public Power Supply
System, Docket No. 50-397, WNP-2,
Richland, Washington
Date of amendment request. March 14,
1985,
Brief Descriptionof amendment
request: This amendment revises the
WNP-2 license by modifying the
Technical Specifications to provide
relief, for one time only, from the
surveillance requirement 4.4.3.2.2, of
leak testing three of the eighteen
Reactor Coolant System Pressure
Isolation Valves. These valves are
designated RCIC-V-66, RCIC-V-13 and
RHR-V-23 and are identified in Table
3.4.3.2-1 of the Technical Specifications.
Date of issuance:June 12, 1985.
Effective date: June 12, 1985..
Amendment No.: 10.
Facility OperatingLicense No. NPR21: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: May 9, 1985, (50 FR 19596) The
Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated June 12, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: None.
Local Public Document Room
Location: Richland Public Library, Swift
and Northgate Streets, Richland,
Washington 99352.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation,
Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Nuclear
Power Plant, Kewaunee County,
Wisconsin
Date of applicationfor amendment:
November 30, 1984.
Brief descriptionof amendment:
Change to nuclear peaking factor.
resulting from use of higher burhup fuel.
.
Date of issuance:lune 20, 1985.
Effective date: June 20, 1985.
Amendment No;: 62.
FacilityOperatingLicense No. DPR43: Amendment revised the Technical.
Specifications.
.
....
July 3, 1985 / Notices
The Commission has applied. the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
a final determination that the.
amendment involves no significant
hazard consideration. The basis for this
determination is contained in the
documents related to this action.
Accordingly, the amendments have been
issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
AMENDMENT TO FACILITY
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
OPERATING LICENSE AND FINAL
impact statement or environmental
DETERMINATION OF NO
assessment need be prepared for these
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS
amendments. If the Commission has
CONSIDERATION AND
prepared an environmental assessment
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
under the special circumstances
(EXIGENT OR EMERGENCY
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
CIRCUMSTANCES)
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
of
since
publication
the
period
During
For further details with respect to the
the last bi-weekly notice, the
action see (1) the application for'
Commission has issued the following
amendment, (2) the amendment to
amendments. The Commission has
Facility Operating License,: and (3) the
determined for each of these
Commission's related letter, Safety
amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment, as indicated. All of these
and requirements of the Atomic Energy
items are available for public inspection
Act of 1954, asamended (the Act), and
at the Commission's Public Document
the Commission's rules and regulations.
Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington,
The Commission has made appropriate
DC, and at the localpublic document
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 room for the particular facility involved.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may be
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the
obtained upon request addressed to the
license amendment.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Because of exigent or emergency
Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
circumstances associated with the date
Director, Division of Licensing.
the amendment was needed, there was
The Commission is also offering an
not time for the Commission to publish,
opportunity for a hearing with respect to
for public comment before issuance, its
the issuance of the.amendments. By
usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of
August 2, 1985, the licensee may file a
Issuance of Amendment and Proposed
request for a hearing with respect to
No Significant Hazards Consideration
issuance of the amendment to the
Determination and Opportunity for
subject facility operating license and
Hearing. For exigent circumstances, a
press release seeking public comment as any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who
to the proposed no significant hazards
wishes to participate as a party in the
consideration determination was used,
proceeding must file a written petition
and the State was consulted by
for leave to intervene. Requests for a
telephone. In circumstances where
hearing and petitions for leave to "
failure to act in a timely way would
intervene shall be filed in accordance
have resulted, for example, in derating
with the Commission's "Rules of
or shutdown of a nuclear power plant, a
Practice for Domestic Licensing
shorter public comment period (less
Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If a
than 30 days) has been offered and the
request for a hearing or petition for
State consulted by telephone whenever
possible.
leave to intervene is filed by the above
Under its regulatiois, the Commission date, the Commission or an Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board, designated
may issue and make an amendment
by the Commission'or by the Chairman
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the pendency before itof a-request for a of the Atomic Safety and Licenqing
Board Panel,will rule onthe request
heafig from any persot ,,in advance of
and/oi petitio. andthe,Secretary or the
the holding and completion of any
designated AiomiciSafet and. Licensing
required hearing, where it has.
Board will issue a notice of hearing or
determined that no significant hazards
an appropriate order.
donsideratiofn is involved.
Date of initialnotice in Federal
Register: December 31, 1984 (49 FR
50829) •
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local PublicDocument Room
location:University of Wisconsin,
Library Learning Center, 2420 Nicolet
Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. '128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding and how
that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding, The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) The nature of the
petitioner's right under the Act to be
made a party to the proceeding; (2) the
nature and extent of the petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (3) the possible
effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the
petitioner's interest. The petition should
also identify the specific aspect(s) of the
subject matter of the proceeding as to
which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has filed a petition for
leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the
petition without requesting leave of the
Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the
first prehearing conference scheduled in
the proceeding, but such an amended
petition must satisfy the specificity
requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to
the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner
shall file a supplement to the petition to
intervene which must include a list of
the contentions which are sought to be
litigated in the matter, and the bases for
each contention set forth with
reasonable specificity. Contentions shall
be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. A
petitioner who fails to file such a
supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to
present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses.
Since the Commission has made a
final determination that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, if a hearing is requested,
it will not stay the effectiveness of the
amendment. Any hearing held would
take place while the amendment is in
effect.
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed with
the.Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch, or may
be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last
ten (10) days of the notice period, it is
requested that the petitioner promptly so
inform the Commission by a toll-free
telephone call to Western Union at (800).
325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 34 -4700).
The Western Union operator should be
given Datagram Identification Number
3737 and the following message
addressed to (Branch Chief): petitioner's
name and telephone number; date
petition was mailed; plant name; and
publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. A copy of
the petition should also be sent to the
Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, and to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave
to intervene, amended petitions,
supplemental petitions and/or requests
for hearing will not be extertained
absent a determination by the
Commission, the presiding officer or the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
designated to rule on the petition and/or
request, that the petitioner has made a
substantial showing of good cause for
the granting of a late petition and/or
request. That determination will be
based upon a balancing of the factors
specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and
2.714(d).
Consumers Power Company, Docket No.
50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren
County, Michigan
Date of applicationfor amendment:
May 24, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment: This
amendment extends the time that one of
the emergency diesel generators can be
inoperative during the month of May
1985 by 3 days.
Date of issuance: June 5, 1985.
Effective date: May 24, 1985.
Amendment No. 88.
ProvisionalOperatingLicense No.
DPR-20.The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration: No.
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment, 'finding of emergency
circumstances, and final determination
of no significant hazards considerations
are contained in a Safety Evaluation
dated June 5,1985.
Attorney for licensee: Judd L. Bacon,
Esquire, Consumers Power Company,
212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson,
Michigan 49201.
Local Public Document Room
location:Kalamazoo Public Library, 315
I27517
South Rose Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan
49006.
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company,
Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of applicationfor amendment:
June 14, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment: The
amendment revises the Amendment No.
121 effective date from May 28, 1985 to
July 31, 1985.
Date of issuance: June 20, 1985.
Effective date: June 20, 1985.
Amendment No.: 125.
FacilityOperating,License No. DPR49. Amendment revised the license.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration: No.
The Commission's related evaluation
of the amendment and final
determination of no significant hazards
are contained in a Safety Evaluation
dated June 20, 1985.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room
location: Cedar Rapids Public Library,
500 First Street, S.E., Cedar Rapids, Iowa
52401.
Louisiana Power and Light Company,
Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles
Parish, Louisiana
Date of applicationfor amendment:
May 14, 1985.
Brief descriptionof amendment: This
amendment authorized a change in
Techical Specification %.3.3.10 and
4.11.1.1.1 to provide for steam generator
blowdown through the Circulating
Water System (CWS) with an automatic
termination feature and to define the
sampling and analysis program for
steam generator blowdown through the
CWS or the Waterford 3 waste pond.
Date of Issuance: June 18, 1985.
Effective Date: May 16, 1985.
Amendment No.: 1.
Facility OperatingLicense No.: NPF38 Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Press release issued requesting
comments as to proposed no signficant
hazards consideration: No.,
Comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation
is contained in a Safety Evaluation
dated June 18, 1985.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bruce W.
Churchill, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and
Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
Local PublicDocument Room
Location:University of New Orleans
t275,18
.Fgdora
Register
Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront,
New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day
of June 1985.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Edward.J. Butcher,-,.
Aoting.Chief,OperatingReactorsBranch No,
3, Divisionof Licensing.
[FR Doc. 85-15916 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Section 201 Investigation Regarding
Imports of Nonrubber Footwear
AGENCY: Office of the United Statds
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice.
Notice is hereby given that
the President has received the
recommendation of the United States
International Trade Commission (ITC)
regarding imports of nonrubber footwear
pursuant to section 201 of the Trade Act
of 1974. Public comments are due by
c.o.b. Monday, July 15, 1985.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORAMTION: On July
1, 1985 the ITC reported its finding in an
investigation of Nonrubber Footwear,
Inv. No. TA-201-55 to the President
pursuant to section 201 of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 ULS.C. 2251). The ITC
determined that imports of nonrubber
footwear provided for in items 700.05
through 700.45, inclusive, 700.56, 700.72
through 700.83, inclusive, and 700.95 of
the Tariff Schedules of the United States
(TSUS) are causing substantial injury to
a domestic industry in the United States.
Pursuant to section 201(d)(1), the
Commission found and recommended
(Vice Chairman Liebler dissenting) thei
amount of increase in, or imposition of,
any duty or import restriction necessary
to remedy the injury to the industry.
Chairwoman Stern and Commissioner
Eckes, Lodwick, and Rohr recommended
the imposition of a quota of 474 million
pairs on imports of nonrubber footwear
with a customs value of over $2.50 per
pair. They recommended that the quota
remain at that level for the first two
years of the relief period, to be
increased by three (3) percent in the
'third year, by six (6) percent in the
fourth year, and by nine (9) percent in
the fifth year.
Nonrubber footwear valued at $2.50 or
less per pair would be exempt from this
relief.
To implemefit the 'quota, the
Commission rebdrmended that import
licenses be sold throiuh an auctioning'
SUMMARY:
system : .
'
.
, ..
I
Commissi6ners Eckes, Lo.dwick, and
Rohr rectmm~nded that'the quota be
imposed retroactively to June 1, 1985.
I.Vol., 50,
N9.N 128
Wedne.O4ay,,xJuly .3,; 1985 / Notices
Chairwoman Stern and Commissioner
Rohr recommended the division of the
474 million pair quota into three specific
segments to provide more effective relief
to those parts of the industry which ..
have been most injured by imports. This
would restrict the imports within the
quota acdordingly:
(1) That a 214 million pair ceiling be
.placed on nonathletic footwear with a
customs value of over $5.00;
(2) That a 110 million pair floor be.
reserved for all athletic footwear (of any
value); and
(3) That the remaining 150 million pair
portion of the quota be made available
to all footwear valued by customs
between $2.51 and $5.00. This portion of
the quota would also be open for
bidding by athletic footwear,
After receiving the ITC's
recommendation, the President must (1)
determine what method and amount of
import relief he will provide or (2)
determine that the provision of import
relief is not in the national economic
interest and if so what whether he will
direct expeditious consideration of
adjustment assistance petitions. Under
19 U.S.C. 2252, the President has 60 days
to make his decision regarding import
relief.
In determining whether to provide
import relief and the method and
amount of relief, the President must take
into account, in addition to other
consideration he may deem relevant, the
following factors:
(1) The probable effectiveness of the
import relief as a means to promote
adjustment, the efforts being made or to
be implemented by the industry
concerned to adjust to import
competition; and other consideration
relevant to the position of the industry
in the nation's economy;
(2) The effect of import relief on
consumers and on competition in the
domestic market for such articles;
(3) The effect of import relief on the
international economic interest of the
United States;
(4) The impact on United States
industries and firms as a consequence of
any possible modification of duties or
other import restrictions which may
result from international obligations
with respect to compensation;.
(5) The geographic concentration of
imported products marketed in the
United States;
((6) The extent to which the U.S.
market is a focal point for exports of
such articles by reason of restraints on
.exports of such article', or on imports of
such :articleg into, third 6duntry markets;
and'
(7) The economic ahd social 6osts"
which would be incurred by taxpayers,
communities and workers if import relief
were or were not provided
The Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) chairs the Trade
Policy Committee (TPC). The USTR with
the advice'of the TPC will issue a
recommendation to the President
regarding what action, if any, he should
take with respect to the ITC's report and
findings.
USTR welcomes briefs and comments
from interested parties, and interested
members of the public regarding the
imposition of import relief. Twenty (20)
copies of any brief or comment must be
filed in conformity with 15 CFR 2003.2
with the Secretary, Trade Policy Staff
Committee, Room 500, Office of the
United States Trade Representative, 600
17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20506. Briefs should-be submitted as
soon as possible but in any case no later
,than c.o.b. Monday, July 15, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hiram Lawrence, Office of the United
States Trade Representative, 600 17th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506;
telephone (202) 39.5-3475.
Donald M. Phillips,
Chairman,Trade PolicyStaff Committee.
[FR Doc. 85-16114 Filed 7-2-85; 11:32 am)
BILLING CODE 319-01-
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC
POWER AND CONSERVATION
PLANNING COUNCIL
Losses and Goals Advisory
Committee; Meeting
AGENCY: Losses and Goals Advisory
Committee of the Pacific Northwest
Electric Power and Conservation
Planning Council (Northwest Power
Planning Council).
'ACTION: Notice of meeting to be held
pursuant to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1, 14. Activities will include:
e Review draft chapters of Losses
Statement;
" Discussion of Glossary of Terms;
" Review fish loss data collection
form;
* Discussion of stock selection issue
paper;
" Other, and
" Public comment.
Status: Open.
SUMMARY: The Northwest Power
Planning Council hereby announces a
forthcoming meeting of its Losses and
Goals Advisory Committee.
DATE, July 29, i985,9:30 :a.m.;,
ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at
the Council's Hearing Room, 850 SW
Broadway, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
John Marsh, 503-222-5161.
Edward Sheets,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 85-15863 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE OO0-0O-M
Resident Fish Substitutions Advisory
Committee; Meeting
AGENCY: Resident Fish Substitutions
Advisory Committee of the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power and
Conservation Planning Council
(Northwest Power Planning Council).
ACTION: Notice of meeting to be held
pursuant to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1,14. Activities will include:
* Discussion of draft resident fish
substitutions issue paper;
* Update of resident fish productivity
report;
" Other, and
* Public comment.
Status: Open.
SUMMARY: The Northwest Power
Planning Council hereby announces a
forthcoming meeting of its Resident Fish
Substitutions Advisory Committee.
DATE: July 19, 1985, 9:30 a.m.
ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at
the Council's Hearing Room, 850 SW.
Broadway, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Marsh, 503-222-5161.
Edward Sheets,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 85-15862 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 0000-00-M
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. IC-14601]
Eaton & Howard Balanced Fund;
Application for Order Declaring That
Applicant Has Ceased To Be an
Investment Company
June 25, 1984.
Notice is hereby given that Eaton &
Howard Balanced Fund ("Applicant"),
24 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110,
filed and application on May 30, 1985,
pursuant to section 8(f) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940
("Act") for an order of the Commission
declaring that Applicant has ceased to
be an investment company. All
interested persons are referred to the
application on file with the Commission
for a statement of the representations
contained therein, which are
summarized below, and to the Act and
/ Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
the rules thereunder for the text of the
applicable provisions.
According to the application,
Applicant was organized as a trust and
registered under the Act as an open-end,
diversified management investment
company. On December 10, 1984, the
Trustees of Applicant approved an
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization
("Plan") pursuant to which substantially
all of Applicant's assets were
transferred to Eaton Vance Investors
Fund, Inc. ("Fund"), a registered openend, diversified management investment
company, in exchange for capital stock
of the Fund. The application states that
Applicant and the Fund were both
members of a group of twenty-three
investment companies which employ
Eaton Vance Management, Inc. ("EVM")
as their investment adviser. Applicant
and the Fund both engaged Eaton Vance
Distributors, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of EVM, as their principal
underwriter to distribute their shares. It
is stated that the Plan was approved by
Applicant's shareholders pursuant to a
shareholder solicitation which was
concluded on April 15, 1985.
According to the application, on the
date of the exchange, April 26, 1985, the
Fund acquired Applicant's net assets
valued at $56,291,415.55, in exchange for
7,011,789.166 shares of capital stock of
the Fund. Applicant states that it
distributed to its shareholders shares of
the Fund received in the exchange in
proportion to their ownership interests.
Applicant states further that it now has
no assets, securityholders, debts or
outstanding liabilities remaining and is
not now a party to any litigation or
administrative proceeding. In addition,
'Applicant represents that it is not now
engaged, nor proposes to engage, in any
business activities other than those
necessary to wind up its affairs.
Applicant further states that on May
23, 1985, a certificate of the Trustees
was filed with the Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
terminating its legal existence. As a
consequence of such filing, Applicant's
existence ceased under Massachusetts
law except for such purposes as are
necessary to close its affairs.
Notice is further given that any
interested person wishing to request a
hearing on the application may, not later
than July 21, 1985, at 5:30 p.m., do so by
submitting a written request setting
forth the nature of his interest, the
reasons for his request, and the specific
issues, if any, of fact or law that are
disputed, to the Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20549. A copy of the request should
be served personally or by mail upon
Applicant at the address stated above.
27519
Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the
case of an attorney-at-law, by
certificate) shall be filed with the
request. After said date, an order
disposing of the application will be
issued unless the Commission orders a
hearing upon request or upon Its own
motion.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Investment Management, pursuant to
delegated authority.
John Wheeler,
Secretory.
[FR Doc. 85-15908 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
[Release No. IC-14596; 812-6061]
Johnstown American Companies;
Application
June 24, 1985.
Notice is hereby given that Johnstown
American Companies ("Applicant" or
the "Company"), 5775-A Peachtree
Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia
30343, a Massachusetts business trust,
filed an applicant of February 19, 1985,
and amendments thereto on April 25
June 13, 1985, pursuant to section 3(b)(2)
of the Investment Company Act of 1949
("Act"), for an order declaring that
Applicant is not an investment
company, or, in the alternative, pursuant
to section 6(c) of the Act exempting
Applicant until March 31, 1986, from all
provisions of the Act. All interested
persons are referred to the application
on file with the Commission for a
statement of the representations
contained therein, which are
summarized below, and to the Act for
the text of the applicable statutory
provisions.
Applicant represents that it is a real
estate service organization with
operations in over 100 cities and 28
states, primarily in the Southeast and
Southwest, that provides directly or
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries a
broad range of real estate services to
property owners and lending
institutions. Applicant was formed by a
corporate reorganization and
combination ("Reorganization") on
March 15, 1983, of Johnstown Financial
Corporation ("JFC") and Lane Company'
(Lane") with Hamilton Investment Trust
("Hamilton"). At the time of
Reorganization, both JFC and Lane were
closely-held companies primarily
engaged in managing real estate
properties owned by other persons.
Hamilton, formed in 1971 as a publicly
owned real estate investment trust,
ceased its qualification as a real estate
investment trust in 1976. JFC and Lane
27520
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
at the time of Reorganization were,
respectively, 80% and 100% owned by
Johnstown American Enterprises, Inc.
("Enterprises"); the remaining 20% of
JFC was owned by certain officers and
shareholders of Consolidated Capital
Equities Corporation ("Consolidated"), a
sponsor of real estate programs in the
form of investment trusts or limited
partnerships.
Applicant states JFC was organized in
1977 by John Lie-Nielson, chairman and
chief executive officer of the Company.
JFC managed Consolidated's properties
and Mr. Lie-Nielson has served as
Consolidated's Vice President, President
and Director; Mr. Lie-Nielson is
presently a director of Consolidated..
Applicant continues to manage
Consolidated's properties. The
Reorganization was effected by the
exchange of Hamilton shares for shares
of JFC and Lane so that JFC and Lane
became wholly-owned by Hamilton, and
Hamilton's name was changed to
Johnstown American Companies.
Following the Reorganization JFC was
liquidated into Applicant, and
Enterprises, owning approximately
61.5% of Applicant, made a distribution
of all the common shares and class B
common shares to Enterprise's
shareholders. Applicant, as a result of
the distribution, is no longer a
subsidiary of Enterprises.
Applicant states that in October, 1983,
Applicant made a public offering of
common shares with net proceeds of
$8,588,000 ("1983 Offering"). The
proceeds, together with financial
resources from operations, were used by
Applicant to acquire additional property
management firms and firms offering
services that complement those of
Applicant. For an aggregate price of
approximately $27,150,000, Applicant
acquired eight condominium
management companies, four
commercial management companies,
two brokerage and leasing companies,
Johnstown Mortgage Company
("Mortgage"), a full service mortgage
banking company acquired from
affiliates, and a marketer of new
condominiums and townhouses. In 1984,
Applicant organized an Atlanta-based
commercial brokerage company, an
appraisal and consulting company, a
retail carpet and installation company
and a resort property management firm.
Applicant states that as of November
30, 1984, Applicant and its subsidiaries
managed 751 apartment and
condominium communities with
approximately 128,000 units and 81
commercial, office and industrial
buildings with approximately 5,700,000
square feet of leasable space. Applicant
believes, based on industry surveys, that
it is the leading manager of residential
units in the United States. Revenue from
management fees for the year ended
August 31, 1984, was $12,292,000,
constituting 30% of Applicant's and its
subsidiaries' total revenues; brokerage
revenue on a consolidated basis totaled
approximately $9,691,000, representing
23% of total revenues; carpet sales and
installation revenue was approximately
$8,757,000, representing 21% of total
revenue; and $731,000, constituting 16%
of total revenue, was- earned from
construction supervision, security
administration, and other consulting
services. Applicant and its subsidiaries
as of November 30, 1984, employed
approximately 4,000 persons, including
3,100 employees who, as on-site
management employees, had their
payroll and benefits charged directly to
the owners of such properties as a cost
related to operation of such properties.
Applicant states that it sold
$35,000,000 of notes through an
underwritten public offering in
February, 1985 ("1985 Offering").
Proceeds from the 1985 Offering will be
used to acquire real estate service and
othf.r related businesses. Pending
acquisition of such businesses,
Applicant intends to invest the proceeds
in money market instruments of
investment grade. Prior to the 1985
Offering, investment securities as
defined in the Act comprised less than
30% of Applicant's total assets on an
unconsolidated basis; however, after the
1985 Offering, and the investment of the
proceeds thereof entirely in money
market instruments, the value of
Applicant's investment securities will
exceed 40% of Applicant's total assets
on an unconsolidated basis and it will
therefore fall within the definition of an
investment company under section
3(a)(3) of the Act. Applicant asserts that
because it is primarily engaged in a
business or businesses other than that of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding
or trading in securities, Applicant
qualifies for the Act's section 3(b)(1)
exemption and should be granted an
order of exemption pursuant to section
3(b)(2) of the Act.
According to the application, on
November 30, 1984, Applicant's
investment securities consisted
primarily of investments in mutual funds
and money-market funds suitable for
meeting the cash management needs of
Applicant, commercial paper and
certificates of deposits, and mortgage
note receivables from affiliates, officers
and employees, acquired at the time of
Reorganization. Applicant has disposed
of most of the mortgage note receivables
acquired. Applicant represents that it
does not intend to increase significantly
the ratio of investment securities to total
assets on any permanent or long-term
basis, and that historically Applicant
has been, and will continue to be,
primarily engaged in the real estate
service business.
