Thursday February 8, 1996 - GovInfo

fede

ral r

egiste

r

1

ThursdayFebruary 8, 1996Vol. 61 No. 27

Pages 4735–4848

2–8–96

Briefings on How To Use the Federal RegisterFor information on briefing in Washington, DC, seeannouncement on the inside cover of this issue.

II

FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday,(not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), bythe Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and RecordsAdministration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal RegisterAct (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and theregulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register(1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC20402.The Federal Register provides a uniform system for makingavailable to the public regulations and legal notices issued byFederal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations andExecutive Orders and Federal agency documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, documents required to be publishedby act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of publicinterest. Documents are on file for public inspection in the Officeof the Federal Register the day before they are published, unlessearlier filing is requested by the issuing agency.The seal of the National Archives and Records Administrationauthenticates this issue of the Federal Register as the official serialpublication established under the Federal Register Act. 44 U.S.C.1507 provides that the contents of the Federal Register shall bejudicially noticed.

The Federal Register is published in paper, 24x microfiche and asan online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S.Government Printing Office. The online database is updated by 6a.m. each day the Federal Register is published. The databaseincludes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1(January 2, 1994) forward. Free public access is available on aWide Area Information Server (WAIS) through the Internet and viaasynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database byusing the World Wide Web; the Superintendent of Documentshome page address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/, byusing local WAIS client software, or by telnet toswais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest, (no password required).Dial-in users should use communications software and modem tocall (202) 512–1661; type swais, then login as guest (no passwordrequired). For general information about GPO Access, contact theGPO Access User Support Team by sending Internet e-mail [email protected] gpo.gov; by faxing to (202) 512–1262; or bycalling (202) 512–1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time,Monday–Friday, except for Federal holidays.

The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paperedition is $494, or $544 for a combined Federal Register, FederalRegister Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA)subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Registerincluding the Federal Register Index and LSA is $433. Six monthsubscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The chargefor individual copies in paper form is $8.00 for each issue, or $8.00for each group of pages as actually bound; or $1.50 for each issuein microfiche form. All prices include regular domestic postageand handling. International customers please add 25% for foreignhandling. Remit check or money order, made payable to theSuperintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO DepositAccount, VISA or MasterCard. Mail to: New Orders,Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA15250–7954.There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearingin the Federal Register.

How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and thepage number. Example: 61 FR 12345.

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES

PUBLICSubscriptions:

Paper or ficheAssistance with public subscriptions

202–512–1800512–1806

General online information 202–512–1530Single copies/back copies:

Paper or ficheAssistance with public single copies

512–1800512–1803

FEDERAL AGENCIESSubscriptions:

Paper or ficheAssistance with Federal agency subscriptions

523–5243523–5243

For other telephone numbers, see the Reader Aids sectionat the end of this issue.

FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP

THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS ANDHOW TO USE IT

FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of FederalRegulations.

WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register.WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present:

1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal Registersystem and the public’s role in the development ofregulations.

2. The relationship between the Federal Register and Code ofFederal Regulations.

3. The important elements of typical Federal Registerdocuments.

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

WHY: To provide the public with access to information necessary toresearch Federal agency regulations which directly affect them.There will be no discussion of specific agency regulations.

2

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996

WASHINGTON, DC

WHEN: February 21, 1996 at 9:00 amWHERE: Office of the Federal Register Conference

Room, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,Washington, DC (3 blocks north of UnionStation Metro)

RESERVATIONS: 202–523–4538

Contents Federal Register

III

Vol. 61, No. 27

Thursday, February 8, 1996

Agriculture DepartmentSee Farm Service AgencySee Natural Resources Conservation ServiceSee Rural Business-Cooperative ServiceSee Rural Housing and Community Development ServiceSee Rural Utilities ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 4760

Antitrust DivisionNOTICESCompetitive impact statements and proposed consent

judgments:Pacific Scientific Co., 4793–4800

National cooperative research notifications:Intelligent Processing of Materials-Physical Vapor

Deposition Consortium, 4800

Commerce DepartmentSee Export Administration BureauSee International Trade AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Defense DepartmentNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Education DepartmentPROPOSED RULESPostsecondary education:

Student support services program; comment periodextension, 4758

Employment and Training AdministrationNOTICESAlien temporary employment labor certification process:

Agriculture and logging; adverse effect wage rates andmeal charges, 4800–4801

Energy DepartmentSee Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESMeetings:

Environmental Management Site-Specific AdvisoryBoard—

Pantex Plant, TX, 4769–4770Savannah River Site, 4770

Nonproliferation and National Security office; fundamentalclassification policy review, 4770–4771

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESAir programs:

Stratospheric ozone protection—Significant new alternatives policy program, 4736–4742

Hazardous waste program authorizations:Michigan, 4742–4747

Superfund program:National oil and hazardous substances contingency

plan—National priorities list update, 4747–4748

PROPOSED RULESHazardous waste:

Hazardous waste management system, identification andlisting—

Petroleum refining process wastes; land disposalrestrictions; correction, 4758–4759

NOTICESMeetings:

Science Advisory Board, 4773Superfund program:

Prospective purchaser agreements—Kansas City Structural Steel Site, KS; correction, 4814

Export Administration BureauNOTICESExport privileges, actions affecting:

Hoffman, Ronald J., 4762–4763

Farm Service AgencyPROPOSED RULESProgram regulations:

Housing—Section 515 rural rental housing loans; correction, 4814

Federal Aviation AdministrationPROPOSED RULESAirworthiness directives:

Beech, 4756–4758NOTICESAdvisory circulars; availability, etc.:

Aircraft—Restricted category agriculture airplanes, 4809–4810

Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 4773–4774

Federal Election CommissionNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 4813

Federal Emergency Management AgencyNOTICESDisaster and emergency areas:

New York, 4774Pennsylvania, 4774–4775West Virginia, 4775

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 4771Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Humboldt State University, 4771Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:

Southern Natural Gas Co., 4771–4772

IV Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Contents

Trunkline Gas Co., 4772–4773Trunkline LNG Co., 4772

Federal Mediation and Conciliation ServiceNOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Labor-management cooperation program, 4775–4778

Federal Railroad AdministrationNOTICESExemption petitions, etc.:

American Railway Car Institute, 4810–4811

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment BoardNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 4813

Federal Trade CommissionNOTICESProhibited trade practices:

Illinois Tool Works Inc., 4778–4783

Fish and Wildlife ServiceNOTICESEndangered and threatened species permit applications,

4790–4791

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

Sponsor name and address changes—DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co., 4735–4736

Food for human consumption:Tin-coated lead foil capsules for wine bottles; use

prohibition, 4816–4820Human drugs:

Antacid drug products (OTC); final monograph, 4822–4823

NOTICESFood additive petitions:

Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 4783Meetings:

Advisory committees, panels, etc., 4783–4786Peripheral blood stem cells; discussion of procedures for

collection, processing, and product characterization;public workshop, 4786

General Services AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee Health Care Financing AdministrationSee Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Care Financing AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 4786–4787Submission for OMB review; comment request, 4787–

4788

Health Resources and Services AdministrationNOTICESNational practitioner data bank:

User fee, 4788

Interior DepartmentSee Fish and Wildlife ServiceSee Land Management BureauSee Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue ServiceNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 4811

International Trade AdministrationPROPOSED RULESAntidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:

Procedures for imposing sanctions for violation of aprotective order; administrative protective orderprocedures, 4826–4848

NOTICESAntidumping:

Antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings)and parts from—

Germany, 4763–4765Dynamic random access memory semiconductors of one

megabit and above from—Korea, 4765–4766

Industrial phosphoric acid from—Israel, 4766–4767

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:National Institute of Standards and Technology, 4767Tulane University Hospital and Clinic et al., 4767–4768University of Wyoming et al., 4768

Justice DepartmentSee Antitrust DivisionNOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Proposed collection; comment request, 4791–4792Competitive impact statements and proposed consent

judgments:Riehl, Ralph et al., 4792Selma Pressure Treating Co. et al., 4792Shell Oil Co., 4792–4793

Labor DepartmentSee Employment and Training Administration

Land Management BureauRULESMinerals management:

Oil and gas leasing—Heavy oil; development promotion and royalty

reduction, 4748–4752Public land orders:

Washington, 4752–4753NOTICESClosure of public lands:

Oregon, 4788–4789Meetings:

Colorado; Front Range Resource Advisory Council, 4789Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council, 4789Sierra Front/Northwest Great Basin Resource Advisory

Council, 4789–4790Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.:

California; correction, 4814Nevada, 4790

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNOTICESAgency information collection activities:


VFederal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Contents

National Archives and Records AdministrationNOTICESAgency records schedules; availability, 4801–4802

National Science FoundationNOTICESGrants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Federal Demonstration Project; phase III solicitation,4802–4804

Natural Resources Conservation ServiceNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

Monastery Run Project Area, PA, 4760

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPROPOSED RULESRulemaking petitions:

National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists,4754–4756

NOTICESAgency information collection activities:

Submission for OMB review; comment request, 4804–4805

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:Houston Lighting & Power Co. et al., 4805–4807

Public Health ServiceSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee Health Resources and Services Administration

Reclamation BureauNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

Narrows Project, UT, 4790

Rural Business-Cooperative ServicePROPOSED RULESProgram regulations:


Rural Housing and Community Development ServicePROPOSED RULESProgram regulations:


Rural Utilities ServicePROPOSED RULESProgram regulations:


Telecommunications standards and specifications:Materials, equipment, and construction—

Postloan engineering services contract, 4754NOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

LaGrange County, IN, Sewer District, 4760–4762

Securities and Exchange CommissionNOTICESSelf-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

Depository Trust Co., 4807–4808

Small Business AdministrationNOTICESOrganization, functions, and authority delegations:

Deputy Administrator et al., 4808–4809

State DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

International Telecommunications Advisory Committee,4809

Transportation DepartmentSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury DepartmentSee Internal Revenue Service

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and ConservationCommission

NOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

Utah Lake Wetland Preserve; establishment, 4811–4812

Veterans Affairs DepartmentNOTICESMedical care reimbursement rates; 1996 FY, 4812

Separate Parts In This Issue

Part IIDepartment of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug

Administration, 4816–4820

Part IIIDepartment of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug


Part IVDepartment of Commerce, International Trade


Reader AidsAdditional information, including a list of public laws,telephone numbers, reminders, and finding aids, appears inthe Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

Electronic Bulletin BoardFree Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Lawnumbers, Federal Register finding aids, and a list ofdocuments on public inspection is available on 202–275–1538 or 275–0920.

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

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

VI Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Contents

7 CFRProposed Rules:1755...................................47541944...................................4814

10 CFRProposed Rules:35.......................................4754

14 CFRProposed Rules:39.......................................4756

19 CFRProposed Rules:351.....................................4826353.....................................4826354.....................................4826355.....................................4826

21 CFR189.....................................4816331.....................................4822510.....................................4735

34 CFRProposed Rules:646.....................................4758

40 CFR82.......................................4736271.....................................4742300.....................................4747Proposed Rules:268.....................................4758271.....................................4758302.....................................4758

43 CFR3100...................................4748Public Land Orders:7183...................................4752

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains regulatory documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, most of whichare keyed to and codified in the Code ofFederal Regulations, which is published under50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold bythe Superintendent of Documents. Prices ofnew books are listed in the first FEDERALREGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

4735

Vol. 61, No. 27


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 510

New Animal Drugs; Change ofSponsor Name and Address

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theanimal drug regulations to reflect achange of sponsor name and address

from DuPont Pharmaceuticals to DuPontMerck Pharmaceutical Co.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas J. McKay, Center for VeterinaryMedicine (HFV–102), Food and DrugAdministration, 7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0213.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DuPontPharmaceuticals, One Rodney Square,Wilmington, DE 19898, has informedFDA of a change of sponsor name andaddress to DuPont MerckPharmaceutical Co., DuPont MerckPlaza, MR2117, Wilmington, DE 19805.Accordingly, the agency is amendingthe regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c)(1)and (c)(2) to reflect the change ofsponsor name and address.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510

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

Therefore, under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated tothe Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21CFR part 510 is amended as follows:

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFRpart 510 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503,512, 701, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,353, 360b, 371, 379e).

2. Section 510.600 is amended in thetable in paragraph (c)(1) by removingthe entry for ‘‘DuPont Pharmaceuticals ’’and by alphabetically adding a newentry for ‘‘DuPont MerckPharmaceutical Co.,’’ and in the table inparagraph (c)(2) in the entry for‘‘000056’’ by revising the sponsor nameand address to read as follows:

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

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

Firm name and address Drug labeler code

* * * * * * *DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co., DuPont Merck Plaza, MR2117, Wilming-

ton, DE 19805.000056

* * * * * * *

(2)* * *

Drug labeler code Firm name and address

* * * * * * *000056 .................................................................................................................. DuPont Merck Pharmaceuticals Co., DuPont Merck Plaza,

MR2117, Wilmington, DE 19805* * * * * * *

4736 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: February 1, 1996.Robert C. Livingston,Director, Office of New Animal DrugEvaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.[FR Doc. 96–2688 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–5418–3]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of acceptability andclarification of June 13, 1995 final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice expands the list ofacceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) under theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) Significant New AlternativesPolicy (SNAP) program. SNAPimplements section 612 of the amendedClean Air Act of 1990, which requiresEPA to evaluate substitutes for theOZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES(ODS), and regulate the use ofsubstitutes where other alternativesexist that reduce overall risk to humanhealth and the environment. Throughthese evaluations, SNAP generates listsof acceptable and unacceptablesubstitutes for each of the majorindustrial use sectors. In addition, thisNotice clarifies several points from theJune 13, 1995 final rule (60 FR 31092).

On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgatedits plan for administering the SNAPprogram, and issued decisions on theacceptability and unacceptability of anumber of substitutes (59 FR 13044). Intoday’s Notice, EPA issues decisions onthe acceptability of substitutes notpreviously reviewed by the Agency. Theintended effect of this action is toexpedite movement away from ozonedepleting compounds. To arrive atdeterminations on the acceptability ofsubstitutes, the Agency completed across-media sector end-use screeningassessment of risks to human health andthe environment.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.ADDRESSES: Information relevant to thisnotice is contained in Air Docket A–91–42, Central Docket Section, SouthConference Room 4, U.S. EnvironmentalAgency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 260–7548.The docket may be inspected between 8a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays. Asprovided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonablefee may be charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jeffrey Levy at (202) 233–9727 or fax(202) 233–9577, U.S. EPA, StratosphericProtection Division, 401 M Street, SW.,Mail Code 6205J, Washington, DC20460; EPA Stratospheric OzoneProtection Hotline at (800) 296–1996;EPA World Wide Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/SNAP/snap.html.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory RequirementsB. Regulatory History

II. Listing of Acceptable SubstitutesA. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning:

Substitutes for Class I SubstancesB. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning:

Substitutes for Class II SubstancesC. Fire Suppression and Explosion

ProtectionIII. Substitutes Pending ReviewIV. Additional InformationAppendix A Summary of Acceptable and

Pending Decisions

I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory RequirementsSection 612 of the Clean Air Act

authorizes EPA to develop a program forevaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA is referring tothis program as the Significant NewAlternatives Policy (SNAP) program.The major provisions of section 612 are:

• Rulemaking—Section 612(c)requires EPA to promulgate rulesmaking it unlawful to replace any classI (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbontetrachloride, methyl chloroform,methyl bromide, andhydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II(hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substancewith any substitute that theAdministrator determines may presentadverse effects to human health or theenvironment where the Administratorhas identified an alternative that (1)reduces the overall risk to human healthand the environment, and (2) iscurrently or potentially available.

• Listing of Unacceptable/AcceptableSubstitutes—Section 612(c) alsorequires EPA to publish a list of thesubstitutes unacceptable for specificuses. EPA must publish a correspondinglist of acceptable alternatives forspecific uses.

• Petition Process—Section 612(d)grants the right to any person to petitionEPA to add a substance to or delete asubstance from the lists published inaccordance with section 612(c). TheAgency has 90 days to grant or deny apetition. Where the Agency grants thepetition, EPA must publish the revisedlists within an additional 6 months.

• 90-day Notification—Section 612(e)requires EPA to require any person who

produces a chemical substitute for aclass I substance to notify the Agencynot less than 90 days before new orexisting chemicals are introduced intointerstate commerce for significant newuses as substitutes for a class Isubstance. The producer must alsoprovide the Agency with the producer’sunpublished health and safety studieson such substitutes.

• Outreach—Section 612(b)(1) statesthat the Administrator shall seek tomaximize the use of federal researchfacilities and resources to assist users ofclass I and II substances in identifyingand developing alternatives to the use ofsuch substances in key commercialapplications.

• Clearinghouse—Section 612(b)(4)requires the Agency to set up a publicclearinghouse of alternative chemicals,product substitutes, and alternativemanufacturing processes that areavailable for products andmanufacturing processes which useclass I and II substances.

B. Regulatory HistoryOn March 18, 1994, EPA published

the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR13044) which described the process foradministering the SNAP program andissued EPA’s first acceptability lists forsubstitutes in the major industrial usesectors. These sectors include:refrigeration and air conditioning; foamblowing; solvent cleaning; firesuppression and explosion protection;sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatingsand inks; and tobacco expansion. Thesesectors compose the principal industrialsectors that historically consumed thelargest volumes of ozone-depletingcompounds.

As described in the final rule for theSNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA doesnot believe that rulemaking proceduresare required to list alternatives asacceptable with no limitations. Suchlistings do not impose any sanction, nordo they remove any prior license to usea substance. Consequently, EPA isadding substances to the list ofacceptable alternatives without firstrequesting comment on new listings.

EPA does, however, believe thatnotice-and-comment rulemaking isrequired to place any substance on thelist of prohibited substitutes, to list asubstance as acceptable only undercertain conditions, to list substances asacceptable only for certain uses, or toremove a substance from either the listof prohibited or acceptable substitutes.Updates to these lists are published asseparate notices of rulemaking in theFederal Register.

The Agency defines a ‘‘substitute’’ asany chemical, product substitute, or

4737Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

alternative manufacturing process,whether existing or new, that couldreplace a class I or class II substance.Anyone who produces a substitute mustprovide the Agency with health andsafety studies on the substitute at least90 days before introducing it intointerstate commerce for significant newuse as an alternative. This requirementapplies to substitute manufacturers, butmay include importers, formulators orend-users, when they are responsible forintroducing a substitute into commerce.

EPA published Notices listingacceptable alternatives on August 26,1994 (59 FR 44240), January 13, 1995(60 FR 3318), and July 28, 1995 (60 FR38729), and published a FinalRulemaking restricting the use of certainsubstitutes on June 13, 1995 (60 FR31092). EPA also published a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking restricting the useof certain substitutes on October 2, 1995(60 FR 51383).

II. Listing of Acceptable Substitutes

This section presents EPA’s mostrecent acceptable listing decisions forsubstitutes for class I and class IIsubstances in the following industrialsectors: refrigeration and airconditioning, foam blowing, and firesuppression and explosion protection.In this Notice, EPA has split therefrigeration and air conditioning sectorinto two parts: Substitutes for class Isubstances and substitutes for class IIsubstances. These decisions representsubstitutes not previously reviewed andadd to the lists of acceptable substitutesunder SNAP. For copies of the full list,contact the EPA StratosphericProtection Hotline at (800) 296–1996.

Parts A through D below present adetailed discussion of the substitutelisting determinations by major usesector. Tables summarizing today’slisting decisions are in Appendix A. Thecomments contained in Appendix Aprovide additional information on asubstitute, but like the listings ofacceptable substitutes, they are notlegally binding. Thus, adherence torecommendations in the comments arenot mandatory for use of a substitute. Inaddition, the comments should not beconsidered comprehensive with respectto other legal obligations pertaining tothe use of the substitute. However, EPAencourages users of acceptablesubstitutes to apply all comments totheir use of these substitutes. In manyinstances, the comments simply alludeto sound operating practices that havealready been identified in existingindustry and/or building-codestandards. Thus, many of the comments,if adopted, would not require significant

changes in existing operating practicesfor the affected industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air ConditioningPlease refer to the final SNAP rule for

detailed information pertaining to thedesignation of end-uses, additionalrequirements imposed under sections608 and 609, and other informationrelated to the use of alternativerefrigerant.

1. Clarifications From the June 13, 1995Final Rule

HCFC Blend Beta was listed ascontaining HFC–134a, HCFC–124, andisobutane. In fact, according to thesubmission on file with EPA, this blendcontains butane. The determination thatthis blend is acceptable subject tocertain use conditions applied to theactual blend, not to the incorrectlylisted one.

In the tables listing unacceptablesubstitutes for CFC–12 in motor vehicleair conditioning, a definition for thecategory ‘‘Flammable Substitutes’’ wasinadvertently omitted. As discussed inthe preamble, it should have includedthe phrase ‘‘as having flammabilitylimits as measured according to ASTME–681 with modifications included inSociety of Automotive EngineersRecommended Practice J1657, includingblends which become flammable duringfractionation.’’ In addition, EPA clearlydoes not intend to constrain futurefindings. Thus, the table should haveincluded a statement that this categorydoes not include substitutes discussedexplicitly in other rulings.

2. Other ClarificationEPA has received inquiries as to the

point at which a blend is sufficientlydifferent from an already reviewedsubstitute as to require a newsubmission. EPA generally followssimilar guidelines used by the AmericanSociety of Heating, Refrigerating, andAir-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).When new blends are submitted toASHRAE for classification, themanufacturer must specify blendingtolerances. Any blend that falls outsidethose tolerances is defined to be adistinct refrigerant. EPA requires leaktesting of blends to determine whetherthey can become flammable afterfractionation. The percentage offlammable components in a blend areusually quite close to the maximumpossible for the blend as a whole toremain nonflammable. Even an increaseof 1% of a flammable component maychange the flammability of the blend.Therefore, blending tolerances aresmaller for flammable components thanfor nonflammable components.

Companies should determine blendingtolerances. If the outside range of thosetolerances could result in a differentflammability or toxicity profile, then theblend will require a new submission.EPA encourages manufacturers tocontact the SNAP refrigerants analystfor assistance in making thisdetermination.

3. Acceptable Substitutes

a. R–508. R–508, which containsHFC–23 and R–116, is acceptable as asubstitute for CFC–13, R–13B1, and R–503 in retrofitted and new very lowtemperature refrigeration. Bothcomponents of this blend exhibitextremely high GWPS and longlifetimes. HFC–23 has a GWP of 9,000and a lifetime of 280 years, and R–116,perfluoroethane, has a GWP of 9,000and a lifetime of 10,000 years. EPAbelieves this blend could significantlycontribute to global warming if allowedto escape refrigeration systems. Inaddition, the long lifetimes of R–116and HFC–23 mean any global warmingor other effects would be essentiallyirreversible. Note that the prohibition onventing, which applies to all substituterefrigerants, was mandated in section608(c)(2) and took effect on November15, 1995. While the current rule issuedunder section 608 of the CAA (58 FR28660) does not specify recycling orleak repair requirements, it is illegal tovent this refrigerant at any time. Inaddition, EPA anticipates proposingnew recycling regulations for non-ozone-depleting refrigerants in the nearfuture. A fact sheet on the proposal isavailable from the EPA Ozone Hotline at(800) 296–1996. This blend isnonflammable and does not depleteozone. EPA urges manufacturers todevelop alternatives for R–503 andCFC–13 that do not contain substanceswith such high GWPS and longlifetimes.

b. R–411A and R–411B. R–411A andR–411B, which consist of HCFC–22,HFC–152a, and propylene, areacceptable as substitutes for CFC–12and R–502 in the following end-uses:

• Reciprocating Chillers• Industrial Process Refrigeration• Cold Storage Warehouses• Refrigerated Transport• Retail Food Refrigeration• Commercial Ice Machines• Vending Machines• Water CoolersHCFC–22 contributes to ozone

depletion, but to a much lesser degreethan CFC–12. Regulations regardingrecycling and reclamation issued undersection 608 of the Clean Air Act applyto this blend (58 FR 28660). This blend


poses less of a threat to the ozone layerthan HCFC–22, which has already beenlisted as an acceptable substitute forCFC–12. The GWP of HCFC–22 issomewhat high, but the GWP of HFC–152a is low. Although propylene andHFC–152a are flammable, R–411A andR–411B have been designated as A1/A2refrigerants by the American Society ofHeating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Thisdesignation means that the blend asformulated is nonflammable, but canbecome flammable under worst-casefractionation. However, over 75% of R–411A and 95% of R–411B must leakfrom the vapor phase before becomingflammable. Leaks from the liquid phasedo not become flammable, regardless ofthe amount leaked.

c. HCFC Blend Beta. HCFC Blend Beta,which consists of HCFC–124, HFC–134a,and butane, is acceptable as a substitutefor CFC–12 in the following new andretrofitted end-uses:

• Reciprocating Chillers• Industrial Process Refrigeration• Cold Storage Warehouses• Refrigerated Transport• Retail Food Refrigeration• Vending Machines• Water Coolers• Commercial Ice Machines• Household Refrigerators• Household Freezers• Residential DehumidifiersThis blend contains HCFC–124.