Applicant states that no mention of
Applicant's investments or investment
policies has ever been made in press
releases. Applicant also states that all
written communications with
shareholders or the investment
community have related primarily to
acquisitions and other developments of
Applicant, and none have mentioned
Applicant's investments except to
briefly note receipt of interest and other
income, to discuss the business of
Mortgage, or to discuss loans made by
Applicant to partnerships to which it
renders management services. Applicant
states it has made loans to Mr. LieNielson or Applicant's President George
H. Lane, III, on a secured basis, to assist
in the purchase of properties by
privately-held partnerships for which
Mr. Lie-Nielson or Mr. Lane serves as
general partner. Applicant believes
these financial services are an important
addition to revenue and income because
they produce acquisition fees,
management fees, financing fees and
sales commissions. In addition, the
properties held by such partnerships are
managed by Applicant and its
subsidiaries. Applicant states its
practice is to limit the amount of such
loans to 100% of the purchase price of
the property to be acquired by such
partnerships and that the loans are on a
recourse basis against the partnership
and its properties.
Applicant represents that none of its
officers engage in securities trading or
portfolio management, other than
customary cash management activities.
Applicant also represents that no
employee of the Applicant or its
subsidiaries spends a significant amount
of time managing investments.
Intermittently, Applicant states, it
retains outside consultants for advice
concerning investments and cash
management in order to maximize the
yield to Applicant of its existing cash
and short-term investments.
Income from investments for the fiscal
year quarter ending November 30, 1984,
Applicant states, represented 3%of the
total revenue and 12% of the total
income, respectively, of Applicant on a
consolidated basis. Investment income
as a percentage of income is
significantly higher than as a percentage
of revenue because Applicant has no
expenses associated with investment
income. Applicant states that
investment income increased after the
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
1983 Offering and the investment of its
proceeds, but that subsequently the
percentage income from investments
declined as a result of acquisitions and
increasing operating revenues and
income of Applicant. A similar trend is
expected to develop with respect to the
investment of the proceeds of the 1985
Offering. Applicant believes that the
fact that only a relatively small portion
of its revenues is derived from
investments demonstrates that
Applicant historically has not engaged
in the business of an investment
company. Applicant further represents
that its history demonstrates it is not
acting, nor is it intending to act, as an
investment company by temporarily
investing the proceeds of the 1985
Offering in short-term securities pending
application of such proceeds to
acquisitions and Applicant's business. Applicant also asserts that 260 of its
employees are considered corporatelevel employees and 50% of these
employees have their salaries, benefits
and support costs reimbursed to
Applicant and its subsidiaries by the
managed properties to the extent such
employees render services to the
respective managed properties.
Applicant represents that no employee
of Applicant or its subsidiaries spends a
significant portion of time managing
investments, and substantially all of the
employees' time relates to operations of
Applicant.
Applicant concludes that it relied on
Rule 3a-2 after the 1983 Offering, and
that therefore it cannot rely on Rule 3a-2
presently. Applicant states that the five
factors of Applicant's historical
development, its public statements, the
activities of its officers and directors,
the nature of its assets and the source of
its income, demonstrate that Applicant
is primarily engaged in the real estate
service business and is not primarily
engaged in the business of investing,
reinvesting, owning, holding or trading
in securities.
Applicant also states that it is
negotiating to purchase Consolidated
Capital Equities Corporation at a price
in excess of $150,000,000. Although no
definite agreements have been executed,
Applicant expects the transaction to
close during the summer of 1985. Cash
payable at the closing, Applicant
estimates, will be $75,000,000. To the
extent that the proceeds of the 1985
Offering are not utilized in connection
with this transaction, Applicant expects
that the balance of the proceeds will be
expended in connection with other
acquisitions not later than August 31,
1986.
Applicant requests that in the
alternative to an order under section
3(b)(2) of the Act, the Commission issue
an order pursuant to section 6(c) of the
Act, exempting Applicant until March
31, 1986, from all provisions of the Act.
In support of this request, Applicant
represents that it will take all actions
necessary to ensure that on or before
March 31, 1986, the aggregate value of
the assets held by Applicant that
represent investment securities, as
defined by the Act, will not exceed 40%
of the value of Applicant's total assets
(exclusive of U.S. Government
Securities and cash items) on an
unconsolidated basis. Applicant
maintains that its contemplated
operations are not susceptible to abuses
of the sort that the Act was designed to
remedy, and that requested relief is both
necessary and appropriate in the public
interest and is consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes
and policies underlying the Act.
Notice is further given that any
interested person wishing to request a
hearing on the application may, not later
than July 19, 1985, at 5:30 p.m., do so by
submitting a written request setting
forth the nature of his/her interest, the
reasons for the request, and the specific
issues of fact or law that are disputed, to
the Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549. A
copy of the request should be served
personally or by mail upon Applicant at
the address stated above. Proof of
service (by affidavit or, in the case of an
attorney-at-law, by certificate) shall be
filed with the request. After said date,
an order disposing of the application
will be issued unless the Commission
orders a hearing upon request or upon
its own motion.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Investment Management, pursuant to
delegated authority.
John Wheeler,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15907 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
[Release No. IC-14597; 812-6120]
Merrill Lynch Natural Resources Trust;
Al,.'lication for an Order Exempting
Applicant From Provisions
June 24, 1985.
Notice is hereby given that Merrill
Lynch Natural Resources Trust
("Applicant"), 633 Third Avenue, New
York, New York 10017, registered under
the Investment Company Act of 1940
("Act") as an open-end, nondiversified
man'gement investment company, filed
an application on May 23, 1985, and an
amendment thereto on June 19, 1985, for
an order of the Commission, pursuant to
27521
section 6(c) of the Act, exempting
Applicant from the provisions of
sections 2(a)(32), 2(a)(35), 22(c), and
22(d) of the Act and Rule 22c-1
thereunder to the extent necessary to
permit Applicant to assess a contingent
deferred sales load on certain
redemptions of its shares and to permit
a waiver of the contingent deferred
sales load with respect to certain types
of redemptions. All interested persons
are referred to the application on file
with the Commission for a statement of
the representations contained therein,
which are summarized below, and to the
Act and the rules thereunder for the
complete text of the applicable
provisions.
Applicant, organized as a
Massachusetts business trust with
investment objectives of long-term
growth of capital and preservation of
shareholders' purchasing power, states
that it proposes to offer its shares
without a sales load being deducted at
the time of purchase but subject to a
contingent deferred sales charge upon
certain redemptions. Applicant
represents that the proceeds from the
contingent deferred sales charge will be
paid to Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor,
Inc. ("Distributor") and will be used in
whole or in part by the Distributor to
defray the cost of paying sales
commissions to account executives on
the sale of Applicant's shares. Applicant
further states that payments by
Applicant to the Distributor under a
plan of distribution ("Plan"), adopted by
Applicant, pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under
the Act, may also be used in whole or in
part by the Distributor for this purpose.
Applicant's distribution fee is calculated
on the basis of 1.0% per annum of its
average daily net assets, so that,
according to the application, the
combination of the contingent deferred
sales charge and the Plan facilities
Applicant's ability to sell its shares
without a sales load being deducted at
the time of purchase.
Applicant states that the contingent
deferred sales charge will not be
imposed on redemptions of shares
which were purchased more than four
years prior to redemption or on shares
derived from reinvestment of
distributions. Applicant states further
that no contingent deferred sales charge
will be imposed on an amount which
represents an increase in the value of
the shareholder's account resulting from
capital appreciation, so that, with
respect to the redemption of shares
purchased during the preceding four
years, capital appreciation on the
particular shares being redeemed will
not be subject to a deferred sales
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
Federal Resister I Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
paid to the Distributor to reimburse it for Applicant to waive the contingent
charge. Such a charge will be imposed,
27522
27522
however, on the amount paid for such
shares by the redeeming shareholder.
Applicant represents that in determining
whether a contingent deferred sales
charge is applicable it will be assumed
that a redemption is made firsl of shares
derived from reinvestment of
distributions, second of shares
purchased more than four years prior to
the redemption, and third of shares
purchased during the preceding four
years.
Applicant states that it intends to
waive the contingent deferred sales
charge on the following redemptions: (1)
Redemptions following the death or
disability, as defined in section 72(m)(7)
of the Internal Revenue Code ("Code"),
of a shareholder, and (2) redemptions in
connection with certain distributions
from IRA's or other qualified retirement
plans.
Applicant represents that where a
contingent deferred sales charge is
imposed, the amount of the charge will
depend on the number of years since the
investor made the purchase payment
from which an amount is being
redeemed, according to the following
table:
Year since purchase payment made
sales
charge as a
percentage
of amount
redeemed
First ............................................................................
Second ......................................................................
.......................
Third
............
...... ..................
Fourth ....
....................
Fifth and thereafter........................
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
.
.. (1
None.
Applicant states that, in determing the
rate of any applicable contingent
deferred sales charge, it will be assumed
that a redemption is made of shares held
by the investor for the longest period of
time within the applicable four year
period.
Applicant represents that the
contingent deferred sales charge in no
way restricts a shareholder from
receiving his proportionate share of the
current-net assets of Applicant, but
merely defers the deduction of a sales
charge and makes it contingent upon an
event which may never occur.
Nevertheless, to avoid any uncertainty
with respect to the interpretation of
section 2(a)(32) of the act, Applicant
requests an exemption from the
provisions of that section to the extent
necessary to permit Applicant to qualify
as an open-end company under section
5(a)(1) of the Act.
Applicant contends that the
contingent deferred sales charge is
functionally a sales charge because it is
expenses related to offering Applicant's
shares for sale to the publc. Applicant
asserts that the contingent nature of the
proposed charge makes the purchaser
better off than if a sales load were
imposed at time of sale, since, in the
case of the contingent charge, the
shareholder enjoys the possibility that
he will have to pay only a reduced sales
charge, or no sales charge at all.
Applicant further asserts that because
the contingent charge will never be
imposed on an amount in excess of the
market value of the shares being
redeemed, an investor whose account
declines in value may ultimately pay a
lower sales charge than if a
conventional sales charge were imposed
at the time of purchase. Moreover,
because the charge is imposted only on
amounts representing purchase
payments (not on increases in value of
the shares or on shares purchased
through reinvestment] the purchaser can
be no worse off with a contingent
deferred sales charge of the nature
proposed than if, instead, a conventional
sales load were charged at the time of
purchase. Applicant states that the
deferral of the sales charge, and its
contingency upon the occurrence of an
event which might not occur, does not
change the nature of the charge, which
is in every other respect a sales charge.
Accordingly, Applicant requests an
exemption from the provisions of section
2(a)(35) of the Act to the extent
necessary to implement the proposed
charge.
Applicant states that when a
redemption of its shares is effected, the
price of the shares on redemption will
be based on current net asset value; the
contingent deferred sales charge will
merely be deducted at the time of
redemption in arriving at the
shareholder's proportionate redemption
proceeds. Accordingly, Applicant
requests an exemption from the
provisions of section 22(c) of the Act
and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, to the extent
necessary to permit Applicant to
implement the proposed contingent
deferred sales charge.
Applicant states that an exemption
from the provisions section 22(d) is
required to permit the contingent
deferred sales charge to be waived in
certain circumstances because the
waiver provision could result in
Applicant's shares being sold at other
than a uniform offering price, under
circumstances not specifically exempted
from section 22(d) of the Act by virtue of
Rule 22d-1 thereunder. Accordingly,
Applicant requests an exemption from
the provisions of section 22(d) of the Act
to the extent necessary to permit
deferred sales charge under the
circumstances specified above.
Applicant contends that the
imposition of the contingent deferred
sales charge is fair and is in the best
interests of its shareholders. Applicant
asserts that the proposed charge permits
shareholders to have the advantages of
greater investment dollars working for
them from the time of their purchase of
Applicant's shares than if a sales load
were imposed at the time of purchase.
Applicant asserts that the imposition of
the contingent deferred sales charge
under the circumstances described
above is appropriate in light of the
relationship between the deferred sales
charge and the Plan adopted by
Applicant. Applicant further contends
that, where amounts attributable to
shares purchased less than four years
ago are redeemed and thus no longer
contribute to the annual distribution
charge, it is fair (1) to impose on the
withdrawing shareholder a lump sum
payment reflecting approximately the
amount of distribution expense which
has not been recovered through
payments by Applicant and (2) to
remove the assets on which the
contingent deferred sales charge was
imposed from the base amount on which
Applicant's distribution fee is
calculated.
Applicant asserts that the waiver of
the contingent deferred sales charge in
the extraordinary circumstance of death
or total disability of the investor is
justified on considerations of fairness; in
addition, with respect to waivers
effected in connection with certain
distributions from IRA's or other
qualified retirement plans, such
distributions are those which are
permitted to be made without penalty,
pursuant to the Code.
Notice is further given that any
interested person wishing to request a
hearing on the application may, not later
than July 15, 1985, at 5:30 p.m., do so by
submitting a written request setting
forth the nature of his/her interest, the
reasons for the request, and the specific
issues of fact or law that are disputed, to
the Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549. A
copy of the request should be served
personally or by mail upon Applicant at
the address stated above. Proof of
service (by affidavit or, in the case of an
attorney-at-law, by certificate) shall be
filed with the request. After said date,
an order disposing of the application
will be issued unless the Commission
orders a hearing upon request or upon
its own motion.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
For the Commission, by the Division of
Investment Management, pursuant to
delegated authority.
John Wheeler,
FAA Approval of Noise Compatibility
Program; Los Angeles International
Airport
Secretory.
[FR Doc. 85-15906 Filed 7-2-05; 3:45 am]
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
ACTION: Notice.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
OMB Circular No. A-76; Performance
of Commercial Activities
ACTION: Notice of A-76 Review and
S uhedule.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular Number A-76, subject,
"Perfoi _mance of Commercial Activities,
ihe Federal Aviation Administration
hereby publishes its A-76 review and
schedule of functions pertaining to the
Aviation Standards National Field
Cffice which is headquartered at the
Mvke Monroney Aeronautical Center.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with offices
throu2hout the United States and
ijiteln;;tionally.
Orpnf.'t
Funcbon
on ""
Avstor S'da
ds
Nat1on'd Fir!d
start
Re.'-w
datc
Evaluation, Currncy t
and Transportaton. I
R.ht Inspection/
135.
Do.
II osllcs.
Aircraft Mainter.ance .; .uiy 1W85.
This review will be conducted under a
Department of Transportation contract
awarded in May 1985 to perfrom
required OMB Circular A-76 reviews of
commercial activities. The designated
contractor for this review is Arthur
Young, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. This
announcement is an advance
noY*:,biticnf to 41crt interested persons
land bus~nessps of our plans.
FOR FURTHER INFOFIMATION CONTACT:
Michaiel L. Evans, ,202) 426-3070, FAA,
Office ,f A ii ion Pulicy and Flans, 800
Inuapennence Avenue, SW.,
Wislngton, D.C. 20591 or John M.
Howard. (405) 688-2306, FAA, Deputy
Director, A%iation Standards National
F'old Office, Mike Monioney
Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082,
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73125.
Issue'd in Washingtnn, D.C. cn June 14,
1985.
Harvey B. Safeer.
Director (ifAviation Policy and Plaas.
[FR Doc. 85-15856 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility
program submitted by Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) under the
provisions of Title I of the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement (ASNA)
Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 93-193) and 14 CFR
Part 150. These findings are made in
recognitiorX of the description of federal
and nonfederal responsibilities in
Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). The
FAA accepted the noise exposure maps
for LAX submitted under Part 150 on
October 15, 1984. The LAX noise
compatibility program received partial
approval by the Administrator effective
April 13, 1985. A majority of noise
mitigation actions proposed in the
program were approved. Other program
elements were either disapproved
outright or disapproved pending
submission of details sufficient to permit
an informed analysis under section
104(b) of the ASNA Act. In addition, two
program elements relating to flight
procedures were neither approved nor
disapproved, but will receive fuither
study by the FAA, as permitted by the
ASNA Act.
DATE: The effective date of the FAA's
approval of the LAX noise compatibility
program is April 13, 1985.
FOR FURTHER IItC4ORMATION CONTACT:
Ellis A. Ohnstad, Airport Planning
Officer,'AWP-611, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western-Pacific Region,
P.O. Box 92007, World Way Postal
Center, Los Angeles, California 90009,
(213) 536--6250. Documents reflecting this
FAA action may be obtained from the
same individual.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice announces that the FAA has
given its overall approval to the noise
compatibility program for Los Angeles
International Airport, effective April 13,
1985.
Under section 104(a) of the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement (ASNA)
Act of 1979, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure
map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth
the measures taken or proposed by the
airport operator for the reduction of
existing noncompatible land uses and
prevention of additional noncompatible
land uses within the area covered by the
noise exposure maps. The ASNA Act
27523
requires such programs to be developed
in consultation with interested and
affected parties including local
communities, government agencies,
airport users, and the FAA.
Los Angeles International Airport
submitted to the FAA on'May 26, 1983,.
the noise exposure maps, descriptions,
and other documentation produced
during an airport noise control and land
use compatibility {ANCLUC) study
conducted at LAX from October 1980.
through June 1914. the'LAX noise
exposure maps were accepted by the
FAA on October 15, 1984. Notice of that
acceptance was published in the Federal
Register on Nnvember 20, 1984.
The Phase "IhreeReport, Volume I of
the LAX ANCLUC study contains a
proposed noise compatibility program
comprised of actions designed for
phased implementation by airport
management and adjacent jurisdictions
from the date of study completion to
beyond the yeaf 1990. It was requested
that the FAA evaluate and approve this
material as a noise compatibility
program as described in section 104(b)
of the ASNA Act and in Part 150. The
FAA began its review of the program on
October 15, 1984, and was required by a
provision of the ASNA Act to approve
or disapprove the program within 180
days (other then the use of new flight
procedures for noise control). Failure to
approve or disapprove such a program
within the 180-day period shall be
deemed to be an approval of such a
program.
The submitted program contained 40
proposed actions for noise mitigation,
both on and off the airport. The FAA
has completed its review and
determined that the procedural and
substantiverequirements of the ASNA
Act and Part 150 have been satisfied.
The overall program, therefore, was
approved by the Administrator and
became effective on April 13, 1985. The
overall approval includes approval,
disapproval or deferral of determination
with respect to each of the 40 proposed
actions.
Outright approval was granted for 28
specific program elements. On-airport
actions include an airport noise
monitoring and management program,
pilot awareness programs, airport noise
limits and use restrictions. Off-airport
elements include noise insulation,
navigation and easements, a
neighborhood improvement program
and preventive land use planning. FAA's
approval of these noise compatibility
measures invilves the determination
that the program actions to be
implemented do notcreate an undue
burden on interstate or foreign
27524
2
Federal Register / Vol. 50, NO.' 128 / Wedte.da..,
commerce, are reasonably consistent
with obtaining the goal of reducing
existing noncompatible land uses and
preventing the introduction of additional
noncompatible land uses, provide for
revision when appropriate, and are
consistent with the requirements of Part
lkO-'A pendix B. Such appival does'
hot constitute FAA environifnental
approval of specific projects, nor does it
represent a commitment to fund or
implement elements of the program.
. 'Three specific program elements were
disapproved pending submission to the
FAA of additional details to permit an
informed analysis under section 104(b)
of the ASNA Act. These disapprovals do
not reflect FAA opposition of the noise
mitigation objectives of the proposals or
of the concepts on which they are based.
Rather, as described above, the ASNA
Act contemplates approval or
disapproval within the 180-day review
,period. Lacking adequate detail for a
proper evaluation, the FAA has
disapproved these actions. This doe's not
foreclose additional FAA review if
additional information is-submitted by
'the airport operator.
The FAA has disapproved outright
three noise mitigation measures
proposed in the LAX Noise
Compatibility Program for the following
reasons. One was disapproved because
it relates to facilities used exclusively
for helicopters which are not covered
under Part 150. The second recommends
a passenger facility charge which is
currently prohibited by federal law. The
third measure would establish a
commitment by FAA to fund projects in
the program, an obligation which is
specifically denied in Part 150.
The FAA has deferred judgement on
two program elements addressing
revisions to flight procedures for noise
mitigation. These will receive further
FAA review and technical evaluation
before approval or disapproval. Finally,
there is no action required on four
action elements since they are
informational statements rather than
program recommendations.
Each airport noise compatibility
program developed in accordance with
the Part 150 is a local program, not a
federal program. The FAA does not
substitute its judgement for that of the
airport proprietor with respect to which
measures should be recommended for
action. The FAA's approval or
disapproval of Part 150 program
recommendations is measured
according to the standards expressed in
Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act of 1979, and is
limited to the following determinations:
luly 3, 1985
The noise compatibility program was ,
developed in accordance with the provisions
and procedures of Part 150:
Program measures are reasonably
consistent with achieving the goals of
reducing existing noncompatible land uses
around. the ajrportj and preventing the.,
introduction of additional noncompatible
ind uses;
Program measures would not create an
undue burden on interstate or foreign
commerce, unjustly discriminate against
types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate
the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal
Government: and
Program measures relating to the use of
flight procedures can be implemented within
the period covered by the program without
derogating safety, adversely affecting the
efficient use and management of the
Navigable Airspace and Air Traffic Control
Systems, or adversely affecting other powers
and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
Specific limitations with respect to
FAA's approval of an airport noise
compatibility program are delineated in
Part 150, § 150.5. Approval'is not a
determination concerning the
acceptability of land uses under federal,
state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing
action, A request for federal action or
approval to implement specific noise
compatibility measures may be required,
and an FAA decision on the request
may require an environmental
assessment of the proposed action.
Approval does not constitute a
commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the implementation of the
program nor a determination that all
measures covered by the program are
eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA under the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act 1982. Where federal
funding is sought, requests for project
grants must be submitted to the FAA
Western-Pacific Region, Airports
Division.
These determinations are set forth in
detail in a Record of Approval endorsed
by the Administrator and effective as of
April 13, 1985. The Record of Approval,
as well as other evaluation materials
and the documents comprising the
submittal, are available for review at the
FAA office listed above and at the
administrative offices of Los Angeles
International Airport.
Issued in Hawthorne, California. on June
10, 1985.
Wayne C. Newcomb,
Acting Director, Western-PacificRegion.
[FR Doc. 85-15857 Filed 7-2--85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
/ Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Secretary
Debt Management Advisory
Committee; Meeting
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to
section 10 of Pub. L. 92-463, that a
meeting will be held at the U.S. Treasury
Department in Washington, D.C, on July
10, 1985, of thefollowing debt
management advisory committee: Public
Securities Association, U,S. Government
and Federal Agencies, Securities
Committee.
The agenda for the Public Securities
Association U.S. Government and
Federal Agencies Securities Committee
meeting provides for a working session
on July 10 and the preparation of a
written report to the Security of the
Treasury on July 22, 1985. The
immediate needs of the:Treasury require
that the meeting be held as soon as
possible.'
Pursuant to the authority placed in
Heads of Departments by section 10(d)
of Pub. L. 92-463, and vested in me by
Treasury Department Order 101-5, 1
hereby determine that this meeting is
concerned with information exempt
from disclosure under section 552b (c)(4)
and (9)(A) of Title 5 of the United States
Code, and that the public interest
requires that such meetings be closed to
the public.
My reasons for this determination are
as follows. The Treasury Department
requires frank and full advice from
representatives of the financial.
community prior to making its final
decision on major financing operations.