Therefore, it contributes to ozonedepletion, but to a much lesser degreethan CFC–12. HCFC–124 has an ODPmuch lower than that of HCFC–22,which has already been listed as anacceptable substitute for CFC–12.Regulations regarding recycling andreclamation issued under section 60 ofthe Clean Air Act (58 FR 28660) applyto this blend. The GWPS of thecomponents are moderate to low. Thisblend is nonflammable, and leak testinghas demonstrated that the blend neverbecomes flammable.

d. HCFC Blend Delta. HCFC BlendDelta is acceptable as a substitute forCFC–12 in retrofitted householdrefrigerators and freezers. Thecomposition of this blend has beenclaimed confidential by themanufacturer. This blend contains atleast one HCFC, and thereforecontributes to ozone depletion, but to amuch lesser degree than CFC–12.Regulations regarding recycling andreclamation issued under section 608 ofthe Clean Air Act apply to this blend (58FR 28660). The GWPS of thecomponents are moderate to low. Thisblend is nonflammable, and leak testing

has demonstrated that the blend neverbecomes flammable.

e. HCFC Blend Lambda. HCFC BlendLambda, which consists of HCFC–22,HCFC–142b, and isobutane, isacceptable as a substitute for R–500 inretrofitted centrifugal chillers and as asubstitute for CFC–12 in the followingnew and retrofitted end-uses:

• Reciprocating Chillers• Industrial Process Refrigeration• Cold Storage Warehouses• Refrigerated Transport• Retail Food Refrigeration• Vending Machines• Water Coolers• Commercial Ice Machines• Household Refrigerators• Household Freezers• Residential DehumidifiersHCFC–22 and HCFC–142b contribute

to ozone depletion, but to a much lesserdegree than CFC–12. Regulationsregarding recycling and reclamationissued under section 608 of the CleanAir Act apply to this blend (58 FR28660). HCFC–142b has an ODP slightlyhigher than that of HCFC–22. TheGWPS of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b aresomewhat high. Although HCFC–142bis flammable, the blend is not. Undermassive leakage, this blend becomesweakly flammable. However, this blendcontains more HCFC–22 and less of thetwo flammable components than R–406A, and therefore should be at leastas safe to use as R–406A. However,users should note that operatingpressures will be higher than whenusing R–406A, so its use may not beappropriate in the same types ofequipment.

f. HFC–236fa. HFC–236fa, whenmanufactured using any process thatdoes not convert perfluoroisobutylene(PFIB) directly to HFC–236fa in a singlestep, is acceptable as a substitute forCFC–114 in centrifugal chillers. HFC–236fa does not harm the ozone layerbecause it does not contain chlorine.HFC–236fa has an extremely high 100-year GWP of 8000, but its lifetime isconsiderably shorter than that ofperfluorocarbons. Although HCFC–124is already listed as acceptable in thisend-use, it produces toxic byproductswhen it passes through air purificationsystems on submarines. Therefore,HCFC–124 is not a feasible alternative.HFC–236fa is the only alternativeidentified to date that is safe for theozone layer, is low in toxicity, and canwithstand the air purification process.Note that the prohibition on venting,which applies to all substituterefrigerants, was mandated in section608(c)(2) and took effect on November15, 1995. While the current rule issuedunder section 608 of the CAA (58 FR

28660) does not specify recycling orleak repair requirements, it is illegal tovent this refrigerant at any time. Inaddition, EPA anticipates proposingnew recycling regulations for non-ozone-depleting refrigerants in the nearfuture. A fact sheet on the proposal isavailable from the EPA Ozone Hotline at(800) 296–1996.

In the March 18, 1994 final SNAP rule(58 FR 13044), EPA requiredmanufacturers to submit information onmanufacturing processes to allow anassessment of the risks posed to thegeneral public and workers. However,EPA clarified in that action thatacceptability determinations made onthe basis of one company’s submissionwould apply to the same chemicalproduced by other manufacturers,obviating the need for duplicativereporting requirements and review. Todate, despite the fact that somealternatives are manufactured by severalcompanies, no process has beenidentified as significantly morehazardous than another. Therefore, EPAhas not yet based SNAP decisionsspecifically on the manufacturingprocess.

EPA is aware, however, of severalmethods for manufacturing HFC–236fa,including one that produces HFC–236fadirectly from PFIB. PFIB is an extremelytoxic substance that could pose risks invery small concentrations. Thus, EPAbelieves it is appropriate to distinguishamong the different methods forproducing HFC–236fa. Thisacceptability determination does notprohibit the manufacture of HFC–236fadirectly from PFIB. Rather, it findsacceptable the production of HFC–236fain processes that do not convert PFIBdirectly to HFC–236fa in a single step.If a manufacturer wishes to produceHFC–236fa directly from PFIB, it mustsubmit that process to EPA for reviewunder SNAP.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning:Substitutes for Class II Substances

Please refer to the March 18, 1994SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for detailedinformation pertaining to thedesignation of end-uses, additionalrequirements imposed under sections608 and 609, and other informationrelated to the use of alternativerefrigerants.

This Notice marks the first time EPAhas addressed substitutes for HCFC–22in the refrigeration and air conditioningsector. Although the substitutes listedbelow were intended specifically toreplace HCFC–22, HCFC–22 is itselffrequently used as a substitute for classI refrigerants (e.g, CFC–11 and CFC–12).


Therefore, the listings below alsodescribe these HCFC–22 substitutes asacceptable alternatives for class Irefrigerants in new equipment. Theunderlying reasoning is that if, forinstance, HCFC–22 poses lower overallrisk than CFC–12, and R–410A poseslower overall risk than HCFC–22, thenR–410A must also pose lower overallrisk than CFC–12. Therefore, eventhough R–410A isn’t designed to be adirect replacement for CFC–12, in newequipment it may be appropriate todesign for R–410A rather than foranother CFC–12 substitute. As with alllistings, however, engineering decisionsare required to determine the best matchbetween a given class I refrigerant andan alternative.

1. Acceptablea. R–410A and R–410B. R–410A and

R–410B, which consist of HFC–32 andHFC–125, are acceptable as substitutesfor HCFC–22, and by extension, class Irefrigerants, in equipment in thefollowing new end-uses:

• Centrifugal, Reciprocating, andScrew Chillers

• Industrial Process RefrigerationSystems

• Very-Low-Temperature IndustrialProcess Refrigeration

• Industrial Process Air Conditioning• Ice Skating Rinks• Refrigerated Transport• Retail Food Refrigeration• Cold Storage Warehouses• Vending Machines• Water Coolers• Commercial Ice Machines• Household Refrigerators and

Freezers• Residential Dehumidifiers• Household and Light Commercial

Air ConditioningBoth R–410A and R–410B contain

HFC–32 and HFC–125 but in slightlydifferent compositions. Neither blend isflammable when used in these end useswhile maintaining as-formulatedcomposition nor after leak conditions.Leak testing has demonstrated that theircompositions do not become flammableunder any of the conditions found inthese end uses. However, since bothblends include HFC–32, which isflammable by itself, they should not bemixed with high concentrations of airabove atmospheric pressures tominimize the risk of ignition. HFC–125exhibits a fairly high global warmingpotential (3,200 at 100 year integratedtime horizon) compared to other HFCsand HCFC–22. However, its potential forcontributing to global warming will bedelayed in the listed end uses throughthe implementation of the ventingprohibition under Section 608(c)(2) of

the Clean Air Act Amendments. Notethat the prohibition on venting, whichapplies to all substitute refrigerants, wasmandated in section 608(c)(2) and tookeffect on November 15, 1995. While thecurrent rule issued under section 608 ofthe CAA (58 FR 28660) does not specifyrecycling or leak repair requirements, itis illegal to vent this refrigerant at anytime. In addition, EPA anticipatesproposing new recycling regulations fornon-ozone-depleting refrigerants in thenear future. A fact sheet on the proposalis available from the EPA Ozone Hotlineat (800) 296–1996. R–410A and R–410Bdo not contain ozone-depletingsubstances, they are low in toxicity, andnone of their components is regulated asa volatile organic compound.

b. R–407C. R–407C, which is a blendof HFC–32, HFC–134a and HFC–125, isacceptable as a substitute for HCFC–22in new and retrofit equipment, and byextension, as a substitute for class Irefrigerants in new equipment, in thefollowing end-uses:

• Centrifugal, Reciprocating, andScrew Chillers

• Industrial Process Refrigeration• Very Low Temperature Industrial

Process Refrigeration• Ice Skating Rinks• Refrigerated Transport• Retail Food Refrigeration Systems• Cold Storage Warehouses• Vending Machines• Water Coolers• Commercial Ice Machines• Household Refrigerators and

Freezers• Residential Dehumidifiers• Household and Light Commercial

Air ConditioningThis blend is not flammable when

used in these end uses whilemaintaining as-formulated compositionor after leak conditions. Leak testing hasdemonstrated that its composition, orcomposition variations due tofractionation, does not make itflammable under any of the conditionsfound in these end uses. This blendincludes HFC–32 and HFC–125,therefore the above discussion of thesetwo substances as part of R–410A andR–410B is applicable. Again, EPA urgesusers to reduce leakage and recover andrecycle this blend during equipmentservicing and upon the retirement ofequipment. R–407C doesn’t damage theozone layer, it is low in toxicity, andnone of its components is regulated asa volatile organic compound. Note thatthe prohibition on venting, whichapplies to all substitute refrigerants, wasmandated in section 608(c)(2) and tookeffect on November 15, 1995. While thecurrent rule issued under section 608 ofthe CAA (58 FR 28660) does not specify

recycling or leak repair requirements, itis illegal to vent this refrigerant at anytime. In addition, EPA anticipatesproposing new recycling regulations fornon-ozone-depleting refrigerants in thenear future. A fact sheet on the proposalis available from the EPA Ozone Hotlineat (800) 296–1996.

c. HFC–134a. HFC–134a is acceptableas a substitute for HCFC–22 in newHousehold and Light Commercial AirConditioning. HFC–134a exhibits amoderate to high global warmingpotential (1,300 at 100 year integratedtime horizon) compared to other HFCS.Although much lower than HFC–125,uncontrolled emissions could have asignificant impact on global warming.Therefore, the above guidance oncontrolling leaks and recycling,particularly during disposal, areapplicable to HFC–134A in this end use.HFC–134a does not damage the ozonelayer, it is very low in toxicity, and itis not regulated as a volatile organiccompound. Note that the prohibition onventing, which applies to all substituterefrigerants, was mandated in section608(c)(2) and took effect on November15, 1995. While the current rule issuedunder section 608 of the CAA (58 FR28660) does not specify recycling orleak repair requirements, it is illegal tovent this refrigerant at any time. Inaddition, EPA anticipates proposingnew recycling regulations for non-ozone-depleting refrigerants in the nearfuture. A fact sheet on the proposal isavailable from the EPA Ozone Hotline.

B. Fire Suppression and ExplosionProtection

1. Acceptable

a. Total Flooding Agents. (1)[Powdered Aerosol] C is acceptable foruse in normally unoccupied areas. Thisagent is intended solely for use innormally unoccupied areas and thus itdoes not represent a significant threat toworker safety or health. Use conditionsto limit the risk of inadvertent exposureto personnel in normally unoccupiedareas may be included in futurerulemakings.

III. Substitutes Pending ReviewThe Agency describes submissions as

pending if data are incomplete or forwhich the 90-day review period isunderway and EPA has not yet reacheda final decision. For submissions thatare incomplete, the Agency will contactthe submitter to determine a schedulefor providing the missing information ifthe Agency needs to extend the 90-dayreview period. EPA will use itsauthority under section 114 of the CleanAir Act to gather this information, if


necessary. Any delay of the reviewperiod does not affect a manufacturer’sability to sell a product 90 days afternotification of the Agency. Substitutescurrently pending completion of revieware listed in Appendix A.

IV. Additional Information

Contact the Stratospheric ProtectionHotline at 1–800–296–1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m.and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time)weekdays.

For more information on the Agency’sprocess for administering the SNAPprogram or criteria for evaluation of

substitutes, refer to the SNAP finalrulemaking published in the FederalRegister on March 18, 1994 (59 FR13044). Federal Register notices can beordered from the Government PrintingOffice Order Desk (202) 783–3238; thecitation is the date of publication. ThisNotice can also be retrievedelectronically from EPA’s TechnologyTransfer Network (TTN), Clean Air ActAmendment Bulletin Board. If you havea 1200 or 2400 bps modem, dial (919)541–5742. If you have a 9600 bpsmodem, dial (919) 541–1447. Forassistance in accessing this service, call(919) 541–5384. Finally, this notice may

be obtained on the World Wide Web athttp://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/snap/snap.html.


Environmental protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Air pollution control, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 19, 1995.Mary D. Nichols,Assistant Administrator for Air andRadiation.

Note: The following Appendix will notappear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ACCEPTABLE AND PENDING DECISIONS

[Refrigerants—Class I Acceptable Substitutes]

End-Use Substitute Decision Comments

CFC–12 and R–500 Reciprocating Chillers; CFC–12 and R–502 Industrial Process Refrigeration,Cold Storage Warehouses, Refrigerated Trans-port, Retail Food Refrigeration, Vending Ma-chines, Water Coolers, Commercial Ice Ma-chines (Retrofitted and New).

R–411A ..........................R–411B ..........................HCFC blend Beta ..........HCFC Blend Lambda ....

Acceptable .....................Acceptable .....................Acceptable .....................Acceptable .....................

This blend contains the same compo-nents as R–406A, but in differentpercentages.

CFC–12 and R–502 Household Refrigerators,Household Freezers, and ResidentialDehumidifiers.

HCFC Blend Beta ..........HCFC Blend Lambda ....

Acceptable .....................Acceptable .....................

This blend contains the same compo-nents as R–406A, but in differentpercentages.

CFC–13, R–13B1, and R–503 Very Low Tem-perature Refrigeration.

R–508 ............................ Acceptable.

CFC–114 Centrifugal Chillers ................................ HFC–236fa .................... Acceptable.

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR CLASS II SUBSTANCES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

Household and Light Commercial Air Conditioning ........................................ ........................................ This end use also includes heatpump systems.

HCFC–22 Systems, New ................................ R–407C, R–410A, R–410B, HFC–134A.

Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.

HCFC–22 Systems, Retrofit ............................ R–407C .......................... Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.Commercial Comfort Air Conditioning ........................................ ........................................ This end use includes chillers in gen-

eral.HCFC–22 Reciprocating Chillers, New ........... R–407C, R–410A, R–

410B.Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.

CFC–12 Reciprocating Chillers, New ............. R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


R–500 Reciprocating Chillers, New ................ R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


CFC–11 Centrifugal Chillers, New .................. R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


CFC–12 Centrifugal Chillers, New .................. R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


HCFC–22 Centrifugal Chillers, New ............... R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


HCFC–22 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit ........... R–407C .......................... Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.R–500 Centrifugal Chillers, New ..................... R–407C, R–410A, R–


HCFC–22 Screw Chillers, New ....................... R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


HCFC–22 Screw Chillers, Retrofit .................. R–407C .......................... Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.Industrial Process Refrigeration ........................................ ........................................ It also includes very-low-temperature

industrial refrigeration.HCFC–22 Systems, New ................................ R–407C, R–410A, R–


HCFC–22 Systems, Retrofit ............................ R–407C .......................... Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.CFC–12 Systems, New ................................... R–407C, R–410A, R–


R–500 Systems, New ..................................... R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.



REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR CLASS II SUBSTANCES—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Comments



Industrial Process Air ConditionersHCFC–22 A/C Systems, New ......................... R–407C, R–410A, R–

410B, HFC–134a.Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.

HCFC–22 A/C Systems, Retrofit .................... R–407C .......................... Acceptable ..................... EPA urges recycling.CFC–12 A/C System, New ............................. R–407C, R–410A, R–


CFC–114 A/C System, New ........................... R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


CFC–12/CFC–114 A/C Systems, New ........... R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


Ice Skating RinksHCFC–22 Systems, New ................................ R–407C, R–410A, R–






Refrigerated TransportCFC–12 Systems, New ................................... R–407C, R–410A, R–






Retail Food Refrigeration ........................................ ........................................ It also includes cold storage ware-houses.

HCFC–22 Systems, New ................................ R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.






Ice MachinesCFC–12 Ice Machines, New ........................... R–407C, R–410A, R–


Household Refrigerators and FreezersCFC–12 Household Refrigerators, New ......... R–407C, R–410A, R–


CFC–12 Household Freezers, New ................ R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


R–502 Household Freezers, New ................... R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


Other Refrigerated Appliances ........................................ ........................................ Includes water coolers, vending ma-chines, and dehumidifiers.

CFC–12 Refrigerated Appliances, New .......... R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


R–502 Refrigerated Appliances, New ............. R–407C, R–410A, R–410B.


FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION

[Total Flooding Agents Acceptable Substitutes]

End-Use Substitute Decision Comments

Halon 1301 ............................................................. Powdered Aerosol C ..... Acceptable ..................... For use in normally unoccupiedareas only.

Acceptable Substitutes—Foam Blowing

Integral Skin with HCFC–22 ................................... CO2 ................................ Acceptable.HFC–134a ..................... Acceptable.


PENDING DECISIONS—FOAM BLOWING

End-use Substitute Comments

HCFCs, Polyurethane Integral Skin ....... CO2HFC–134a.

PENDING SUBSTITUTES—SOLVENT CLEANING

End-use Substitute Comments

Metals Cleaning w/ CFC–113 andMCF.

Chlorobromomethane .... Additional toxicity testing is necessary to characterize fully the chronic healtheffects such as carcinogenicity that could arise from repeated exposures.In addition, decomposition studies and ozone depletion analyses must becompleted before SNAP decision is rendered.

Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC–113 andMCF.


Precision Cleaning w/ CFC–113 andMCF.


[FR Doc. 96–2723 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–5308–5]

Michigan: Final Authorization ofRevisions to State Hazardous WasteManagement Program

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Michigan has applied for finalauthorization of revisions to itshazardous waste program under theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct of 1976 as amended (hereinafter‘‘RCRA’’). The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has reviewed Michigan’sapplication and has reached a decision,subject to public review and comment,that Michigan’s hazardous wasteprogram revisions satisfy all therequirements necessary to qualify forfinal authorization. Thus, EPA intendsto approve Michigan’s hazardous wasteprogram revisions, subject to authorityretained by EPA under the Hazardousand Solid Waste Amendments of 1984(hereinafter HSWA). Michigan’sapplication for program revision isavailable for public review andcomment.EFFECTIVE DATE: Final authorization forMichigan’s program revisions shall beeffective April 8, 1996 unless EPApublishes a prior Federal Register (FR)action withdrawing this immediate finalrule. All comments on Michigan’sprogram revision application must bereceived by the close of business on

March 9, 1996. If an adverse commentis received, EPA will publish either: (1)A withdrawal of the immediate finaldecision; or (2) a notice containing aresponse to comments which eitheraffirms that the immediate finaldecision takes effect or reverses thedecision.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe sent to Ms. Judy Feigler, MichiganRegulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA, Officeof RCRA, DR–7J, 77 West JacksonBoulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,phone (312) 886–4179. Copies ofMichigan’s program revision applicationare available for inspection and copyingat the following addresses from 9 a.m.to 4 p.m.: Michigan Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 608 W. Allegan,Hannah Building, Lansing, Michigan.Contact: Ms. Ronda Blayer, Phone: (517)373–9548; U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois60604, contact: Ms. Judy Feigler, (312)886–4179.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Judy Feigler, Michigan RegulatorySpecialist, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region V, Office ofRCRA, DR–7J, 77 West JacksonBoulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,Phone: (312) 886–4179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. BackgroundStates with final authorization under

section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.6926(b), have a continuing obligation tomaintain a hazardous waste programthat is equivalent to, consistent with,and no less stringent than the Federalhazardous waste program.

In accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(a),revisions to State hazardous waste

programs are necessary when Federal orState statutory or regulatory authority ismodified or when certain other changesoccur. Most commonly, State programrevisions are necessary because ofchanges to EPA’s regulations in 40 CFRparts 124, 260–268 and 270.

B. Michigan

Michigan initially received finalauthorization for its base RCRA programeffective on October 30, 1986 (51 FR36804–36805, October 16, 1986).Michigan received authorization forrevisions to its program effective onJanuary 23, 1990 (54 FR 225, November24, 1989), June 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517,April 23, 1991), November 30, 1993 (58FR 51244, October 1, 1993), and January13, 1995 (60 FR 3095, January 13, 1995).On June 18, 1994, Michigan revised itshazardous waste rules. On March 30,1995, Michigan recodified its hazardouswaste statute, Act 64, in Part 111 of theNatural Resources and EnvironmentalProtection Act, 1994 Public Act 451, asamended (Act 451). On November 9,1995, Michigan completed a revisionapplication seeking authorization for theprogram revisions. EPA has reviewedthis application and has made animmediate final decision thatMichigan’s hazardous waste programrevision satisfies all the requirementsnecessary to qualify for finalauthorization. Consequently, EPAintends to grant final authorization toMichigan for its additional programrevisions. The public may submitwritten comments on EPA’s immediatefinal decision up until March 9, 1996.Copies of Michigan’s application forprogram revision are available forinspection and copying at the locations


indicated in the ADDRESSES section ofthis notice.

Approval of Michigan’s programrevision shall become effective in 60days unless an adverse commentpertaining to the State’s revisiondiscussed in this notice is received bythe end of the comment period. If anadverse comment is received, EPA will

publish either (1) a withdrawal of theimmediate final decision, or (2) a noticecontaining a response to commentswhich either affirms that the immediatefinal decision takes effect or reverses thedecision.

On April 8, 1996 (unless EPApublishes a prior FR action withdrawingthis immediate final rule), Michigan

will be authorized to carry out, in lieuof the Federal program, those provisionsof the State’s program which areanalogous to the following Federally-initiated changes to provisions of theFederal program:

Federal requirement Analogous State authority

Hazardous and Used Oil Fuel Criminal Penalties, HSWA §§ 3006(h),3008(d), and 3014, November 8, 1984.

Michigan Combined Laws (MCL), Sections 324.11105, 324.11127,324.11138, and 324.11151, enacted March 30, 1995.

Corrective Action, 50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985 ....................................... MCL Sections 324.11102, 324.11105, 324.11115a, and 324.11127,enacted March 30, 1995; Michigan Administrative Code (MAC), Rule(R) 299.9503(3) (a) and (b), R 299.9601 (1) and (2)(j), R 299.9612,R 299.9629(1), R 299.9712, R 299.9713, and R 299.11003(1)(l), ef-fective June 18, 1994

Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel in Boilers and Industrial Fur-naces, 50 FR 49164, November 29, 1985, as amended at 52 FR11819, April 13, 1987.

MAC R 299.9623(1)(b), effective April 20, 1988; R 299.9802, effectiveFebruary 15, 1989; MAC Rule R 299.9104(e), R 299.9109(i), R299.9203(4)(b), R 299.9205 (3) (a)–(d) and (8), R 299.9206 (2)(e),(3) (c), (g), (h) and (k), R 299.9601 (1), (3) and (8), R 299.9801(1),R 299.9802, R 299.9805, R 299.9806, R 299.9807, and R299.11003(1)(o), effective June 18, 1994.

Listing of EBDC, 51 FR 37725, October 24, 1986 ................................... MAC R 299.9216 (1) and (2), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.9222 and R 299.11003(1)(i), effective June 18, 1994.

Revised Manual SW–846; Amended Incorporation by Reference, 52 FR8072, March 16, 1987.

MAC R 299.11005 (1) and (2), effective June 18, 1994.

California List Waste Restrictions: Technical Corrections, 52 FR 41295,October 27, 1987.

MAC R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9627, R 299.11003(1)(p), and R299.11005 (1) and (2), effective June 18, 1994.

Permit Application Requirements Regarding Corrective Action, 52 FR25788, December 1, 1987.

MAC R 299.9508(1)(b), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R 299.9504(1)(c) and (18), and R 299.11003(1)(q), effective June 18, 1994.

Corrective Action Beyond the Facility Boundary, 52 FR 45788, Decem-ber 1, 1987.

MAC R 299.9629 (2) and (7), effective June 18, 1994.

Corrective Action for Injection Wells, 52 FR 45788, December 1, 1987 . MAC R 299.9503 (3)(a)(i) and (5), R 299.9601(4), and R299.11003(1)(b), effective June 18, 1994.

Permit Modification, 52 FR 45788, December 1, 1987 ............................ MAC R 299.9519(3)(b), effective June 18, 1994.Permit as a Shield Provision, 52 FR 45788, December 1, 1987 ............. MAC R 299.9516, effective April 20, 1988.Permit Conditions to Protect Human Health and the Environment, 52

FR 45788, December 1, 1987.MAC R 299.9508(1)(b) and R 299.9521(3)(b), effective April 20, 1988;

R 299.9504(16), effective June 18, 1994.Farmer Exemptions; Technical Corrections, 53 FR 27164, July 19,

1988.MAC R 299.9204(3)(b), R 299.9301(2)(c), R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R

299.9503(1)(c), R 299.9601 (3), (6), and (8), R 299.9627, and R299.11003(1) (o) and (p), effective June 18, 1994.

Treatability Studies Sample Exemption, 53 FR 27290, July 19, 1988 ..... MAC R 299.9108(j), and R 299.9204 (7) and (8), effective June 18,1994.

Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Wastes, 53 FR31138, August 17, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 8264, February 27,1989.

MAC R 299.9609 (1)(a) and (2)–(5), effective November 19, 1991;MAC R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9601 (1), (2) (c) and (d), (3)and (8), R 299.9605 (1) and (3), R 299.9627, R 299.9801(3), and R299.11003(1) (l), (m), (o) and (p), effective June 18, 1994.

Financial Responsibility for Third Party Liability, Closure, and Post-Clo-sure, 53 FR 33938, September 1, 1988, as amended at 56 FR30200, July 1, 1991.

MAC R 299.9705(1), effective December 28, 1985; MAC rule R299.9701(4) and R 299.9709, effective February 15, 1989; MAC R299.9710, effective June 18, 1994.

Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Tank Systems,53 FR 34079, September 2, 1988.

MAC R 299.9103(b) (i) and (ii), R 299.9109(p)(iii), R 299.9601 (1), (2)(f) and (h), R 299.9613 (1) and (6), R 299.9615 (1) and (7), and R299.11003(1) (l) and (o), effective June 18, 1994.