Historically, this advice has been
offered by debt management advisory
committees established by the several
major segments of the financial
community, which committees have
been utilized by the Department at
meetings called by representatives of
the Secretary. When so utilized, such a
committee is recognized to be an
advisory committee under Pub. L. 92463. The advice provided consists of
commercial and financial information
given and received in confidence. As
such debt management advisory
committee activities concern matters
which fall within the exemption covered
by section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5 of the
United States Code for matters which
are "trade secrets and commercial or
financial information obtained from a
person and privileged or confidential."
Although the Treasury's final
announcement of financing plans may
not reflect the recommendations
provided in reports of an advisory
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Notices
committee, premature disclosure of
these reports would lead to significant
financial speculation in the securities
market. Thus, these meetings also fall
within the exemption covered by section
552b(c)(9)(A) of Title 5 of the United
States Code.
The Assistant Secretary (Domestic
Finance) shall be responsible.for
maintaining records of debt
management advisory committee
meetings and for providing annual
reports setting forth a summary of
committee activities and such other
matters as may be informative to the
public consistent with the policy of
section 552b of Title 5 of the United
States Code.
Dated: June 28,1985.
John J.Niehenke,
2(b)(1) of Pub. L 97-177, dated May 21,
1982, the Secretary of the Treasury is
responsible for computing and
publishing the interest rate to be used in
cases under the Prompt Payment Act.
Therefore, notice is hereby given that,
pursuant to the above-mentioned
sections, the Secretary of the Treasury
has determined that the rate of interest
applicable for the purpose of said
sections, for the period beginning July 1,
1985 and ending on December 31, 1985,
is 10-% percent per annum.
Dated: June 28, 1985.
Carole Jones Dineen,
FiscalAssistantSecretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15915 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
Acting Assistant Secretary (Domestic
Finance).
Internal Revenue Service
[FR Doc. 85-15954 Filed 7-2-85; 8-45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35--M
Establishment of Office; District
Counsel; Anchorage, AK
BILLING CODE 4010-25-M
Fiscal Service
Renegotiation Board Interest Rate;
Prompt Payment Interest Rate
The Renegotiation Board previously
published the rate of interest determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury
pursuant to section 105(b)(2) of the
Renegotiation Act of 1951, as amended.
Since the Renegotiation Board is no
longer in existence, the Department of
the Treasury is publishing the current
rate of interest. Also, pursuant to section
AGENCY. Chief Counsel, Internal
Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION Establishment of office.
SUMMARY: As a result of the increasing
legal casework in the State of Alaska,
the Chief Counsel of the Internal
Revenue Service will open a new office
in Anchorage, to be known as the
District Counsel, Anchorage, effective
July 8, 1985.
Jean Owens,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 85-15951 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 483041-M
27525
UNITED STATES INFORMATION
AGENCY
U.S. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy; Meeting
The United States Advisory
Commission on Public Diplomacy will
conduct a meeting in Room 600, 301 4th
Street SW. on July 10 from 9:30 AM to
12:30 PM.
The meeting will be closed to the
public from 11:00 AM-12:30 PM, because
it wil involve a discussion of classified
information relating to USIA's security
policies and the Inman report on
"Combating Terrorism." (5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(1)) Premature disclosure of this
information is likely to significantly
frustrate implementation of proposed
Agency action, because there will be a
discussion of future Agency policy and
programs. (5 U.S.C. 522b(c)(9)(B))
The Commission will meet from 10:00
AM-10:15 AM with Mr. William
Anderson, Director of USIA's Office of
Pubic Liaison, and from 10:15 AM to
11:00 AM with Dr. Guy Brown, Director
of USIA's Office of Cultural Centers and
Resources, for a'discussion of USIA's
book programs. These portions of the
meeting are open to the public. Please
call Gloria Kalamets, (202) 485-2468, if
you plan to attend because entrance to
the building is controlled.
Dated: June 28,1985.
Charles Z. Wick,
Director.
[FR Doc. 85-15942 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
27526
Sunshine Act Meetings
Federal Register
Vol. 50, No. 128
Wednesday, July 3, 1985
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices of meetings published
under the "Government in the Sunshine
Act" (Pub. L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).
CONTENTS
Federal Communications Commission.
International Trade Commission ...........
Item
1
2
Congressional and Public Affairs,
telephone number (202) 254-7674.
William J.Tricarico,
Secretary,FederalCommunications
Commission.
July 1, 1985.
[FR Doc. 85-16033 Filed 7-1-85; 2:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
2
1
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
The Federal Communications
Commission will hold a Special Open
Meeting on the subject listed below on
Monday, July 8, 1985, which is scheduled
to commence at 10:00 A.M., in Room 856,
at 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C.
Agenda, Item No., and Subject
Mass Media-i-Title: Notice of Inquiry on
tender offers and proxy contests intolving
publicly traded corporate licensees.
SUMMARY: The Commission will consider
adopting a Notice of Inquiry as to policies
and procedures to be used in connection
with tender offers and proxy contests, in
light of the requirements of section 310(d)
of the Act requiring prior Commission
approval of assignments of licenses or
tranfers of control of corporations holding
FCC licenses.
This meeting may be continued the
following work day to allow the
Commission to complete appropriate
action.
Additional information concerning
this meeting may be obtained from
Judith Kurtich, FCC Office of
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[USITC SE-85-261
TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, July 3,
1985, at 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: Room 117, 701 E Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20436.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agenda.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Petitions and Complaints.
5. Investigation 731-TA-202 [Final]
(Tubular steel framed stacking chairs from
Italy)-briefing and vote.
6:Investigation 731-TA-206 [Final] (Fabric
and expanded neoprene laminate from
Japan)-briefing and vote.
7. Any items left over from previous
agenda.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE
INFORMATION: Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary, (202) 523-0161.
Kenneth R. Mason,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 85-15955 Filed 6-28-85; 5:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
Wednesday
July 3, 1985
Part II
Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
Proposed Establishment of Airport Radar
Service Areas; Proposed Rulemaking
27528
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 85-AWA-1]
Proposed Establishment of Airport
Radar Service Areas
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to
establish Airport Radar Service Areas
(ARSA) at 14 locations. Each location is
a public or military airport at which a
nonregulatory Terminal Radar Service
Area (TRSA) is currently in effect.
Establishment of each ARSA would
require that pilots maintain two-way
radio communication with air traffic
control (ATC) while in the ARSA.
Implementation of ARSA procedures at
each of the affected locations would
promote the efficient control of air
traffic and reduce the ssk of midair
collision in terminal areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 1, 1985.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the
proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket
[AGC-204, Airspace Docket No. 85AWA-1, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20591.
The official docket may be examined
in the Rules Docket, weekdays, except
Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. The FAA Rules Docket is
located in the Office of the Chief
Counsel, Room 916, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C.
An informal docket may also be
examined during normal business hours
at the office of the Regional Air Traffic
Division.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paul C. Smith, Airspace and Air Traffic
Rules Branch (ATO-230), AirspaceRules and Aeronautical Information,
Division, Air Traffic Operations Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone: (202)
426-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to
participate in this proposed rulemaking
by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis
supporting the views and suggestions
presented are particularly helpful in
developing reasoned regulatory
decisions on the proposal. Comments
are specifically invited on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental,
and energy aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the
airspace docket and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: "Comments to
Airspace Docket No. 85-AWA-1." The
postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter. All
communications received before the
specified closing date for comments will
be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed
in the light of comments received. All
comments submitted will be available
for examination in the Rules Docket
both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing
each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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
NPRM's should also request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2 which
describes the application procedure.
Meeting Procedures
In addition to seeking written
comments on this proposal, the FAA
will hold informal airspace meetings for
all proposed ARSA locations in order to
receive additional input with respect to
the proposal. The schedule of times and
places of the hearings is listed in
Appendix A. In some instances,
meetings on adjacent ARSA locations
are combined in one proceeding for the
convenience of the public. Also, an
effort has been made not to schedule
meetings at the same time on separate
locations in the same region, so that
commenters will be able to attend all
meetings in which they may have an
interest. Persons who plan to attend any
of the meetings should be aware of the
following procedures to be followed:
(a)The meetings will be informal in
nature and will be conducted by the
designated representative of the
Administrator. Each participant will be
given an opportunity to make a
presentation.
(b) The dates, times, and places for
each meeting are listed in Appendix A.
There will be no admission fee or other
charge to attend and particpate. The
meetings will be open to all persons on a
space-available basis. The FAA
representative may accelerate the
agenda to enable early adjournment if
the progress of any meeting is more
expeditious than planned.
(c) The meetings will not be recorded.
A summary of the comments made at
each meeting will be filed in the docket.
(d) Position papers or other handout
material relating to the substance of the
meetings may be accepted at the
discretion of the FAA representative.
Participants submitting handout
materials should present an original and
two copies to the presiding officer for
approval before distribution. If approved
by the presiding officer, there should be
an adequate number of copies provided
for further distribution to all
participants.
(e) Statements made by FAA
participants at the meetings should not
be taken as expressing a final FAA
position.
Agenda
Presentation of Meeting Procedures
FAA Presentation of Proposal
Public Presentations and Discussion
Background
On April 22, 1982, the National
Airspace Review (NAR) plan was
published in the Federal Register (47 FR
17448). The plan encompassed a review
of airspace use and procedural aspects
of the ATC system. Among the main
objectives of the NAR were the
improvement of the ATC system by
increasing efficiency and reducing
complexity. In its review of terminal
airspace, NAR Task Group 1-2
concluded that TRSA's should be
replaced. Four types of airspace
configurations were considered as
replacement candidates, of which Model
B, since redesignated ARSA, was the
consensus recommendation.
In response, the FAA published NAR
Recommendation 1-2.2.1, "Replace
Terminal Radar Service Areas with
Model B Airspace and Service" in
Notice 83-9 (July 28, 1983; 48 FR 34286)
proposing the establishment of ARSA's
at the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport,
Austin, TX, and the Port of Columbus
International Airport, Columbus, OH.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
ARSA's were designated at these
airports on a temporary basis by SFAR
No. 45 (October 28, 1983; 48 FR 50038) in
order to provide an operational
confirmation of the ARSA concept for
potential application on a national
basis.
Following a confirmation period of
more than a year, the FAA adopted the
NAR recommendation and, on February
27, 1985, issued a final rule (50 FR 9252;
March 6, 1985) defining an ARSA and
establishing air traffic rules for
operation within such an area.
Concurrently, by separate rulemaking
action, ARSA's were permanently
established at the Austin, TX, and
Columbus, OH, airports and also at the
Baltimore/Washington International
Airport, Baltimore, MD, (50 FR 9250;
March 6, 1985). The FAA has stated that
future notices would propose ARSA's
for other airports at which TRSA
procedures were in effect. This is the
first such notice.
Related rulemaking
This notice proposes ARSA
designation at 14 of the locations
identified as candidates for an ARSA in
the preamble to Amendment No. 71-10
(50 FR 9252). Other candidate locations
will be proposed in future notices
published in the Federal Register.
The Current Situation at the Proposed
ARSA Locations
A TRSA is currently in effect at each
of the locations at which ARSA's are
proposed in this notice. A TRSA
consists of the airspace surrounding a
designated airport where ATC provides
radar vectoring, sequencing, and
separation for all aircraft operating
under instrument flight rules (IFR) and
for participating aircraft operating under
visual flight rules {VFR). TRSA airspace
and operating rules are not established
by regulation, and participation by pilots
operating under VFR is voluntary,
although pilots are urged to participate.
This level of service is known as Stage
III and is provided at all locations
identified as TRSA's. The NAR task
group recommended the replacement of
most TRSA's with ARSA's.
A number of problems with the TRSA
program were identified by the task
group. The task group stated that
because there are different levels of
service offered within the TRSA, users
are not always sure of what restrictions
or privileges exist, or how to cope with
them. According to the task group, there
is a feeling shared among users that
TRSA's are often poorly defined, are
generally dissimilar in dimensions, and
encompass more area than is necessary
or desirable. There are other users who
believe that the voluntary nature of the
TRSA does not adequately address the
problems associated with
nonparticipating aircraft operating in
relative proximity to the airport and
associated approach and departure
courses. There is strong advocacy
among user organizations that terminal
radar facilities should provide all pilots
the same service, in the same way, and,
to the extent feasible, within standard
size airspace designations.
Certain provisions of FAR section
91.87 add to the problem identified by
the task group. For example, aircraft
operating under VFR to or from a
satellite airport and within the airport
traffic area (ATA) of the satellite are
excluded from the two-way radio
communications requirement of section
91.87. This condition is acceptable until
the volume and density of traffic at the
primary airport dictates further action.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an
amendment to § 71.501 of Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
Part 71) to establish ARSA's at the
following 14 locations:
Albany County Airport, NY
Anchorage International Airport, AK
Bradley International Airport, Windsor
Locks, CT
Capital City Airport, Harrisburg, PA
Corpus Christi International Airport, TX
Harrisburg International Airport, PA
Long Island MacArthur Airport, Islip, NY
Pensacola Naval Air Station, FL
Pensacola Regional Airport, FL
San Antonio International Airport, TX
Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY
Theodore Francis Green State Airport,
Providence, RI
Tulsa International Airport, OK
Whiting Naval Air Station, FL
Each of the above locations is a public
or military airport at which a
nonregulatory TRSA is currently in
effect. The proposed locations are
depicted on charts in Appendix B to this
notice.
The FAA has published a final rule (50
FR 9252; March 6, 1985) which defines
ARSA and prescribes operating rules for
aircraft, ultralight vehicles, and
parachute jump operations in airspace
designated as an ARSA.
The final rule provides in part that
any aircraft arriving at any airport in an
ARSA or flying through an ARSA, prior
to entering the ARSA must: (1) Establish
two-way radio communications with the
ATC facility having jurisdiction over the
area, and (2) while in the ARSA,
maintain two-way radio
communications with that ATC facility.
For aircraft departing from the primary
airport within the ARSA, two-way radio
27529
communications must be maintained
with the ATC facility having jurisdiction
over the area. For aircraft departing a
satellite airport within the ARSA, twoway radio communications must be
established as soon as practicable after
takeoff with the ATC facility having
jurisdiction over the area, and thereafter
maintained while operating within the
ARSA.
All aircraft operating within an ARSA
are required to comply with all ATC
clearances and instructions and any
FAA arrival or departure traffic pattern
for the airport of intended operation.
However, the rule permits ATC to
authorize appropriate deviations to any
of the operating requirements of the rule
when safety considerations justify the
deviation or more efficient utilization of
the airspace can be attained. Ultralight
vehicle operations and parachute jumps
in an ARSA may only be conducted
under the terms of an ATC
authorization.
The FAA adopted the NAR task group
recommendation that each ARSA be of
the same airspace configuration insofar
as practicable. The standard ARSA
consists of airspace within 5 nautical
miles of the primary airport extending
from the surface to an altitude of 4,000
feet above that airport's elevation, and
that airspace between 5 and 10 nautical
miles from the primary airport from
1,200 feet above the surface to an
altitude of 4,000 feet above that airport's
elevation. Proposed deviation from the
standard has been necessary at some
airports due to adjacent regulatory
airspace, international boundaries,
topography, or unusual operational
requirements.
Definitions, operating requirements,
and specific airspace designations
applicable to ARSA may be found in 14
CFR Part 71, § § 71.14 and 71.501, and
Part 91, §§ 91.1knd 91.88.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore-{1) is not a "major rule"
under Executive Order 12291; and (2) is
not a "significant rule" under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979). Since this
is a routine matter that will only affect
air traffic procedures and air navigation,
it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
27530
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Evaluation
The FAA has conducted a detailed
Regulatory Evaluation of the proposed
ARSA implementation program which is
included in the regulatory docket. The
methodology and major findings of that
evaluation are presented below.
a. Costs
Costs which potentially may result
from the ARSA program fall into the
following categories:
(1) Air traffic controller staffing,
controller training, and facility
,equipment costs incurred by the FAA.
(2) Costs associated with the revision
of charts, notification of the public, and
pilot education.
(3) Additional operating costs for
circumnavigating or flying over the
ARSA.
(4) Potential delay costs resulting from
operations within an ARSA rather than
a TRSA.
(5) The need for some operators to
purchase radio transceivers.
(6) Miscellaneous costs.
Each of these cost factors is discussed
further below:
(1) Air traffic controllerstaffing,
controller training,and facility
equipment costs incurredby the FAA.
The FAA does not expect to incur any
additional air traffic controller staffing
costs, controller training costs, or
facility equipment costs. FAA believes
that the additional traffic which will
participate in radar services at ARSA's
can be accommodated through more
efficient use. of personnel at current
authorized staffing levels. Participation
in TRSA's is already quite high, and the
greater flexibility afforded controllers
through the reduced separation
standards will enable them to handle
the additional traffic without requiring
additional personnel beyond present
authorizations. FAA expects to train its
controller force in ARSA procedures
during regularly scheduled briefing
sessions. Airports where TRSA's are
currently in operation already have
automated terminal radar systems
installed. Therefore, FAA does not
expect to incur any additional training
or equipment procurement costs.
Essentially, the FAA is modifying its
terminal radar procedures in the ARSA
program in a manner which will make
more efficient use of existing resources,
and consequently does not expect to
incur any appreciable implementation
costs.
(2) Costs associatedwith the revision
of charts,notification of the public, and
pilot education. Chart revisions of the
type required to depict an ARSA are
made routinely during charting cycles,
and are considered an ordinary cost of
doing business. Therefore, the FAA does
not expect to incur any additional
charting costs as a result of the ARSA
program. Further, pilots will obtain
charts depicting ARSA's as they are
published during these charting cycles.
Because pilots are required to use
current charts, they also will not incur
any additional costs.
Much of the need to provide public
notification and pilot education about
ARSA procedures will be met as a part
of this rulemaking proceeding during the
informal public meetings which will be
held for each proposed ARSA location.
However, once the decision has been
made to establish an ARSA through a
final rule issued in this proceeding, the
FAA will distribute a Letter to Airmen
to all pilots residing in the vicinity of
ARSA sites explaining the operation
and configuration of the ARSA finally
adopted. The FAA will also issue an
Advisory Circular explaining ARSA's.
The total one-time cost of distributing
Letters to Airmen and the Advisory
Circular is estimated to be
approximately $50,000 for the entire
ARSA program. The prorated one-time
cost for those airports being considered
in this rulemaking is approximately
$5,000.
(3) Additionaloperatingcosts for
circumnavigatingor overflying an
ARSA. FAA anticipates that some pilots
who currently transit a TRSA without
establishing radio communications or
participating in radar services will
choose to avoid the mandatory
participation airspace of an ARSA
rather than participate. Delay costs will
be incurred by these pilots equal to the
additional aircraft variable operating
cost and the value of lost crew and
passenger time resulting from the
deviation. Many pilots will elect to
overfly the ARSA, and although this will
not result in any appreciable delay, an
additional fuel bum will result from the
need to temporarily climb above the
4,000 feet AGL ceiling of the ARSA
(which will be offset somewhat by the
desceht).
The unit delay costs used throughout
this regulatory evaluation to develop
total annual costs are presented in
Table 1. For those aircraft expected to
overfly the ARSA rather than deviate
around it, FAA estimates that a singleengine piston airplane will burn about
an additional half gallon of fuel, a multiengine piston airplane will burn about
one additional gallon, and that the price
of aviation gasoline is approximately
$2.00 per gallon.
TABLE 1.-AVERAGE AIRCRAFT VARIABLE OPERATING COSTS AND VALUE OF PASSENGER TIME
USED To ESTIMATE ANNUAL DELAY COSTS I
[1984 dollars]
Aircraft
Ac tp( eioAvg. No. passengers (pax)/total hourly value
Aircrafttype(abbreviation)operating
of timea
oerting
SIngle-engine piston (SEP)...................................................
Multi-engine piston (MEP) .......................................
Multi-engine turboprop (METP) ............................................
Executive jet (EXJ) ................................................................
Air Carrier (AC).......................................................................
Helicopter (HELl) ...................................................................
Military jet (MILJ)...................................................................
Military helicopter (MILH) ......................................................
.
Military transport (MILTRP) 4 . . . ...
$39.22
118.07
354.32
1036.64
2588.77
138.27
1853.87
19514
1994.79
Total
hourly
delay
costs
$83.64
2 pax/$4442..: .................................................
184.70
3 paxi$66.63 ..........................................................
420.95
3 paxi$66.63 ..........................................................
1125.48
4 paxi$88.84 ........................
4587.67
...................................................
90 pax/$1998.90
. ... . ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
63
204.90
3 paxi$66. .................................
1853.87
...............................................................................
195.14
.
..........................
................................... 194.79
'One minute average delay per day - 6.083 hours delay per year. Delay time estimates for aircraft which alter flight paths to
avoid the ARSA are based upon average cruising speeds of 120 KTS for single-engine piston, 190 KTS for multi-engine piston,
and 110 KTS for helicopters.
2 Aircraft variable operating costs Include crew salaries for all airtcraft except single and multi-engine piston.
a Based upon $22.21 per hour average value of passenger time.
'Variable operating cost of air carer 4-engine turboprop transport used as prosy for military transport.
Source: Economic Values for Evaluation of Federal Aviation AdministrationInvestment and Regulatory Programs, FAA Office
of Aviation Policy and Plans, September 1981 (Report #FAA-APO-81-3 and revision #APO-84-3). Values have been adjusted
for inflation andare expressed in 1984 dollars.
The Office of Aviation Policy and
Plans (APO) requested ATC personnel
at each of the proposed ARSA sites to
eliminate, based upon their familiarity
,with local trafficpatterns, the number of
daily flights which might circumnavigate
or overfly the ARSA. Air Traffic
Operations Service personnel also
provided input on these estimates. The
estimated number of daily flights
affected, extent of deviation, and type of
aircraft, are presented for each site in
Table 2, which follows at the end of this
section and summarizes the various
potential impacts of establishing an
ARSA for each site. FAA estimates that
the total annual circumnavigation and
overflight costs for the candidate ARSA
sites proposed in this notice will be
approximately $73 thousand.
(4) Delay costs resultingfrom
operationswithin an ARSA ratherthan
Federal Register /
a TRSA. FAA recognizes that the
potential exists for delay to develop at
some locations following establishment
of an ARSA because of the additional
traffic which the radar facilities will .be
handling.'However, FAA belieVes that
::
the greater flexibility afforded. '
controllers in handling traffic as a result
of the reduced separation standards Will
keep delay problems to a minimum.
Those that do occur will be transitional
in nature, diminishing as facilities gain.
operating experience with ARSA's and
learn how to tailor procedures and
resources to take fullest advantage of
the efficiencies which an ARSA will
permit. Followup studies of the Austin
and Columbus lead sites, completed by
the FAA Office of Aviation Policy and
Plans (APO) and by Engineering &
Economics Research Inc. (EERJ, both
indicated that delay was not a
significant problem (the clearance
delivery delay attributable tothe ARSA
at Austin was later alleviated through
procedural changes and a redistribution
of personnel).' Nevertheless, the FAA
has attempted to estimate delay costs
which might temporarily result from
establishing ARSA's at the airports
being considered in this proposal. These
delay estimates should be regarded as
'An Analysis of the Impact of the Airport Radar
of Aviation
(ARSA),
FAA Office
Service
Area
1984 (Report
#FAANovember
Plans,
Policy and
APO-85-1); and NationalAirspace Review-Airport
Radar Service Area Operational Confirmation
Report. Engineering & Economics Research, Inc.
(EER), Report No. DOT/FAA/AT-84/2, October
1984.