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste and Designation, Report-able Quantity and Notification, 53 FR 35412, September 13, 1988.

MAC R 299.9216 (1) and (2), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.9222 and R 299.11003(1)(l), effective June 18, 1994.

Permit Modification for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, 53 FR37912, September 28, 1988, as amended at 53 FR 41649, October24, 1988.

MAC R 299.9520, effective April 20, 1988; R 299.9103 (a), (k), and(aa), R 299.9511, and R 299.9519, effective June 18, 1994.

Statistical Methods for Evaluating Ground-Water Monitoring Data fromHazardous Waste Facilities, 53 FR 39720, October 11, 1988.

MAC R 299.9612 (1) and (2) and R 299.11003(1)(l), effective June 18,1994.

Removal of Iron Dextran from List of Hazardous Wastes, 53 FR 43878,October 31, 1988.

MAC R 299.9216 (1) and (2), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.9225 and R 299.11003(1)(i), effective June 18, 1994.

Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the List of Hazardous Wastes, 53FR 43881, October 31, 1988.


Changes to 40 CFR Part 124 Not Accounted for by Present RCRA Re-vision Checklists, 54 FR 246, January 4, 1989; 53 FR 37396, Sep-tember 26, 1988; 53 FR 28118, July 26, 1988; 48 FR 30113, June30, 1983; 48 FR 14146, April 1, 1983.

MAC R 299.9509, R 299.9513, and R 299.9514(2)(b), effective De-cember 28, 1985; MAC R 299.9508 (3) and (4), R 299.9510, R299.9520(3), and R 299.9521, effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.9503, R 299.9504 (15) and (18), R 299.9511, R 299.9519 (1)and (2), and R 299.11003(1)(q), effective June 18, 1994.

Amendments to Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permit Requirements, 54FR 4286, January 30, 1989.

MAC R 299.9626 (4)–(6), effective December 28, 1985; MAC R299.9508(1)(b) and R 299.9521 (3) and (4), effective April 20, 1988;MAC R 299.9504(4) (a) and (b), effective June 18, 1994.



Changes to Interim Status Facilities for Hazardous Waste ManagementPermits Procedures for Post-Closure Permitting, 54 FR 9596, March7, 1989.

MAC R 299.9501, effective November 19, 1991; MAC R 299.9515(1)and R 299.9517(2)(b), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R 299.9502, R299.9503, R 299.9518(2)(c), R 299.9522(2), R 299.9601 (1)(a),(2)(f), and (2)(j), R 299.9629, R 299.11003(1)(q), effective June 18,1994.

Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Wastes, 54 FR18836, May 2, 1989.

MAC R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9627, and R 299.11003(1)(p),effective June 18, 1994.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Second Third Scheduled Wastes, 54 FR26594, June 23, 1989.

MAC R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9627, and R 299.11003(1)(p),effective June 18, 1994.

Delisting; Correction, 54 FR 27114, June 27, 1989 ................................. MAC R 299.9211, effective February 15, 1989; MAC R299.11003(1)(g), effective June 18, 1994.

Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities,54 FR 33376, August 14, 1989.

MAC R 299.9702 (1) and (2), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.9601 (1), (2)(f), (3), and (8), R 299.9605 (1) and (3), R299.9613 (1) and (6), and R 299.11003(1) (l), (m), and (o), effectiveJune 18, 1994.

Mining Waste Exclusion I, 54 FR 36592, September 1, 1989 ................. MAC R 299.9204(2) (h) and (i), effective June 18, 1994.Land Disposal Restrictions: Corrections to First Third Scheduled

Wastes, 54 FR 36967, September 6, 1989, as amended at 55 FR23935, June 13, 1990.

MAC R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9627, R 299.9801(3), and R299.11003(1)(p), effective June 18, 1994.

Testing and Monitoring Activities, 54 FR 40260, September 29, 1989 ... MAC R 299.9216 (1) and (2), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.11003(1)(i) and R 299.11005 (1) and (2), effective June 18,1994.

Reportable Quantity Adjustment Methyl Bromide Production Wastes, 54FR 41402, October 6, 1989.

MAC R 299.9216 (1) and (2), R 299.9222, and R 299.11003(1)(i), ef-fective June 18, 1994.

Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and ListingCERCLA Substance Designation Reportable Quantity Adjustment, 54FR 50968, December 11, 1989.

MAC R 299.9216 (1) and (2), 299.9220, and 299.11003(1)(i), effectiveJune 18, 1994.

Mining Waste Exclusion II, 55 FR 2322, January 23, 1990 ..................... MAC R 299.9102(n), R 299.9204(2)(h), and R 299.9304 (2)(d) and(4)(h), effective June 18, 1994.

Modification of F019 Listing, 55 FR 5340, February 14, 1990 ................ MAC R 299.9220, effective June 18, 1994.Testing and Monitoring Activities, 55 FR 8948, March 9, 1990 ............... MAC R 299.11003(1)(i) and R 299.11005(1), effective June 18, 1994.Toxicity Characteristic Revisions, 55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990, as

amended at 55 FR 26986, June 29, 1990.MAC R 299.9204 (2) (f), (k), and (l) and (9), R 299.9209(5), R

299.9212(4), R 299.9217, R 299.9601 (3) and (8), R 299.11003(1)(l), (o), (p), and (r), effective June 18, 1994.

Listing of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine Production Wastes, 55 FR 18496, May2, 1990.


Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes, 55 FR 18726, May 4, 1990 ................. MAC R 299.9209 (1) and (7) and R 299.11003(1)(h), effective June18, 1994.

HSWA Codification Rule, Double Liners; Corrections, 55 FR 1926, May9, 1990.

MAC R 299.9616 (1) and (4), effective December 28, 1985; MAC R299.9619 (1) and (6), and R 299.11003(1)(l), effective June 18,1994.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes, 55 FR22520, June 1, 1990.

MAC R 299.9616 (1) and (2), R 299.9617 (1) and (3), and R 299.9618(1) and (2), effective December 28, 1985; MAC R 299.9214(1)(c), ef-fective November 19, 1991; MAC R 299.9212(6), R 299.9302 (1)(b)and (2), R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9519(5)(b)(ii), R 299.9601(1), (3), and (8), R 299.9605 (1) and (3), R 299.9619 (1) and (6), R299.9220, R 299.9627, and R 299.11003(1) (i), (l), (o), and (p), ef-fective June 18, 1994.

Organic Air Emission Standards for Process Vents and EquipmentLeaks, 55 FR 25454, June 21, 1990.

MAC R 299.9508(1)(b), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R 299.9609(1)(a), (1)(b), and (5), effective November 19, 1991; MAC R299.9206(1) (b)–(d), R 299.9504 (1)(c), (12), (13), and (18), R299.9601, R 299.9605 (1) and (3), R 299.9630 (1) and (2), R299.9631 (1) and (2), R 299.11001(1) (a), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o), (q), (r),(s), (t), and (3), effective June 18, 1994.

Petroleum Refinery Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids SeparationSludge Listings—F037 and F038, 55 FR 46354, November 2, 1990,as amended at 55 FR 51707, December 17, 1990.

MAC R 299.9213 (4)–(7), R 299.9220, and R 299.11003(1)(i), effectiveJune 18, 1994.

Wood Preserving Listings, 55 FR 50450, December 6, 1990 .................. MAC R 299.9102(v), R 299.9204(1) (i) and (j), R 299.9220, R299.9227, R 299.9306, R 299.9504 (14) and (18), R 299.9508(1)(b),R 299.9601, R 299.9615 (1) and (7), R 299.9632 (1) and (2), and R299.11003(1) (i), (l), (o), and (q), effective June 18, 1994.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes; Tech-nical Amendments, 56 FR 3864, January 31, 1991.

MAC R 299.9203(5)(a), R 299.9212(6), R 299.9220, R 299.9302(1)(b),R 299.9306(4)(e), R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9627, and R299.11003(1)(p), effective June 18, 1994.

Toxicity Characteristic; Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants, 56 FR 5910,February 13, 1991.

MAC R 299.9204(2)(m), effective June 18, 1994.

Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the List of Hazardous Wastes; Tech-nical Amendment, 56 FR 7567, February 25, 1991.

MAC R 299.9216 (1) and (2), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.9224, and R 299.11003(1)(i), effective June 18, 1994.

Organic Air Emission Standards for Process Vents and EquipmentLeaks; Technical Amendment, 56 FR 19290, April 26, 1991.

MAC R 299.9609 (1)(a) and (5), effective November 19, 1991; MAC R299.9504 (12) and (18), R 299.9601, R 299.9630 (1) and (2), R299.9631 (1) and (2), and R 299.11003(1) (l), (m), (o), and (q), ef-fective June 18, 1994.



Petroleum Refinery Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids SeparationSludge Listings—F037 and F038; Revisions, 56 FR 21955, May 13,1991.

MAC R 299.9220, effective June 18, 1994.

Mining Waste Exclusion III, 56 FR 27300, June 13, 1991 ....................... MAC R 299.9204(2)(h), effective June 18, 1994.Wood Preserving Listings; Technical Corrections, 56 FR 30192, July 1,

1991.MAC R 299.9306(1) (a)–(d) and R 299.9508(1)(b), effective April 20,

1988; MAC R 299.9204(1)( i) and (j), R 299.9227(2)–(4), R299.9504 (14) and (18), R 299.9601 (1), (3), and (8), R 299.9632 (1)and (2), and R 299.11003(1) (l), (o), and (q), effective June 18,1994.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Electric Arc Furnace Dust—K061, 56 FR41164, August 19, 1991.

MAC R 299.9203(4) (c) and (d), R 299.9204(1)(k), R 299.9311, R299.9413, R 299.9627, and R 299.11003(1)(p), effective June 18,1994.

Exports of Hazardous Waste; Technical Correction, 56 FR 43704, Sep-tember 4, 1991.

MAC R 299.9309 (1) and (4), effective April 20, 1988; MAC R299.11003(1)(j), effective June 18, 1994.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes; Tech-nical Amendments, 57 FR 8086, March 6, 1992.

MAC R 299.9311, R 299.9413, R 299.9601 (3) and (8), R 299.9605, R299.9627, and R 299.11003(1) (l), (o), and (p), effective June 18,1994.

Used Oil Filter Exemption, 57 FR 21524, May 20, 1992 ......................... MAC R 299.9204(2)(o), effective June 18, 1994.Toxicity Characteristic Revision, 57 FR 23062, June 1, 1992 ................. MAC R 299.9204(2)(i), effective June 18, 1994.Used Oil Filter Exemption; Technical Corrections, 57 FR 29220, July 1,

1992.MAC R 299.9204(2)(o), effective June 18, 1994.

Toxicity Characteristic Revisions; Technical Corrections, 57 FR 30657,July 10, 1992.

MAC R 299.9204(2) (g) and (k), effective June 18, 1994.

Wood Preserving Listings, 57 FR 61492, December 24, 1992 ................ MAC R 299.9220, R 299.9601 (1), (3) and (8), R 299.9632, and R299.11003(1) (l) and (o), effective June 18, 1994.

In addition, Michigan will beauthorized to carry out, in lieu of theFederal program, the following State-

initiated changes to provisions of theState’s program, which are analogous tothe following Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act rules found at Title 40of the Code of Federal Regulations:

State Requirement Federal Requirement

Michigan Administrative Code (MAC) Rule (R)299.9101(t)*.

40 CFR 262.60(b)(2).

MAC R 299.9104(i)* ........................................................... 40 CFR 262.60.MAC R 299.9109(e)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 262.60(b)(2).MAC R 299.9205* .............................................................. 40 CFR 261.5.MAC R 299.9206(1)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 261.6(a)(1).MAC R 299.9206(5)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.11.MAC R 299.9207(3)(b)(ii)* ................................................. 40 CFR 261.7(b)(1)(iii)(B).MAC R 299.9207(5)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 261.7(b)(3).MAC R 299.9212(1)(a)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 261.21(a)(1).MAC R 299.9306(1)(a)(i)* .................................................. 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(i).MAC R 299.9306(1)(a)(ii)* ................................................. 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(ii).MAC R 299.9306(1)(d)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4).MAC R 299.9306(1)(e)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4).MAC R 299.9306(2)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1).MAC R 299.9306(3)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(b).MAC R 299.9306(4)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(d).MAC R 299.9306(4)(c)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(d)(2).MAC R 299.9306(4)(i)(iii)* .................................................. 40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(iv)(C).MAC R 299.9306(4)(j)* ...................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(d).MAC R 299.9306(4)(k)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 262.34(d).MAC R 299.9310(2)(a)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 262.60(b)(1).MAC R 299.9503(1)(a)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2)(ii).MAC R 299.9503(3)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 270.60(c).MAC R 299.9503(3)(b)(iii)* ................................................ 40 CFR 270.60.(c)(3)(iv).MAC R 299.9506(1)(g)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 270.14(c)(4).MAC R 299.9506(2)(a)(ii)* ................................................. 40 CFR 270.14(c)(5) and 264.97(a).MAC R 299.9506(2)(a)(v)* ................................................. 40 CFR 270.14(c)(5) and 264.97(a).MAC R 299.9506(2)(f)* ...................................................... 40 CFR 270.14(c)(5) and 264.97(a).MAC R 299.9506(4)(d)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 270.14(c)(7)(iv) and 264.94(a).MAC R 299.9511* .............................................................. 40 CFR 124.6MAC R 299.9518(1)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 270.10(c) and 270.14(a).MAC R 299.9518(4)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(i).MAC R 299.9518(5)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.112(d)(3) and 265.112(d)(3).MAC R 299.9518(6)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.112(d)(3) and 265.112(d)(3), 270.51(c)(2).MAC R 299.9519(1)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 270.41.MAC R 299.9601(2)(b)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 265.1(b) and 265.50.MAC R 299.9601(2)(f)* ...................................................... 40 CFR 264.112(d)(3), 264.113, 40 CFR 265.112(d)(3), and 265.113.MAC R 299.9601(2)(i)* ...................................................... 40 CFR 268.1.MAC R 299.9601(4)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.1(d).


State Requirement Federal Requirement

MAC R 299.9605(2)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 261.7.MAC R 299.9607(2)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.56(d).MAC R 299.9607(3)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.56(j).MAC R 299.9611(2)(a)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 264.98.MAC R 299.9611(3)(a)(iii)* ................................................ 40 CFR 264.90(c)(3).MAC R 299.9612(1)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.90(a).MAC R 299.9612(1)(b)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 264.97.MAC R 299.9612(1)(d)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 264.94(a).MAC R 299.9612(1)(e)(i)* .................................................. 40 CFR 264.97(h).MAC R 299.9612(1)(f)* ...................................................... 40 CFR 264.99(a).MAC R 299.9612(1)(h)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 264.90(b).MAC R 299.9613(1)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.110.MAC R 299.9613(2)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.112(d)(1).MAC R 299.9613(3)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.115.MAC R 299.9613(5)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.120.MAC R 299.9615(2)(a)* ..................................................... 40 CFR 264.193(e).MAC R 299.9615(3)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.192(a)(3).MAC R 299.9619(1)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.316.MAC R 299.9619(5)(a)(i)* .................................................. 40 CFR 264.310.MAC R 299.9619(5)(a)(ii)* ................................................. 40 CFR 264.310.MAC R 299.9619(6)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.316.MAC R 299.9629(4)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.100 (a) and (b).MAC R 299.9629(5)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.100(c).MAC R 299.9629(6)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.100(d).MAC R 299.9629(7)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.100(e).MAC R 299.9629(8)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.100(f).MAC R 299.9629(9)* .......................................................... 40 CFR 264.100(g).MAC R 299.9629(10)* ........................................................ 40 CFR 264.100(h).

*Effective June 18, 1994

EPA shall administer any RCRAhazardous waste permits, or portions ofpermits, that contain conditions basedupon the Federal program provisions forwhich the State is applying forauthorization and which were issued byEPA prior to the effective date of thisauthorization. EPA will suspendissuance of any further permits underthe provisions for which the State isbeing authorized on the effective date ofthis authorization. EPA has previouslysuspended issuance of permits for theother provisions on October 30, 1986;January 23, 1990; and June 24, 1991, theeffective dates of Michigan’s finalauthorizations for the RCRA baseprogram and for the Non-HSWA ClusterI, Cluster II, and Cluster III revisions.

Michigan is not authorized to operatethe Federal program on Indian lands.This authority remains with EPA unlessprovided otherwise in a future statute orregulation.

C. DecisionI conclude that Michigan’s

application for program revision meetsall the statutory and regulatoryrequirements established by RCRA.Accordingly, Michigan is granted finalauthorization to operate its hazardouswaste program as revised. Michigannow has responsibility for permittingtreatment, storage, and disposalfacilities within its borders and carryingout other aspects of the RCRA programdescribed in its revised program

application, subject to the limitations ofthe HSWA. Michigan also has primaryenforcement responsibilities, althoughEPA retains the right to conductinspections under Section 3007 ofRCRA and to take enforcement actionsunder Sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 ofRCRA.

D. Incorporation by Reference

EPA incorporates by referenceauthorized State programs in part 272 of40 CFR to provide notice to the publicof the scope of the authorized programin each State. Incorporation by referenceof these revisions to the Michiganprogram will be completed at a laterdate.

Compliance With Executive Order12291

The Office of Management and Budgethas exempted this rule from therequirements of section 3 of ExecutiveOrder 12291.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.104–4, establishes requirements forFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir regulatory actions on State, local,and tribal governments and the privatesector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,EPA generally must prepare a writtenstatement, including a cost-benefitanalysis, for proposed and final ruleswith ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,and tribal governments, in the aggregate,or to the private sector, of $100 millionor more in any one year. When a writtenstatement is needed for an EPA rule,section 205 of the UMRA generallyrequires EPA to identify and consider areasonable number of regulatoryalternatives and adopt the least costly,most cost-effective, or least burdensomealternative that achieves the objectivesof the rule. The provisions of section205 do not apply when they areinconsistent with applicable law.Moreover, section 205 allows EPA toadopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, most cost-effective, or leastburdensome alternative if theAdministrator publishes with the finalrule an explanation why that alternativewas not adopted. Before EPA establishesany regulatory requirements that maysignificantly or uniquely affect smallgovernments, including tribalgovernments, it must have developedunder section 203 of the UMRA a smallgovernment agency plan. The plan mustprovide for notifying potentiallyaffected small governments, giving themmeaningful and timely input in thedevelopment of EPA regulatoryproposals with significant Federalintergovernmental mandates, andinforming, educating, and advising themon compliance with the regulatoryrequirements.

EPA has determined that this ruledoes not contain a Federal mandate that


may result in expenditures of $100million or more for State, local, andtribal governments, in the aggregate, orthe private sector in any one year. EPAdoes not anticipate that the approval ofMichigan’s hazardous waste programreferenced in today’s notice will resultin annual costs of $100 million or more.

EPA’s approval of State programsgenerally have a deregulatory effect onthe private sector because once it isdetermined that a State hazardous wasteprogram meets the requirements ofRCRA section 3006(b) and theregulations promulgated thereunder at40 CFR part 271, owners and operatorsof hazardous waste treatment, storage,or disposal facilities (TSDFs) may takeadvantage of the flexibility that anapproved State may exercise. Suchflexibility will reduce, not increase,compliance costs for the private sector.Thus, today’s rule is not subject to therequirements of sections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rulecontains no regulatory requirements thatmight significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments. The Agencyrecognizes that small governments mayown and/or operate TSDFs that willbecome subject to the requirements ofan approved State hazardous wasteprogram. However, such smallgovernments which own and/or operateTSDFs are already subject to therequirements in 40 CFR parts 264, 265,and 270. Once EPA authorizes a State toadminister its own hazardous wasteprogram and any revisions to thatprogram, these same small governmentswill be able to own and operate theirTSDFs with increased levels offlexibility provided under the approvedState program.

Certification Under the RegulatoryFlexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.605(b), I hereby certify that thisauthorization will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Thisauthorization effectively suspends theapplicability of certain Federalregulations in favor of Michigan’sprogram thereby eliminating duplicativerequirements for handlers of hazardouswaste in the State. It does not imposeany new burdens on small entities. Thisrule, therefore, does not require aregulatory flexibility analysis.

Paperwork Reduction ActUnder the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agenciesmust consider the paperwork burdenimposed by any information requestcontained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose anyinformation requirements upon theregulated community.

List of Subjects in 40 Part 271

Environmental Protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Confidential business information,Hazardous materials transportation,Hazardous waste, Indian lands,Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Water pollution control,Water supply.

Authority: This notice is issued under theauthority of sections 2002(a) 3006, and7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act asamended (42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926 and6974(b).

Dated: January 11, 1996.Valdas V. Adamkus,Regional Administrator.[FR Doc. 96–2724 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5418–4]

National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution ContingencyPlan; National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of deletion of theClothier Disposal site from the NationalPriorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), Region II, announces thedeletion of the Clothier Disposal sitefrom the National Priorities List (NPL).The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR part300 which is the National Oil andHazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan (NCP), which EPApromulgated pursuant to section 105 ofthe Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA), as amended. EPA andthe State of New York have determinedthat all appropriate responses underCERCLA have been implemented, andthat no further cleanup by responsibleparties is appropriate. Moreover, EPAand the State of New York havedetermined that remedial actionsconducted at the site to date have beenprotective of public health, welfare, andthe environment.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.ADDRESSES: For further informationcontact: Herbert H. King, RemedialProject Manager, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region II, 290Broadway, 20th floor, New York, NY10007–1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Herbert H. King at (212) 637–4268.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site tobe deleted from the NPL is: ClothierDisposal site, Granby, New York.

The closing date for comments on theNotice of Intent to Delete was October15, 1995. EPA received one commentletter from the counsel for the SettlingDefendants (a group of potentiallyresponsible parties associated with thesite who entered into a consent decreewith the government to pay for thegovernment’s past costs and toremediate the site), indicating that theSettling Defendants support deleting thesite from the NPL, and requesting thatthe description of the activities thatwere undertaken by the SettlingDefendants after the discovery of threeburied drums during the first long-termmonitoring event at the site beamplified. EPA acknowledges theSettling Defendants’ efforts subsequentto the discovery of three buried drums,which included a geophysicalinvestigation in the area surroundingthe drum-discovery site, the excavationof trenches through two magneticanomalies identified by the geophysicalinvestigation, the excavation of metallicdebris discovered in one trench, and theoff-site disposal of the metallic debrisand the three buried drums. Based onthese efforts and the associated findings,EPA concluded that no further remedialor investigatory work was necessary atthe site.

EPA identifies sites which appear topresent a significant risk to publichealth, welfare, or the environment andit maintains the NPL as the list of thosesites. Sites on the NPL may be thesubject of Hazardous SubstanceResponse Trust Fund (Fund)-financedremedial actions. Any site deleted fromthe NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in theunlikely event that conditions at the sitewarrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sitesdeleted from the NPL. Deletion of a sitefrom the NPL does not affect responsibleparty liability or impede EPA’s efforts torecover costs associated with responseefforts.


Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Chemicals, Hazardoussubstances, Hazardous waste,Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Superfund, Waterpollution control, Water supply.


Dated: January 2, 1996.William J. Muszynski,Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 300 is amended asfollows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321 (c)(2); 42 U.S.C.9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300is amended by removing the ClothierDisposal site, Granby, New York.[FR Doc. 96–2718 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3100

[WO–310–00–1310–2411]

RIN 1004–AC26

Promotion of Development, Reductionof Royalty on Heavy Oil

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of LandManagement is issuing this final rule toamend the regulations relating to thewaiver, suspension, or reduction ofrental, royalty, or minimum royalty.This action is being taken to promotethe production of heavy oil. Theamendment establishes the conditionsunder which the operators of propertiesthat produce ‘‘heavy oil’’ (crude oil witha gravity of less than 20 degrees) canobtain a reduction in the royalty rate.The amendment should encourage theoperators of Federal heavy oil leases toplace marginal or uneconomical shut-inoil wells back in production, provide aneconomic incentive to implementenhanced oil recovery projects, anddelay the plugging of these wells untilthe maximum amount of economicallyrecoverable oil can be obtained from thereservoir or field.DATES: This rule will be effective March11, 1996.ADDRESSES: Inquiries should be sent to:Director (140), Bureau of LandManagement, Room 5558, Main InteriorBuilding, 1849 C Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.John W. Bebout, Bureau of LandManagement, (202) 452–0340.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. IntroductionII. Summary of Rule AdoptedIII. Responses to Public CommentsIV. Procedural MattersV. Regulatory Text

I. IntroductionA proposed rule to provide royalty

relief for producers of heavy oil waspublished in the Federal Register noticeof April 10, 1995 (60 FR 18081) with thecomment period ending June 9, 1995.The comment period was reopened June16, 1995 (60 FR 31663) and closed July17, 1995.

On March 30, 1995, an outdatedversion of this proposed rule waspublished in the Federal Register (60FR 16424) by mistake. That proposedrule publication was withdrawn, andthe Federal Register notice of April 10,1995 (60 FR 18081) was published in itsplace as the proposed rule.

The following are questions andanswers designed to provide anintroduction to this rule.

When does the Department of theInterior (Department) consider grantingroyalty relief?

In order to encourage the greatestultimate recovery of oil and in theinterest of conservation, the Secretary,upon a determination that it isnecessary to promote development, mayreduce the royalty on an entireleasehold or any portion thereof(Section 39 of the Mineral Leasing Act,30 U.S.C. 209).

Existing section 3103.4–1 of Title 43,Code of Federal Regulations, providestwo forms of Federal oil and gas royaltyreduction—on a case-by-case basis uponapplication and for stripper wells. Theprovision concerning stripper wellproperties allows royalty reduction forproperties that produce an average ofless than 15 barrels of oil per eligiblewell per well-day.