.ol.50,. N1o. 148
/ Wedpesday, July., W8 / Proposed, Rules
the worst case situation which might
follow the initial establishment of an
ARSA. ATC personnel at each of the
proposed sites, as well as Air Traffic
Operations Seryice personnel, provided
estiinatRs. pf three categorios ;of delay,: iv
comparisopn to the existing TRSA, Which
might result from.the ARSA:.Clearancei
delivery and/or departure delay for
aircraft departures, sequencing delay
duringpeak periods for:arriving aircraft,
and -delay in establishing radar contact
before entering the ARSA might result
from frequency congestion, controller
overload, or greater participation of
nontransponder equipped aircraft.
The estimated number of daily flights
affected, duration of delay, and type of
aircraft, are presented for each site in
Table 2. FAA estimates that the total
annual delay costs for the candidate
ARSA sites proposed in this notice will,
be approximately $152 thousand.
(5) The need for some operators to
purchase communications avionics.
Because of the requirement that radio.
communications be maintained in the
mandatory participation airspace of the
ARSA, some operators who -previously
could operate without-radios from
satellite airports located within that.
portion of the proposed ARSA which
will extend down to the surface will find
it necessary to install two-way radios.
FAA expects that the costs resulting
from these aircraft will be minimal
because in most instances the proposed
ARSA provides airspace exclusions and
cutouts for satellite airports within 5
nautical miles of the ARSA center.
However, in a few instances, operators
27531
of nonradio equipped (NORDO) aircraft
will need to install radios. FAA
estim'ates that'the average total cost of
equipping'a NORDO aircraft with an
inexpensive. 720 channel transceiver,
inciuding iistallation, is approxjAtely
$2'900a The.aInnlia,'explid to. an.
aircraft operator who financed the'cost
over a four-year period at a 15 percent
interest rate would be $751. NORDO
aircraft are shown in the.
"Miscellaneous" column of Table 2 for
those proposed sites where ATC
personnel have identified locally based
aircraft which might be affected. FAA
estimates that the total annual radio
installation costs for affected aircraft at
the candidate ARSA sites will be
approximately $4,500 (only San Antonio
identified possible NORDO aircraft).
(6) Miscellaneouscosts. At some
proposed ARSA locations, special
situations might exist where
establishment of an ARSA could impose
certain dosts on users of that airspace.
The exclusions in most cases will
alleviate adverse impacts on local fixedbased operators and airport operators,
but ATC personnel at the proposed
ARSA sites have attempted to identify
where such potential problems may
exist. For example, at some locations
replacing a TRSA with an ARSA may
necessitate relocating a student practice
area further away from the flight school
airport, and additional operating costs
will be incurred travelling the greater
distance to and from the practice area.
Other miscellaneous operations which
might be affected include glider and,
ultralight operations.
TABLE 2.-Docket 85-AWA-1, Estimated Average Daily Flight Deviations, Overflights, Delay and Miscellaneous Impacts for Proposed ARSA Sites
Site name
deviations (NM) or
Daily flight
overflights (OV)
Cpital C ity Airport, H
................................... :...............................
00..................................................................
delay
departure delay
0
Albany..................................0..................... 0..................................................................
66......................
SEP/2 MEP- 2 min .............................
10 SEP- O V......................
Anchorage ...........................................
15 SEP/5 MEP- 5NM ............................ 0 ................................................................
Bradley .....................................................
........................ ....
arrisburg............. :...........................................................................
..............It.
..................
Corpus Ohrsti
Harrisburg
(includes
Harrisburg
Daily arrival sequencing
Daily clearance delivery and/or
00 ..................................................................
..................................................................
Daily radar contact delay
0 ........................................
0 ............................... ................ 0 ..................................................
0 ..................................................
0 ...........................................
See Harrisburg .........................
0 ..................................................
0
.................................. :.....................
These impacts would be iridicated in
for site's where they have been
identified. However, no such impacts:
are anticipated'at any of the candidate
ARSA sites proposed in this notice.
Respondents are requested to comment'
upon any special local operationswhich
might'bdaff.ecied .by an AASA either
,during the :p ublic meetings or through."
neoue
0.............................................
0
0
0
0 ..................................................
0
0 .. . ...................................
................................
Capital City).
0..................................................
0 ..................................................
Long Island Mac Arthur ........................ 10 SEP/5 MEP- 7NM ............................. 0 ..................................................................
See Pensacola Regional ...............................................................
....................................................................
Pensacola Naval Air Station................... ......................................................................
0 ..................................................
0 .................................................
0 ..................................................................
Pensacola Regional (also includes 0 .................................................................
Pensacola NAS and Whiling NAS).
0 ..........................................
0
..................................................
rain.
ETP4
M
M
EP/5
SEP/10
16
.............................................
7
NM
2SEPSan Antonio ..............................................
(260 days per yea.
5 SEP- 0.5 rin ........................
......... ............................
0 ................................................
0 ..................................................................
Syracuse ...................................................
Theo. F. Green (Providence) .................. 675 SEP/675 MEP-7 NM (annual 10 SEP/10 MEP-2 min ......................... 7 SEP/3 MEP-1 rain.............. 15 SEP-1 rin ..................
count).
............... ; ............. 0 ..................................................
0
0 ..................................................................
0 .................................................................
Tulsa ..........................................................
.
........ ....................................
See Pensaco la Reg ional......................... .........................................
Whiting Naval Ak,Station ...............................................................................................
the "Miscellaneous" column'of-Table 9
Miaclla-
0
0
6
NORDO
00.....................
0
0
written comments submitted to the
docket...
"Overalltotal annual costs; by cost
category, of establishing ARSA's at the
airports pioposed in -this notice are
27532.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 /,Wednesday,
July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules:
summarized in Table 3 below. The
maximum total annual cost of
establishing ARSA's at these sites, if an
ARSA is established at each site
proposed, Is estimated to be
approximately $235 thousand. However,
this maximum is expected to diminish
significantly as controllers and pilots
gain experience in ARSA operations.
Delay will be reduced, and in many
cases, traffic will ultimately flow more
smoothly and expeditiously than in
existing TRSA's.
discussed in the previous section for
Table 3.-Maximum Annual Costs
of Establishing ARSA's at Proposed Sites
Capital City Airport, Harrisburg ..............
Corpus Christi ...........................................
11984
dollars)
1. FAA controller and equipment
coats ..................
....
2. Chart revision, pilot education
(one tim e)...........................................
5,000
3. Circumnavigation and overflight..
73,000
4. Departure, sequencing, and
radar contract delay ................ .......
5. Radio transceivers/miscellaneous .......................................................
Total costs .................................
$0
152,000
4,500
234,500
b. Benefits
Much of the benefit which will result
from the ARSA program is
nonquantifiable, and will result from
simplifying and standardizing ARSA
configurations and operating
procedures. The standardization and
simplicity of the ARSA concept is
expected to alleviate many of the
problems identified by the NAR task
group. In addition, once experience has
been gained in ARSA operations, traffic
is expected to move more efficiently and
expeditiously than it currently does
within a TRSA.
Although many of the benefits of the
ARSA program are nonquantifiable,
FAA has attempted to make some
preliminary estimates of the savings in
time and money which might be realized
as a result of the greater flexibility
allowed air traffic controllers in
handling traffic within an ARSA. These
estimated savings may or may not offset
the delay which some sites anticipate
after the initial establishment of an
ARSA, but are expected to eventually
provide overall time savings which
exceed delay as controllers gain
experience with ARSA operating
procedures. ATC personnel at
Columbus, OH, where an ARSA has
been in operation for approximately a
year and a half, report that this has been
their experience.
. To develoi these estimates of savings,
FAA used procedures similar to those
estimating delay costs. Local ATC
personnel, together with the Air Traffic
Operations Service, estimated for each
candidate ARSA site the number of
daily operations and the types of
aircraft involved which might save time,
in comparison to operations within a
TRSA, as a result of the reduced
separation standards of the ARSA. Time
savings estimates were made for both
arrivals and departures, and are
presented for each site in Table 4.
TABLE 4.-ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TIME SAVINGS FOR PROPOSED
Site name
ARSA SITES
Daily arrival time savings
Dally departure time savings
Albany .......................................................
0................................. 6................................
7 SEP/4 MEP- 1 mlin.
Anchorage ...............................................
Bradley...................................................
0.
... .
.
.
.
.
0...............................................................
0
0
See Harrisburg .........................................
33 SEP/17 MEPmin ........................
38 SEP-1 min .......................................
Harrisburg .
...
.
.
.
0..........................................................
Long Island Mac Arthur.....................
Pensacola Naval Air Station ................... See Pensacola Regional .........................
Pensacola .Regional (also Includes 0...................
Pensacola NAS and Whiting NAS)..
. 150 SEP-4 mn./,0 MEP-2 mln.I
San Antonio .............
15 EXJ/5 AC-1 min. (260 days
per year).
0.. ........................
Syracuse ...............................................
Theo. F. Green (Providence) .............
Tulsa ................................................
Whiting Naval Air Station ........................
0 ..................................... .........................
.
0
...............
33 SEP/17 MEP-l min.
5 SEP-2.5 min.
10 SEP/5 MEP-1 mm
0
60 SEP/30 MEP/l0 METP-4 mlin.(260 days
per year).
0
0
300 SEP/200 MEP-.5 min.
See Pensacola Regional .................
NOT.-Aircraft abbreviations from Table 1.
FAA estimates that the total annual
value of time savings for the candidate
ARSA sites proposed in this notice will
be approximately $525 thousand for
departures and $883 thousand for
arrivals, yielding about $1.4 million in
overall savings. (The unit costs used to
estimate the value of time savings are
the same as those used to estimate
delay costs presented in Table 1.)
Some of the benefits of the ARSA
program cannot be specifically
attributed to individual candidate
airports, but rather will result from the
overall improvements in terminal area
ATC procedures realized as ARSA's are
implemented throughout the country.
Establishment of ARSA's at the sites
proposed in this notice will contribute to
these overall improvements.
ARSA's have the potential for
reducing the number of near midair
collisions (NMAC's). In its 1984 study of
midair and near midair collison data,
the Office of Aviation Safety found that
approximately 15 percent of reported
NMAC's occurred in TRSA airspace.2
The study found that about half of all
NMAC's occurred at altitudes between
1,000 and 5,000 feet, that over 85 percent
of NMAC's occurred when visibility was
5 miles or greater, and that the largest
I Selected Statistics ConcerningNearMidair and
MidairCollisions, FAA Office of Aviation SafetySafety Analysis Division (ASF-200), August 31,
1984. The data base used in this study is currently
under revision to correct problems in reporting
procedures which have recently been identified.
Although the total numbers of reported NMAC's
have been revised upward, the relative distribution
of Incidents which occur in various operating
environments has not changed significantly.
number of NMAC reports are associated
; ,ith IFR operators under radar control
conflicting with VFR traffic during VFR
flight conditions below 12,500 feet.
Further, the majority of reported
NMAC's occurring within or in the near
vicinity of TRSA's involve either an air
carrier or military aircraft as one of the
aircraft (which partially reflects the
practice of air carrier and military pilots
to report NMAC incidents, when they do
occur, more frequently than general
aviation pilots). The mandatory
participation requirements of the ARSA
may help alleviate such conflicts where
they currently are occurring in TRSA
airspace. Further, the EER and APO
studies of the ARSA confirmation sites
(see note 1) indicate that NMAC's may
be reduced by approximately 35 to 40
percent.
Although no quantifiable benefits can
be attributed to a reduction in near
midair collisions, near midair and actual
midair collisions result from similar
causal factors, and a reduction in near
midair collisions suggests that a
reduction in actual midair collisions,
which can involve substantial losses,
may also be expected as a result of the
ARSA program.
The APO study of the ARSA
confirmation sites (note 1) included a
detailed analysis to determine if a
reduction in midair collision risk might
result from replacing a TRSA with an
ARSA. The collision risk analysis was
based upon the experience at the
Columbus confirmation site, where
recorded radar data were available, and
focused on conditions of fairly heavy
Federal Register / Vol. 50, N& 128
VFR activity because the ARSA will
affect procedures used to handle VFR
traffic in the terminal radar area. The
analysis determined that there was no
compression of traffic in the airspace
immediately around, Under, and over the
ARSA, and in the absence of
compression, the mandatory
participation requirement for all 'aircraft
operating within the ARSA resulted in a
75 percent reduction in midair collision
risk. Further, even under the pessimistic
assumption that the changes in
separation standards would completely
eliminate the effectiveness of controllerinitiated avoidance maneuvers, and the
pilot would only have the benefit of
radar traffic advisories, the study found
that the mandatory pilot participation
required in the ARSA still provided a 63
percent reduction in midair collision risk
in comparison to the TRSA.
FAA has examined National
Transportation Safety Board midair
collision accident records for the period
between January 1978 and October 1984.
This review indicated that
approximately one to two midair
collisions occurred per year throughout
the United States which either could
have been prevented, or the probability
of their occurrence would have been
greatly reduced, had an ARSA, rather
than a TRSA, been in effect where these
accidents occurred. Because the
circumstances observed at the
Columbus confirmation site may not
necessarily be found at other TRSA
locations, the 75 percent reduction in
midair collision risk measured at
Columbus may not be achieved at other
ARSA sites. Therefore, the FAA
conservatively estimates that
implementation of the ARSA program
nationally may result in an average
reduction in midair collision risk of only
50.percent at TRSA locations that are
replaced with ARSA's.
Reducing by 50 percent the one to two
midair collisions per year. where an
ARSA could have made a difference
would result in the prevention of one
midair collision nationally every 1 to 2
years. The quantifiable benefits of
preventing a midair collision can range
from less than $100 thousand, resulting
from the prevention of a minor accident
between general aviation aircraft, to
quantifiable benefits of as much as $100
million to $300 million, resulting'from
the prevention of a midair collision
involving ian. air carrier aircraft:anid
numerous'fatalities. Establishment of
ARSA's;at the sites proposed-in this
'notice will 'contribute to this . '•
'
improvement in safety."..
wednesday, July 3', '1985 '/ Proposed Rules
c. Comparisonof Costs and Benefits
r A direct comparison of the costs and
benefits of this proposal is difficult for a
number of reasons. Many of the benefits
of the proposal are nonquan'tifiable:
especially those associatedwith
simplification and standardization of
terminal airspace procedures. Further, it
is difficult to specifically attribute the
standardization benefits, as well as the
safety benefits, to individual candidate
ARSA sites. Finally, until more
experience has been gained with ARSA
-operations, estimates of both the
efficiency improvements resulting in
time savings to aircraft operators, and
the potential delays resulting from
mandatory participation, will be quite
preliminary.
ATC personnel at sore facilities
anticipate that the process will go very
smoothly, delays will be minimal, and
that efficiency gains will be realized
from the start. Other sites anticipate
that delay problems will dominate the
initial adjustment period. Nevertheless,
to the extent that these costs and
benefits have been quantified, the
overall total annual time savings benefit
of $1.4 million is approximately six
times greater than the estimated $235
thousand in overall annual costs for the
candidate ARSA sites proposed in this
notice. Further, both the Austin and
Columbus confirmation sites went
through initial adjustment periods, but
now experience almost no delay as a
result of ARSA procedures. BaltimoreWashington is currently progressing
along a similar learning curve.
FAA believes these adjustment
'problems will only be temporary, and
that once established, the ARSA
program will result in an overall
improvement in efficiency in terminal
area operations at those airports where
ARSA's are established. These overall
gains which FAA expects for the group
of candidate ARSA sites proposed in
this n9tice typify the beneifts which
FAA expects to achieve nationally from
the ARSA program. These benefits will
be achieved without any additional
controller staffing or radar equipment
costs of the FAA.
In addition to these operational
efficiency improvements, establishment
of the proposed ARSA sites will
contribute to a reduction in midair
collisions. The quantifiable benefits of
this safe'ty improvement could range.,
from less. tJian $100.thousand, to as
much as $300 million, for each accidenf
prevented.'
' .
.
.
For -these reasoxs, FAA expects the.
ARSA program to produce longterm, :..
ongoing benefits Which will far exceed
27533
its costs, which are essentially..
transitional in nature.
International Trade Impact Analysis
.This,proposed regulation will only
affect terminal airspace operating:
procedures at selected airports within
the United States. As such, it will have
no affect on the sale of foreign aviation
products or services in the United
States, nor will it affect the sale of
United States aviation products or
services in foreign countries.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) was enacted by Congress to
ensure that small entities are not
unnecessarily and disproportionately
burdened by government regulations.
The RFA requires agencies to review
rules which may have "a significant
economic impac.t on a substantial
number of small entities."
The small entities which could be
potentially affected by implementation
of the ARSA program are the fixed-base
operators, flight schools, agricultural
operators and other small aviation
businesses located at satellite airports
within 5 nautical miles of the ARSA
center. If the mandatory participation
requirement were to extend down to the
surface at these airports, where under
current regulations participation in the
TRSA and radio communication with
ATC is voluntary, operations at these
airports might be altered, and some
business could be lost to airports
outside of the ARSA core. FAA, has
proposed to exclude almost every
satellite airport located within the 5nautical-mile ring to avoid adversely
impacting their operations, and to
simplify coordinating ATC
responsibilities between the primary
and satellite airports. In some cases, the
same purposes will be achieved through
Letters of Agreement between ATC and
the affected airports which establish
special procedures for operating to and
from these airports. In this manner, FAA
expects to virtually eliminate any
adverse impact on the operations of
small satellite airports which potentially
could result from the ARSA program.
Further, because the FAA expects that
any delay problems which may initially
develop following implementation of an
ARSA will be transitory, and because
the airpgrts which will be affected by.
the ARSA'progr m'represent'only 'a
small pr6pdrfin. of all' the public use
''airpor't*s in" 6peraitidn withiri the United
States, small entities of any typie which
'use aircraft in the course of iheir
busin ess will not be adversely imp1acted.
27534
7Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
For these reasons, the FAA certifies
that the proposed regulation will not
result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis in not required under the terms
of the RFA. '
ICAO Considerations
As part of this proposal relates to
navigable airspace outside the United
States, this notice is submitted in
consonance with the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO)
International Standards and
Recommended Practices.
Applicability of International
Standards and Recommended Practices
by the Air Traffic Operations Service,
FAA, in areas outside domestic airspace
of the United States is governed by
Article 12 of, and Annex 11 to, the
Convention on International Civil
Aviation, which pertains to the
establishment of air navigational
facilities and services necessary to
promoting the safe, orderly, and
expeditious flow of civil air traffic. Their
purpose is the ensure that civil flying on
international air routes is carried out
under uniform conditions designed to
improve the safety and efficiency of air
operations.
The International Standards and
Recommended Practices in Annex 11
apply in those parts of the airspace
under the jurisdiction of a contracting
state, derived for ICAO, wherein air
traffic services are provided and also
whenever a contracting state accepts
the responsibility of providing air traffic
services over high seas or in airspace of
undetermined sovereignty. A contracting
state accepting such responsibility may
apply the International Standards and
Recommended Practices in a manner
consistent with that adopted for
airspace under its domestic jurisdiction.
In accordance with Article 3 of the
Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Chicago, 1944, state aircraft
are exempt from the provisions of
Annex 11 and its Standards and
Recommended Practices. As a
contracting state, the United States
agreed by Article 3(d) that its state
aircraft will be operated in international
airspace with due regard for the safety
of civil aircraft.
Since this action involves, in part, the
designation of navigable airspace
outside the United States, the
Administrator is consulting with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense in accordance with the
provisions of Executive Order 10854.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airport radar service areas, Aviation
safety.
41°52'00" N., long. 72°37'00" W.); and that
airspace extending upward from 2,100 feet
MSL to 4,200 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius
of Bradley International Airport.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
delegated to me, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Part
71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR Part 71) as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1348(a), 1354(a), 1510;
Executive Order 10854; 49 U.S.C. 106(g)
(Revised Pub. L.97-449, January 12, 1983); 14
CFR 11.69.
2. Section 71.501 is amended as
follows:
Albany County Airport, NY [New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to ard including 4,300 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Albany County
Airport (lat. 42°44'53 ' N., long. 73'48' 12" W.),
and that airspace extending upward from
2,400 feet MSL to 4,300 feet MSL within a 10mile radius of the Albany County Airport
from the c46'T(060'M) bearing from the
airport clockwise to the 096'T(110°M} bearing
from the airport and that airspaci extending
upward from 2,000 feet MSL to 4,300 feet MSL
within a 10-mile radius of the airport from
09°'6(11(0-'.-) bearing from the airport
clockwise to the OWt6T(06O0M) bearing from
the airport.
Capital City Airport, Harrisburg, PA [New]
Anchoycqe Internatior al Airport, AK [New l
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,100 feet MSL
within a 5 moile radiuu of the Anchorage
International Airport (let. 61°!0'39" N., long.
149°59'38" W.) excluding that virspace below
3,000 feet MSL in a quadrant beginning at the
airport to a point where the 350*T(325°M)
bearing irom the airport intersects the 5-mile
arc, clockwise to the 090"T(065°M) bearing
fron the airport to the point of origin, and
excluding that airspace below 700 feet MSL in
a quadrant beginning at a point where the
118°T(093'M) bearing from the airport
intersects the 5-mile arc, clockwise to the
243°T{218'M) bearing from the airport to the
point of origin; and that airspace extending
upward from 1,400 feet MSL to 4,100 feet MSL
within a 10-mil! radius of the Anchorage
Intcrnational Airport from thf, IA1IT(16°M]
bearing Iromn the airport clock,.vi0e to the
350°J'(235'M) bearing from the dirport and
that airspace extending upward from 3,G00
feet MXL to 4,100 feet MSL within a 10-mile
radius of the airport from the ?50*T(325°M)
bearing from the airport clockwise to.the
141'T(.6MI bearing fr'om the airport.
Bradley I trernational Airtnrt, Windoor Locks,
CT [Net-l
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,200 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of Bradley
International Airport (let. 41'56'20" N., long.
'
72°41'01 W.) excluding Skylark Airport (lat.
41053'45' N., long. 72*34'30' W.) and
Simsbury Airport (lat. 41*55'00" N., long.
72°46'40" W.) and Bancroft Airport (lat.
That airepace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,300 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Capital City
Airport (lat. 40*13'01" N., long. 75*51'06" W.)
to the points where the 5-mile arc joins a 5mile arc from the Harrisburg International
'
Airport, PA (lat. 40°11'36 N., long. 76'45'49"
Service
Area (ARSA], and
W.) Airport Radar
that airspace extending upward from 2,600
feet MSL to and including 4,300 feet MSL
within a 10-mile radius of the Capital City
Airport to the lires extending from the points
where the 5-mile arc and the 10-mile arc of
the Capital City Airport and the Harrisburg
International Airport ARSA's join.
Corpus Christi International Airport, TX
[New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,000 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Corpus Christi
International Airport (lat. 27°46'12" N., long.
97*30'03" W.), and that airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL
within a 10-mile radius of the Corpus Christi
International Airport. This airport radar
service area is effective during the specific
days and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and
times will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Harrisburg Interitational Airport, PA [New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to 4,300 feet MSL within a 5-mile
radius of the Harrisburg International Airport
(lat. 40°11'36" N., long. 76°45'49"' W.) to the
points where the 5-mile arc joins a 5-mile arc
from the Capital City Airport, PA (lat.
40°13'01" N., long. 76°51'06 W.) Airport Radar
Service Area (ARSA), and that airspace
extending upward from 2,100 feet MSL to and
including 4,300 feet MSL to the lines
extending from the points where the 5-mile
and 10-mile arcs from the Harrisburg
International Airport and Capital City
Airport ARSA's join.