The Bureau of Land Management(BLM) believes that royalty relief forproducers of heavy crude oil is neededto promote the development of heavyoil.

Why is heavy oil royalty reliefneeded?

Above all, this royalty relief is neededto promote the development of heavyoil. Eliminating all royalties would bethe most effective way to promotedevelopment, but that would jeopardizethe Department’s efforts in securing afair return for public land resources.Royalty relief has to be considered inlight of all the Department’sresponsibilities and objectives. The

balance this rule strikes is to have aroyalty rate that promotes developmentwhile ensuring the public receivesreasonable compensation.

Cyclical swings in the price for crudeoil are common. BLM believes thatfuture price decreases are possible, oreven likely. The effect of this rule willprovide a buffer against these decreasesfor heavy oil produced from Federalland. As many as two-thirds of allmarginal properties (including non-heavy oil properties) could be lostduring a period of sustained low oilprices (Marginal Wells, A Report of theNational Petroleum Council, 1994, p. 3).The danger in losing the marginal wellsis that, although production fromindividual wells may be small, theircollective production is significant,accounting for one-third of lower-48State onshore domestic production.Heavy oil production, from both Federaland non-Federal lands, makes up almostone-half of this third (Marginal Wells, AReport of the National PetroleumCouncil, 1994, p. 50). Heavy oil wellstypically incur higher production costs,thus increasing their vulnerability. Werethese heavy oil wells abandoned, theUnited States would lose this significantportion of domestic production.

What will happen as a result of thisrule?

This rule should encourage theoperators of Federal heavy oil leases toplace marginal or uneconomical shut-inoil wells back in production, provide aneconomic incentive to implementenhanced oil recovery projects, anddelay the plugging of these wells untilthe maximum amount of economicallyrecoverable oil can be obtained from thereservoir or field.

According to a Department of Energy(DOE) analysis of its TORIS (Tertiary OilRecovery Information System) data, thesize of economically recoverablereserves from Federal lands will besignificantly enhanced by thisamendment. For instance, at a WestTexas Intermediate (WTI) crude oilprice of $16 a barrel, DOE projects thatthis rule will increase recoverablereserves of about 54 million barrels toabout 87 million barrels for the State ofCalifornia. At $18 a barrel, DOE projectsthat this rule will increase recoverablereserves of about 103 million barrels toabout 130 million barrels for the Stateof California. At $20 a barrel, DOEprojects that this rule will increaserecoverable reserves of about 133million barrels to about 229 millionbarrels for the State of California. Aproportionately larger increase inrecoverable reserves is anticipated whenoil prices range toward $20 a barrelbecause major recovery projects may


become economically feasible. Were thisrule not promulgated, DOE projectsthese increases in recoverable reserveswould most likely not occur.

Since the State of California producesalmost 91 percent of lower-48 Stateonshore heavy oil production, the vastmajority of recoverable reserve increasesstemming from this royalty relief willmost likely come from this State.Significant recoverable reserve increasesare not anticipated in the other Statessince fewer properties will qualify forthe relief.

When will this rule apply?The rule will take effect March 11,

1996. However, the BLM may suspendor terminate all royalty reductionsgranted under this rule and terminatethe availability of further relief underthis rule—

(1) upon 6 month’s notice in theFederal Register when BLM determinesthat the average WTI oil price hasremained above $24 per barrel over aperiod of 6 consecutive months or

(2) after September 10, 1999, if theroyalty rate reductions authorized bythis rule have not been effective inreducing the loss of otherwiserecoverable reserves.

How will this royalty relief affectroyalties and revenues?

According to the DOE TORIS analysis,although oil royalties may decline insome instances, the effects to overallFederal and State revenues should belargely neutral except in the State ofCalifornia. (Revenues include all formsof income including royalties.) Slightdecreases in overall revenue could bepossible at some oil prices for Stateswith moderate levels of heavy oilproduction. In California, the DOEanalysis projects small decreases orsizable increases in State revenuesdepending on the price of oil (LetterReport from Department of Energy datedJuly 29, 1994).

II. Summary of Rule AdoptedThe final rule establishes a sliding

scale royalty rate for qualifying heavy-oil-producing properties. The slidingscale is intended to somewhat offset thereduced prices paid for oil as oil gravitydecreases. The reduced royalty rateapplies to qualifying heavy oilproperties rather than individual wells,because production is normally notreported for individual oil wells, and isbased on the average gravity of the oilweighted by the production of heavy oilfrom each well within the property. Aweighted average gravity is used toprevent gravity manipulation byselectively producing wells on aproperty with heavier gravity crude.Using a weighted average of oil gravity

encourages maximum recovery from allwells within a property by removing theeconomic advantage of selectiveproduction.

The rule provides that either theoperator (as defined at 43 CFR 3100.0–5) or the payor (as defined at 30 CFR208.2) must calculate the weightedaverage gravity of the oil—measured onthe American Petroleum Institute (API)scale—produced from a property every12 months to determine the appropriateroyalty rate. In no case, however, wouldthe royalty rate exceed the rateestablished by the terms of the lease.

The section amended by this rule alsoprovides for royalty rate reductions forstripper oil wells. Some provisions ofthis final rule are similar to theprovisions of the existing regulationsthat pertain to stripper wells.

The final rule was modified inresponse to comments and forclarification. Section 3103.4 wasredesigned to aid the reader indistinguishing the various forms ofroyalty reduction and accompanyingprovisions. Separate sections wereestablished for the stripper oil andheavy oil royalty reduction provisions.The discussion of royalty ratedeterminations in § 3103.4–3(b)(5) wasmodified by adding two examples andclarifying the text. Section 3103.4–3(b)(6) was modified to extend thereview period until 1999. Crossreferences were modified whereappropriate throughout Part 3100 toreflect the redesign of § 3103.4.

III. Responses to Public CommentsA total of 209 comments were

received on the proposed rule. Anoverwhelming majority supported theproposed rule. A few commentersrecommended changes.

Comments suggested that the reviewperiod be extended for a period of 4 or5 years rather than the 2 years stated inthe proposed rule. It was always theBLM’s intention that the rule be in placeat least 4 years before it was evaluated.Unanticipated delays in the rulemakingprocess, however, have rendered theoriginal 1997 deadline unreasonablyshort. Therefore, the BLM concurs withthis suggestion and the rule has beenmodified to extend the review perioduntil 1999.

A comment stated that the $24 triggerfor rule suspension was too high whileanother comment stated that $24 wastoo low. Based on data developed fromDOE’s TORIS database, the BLMbelieves that $24 is an appropriatetrigger to suspend the rule. The dataindicate that State and Federal Royaltyreductions are offset by increasedrecoverable reserves up until the point

that WTI crude oil prices reachapproximately $24/bbl. Past that point,recoverable reserve increases appear totaper off. In addition, the TORIS datashow that when WTI prices climb above$24/bbl the royalty reduction is nolonger a determining factor for decisionsregarding investments in enhanced oilrecovery techniques.

Comments suggested that the CFR3103.4–1 regulations be revised forclarity and simplicity. The BLM agreesand has revised the section for clarity.

A comment suggested that thequalifying period for a heavy oil royaltyrate reduction coincide with the oneestablished for a stripper oil propertyroyalty reduction. While the BLM agreesthat there is value in making thestripper and heavy oil royalty ratereduction processes as similar aspossible, this is not always practicable.The heavy oil rule qualifying period wasmade flexible in order to acknowledgethe fact that many qualifying, low-production properties may not removeor sell oil every month even if theirproduction is continuous. Thus, manyproperties may require even more thana calendar year (the stripper propertyqualifying period) to accumulate 3months of sales or oil removal.

One comment requested that thenotification period for requesting areduced royalty rate be extendedbeyond the proposed 60 days. The BLMbelieves that 60 days is sufficient timefor an operator to notify the BLM of anew royalty rate. The stripper propertyroyalty reduction program has a similarnotification period which appears to beworking well.

Some comments stated that a greaterroyalty rate reduction was necessary.They suggested that this beaccomplished by using a power curverather than a straight line to calculateroyalty rates. The BLM consideredcalculating royalty rates by both powercurves and straight-line methods. TheDOE’s TORIS data, however, indicatedthat neither method was clearlyadvantageous over the other in terms ofincreasing recoverable reserves exceptwithin a narrow range of WTI crude oilprices. Because it is not possible topredict future oil prices, the BLM haschosen to remain with a straight-lineroyalty reduction for purposes ofsimplicity as well as to parallel thestripper property royalty reduction rule.

Some comments stated that the ruleshould use 25 degrees as a ‘‘heavy oil’’cutoff (rather than the 20 degreesproposed) in order to maximize therule’s effects and to provide the rule’sbenefits to as many operators aspossible. Although there is no singleaccepted definition for ‘‘heavy oil,’’


standard academic and industrypractice is to reserve the term for crudeoils of less than 20 degrees API. TheU.S. tax code also uses a 20 degreedefinition.

One comment stated that BLM shouldevaluate the stripper oil royaltyreduction before granting heavy oilroyalty relief. The BLM is in the processof evaluating the stripper wellprovisions. The stripper well provisionshave not been in place long enough tomake a substantive assessment.

One comment strongly opposed heavyoil royalty relief, stating that the BLMhas no data which demonstrate that theleases eligible for the relief cannot beoperated successfully under the leaseterms or that the continued operation ofeach heavy crude lease is in serious,unavoidable jeopardy. Although this isan important consideration, this is notthe criterion for relief that is serving asthe basis of this determination. TheSecretary, acting through the AssistantSecretary—Land and MineralsManagement, concludes, based on theDOE analysis cited in the introduction,that this rule is necessary to promote thedevelopment of heavy oil. Recoverablereserves are projected to be significantlyless in the absence of the royalty reliefprovided by this rule.

One comment stated that this rulewill provide insufficient relief on leasesin true jeopardy and windfalls for thosewithout need. The BLM believes thatthere are enough similarities in terms ofthe economic pressures on producers ofheavy oil that any such relativedisparities in levels of relief should beinconsequential. Furthermore, the ruleis sensitive to the particular gravity ofthe heavy oil being produced, so thatproducers of less valuable heavy oilreceive a higher proportion of royaltyrelief.

One comment stated that even if Staterevenues increase, royalty reductionswill hurt State services. (Revenuesinclude all forms of income includingroyalties.) According to the DOEanalysis, the effects to Federal and Staterevenues should be largely neutral.Slight royalty decreases could bepossible at some oil prices for Stateswith moderate levels of heavy oilproduction.

In California, where almost 91 percentof the heavy oil production takes place,the DOE analysis generally projectssmall to moderate decreases in royalties.For instance, at $16 a barrel (WTI), DOEprojects that this rule will decreaseCalifornia royalties by about $3.5million, while increasing Californiapublic sector revenue by about $15million. At $18 a barrel (WTI), DOEprojects that this rule will decrease

California royalties by about $24million, while decreasing Californiapublic sector revenue by about $1million. At $20 a barrel (WTI), DOEprojects that this rule will increaseCalifornia royalties by about $1 million,while increasing California public sectorrevenue by about $104 million. Thewide variations in sensitivity to theprice of oil are due to numerousvariables, including the propensity foroil companies to invest in majorrecovery projects at certain oil prices.(Letter Report from Department ofEnergy dated July 29, 1994.)

IV. Procedural Matters

This rule is not a major Federal actionsignificantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment and that nodetailed statement pursuant to Section102 (2)(C) of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is required.

This rule has been reviewed underExecutive Order 12866.

The BLM has determined that thisfinal rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities under theRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.). The BLM has prepared aregulatory flexibility analysis. It isavailable upon request from the addresslisted at the beginning of this rule.Additionally the BLM has determined,under Executive Order 12630, that therulemaking will not cause a taking ofprivate property.

The BLM has certified that theseregulations meet the applicablestandards provided in sections 2(a) and2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The information collectionrequirements of this rule have beenapproved by the Office of Managementand Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.and assigned clearance numbers 1010–0090 and 1004–0145.

The principal author of this final ruleis Dr. John W. Bebout, Senior TechnicalSpecialist, Fluids Group, assisted byCharles Hunt of the RegulatoryManagement Team, Bureau of LandManagement.

List of Subjects for 43 CFR Part 3100

Land Management Bureau, PublicLands—mineral resources, Oil and gasproduction, Mineral royalties.

For the reasons stated in thepreamble, and under the authoritiescited below, Part 3100, Group 3100,Subchapter C, Chapter II of Title 43 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations isamended as set forth below:

V. Regulatory Text

PART 3100—OIL AND GAS LEASING


Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181, et seq., 30 U.S.C.351–359.

Subpart 3103—Fees, Rentals andRoyalty

§ 3103.2–2 [Amended]2.–3. Section § 3103.2–2 is amended

by removing the cross reference‘‘§ 3103.4–2(d)’’ in the introductory textand adding in its place the crossreference ‘‘§ 3103.4–4(d).’’

4. § 3103.4 is amended by revising theheading to read as follows:

§ 3103.4 Production incentives.

§ 3103.4–2 [Redesignated as § 3103.4–4]5. Section 3103.4–2 is redesignated as

§ 3103.4–4.6. Section 3103.4–1 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) asparagraphs (a) and (b) of a new§ 3103.4–2, ‘‘Stripper well royaltyreductions.’’ Section 3103.4–1 is furtheramended by redesignating paragraph (e)as (c), and revising the section headingand paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

§ 3103.4–1 Royalty reductions.* * * * *

(b)(1) An application for the benefitsunder paragraph (a) of this section onother than stripper oil well leases orheavy oil properties must be filed by theoperator/payor in the proper BLMoffice. (Royalty reductions specificallyfor stripper oil well leases or heavy oilproperties are discussed in § 3103.4–2and § 3103.4–3 respectively.) Theapplication must contain the serialnumber of the leases, the names of therecord title holders, operating rightsowners (sublessees), and operators foreach lease, the description of lands bylegal subdivision and a description ofthe relief requested.

7. Newly designated § 3103.4–2,paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) is amended byremoving the cross reference ‘‘(d)(3)(ii)’’and adding in its place the crossreference ‘‘(b)(3)(ii).’’

8. A new § 3103.4–3 is added to readas follows:

§ 3103.4–3 Heavy oil royalty reductions.(a)(1) A heavy oil well property is any

Federal lease or portion thereofsegregated for royalty purposes, acommunitization area, or a unitparticipating area, operated by the sameoperator, that produces crude oil with aweighted average gravity of less than 20degrees as measured on the AmericanPetroleum Institute (API) scale.


(2) An oil completion is a completionfrom which the energy equivalent of theoil produced exceeds the energyequivalent of the gas produced(including the entrained liquefiablehydrocarbons) or any completionproducing oil and less than 60 MCF ofgas per day.

(b) Heavy oil well property royaltyrate reductions will be administeredaccording to the following requirementsand procedures:

(1) The Bureau of Land Managementrequires no specific application form forthe benefits under paragraph (a) of thissection for heavy oil well properties.However, the operator/payor mustnotify, in writing, the proper BLM officethat it is seeking a heavy oil royalty ratereduction. The letter must contain theserial number of the affected leases (or,as appropriate, the communitization

agreement number or the unit agreementname); the names of the operators foreach lease; the calculated new royaltyrate as determined under paragraph(b)(2) of this section; and copies of thePurchaser’s Statements (sales receipts)to document the weighted average APIgravity for a property.

(2) The operator must determine theweighted average API gravity for aproperty by averaging (adjusted to rateof production) the API gravities reportedon the operator’s Purchaser’s Statementfor the last 3 calendar months precedingthe operator’s written notice of intent toseek a royalty rate reduction, duringeach of which at least one sale was held.This is shown in the following 3illustrations:

(i) If a property has oil sales everymonth prior to requesting the royaltyrate reduction in October of 1996, the

operator must submit Purchaser’sStatements for July, August, andSeptember of 1996;

(ii) If a property has sales only every6 months, during the months of Marchand September, prior to requesting therate reduction in October of 1996, theoperator must submit Purchaser’sStatements for the months of September1995, and March and September 1996;and

(iii) If a property has multiple saleseach month, the operator must submitPurchaser’s Statements for every sale forthe 3 entire calendar monthsimmediately preceding the request for arate reduction.

(3) The following equation must beused by the operator/payor forcalculating the weighted average APIgravity for a heavy oil well property:

V G V G V G

V V V

n n

n

1 1 2 2

1 2

×( ) + ×( ) + ×( )+ +

= Weighted Average API gravity for a property

Where:V1=Average Production (bbls) of Well #1 over

the last 3 calendar months of salesV2=Average Production (bbls) of Well #2 over

the last 3 calendar months of salesVn=Average Production (bbls) of each

additional well (V3, V4, etc.) over the last3 calendar months of sales

G1=Average Gravity (degrees) of oil producedfrom Well #1 over the last 3 calendarmonths of sales

G2=Average Gravity (degrees) of oil producedfrom Well #2 over the last 3 calendarmonths of sales

Gn=Average Gravity (degrees) of eachadditional well (G3, G4, etc.) over the last3 calendar months of sales

Example: Lease ‘‘A’’ has 3 wells producingat the following average rates over 3 salesmonths with the following associated averagegravities: Well #1, 4,000 bbls, 13° API; Well#2, 6000 bbls, 21° API; Well #3, 2,000 bbls,14° API. Using the equation above—

( , ) ( , ) ( , )

( , , , )

4 000 13 6 000 21 2 000 14

4 000 6 000 2 000

× + × + ×

+ += 17.2 Weighted Average API gravity for property

(4) For those properties subject to acommunitization agreement or a unitparticipating area, the weighted average APIoil gravity for the lands dedicated to thatspecific communitization agreement or unitparticipating area must be determined in themanner prescribed in paragraph (b)(3) of thissection and assigned to all property subjectto Federal royalties in the communitizationagreement or unit participating area.

(5) The operator/payor must use thefollowing procedures in order to obtain aroyalty rate reduction under this section:

(i) Qualifying royalty rate determination.(A) The operator/payor must calculate the

weighted average API gravity for the propertyproposed for the royalty rate reduction inorder to verify that the property qualifies asa heavy oil well property.

(B) Properties that have removed or sold oilless than 3 times in their productive life maystill qualify for this royalty rate reduction.However, no additional royalty reductionswill be granted until the property has a saleshistory of at least 3 production months (seeparagraph (b)(2) of this section).

(ii) Calculating the qualifying royalty rate.If the Federal leases or portions thereof (e.g.,

communitization or unit agreements) qualifyas heavy oil property, the operator/payormust use the weighted average API gravityrounded down to the next whole degree (e.g.,11.7 degrees API becomes 11 degrees), anddetermine the appropriate royalty rate fromthe following table:

ROYALTY RATE REDUCTION FORHEAVY OIL

Weighted average API grav-ity (degrees)

Royalty Rate(percent)

6 ............................................ 0.57 ............................................ 1.48 ............................................ 2.29 ............................................ 3.110 .......................................... 3.911 .......................................... 4.812 .......................................... 5.613 .......................................... 6.514 .......................................... 7.415 .......................................... 8.216 .......................................... 9.117 .......................................... 9.918 .......................................... 10.8

ROYALTY RATE REDUCTION FORHEAVY OIL—Continued

Weighted average API grav-ity (degrees)

Royalty Rate(percent)

19 .......................................... 11.620 .......................................... 12.5

(iii) New royalty rate effective date.The new royalty rate will be effective onthe first day of production 2 monthsafter BLM receives notification by theoperator/payor. The rate will apply toall oil production from the property forthe next 12 months (plus the 2 calendarmonth grace period during which thenext 12 months’ royalty rate isdetermined in the next year). If the APIoil gravity is 20 degrees or greater, theroyalty rate will be the rate in the leaseterms.

Example: BLM receives notification froman operator on June 8, 1996. There is a twomonth period before new royalty rate is


effective—July and August. New royalty rateis effective September 1, 1996.

(iv) Royalty rate determinations insubsequent years.

(A) At the end of each 12-monthperiod, beginning on the first day of thecalendar month the royalty ratereduction went into effect, the operator/payor must determine the weightedaverage API oil gravity for the propertyfor that period. The operator/payor mustthen determine the royalty rate for thefollowing year using the table inparagraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section.

(B) The operator/payor must notifyBLM of its determinations under thisparagraph and paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(A) ofthis section. The new royalty rate(effective for the next 12 month period)will become effective the first day of thethird month after the prior 12 monthperiod comes to a close, and will remaineffective for 12 calendar months (plusthe 2 calendar month grace periodduring which the next 12 months’royalty rate is determined in the nextyear). Notification must include copiesof the Purchaser’s Statements (salesreceipts) and be mailed to the properBLM office. If the operator does notnotify the BLM of the new royalty ratewithin 60 days after the end of thesubject 12-month period, the royaltyrate for the heavy oil well property willreturn to the rate in the lease terms.

Example: On September 30, 1997, at theend of a 12-month royalty reduction period,the operator/payor determines what theweighted average API oil gravity for theproperty for that period has been. Theoperator/payor then determines the newroyalty rate for the next 12 month using thetable in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section.Given that there is a 2-month delay period forthe operator/payor to calculate the newroyalty rate, the new royalty rate would beeffective December 1, 1997 throughNovember 30, 1998 (plus the 2 calendarmonth grace period during which the next 12months’ royalty rate is determined—December 1, 1998 through January 31, 1999).

(v) Prohibition. Any heavy oilproperty reporting an API average oilgravity determined by BLM to haveresulted from any manipulation ofnormal production or adulteration of oilsold from the property will not receivethe benefit of a royalty rate reductionunder this paragraph (b).

(vi) Certification. The operator/payormust use the applicable royalty ratewhen submitting the required royaltyreports/payments to the MineralsManagement Service (MMS). Insubmitting royalty reports/paymentsusing a royalty rate reductionauthorized by this paragraph (b), theoperator/payor must certify that the APIoil gravity for the initial and subsequent

12-month periods was not subject tomanipulation or adulteration and theroyalty rate was determined inaccordance with the requirements andprocedures of this paragraph (b).

(vii) Agency action. If an operator/payor incorrectly calculates the royaltyrate, the BLM will determine the correctrate and notify the operator/payor inwriting. Any additional royalties dueare payable to MMS immediately uponreceipt of this notice. Late payment orunderpayment charges will be assessedin accordance with 30 CFR 218.102. TheBLM will terminate a royalty ratereduction for a property if BLMdetermines that the API oil gravity wasmanipulated or adulterated by theoperator/payor. Terminations of royaltyrate reductions for individual propertieswill be effective on the effective date ofthe royalty rate reduction resulting froma manipulated or adulterated API oilgravity so that the termination will beretroactive to the effective date of theimproper reduction. The operator/payormust pay the difference in royaltyresulting from the retroactiveapplication of the non-manipulated rate.The late payment or underpaymentcharges will assessed in accordancewith 30 CFR 218.102.

(6) The BLM may suspend orterminate all royalty reductions grantedunder this paragraph (b) and terminatethe availability of further heavy oilroyalty relief under this section—

(i) Upon 6 month’s notice in theFederal Register when BLM determinesthat the average oil price has remainedabove $24 per barrel over a period of 6consecutive months (based on the WTICrude average posted prices andadjusted for inflation using the implicitprice deflator for gross national productwith 1991 as the base year), or

(ii) After September 10, 1999, if theSecretary determines the royalty ratereductions authorized by this paragraph(b) have not been effective in reducingthe loss of otherwise recoverablereserves. This will be determined byevaluating the expected versus theactual abandonment rate, the number ofenhanced recovery projects, and theamount of operator reinvestment inheavy oil production that can beattributed to this rule.

(7) The heavy oil well propertyroyalty rate reduction applies to allFederal oil produced from a heavy oilproperty.

(8) If the lease royalty rate is lowerthan the benefits provided in this heavyoil well property royalty rate reductionprogram, the lease rate prevails.

(9) If the property qualifies for astripper well property royalty ratereduction, as well as a heavy oil well

property reduction, the lower of the tworates applies.

(10) The operator/payor mustseparately calculate the royalty for gasproduction (including condensateproduced in association with gas) fromoil completions using the lease royaltyrate.

(11) The minimum royalty provisionsof § 3103.3–2 will continue to apply.

§ 3140.1–4 [Amended]9. Section § 3140.1–4(c)(3) is amended

by removing the cross reference‘‘§ 3103.4–1’’ and adding in its place thecross reference ‘‘§ 3103.4.’’

§ 3165.1 [Amended]10. Section § 3165.1(b) is amended by

removing the cross reference ‘‘§ 3103.4–2’’ and adding in its place the crossreference ‘‘§ 3103.4–4.’’

Dated: November 8, 1995.Bob Armstrong,Assistant Secretary of the Interior.[FR Doc. 96–2433 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

43 CFR Public Land Order 7183

[OR–943–1430–01; GP5–194; OR–22189(WASH)]

Revocation of Secretarial Order ofJune 17, 1908; Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Public Land Order.

SUMMARY: This order revokes in itsentirety a Secretarial order whichwithdrew 50 acres of National ForestSystem land for use by the ForestService, Department of Agriculture, forthe Laurier Administrative Site. Theland is no longer needed for thispurpose and the revocation is needed topermit disposal of the land throughexchange. This action will open theland to surface entry, subject to Section24 of the Federal Power Act. The landis temporarily closed to mining by theForest Service exchange proposal. Theland has been and will remain open tomineral leasing.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Betty McCarthy, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, P.O. Box 2965,Portland, Oregon 97208–2965, 503–952–6155.

By virtue of the authority vested inthe Secretary of the Interior by Section204 of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:

1. Secretarial Order dated June 17,1908, which withdrew the following


described land is hereby revoked in itsentirety:

Willamette Meridian

Colville National Forest

T. 40 N., R. 36 E.,Sec. 3, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 and SE1⁄4SE1⁄4.The area described contains 50 acres in

Ferry County.

2. At 8:30 a.m. on March 11, 1996, thelands will be opened to such forms ofdisposition as may by law be made ofNational Forest System land, subject tovalid existing rights, the provisions ofexisting withdrawals, the provisions ofSection 24 of the Federal Power Act,other segregations of record, and therequirements of applicable law.

Dated: January 26, 1996.Bob Armstrong,Assistant Secretary of the Interior.[FR Doc. 96–2648 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–33–P

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

4754

Vol. 61, No. 27


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1755

Telecommunications Program—Postloan Engineering Service Contract

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening ofcomment period.

SUMMARY: On December 27, 1995, theRural Utilities Service (RUS) publisheda proposed rule to amend its contract forthe procurement of postloan engineeringservices for telecommunicationssystems. In response to requests frommembers of the public, RUS isextending the comment period on thisregulation.DATES: Written comments andrecommendations must be received byRUS by March 11, 1996.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to Mr. Orren E. CameronIII, Director, TelecommunicationsStandards Division, Rural UtilitiesService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,AG Box 1598, 14th and IndependenceAve., SW, Washington, DC 20250–1598.RUS requires a signed original and threecopies of all comments (7 CFR1700.30(e)). Comments will be availablefor public inspection during regularbusiness hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Orren E. Cameron III, Director,Telecommunications StandardsDivision, Rural Utilities Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, room2835–S, at the above address.Telephone: (202) 720–8663.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnDecember 27, 1995, at 60 FR 66936, theRural Utilities Service published aproposed rule on 7 CFR Part 1755,Telecommunications Program—Postloan Engineering Service Contractto amend its contract for theprocurement of postloan engineeringservices for telecommunicationssystems. The proposed rule had a 30-day period for public comments which

ends on January 26, 1996. Because ofexceptionally harsh weather and a mid-holiday proposed rule publishing datethe public requested more time toprepare responses. To accommodatecommenters and improve the quality ofthe final rule, RUS is extending thispublic comment period. The newcomment period will expire on March11, 1996.

Dated: February 1, 1996.Wally Beyer,Administrator.[FR Doc. 96–2673 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. PRM–35–13]

National Registry of RadiationProtection Technologists; Receipt of aPetition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Noticeof receipt.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) has received andrequests public comment on a petitionfor rulemaking filed by the NationalRegistry of Radiation ProtectionTechnologists (NRRPT). The petitionhas been docketed by the Commissionand assigned Docket No. PRM–35–13.The petitioner requests that the NRCamend its regulations by includingacceptance of NRRPT registration asfulfilling some of the trainingrequirements for a radiation safetyofficer. The petitioner believes that thisamendment would support theobjectives of the NRRPT and provide asubstantial qualified resource to themedical community throughout theUnited States.DATES: Submit comments by April 23,1996. Comments received after this datewill be considered if it is practical to doso, but assurance of considerationcannot be given except to thosecomments received on or before thisdate.ADDRESSES: For a copy of the petition,write: Rules Review Section, RulesReview and Directives Branch, Division

of Freedom of Information andPublications Services, Office ofAdministration, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001. Attention:Docketing and Services Branch.

Deliver comments to 11555 RockvillePike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

For information on sending commentsby electronic format, see ‘‘ElectronicAccess,’’ under the SupplementaryInformation section of this notice.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael T. Lesar, Office ofAdministration, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Telephone: 301–415–7163, or TollFree: 800–368–5642, or [email protected].


Background InformationThe NRC’s training and experience

requirements to be a Radiation SafetyOfficer (RSO) at a medical institutionlicensed by the NRC are described in 10CFR Part 35, Subpart J—Training andExperience Requirements, § 35.900,Radiation Safety Officer. Specifically, anapplicant must meet the requirements in§§ 35.900(a), 35.900(b) or 35.900(c).

The regulations in § 35.900(a) providea list of acceptable certification boards(e.g., American Board of Health Physicsin Comprehensive Health Physics;American Board of Radiology) for anindividual to be qualified to work as anRSO at a medical institution licensed bythe NRC.

The NRC regulations in § 35.900(b)are the subject of this petition and areas follows:

‘‘Except as provided in § 35.901, thelicensee shall require an individualfulfilling the responsibilities of theRadiation Safety Officer as provided in§ 35.32 to be an individual who:* * * * *

‘‘(b) Has had classroom and laboratorytraining and experience as follows:

‘‘(1) 200 hours of classroom andlaboratory training that includes:

‘‘(i) Radiation physics andinstrumentation;

‘‘(ii) Radiation protection;‘‘(iii) Mathematics pertaining to the

use and measurement of radioactivity;‘‘(iv) Radiation biology; and

4755Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

‘‘(v) Radiopharmaceutical chemistry;and

‘‘(2) One year of full time experienceas radiation safety technologist at amedical institution under thesupervision of the individual identifiedas the Radiation Safety Officer on aCommission or Agreement State licensethat authorizes the medical use ofbyproduct material; or * * *.’’

The NRC regulations in § 35.900(c)permit an authorized user (i.e., aphysician, dentist, or podiatrist)identified on the licenses’s license toserve as the RSO.

The PetitionerThe petitioner is the National Registry

of Radiation Protection Technologists(NRRPT). NRRPT was incorporated in1976 as a nonprofit organization and hasa current membership of 3255. Thepetitioner states its objective is toencourage and promote the educationand training of radiation protectiontechnologists and, in so doing, promoteand advance the science of healthphysics.

Receipt of Petition for RulemakingThe NRC received the NRRPT petition

for rulemaking on November 24, 1995.The petition is dated November 17,1995, and was docketed as PRM–35–13on November 27, 1995.

Petitioner’s RequestThe petitioner requests that the NRC

amend its regulations in 10 CFR 35.900specifying training and experiencerequirements for a radiation safetyofficer. Specifically, the petitionerrequests that the NRC accept NRRPTregistration for the current requirementof 200 hours of classroom andlaboratory training, as specified in§ 35.900(b)(1), and for nine months ofthe current one year requirementspecified in § 35.900(b)(2).

The petitioner states that the NRRPTCertificate of Registration certifies thatits holder has met general requirementsand passed a multiple choicecomprehensive examination to testcompetence in fundamental conceptsrequired as a Radiation ProtectionTechnologist.

The general requirements anapplicant for registration must meet areas follows:

1. The applicant shall have a highschool diploma or equivalent.

2. The applicants’ minimum age at thetime of application shall be 21 years.

3. An applicant must have aminimum of five (5) years experience inapplied radiation protection. Credit, upto a maximum of two (2) years, forformal education, company training

programs and military training programsapplicable to the field of radiationprotection may be substituted forexperience.

4. An applicant must provide tworeferences recommending the applicantfor approval to take the NRRPTRegistration Examination.

The petitioner states that eachsuccessful applicant is also required topass a broad-based multiple choiceexamination on radiation protection.The subject categories and theassociated knowledge factors used bythe petitioner are as follows:

Applied Radiation Protection:Surveys and Inspections; EmergencyPreparedness; Evaluating Internal andExternal Exposures and Controls;Prescribed Dosimetry and RadiationEquipment; Contamination Control;Radioactive Material Control andTransportation; Guides and Regulation;and Procedures and Programs (ALARA);

Detection and Measurement:Analytical Methods; InstrumentCalibration and Maintenance; PersonnelDosimetry; and Equipment Operation;

Fundamentals: Sources of Radiation;Biological Effects; MathematicsChemistry; Physics; and Units andTerminology.

The petitioner states that theexamination consists of one-hundredfifty ‘‘multiple choice’’ type questionsbased on these elements.

Discussion of the PetitionThe petitioner states that one of the

minimum qualifications for NRRPTregistration is 5 years experience as aradiation protection technologist. Forsome registered members, therequirement of § 35.900(b)(2) eithercurrently or as amended in accordancewith this petition, may be included intheir historical work experience uponapplication for registration. For thoseindividuals (who are registered in theNRRPT and have three monthsexperience in a medical institution), thepetitioner believes that the requirementof § 35.900(b)(2) would be satisfied andneed not be repeated prior to eligibilityfor Radiation Safety Officer at NRC orAgreement State licensed medicalfacilities.

The petitioner believes that forindividuals completing 200 hours ofclassroom and laboratory trainingrequired under the current requirementof § 35.900(b)(2), the one year full-timework experience as a radiation safetytechnologist at a medical institution isappropriate and necessary for hands-onoperational experience. The petitionerstates that the previous work experienceand qualifications for some registeredmembers of the NRRPT may be

reviewed and found acceptable forupper level job classifications such asspecialist or health physicist positions,depending on the job requirements, jobdescriptions, and the needs of theemployer.

The petitioner believes that languageshould be included in current § 35.900to allow for work in upper-levelpositions to minimize a potentialconflict between the specific regulatoryrequirement for job title and thepotential availability of upper-levelemployment for registered members.

The petitioner acknowledges thatacceptance for radiation safety officersat licensed medical facilities is based onNRC’s review of an applicant’scredentials and experience. Thepetitioner believes that the applicant’scredentials and experience may bemitigated at the time of the NRC’sreview. However, the petitioner believesthat the current § 35.900 allows thatcertain opportunities for NRRPT, as wellas the job applicant, may be waived dueto an overly restrictive job title.

In support of the petition, thepetitioner has provided a statement ofthe general requirements necessary foran individual to apply for registration asa radiation protection technologist, acopy of their bylaws, and a copy of theapplication package.

The Petitioner’s Proposed AmendmentThe petitioner recommends the

following amendments to 10 CFR Part35.

1. In § 35.900, paragraphs (b) and (c)are redesignated as paragraphs (c) and(d), respectively, and a new paragraph(b) is added to read as follows:

§ 35.900 Radiation Safety Officer.* * * * *

(b) Is registered by the NationalRegistry of Radiation ProtectionTechnologists and has had three monthsfull-time experience as a radiation safetytechnologist or radiation safetyspecialist at a medical institution underthe supervision of the individualidentified as the Radiation SafetyOfficer on a Commission or AgreementState license that authorizes the use ofbyproduct material; or* * * * *

Electronic AccessComments may be submitted

electronically, in either ASCII text orWordPerfect format (version 5.1 orlater), by calling the NRC ElectronicBulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. Thebulletin board may be accessed using apersonal computer, a modem, and oneof the commonly availablecommunications software packages, or

4756 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

directly via Internet. Backgrounddocuments on the petition forrulemaking are also available, aspractical, for downloading and viewingon the bulletin board.

If using a personal computer andmodem, the NRC rulemaking subsystemon FedWorld can be accessed directlyby dialing the toll free number (800)303–9672. Communication softwareparameters should be set as follows:parity to none, data bits to 8, and stopbits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT–100terminal emulation, the NRCrulemaking subsystem can then beaccessed by selecting the ‘‘Rules Menu’’option from the ‘‘NRC Main Menu.’’Users will find the ‘‘FedWorld OnlineUser’s Guides’’ particularly helpful.Many NRC subsystems and data basesalso have a ‘‘Help/Information Center’’option that is tailored to the particularsubsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorld canalso be accessed by a direct dial phonenumber for the main FedWorld BBS,(703) 321–3339, or by using Telnet viaInternet: fedworld.gov. If using (703)321–3339 to contact FedWorld, the NRCsubsystem will be accessed from themain FedWorld menu by selecting the‘‘Regulatory, GovernmentAdministration and State Systems,’’then selecting ‘‘Regulatory InformationMall.’’ At that point, a menu will bedisplayed that has an option ‘‘U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’ thatwill take you to the NRC Online mainmenu. The NRC Online area also can beaccessed directly by typing ‘‘/go nrc’’ ata FedWorld command line. If you accessNRC from FedWorld’s main menu, youmay return to FedWorld by selecting the‘‘Return to FedWorld’’ option from theNRC Online Main Menu. However, ifyou access NRC at FedWorld by usingNRC’s toll-free number, you will havefull access to all NRC systems, but youwill not have access to the mainFedWorld system.

If you contact FedWorld using Telnet,you will see the NRC area and menus,including the Rules Menu. Althoughyou will be able to downloaddocuments and leave messages, you willnot be able to write comments or uploadfiles (comments). If you contactFedWorld using FTP, all files can beaccessed and downloaded but uploadsare not allowed; all you will see is a listof files without descriptions (normalGopher look). An index file listing allfiles within a subdirectory, withdescriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP access.

Although FedWorld also can beaccessed through the World Wide Web,like FTP that mode only provides access

for downloading files and does notdisplay the NRC Rules Menu.

For more information on NRC bulletinboards call Mr. Arthur Davis, SystemsIntegration and Development Branch,NRC, Washington, DC 20555–0001,telephone (301) 415–5780; [email protected].

Single copies of this petition forrulemaking may be obtained by writtenrequest or telefax ((301) 415–5144) from:Rules Review and Directives Branch,Division of Freedom of Information andPublications Services, Office ofAdministration, Mail Stop T6–D59, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington DC 20555–0001. Certaindocuments related to this petition forrulemaking, including commentsreceived, may be examined at the NRCPublic Document Room, 2120 L StreetNW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.These same documents may also beviewed and downloaded electronicallyvia the Electronic Bulletin Boardestablished by NRC for this petition forrulemaking as indicated above.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd dayof February 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.John C. HoyleSecretary of the Commission.[FR Doc. 96–2699 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–89–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; BeechAircraft Corporation Model 58P and58PA Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes toadopt a new airworthiness directive(AD) that would apply to certain BeechAircraft Corporation (Beech) Model 58Pand 58PA airplanes. The proposedaction would require inspecting forcracks and missing rivets in the cabinstructure (longeron) adjacent to and aftof the second right hand cabin window,and repairing any cracked structure andinstalling rivets, if missing. The FederalAviation Administration (FAA) hasreceived reports of airplanes with cracksin the cabin structure. The airplanes aremissing rivets that should have beeninstalled in the cabin structure to secure

the frame, splice, and longeron together.The missing rivets, which could lead tocabin structure cracks, prompted theproposed AD action. The actionsspecified by the proposed AD areintended to prevent structural damageto the cabin caused by missing rivets,which if not corrected, could causedecompression injuries to passengers,structural damage to the fuselage, andloss of the airplane.DATES: Comments must be received onor before April 12, 1996.ADDRESSES: Submit comments intriplicate to the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), Central Region,Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–89–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Commentsmay be inspected at this locationbetween 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to theproposed AD may be obtained fromBeech Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box 85,Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. Thisinformation also may be examined atthe Rules Docket at the address above.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer,FAA, Wichita Aircraft CertificationOffice, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas67209; telephone (316) 946–4129,facsimile (316) 946–4407.


Comments InvitedInterested persons are invited to

participate in the making of theproposed rule by submitting suchwritten data, views, or arguments asthey may desire. Communicationsshould identify the Rules Docketnumber and be submitted in triplicate tothe address specified above. Allcommunications received on or beforethe closing date for comments, specifiedabove, will be considered before takingaction on the proposed rule. Theproposals contained in this notice maybe changed in light of the commentsreceived.

Comments are specifically invited onthe overall regulatory, economic,environmental, and energy aspects ofthe proposed rule. All commentssubmitted will be available, both beforeand after the closing date for comments,in the Rules Docket for examination byinterested persons. A report thatsummarizes each FAA-public contactconcerned with the substance of thisproposal will be filed in the RulesDocket.

Commenters wishing the FAA toacknowledge receipt of their comments


submitted in response to this noticemust submit a self-addressed, stampedpostcard on which the followingstatement is made: ‘‘Comments toDocket No. 95–CE–89–AD.’’ Thepostcard will be date stamped andreturned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMsAny person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to theFAA, Central Region, Office of theAssistant Chief Counsel, Attention:Rules Docket No. 95–CE–89–AD, Room1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,Missouri 64106.

DiscussionThe FAA has received reports of

cracks in the fuselage on Beech airplaneModels 58P and 58PA. Uponinvestigating the source of the cracks,FAA has learned that four rivetsattaching the longeron to the frame andsplice had been omitted during themanufacturing process in some of theseairplanes. These four rivets are installedto secure the cabin structure to theairplane frame and splice. Without therivets in place to reinforce the areaaround the cabin windows, cracking canoccur in this area resulting in possiblecabin decompression or structuralfailure of the fuselage.

Beech Service Bulletin (SB) No. 2630,Issued: November, 1995, specifiesprocedures for inspecting for cracks andrepairing any cracks found in thelongeron around certain cabin windows,and installing any rivets, if missing.

After examining the circumstancesand reviewing all available informationrelated to the reports described above,including the referenced serviceinformation, the FAA has determinedthat AD action should be taken toprevent structural damage to the cabincaused by missing rivets, which if notcorrected, could cause decompressioninjuries to passengers, structural damageto the fuselage, and loss of the airplane.

Since an unsafe condition has beenidentified that is likely to exist ordevelop in other Beech 58P and 58PAairplanes of the same type design, theproposed AD would require inspectingthe cabin window upper longeron (nextto the upper aft splice) between thesecond and third right hand windowsfor cracks and missing rivets, repairingany cracks found, and installing rivets ifmissing. Accomplishment of theproposed action would be in accordancewith Beech SB No. 2630, Issued:November, 1995.

The FAA estimates that 386 airplanesin the U.S. registry would be affected bythe proposed AD, that it would takeapproximately 3 workhours to

accomplish the inspection and that theaverage labor rate is approximately $60an hour. In estimating the total costimpact of the proposed AD on U.S.operators, the FAA is only using theproposed inspection criteria (3workhours). This estimate is based onthe assumption that no affected airplanewill have missing rivets or a crackedlongeron.

Based on these figures, the total costimpact of the proposed AD on U.S.operators is estimated to be $69,480 or$180 per airplane.

If during the proposed inspectioncracks are found and rivets are missing,the estimated costs for accomplishingthe following proposed actions wouldbe:—2 workhours to install rivets at an

estimated cost of $125 per airplane($120 for labor and $5 for rivets) and,

—8 workhours to repair any crack in thedesiginated area at an estimated costof $675 per airplane ($480 for laborand $195 for parts).Beech has informed FAA that parts

have been distributed to equipapproximately 19 airplanes. Assumingthat each set of these parts is installedon an affected airplane, the estimatedcost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.operators would be reduced by $3,420from $59,480 to $66,060.

The regulations proposed hereinwould not have substantial direct effectson the States, on the relationshipbetween the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. Therefore,in accordance with Executive Order12612, it is determined that thisproposal would not have sufficientfederalism implications to warrant thepreparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that this action (1) is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a‘‘significant rule’’ under DOTRegulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. A copy of the draftregulatory evaluation prepared for thisaction has been placed in the RulesDocket. A copy of it may be obtained bycontacting the Rules Docket at thelocation provided under the captionADDRESSES.


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Safety.

The Proposed AmendmentAccordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by theAdministrator, the Federal AviationAdministration proposes to amend part39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES


Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive(AD) to read as follows:Beech Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. 95–

CE–89–AD.Applicability: Models 58P and 58PA

airplanes, having the following serialnumbers, and certificated in any category:TJ–2 through TJ–177TJ–179TJ–181 through TJ–212TJ–214 through TJ–270TJ–272 through TJ–283TJ–285 through TJ–288TJ–290 through TJ–313TJ–315 through TJ–321TJ–323, TJ–324TJ–326 through TJ–368, andTJ–370 through TJ–497

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplaneidentified in the preceding applicabilityprovision, regardless of whether it has beenmodified, altered, or repaired in the areasubject to the requirements of this AD. Forairplanes that have been modified, altered, orrepaired so that the performance of therequirements of this AD is affected, theowner/operator must request approval for analternative method of compliance inaccordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.The request should include an assessment ofthe effect of the modification, alteration, orrepair on the unsafe condition addressed bythis AD; and, if the unsafe condition has notbeen eliminated, the request should includespecific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required within the next 100hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effectivedate of this AD, unless already accomplished:

To prevent structural damage to the cabincaused by missing rivets, which if notcorrected, could cause decompressioninjuries to passengers, structural failure ofthe fuselage, and loss of the airplane,accomplish the following:

(a) Inspect cabin window upper longeron(next to the upper aft splice) between thesecond and third right hand cabin sidewindows for cracks and missing rivets inaccordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENTINSTRUCTIONS section of Beech ServiceBulletin No. 2630, Issued: November 1995.

(1) If cracks are found in the longeron,prior to further flight, repair the cracks inaccordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENTINSTRUCTIONS section of Beech ServiceBulletin No. 2630, Issued: November 1995.


(2) If rivets are found missing, prior tofurther flight, install the rivets in accordancewith the ACCOMPLISHMENTINSTRUCTIONS section of Beech ServiceBulletin No. 2630, Issued: November 1995.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued inaccordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199of the Federal Aviations Regulations (14 CFR21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane toa location where the requirements of this ADcan be accomplished.

(c) An alternative method of compliance oradjustment of the compliance time thatprovides an equivalent level of safety may beapproved by the Manager, Wichita AircraftCertification Office, 1801 Airport Road,Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita,Kansas 67209. The request shall beforwarded through an appropriate FAAMaintenance Inspector, who may addcomments and then send it to the Manager,Wichita Aircraft Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning theexistence of approved alternative methods ofcompliance with this AD, if any, may beobtained from the Wichita AircraftCertification Office.

(d) All persons affected by this directivemay obtain copies of the document referredto herein upon request to Beech AircraftCorporation, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas67201–0085; or may examine this documentat the FAA, Central Region, Office of theAssistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, onFebruary 2, 1996.John R. Colomy,Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.[FR Doc. 96–2683 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 646

RIN 1840–AC24

Student Support Services Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: On December 17, 1995, theDepartment of Education published inthe Federal Register a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM) for theStudent Support Services program (60FR 64108). The comment period for theNPRM ended on January 12, 1996.

The Department has received requestsfrom the National, regional and Stateassociations for the program andpotential grantees for an extension ofthe comment period on the NPRM. Alonger comment period would givethese interested parties an opportunityfor dialogue with program staffregarding technical clarification andsubstantive inquiries prior to submittingcomments. The Department believes

this approach would improve thequality of information available forrulemaking, so the Secretary isreopening the comment period.DATES: Comments must be received onor before February 22, 1996.ADDRESSES: All comments concerningthis notice or the notice of proposedrulemaking should be addressed toSteven G. Pappas, U.S. Department ofEducation, 600 Independence Avenue,S.W., Suite 600D, Portals Building,Washington, D.C. 20202–5249.Comments may also be sent through theInternet to [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Virginia A. Mason, Division of StudentServices, U.S. Department of Education,600 Independence Avenue, S.W., ThePortals Building, Suite 600D,Washington, D.C. 20202–5249.Telephone (202) 708–4804. Individualswho use a telecommunications devicefor the deaf (TDD) may call the FederalInformation Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8p.m., Eastern time, Monday throughFriday.

Dated: January 24, 1996.David A. Longanecker,Assistant Secretary for PostsecondaryEducation.[FR Doc. 96–2713 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4000–01–P


40 CFR Parts 268, 271, and 302

[FRL–5418–8]

Hazardous Waste ManagementSystem; Identification and Listing ofHazardous Waste: Petroleum RefiningProcess Wastes; Corrections

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;correction.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is today issuing atechnical correction of the proposedrule published on November 20, 1995(60 FR 57747). EPA is issuing thistechnical correction to address theincorrect proposed treatment standardfor a proposed newly identified hazardwaste containing the constituentdibenz(a,h)anthracene, to restatecorrectly the self-implementingprovision of the prohibition on landdisposal of newly listed and identifiedwastes, and to make other typographicalcorrections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forgeneral information contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline, toll free, at(800)424–9346, or at (703)920–9810. Fortechnical information concerning thisnotice, contact Mr. Maximo Diaz, Officeof Solid Waste (5304), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,(202) 260–4786.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnNovember 20, 1995, the EPA proposedthe hazardous listing determination of anumber of wastes from the petroleumrefining industry. As part of that action,the Agency proposed treatmentstandards for the proposed newlyidentified hazardous wastes. For theK170 wastestream, the Agencyinadvertently stated the treatmentstandard for the constituentdibenz(a,h)anthracene as .0055 mg/L.The correct concentration of 0.055 mg/L should have appeared in Table V–1(page 57787) and in the regulatory textat § 268.40 (page 57797), and is beingcorrected to so read.

Under RCRA section 3004(g)(4)(C),additional land disposal prohibitions forwastes identified under RCRA section3001 shall take place by the date sixmonths after the date of suchidentification or listing. In accordancewith section 3004(g)(4)(C), the effectivedate of additional land disposalrestrictions on the proposed newlyidentified wastes should have indicatedsix months after the effective date of thefinal rule in § 271.1(j) Table 2—Self-Implementing Provisions of the SolidWaste Amendments of 1984 on page57799. This table is being corrected toso read.

Minor typesetting errors appeared onpages 57789 and 57800. On page 57789,the central tendency risks for CSOsediment/solids should have beenexpressed as 3×10¥6, not 3×10¥9. Onpage 57800, the final RQ in Pounds(Kg)for the entry K172 is corrected to read100(45.4) not ‘‘B100(45.4).’’

Dated: January 29, 1996.Timothy Fields, Jr.,Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office ofSolid Waste and Emergency Response.

Accordingly, the publication onNovember 20, 1995 of proposedregulations, which were the subject ofFR Doc. 95–27693, is corrected asfollows:

PART 268—LAND DISPOSALRESTRICTIONS [CORRECTED]

§ 268.40 [Corrected]1. On page 57797 in § 268.40 the

Table of Treatment Standards, theproposed wastewater concentration for


the constituent dibenz(a,h)anthracene inwaste code K170 is corrected to read0.055 mg/L.

PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FORAUTHORIZATION OF STATEHAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS[CORRECTED]

§ 271.1 [Corrected]

2. On page 57799 in § 271.1(j) Table2 column one effective date, theeffective date of each entry is correctedto read [Insert date 6 months from thedate of publication of final rule].