Long Island MacArthur Airport, Islip, NY
[New)
That airepace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,100 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Long Island
MacArthur Airport (let. 40*47'44" N., long.
73"06'00" W.), and that airspace extending
upward from 1,300 feet MSL to 4,100 feet MSL
within a 10-mile radius of the airport;
excluding that airspace from the surface to
and including 600 feet MSL within I mile
west of Bayport Aerodrome (lat. 40*45'30" N.,
long. 73003'15" W.) and parallel to Runway
18-36 from south of the Sunrise Highway
southbound to the 5-mile radius of the Long
Island MacArthur Airport, counterclockwise
to south of Nichols Road thence northbound
along Nichols Road to south of and parallel to
the Sunrise Highway westbound to the
beginning point.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Pensacola NAS, FL [New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,200 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Navy Pensacola
Airport (lat. 30"21'12" N., long. 87"19'12" W.)
excluding that airspace extending upward
from the surface to and including 700 feet
MSL within a 1-mile radius of the Ferguson
Airport (lat. 30*23'55" N., long. 87"20'55" W.)
and I mile either side of the 330*T(328"M}
bearing from the Ferguson Airport, and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
MSL to and including 4,200 feet MSL within a
10-mile radius of the Navy Pensacola Airport,
excluding that Airspace within the Pensacola
Regional Airport, FL, Airport Radar Service
Area.
Pensacola Regional Airport, FL [New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,200 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Pensacola
Regional Airport (lat. 30"28'23" N., long.
87"11'15" W.), and that airspace extending
upward from 1,300 feet MSL to and including
4,200 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the
Pensacola Regional Airport, excluding that
airspace within the inner circle of the
Pensacola NAS, FL, Airport Radar Service
Area.
San Antonio International Airport, TX INew]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,800 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the San Antonio
International Airport (lat. 29'32'00" N., long.
98"28'10" W.), and that airspace extending
upward from 2,200 feet MSL to 4,800 feet MSL
within a 10-mile radius of the San Antonio
International Airport from the 278*T(271*M)
bearing from the airport clockwise to the
008*T{001*M bearing from the airport and
that airspace extending upward from 2,000
feet MSL to 4,800 feet MSL within a 10-mile
radius of the airport from the 008"T(001*M)
bearing from the airport clockwise to the
278*T(271*M) bearing from the airport.
Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY
[New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,400 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Syracuse
Hancock International Airport (lat. 43"06'44"
N., long. 76*06'32" W.) excluding that
airspace within a 0.75-mile radius of the
center (lat. 43°10'45" N., long. 76°07'30 '' W.) of
Michael Field, Cicero, NY, and that airspace
extending upward from 1,600 feet MSL to and
including 4,400 feet MSL within a 10-mile
radius of the Syracuse Hancock International
Airport from the 245"T(257"M) bearing from
the airport clockwise to the 120*T(132"M)
bearing from the airport and that airspace
extending upward from 2,700 feet MSL to and
including 4,400 feet MSL within a 10-mile
radius from the 120*T(132*M) bearing from
the airport clockwise to the 178"T(190°M)
bearing from the airport and that airspace
extending upward from 2,300 feet MSL within
a 10-mile radius of the airport from the
178°T(190"M) bearing from the airport
clockwise to the 245"T(257*M bearing from
the airport.
Theodore Francis Green State Airport,
Providence, RI [New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,100 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Theodore
Francis Green State Airport (lat. 71"25'41" N.,
long. 41*43'27" W.), and that airspace
extending upward from 1,300 feet MSL to
4,100 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of
Theodore Francis Green State Airport from
015"T(030*M) bearing from the airport
clockwise to the 195"T(210*M) bearing from
the airport, and that airspace extending
upward from 1,700 feet MSL to 4,100 feet MSL
within a 10-mile radius of the airport from
195"T(210*M) bearing from the airport
clockwise to the 015"T(030*M) bearing from
the airport.
Tulsa International Airport, OK [New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,700 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the Tulsa
International Airport (lat. 36°11'54" N., long.
95'53'16" W.) excluding that airspace within
a 1-mile radius of Harvey Young Airport (lat.
36*08'12" N., long. 95"49'08" W.) and that
airspace extending upward from 2,100 feet
MSL to and including 4,700 feet MSL within a
10-mile radius of Tulsa International Airport.
Whiting NAS, FL [New]
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 4,200 feet MSL
within a 5-mile radius of the center of the
Navy Whiting Complex (lat. 30*42'40" N., long
87"01'30" W.), and that airspace extending
upward from 1,400 feet MSL to and including
4,200 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the
Navy Whiting Complex, excluding that
airspace within the boundary of Restricted
Area R-2915 and that airspace within the
Pensacola Regional Airport, FL, Airport
Radar Service Area and excluding that
airspace within a 1-mile radius of the Milton
"T" Airport (lat. 30"38'15" N., long. 86"59'40"
W.) extending upward from the surface to
and including 700 feet MSL.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on Jtne 25,
1985.
James Burns, Jr,
Acting Manager,Airspace-Rules and
AeronauticalInformation Division,
Appendix 1.-Public Meeting Schedule
The schedule for the informal airspace
meetings is as follows:
Albany County Airport, NY, ARSA
Date: July 24, 1985
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Stonehedge B.C. Room, Turf Inn,
205 Wolf Road, Albany, NY
Anchorage International Airport, AK, ARSA
Date: August 17, 1985
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: Performing Arts Center,
Anchorage Community College, 2533
Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK
Bradley International Airport, Windsor
Locks, CT, ARSA
Date: August 15, 1985
Time: 7:00 p.m.
27535
Location: Connecticut Air National Guard
Auditorium, Bradley Air National Guard
Base, East Grandby, CT
Capital City Airport, Harrisburg PA, ARSA
Date: July 18, 1985
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Central Penn Business School,
C.P. Theatre, College Hill Road,
Summerdale, PA
-Corpus Christi International Airport, TX,
ARSA
Date: September 1.1, 1985
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Holiday Inn-Airport, 5549
Leopard Street, Corpus Christi, TX
Harrisburg International Airport, PA, ARSA
Date: July 18, 1985
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location:Central Penn Business School,
D.P. Theatre, College Hill Road,
Summerdale, PA
Long Island MacArthur Airport, Islip, NY,
ARSA
Date: August 10, 1985
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Location: Quality Inn, 3845 Veteran's
Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY
Pensacola NAS, FL, ARSA
Date: August 14, 1985
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Pensacola Junior College,
Auditorium Building, Room 250
Pensacola, FL
Pensacola Regional Airport, FL, ARSA
Date: August 14, 1985
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location:Pensacola Junior College,
Auditorium Building, Room 250
Pensacola, FL
San Antonio International Airport, TX, ARSA
Date: July 17, 1985
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Holiday Inn, 77 Loop 410 NE, San
Antonio, TX
Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY,
ARSA
Date: September 18, 1985
Time: 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Location: Airport Inn, Walnut Room,
Syracuse Hancock International Airport,
North Syracuse, NY
Theodore Francis Green State Airport,
Providence, RI, ARSA
Date: August 7, 1985
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: 243rd Army Guard Battalion,
Airport Road, T.F. Green Airport
Warwick, RI
Tulsa International Airport, OK, ARSA
Date: August 20, 1985
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Holiday Inn-East, 1-244 and
Garnett Road, Tulsa, OK
Whiting NAS, FL, ARSA
Date: August 14, 1985
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Pensacola Junior College,
Auditorium Building, Room 250
Pensacola, FL.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
27536
Appendix 2
RADAR SERVICE AREA
AIRPORT
(NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION)
ALBANY, NEW YORK
ALBANY COUNTY AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 215' MSL
.I
I*
LEGEND
/ VFR CHECKPOINT
'
.,dlMW.,d1V',dWP ARSA
AN MI
ALTItUDES
EARINGS AREMAGNTIC
Prepared by "I
.
FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Cartograpic Stondords Section
ATO-259
Federal Register
/ Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
27537
2
AREA
AIRPORT RADARFO SERVICE
NAVIGATION)
(NOT TO BE USED
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 144' MSL
Bridge
/Texaco
Paon
Q/aumSioo
i
LEGEND
POIN
* YR CHECK
faSM.
AR$A
ALTIUDES
ARNMU
NAIMOS AREMAGEIC
PMmod by ",t
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL
Canogropk Standards Sectio
ATO-259
27538
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985
AIRPORT
RADAR SERVICE AREA
(NOT TO K USED FOR NAVIGATION)
/ Proposed Rtules
3
WINDSOR LOCKS, CONNECTICUT
BRADLEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORI
FIELD ELEV. 174' MSL
Pw CHECKIPOINT
-
Pd9r1rdP0ARSA
ATITffUCSAIM ML
A
AiTTiS
A MU
y
Pvopar~d by Ow.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Cot~ograpf c Standards Section
ATO-259
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday,July .,
985 / Popo~ed Rules
1 ;27539
'4
RADAR SERVICE AREA
AIRPORT
(NOT TO BE USED " NAViGATION
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
CAPITAL CITY AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 347' MSL
-
FEDERALAVIATKIN ADMiNISTRATION
AT-,'9'
C
ATO-239
•Federal Register
,27540
/ Vol. 50_No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
AIRPORT RADAR SERVICE AREA
(NOT TO BE USED FO NAVIGATION)
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 44' MSL
Banque*
angsvihl
Kingsv
IQ
NAAS (c
LEGEND
• vIt CHECKPOINT
iWvdlWd.F AIISA
MLITUEtlS
ARMML
L.*MG
AM. MAGWflC
Federal Registbr
/Vol. '50, No. 128 / Wednesday,'July 3119'5 /Proposed Rules
.6
RADAR SERVICE AREA
AIRPORT
(NOT TO N USED -OR,NAVIGATION)
MIDDLETOWN, PENNSYLVANIA
HARRISBURG INTL. - OLMSTEAD FIELD
FIELD ELEV. 310' MSL
FEDERAt AVIATION ADMINIStRATION
'hq c Soadm shSection
Cwogo
ATO-2S9
27541
27542
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
7
.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday. July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
8
RADAR SERVICE AREA
AIRPORT
(NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONI
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
NAS PENSACOLA
FIELD ELEV. 30' MSL
27543
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
27544
9
SERVICE AREA
AIRPORTTO RADAR
BE USED FOR NAVIGATION)
(NOT
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
PENSACOLA REGIONAL AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 121' MSL
/
Aftwo
Muni
Mufti,
EGLIN E MOA
R-2915 A
OU S5w,,di. ( Uw)
0
Faoy
Mun
W
IF
orin
OILF
Wolf
W-US5
:: "" 4.
i . • ....
::' . .....
' ::...." ::.
IEOIND
wl
AP.WI
ECK POINT
,RSA
AT17UOIS*
W
JA*INS A- MIIeTIC
OR
I'mapored by Ow,
AL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
COfturephic Stanmards Seton
ATO-259
W-i51
10
r
W5 2
X
00
W010
C3
d
I--
at
101
4'4
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
27546
AIRPORT RADAR SERVICE AREA
(NOT TO BE USED FMR NAVIGATION)
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
SYRACUSE HANCOCK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 421' MSL
*
Oswego Co.
Cozunoio
LEGEND
Vt CHECKPOINT
A
ARSA
ALTITUDESARE #LS
SEAMiNS AM MAGETIC
Prepored by he
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Cartogroaphc Standards Section
ATO-259
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
12
AIRPORT
RADAR SERVICE AREA
(NOT TO K USED FOR NAVIGATION)
PROVIDENCE, RHOOE ISLAND
THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN STATE AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 5' MSL
LEGEND
M CHECKPINT
A9WNA1
ARSA
ALITUMS AREMSL
EAkINGSAREMAGNETIC
27547
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
27548
AIRPORT
RADAR SERVICE AREA
(NOT TO K USED FOR NAVIGATION)
r-
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
TULSA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FIELD ELEV. 676' MSL
LEGEND
//lw- CHECK"NT
wr".dw .opw
ARSA
AlTn$uOs A
G,5Ei
WA1WNGS ARE OAf* 1K
Pm",,el
,dby the
PWEIEAL AVIATIO4NADMINISTRATION
CoflropAc Sl-25rd9 Soction
.
ATO-259
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
AIRPORT
RADAR SERVICE AREA
(NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION)
NAS WHITING
FIELD ELEV. 178' MSL
:o...~~~
~ ~~
..
........
.
..
..
/ vR CHECKPO"NT'Y
,
NOULM
AVIAA N AOMMrSTRATION
MANN%
AM MAOrlc
!
IFR Doc. 85-15668 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 40W13-C
AAO-4269
27549
Wednesday
July 3, 1985
Part III
m
m
,,.,
Department of
Health and Human
Services
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 357
Smoking Deterrent Drug Products for
Over-the-Counter Human Use; Tentative
Final Monologue; Proposed Rule
27552
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Miscellaneous Internal Drug Products,
which was the advisory review panel
responsible for evaluating data on the
Food and Drug Administration
active ingredients in this drug class.
Interested persons were invited to
21 CFR Part 357
submit comments by April 5, 1982. Reply
comments in response to comments filed
[Docket No. 81N-0027]
in the initial comment period could be
submitted by May 5, 1982.
Smoking Deterrent Drug Products for
In accordance with § 330.10(a)(10), the
Over-the-Counter Human Use;
data and information considered by the
Tentative Final Monograph
Panel were put on public display in the
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration.
Dockets Management Branch (HFAACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
305), Food and Drug Administration
(address above), after deletion of a
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
small amount of trade secret
Administration (FDA) is issuing a notice
information. In response to the advance
of proposed rulemaking in the form of a
notice of proposed rulemaking, two drug
tentative final monograph that would
manufacturers and one consumer
establish conditions under which oversubmitted comments. Copies of the
the-counter (OTC) smoking deterrent
comments received are on public
drug products are generally recognized
display in the Dockets Management
as safe and effective and not
Branch.
misbranded. FDA is issuing this notice
In order to conform to terminology
of proposed rulemaking after
used in the OTC drug review regulations
considering the report and
(21 CFR 330.10), the present document is
recommendations of the Advisory
designated as a "tentative final
Review Panel on OTC Miscellaneous
monograph." Its legal status, however, is
Internal Drug Products and public
that of a proposed rule. In this tentative
comments on an advance notice of
final monograph (proposed rule] to
proposed rulemaking that was based on
establish Part 357 (21 CFR Part 357),
those recommendations. This proposal
FDA states for the first time its position
in part of the ongoing review of OTC
on the establishment of a monograph for
drug products conducted by FDA.
OTC smoking deterrent drug products.
DATES: Written comments, objections, or Final agency action on this matter will
requests for oral hearing on the
occur with the publication at a future
proposed regulation before the
date of a final rule for OTC smoking
deterrent drug products.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs by
This proposal constitutes FDA's
September 3, 1985. New data by July 3,
tentative adoption of the Panel's
1986. Comments on the new data by
conclusions and recommendations on
September 3, 1986. These dates are
OTC smoking deterrent drug products as
consistent with the time periods
modified on the basis of the comments
specified in the agency's revised
procedural regulations for reviewing and received and the agency's independent
evaluation of the Panel's report.
classifying OTC drugs (21 CFR 330.10).
Modifications have been made for
Written comments on the agency's
clarity and regulatory accuracy and to
economic impact determination by
reflect new information. Such new
October 31, 1985.
ADDRESS: Written comments, objections, information has been placed on file in
the Dockets Management Branch
new data, or requests for oral hearing to
(address above). These modifications
the Dockets Management Branch (HFAare
reflected in the following summary
305), Food and Drug Administration, Rm.
of the comments and FDA's responses to
4-62, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
them.
20857.
The OTC procedural regulations (21
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CFR 330.10) have been revised to
William E. Gilbertson, Center for Drugs
conform to the decision in Cutler v.
and Biologics (HFN-210), Food and Drug *Kennedy, 475 F. Supp. 838 (D.D.C. 1979).
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
(See the Federal Register of September
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-4960.
29, 1981; 46 FR 47730.) The Court in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Cutler held that the OTC drug review
Federal Register of January 5, 1982 (47
regulations were unlawful to the extent
FR 490) FDA published, under
that they authorized the marketing of
§330.10(a)(6) (21 CFR 330.10(a)(6)), an
Category III drugs after a final
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
monograph had been established.
to establish a monograph for OTC
Accordingly, this provision has been
smoking deterrent drug products,
deleted from the regulations, which now
together with the recommendations of
provide that any testing necessary to
the Advisory Review Panel on OTC
resolve the safety or effectiveness issues
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
that formerly resulted in a Category III
classification, and submission to FDA of
the results of that testing or any other
data, must be done during the OTC drug
rulemaking process before the
establishment of a final monograph.
Although it was not required to do so
under Cutler, FDA will no longer use the
terms "Category I" (generally recognized
as safe and effective and not
misbranded), "Category I1"(not
generally recognized as safe and
effective or misbranded), and "Category
III" (available data are insufficient to
classify as safe and effective, and
further testing is required) at the final
monograph stage, but will use instead
the terms "monograph conditions" (old
Category I) and "nonmonograph
conditions" (Old Categories II and III).
This document retains the concepts of
Categories I, II, and III at the tentative
final monograph stage.
The agency advises that the
conditions under which the drug
products that are subject to this
monograph would be generally
recognized as safe and effective and not
misbranded (monograph conditions) will
be effective 12 months after the date of
publication of the final monograph in the
Federal Register. On or after that date,
no OTC drug products that are subject
to the monograph and that contain
nonmonograph conditions, i.e.,
conditions that would cause the drug to
be not generally recognized as safe and
effective or to be misbranded, may be
initially introduced or initially delivered
for introduction into interstate
commerce unless they are the subject of
an approved new drug application
(NDA). Further, any OTC drug products
subject to this monograph that are
repackaged or relabeled after the
effective date of the monograph must be
in compliance with the monograph
regardless of the date the product was
initially introduced or initially delivered
for introduction into interstate
commerce. Manufacturers are
encouraged to comply voluntarily with
the monograph at the earliest possible
date.
In the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking for OTC smoking deterrent
drug products (published in the Federal
Register of January 5, 1982; 47 FR 490),
the agency suggested that the conditions
included in the monograph (Category I)
be effective 6 months after the date of
publication of the final monograph in the
Federal Register. Experience has shown
that relabeling of products covered by
the monograph is necessary in order for
manufacturers to comply with the
monograph. New labels containing the
monograph labeling have to be written,
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
ordered, received, and incorporated into
the manufacturing process. The agency
has determined that it is impractical to
expect new labeling to be in effect 6
months after the date of publication of
the final monograph. Experience has
shown also that if the deadline for
relabeling is too short, the agency is
burdened with extension requests and
related paperwork.
In addition, some products may have
to be reformulated to comply with the
monograph. Reformulation often
involves the need to do stability testing
on the new product. An accelerated
aging process may be used to test a new
formulation; however, if the stability
testing is not successful, and if further
reformulation is required, there could be
a further delay in having a new product
available for manufacture.
The agency wishes to establish a
reasonable period of time for relabeling
and reformulation in order to avoid an
unnecessary disruption of the
marketplace that could not only result in
economic loss, but also interfere with
consumers' access to safe and effective
drug products. Therefore, the agency is
proposing that the final monograph be
effective 12 months after the date of its
publication in the Federal Register. The
agency believes that within 12 months
after the date of publication most
manufacturers can order new labeling
and reformulate their products and have
them in compliance in the marketplace.
However, if the agency determines that
any labeling for a condition included in
the final monograph should be
implemented sooner, a shorter deadline
may be established. Similarly, if a safety
problem is identified for a particular
nonmonograph condition, a shorter
deadline may be set for removal of that
condition from OTC drug products.
In the event that new data submitted
to the agency during the alloted 12month comment and new data period
are not sufficient to establish
"monograph conditions" for OTC
smoking deterrent drug products, the
final rule will declare these products to
be new drugs under section 201(p) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
for which new drug applications
approved under section 505 of the act
and 21 CFR Part 314 are required for
marketing. Such rule will also declare
that in the absence of an approved new
drug application, these products would
be misbranded under section 502 of the
act. The rule will then be incorporated
into 21 CFR Part 310, Subpart E-
Requirements for Specific New Drugs or
Devices, instead of into an OTC drug
monograph in Part 357.
I. The Agency's Tentative Conclusions
on the Comments
1. One comment cited an apparent
inconsistency between the Panel's
recommended objective of a clinical
study and the indications recommended
by the Panel for smoking deterrent drug
products. Under the Panel's proposed
testing guidelines; effectiveness is
measured only in terms of the number of
subjects who "stopped smoking," yet the
allowable label claims are couched in
such terms as "a temporary aid" and
"helps stop temporarily." The comment
stated that if the protocol is designed to
measure only such absolutes as "stops
smoking" then labeling claims that are
consistent with those results should also
be allowed.
Several comments objected to the
position taken by the Panel that
"reduction of the number of cigarettes
smoked or limited cessation of smoking"
is not an aid to stopping smoking and is
of little value. The comments argued
that a reduction in smoking has not been
scientifically demonstrated to be of no
help in aiding one to stop smoking. The
comment stated that a significant
reduction in the *numberof cigarettes
smoked indicates that an aversion to
cigarettes has been established and that
a substance that could do this, with
supplemental motivation, would fulfill
its function as a "temporary aid."
The agency recognizes that the Panel's
recommended primary objective of a
clinical study, i.e., to determine the
effectiveness of the drug under study in
aiding one to stop smoking, may appear
to be inconsistent with the
recommended indications for use and
with the definition of smoking deterrents
where terms such as, "a temporary aid,"
"helps stop temporarily," etc. are used.
Although the desired effect of the drug is
to stop the user of the drug from
smoking by altering the tobacco taste so
that smoking becomes unpleasant and
undesirable or by producing tobacco
satiety without smoking, the Panel
believed that the labeling should reflect
and emphasize to the consumer that the
product is only for temporary use.
However, the agency recognizes that
there may be confusion with respect to
two of the Panel's recommended
Category I labeling indications, i.e.,
"Helps you stop the cigarette urge
temporarily," and "Helps you stop
smoking cigarettes temporarily,"
because the placement of the word
"temporarily" does not adequately
reflect the intended use and effect of the
drug. For this reason the agency is not
including these two indications in the
tentative final monograph. The agency
believes that recommended
27553
§ § 357.650(b)(1) and (4), i.e., "A
temporary aid to those who want to stop
smoking cigarettes," and "A temporary
aid to breaking the cigarette habit,"
more accurately reflect the intended use
of the product. The agency has also
revised the definition of smoking
deterrent to read as follows: "Smoking
deterrent.A substance that is used
temporarily to help those individuals
who want to stop smoking (become
cigarette free) or to break the cigarette
habit."
The agency is aware that recent
reports in the literature have indicated
that reduction in smoking, or controlled
smoking, should be considered as an
alternative to abstinence, because of the
generally disappointing outcomes of
traditional abstinence-oriented smokingtreatment studies (Refs. 1, 2, and 3). One
such report analyzed a number of
subjects throughout the period of followup that were either abstinent .or
nonabstinent after undergoing
treatment. The authors concluded that
abstinence and reduction are not
necessarily different points on the same
continuum, but rather that abstinence
and smoking reduction should be treated
as two potentially discrete treatment
outcomes (Ref. 4). Reduction in smoking
may be achieved by decreasing the
number of cigarettes smoked or by
switching to a low nicotine-low tar (LN/
LT) cigarette. However, evidence on the
effects of controlled smoking on the
health of the individual smoker has been
contradictory. Some studies indicate
that although smokers may reduce the
number of cigarettes smoked or
progressively switch to LN/LT
cigarettes, they inadvertently increase
their puff volume, puff frequency, or
depth of inhalation and thereby increase
smoke-related health risks (Refs. 5
through 8). Other studies suggest that
smokers who reduce the numbers of
cigarettes or switch to LN/LT cigarettes
do not compensate by increasing puff
volume, frequency, or depth of
inhalation (Refs. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11).