PART 302—DESIGNATION,REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, ANDNOTIFICATION [CORRECTED]

3. On page 57800 in Table 302.4, thefinal RQ in Pounds(Kg) for the entryK172 is corrected to read 100(45.4).

[FR Doc. 96–2720 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains documents other than rules orproposed rules that are applicable to thepublic. Notices of hearings and investigations,committee meetings, agency decisions andrulings, delegations of authority, filing ofpetitions and applications and agencystatements of organization and functions areexamples of documents appearing in thissection.

Notices Federal Register

4760

Vol. 61, No. 27



Information Collection Submitted tothe Office of Management and Budgetfor Review Under the PaperworkReduction Act

February 2, 1996.The Department of Agriculture has

submitted the following informationcollection requirement(s) to OMB forreview and clearance under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995,Public Law 104–13. Commentsregarding these information collectionsare best assured of having their fulleffect if received within 30 days of thisnotification. Comments should beaddressed to: Desk Officer forAgriculture, Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB),Washington, DC 20503 and toDepartment Clearance Officer, USDA,OIRM, Ag Box 7630, Washington, DC20250–7630. Copies of thesubmission(s) may be obtained bycalling (202) 720–6204 or (202) 720–6746.

Forest ServiceTitle: Grazing Permit Administration

FormsSummary: Data collected is used in the

administration of livestock grazingon the National Forest System. BothNational and Regional level formsare included in this request. Theyare required for the issuance andadministration of grazing permitson the NFS, as authorized by theFederal Land Policy andManagement Act, as amended, andsubsequent Secretary of AgricultureRegulation 5 U.S.C. 301, 36 CFP222, subparts A & C.

Need and Use of the Information: Thedata obtained is used by ForestOfficers in administering the rangeprogram. The data is necessary forthe issuance of different types ofgrazing permits and the collection

of fees due to the FederalGovernment.

Description of Respondents: Business orother for-profit; Farms

Number of Respondents: 4,950Frequency of Responses: Reporting—on

occasionTotal Burden Hours: 1,455Donald E. Hulcher,Deputy Departmental Clearance Officer.[FR Doc. 96–2670 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–01–M

Natural Resources ConservationService

Monastery Run Project Area,Westmoreland County, PA

AGENCY: USDA—Natural ResourcesConservation Service.ACTION: ‘‘Notice of a Finding of NoSignificant Impact’’.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)of the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969; the Council onEnvironmental Quality Guidelines (40CFR, Part 1500); and the NaturalResources Conservation Service(formerly the Soil Conservation Service)Guidelines (7 CFR, Part 650); theNatural Resources Conservation Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, givesnotice that an environmental impactstatement is not being prepared for theMonastery Run Project Area,Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Janet L. Oertly, StateConservationist, Natural ResourceConservation Service, One Credit UnionPlace, Suite 340, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania 17110–2993, telephone(717) 782–2202.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Theenvironmental assessment of thisfederally-assisted action indicates thatthe project will not cause significantlocal, regional, or national impacts onthe environment. As a result of thesefindings, Janet L. Oertly, StateConservationist, has determined that thepreparation and review of anenvironmental impact statement are notneeded for this project.

The project concerns a plan for waterquality improvement. The plannedworks of improvement involve sixtreatment sites that are the source ofground and surface water pollution.Treatment of these sites will involve the

installation of waterways, diversions,and treatment wetlands. Deep minesubsidence will be treated.

The ‘‘Notice of a Finding of NoSignificant Impact’’ (FONSI) has beenforwarded to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. A limited number ofcopies of the FONSI are available to fillsingle copy requests at the aboveaddress. The environmental assessmentand basic data may be reviewed bycontacting Janet L. Oertly.

No administrative action onimplementation of the proposal will betaken until thirty (30) days after the dateof this publication in the FederalRegister.(This activity is listed in the Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance Program No.10.904—Watershed Protection and FloodPrevention and is subject to the provisions ofExecutive Order 12372 which requiresintergovernmental consultation with Stateand local officials)Janet L. Oertly,State Conservationist.[FR Doc. 96–2651 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–16–M

Rural Utilities Service

LaGrange County, Indiana SewerDistrict; Draft ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice of Availability of DraftProgrammatic Environmental ImpactStatement and Notice of Public Meeting.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatthe Rural Utilities Service (RUS) isissuing a draft ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement (PEIS)related to the LaGrange County, IndianaSewer District’s proposal to constructsanitary wastewater collection andtreatment facilities for residentialpopulation centers. The draft PEIS wasprepared pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) (U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) inaccordance with the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ)regulations for implementing theprocedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFRparts 1500–1508) and Farmers HomeAdministration’s procedure (7 CFR1940, subpart G, EnvironmentalProgram). RUS invites comments onanalyses performed by and addressed inthe DPEIS.

4761Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Notices

The purpose of this draft PEIS is toevaluate the environmental impacts ofproposed alternative strategies toprovide treatment of sanitarywastewaters for residential populationcenters in LaGrange County. Discussionof each alternative’s impact on thehuman environment, including risks topublic health and safety, and effects onthe natural environment is presented.The proposed action is necessary inorder to respond to increased publichealth concerns and the continuation ofsurface and ground water degradationcaused by inadequately treatedwastewater effluent. This draft PEISprovides a planning tool to Countyofficials and citizens to help select themost appropriate design andimplementation strategy to addressLaGrange County’s wastewaterproblems.ADDRESSES/FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: For more information contactor for transmittal of written commentssend to: Paul Neumann, StateEnvironmental Coordinator, USDA—RECD, RUS, 5975 Lakeside Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46278, (219) 290–3109,and FAX (219) 290–3127. Copies of theDPEIS will be available for publicinspection, during normal businesshours at the following locations:LaGrange Town Clerk, 107 S. High

Street, LaGrange, IN 46761Town of Topeka, ATTN: Duane

Bontrager, 101 Main Street, Topeka,IN 46571

Town of Shipshewana, ATTN: RuthAnn Downey, P.O. Box 486, 345 N.Morton Street, Shiphewana, IN 46565

Town of Wolcottville, ATTN: ElizabethHodge, P.O. Box 325, 101 W. RaceStreet, Wolcottville, IN 46795The draft PEIS will be distributed to

various Federal, State, and localagencies, and elected officials. A limitednumber of copies of the narrative will beavailable for distribution at theLaGrange Town Clerk Office.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LaGrangeCounty is a rural county of 30,000residents located on the Michigan/Indiana border in northeastern Indiana.The largest town in the county isLaGrange, with a population of 4,000residents. Most of the remaining citizenslive in eight other small towns or inresidential developments surroundingmany of the County’s numerous naturallakes. Eighty percent of LaGrangeCounty’s land is currently used foragriculture. The remaining twentypercent is either in use as residential orcommercial development or isunsuitable for agricultural production.

The citizens of LaGrange County havehad for decades a mounting problem

being able to achieve effective treatmentof their sanitary wastewaters. Theprimary method of treating wastewaterhas been on-site waste disposal systems.These systems are a cost effective andefficient treatment method for treatingwastewater provided they are designedand installed properly and operateunder suitable soil conditions. However,LaGrange County and indeed, manyparts of northern Indiana, do not havethe types of soils that are suitable forthese systems and, as a consequence,significant degradation of the County’ssurface and ground water has occurredin the County from the disposal ofimproperly treated wastewater effluent.Documented cases of water qualitydegradation and transmittal of water-borne pathogens have been recorded byState and County health officials. Thesignificance of potential public healthconcerns have prompted Countyofficials to initiate a resolution of thishistoric public health dilemma.

Citizens, in an effort to maintain safeand dependable water supplies and toarrest the downward spiral of waterquality degradation, have requestedtheir elected officials to provide adependable means of treating sanitarywastewaters. In response, electedofficials and community leaders createdthe LaGrange County Sewer District andappointed a Sewer Board to govern it.The Sewer Board has been empoweredto make planning decisions andnegotiate agreements that willultimately provide a more effectivetreatment of sanitary wastewaters forCounty residents. The Sewer Board hastaken actions to organize and prioritizethe County’s sanitation needs bycommissioning engineering studies,holding monthly public meetings andinteracting with state regulatoryagencies. After exploring several optionsto finance the construction of theproposed system, the Sewer Boardformally submitted a request forfinancial assistance to the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, RuralUtilities Service (RUS). The RUS, Waterand Waste Program provides financialassistance through loan and grantprograms to rural communities fordevelopment of water and wastedisposal systems and is considering thisrequest as part of these programs.

As part of the preliminary engineeringstudies commissioned by the SewerDistrict, the County identified andprioritized 29 areas according to theirneed for capital improvements toexisting wastewater treatment system.From this study the Sewer Boardadopted a prioritization and planningstrategy which divided the County intofive regions; A through E. Each region

was defined by a circle with a three milediameter, the center of which waslocated so as to encompass themaximum number of areas identified ashaving a need for wastewater treatmentsystems. Potential service areas withineach region were selected based on theseverity of pollution, the number anddensity of potential connections, thepotential for regionalization, potentialfor future development, and localsupport for the project. The followingregions are the population centers thathave been determined to have thegreatest need for sanitary sewers: RegionA—Oliver Lake, Dallas Lake, AtwoodLake, Witmer Lake, Messick Lake andWestler Lake; Region C—Towns ofHowe and Ontario; North Twin Lake,South Twin Lake and Cedar Lake;Region D—Shipshewana Lake and StoneLakes; Region E—Town of Mongo;Town of Emma and Emma Lake.

Once these populations centers wereprioritized based on greatest need andthose which pose the greatest threat towater quality, the Sewer Board exploredtechnical and cost options to providingsewer service to this areas. Afterweighing all of the options and projectalternatives, the County has selectedwhat they feel is their preferredtechnical approach and have beenseeking not only financing for theirproject, but regulatory concurrence fromthe Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management.

Upon receipt of LaGrange County’srequest for financial assistance and priorto funding the construction of theirproposal and in compliance with theNEPA, RUS prepared an analysis of thepotential environmental impacts of theCounty’s proposal. Because of thecomprehensive nature and magnitude ofthe project proposal, RUS has decidedto prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) to analyze the proposalas a whole rather than segment theanalysis for each individual region asidentified by the Sewer Board. At thisstage of the project no final decisionshave been made as to project specifics—that is, wastewater collection andconveyance systems, treatmenttechnologies, or discharge options oftreated effluent. For this reason, RUShas decided to prepare a broadly scopedprogrammatic EIS (PEIS) where all theimportant environmental resources havebeen identified in the defined ‘‘serviceareas’’ for the each region. Analyses ofthe direct, indirect and cumulativeimpacts have been performed for allidentified resources in each region andare based on the project alternativesRUS has decided to evaluate. Theresults of these analyses are presented

4762 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Notices

in the appropriate section of the draftPEIS.

The preferred alternative is adecentralized wastewater collection andtreatment system for population centersusing an engineered wetlands treatmentprocess. This alternative involves theuse of pressure or gravity collectionsystems to convey wastewater tomultiple engineered wetland treatmentfacilities. Collection and conveyancetechnologies considered for this optionwill be the same as those analyzed forthe centralized treatment facility option.Treatment alternatives for theengineered wetland treatment processoption will include land application(spray irrigation) of treated effluentfollowed by surface water dischargesinto a receiving stream or discharge intosubsurface absorption basins.

Other project alternatives wereidentified in feasibility studiesconducted for LaGrange County SewerDistrict. These alternatives, althoughviable, were not chosen as the preferredalternative. The alternatives are: (1) NoAction Alternative. This alternativecontinues the use of on-site waterdisposal systems. This option would notaddress the present public healthconcerns or the continued degradationof the County’s surface and groundwater. (2) Centralized WastewaterCollection and Treatment for all CountyResidents Using ConventionalWastewater Treatment. This optionwould use either pressure or gravitycollection systems to convey wastewaterto a centralized treatment facility.Collection and conveyance alternativesanalyzed for this option include: smalldiameter gravity systems; smalldiameter pressure systems using singleconnection effluent grinder pumps; andconventional gravity collector linesconnected to pressure lines. Activatedsludge process alternatives consideredfor this option included: Oxidationditches and extended aeration. Thisoption, by far, has the highest unit cost.(3) Centralized Wastewater Collectionand Treatment for All County ResidentsExcept for Residents in RemoteLocations Using Conventional ActivatedSludge Waste Treatment Processes. Thisalternative involves providing sewagecollection and treatment services for allLaGrange County residents except thoselocated in isolated regions. This optionwould use the same collection andtreatment technologies as the optionproviding wastewater treatment for allof LaGrange County. Cost savings overserving the entire county would berealized because of the high unit cost ofserving remote residences.

Public MeetingA public meeting to solicit review

comments will be held on February 23,1996 at the LaGrange County OfficeBuilding, 114 West Michigan Street,LaGrange, IN 46761 at 7:30 pm. Themeeting will be conducted by the RUSand the LaGrange County Sewer Board.All Federal and State agencies and otherinterested parties are invited toparticipate in the meeting and to offercomments on the DPEIS. Oralstatements will be heard and transcribedby a stenographer; however, to ensureaccuracy of the record all statementsshould be submitted in writing. Allstatements, both oral and in writing,will become part of the public record onthis study. All written comments mustbe postmarked by no later than April 8,1996 to become part of the publicrecord.

Dated: February 1, 1996.Wally Beyer,Administrator.[FR Doc. 96–2671 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Agency Form Under Review by theOffice of Management and Budget;Comment Request

DOC has submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forclearance the following proposal forcollection of information under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Agency: Bureau of the Census.Title: 1996 Race & Ethnic Targeted

Test.Form Number(s): DL–1A, DL–1B, DL–

1C, DL–1D, DL–1E, DL–1F, DL–1G, DL–1H and Spanish versions.

Agency Approval Number: None.Type of Request: New collection.Burden: 33,893 hours.Number of Respondents: 118,000.Avg Hours Per Response: 121⁄2

minutes.Needs and Uses: The 1996 Race and

Ethnic Targeted Test and its associatedcontent reinterview are the principalvehicles for evaluating fundamentalchanges to the race and ethnic questionsfor the upcoming 2000 Census ofPopulation and Housing. This test isalso crucial for the review of StatisticalPolicy Directive No. 15 by the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) and bythe Federal Interagency Committee forthe Review of Racial and EthnicStandards. The test encompasses eightdifferent self–enumerationquestionnaires mailed to eight panels of

respondents nationwide. Each of theversions is designed to assess one ormore changes to the race and ethnicquestions proposed by OMB, the CensusBureau Advisory Committees, and otherdata users and through evaluation of1990 census data. Spanish versions willalso be mailed in areas with highconcentration of Spanish-speakinghouseholds. A content reinterview willbe conducted with a subsample ofrespondents to assess the accuracy andreliability of the race and ethnicinformation collected.

Affected Public: Individuals.Frequency: One–time.Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.OMB Desk Officer: Maria Gonzalez,

(202) 395–7313.Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained bycalling or writing Margaret L. Woody,(202) 482–3630, Department ofCommerce, Room 5310, 14th andConstitution Avenue, NW, Washington,DC 20230.

Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collection should be sentwithin 30 days of publication of thisnotice to Maria Gonzalez, OMB DeskOfficer, Room 10201, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: February 2, 1996.Margaret L. Woody,Office of Management and Organization.[FR Doc. 96–2690 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–07–F

Bureau of Export Administration

Action Affecting Export Privileges;Ronald J. Hoffman

Order Denying Permission To ApplyFor Or Use Export Licenses

In the Matter of: Ronald J. Hoffman, 523Vallejo Street, San Francisco, California94133.

On April 20, 1992, Ronald J. Hoffman(Hoffman) was convicted in the UnitedStates District Court for the CentralDistrict of California of violating Section38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22U.S.C.A. § 2778 (1990 & Supp. 1995))(the AECA), among other crimes.Specifically, Hoffman was convicted ofexporting items controlled on the U.S.Munitions list, including technical datadirectly related to the Strategic DefenseInitiative and other missile technology,to Japan, Germany, and South Africawithout obtaining the required exportlicense or written approval from theU.S. Department of State and of failingto register as a defense exporter with the


1 The Act expired on August 20, 1994. ExecutiveOrder 12924 (59 Fed. Reg. 43437, August 23, 1994),extended by Presidential Notice of August 15, 1995(60 Fed. Reg. 42767, August 17, 1995), continuedthe Regulations in effect under the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.A.§§ 1701–1706 (1991).

2 Pursuant to appropriate delegations of authoritythat are reflected in the Regulations, the Director,Office of Export Licensing, in consultation with theDirector, Office of Export Enforcement, exercisesthe authority granted to the Secretary by Section11(h) of the Act. Because of a recent Bureau ofExport Administration reorganization, thisresponsibility now rests with the Director, Office ofExporter Services. Subsequent regulatory referencesherein to the ‘‘Director, Office of Export Licensing,’’should be read as meaning ‘‘Director, Office ofExporter Services.’’

U.S. Department of State, Office ofDefense Trade Controls.

Section 11(h) of the ExportAdministration Act of 1979, as amended(50 U.S.C.A. app. §§ 2401–2420 (1991 &Supp. 1995)) (the Act),1 provides that, atthe discretion of the Secretary ofCommerce,2 no person convicted ofviolating the AECA, or certain otherprovisions of the United States Code,shall be eligible to apply for or use anyexport license issued pursuant to, orprovided by, the Act or the ExportAdministration Regulations (currentlycodified at 15 C.F.R. Parts 768–799(1995)) (the Regulations) for a period ofup to 10 years from the date of theconviction. In addition, any exportlicense issued pursuant to the Act inwhich such a person had any interest atthe time of conviction may be revoked.

Pursuant to Sections 770.15 and772.1(g) of the Regulations, uponnotification that a person has beenconvicted of violating the AECA, theDirector, Office of Export Licensing, inconsultation with the Director, Office ofExport Enforcement, shall determinewhether to deny that person permissionto apply for or use any export licenseissued pursuant to, or provided by, theAct and the Regulations, and shall alsodetermine whether to revoke any exportlicense previously issued to such aperson.

Having received notice of Hoffman’sconviction for violating the AECA, andfollowing consultations with theDirector, Office of Export Enforcement,I have decided to deny Hoffmanpermission to apply for or use anyexport license, including any generallicense, issued pursuant to, or providedby, the Act and the Regulations, for aperiod of 10 years from the date of hisconviction. The 10-year period ends onApril 20, 2002. I have also decided torevoke all export licenses issuedpursuant to the Act in which Hoffmanhad an interest at the time of hisconviction.

Accordingly, it is hereby

OrderedI. All outstanding individual

validated licenses in which Hoffmanappears or participates, in any manneror capacity, are hereby revoked andshall be returned forthwith to the Officeof Exporter Services for cancellation.Further, all of Hoffman’s privileges ofparticipating, in any manner orcapacity, in any special licensingprocedure, including, but not limited to,distribution licenses, are herebyrevoked.

II. Until April 20, 2002, Ronald J.Hoffman, 523 Vallejo Street, SanFrancisco, California 94133, hereby isdenied all privileges of participating,directly or indirectly, in any manner orcapacity, in any transaction in theUnited States or abroad involving anycommodity or technical data exportedor to be exported from the United States,in whole or in part, and subject to theRegulations. Without limiting thegenerality of the foregoing,participation, either in the United Statesor abroad, shall include participation,directly or indirectly, in any manner orcapacity: (i) as a party or as arepresentative of a party to any exportlicense application submitted to theDepartment; (ii) in preparing or filingwith the Department any export licenseapplication or request for reexportauthorization, or any document to besubmitted therewith; (iii) in obtainingfrom the Department or using anyvalidated or general export license,reexport authorization or other exportcontrol document; (iv) in carrying onnegotiations with respect to, or inreceiving, ordering, buying, selling,delivering, storing, using, or disposingof, in whole or in part, any commoditiesor technical data exported or to beexported from the United States, andsubject to the Regulations; and (v) infinancing, forwarding, transporting, orother servicing of such commodities ortechnical data.

III. After notice and opportunity forcomment as provided in section770.15(h) of the Regulations, anyperson, firm, corporation, or businessorganization related to Hoffman byaffiliation, ownership, control, orposition of responsibility in the conductof trade or related services may also besubject to the provisions of this Order.

IV. As provided in section 787.12(a)of the Regulations, without priordisclosure of the facts to and specificauthorization of the Office of ExportLicensing, in consultation with theOffice of Export Enforcement, no personmay directly or indirectly, in anymanner or capacity: (i) apply for, obtain,or use any license, Shipper’s Export

Declaration, bill of lading, or otherexport control document relating to anexport or reexport of commodities ortechnical data by, to, or for anotherperson then subject to an order revokingor denying his export privileges or thenexcluded from practice before theBureau of Export Administration; or (ii)order, buy, receive, use, sell, deliver,store, dispose of, forward, transport,finance, or otherwise service orparticipate: (a) in any transaction whichmay involve any commodity ortechnical data exported or to beexported from the United States; (b) inany reexport thereof; or (c) in any othertransaction which is subject to theExport Administration Regulations, ifthe person denied export privileges mayobtain any benefit or have any interestin, directly or indirectly, any of thesetransactions.

V. This Order is effective immediatelyand shall remain in effect until April 20,2002.

VI. A copy of this Order shall bedelivered to Hoffman. This Order shallbe published in the Federal Register.

Dated: January 26, 1996.Eileen M. Albanese,Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.[FR Doc. 96–2652 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

International Trade Administration

[A–428–801]

Ball Bearings (Other Than TaperedRoller Bearings) and Parts Thereof,From Germany; Preliminary Results ofNew Shipper Antidumping DutyAdministrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results ofNew Shipper Antidumping DutyAdministrative Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request byRoulements Miniatures SA (RMB), Biel,Switzerland, and its wholly ownedsubsidiary Miniaturkugellager GmbH(MKL), Germany, the Department ofCommerce (the Department) isconducting a new shipperadministrative review of theantidumping duty order on ball bearings(other than tapered roller bearings) andparts thereof (ball bearings) fromGermany. This review covers MKL, aGerman manufacturer of ball bearingsand exporter of this merchandise to theUnited States. The period of review(POR) is December 1, 1994 through May31, 1995. We have preliminarily


determined that MKL sold subjectmerchandise at not less than normalvalue (NV) during the POR. Interestedparties are invited to comment on thesepreliminary results.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas O. Barlow or Michael Rill,Office of Antidumping Compliance,Import Administration, InternationalTrade Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, 14th Street andConstitution Avenue, NW., Washington,DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4733.


The Applicable Statute and RegulationsUnless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references tothe provisions effective January 1, 1995,the effective date of the amendmentsmade to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act(URAA). In addition, unless otherwiseindicated, all citations to theDepartment’s regulations are to thecurrent regulations, as amended by theinterim regulations published in theFederal Register on May 11, 1995, (60FR 25130).

BackgroundOn May 31, 1995, the Department

received a request from RMB and MKLfor a new shipper review pursuant tosection 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act andsection 353.22(h) of the Department’sinterim regulations.

Section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act andsection 353.22(h) of the Department’sregulations govern determinations ofantidumping duties for new shippers.These provisions state that, if theDepartment receives a request forreview from an exporter or producer ofthe subject merchandise stating that itdid not export the merchandise to theUnited States during the period ofinvestigation (POI) and that suchexporter or producer is not affiliatedwith any exporter or producer whoexported the subject merchandiseduring that period, the Department shallconduct a new shipper review toestablish an individual weighted-average dumping margin for suchexporter or producer, if the Departmenthas not previously established such amargin for the exporter or producer. Toestablish these facts, the exporter orproducer must include with its request,with appropriate certifications: (i) thedate on which the merchandise was firstentered, or withdrawn from warehouse,for consumption, or, if it cannot certifyas to the date of first entry, the date onwhich it first shipped the merchandisefor export to the United States; (ii) a list

of the firms with which it is affiliated;and (iii) a statement from such exporteror producer, and from each affiliatedfirm, that it did not, under its current ora former name, export the merchandiseduring the POI.

MKL’s request was accompanied byinformation and certificationsestablishing the date on which MKLfirst shipped and entered subjectmerchandise, the names of MKL’saffiliated parties, and statements fromMKL and its affiliated parties that theydid not, under any name, export themerchandise during the POI. Based onthe above information, on June 14, 1995,the Department initiated this newshipper review of MKL (60 FR 32503).The Department is now conducting thisreview in accordance with section 751of the Tariff Act and section 353.22 ofits regulations.

Scope of the ReviewImports covered by this review are

shipments of ball bearings and partsthereof. These products include allantifriction bearings that employ ballsas the rolling element. Imports of theseproducts are classified under thefollowing categories: antifriction balls,ball bearings with integral shafts, ballbearings (including radial ball bearings)and parts thereof, and housed ormounted ball bearing units and partsthereof.

Imports of these products areclassified under the followingHarmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS)subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010,8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10,8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,8482.99.05, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.35,8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40,8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90,8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80,8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30,8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75,8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960,8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080,8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00,8803.90.30, 8803.90.90.

The size or precision grade of abearing does not influence whether thebearing is covered by the order. For afurther discussion of the scope of theorder being reviewed, including recentscope determinations, see AntifrictionBearings (Other Than Tapered RollerBearings) and Parts Thereof fromFrance, et al.; Final Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReviews, Partial Termination ofAdministrative Reviews, and Revocationin Part of Antidumping Duty Orders, 60FR 10900 (February 28, 1995). The HTSitem numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.The written descriptions remaindispositive.

The review covers one producer/exporter. The POR is December 1, 1994through May 31, 1995.

Constructed Export Price (CEP)The Department based its margin

calculation on constructed export price(CEP) as defined in section 772(b) of theTariff Act because the subjectmerchandise was first sold in the UnitedStates to a person not affiliated withMKL after importation, by RMBRingwood Inc. (Ringwood), a selleraffiliated with MKL.