Even so, there is insufficient evidence to
show that a significant reduction in
smoking will lead to cessation or that
reduction will lower the health risks
associated with smoking (Ref. 8). If
sufficient evidence becomes available
demonstrating that a reduction in
smoking results in a significant health
benefit to consumers, then wellcontrolled studies to establish the safety
and efficacy of smoking deterrent drug
products in reducing smoking will be
needed. These studies should include
appropriate objective measurements
that account for compensatory behavior
27554
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
in smoking and should be of sufficient
length so that the results are meaningful.
Because of a lack of adequate data,
the same criteria and do not allow for
differences in mechanism of action and
length of use time: (3) the guidelines do
not include a parameter for assessing
the agency is not including smoking
reduction claims in this tentative final
the subjects compliance to therapeutic
regimen or control for the significant
monograph. Should sufficient data
variability of tar, nicotine, and other
regarding reduction claims become
ingredients found in different types of
available before the publication of the
cigarettes; (4) the guidelines fail to
final monograph, the agency will
establish the meaning of the terms
consider including reducing in smoking
"clinically significant," as they do
claims in the final monograph.
"statistically significant;" (5) the
References
measurements of thiocyanate and
cotinine should be preferred because
(1)Prue, D.M.,et al., "Carbon Monoxide
Levels and Rates of Consumption After
measurements for carbon monoxide are
Changing to Low Tar and Nicotine
not a reliable indication of smoking; and
Cigarettes," BehaviourResearch and
(6) the requirement that two separate
Therapy, 21:201-207, 1983.
clinical trials should be conducted by
(2) Prue, D. M., et al., "Brand Fading: The
Effects of Gradual Changes to Low Tar and different investigators at different
geographical sites is excessive for old
Nicotine Cigarettes on Smoking Rate,
drugs not subject to an NDA.
Carbon Monoxide, and Thiocyanate
The agency has not addressed specific
Levels," Behavior Therapy, 12:400-416,
testing guidelines in this document. In
1981.
revising the OTC drug review
(3)Foxx, R. M., and R. A. Brown, "Nicotine
Fading and Self-Monitoring for Cigarette
procedures relating to Category III,
Abstinence or Controlled Smoking,"
published in the Federal Register of
Journalof Applied BehaviorAnalysis,
September 29, 1981 (46 FR 47730), the
12:111-125, 1979.
agency advised that tentative final and
(4) Poole, A. D., et al., "The Rapid-Smoking
final monographs will not include
Technique: Subject Characteristics and
recormmended testing guidelines for
Treatment Outcome," Behavior Research
conditions that industry wishes to
and Therapy, 20:1-7. 1982.
upgrade to monograph status. Instead,
et al., "How a Cigarette is
(5) Herning, R. I.,
the agency will meet with industry
Smoked Determines Blood Nicotine
representatives at their request to
Levels," ClinicalPharmacologyand
Therapeutics,33:84-90, 1983.
discuss testing protocols. On the same
"Why Smoke Fewer
(6) Ho-Yen, D. 0., et al.,
date, the agency also published in the
Cigarettes?" PharmacologyBiochemistry
Federal Register a policy statement
and Behavior,17:1905-1907, 1982.
relating to a number of matters
(7) Russell, M. A. H., "Realistic Goals for
involving the testing of Category III
Smoking and Health-A Case for Safer
ingredients (46 FR 47740) including
1974.
Lancet,
1:254-257,
Smoking,"
meetings with industry or other
(8) "The Changing Cigarette. A Report of the
interested persons. (See also part II.
Surgeon General," U.S. Department of
paragraph 2 below-Testing of Category
Health and Human Services, DHHS
II and Category III conditions.)
Publication No. (PHS) 81-50156.. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington,
3. One comment stated that the
DC.1981.
labeling of a lobeline sulfate-containing
(9) Foxx, R. M., and E. Axelroth, "Nicotine
product did not include warnings or
Fading, Self-Monitoring and Cigarette
cautions against the use of the product
Fading to Produce Abstinence or
while taking other medications. The
Controlled Smoking," Behavior Research
individual submitting the comment
and Therapy, 21:17-27, 1983.
reported personally experiencing the
G.
E.
Bigelow,
M.
L.
and
(10) Stitzer,
symptoms of vomiting, faintness, blurred
"Contingent Reinforcement for Reduced
vision, stomach cramping, and
Carbon Monoxide Levels in Cigarette
dehydration after taking a lobeline
Smokers," Addictive Behaviors, 7:403-412,
1982.
sulfate-containing product for a week
(11) Bernard, H.S., and J.S. Efran, "Case
while also taking Dyazide') and
Histories and Shorter Communications:
Valium ® . The comment urged the
Eliminating Versus Reducing Smoking
agency to establish rules requiring
Using Pocket Timers," Behavior Research
manufacturers and distributors to label
and Therapy,10:399-401, 1972.
the products clearly as to identity,
2. Several comments objected to the
contraindications or precautions, and
Panel's recommended guidelines for
particularly to include warnings
developing protocols for evaluating OTC concerning interactions with other
smoking deterrents. The comments gave'
medications.
the following reasons: (1) The
The agency agrees with the comment
that the labeling of OTC drug products
recommended guidelines are unduly
should contain the necessary
detailed and demanding and impose
information needed to use the drug
costly drug testing; (2) the guidelines
require that all smoking deterrents meet
safely. Under current regulations, all
OTC drug products are required to list
the active ingredients on the label. The
agency has fully evaluated the case
report submitted in the comment.
However, the facts in the case are such
that a clear association between
concomitant use of the drugs and the
symptoms that occurred cannot be
established. The agency is aware,
however, that lobeline sulfate can cause
gastrointestinal side effects and notes
that for this reason some marketed
products include buffering ingredients.
In addition, in its discussion on the
safety of lobeline sulfate (47 FR 496) the
Panel noted that the symptoms of
stomach ache, severe heartburn, nausea,
vomiting, and faintness have been
reported from a single dose of 8
milligrams (mg) lobeline sulfate.
Because lobeline sulfate can cause side
effects, the agency believes that a
warning may be appropriate.
However, because lobeline sulfate is
not Category I at this time, the agency is
not proposing a warning statement in
this tentative final monograph. In the
event that lobeline sulfate reaches
monograph status the agency will
consider including a warning statement
in a final monograph at that time.
4. One comment objected to the
Panel's Category II classification of
silver nitrate on the basis that it was not
able to locate any significant body of
data demonstrating the safety and
effectiveness of silver nitrate when used
as an OTC smoking deterrent. The firm
submitting the comment stated that it
has been active in developing a
mouthrinse utilizing silver nitrate as an
active ingredient for use as an OTC
smoking deterrent. The comment
submitted two studies that it contends
clearly demonstrate the efficacy of
silver nitrate as a smoking deterrent
(Ref. 1). The comment also'asserted that
the Panel failed to discuss smoking
deterrents in aqueous mouthrinse form,
which it contended is more appropriate
and more effective in treating the
problem of smoking. Additionally, the
comment stated that because silver
appears to have a low systemic toxicity
and because the Panel did not list any
potential safety problem with respect to
the use of silver nitrate in a smoking
deterrent drug product, the findings of
safety with respect to silver acetate
should be also applied to silver nitrate.
The comment requested that silver
nitrate be reclassified from Category II
to the same Category as that for silver
acetate so that testing already begun
may be completed.
The agency notes that the Panel's
report does ndt discuss nor does the
recommended monograph require that
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
27555
3. Because there are no Category I
ingredients and because the purpose of
It
Cloves, ground ......................................
II
an OTC drug monograph is to set forth
I I
Coriander, ground .................................
those specific conditions under which
........
It
Eucalyptus oil..............
It
t
Ginger, ground Jamaica ...........................
OTC drugs are generally recognized as
It
Lemon oil, terpeneless ........................
safe and effective and not misbranded,
It
Licorice root extract'....... ..................... It
Lobeline (in the form of lobeline sul- III
III
the agency is not proposing in this
fate or ita pharmocological equivatentative final monograph the labeling
lent as natural lobella alkaloids or
recommended by the Panel in
Lobeha inflate herb.
Menthol ...................................................
It
It
§ 357.650(b)(6) (mechanism of action
II
Methyl salicylate ...................................
It
labeling). Should data establishing the
New drug.
Povidone-silver nitrate ...................
Quinine ascorbate ......................................
It
11
safety and effectiveness of any smoking
It
Silver acetate ....................
- it
deterrent active ingredient be submitted
I
Silver nitrate ................................................
Thymol ...................................................
t
II
l
during the allotted 12-month comment
and new data period, the agency will
consider appropriate mechanism of
The agency is not aware of any data
action claims for inclusion in the final
demonstrating the safety and
effectiveness of any ingredient not listed monograph.
4. The statement "This product's
above for OTC use as a smoking
effectiveness is directly related to the
deterrent drug product including those
user's motivation to stop smoking
listed in the Panel's report at 47 FR 492,
cigarettes" has not been included in the
part I, paragraph C.2. Therefore, the
tentative final monograph. The agency
agency classifies all other ingredients as
believes the statement is unnecessary
Category II for this use.
2. Testing of CategoryII and Category because it is similar to information
already contained in the indications.
III conditions.The Panel recommended
During the course of the OTC drug
testing guidelines for OTC smoking
review, the agency has maintained that
deterrent drug products (47 FR 498). The
the terms that may be used in an OTC
agency is offering these guidelines as
drug product's labeling are limited to
the Panel's recommendations without
those terms included in a final OTC drug
adopting them or making any formal
monograph. (This policy has become
Interested
persons
comment on them.
known as the "exclusivity rule.") The
may communicate with the agency
agency's position has been that it is
about the submission of data and
necessary to limit the acceptable
information to demonstrate the safety or
labeling language to that developed and
effectiveness of any smoking deterrent
approved through the OTC drug review
ingredient or condition included in the
process in order to ensure the proper
review by following the procedures
and safe use of OTC drugs. The agency
in
the
agency's
policy
statement
outlined
has never contended, however, that any
published in the Federal Register of
list of terms developed during the course
September 29, 1981 (46 FR 47740) and
of the review exhausts all the
clarified April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14050). This
policy statement includes procedures for possibilities of terms that appropriately
can be used in OTC drug labeling.
the submission and review of proposed
Suggestions for additional terms or for
protocols, agency meetings with
industry or other interested persons, and other labeling changes may be
submitted as comments to proposed or
agency communications on submitted
Reference
tentative final monographs within the
test data and other information.
(1) Comment No. C00001, Docket No. 81Nspecified time periods or through
B. Summary of the Agency Changes.
0027, Dockets Management Branch.
petitions to amend monographs under
§ 330.10(a)(12).
FDA has considered the comments
II. The Agency's Tentative Adoption of
During the course of the review,
and
other
relevant
information
and
the Panel's Report
FDA's position on the "exclusivity rule"
concludes that it will tentatively adopt
A. Summary of Ingredient Categories
has been questioned many times in
the Panel's report and recommended
and Testing of CategoryII and Category monograph with the changes described
comments and objections filed in
response to paticular proceedings and in
in FDA's responses to the comments
III Conditions.
correspondence with the agency. The
described
above
and
with
other
changes
1. Summary of ingredientcategories.
agency has also been asked by The
in the summary below. A summary of
The agency has reviewed all claimed
Proprietary Association to reconsider its
the changes made by the agency
active ingredients submitted to the
position. In a notice published in the
follows.
Panel, as well as other data and
Federal Register of July 2, 1982 (47 FR
1. The indications "Helps you stop the
information available at this time, and
29002), FDA announced that a hearing
cigarette urge temporarily" and "Helps
concurs with the Panel's classification of you stop smoking cigarettes
would be held to assist the agency in
these ingredients. For the convenience
resolving this issue. On September 29,
temporarily" have not been included in
of the reader the following table is
1982, FDA conducted an open public
the monograph. (See comment 1 above.)
included as a summary of the
forum at which interested parties
2. The definition of smoking deterrent
categorization of OTC smoking
presented their views. The forum was a
has been changed. (See comment 1
deterrent active ingredients.
legislative type administrative hearing
above.)
smoking deterrent active ingredients be
administered in any specified oral form.
The only requirement for form of
administration of an OTC drug is that
the vehicle of administration be safe
and that it not interfere with the safety
and effectiveness of the active
ingredient.
The agency further notes that
although the studies submitted were
intended as support for the safety and
efficacy of silver nitrate, the drug used
in the studies was described as a
povidone-silver nitrate preparation (Ref.
1). Therefore, the studies cannot be used
in support of silver nitrate as an OTC
smoking deterrent. Because no data
were submitted to the Panel and no data
have been submitted to the agency to
support the use of silver nitrate as a
single active ingredient for use as an
OTC smoking deterrent, the agency
concurs with the Panel that silver nitrate'
should be Category II. Additionally, the
agency is not aware of the marketing in
the United States of any OTC smoking
deterrent drug product containing
povidone-silver nitrate as an active
ingredient. Accordingly, the agency is
unable to determine at this time that the
ingredient is generally recognized as
safe and effective as an OTC smoking
deterrent. Morever, povidone-silver
nitrate has not been marketed to a
material extent or for a material time in
the United States for use OTC smoking
deterrent drug products. Therefore, the
agency considers this ingredient to be a
new drug within the meaning of section
201(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(p)). The
ingredient may not be marketed as a
smoking deterrent until FDA has
approved an NDA for such use.
Smoking deterrent active ingredients
Panel
Agency
27556
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985. / Proposed Rules
under 21 CFR Part 15 that was held in
response to a request for a hearing on
the tentative final monographs for
nighttime sleep-aids and stimulants
(published in the Federal Register of.
June 13, 1978; 43 FR 25544).
After considering the testimony
presentd at the hearing and the written
comments submitted to the record, in
the Federal Register of April 22, 1985 (50
FR 15810), FDA proposed to change its
exclusivity policy for the labeling of
OTC drug products. As proposed,
manufacturers may select one of the
following options:
(1) The label and labeling would
contain within a boxed area designated
"APPROVED USES" the specific
wording on indications for use
established under an OTC drug
monograph. The boxed area would be
required to be displayed in a prominent
and conspicuous location. As under the
present policy, the labeling in the boxed
area would be required to be stated in
the exact language of the monograph.
However, with this option a statement
that the information in the box was
published by the Food and Drug
Administration would appear either in
the box or reasonably close by. At the
manufacturer's option, the designation
of the boxed area and the statement that
the labeling was established by FDA
could be combined.
(2) As a complete alternative to using
the boxed area designated "APPROVED
USES," the proposal would for the first
time allow manufacturers an option to
use other truthful and nondeceptive
statements relating only to the
indications established in an applicable
monograph subject to the prohibitions in
section 502(a) of the act against
misbranding by the use of false or
misleading labeling. If this alternative is
selected, the manufacturer would not be
able to use a boxed area or include a
statement that the indications are
endorsed by the Food and Drug
Administration.
(3) As third alternative, manufacturers
could use both a boxed area with the
monograph language and also,
elsewhere in the labeling, use other nonmonograph language that meets the
statutory standards of truthfulness and
accuracy.
Regardless, other aspects of OTC drug
labeling, such as the statement of
identity, warnings, and directions,
would continue to be required to comply
with the monograph, including following
any exact language established in the
monograph.
The proposal to change the exclusivity
policy provides for 90 days of public
comment. After considering all
comments submitted, the agency will
announce its final decision on this
matter; in a future issue of the Federal
Register.
The agency has examined the
economic consequences of this proposed
rulemaking in conjunction with other
rules resulting from the OTC drug
review. In a notice published in the
Federal Register of February 8, 1983 (48
FR 5806), the agency announced the
availability of an assessment of these
economic impacts. The assessment
determined that the combined impacts
of all the rules resulting from the OTC
drug review do not constitute a major
rule according to the criteria established
by Executive Order 12291. The agency
therefore concludes that none of these
rules, including this proposed rule for
OTC smoking deterrent drug products, is
a major rule.
For purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, the
economic assessment concluded that,
while the average economic impact of
the overall OTC drug review on small
entities will not be significant, the
possibility of larger-than-average
impacts on some small firms in some
years might exist. Therefore, the
assessment included a discretionary
regulatory flexibility analysis in the
event that an individual rule might
impose a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The
analysis identified the possibilities of
reducing burdens on small firms through
the use of (a) relaxed safety and efficacy
standards or (b) labels acknowledging
unproven safety or efficacy. However,
the analysis concluded that there is no
legal basis for any preferential waiver,
exemption, or tiering strategy for small
firms compatible with the public health
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act. Nevertheless, to
avoid overlooking any problems or
feasible possibilities of relief peculiar to
this group of products, the agency
invites public comment regarding any
substantial or significant economic
impact that this rulemaking would have
on OTC smoking deterrent drug
products. Comments regarding the
economic impact of this rulemaking
should be accompanied by appropriate
documentation. The agency Previously
invited public comment in the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
any impact that this rulemaking would
have on OTC smoking deterrent drug
products. No comments on economic
impacts were received.
Any comments on the agency's initial
determination of the economic
consequences of this proposed
rulemaking should be submitted by
October 31, 1985. The agency will
evaluate any comments and supporting
data that are received and will reassess
the economic impact of this rulemaking
in the preamble to the final rule.
The agency has determined that under
21 CFR 25.24(c)(6) (April 26, 1985; 50 FR
16636) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant impact on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
Interested persons may, on or before
September 3,-1985 submit to the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food
and Drug Administration, Rm. 4-62, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,
written comments, objections, or
requests for oral hearing before the
Commissioner on the proposed
regulation. A request for an oral hearing
must specify points to be covered and
time requested. Written comments on
the agency's economic impact
determination may be submitted on or
before October 31, 1985. Three copies of
all comments, objections, and requests
are to be submitted, except that
individuals may submit one copy.
Comments, objections, and requests are
to be identified with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this
document and may be accompanied by
a supporting memorandum or brief.
Comments, objections, and requests
may be seen in the officeabove between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Any scheduled oral hearing will
be announced in the Fedeial Register.
Interested persons, on or before July 3,
1986 may also submit in writing new
data demonstrating the safety and
effectiveness of those conditions not
classified in Category I. Written
comments on the new data may be
submitted on or before September 3,
1986. These dates are consistent with
the time periods specified in the
agency's final rule revising the
procedural regulations for reviewing and
classifying OTC drugs, published in the
Federal Register of September 29, 1981
(46 FR 47730). Three copies of all data
and comments on the data are to be
submitted, except that individuals may
submit one copy, and all data and
comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Data and
comments should be addressed to the
Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
(address above). Received data and
comments may also be seen in the office
above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
In establishing a final rule, the agency
will ordinarily consider only data
submitted prior to the closing of the
Federal Register / Vol. 50,. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
27557
are to be submitted, except that
individuals may submit one copy.
Comments, objections, and requests are
to be identified with the docket number
Title 21 unless otherwise noted.
found in brackets in the heading of this
§ 357.603 Definition.
document and may be accompanied by
As used in this subpart:
a supporting memorandum or brief.
Smoking deterrent.A substance that
Comments, objections, and requests
is used temporarily to help those
may be seen in the office above between
individuals who want to stop smoking
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
(become cigarette free) or to break the
Friday. Any scheduled oral hearing will
cigarette habit.
be announced in the Federal Register.
Interested persons, on or before July 3,
§ 357.610 Smoking deterrent active
1986
may also submit in writing new
Ingredients. [Reserved]
.data demonstrating the safety and
effectiveness of those conditions not
§ 357.650 Labeling of smoking deterrent
drugs products.
classified in Category I. Written
(a) Statement of identity. The labeling comments on the new data may be
submitted on or before September 3,
of the product contains the established
1986. These dates are consistent with
name of the drug, if any, and identifies
the time periods specified in the
the product as a "smoking deterrent."
agency's final rule revising the
(b) Indications.The labeling of the
procedural regulations for reviewing and
product states, under the heading
classifying OTC drugs, published in the
"Indications," the following: "A
Federal Register of September 29, 1981
temporary aid to those who want to"
follows:
(46 FR 47730). Three copies of all data
(select one or both of the following:
"stop
smoking
cigarettes"
and comments on the data are to be
or
"break
the
PART 357-MISCELLANEOUS
submitted, except that individuals may
.cigarette habit"). Other truthful and
INTERNAL DRUG PRODUCTS FOR
submit one copy, and all data and
nonmisleading
statements
describing
OVER-THE-COUNTER HUMAN USE
comments are to be identified with the
only the indications for use that have
docket number found in brackets in the
been established and listed above, may
heading of this document. Data and
also be used, as provided in § 330.1(c](2)
Subart G--moking Deterrent Drug
comments should be addressed to the
of this chapter, subject to the
Products
Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305)
prohibitions in section 502(a) of the act
Sec.
(address above). Received data and
against
false
or
misleading
labeling
and
357.601 Scope.
comments may also be seen in the office
the prohibition in section 301(d) of the
357.603 Definition.
above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
act against the introduction into
357.610 Smoking deterrent active
interstate commerce or unapproved new Monday through Friday.
ingredients. [Reserved]
In establishing a final rule, the agency
357.650 Labeling of smoking deterrent drug
drugs.
will ordinarily consider only data
products.
(c) Warnings. [Reserved]
submitted prior to the closing of the
(d) Directions.[Reserved]
Authority: Secs. 2 01(p), 502, 505, 701, 52
administrative record on September 3,
Stat. 1041-1042 as amended, 1050-1053 as
Interested persons may, on or before
1986. Data submitted after the closing of
amended, 1055-1056 as amended by 70 Stat.
the administrative record will be
919 and 72 Stat. 948 (21 U.S.C. 321(p), 352, 355, September 3, 1985 submit to the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305}, Food
reviewed by the agency only after a
371) (5 U.S.C. 553); 21 CFR 5.11.
and Drug Administration, Rm. 4-62, 5600 final rule is published in the Federal
Subpart G-Smoking Deterrent Drug
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,
Register, unless the Commissioner finds
written comments, objections, or
Products
good cause has been shown that
requests for oral hearing before the
warrants earlier consideration.
§357.601 Scope.
Commissioner on the proposed
Dated: February 8, 1985.