We based CEP on packed, ex-factoryprices to unaffiliated purchasers in theUnited States. The Department made thefollowing adjustments to the prices usedto establish CEP, pursuant to section772(c) of the Tariff Act. The price wasincreased for packing and handlingrevenues pursuant to section 772(c)(1)and reduced for movement expenses(international freight, brokerage, U.S.duties, domestic inland freight andinsurance) pursuant to section 772(c)(2).The price used to establish CEP was alsoreduced by an amount for the followingexpenses incurred in selling the subjectmerchandise in the United Statespursuant to section 772(d)(1):commissions, credit, and inventorycarrying costs and other indirect sellingexpenses incurred in the United States.Pursuant to section 772(d)(3), the pricewas further reduced by an amount forprofit to arrive at the CEP.

Normal Value (NV)Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market andU.S. sales, and absent any informationthat a particular market situation in theexporting country does not permit aproper comparison, we determined thatthe quantity of foreign like product soldin the exporting country was sufficientto permit a proper comparison with thesales of the subject merchandise to theUnited States, pursuant to section773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act. Therefore,in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)of the Tariff Act, we based NV on theprice at which the foreign like productwas first sold for consumption in theexporting country.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), wecompared the CEPs of individualtransactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales of the foreign likeproduct. We compared CEP sales tosales in the home market of identicalmerchandise.

We based NV on packed, ex-factoryprices to unaffiliated purchasers in thehome market. We made adjustments,


where applicable, in accordance withsection 773(a)(6) of the Tariff Act. Inorder to adjust for differences in packingbetween the two markets, we increasedhome market price by U.S. packing costsand reduced it by home market packingcosts. Prices were reported net of valueadded taxes (VAT) and, therefore, nodeduction for VAT was necessary.Where applicable, we made adjustmentsto home market price for early paymentdiscounts. To adjust for differences incircumstances of sale between the homemarket and the United States, wereduced home market price by anamount for home market credit androyalty expenses and increased it by anamount for royalties on U.S. sales paidby MKL. No other adjustments weremade.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of CEPand NV, we preliminarily determinethat the following weighted-averagedumping margin exists:

Manufac-turer/Ex-

porterPeriod Margin

MKL ...... 12/01/94–5/31/95 0.00

Parties to the proceeding may requestdisclosure within five days of the dateof publication of this notice. Anyinterested party may request a hearingwithin 10 days of publication. Anyhearing, if requested, will be held 34days after the date of publication, or thefirst workday thereafter. Case briefs and/or written comments from interestedparties may be submitted not later than20 days after the date of publication.Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to writtencomments, limited to issues raised inthe case briefs and comments, may befiled not later than 27 days after the dateof publication. Parties who submitargument in this proceeding arerequested to submit with the argument(1) a statement of the issue and (2) abrief summary of the argument. TheDepartment will issue the final resultsof the new shipper administrativereview, including the results of itsanalysis of issues raised in any suchwritten comments or at a hearing,within 90 days of issuance of thesepreliminary results.

Upon completion of this new shipperreview, the Department will issueappraisement instructions directly tothe Customs Service. The results of thisreview shall be the basis for theassessment of antidumping duties onentries of merchandise covered by thedetermination and for future deposits ofestimated duties.

Furthermore, upon completion of thisreview, the posting of a bond or securityin lieu of a cash deposit, pursuant tosection 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Actand section 353.22(h)(4) of theDepartment’s regulations, will no longerbe permitted and, should the finalresults yield a margin of dumping, acash deposit will be required for eachentry of the merchandise. The followingdeposit requirements will be effectiveupon publication of the final results ofthis new shipper antidumping dutyadministrative review for all shipmentsof ball bearings from Germany, entered,or withdrawn from warehouse, forconsumption on or after the publicationdate, as provided by section 751(a)(1) ofthe Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit ratefor the reviewed company will be thatestablished in the final results of thisnew shipper administrative review; (2)for exporters not covered in this review,but covered in previous reviews or theoriginal less-than-fair-value (LTFV)investigation, the cash deposit rate willcontinue to be the company-specific ratepublished for the most recent period; (3)if the exporter is not a firm covered inthis review, previous reviews, or theoriginal LTFV investigation, but themanufacturer is, the cash deposit ratewill be that established for the mostrecent period for the manufacturer ofthe merchandise; and (4) the cashdeposit rate for all other manufacturersor exporters will continue to be 68.89percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate madeeffective by the final results of reviewpublished on July 26, 1993 (see FinalResults of Antidumping DutyAdministrative Reviews and Revocationin Part of an Antidumping Duty Order,58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993)). This rateis the ‘‘All Others’’ rate from the LTFVinvestigation.

These requirements, when imposed,shall remain in effect until publicationof the final results of the nextadministrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminaryreminder to importers of theirresponsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 tofile a certificate regarding thereimbursement of antidumping dutiesprior to liquidation of the relevantentries during this review period.Failure to comply with this requirementcould result in the Secretary’spresumption that reimbursement ofantidumping duties occurred and thesubsequent assessment of doubleantidumping duties.

This new shipper administrativereview and notice are in accordancewith section 751(a)(2)(B) of the TariffAct (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR353.22(h).

Dated: January 31, 1996.Susan G. Esserman,Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministration.[FR Doc. 96–2692 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–812]

Final Court Decision and PartialAmended Final Determination:Dynamic Random Access MemorySemiconductors of One Megabit andAbove From the Republic of Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JohnBeck, Office of AntidumpingInvestigations, Import Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14thStreet and Constitution Avenue NW.,Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)482–3464.SUMMARY: On October 27, 1995, in thecase of Micron Technologies, Inc. v.United States, Cons. Ct. No. 93–06–00318, Slip Op. 95–175 (Micron), theUnited States Court of InternationalTrade (the Court) affirmed theDepartment of Commerce’s (theDepartment’s) results of redeterminationon remand of the Final Determination ofSales at Less Than Fair Value: DynamicRandom Access MemorySemiconductors of One Megabit andAbove from the Republic of Korea.However, Micron Technologies (thepetitioner in that case) has appealedcertain aspects of that redeterminationon remand to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit (FederalCircuit). These appeals have affectedtwo of the three respondents, HyundaiElectronics Industries Co., Ltd. andHyundai Electronics America(collectively Hyundai), and LG SemiconCo., Ltd. and LG Semicon America, Inc.(collectively Semicon and formallyGoldstar). The results of theredetermination on remand for SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd. and SamsungSemiconductor, Inc. (collectivelySamsung) were not challenged by anyparty. Therefore, there is now a finaland conclusive court decision in thisaction for Samsung. Thus, we areamending our final determination inthis matter and will instruct the U.S.Customs Service to discontinuesuspending liquidation of merchandisemanufactured and exported bySamsung. If necessary, an amendment tothe final determination will be made forthe other two respondents once there is


a final decision on the petitioner’sappeals by the Federal Circuit.


BackgroundOn March 23, 1993, the Department

published its Final Determination ofSales at Less Than Fair Value: DynamicRandom Access MemorySemiconductors of One Megabit andAbove from the Republic of Korea (57FR 15467). On May 10, 1993, theDepartment published its AntidumpingOrder and Amended FinalDetermination: Dynamic RandomAccess Memory Semiconductors of OneMegabit and Above from the Republic ofKorea (58 FR 27520).

Subsequent to the Department’s finaldetermination, the petitioner and thethree respondents filed lawsuits withthe Court challenging thisdetermination. Thereafter, the Courtissued an Order and Opinion dated June12, 1995, in Micron Technologies, Inc.v. United States, Cons. Ct. No. 93–06–00318, Slip Op. 95–107, remanding sixissues to the Department. The Courtinstructed the Department to: (1)Recalculate respondents’ cost ofproduction by allocating research anddevelopment (R&D) costs on a product-specific basis; (2) use amortized ratherthan current R&D expenses in itscalculations; (3) reopen the record inorder to afford Hyundai and Samsungan opportunity to present complete andactual fixed asset data and use this datato allocate interest expenses; (4)recalculate Hyundai’s lag period; (5)recalculate Semicon’s production costswithout reclassifying Semicon’scapitalized costs of facility constructionand testing as costs of production; and(6) reexamine its conclusion that foreigncurrency translation losses of Samsungand Semicon are related to productionof subject merchandise.

The Department filed its remandresults on August 24, 1995. In theremand results, the Department: (1)Recalculated respondents’ cost ofproduction by allocating R&D on aproduct-specific basis; (2) usedamortized rather than current R&Dexpenses in its calculations; (3)reopened the record to afford Hyundaiand Samsung an opportunity tointroduce actual data regardingsemiconductor fixed assets, and usedsuch data in its allocation of interestexpense; (4) recalculated Hyundai’s lagperiods utilizing the same methodologythat it employed for Samsung andSemicon; (5) determined a new lagperiod for Hyundai’s model HY514400which accurately matches costs to thesales in question; (6) calculated

Semicon’s production costs for certainDRAMs without reclassifying as costs ofproduction Semicon’s capitalized costsof facility construction and testing; and(7) identified what evidence on therecord supports the conclusion that thetranslation losses of Samsung andSemicon are related to production of thesubject merchandise and, havingdetermined that there is sufficientevidence on the record to support sucha conclusion, included translationlosses in the calculation of COP forSamsung and Semicon.

On October 27, 1995, the Courtsustained the Department’s remandresults. See Micron Technologies, Inc. v.United States, Cons. Ct. No. 93–06–00318, Slip Op. 95–175 (CIT October 27,1995).

On December 6, 1995, the Departmentpublished a notice of court decisionpursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e). CourtDecision and Suspension of Liquidation:Dynamic Random Access MemorySemiconductors of One Megabit andAbove from the Republic of Korea (60FR 62385). In that notice, we stated thatwe would suspend liquidation untilthere was a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in theaction. Since publication of that notice,the petitioner has appealed certainaspects of that redetermination onremand to the Federal Circuit. Theseappeals have affected two of the threerespondents, Hyundai and Semicon.The results of the redetermination onremand for Samsung were notchallenged by any party. Therefore,there is now a final and conclusivecourt decision in this action forSamsung. Thus, we are amending ourfinal determination in this matter andwill instruct the U.S. Customs Service todiscontinue suspending liquidation ofmerchandise manufactured andexported by Samsung. If necessary, anamendment to the final determinationwill be made for the other tworespondents once there is a finaldecision on the petitioner’s appeals bythe Federal Circuit.

Partial Amendment to FinalDetermination

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e), we arenow amending the final determinationin dynamic random access memorysemiconductors of one megabit andabove from Korea for Samsung only.

The recalculated margin is as follows:

Manufacturer/Producer/Ex-porter

Weighted-aver-age margin per-

centage

Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd.

0.22 (deminimis).

Partial Discontinuation of Suspensionof Liquidation

Since the amended margin forSamsung is now de minimis, we aredirecting the Customs Service todiscontinue suspending liquidation ofall entries of Dynamic Random AccessMemory Semiconductors of OneMegabit and Above from the Republic ofKorea manufactured and exported bySamsung that are entered, or withdrawnfrom warehouse, for consumption on orafter October 29, 1992, the date ofpublication of the original preliminarydetermination in the Federal Register.Furthermore, we are directing theCustoms Service to refund all cashdeposits or postings of a bond whichhave been collected on the subjectmerchandise manufactured andexported by Samsung. Suspension ofliquidation will remain in effect forHyundai and Semicon.


[A–508–604]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid FromIsrael; Preliminary Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReview

AGENCY: Import Administration,International Trade Administration,Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of preliminary results ofantidumping duty administrativereview.

SUMMARY: On September 15, 1995, theDepartment of Commerce initiated anadministrative review of theantidumping duty order on industrialphosphoric acid from Israel. The reviewcovers one exporter, Haifa Chemicals,Ltd. (Haifa), and the period August 1,1994 through July 31, 1995. Since therewere no shipments of the subjectmerchandise during the period ofreview, we preliminarily determine thatthe dumping margin for Haifa is 6.82percent, the rate Haifa received in itsmost recent review. Interested partiesare invited to comment on thesepreliminary results.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Amy S. Wei or Zev Primor, Office ofAntidumping Compliance, ImportAdministration, International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street & Constitution


Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;telephone (202) 482–5253.

The Applicable Statute and RegulationsUnless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references tothe provisions effective January 1, 1995,the effective date of the amendmentsmade to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act(URAA). In addition, unless otherwiseindicated, all citations to theDepartment’s regulations are to thecurrent regulations, as amended by theinterim regulations published in theFederal Register on May 11, 1995 (60FR 25130).

BackgroundOn September 15, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (theDepartment) published the initiation ofits administrative review of theantidumping duty order on industrialphosphoric acid from Israel (60 FR47930). The Department is nowconducting this administrative reviewin accordance with section 751 of theAct.

Scope of the ReviewImports covered by the review are

shipments of industrial phosphoricacid, classifiable under item number2809.20.00 of the Harmonized TariffSchedule (HTS). HTS item numbers areprovided for convenience and forCustoms purposes. The writtendescription remains dispositive.

Preliminary Results of ReviewOn September 21, 1995, a

questionnaire was sent to Haifa. OnOctober 18, 1995, Haifa responded thatthere were no shipments of coveredmerchandise by Haifa during the periodAugust 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995.The Department verified thisinformation with the U.S. CustomsService. Therefore, we havepreliminarily assigned Haifa the rateapplicable to it from its most recentadministrative review. This rate is 6.82percent. See Industrial Phosphoric AcidFrom Israel; Final Results ofAntidumping Duty AdministrativeReviews, 59 FR 32184, June 22, 1994.

Furthermore, the following depositrequirement will be effective for allshipments of the subject merchandiseentered, or withdrawn from warehouse,for consumption on or after thepublication date of the final results ofthis administrative review, as providedfor by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)the cash deposit rate for Haifa will beHaifa’s rate established in the finalresults of this administrative review; (2)for previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be thecompany-specific rate published for themost recent period; (3) if the exporter isnot a firm covered in any review or theoriginal less-than-fair-value (LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is,the cash deposit rate will be the rateestablished for the most recent periodfor the manufacturer of themerchandise; (4) for all other producersand/or exporters of this merchandise,the cash deposit rate shall be 1.77percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate from theLTFV investigation. These depositrequirements, when imposed, shallremain in effect until publication of thefinal results of the next administrativereview.

This notice also serves as apreliminary reminder to importers oftheir responsibility under 19 CFR353.26(b) to file a certificate regardingthe reimbursement of antidumpingduties prior to liquidation of therelevant entries during these reviewperiods. Failure to comply with thisrequirement could result in theSecretary’s presumption thatreimbursement of antidumping dutiesoccurred and the subsequent assessmentof double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and noticeare in accordance with section 751(a)(1)of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(1)) and 19CFR 353.22.


National Institute of Standards andTechnology, Notice of Decision onApplication for Duty-Free Entry ofScientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant toSection 6(c) of the Educational,Scientific, and Cultural MaterialsImportation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).Related records can be viewed between8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211,U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th andConstitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 95–099. Applicant:National Institute of Standards andTechnology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.Instrument: Rotating Sample for IonMicroscope. Manufacturer: KoreTechnology, United Kingdom. IntendedUse: See notice at 60 FR 57222,November 14, 1995.

Comments: None received. Decision:Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreigninstrument, for such purposes as it isintended to be used, is beingmanufactured in the United States.Reasons: This is a compatible accessoryfor an existing instrument purchased forthe use of the applicant. The NationalInstitutes of Health advises in itsmemorandum dated December 4, 1995,that the accessory is pertinent to theintended uses and that it knows of nocomparable domestic accessory.

We know of no domestic accessorywhich can be readily adapted to theexisting instrument.

Frank W. CreelDirector, Statutory Import Programs Staff[FR Doc. 96–2694 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

Applications for Duty-Free Entry ofScientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of theEducational, Scientific and CulturalMaterials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part301), we invite comments on thequestion of whether instruments ofequivalent scientific value, for thepurposes for which the instrumentsshown below are intended to be used,are being manufactured in the UnitedStates.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations andbe filed within 20 days with theStatutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.Department of Commerce, Washington,D.C. 20230. Applications may beexamined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th Street and ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 95–116. Applicant:Tulane University Hospital and Clinic,1415 Tulane Avenue - SA 5, NewOrleans, LA 70112. Instrument: ElectronMicroscope, Model H7100.Manufacturer: Hitachi ScientificInstruments, Japan. Intended Use: Theinstrument will be used for analysis oftissues from each organ of the vertebratebody, monolayers of cultured cells,pellets of cultured cells, and filters withingrown cells. These materials areexamined for changes in cellularmorphology, osmotic shocks, effects ofdrugs, and/or normal developmentchanges. In addition, the instrumentwill be used for the training ofpathology residents, graduate studentsof the Molecular and Cellular BiologyProgram, faculty, and post-sophomorefellows and other fellows. ApplicationAccepted by Commissioner of Customs:November 30, 1995.


Docket Number: 95–117. Applicant:Indiana University, PO Box 4040,Bloomington, IN 47402. Instrument:Noninvasive Blood PressureMeasurement Monitor. Manufacturer:TNO Biomedical Instrumentation, TheNetherlands. Intended Use: Theinstrument will be used to performresearch studies into the centralinhibitory mechanisms controlling malesexual response through investigation ofnocturnal penile tumescence duringREM sleep. In addition the article willbe used for following research programs:(1) Neurochemical Mechanisms of

Psychoactive Drugs,(2) Heart rate as a Measure of

Conditioning,(3) Biophysics of Birdsong,(4) Psychophysiology of Male Sexual

Response,(5) Cardiovascular Aspects of Sleep

Apnea, and(6) Autonomic Function and Alcohol

Problems.Application Accepted by Commissionerof Customs: December 6, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–118. Applicant:The Colorado College, Department ofBiology, 14 E. Cache La Poudre,Colorado Springs, CO 80903.Instrument: Electron Microscope, ModelCM 100. Manufacturer: Philips, TheNetherlands. Intended Use: Theinstrument will be used as a researchtool for studies of the following:(1) plant cell and organelle

ultrastructure comparing wild typeand mutant strains of maize,

(2) diatom frustule ultrastructureutilizing thin metal replicas, and

(3) ultrastructure of male and femalereproductive systems of parasiticflatworms.

In addition, the instrument will be foreducational purposes in several courses.Application Accepted by Commissionerof Customs: December 7, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–119. Applicant:California State University, Los Angeles,5151 State University Drive, LosAngeles, CA 90032. Instrument:Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1200EX II. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd.,Japan. Intended Use: The instrumentwill be used for biological studies ofavian pigment cells, rat nervous tissue,rat testis, drosophila eye tissue, virus,bacteria, kidney tissue, reptile tissue,nervous ending in fish muscle cells inculture, and plant tissues in order tounderstand the microanatomy of thesetissues. The instrument will also beused for educational purposes in thecourse Biology 402, ElectronMicroscopy. Application Accepted byCommissioner of Customs: December 8,1995.

Docket Number: 95–120. Applicant:Albert Einstein College of Medicine,1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY10461. Instrument: Stopped-FlowSpectrophotometer, Model SX.17MV.Manufacturer: Applied Photophysics,Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use:The instrument will be used to studythe pre-steady state kinetic processesoccurring in enzyme catalyzedreactions. Application Accepted byCommissioner of Customs: December11, 1995.


University of Wyoming, et al.; Notice ofConsolidated Decision on Applicationsfor Duty-Free Entry of ScientificInstruments

This is a decision consolidatedpursuant to Section 6(c) of theEducational, Scientific, and CulturalMaterials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part301). Related records can be viewedbetween 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. inRoom 4211, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 14th and ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Comments: None received. Decision:Approved. No instrument of equivalentscientific value to the foreigninstruments described below, for suchpurposes as each is intended to be used,is being manufactured in the UnitedStates.

Docket Number: 95–089. Applicant:University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY82071. Instrument: SpectrometerPackage including Palmtop Computerand Infrared Mineral IdentificationSystem. Manufacturer: IntegratedSpectronics Pty Ltd., Australia.Intended Use: See notice at 60 FR54337, October 23, 1995. Reasons: Theforeign instrument provides a digitallibrary of reference signatures thatpermit rapid identification and/orpossible matches with a target material.Advice Received From: NationalInstitutes of Health, November 30, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–090. Applicant:Department of Health & Human Service,Food and Drug Administration,Washington, DC 20204. Instrument: ICPMass Spectrometer, Model Plasma Trace2. Manufacturer: Fisons Instruments,United Kingdom. Intended Use: Seenotice at 60 FR 54337, October 23, 1995.Reasons: The foreign instrumentprovides: (1) high resolution,continuously variable to 10 000 at asensitivity of 40MHz, (2) 2%

transmission at maximum resolution,and (3) resolution of interferingpolyatomic species. Advice ReceivedFrom: National Institutes of Health,December 1, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–095. Applicant:Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA23504. Instrument: ElectronParamagnetic Resonance SpectrometerSystem, Model EMX 10/2.7.Manufacturer: Bruker, Germany.Intended Use: See notice at 60 FR57221, November 14, 1995. Reasons:The foreign instrument provides a dualmode cavity with B1 parallel to B0 andB1 perpendicular to B0, in the samecavity, by switching frequencies formeasuring half field transitions intransition metal ion samples. AdviceReceived From: National Institutes ofHealth, December 4, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–096. Applicant:Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ85287-1601. Instrument: FluorescenceMeasuring System, Model PAM 101.Manufacturer: Heinz Walz GmbH,Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 60FR 57222, November 14, 1995. Reasons:The foreign instrument provides: (1)measurement of sample fluorescencefollowing µs pulsed illumination, (2)fluorescence measurementsindependent of actinic illumination and(3) time resolution to 20 µs. AdviceReceived From: National Institutes ofHealth, December 4, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–098. Applicant:Research Foundation of SUNY atAlbany, NY 12222. Instrument:Formaldehyde Monitor. Manufacturer:Aero Laser GmbH, Germany. IntendedUse: See notice at 60 FR 57222,November 14, 1995. Reasons: Theforeign instrument provides: (1) adetection limit of <100 ppt (gas phase),(2) a noise level of <2.0% at full scaleand (3) minimal interferences fromother trace gases. Advice Received From:National Institutes of Health, December4, 1995.

The National Institutes of Healthadvises that (1) the capabilities of eachof the foreign instruments describedabove are pertinent to each applicant’sintended purpose and (2) it knows of nodomestic instrument or apparatus ofequivalent scientific value for theintended use of each instrument.

We know of no other instrument orapparatus being manufactured in theUnited States which is of equivalentscientific value to any of the foreigninstruments.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANDSPACE ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 9000–0062]

Clearance Request Entitled Materialand Workmanship

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),General Services Administration (GSA),and National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA).ACTION: Notice of request for anextension to an existing OMB clearance(9000–0062).

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35), the FederalAcquisition Regulation (FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) arequest to review and approve anextension of a currently approvedinformation collection requirementconcerning Material and Workmanship.A request for public comments waspublished at 60 FR 57252, November 14,1995. No comments were received.DATES: Comment due date: March 11,1996.ADDRESSES: Comments regarding thisburden estimate or any other aspect ofthis collection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing this burden,should be submitted to: FAR DeskOfficer, OMB, room 10102, NEOB,Washington, DC 20503, and a copy tothe General Services Administration,FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 18th & FStreets NW., room 4037, Washington,DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No.9000–0062, Material and Workmanship,in all correspondence.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Jack O’Neill, Office of FederalAcquisition Policy, GSA, (202) 501–3856.


A. PurposeUnder Federal contracts requiring that

equipment (e.g., pumps, fans,generators, chillers, etc.) be installed ina project, the Government mustdetermine that the equipment meets thecontract requirements. Therefore, thecontractor must submit sufficient dataon the particular equipment to allow theGovernment to analyze the item.

The Government uses the submitteddata to determine whether or not theequipment meets the contractrequirements in the categories of

performance, construction, anddurability. This data is placed in thecontract file and used during theinspection of the equipment when itarrives on the project and when it ismade operable.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Public reporting burden for thiscollection of information is estimated toaverage .25 hours per completion,including the time for reviewinginstructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining thedata needed, and completing andreviewing the collection of information.

The annual reporting burden isestimated as follows: Respondents,3,160; responses per respondent, 1.5;total annual responses, 4,740;preparation hours per response, .25; andtotal response burden hours, 1,185.

OBTAINING COPIES OF JUSTIFICATIONS:Requester may obtain copies ofjustifications from the General ServicesAdministration, FAR Secretariat(MVRS), room 4037, Washington, DC20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. Pleasecite OMB Control No. 9000–0062,Material and Workmanship, in allcorrespondence.

Dated: February 1, 1996.Beverly Fayson,FAR Secretariat.[FR Doc. 96–2739 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6820–EP–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Pantex PlantSite; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) notice ishereby given of the following AdvisoryCommittee meeting: EnvironmentalManagement Site-Specific AdvisoryBoard (EM SSAB), Pantex Plant,Amarillo, Texas

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, February 27,1996: 2 p.m.—6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Boatman’s First NationalBank, Centennial Room, 8th andFillmore, Amarillo, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TomWilliams, Program Manager,Department of Energy, Amarillo AreaOffice, PO. Box 30030, Amarillo, TX79120 (806)477–3121.


Purpose of the Committee:The Board provides input to the

Department of Energy on EnvironmentalManagement strategic decisions thatimpact future use, risk management,economic development, and budgetprioritization activities.

Tentative Agenda:2:00 pm

Welcome—Agenda Review—Approval ofMinutes

2:10 pmCo-Chairs’ Comments

2:20 pmCo-Chair Replacement Discussion

2:30 pmSubcommittee Reports—Community Outreach—Budget and Finance—Nominations—Program and Training—Policy and Personnel

3:15 pm Updates.—Occurrence Reports—DOE

3:45 pmBreak.