(a) An over-the-counter smoking
regulation. A request for an oral hearing
Frank E. Young,
deterrent drug product in a form suitable must specify points to be covered and
Commissionerof Foodand Drugs.
for oral administration is generally
time requested. Written comments on
Margaret M.Heckler,
recognized as safe and effective and is
the agency's economic impact
Secretaryof Health andHuman Services.
not misbranded if it meets each of the
determination may be submitted on or
conditions in this subpart and each
before October 31, 1985. Three copies of
[FR Doc. 85-15789 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
general condition established in § 330.1.
all comments, objections, and requests
BILLING COOE 4160-01-M
administrative record on September 3,
1986. Data submitted after the closing of
the administrative record will be
reviewed by the agency only after a
final rule is published in the Federal
Register, unless the Commissioner finds
good cause has been shown that
warrants earlier consideration.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 357
OTC drugs, Anthelmintic drug
products, Cholecystokinetic drug
products, Deodorant drug products for
internal use, Orally administered drug
products for fever blisters, Poison
treatment drug products, Smoking
deterrent drug products.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the
Administrative Procedure Act it is
proposed that Subchapter D of Chapter I
of Title 21 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended in Part 357 by
adding new Subpart G to read as
(b) References in this subpart to
regulatory sections of the Code of
Federal Regulations are to Chapter I of
Wednesday
July 3, 1985
Part IV
L
Department of
Defense
General Services
Administration
National Aeronautics
and Space
Administration
48 CFR Parts 7, 15, 19, 34, and 52
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Interim
Rule
27560
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 7, 15, 19, 34, and 52
[Federal Acquisition Circular 84-10]
Federal Acquisition Regulation
AGENCIES: Department of Defense
(DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Interim rule and request for
comment.
SUMMARY: Federal Acquisition Circular
(FAC) 84-10 amends the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) with
respect to the following: Planning for
Future Competition, Integrity of Unit
Prices, Certification of Commercial
Pricing, Small Business Subcontracting
Policy, and Definition of Major System.
DATES: Effective Date:July 3, 1985.
Comments must be received on or
before August 2, 1985. Please cite FAC
84-10 in all correspondence on this
subject.
ADDRESS: Interested parties should
submit written comments to: General
Services Administration, ATTN: FAR
Secretariat (VR), 18th & F Streets, NW.,
Room 4041, Washington, D.C. 20405.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FAR Secretariat, Room 4041, GS
Building, Washington, D.C. 20405,
Telephone (202) 523-4755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The FAR revisions in FAC 84-10 are
required by the Defense Procurement
Reform Act of 1984 (Title XII of the
Department of Defense Authorization
Act, 1985, Pub. L. 98-525), and the Small
Business and Federal Procurement
Competition Enhancement Act of 1984,
(Pub. L. 98-577).
B. Determination To Issue a Temporary
Regulation
A determination has been made under
the authority of the Secretary of
Defense, the Administrator of General
Services, and the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration that the regulations in
FAC 84-10 must be issued as temporary
regulations in compliance with section
22 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act, as amended.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of section 3
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), it has been determined
that this temporary rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 7, 15, 19,
34, and 52
Government procurement.
Dated: July 1, 1985.
Lawrence J.Rizzi,
Director,Office of ederalAcquisition and
Regulatory Policy.
Federal Acquisition Circular
[Number 84-10]
The material contained in FAC 84-10
is effective immediately.
S.1. vans,
Assistant Administratorfor Procurement,
NASA.
Mary Ann Gilleece,
Deputy Under Secretary(Acquisition
Management).
Dwight Ink,
Acting Administrator.
Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC)
84-10 amends the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) as specified below.
Item I-Planning for Future Competition
FAR Part 7, Acquisition Planning, is
amended to implement section 1213 of
Pub. L. 98-525 and section 201 of Pub. L.
98-577.
The revisions (a) require that the
contracting officer, prior to contracting,
review the acquisition history of the
supplies or services and the description
of the supplies, and (b) specify new
requirements applicable to planning for
the solicitation of a major system
development contract or a major system
production contract.
Item II-ntegrity of Unit Prices
FAR Part 15, Contracting by
Negotiation, and Part 52, Solicitation
Provisions and Contract Clauses, are
amended to implement section 1245 of
Pub. L. 98-525 and section 501 of Pub. L.
98-577.
Under the new coverage, offerors/
contractors (a) are required to distribute
costs within contracts on a basis that
ensures that unit prices of supplies are
in proportion to the item's base cost, (b)
may be required to identify supplies that
they will not manufacture or to which
they will not contribute significant
value, and (c) are required to flow the
requirements down to subcontractors.
Item Ill-Certification of Commercial
Pricing
FAR Part 15, Contracting By
Negotiation, and Part 52, Solicitation
Provisions and Contract Clauses, are
amended to implement section 1216 of
Pub. L. 98-525 and section 204 of Pub. L.
98-577 regarding commercial pricing for
supplies.
Under the new coverage offerors/
contractors in certain acquisitions are
required to certify that the prices offered
for those items of supply that the
contractor offers for sale to the public
are no higher than any lower price
charged to any other customer during
the preceding 60 days, or submit a
written justification for any differences.
Item IV-Small Business Subcontracting
Policy
FAR Part 19, Small Business and
Small Disadvantaged Business
Concerns, and Part 52, Solicitation
Provisions and Contract Clauses, are
amended to implement section 402 of
Pub. L. 98-577.
The revision will affect the
subcontracting programs of firms doing
business with the Government. It
widens the area where subcontracting
possibilities are considered to exist,
further specifies the types of
acquisitions that are to be considered
for contracting and subcontracting with
small and small disadvantaged business
concerns, and states the policy of the
United States that its prime contractors
establish procedures to ehsure timely
payments to small and small
disadvantaged subcontractors.
Item V-Definition of Major System
FAR Part 34, Major System
Acquisition, is amended to include in
the FAR the definition of "major
system" that is specified in Sec. 1211 of
the Defense Procurement Reform Act of
1984 (Title XII of the Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1985, Pub. L.
98-525), which is essentially the same as
the definition specified in section 102 of
the Small Business and Federal
Procurement Competition Enhancement
Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-577).
1. Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 7, 15, 19, 34,
and 52 are amended as set forth below.
The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts
7, 15, 19, 34, and 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C.
Chapter 137, and 42 U.S.C. 2453(c).
PART 7-ACQUISITION PLANNING
2. Section 7.103 is amended by adding
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
7.103 Agency-head responsibilities.
(k) Assuring that the contracting
officer, prior to contracting, reviews:
(1) The acquisition history of the
supplies and services; and
(2) A description of the supplies,
including, when necessary for adequate
description, a picture, drawing, diagram,
or other graphic representation.
3. Section 7.106 is added to read as
follows:
7.106 Additional requirements for major
systems.
(a) In planning for the solicitation of a
major system (see Part 34) development
contract, planners shall consider
requiring offerors to include, in their
offers, proposals to incorporate in the
design of a major system(1) Items which are currently
available within the supply system of
the agency responsible for the major
system, available elsewhere in the
national supply system, or commercially
available from more than one source;
and
(2) Items which the Government will
be able to acquire competitively in the
future if they are likely to be needed in
substantial quantities duri'g the
system's service life.
(b) In planning for the solicitation of a
major system (see Part 34) production
contract, planners shall consider
requiring offerors to include, in their
offers, proposals identifying
opportunities to assure that the
Government will be able to obtain, on a
competitive basis, items acquired in
connection with the system that are
likely to be acquired in substantial
quantities during the service life of the
system. Proposals submitted in response
to such requirements may include the
following:
(1) Proposals to provide the
Government the right to use technical
data to be provided under the contract
for competitive future acquisitions,
together with the cost to the
Government, if any, of acquiring such
technical data and the right to use such
data.
(2) Proposals for the qualification or
development of multiple sources of
supply for competitive future
acquisitions.
(c) In determining whether to apply
paragraphs (a) and (b) above, planners
shall consider the purposes for which
the system is being acquired and the
technology necessary to meet the
system's required capabilities. If such
proposals are requirbd, the contracting
officer shall consider them in evaluating
competing offers. In noncompetitive
awards, the factors in paragraphs (a)
27561
and (b), above may be considered by the
contracting officer as objectives in
negotiating the contract.
5. Sections 15.813, 15.813-1, 15.813-2,
15.813-3, 15.813-4, and 15.813-5 are
PART 15-CONTRACTING BY
NEGOTIATION
15.813 Commercial pricing certificates.
4. Sections 15.812, 15.812-1, and
15.812-2, are added to read as follows:
The Government should not purchase
items of supply offered for sale to the
public at a price that exceeds the lowest
price at which such items are sold by
15.812 Unit prices.
15.812-1
General.
(a) Although direct and indirect costs
are generally allocated to contracts in
accordance with the Cost Accounting
Standards of Part 30 (when applicable)
and the Contract Cost Principles and
Procedures of Part 31, for the purpose of
pricing all items of supplies, distribution
of those costs within contracts shall be
on a basis that ensures that unit prices
are in proportion to the item's base cost
(manufacturing or acquisition costs).
Any method of distributing costs to line
items that distorts the unit prices shall
not be used. For example, distributing
costs equally among line items is not
acceptable except when there is little or
no variation in base cost.
(b) When contracting by negotiation,
without full and open competition,
contracting officers shall require that
offerors identify in their proposals those
items of supply which they will not
manufacture or to which they will not
contribute significant value. The
contracting officer shall require similar
information when contracting by
negotiation with full and open
competition if adequate .price
competition is not expected (see 15.8043(b)). The information need not be
requested in connection with the award
of contracts under the General Services
Administration's competitive multiple
award schedule program. Such
information shall be used to determine
whether the intrinsic value of an iteni
has been distorted through application
of overhead and whether such items
shall be considered for breakout. The
contracting officer may require such
information in any other negotiated
contracts when appropriate.
15.812-2 Contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert the
clause at 52.215-26, Integrity of Unit
Prices, in all solicitations and contracts
other than small purchases under Part 13
or involving construction or architectengineer services under Part 36 or utility
services under Subpart 8.3. The
contracting officer shall insert the clause
with its Alternate I when contracting
without full and open competition or
when prescribed by agency regulations.
added to read as follows:
15.813-1 •Policy.
the contractor unless the price
difference is clearly justified by the
seller or unless exempt under 15.813-3.
To this end, 10 U.S.C. 2323 and 41 U.S.C.
253e require an offeror to certify that the
price offered is not more than its lowest
difference and providing justification for
that difference.
15.813-2 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in 15.813-3,
commercial pricing certificates are
required to be submitted with any offer/
proposal covering any item or items that
are offered for sale to the public which
is submitted in connection with any of
the following:
(1) Contracts not awarded on the
basis of full and open competition.
(2) Contract modifications including
contract modifications for additional
items but not including contract
modifications that are within the scope
and under the terms of the contract,
such as contract modifications issued
pursuant to the Changes clause, or
funding and other administrative
changes.
(3) Orders under the provisioning line
item of a contract or under a Basic
Ordering Agreement or under a similar
arrangement. *
(b) If the contract, modification or
order is awarded without a definitive
price, such as a letter contract or an
unpriced order, the commercial pricing
certificate is not required prior to award
but rather will be submitted with the
offer or proposal furnished to definitize
the price.
(c) Notwithstanding any limitations
contained in (a) above, the contracting
officer may require a commercial pricing
certificate whenever it is necessary to
protect the interests of the Government.
Examples could be where adequate
price competition does not exist despite
full and open competition or where a
modification issued pursuant to the
Changes clause results in a substitution
of commercial items for non-commercial
items.
15.813-3 Exemptions from commercial
pricing certificates.
(a) For'civilian agencies, not including
NASA, a certificate of commercial
pricing is not required in connection
27562
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
with the acquisition of items unless the
items being acquired are individual
parts, components, subassemblies,
assemblies or subsystems integral to a
major system, and other property which
may be replaced during the service life
of the system, including spare parts and
replenishment spare parts, but not
including packaging or labeling
associated with shipment or
identification of an item.
(b) The contracting officer shall not
ordinarily require a certificate of
commercial pricing when(1)The simplified small purchase
prodedures of Part 13 are being used;
(2) An order is placed under an
indefinite delivery type contract (a
certificate is required in connection with
the award without full and open
competition of an indefinite delivery
type contract);
(3) The contracting officer determines
that obtaining the commercial pricing
certificate is not appropriate because of
(i) national security considerations; or
(ii) differences in quantities, quality,
delivery, or other terms and conditions
of the contract from commercial
contract terms; or
(4) The contracting officer determines
that no commercial items are included in
the contract, modification or order.
15.813-4 Procedures.
(a) When commercial pricing
certificates are required in accordance
with 15.813-2 above, the contracting
officer shall require the contractor to
submit the certificate as set forth in the
clause at 52.215-32, Certification of
Commercial Pricing. The contracting
officer should assess market conditions
for the items expected to be covered by
the certificate to determine whether the
standard 60-day time period specified in
the certificate is appropriate. If the
frequency of price fluctuations or other
circumstances persuade the contracting
officer that a shorter or longer period is
appropriate, the time period should be
modified accordingly.
(b) The contracting officer shall
request submission of a new certificate
when the validity of the certificate
originally submitted with an offer/
proposal becomes doubtful prior to
award due to submission of a new or
revised proposal or as a result of
discussions.
(c) If, before agreement on price, the
contracting officer learns that the
certificate is inaccurate, incomplete, or
misleading, the contracting officer shall
immediately bring the matter to the
attention of the offeror/contractor,
request a new certificate, and negotiate
accordingly.
(d) If, after award, the contracting
officer learns or suspects that
commercial prices offered were
defective, the contracting officer shall
request, as appropriate, an audit to
evaluate the commercial prices under
authority of paragraph (b) of the clause
at 52.215-32. If the contracting officer
determines that a certificate is
inaccurate, incomplete or misleading,
the Government is entitled to a price
adjustment for the overcharge (see
paragraph (c) of the clause at 52.215-32).
(e) Individual or class determinations
made under 15.813-3(b)(3) or (b)(4) will
be documented in the contract file.
(f) Possession of a contractor's
Certificate of Commercial Pricing is not
a substitute for examining and analyzing
a contractor's proposal.
15.813-5
Contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert the
clause at 52.215-32, Certification of
Commercial Pricing, in all solicitations
and contracts unless exempted under
15.813-3(a) or (b)(1).
PART 19-SMALL BUSINESS AND
SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS
CONCERNS
6. Section 19.201 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
19.201
General policy.
(a) It is the policy of the Government
to place a fair proportion of its
-acquisitions, including contracts and
subcontracts for subsystems,
assemblies, components, and related
services for major systems, with small
business concerns and small
disadvantaged business concerns.
7. Section 19.702 is amended by
adding a second sentence to the
introductory text to read as follows:
19.702 Statutory requirements.
It is further the policy of the United
States that its prime contractors
establish procedures to ensure the
timely payment of amounts due
pursuant to the terms of their
subcontracts with small business
concerns and small business concerns
owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged
individuals.
PART 34-MAJOR SYSTEM
ACQUISITION
8. Section 34.001 is added to read as
follows:
34.001 Definition.
"Major system" means that
combination of elements that will
function together to produce the
capabilities required to fulfill a mission
need. The elements may include
hardware, equipment, software or any
combination thereof, but exclude
construction or other improvements to
real property. A system shall be
considered a major system if(a) The Department of Defense is
responsible for the system and the total
expenditures for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the system are
estimated to be more than $75,000,000
(based on fiscal year 1980 constant
dollars) or the eventual total
expenditure for the acquisition exceeds
$300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1980
constant dollars);
(b) A civilian agency is responsible for
the system and total expenditures for
the system are estimated to exceed
$750,000 (based on fiscal year 1980
constant dollars) or the dollar threshold
for a "major system" established by the
agency pursuant to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
A-109,entitled "Major Systems
Acquisition", whichever is greater; or
(c) The system is designated a "major
system" by the head of the agency
responsible for the system.
PART 52-SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
9. Section 52.215-26 is added to read
as follows:
52.215-26 Integrity of Unit Prices.
As prescribed in 15.812-2, insert the
following clause:
Integrity of Unit Prices (June 1985)
(a) Any proposal submitted for the
negotiations of prices for items of supplies
shall distribute costs within contracts on a
basis that ensures that unit prices are in
proportion to the items' base cost (e.g.,
manufacturing or acquisition costs). Any
method of distributing costs to line items that
distorts unit prices shall not be used. For
example, distributing costs equally among
line items is not acceptable except when
there is little or no variation in base cost.
(b) The Offeror/Contractor shall also
identify those supplies which it will not
manufacture or to which it will not contribute
significant value when requested by the
Contracting Officer.
(c) The Contractor shall insert the
substance of this clause in all subcontracts.
(End of clause)
Alternate I(JUN 1985). As prescribed
in 15.812-2, substitute the following
paragraph (b) for paragraph (b) of the
basic clause:
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
(b) The Offeror/Contractor shall also
identify those supplies which it will not
manufacture or to which it will not contribute
significant value.
10. Section 52.215-32 is added to read
as follows:
52.215-32 Certification of Commercial
Pricing.
As prescribed in 15.813-5, insert the
following clause: The 60-day period may
be changed by the contracting officer in
accordance with 15.813-4(a):
Certification of Commercial Pricing (Jun 1985)
(a) The Offeror/Contractor shall execute
and submit to the Contracting Officer the
following certificate with any offer/proposal
as required by section 15.813-2 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or as requested
by the Contracting Officer:
Certificate of Commercial Pricing
(1) Unless justified in (2) below, by
submission of this offer/proposal, the Offeror
/Contractor certifies that the prices offered
for those items of supply (whether or not
separately identified) that the Contractor
offers for sale to the public are no higher than
any lower price charged to any other
customer, including any governmental
instrumentality, during the preceding 60 days.
(2) All items for which prices offered are
higher than any lower price charged to any
other customer during the preceding 60 days
are identified below (including the amount(s)
by which such offered prices are higher) and
a written justification for the differences is
attached.
Items
Price Differences
(List as necessary)
Offer/Proposal, No.
Firm
Name
Title
Date
(End of certificate)
(b) The Contracting Officer or
representatives of the Contracting Officer
who are employees of the Government shall
have the right to examine and audit all books,
records, documents and other data of the
Contractor related to the pricing of the
commercial items covered by this offer/
proposal. The contractor shall make these
books, records, documents and other data
available for examination, audit, or
reproduction until three years after final
payment under this contract.
(c) If any price, including profit or fee
negotiated in connection with this contract,
or any cost reimbursable under this contract
has increased because the certification in
paragraph (1) of the Certificate or the
information provided as justification in
paragraph (2) of the Certificate was
inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the
price or cost shall be reduced accordingly
and the contract shall be modified to reflect
the reduction.
(End of clause)
11. Section 52.219-8 is amended by
inserting a colon in the introductory text
following the word "clause", and
removing the remainder of the sentence;
27563
by removing paragraphs (a) and (b); by
removing in the title of the clause the
date "(APR 1984)" and inserting in its
place "(JUN 85)"; by revising paragraph
(a) of the clause; and by removing the
three d~rivation lines following "(End of
clause)" to read as follows:
52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business
Concerns and Small Disadvantaged
Business Concerns.
As prescribed in 19.708(a), insert the
following clause:
Utilization of Small Business Concerns and
Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns (Jun
1985)
(a) It is the policy of the United States that
small business concerns and small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals
shall have the maximum practicable
opportunity to participate in performing
contracts let by any Federal agency,
including contracts and subcontracts for
subsysteris, assemblies, components, and
related seriices for major systems. It is
further the policy of the United States that its
prime contractors establish procedures to
ensure the timely payment of amounts due
pursuant to the terms of their subcontracts
with small business concerns and small
business concerns owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals.
[FR Doc. 85-15989 Filed 7-2-85: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-M
Wednesday
July 3, 1985
Part V
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
Metal and Nonmetal Mines; Public
Hearings
27566
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
Metal and Nonmetal Mining; Public
Hearings
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of public hearings.
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) will hold public
hearings on its proposal to revise
existing safety standards for loading,
hauling and dumping at metal and
nonmetal mines. The hearings will be
held in St. Paul, Minnesota; Phoenix,
Arizona; and Birmingham, Alabama;
and are in response to requests received
from the public. Each hearing will cover
the major issues raised by commenters
in response to the proposed rule.
DATES: All requests to make oral
presentations for the record should be
submitted at least five days prior to
each hearing date. However,
immediately before each hearing begins,
any unalloted time will be made
available to persons making late
requests.
The public hearings will be held at the
following locations on the dates
indicated, beginning at 9:00 a.m.:
August 5, 1985: St. Paul, Minnesota
August 7, 1985: Phoenix, Arizona
August 9, 1985: Birmingham, Alabama
ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at
the following locations:
1. August 5, 1985-Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building, Room 196, Ft.
Snelling, St. Paul, Minnesota 55111.
2. August 7, 1985-Federal Building
and Courthouse, 7th Floor Hearing
Room, 230 North First Avenue, Phoenix,
Arizona 85025.
August 9, 1985-Birningham-Jefferson
Civic Center, North Meeting Room B,
Number One Civic Center Plaza, 21st
Street and 10th Avenue, North,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203.
Send requests to make oral
presentations to: Mine Safety and
Health Administration, Office of
Standards, Regulations and Variances,
Room 631, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations and Variances,
MSHA, phone (703) 235-1910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 18, 1984, MSHA published
proposed revisions to its existing safety
standards in 30 CPR Parts 55, 56, and 57
for loading, hauling and dumping at
metal and nonmetal mines (49 FR 49202).
All of the metal and nonmetal
standards, including those for loading,
hauling and dumping, were recordified
as Parts 56 and 57 on January 29, 1985
(50 FR 4048). The comment period for
the proposed rule on loading, hauling
and dumping closed on March 22, 1985.
In the comments filed to the proposed
rule, MSHA received requests to hold
public hearings.
The purpose of the public hearings is
to receive relevant comment and to
answer questions concerning the
proposal. The hearings will be
conducted in an informal manner by a
panel of MSHA officials. Although
formal rules of evidence will not apply,
the presiding official may exercise
discretion in excluding irrelevant or
unduly repetitious material and
questions.
Each hearing will begin with an
opening statement from MSHA. The
public will then be given an opportunity
to make oral presentations. During these
presentations, the hearing panel will be
available to answer relevant questions.
At the discretion of the presiding
official, speakers may be limited to a
maximum of 20 minutes for their
presentations. Time will be made
available at the end of each hearing for
rebuttal statements. A verbatim
transcript of each proceeding will be
taken and made part of the rulemaking
record. Copies of the hearing transcript
will be available for review by the
public.
MSHA will also accept additional
written comments and other appropriate
data from any interested party,
including those not presenting oral
statements. Written comments and data
submitted to MSHA will be included in
the rulemaking record. To allow for the
submission of any post-hearing
comments, the record will remain open
until August 23, 1985.
Issues
Commenters requested clarification or
revision of many specific provisions of
the proposed rule. Some of the
provisions of the rule received extensive
comment. These issues are outlined in
this notice and MSHA specifically
solicits additional comment on them, in
addition to any other aspects of the
proposal.
Scope of Subpart H
Several comments concerned the
scope of proposed Subpart H. Some
commenters wanted to limit the scope of
this Subpart to mobile equipment that is
specifically used for loading, hauling
and dumping. Other commenters
believed that MSHA needed to clarify
and emphasize the applicability of these
standards to all types of mobile
equipment.
MSHA notes that while many of the
loading, hauling and dumping standards
address hazards which are directly
related to various types of mobile
equipment, others are less directly
related. Some of the standards within
this Subpart address hazards which may
exist independently from mobile
equipment. For example, standards
directly related to mobile equipment
include those requiring the correction of
defects affecting safety (56/57.9100) and
effective brakes on self-propelled
equipment (56/57.9202). Standards less
directly related to mobile equipment
would include the provisions relating to
shelter holes (57.9363) and suspended
loads (56/57.9208). Examples of
standards involving hazards which may
exist independently of mobile equipment
include those relating to stockpile faces
(56/57.9405) and chute hazards (56/
57.9501).
MSHA is aware of the concern of
commenters who believe that the
standards would be clarified if the scope
of the subparts were limited to certain
types of mining equipment. This concern
was also expressed in the rulemaking
for Machinery and Equipment (Subpart
M). Since the existing standards in
Subparts H and M do not have these
limitations upon their scope, the
approach of limiting the scope of
individual standards based on the
nature of the mining equipment would
necessitate the repetition of many
standards. MSHA's approach to the
standards review project has been to
address standards on a hazard-oriented
basis.
MSHA agrees with the commenters
that the standards should be organized
to facilitate their understanding and use.
After the rulemaking for all the subparts
contained in the metal and nonmetal
standards review project has been
completed, MSHA will examine the
standards to assure that the subparts
are organized in the most meaningful
and effective way. This overview of the
organization of the standards may result
in the rearrangement of standards
among the subparts.
Deletion of Standards
Some commenters objected to the
proposed deletion of existing standards
56/57.9053 which require the removal of
water, debris, or spilled material that
present hazards to moving equipment.
These commenters did not believe that
existing standards 56/57.4104,
combustible waste, and 56/57.200003,
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
housekeeping, fully addressed these
hazards.
Travelways
The proposal included a new standard
for Subpart J, Travelways and
Escapeways, which would address
restricted clearance hazards for persons
walking along travelways. MSHA
proposed to add this standard to
Subpart I and limit the restricted
clearance requirement in Subpart H to
hazards associated with mobile
equipment.
Commenters suggested that restricted
areas be marked with reflectorizedspray paint. Other commenters believed
that the standard should be limited to
usual and frequently used travelways
and that it should not apply to
obstructions above 66".
Definitions
Commenters suggested alternative
language to the proposed definitions for
mobile and self-propelled equipment.
For example, to clarify the scope of the
mobile equipment standards, one
commenter suggested that the definition
for self-propelled equipment be: "mobile
equipment capable of moving itself."
MSHA solicits further comment on these
proposed terms.
Mobile Equipment
Safety defects. Proposed standards
56/57.9100(a) require that mobile
equipment defects which affect safety
be corrected in a timely manner to
prevent the creation of a hazard to
persons. Section 56/57.9100(b) requires
defective equipment to be tagged or
marked and removed from service if
continued operation would be
hazardous to persons.
Some commenters believed paragraph
(a) was vague and that a more definite
procedure for correcting defects should
be specified. Commenters also
recommended that MSHA allow
operators to isolate defective equipment
in a designated maintenance area in lieu
of tagging or marking. MSHA solicits
comments as to how equipment would
be identified as defective if this
recommendation were adopted.
Traffic controL Proposed standards
56/57.9101 require mine operators to
establish and post rules governing
speed, right-of-way, and direction of
movement. Visible warning signs or
signals must be placed at appropriate
locations on roadways.
Commenters believed that more
specific language or examples were
needed to clarify the phrases
"appropriate locations" and "visible
signs or signals." Other commenters
believed that the more approriate term
for equipment covered by this standard
was "self-propelled" rather than
"mobile." Commenters also questioned
MSHA's application of the word
"roadway" because they were
concerned that the standard could be
applied in underground areas. MSHA
notes that the existing standards (56/
57.9071) apply to underground as well as
surface locations. Commenters also
suggested adding a paragraph to
specifically exclude rail equipment from
the scope of this standard.
Transportingpersons. Proposed
standards 56/57.9102 list restrictions on
transporting persons in equipment.
Commenters believed work platforms
and shaft buckets should be excluded
from the prohibition against transporting
persons in or on dippers, forks,
clamshells, or buckets. Several
commenters objected to the requirement
that prohibits persons from riding in
beds of mobile equipment or railcars
unless they are seated and provisions
are made for their secure travel. They
believed that this requirement was
unclear and that the proposed wording
did not allow for alternative compliance.
Commenters suggested that MSHA
consider excluding brakemen from the
requirement which restricts certain
riding locations on trains and allow car
droppers to ride between cars if
restraining belts are used for their
safety. Commenters were also
concerned that the requirement which
prohibits transporting persons in mobile
equipment with tools, materials or
equipment unless the items are secured
would not allow persons to carry small
hand tools while they were being
transported. They believed that by
permitting small materials, tools, and
equipment to be hand-carried, these
items would be sufficiently secured.
MSHA agrees that this suggestion has
merit.
Loading, hauling and unloadingof
equipment or supplies. Proposed
standards 56/57.9104 require that
equipment or supplies be loaded,
secured and unloaded to prevent falling
or shifting.
Commenters were concerned about
the word "secured," and stated that in
situations where supplies are
transported separately from persons, no
hazard would exist from unsecured
loads. Other commenters believed that
the proposed requirement would restrict
the methods permitted for unloading
equipment or supplies. These
commenters believed that the standard
should allow unloading to be performed
in a manner which would not "create a
hazard to persons," noting that some
supplies are unloaded by "dropping" the
load after all persons are in the clear.
"27567
MSHA notes that the standard is not
intended to restrict customary unloading
tecliniques. The standard is directed
toward improper unloading techniques
which could result in unplanned shifting
or falling of equipment or supplies.
Minimizing spillage. Proposed
standards 56/57.9106 require mined
material to be loaded to minimize
spillage.
Commenters stated that the standard
should also require loads to be centered
to ensure vehicle stability.
Securing movable parts.Proposed
'standards 56/57.9108(a) require that
booms, buckets, forks, and similar
movable parts on mobile equipment be
secured in a safe travel position when
moving between work places. Paragraph
(b) requires that these parts be secured
or lowered to the ground when mobile
equipment is unattended or not in use.
Commenters suggested that MSHA
use the word "positioned" instead of
"secured" to more accurately describe
the requirements of the standard. They
also suggested that the method of
securing be consistent with the type of
equipment involved.
Parkingprocedurefor unattended
equipment. Proposed standards 56/
57.9109 require certain procedures to be
followed to secure mobile equipment
when it is left unattended.
Commenters believed that because of
the diverse methods for securing mobile
equipment, this standard should contain
performance language to prevent
inadvertent movement rather than
specific procedures. They believed that
such an approach would ensure that
equipment would be parked safely while
allowing flexibility for different types of
equipment. Commenters also questioned
whether the additional securing
procedure for equipment parked on a
grade applies to slight or minimal
grades.
Blocking equipment in a raised
position. Proposed standards 56/57.9110
require mobile equipment and its raised
components to be blocked or
mechanically secured prior to working
on, under, or from it. It also requires that
the equipment be blocked to prevent
rolling. Special provisions apply to
equipment which is specifically
designed as an elevated mobile work
platform.
Commenters believed that the
provisions relating to raised components
would prohibit the use of forklifts
equipped with work baskets and the use
of front-end loader buckets as work
stations. MSHA notes that the proposed
standard would allow work to be
performed from such equipment as long
as the raised portion has been blocked
27568.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
or mechanically secured, to prevent
accidental lowering. Commenters also
believed blocking to prevent rolling
should not be required if the equipment
is on a level surface, and the brakes has
been applied. Some commenters also
urged that the term "load-locking
devices" be defined. Additionally,
several commenters favored excluding
cranes from the scope of this standard
until MSHA reviews its hoisting
standards. MSHA agrees and did not
intend to include cranes within the
scope of this proposed standard.
Tire repair.Proposed standard 56/
57.9111 set forth safety procedures and
devices to be used during tire repair.
Many commenters questioned the
need to deflate both tires on a dual
wheel if only one tire is in need of
repair, stating that such a requirement
would increase the degree of hazard.
Other commenters suggested that
MSHA follow OSHA's tire repair
standards contained in 29 CFR Part 1910
and 29 CFR Part 1926. MSHA intends to
further review the applicability of the
OSHA tire repair standard&
Warning devices. Proposed standards
56/57.9112 require warning devices
where hazards to persons on mobile
equipment may be created.
Some commenters believed that the
standard should allow persons to walk
behind or beside vehicles for short
distances as an alternative to attaching
warning flags to extended loads. Other
commenters believed the requirement
for marking restricted clearance areas
should only pertain to roadways having
these hazards. Commenters also
suggested that this standard exclude rail
equipment on the basis that it is
adequately covered in 56.9330, clearance
for surface rail equipment.
Self-Propelled Equipment
Inspection of self-propelled
equipment. Proposed standards 56/
57.9200 require inspection of selfpropelled equipment and recording of
defects that affect safety.
Commenters believed there should be
no obligation to record defects if those
defects are corrected immediately.
Other commenters believed that all
defects should be recorded and that the
records should be maintained for 30 to
90 days to provide a source of
information concerning equipment
repair, and for use in accident
investigations.
Operatorsstations on self-propelled
equipment. Proposed standards 56/
57.9201 address safety hazards
associated with operator's stations on
self-propelled equipment.
The proposal provides, in part, that if
damaged windows "obscure operating
visibility" or expose the equipment
operator to "hazardous environmental
conditions" certain actions must be
taken. Commenters requested that
MSHA define these phrases. MSHA
solicits suggestions regarding these
terms.
Brakes. Proposed standards 56/
57.9202 set forth minimum brake
performance requirements for selfpropelled equipment and provide for
testing in certain instances.
Many comments were directed
toward MSHA's proposal to test some
types of vehicles when there is cause to
believe that the service brakes are not
capable of stopping the equipment.
Several commenters requested that the
scope of this standard be limited to
vehicles manufactured in 1976 or after.
Other commenters believed the testing
requirements should only apply to
haulage vehicles, or vehicles
manufactured after the effective date of
the final rule. Additionally, some
commenters believed the standard
should exclude vehicles which normally
operate at low speeds, as well as forklifts and air or battery-powered
equipment. Commenters believed
agricultural tractors should be tested
under different criteria. Commenters
also believed that underground vehicles
should be exempt from the testing
procedure. Commenters believed that
the proposed testing conditions were
unsafe, too rigorous and would create
controversy. Several commenters also
believed that some types of vehicles
should be tested without any load, and
that the term "fully loaded" was vague.
Commenters recommended that the
distance table be extended for vehicles
weighing more than 600,000 pounds, and
others believed the instances in which
testing would be conducted should be
more specifically set forth. Commenters
also believed the performance
requirement for parking brakes should
be limited to holding vehicles on a 15%
grade.
At this point in the rulemaking, MSHA
agrees that underground equipment
should not be tested. As discussed in the
proposal, MSHA has conducted field
studies and additional brake tests. The
results of these tests, including video
tapes, will be made available for
viewing during the public hearings.
Additional comment on the issues of
brake performance, testing and scope is
specifically solicited.
Berms. Proposed standards 56/57.9203
require berms or guards on the banks of
elevated roadways.
Commenters suggested that
alternatives be allowed for infrequently
traveled roads which are only used by
small service or maintenance vehicles.
Based on these comments, MSHA is
considering permitting alternative
compliance on these types of roads if
additional safety precautions are taken.
For example, such precautions could
include: (1) Locked gates at the entrance
points to the road; (2) signs warning that
the road is not bermed; (3) reflectors
installed at 25-foot intervals along the
perimeter of the elevated locations; (4) a
maximum posted speed of 15 mph; (5)
using vehicles equipped with two-way
radios together with a check-in/checkout system; and (6) periodic updating of
road hazards for drivers who use these
roads. MSHA solicits additional
comment on these alternatives, or other
measures needed to assure equivalent
safety.
Some commenters requested that the
required berm height be further clarified
and stated that berms of mid-axle height
was an excessive requirement.
Additionally, several commenters
believed that the scope of the berm
standard should be limited to only those
roadways which are used for ore
haulage.
Dust control. Proposed standards 56/
57.9204 address hazards which may be
created where dust impairs visibility.
Commenters believed that the
standard should only require dust
control measures to be taken when
impairments to visibility are present,
stating that the reference to situations
where hazards to persons "may be
created" was too speculative and
subjective.
Fallingobject protective structures
(FOPS). Proposed standards 56/57.9209
require FOPS for certain types of selfpropelled equipment.
Several commenters believed that this
standard should incorporate by
reference ANSI standard B 56.6-1978,
which addresses FOPS for rough terrain
forklift trucks, in addition to the
proposal's incorporation of ANSI 56.1,
Section 420 (1975) and SAE 1 231
(January, 1981). Other commenters
believed the existing standard's
reference to "substantial canopies" was
adequate, and that the standard should
allow either approach for compliance.
Some commenters also favored
excluding undergound equipment from
the scope, while others believed it
should be expanded to include many
other types of equipment such as
loaders and drill rigs. A few commenters
believed that FOPS identification
information should be filed at the mine
office as an alternative to the proposed
labeling requirement.
Roll-overprotective structures
(ROPS). Proposed standards 56/57.9230
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Proposed Rules
require ROPS and seat belts for certain
types of self-propelled equipment.
Commenters requested that the scope
be expanded to include various types of
underground equipment. Commenters
also believed that repaired ROPS should
only be recertified by the manufacturer,
and that only the manufacturer should
specify the proper nuts and bolts to be
used to attach ROPS. As an alternative
to labeling, commenters requested that
the standard permit ROPS information
to be kept at the mine office.
Commenters stated that the seat belt
requirement should be expanded to
include haulage trucks. Commenters
also requested that grader operators be
exempt from the seaqbelt requirement
since they often stand while performing
their work. Many commenters believed
that while the requirement to wear seat
belts is laudable, it would be difficult to
enforce.
Horns and Back-up Alarms. Proposed
standards 56/57.9231 set forth
requirements for horns and back-up
alarms on surface equipment.
Commenters believed that back-up
alarms were not necessary for some
types of equipment, such as track-type
bulldozers, and excavators with 360 °
rotation capability. Several commenters
also believed that horns are
unnecessary for slow moving equipment,
such as dozers, graders, skid-steer
loaders, bobcats, or small personnel
carriers. Other commenters believed the
horn requirement should only apply to
wheel-mounted equipment that has an
obstructed view to the front.
In its preamble, MSHA asked for
comment on the merit of using wheelmounted bell alarms for highway-use
vehicles. Commenters expressed
support for this alternative.
Rail Equipment
Brakes. Proposed standards 56/
57.9300 require braking systems on
railroad cars to be maintained in
functional condition. MSHA wishes to
clarify that locomotives are intended to
be included within the scope of this
standard.
Some commenters suggested that the
standard permit alternative means of
stopping and holding railroad cars.
MHSA solicits comments on these
alternative means. Other commenters
believed the standard should only apply
to railroad cars that are used for
braking.
Railroadcrossings. Proposed
standards 56/57.9313 require permanent
railroad crossings to be posted with
warning signs or be guarded when trains
pass. The crossings must also be
planked or filled between the rails.
Commenters questioned the
applicability of planking and filling
crossings in underground operations.
Train movement during shift changes
underground.Proposed standard 57.9362
addresses train movement while
persons are changing shifts.
Commenters believed the standard
should also apply to open pit operations
for both rail and truck haulage traffic.
Shelterholes. Proposed standard
57.9363 requires shelter holes at
adequate intervals, specifies the
minimum width and depth clearances,
and prohibits storage in shelter holes.
Commenters believed that shelter
holes could be used for storage if 40
inches of clearance were maintained,
and that MSHA's exclusion of their use
for storage would require numerous new
shelter holes to be constructed. MSHA
notes that the proposed standard would
not require more shelter holes than the
existing standard. However, because the
proposal does not allow storage in
shelter holes, new storage facilities may
have to be constructed in some
operations. MSHA solicits specific
comment on the impact of this standard,
including the number of new facilities
and any associated costs of
construction.
Dumping Locations and Facilities
Restrainingdevices. Proposed
standards 56/57.9402 require restraining
devices, such as berms and bumper
27569
27569
blocks, to be provided at dumping
locations to prevent overtravel.
Some commenters believed that the
requirement to prevent overtravel would
be inconsistent with MSHA's proposed
berm definition, which requires that
berms be capable of moderating or
limiting the force of a vehicle to impede
its passage over the bank of a roadway.
Unstableground.Proposed standards
56/57.9404 address the hazards of
unstable ground for mobile equipment
operating at dumping locations.
Some commenters believed that this
standard should expressly include a
requirement for periodic inspection of
ground stability at dumping locations.
Trimming of stockpile and muckpile
faces. Proposed standards 56/57.9405
address hazardous overhangs on
stockpile and muckpile faces.
Commenters raised an issue of
whether the standard should also
require barricading or guarding of
stockpile and muckpile overhangs until
they have been trimmed.
Safety Devices and Procedures
Air valves for pneumatic equipment.
Proposed standards 56/57.9700 require
that a manually operated quick-close
master air valve be installed on all types
of pneumatic-powered equipment.
Some commenters believed this
standard should be limited to selfpropelled equipment used for loading,
hauling and dumping.
Warnings priorto starting or moving
equipment. Proposed standards 56/
57.9701 require equipment operators to
sound a warning prior to starting or
moving equipment.
Commenters requested clarification of
the types of equipment covered by this
standard, and suggested that the scope
be limited to self-propelled equipment.
Dated: June 28, 1985.
Daivd A. Zegeer,
Assistant Secretaryfor Mine Safety and
Health.
[FR Doc. 85-16002 Filed 7-2-85; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 4510-43.-M
Reader Aids
Federal Register
Vol. 50. No. 128
Wednesday, July 3. 1985
CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JULY
INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ORDERS
Subscriptions (public)
Problems with subscriptions
Subscriptions (Federal agencies)
Single copies, back copies of FR
Magnetic tapes of FR, CFR volumes
Public laws (Slip laws)
PUBLICATIONS AND SERVICES
Daily Federal Register
General information, index, and finding aids
Public inspection desk
Corrections
Document drafting information
Legal staff
Machine readable documents, specifications
Code of Federal Regulations
General information, index, and finding aids
Printing schedules and pricing information
Laws
Indexes
Law numbers and dates
202-783-3238
275-3054
523-5240
783-3238
275-2867
275-3030
523-5227
523-5215
523-5237
523-5237
523-4534
523-3408
At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register
publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which
lists parts and sections affected by documents published since
the revision date of each title.
71 .............
27013, 27014, 27528
3 CFR
27014
75 ....................................
Executive Orders:
11888 (Amended by
15 CFR
27409
EO 12524).....................
27420
376
...................................
26963
12523 .............................
27420
399 ...................................
27409
12524 .................................
FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, JULY
Proclamations:
16 CFR
26961
5356 ...................................
26981
13....................................
5 CFR
17 CFR
771 ..................................... 26965
26981
288 ...................................
7 CFR
19 CFR
.........................
26965
52 .............
4......................................... 26981
.*............
26972
226 ....................
400 ..............26976
20 CFR
27411
908 .....................................
27222
200 ...................................
27411
921 .....................................
27213
930 .....................................
21 CFR
26976
979 .....................................
26984
101 ...................................
26977
991 .....................................
27421, 27422
558 ........................
27412
1040 ...................................
Proposal Rules:
26978
1427 ...................................
27294
170 ...................................
27413
1435 ...................................
27016
201 ...................................
27414
1941 ...................................
27016
211 ...................................
27415
1944 ...................................
27552
357 ...................................
27414, 27416
1945 ......................
27016
514...................................
Proposed Rules:
27016
559...................................
Ch. X .................................. 27003
27452
561 ...................................
27288
29.......................................
27024
1002 ..................................
27004
51 .......................................
27288
920 .....................................
22 CFR
1
26961-27212........................
2
27213-27408.........................
3
27409-27570.........................
8 CFR
Proposed Rules:
:.............. 27289
103 ......
Presidential Documents
Executive orders and proclamations
Public Papers of the President
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents
United States Government Manual
Other Services
Library
Privacy Act Compilation
TDD for the deaf
523-5227
523-3419
523-5282
523-5282
523-5266
523-5230
523-5230
523-5230
523-5230
523-4986
523-4534
523-5229
27422
501 ...................................
25 CFR
Proposed Rules:
27456
61 ....................................
10 CFR
9 ......................................... 27214
26 CFR
Proposed Rules:
...............
27222, 27231, 27427
27006
50 .......................................
27222, 27231
602........................
12 CFR
Proposed Rules:
27215
403 ....................................
1...............
27297, 27456. 27457
27417
723 .....................................
28 CFR
Proposed Rules:
27428
32 ...................................
561 ..................................... 27290
27290
563 .....................................
29 CFR
27290
571 .....................................
27233
1952 .................................
13 CFR
Proposed
Rules:
121 ..................................... 27418
33 ....................... 27298
302 ..................................... 27419
27307
1910 .................................
14 CFR
30
CFR
26979
39.......................................
Proposed Rules:
26980
71 .......................................
27566
56...................................
Proposed Rules:
57....................................... 27566
27025
913 ..................................
27009, 27012
39 ..........................
ii
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 1985 / Reader Aids
27461
936 .....................................
42 CFR
27208
412 .....................................
31 CFR
Proposed Rules:
26987
51 .......................................
27465
23 .......................................
27435
500 .....................................
27469
405 .....................................
27435
505.....................................
27469
412 .....................................
27435
515 .....................................
27435
520 .....................................
43 CFR
27435
535 .....................................
Proposed Rules:
27435
540 .....................................
27322
2800...................................
32 CFR
44 CFR
26987
Parts 1-39.........................
199..............26988
26993,26994
64 ..........................
Proposed Rules:
27322
67 .......................................
26989
117.....................................
45 CFR
26989
150.....................................
26989
166 .....................................
Proposed Rules:
Proposed Rules:
27406
405 .....................................
117 ........................
27026,27029
27406
412 .....................................
27326
1620 ...................................
35 CFR
26990
101 .....................................
46 CFR
26990
103 .....................................
26996
153 .....................................
26990
121 .....................................
47 CFR
36 CFR
27250
68.......................................
27196
1200 ...................................
73..........................
27287, 27438
27196
1202 ...................................
76 ............... 27438
27196
1250...................................
48 CFR
37 CFR
27560
7.........................................
Proposed Rulew
27560
15 .......................................
27030
1.........................................
27560
19 .......................................
27560
34 .......................................
39 CFR
27560
52 .......................................
26996
504 .....................................
Proposed Rules:
26998
533.....................................
27308
3001 ...................................
49 CFR
40 CFR
27451
571 .....................................
52..............
26991,27244-27247
Proposed Rules:
27248
60 .......................................
Ch.X................. 27031
27248
61 .......................................
571 ...................... 27032
27250
86.......................................
27172
600 .....................................
50 CFR
Proposed Rules:
26999
17.......................................
27030,27462
52..........................
Proposed Rules:
27463
180 .....................................
27470
630.....................................
27321
202.....................................
27470
662 .....................................
27321
205.....................................
27188
600.....................................
33 CFR
110..........
26988
LIST OF PUBLC LAWS
41 CFR
Note: No public bills which
26987
Chs. 1-49..........................
have become law were
26992
105-63 ...............................
received by the Office of the
27142
201-1 .................................
Federal Register for Inclusion
27142
201-2.................................
In today's Lst of Public
27142
201-8 .................................
Laws.
27142
201-11 ...............................
27142
201-16...............................
Last Ust July 2. 1985
27142
201-20 ...............................
27142
201-21 ...............................
27142
201-23...............................
27142
201-24 ...............................
27142
201-26..............................
............
27142
201-30
27142
201-31 ...............................
27142
201-32...............................
27142
201-38..............................
27142
201-39...............................
27142
201-40...............................
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Federal Register: 50 Fed. Reg. 27,409 (July 3, 1985). |
| Subject | Law, Law Library, United States, Government Documents, Government, Executive Agencies, Federal Register, Administrative Law and |
| Author | National Archives and Records Administration |
| File Modified | 2018-10-15 |
| File Created | 2009-07-27 |