4:15 pmDiscussion, Questionnaire Results

4:30 pmDiscussion, Site-wide Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) andProgrammatic Environmental ImpactStatement

—How to Reach the Public5:15 pm

Task Force Reports—Site-wide EIS—Environmental Restoration

6:00 pmAdjourn

Public Participation:The meeting is open to the public.

Written statements may be filed withthe Committee either before or after themeeting. Written comments will beaccepted at the address above for 15days after the date of the meeting.Individuals who wish to make oralstatements pertaining to agenda itemsshould contact Tom Williams’ office atthe address or telephone number listedabove. Requests must be received 5 daysprior to the meeting and reasonableprovision will be made to include thepresentation in the agenda. TheDesignated Federal Official isempowered to conduct the meeting in afashion that will facilitate the orderlyconduct of business. Each individualwishing to make public comment willbe provided a maximum of 5 minutes topresent their comments.

Minutes:The minutes of this meeting will be

available for public review and copyingat the Pantex Public Reading Roomslocated at the Amarillo College LynnLibrary and Learning Center, 2201


South Washington, Amarillo, TX phone(806) 371–5400. Hours of operation arefrom 7:45 am to 10 pm, Monday throughThursday; 7:45 am to 5 pm on Friday;8:30 am to 12 noon on Saturday; and 2pm to 6 pm on Sunday, except forFederal holidays. Additionally, there isa Public Reading Room located at theCarson County Public Library, 401 MainStreet, Panhandle, TX phone (806) 537–3742. Hours of operation are from 9 amto 7 pm on Monday; 9 am to 5 pm,Tuesday through Friday; and closedSaturday and Sunday as well as FederalHolidays. Minutes will also be availableby writing or calling Tom Williams atthe address or telephone number listedabove.

Issued at Washington, DC on February 5,1996.Rachel Murphy Samuel,Acting Deputy Advisory CommitteeManagement Officer.[FR Doc. 96–2734 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, SavannahRiver Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Public Law 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) noticeis hereby given of the followingAdvisory Committee meeting:Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB),Savannah River Site.DATES AND TIMES: Thursday, February22, 1996: 6:30 p.m.–8:00 p.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at:The Radisson Riverfront Hotel, TwoTenth Street, Augusta, Georgia.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TomHeenan, Manager, EnvironmentalRestoration and Solid Waste,Department of Energy Savannah RiverOperations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken,S.C. 29802 (803) 725–8074.


Purpose of the BoardThe purpose of the Board is to make

recommendations to DOE and itsregulators in the areas of environmentalrestoration, waste management andrelated activities.

Tentative AgendaThursday, February 22, 19966:30 p.m.

Discuss Board Business, e.g. facilitationsupport

8:00 p.m.Adjourn

A final agenda will be available at themeeting Thursday, February 22, 1996.

Public ParticipationThe meeting is open to the public.

Written statements may be filed withthe Committee either before or after themeeting. Individuals who wish to makeoral statements pertaining to agendaitems should contact Tom Heenan’soffice at the address or telephonenumber listed above. Requests must bereceived 5 days prior to the meeting andreasonable provision will be made toinclude the presentation in the agenda.The Designated Federal Official isempowered to conduct the meeting in afashion that will facilitate the orderlyconduct of business. Each individualwishing to make public comment willbe provided a maximum of 5 minutes topresent their comments.

MinutesThe minutes of this meeting will be

available for public review and copyingat the Freedom of Information PublicReading Room, 1E–190, ForrestalBuilding, 1000 Independence Avenue,SW., Washington, DC 20585 between9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday–Fridayexcept Federal holidays. Minutes willalso be available by writing to TomHeenan, Department of Energy,Savannah River Operations Office, P.O.Box A, Aiken, S.C. 29802, or by callinghim at (803) 725–8074.

Issued at Washington, DC on February 5,1996.Rachel Murphy Samuel,Acting Deputy Advisory CommitteeManagement Officer.[FR Doc. 96–2733 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of Nonproliferation and NationalSecurity; Fundamental ClassificationPolicy Review

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation andNational Security; Energy.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy(DOE) announces the availability forpublic comment of a draft report of theFundamental Classification PolicyReview. Since March 1995, theFundamental Classification PolicyReview Group has examined all areas ofclassified information falling underDepartment of Energy responsibility. Byreleasing the report for comment in draftnow, the review panel will be able togive further consideration to stakeholderviews before the final report ispresented to the Secretary of Energy inApril 1996.

DATES: Public comment is requested inwriting not later than February 29, 1996.ADDRESSES: The draft report will bemade available for downloading fromthe Department of Energy Home Page(http://www.doe.gov) on the Internet.Comments and requests for hard copiesof the draft report should be made to Dr.Glen R. Otey, Deputy Chair,Fundamental Classification PolicyReview, Post Office Box 5800, SandiaNational Laboratories, Mail Stop 0517,Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185–0517,phone number (505) 844–7006,facsimile number (505) 844–4543.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Glen R. Otey, Deputy Chair,Fundamental Classification PolicyReview, Post Office Box 5800, SandiaNational Laboratories, Mail Stop 0517,Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185–0517,phone number (505) 844–7006,facsimile number (505) 844–4543.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March16, 1995, the Secretary of Energyinitiated a year-long review of theDepartment’s classification policies. Thereview is being chaired by Dr. AlbertNarath, formerly President of SandiaNational Laboratories, and currentlyPresident of Lockheed MartinCorporation’s Energy and EnvironmentSector. Since March 1995, the ReviewGroup has examined all areas ofclassified information falling under thepurview of the Department of Energy toidentify which information continues torequire protection so as to assure thecommon defense and security, with theobjective of promptly declassifying andreleasing all information no longerwarranting protection. The Departmentbelieves it is critical that the Departmentof Energy’s classification policies andpractices, which, by definition, can anddo limit access to the Department’sactivities, reflect the view of the citizensso affected. Throughout the reviewprocess, the public has been invited toprovide comments andrecommendations for consideration onany aspect of the Department’sclassification policies.

The Fundamental ClassificationPolicy Review is scheduled forcompletion in April 1996. The reportbeing made available will provide asnapshot of the work in progress. It isexpected that research and coordinationon some issues will continue throughMarch. By releasing the report in draftnow for public comment, the reviewpanel will have another opportunity togive full consideration to stakeholderviews before the final report issubmitted to the Secretary of Energy inApril 1996. The draft report may berevised during interagency review.


Specific declassification actions, onceapproved, will be publicly announcedand implemented by revision of theDepartment’s classification guides. It isanticipated that the implementationprocess will require approximately oneyear.

Hard copies of the draft report will beavailable from the Deputy Chair of theFundamental Classification PolicyReview. The draft report will also beavailable for downloading from theDepartment of Energy Home Page (http://www.doe.gov) on the Internet.A. Bryan Siebert,Director, Office of Declassification, Office ofSecurity Affairs.[FR Doc. 96–2735 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

Agency Information Collection UnderReview by the Office of Managementand Budget

February 2, 1996.AGENCY: Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, DOT.ACTION: Notice of request submitted forreview to the Office of Management andBudget.

SUMMARY: The Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission (Commission)has submitted the energy informationcollection listed in this notice to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) for review under provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(Pub. L. 104–13). Any interested personmay file comments on the collection ofinformation directly with OMB andshould address a copy of thosecomments to the Commission, asexplained below.DATES: Comments must be filed on orbefore March 11, 1996.ADDRESSES: Address comments to Officeof Management and Budget, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Federal Energy CommissionDesk Officer, 726 Jackson Place NW.,Washington, DC 20503. A copy of thecomments should also be sent to FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission,Division of Information Services,Attention: Mr. Michael Miller, 888 FirstStreet NE., Washington, DC 20426. Mr.Miller may be reached by telephone at(202) 208–1415 and by e-mail [email protected].


DescriptionThe energy information collection

submitted to OMB for review contains:

1. Collection of Information: FERC–516, ‘‘Electric Rate Schedule Filings.’’

2. Sponsor: Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission. The Federal Power Actrequires each public utility to file forapproval of rate schedules, togetherwith related contracts and serviceconditions. The Commission isauthorized to investigate the ratescharged by public utilities to determinethat the rates, terms and conditions ofservice are just and reasonable. If theyare not, the Commission is authorized todetermine and prescribe just andreasonable rates, terms and conditions.

3. Control No.: 1902–0096. TheCommission is now requesting thatOMB approve a three year extension ofthese mandatory collectionrequirements.

4. Necessity of Collection ofInformation: Submission of theinformation is necessary to enable theCommission to carry out itsresponsibility to assure that electricrates are just and reasonable. Sufficientdetail must be obtained for theCommission to make informeddecisions concerning the appropriatelevel of rates and to aide customers andother parties who may wish to challengethe rate proposed by the utility. Theinformation enables the Commissionand other parties to examine andevaluate the cost elements comprisingthe utility’s cost of service to determinewhether and how much of such costelements should be included in theutility’s rates.

5. Respondent Description: Therespondent universe currentlycomprises approximately 328 publicutilities, licensees, qualifying smallpower producers or members of publicutility holding companies that areengaged in generation, transmission andsales of electric power.

6. Estimated Burden: 828,750 totalburden hours (328 respondents, 975responses annually, 850 average hoursper response).

Statutory Authority: Sections 205, 206,211, 212 and 301 of the Federal Power Act,16 U.S.C. Sections 824d, 824e, 824j, 824k and825 (1994).Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2716 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Project No. 6633–003 California]

Humboldt State University; Availabilityof Environmental Assessment

February 2, 1996.In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and

the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission’s (Commission’s)Regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order486, 52 FR 47897), the Commission’sOffice of Hydropower Licensing hasreviewed an exemption surrenderapplication for the Davis CreekHydroelectric Project, No. 6633–003.The Davis Creek Hydroelectric Project islocated on Davis Creek in HumboldtCounty, California. The exemptee isapplying for a surrender of theexemption because the project is noteconomically viable. An EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) was prepared for theapplication. The EA finds thatapproving the application would notconstitute a major federal actionsignificantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment.

Copies of the EA are available forreview in the Commission’s Referenceand Information Center, Room 1C–1,888 First Street NE., Washington, DC20426.

Please submit any comments within20 days from the date of this notice. Anycomments, conclusions, orrecommendations that draw uponstudies, reports or other working papersof substance should be supported byappropriate documentation.

Comments should be addressed toLois D. Cashell, Secretary, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.Please affix Project No. 6633–003 to allcomments. For further information,please contact the project manager, Ms.Hillary Berlin, at (202) 219–0038.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2676 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP96–135–000]

Southern Natural Gas Co.; GSRRevised Tariff Sheets

February 2, 1996.Take notice that on January 31, 1996,

Southern Natural Gas Company(Southern) tendered for filing as part ofits FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh RevisedVolume No. 1, the following tariff sheetswith the proposed effective date ofFebruary 1, 1996:

Tariff Sheets Applicable to ContestingPartiesSixth Revised Sheet No. 14Twenty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 15Sixth Revised Sheet No. 16Twenty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 17Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 29Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 30Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 31


Southern submits the revised tariffsheets in order to reflect changes in itsbilling units and a credit to the GSRsurcharge for February 1996.

Southern also tendered for filing thefollowing tariff sheets with the proposedeffective date of February 1, 1996:

Tariff Sheets Applicable to ContestingPartiesSeventeenth Revised Sheet No. 18

Tariff Sheets Applicable to SupportingPartiesFirst Revised Sheet No. 14aEighth Revised Sheet No. 15aSeventh Revised Sheet No. 16aEight Revised Sheet No. 17aThird Revised Sheet No. 18a

Tariff Sheet Applicable to Contesting andSupporting PartiesFifth Revised Sheet No. 22Second Revised Sheet No. 41a

Southern submits the revised tariffsheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, SeventhRevised Volume No. 1, as a result of theCommission’s December 29, 1995 orderissued in Docket No. RP–96–53 et al.requiring Southern to conform futurefilings with § 154.107 of theCommission’s rules and regulations.Southern proposes that the tariff sheetsbe made effective February 1, 1996.

Southern also proposes to cancel thefollowing tariff sheets, effectiveFebruary 1, 1996:Third Revised Sheet No. 23Third Revised Sheet No. 24Third Revised Sheet No. 25First Revised Sheet No. 34a

Southern proposes to cancel the tariffsheets in order to reflect the removalfrom its Tariff of certain take-or-payfixed charges which Southern has fullycollected and to reflect the removal fromits tariff of certain refund amountswhich Southern has fully refunded to itscustomers.

Southern states that copies of thefiling were served upon all affectedtransportation customers and interestedstate commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,in accordance with § 385.214 and385.211 of the Commission’s rules ofpractice and procedure. All suchmotions or protests must be filed asprovided in § 154.210 of theCommission’s Regulations. Protests willbe considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copies

of Southern’s filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspectionLois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2680 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Southern Natural Gas Co.; ProposedChanges to FERC Gas Tariff

February 2, 1996.

Take notice that on January 31, 1996,Southern Natural Gas Company(Southern) tendered for filing as part ofits FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh RevisedVolume No. 1, the following tariff sheetsto become effective March 1, 1996:

Second Revised Sheet No. 140Original Sheet No. 140aFirst Revised Sheet No. 141Original Sheet No. 141a

Southern states that the purpose of thisfiling is to change the monthly cash-outmechanism of its imbalance resolutionprocedures to provide that shippers whoaccrue monthly imbalances in the samedirection as the net system imbalance for thatmonth will cash out their imbalances basedon a high or low price rather than on anindex price. There will be no change in thecashout mechanism for shippers who accruemonthly imbalances in the opposite directionof the net system imbalance. Southern hasrequested that these sheets be made effectiveas of March 1, 1996.

Southern states that copies of the filingwill be served upon its shippers andinterested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest this filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,Washington, DC 20416, in accordance withRules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s rulesof practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214). All such motions and protestsmust be filed as provided in § 154.210 of theCommission’s regulations. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to make protestantsparties to the proceeding. Any personwishing to become a party must file a motionto intervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are available forpublic inspection in the pubic ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2679 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


Trunkline LNG Co.; AnnualReconciliation Report

February 2, 1996.Take notice that on January 31, 1996,

Trunkline LNG Company (TLC)tendered for filing working papersreflecting its third annual reconciliationreport.

TLC states that the information issubmitted pursuant to Article VIII,section 4 of the Stipulation andAgreement in the above-captionedproceeding which requires TLC tosubmit, on an annual basis, a report ofthe cost and revenues which result fromthe operation of Rate Schedule PLNG–2 dated June 26, 1987, as amendedDecember 1, 1989.

TLC states that copies of this filinghave been served on all participants inthe proceeding and applicable stateregulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to protest saidfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with § 385.211 ofthe Commission’s rules and regulations.All such protests must be filed on orbefore February 9, 1996. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–2678 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission


Trunkline Gas Co.; AnnualReconciliation Report

February 2, 1996.

Take notice that on January 31, 1996,Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline)tendered for filing working papersreflecting its fourth annual take-or-payvolumetric surcharge reconciliation.Trunkline states that the information issubmitted pursuant to Article II, section8 of the Stipulation and Agreement inthe above-captioned proceeding whichrequires Trunkline to submit, on anannual basis, a report of the take-or-pay


volumetric surcharge amounts collectedfrom its customers.

Trunkline states that copies of thisfiling have been served on allparticipants in the proceeding andapplicable state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to protest saidfiling should file a protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street NE., Washington, DC20426, in accordance with § 385.211 ofthe Commission’s rules and regulations.All such protests must be filed on orbefore February 9, 1996. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Copies of this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection in the Public ReferenceRoom.Lois D. Cashell,Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2677 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717–01–M


[FRL–5419–2]

Science Advisory Board, ResearchStrategies Advisory Committee;Notification of Public AdvisoryCommittee Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, Public Law 92–463,notice is hereby given that the ResearchStrategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)of the Science Advisory Board (SAB)will hold a public teleconference onFebruary 23, 1996 from 11:00 am to 1:00pm Eastern Time. Documents that arethe subject of SAB reviews are normallyavailable from the originating EPA officeand are not available from the SABOffice.

During this teleconference, the RSACwill discuss the Agencys draft StrategicPlan for the Office of Research andDevelopment. Issues to be discussedinclude: (a) Strengths of the Plan—Whataspects or elements of the Plan doesRSAC find to be particularly useful,important, and/or worthy of Agencyattention and support?; (b) StrategicMessage—The Plan lays out a set ofStrategic Principles, a MissionStatement, a set of Goals and Objectives,and a Management Process designed toestablish priorities and translatepriorities into effective programs. Arethese appropriate for ORD as they aredefined in the Plan?; (c) Clarity—Is theStrategy, especially the process forsetting priorities, clear?; (d) Criteria for

Priorities—Are the criteria identified forsetting priorities appropriate anduseable? Would RSAC like to helprefine them now or in the future?; (e)Utility of the Plan—Does the Plan offera potentially useful roadmap fordecision making and policy frameworkfor managing ORD’s research anddevelopment programs?

Single copies of the Agency’s draftStrategic Plan are available from Ms.Lori Shuda, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Researchand Development (ORD), (Mail Code8101), 401 M Street SW., Washington,DC 20460. Tel. (202) 260–4708. Anymember of the public desiring toparticipate in the teleconference,desiring additional information aboutthe meeting, or desiring to obtain copiesof the agenda and other informationabout the conduct of the meeting, or torequest time on the agenda for publiccomments, please contact Mr. A. RobertFlaak, Designated Federal Official,Science Advisory Board (1400F), USEPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington DC20460, by telephone at (202) 260–5133or FAX at (202) 260–7118, or via theINTERNET at:[email protected]. GOV.

Providing Oral or Written Comments atSAB Meetings

The Science Advisory Board expectsthat public statements presented at itsmeetings will not be repetitive ofpreviously submitted oral or writtenstatements. In general, forteleconference call meetings,opportunities for oral comment will belimited to no more than three minutesper speaker and no more than fifteenminutes total. Written comments (atleast 25 copies) received in the SABStaff Office sufficiently prior to ameeting date (usually one week prior toa meeting or teleconference), may bemailed to the relevant SAB committeeor subcommittee prior to its meeting;comments received too close to themeeting date will normally be providedto the committee at its meeting. Writtencomments may be provided to therelevant committee or subcommittee upuntil the time of the meeting.

Dated: February 1, 1996.Donald G. Barnes,Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.[FR Doc. 96–2719 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCECORPORATION

Information Collection Submitted toOMB for Review

AGENCY: Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation.ACTION: Notice of information collectionto be submitted to OMB for review andapproval under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995.

SUMMARY: In accordance withrequirements of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.Chapter 35), the FDIC hereby givesnotice that it plans to submit to theOffice of Management and Budget arequest for OMB review of theinformation collection system describedbelow.

Type of Review: Revision of acurrently approved collection.

Title: Consolidated Reports ofCondition and Income (Call Reports).

Form Number: Form FFIEC 0031, 032,033, 034.

OMB Number: 3064–0052.Expiration Date of OMB Clearance:

March 31, 1996.OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf,

(202) 395–7316, Office of Managementand Budget, OIRA, PaperworkReduction Project (3064–0052),Washington, DC 20503.

FDIC Contact: Steven F. Hanft, (202)898–3907, Office of the ExecutiveSecretary, room F–400, Federal DepositInsurance Corporation, 550 17th StreetNW., Washington, DC 20429.

Comments: Comments on thiscollection of information are welcomeand should be submitted on or beforeMarch 11, 1996.ADDRESSES: A copy of the submissionmay be obtained by calling or writingthe FDIC contact listed above.Comments regarding the submissionshould be addressed to both the OMBreviewer and the FDIC contact listedabove.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Consolidated Reports of Condition andIncome are filed quarterly with the threefederal banking agencies (the FDIC, theOffice of the Comptroller of theCurrency, and the Board of Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System) for theiruse in monitoring the condition andperformance of banks and the industryas a whole. The reports are also used bythe FDIC to calculate banks’ depositinsurance assessments. On November16, 1995, the three agencies jointlypublished a notice in the FederalRegister (60 FR 57618) describing indetail and inviting comment onproposed changes to this collection of


information. All comments received bythe agencies in response to that notice,including a change to the proposedrevisions that the agencies made inresponse to those comments, areaddressed in supporting statements tobe submitted to OMB that weredeveloped to justify the proposedchanges. This notice provides the publicwith the opportunity to obtain, review,and comment on, the FDIC’s supportingstatement.

Dated: February 2, 1996.Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Jerry L. Langley,Executive Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2644 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6714–01–M

FEDERAL EMERGENCYMANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1095–DR]

New York; Amendment to Notice of aMajor Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA).ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the noticeof a major disaster for the State of NewYork, (FEMA–1095–DR), dated January24, 1996, and related determinations.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pauline C. Campbell, Response andRecovery Directorate, FederalEmergency Management Agency,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The noticeof a major disaster for the State of NewYork, is hereby amended to include thefollowing areas among those areasdetermined to have been adverselyaffected by the catastrophe declared amajor disaster by the President in hisdeclaration of January 24, 1996:Clinton, Cortland, Essex, Greene, and Tioga

Counties for Individual Assistance.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.83.516, Disaster Assistance.)William C. Tidball,Associate Director, Response and RecoveryDirectorate.[FR Doc. 96–2710 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

[FEMA–1095–DR]

New York; Amendment to Notice of aMajor Disaster Declaration


SUMMARY: This notice amends the noticeof a major disaster for the State of NewYork, (FEMA–1095–DR), dated January24, 1996, and related determinations.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pauline C. Campbell, Response andRecovery Directorate, FederalEmergency Management Agency,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The noticeof a major disaster for the State of NewYork, is hereby amended to includePublic Assistance and HazardMitigation for the following areas amongthose areas determined to have beenadversely affected by the catastrophedeclared a major disaster by thePresident in his declaration of January24, 1996:Chemung, Clinton, Delaware, Essex, Greene,

Schoharie, Steuben, Sullivan, Tioga, andUlster for Public Assistance and HazardMitigation (already designated forIndividual Assistance);

Broome, Otsego, Saratoga, and Schenectadyfor Individual Assistance, PublicAssistance, and Hazard Mitigation;

Columbia, Herkimer, and Warren for PublicAssistance and Hazard Mitigation; and

Albany, Allegany, Cattaraugus, Cayuga,Chenango, Dutchess, Montgomery, Orange,Rensselaer, and Tompkins for IndividualAssistance only.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.83.516, Disaster Assistance.)G. Clay Hollister,Deputy Associate Director, Response andRecovery Directorate.[FR Doc. 96–2711 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

[FEMA–1093–DR]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;Amendment to Notice of a MajorDisaster Declaration


SUMMARY: This notice amends the noticeof a major disaster for theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania(FEMA–1093–DR), dated January 21,1996, and related determinations.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pauline C. Campbell, Response andRecovery Directorate, FederalEmergency Management Agency,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The noticeof a major disaster for theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, ishereby amended to include thefollowing areas among those areas

determined to have been adverselyaffected by the catastrophe declared amajor disaster by the President in hisdeclaration of January 21, 1996:Tioga and Union Counties for Individual

Assistance.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.83.516, Disaster Assistance.)William C. Tidball,Associate Director, Response and RecoveryDirectorate.[FR Doc. 96–2707 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

[FEMA–1093–DR]

Pennsylvania; Amendment to Notice ofa Major Disaster Declaration


SUMMARY: This notice amends the noticeof a major disaster for theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania,(FEMA–1093–DR), dated January 21,1996, and related determinations.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pauline C. Campbell, Response andRecovery Directorate, FederalEmergency Management Agency,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The noticeof a major disaster for theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, ishereby amended to include thefollowing areas among those areasdetermined to have been adverselyaffected by the catastrophe declared amajor disaster by the President in hisdeclaration of January 21, 1996:Blair, Columbia, and Tioga Counties for

Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation(already designated for IndividualAssistance).


[FEMA–1093–DR]

Pennsylvania; Amendment to Notice ofa Major Disaster Declaration


SUMMARY: This notice amends the noticeof a major disaster for theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania,


(FEMA–1093–DR), dated January 21,1996, and related determinations.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pauline C. Campbell, Response andRecovery Directorate, FederalEmergency Management Agency,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The noticeof a major disaster for theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, ishereby amended to include thefollowing areas among those areasdetermined to have been adverselyaffected by the catastrophe declared amajor disaster by the President in hisdeclaration of January 21, 1996:Adams, Cameron, Carbon, Lehigh, Montour,

Northumberland, Pike, Sullivan, andUnion Counties for Public Assistance andHazard Mitigation (already designated forIndividual Assistance).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.83.516, Disaster Assistance.)William C. Tidball,Associate Director, Response and RecoveryDirectorate.[FR Doc. 96–2709 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

[FEMA–1096–DR]

West Virginia; Major Disaster andRelated Determinations


SUMMARY: This is a notice of thePresidential declaration of a majordisaster for the State of West Virginia(FEMA–1096–DR), dated January 25,1996, and related determinations.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 25, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pauline C. Campbell, Response andRecovery Directorate, FederalEmergency Management Agency,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice ishereby given that, in a letter datedJanuary 25, 1996, the President declareda major disaster under the authority ofthe Robert T. Stafford Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance Act (42U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), as follows:

I have determined that the damage incertain areas of the State of West Virginia,resulting from flooding on January 19, 1996,and continuing is of sufficient severity andmagnitude to warrant a major disasterdeclaration under the Robert T. StaffordDisaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act(‘‘the Stafford Act’’). I, therefore, declare thatsuch a major disaster exists in the State ofWest Virginia.

In order to provide Federal assistance, youare hereby authorized to allocate from funds

available for these purposes, such amounts asyou find necessary for Federal disasterassistance and administrative expenses.

You are authorized to provide IndividualAssistance, Public Assistance, and HazardMitigation in the designated areas. Consistentwith the requirement that Federal assistancebe supplemental, any Federal funds providedunder the Stafford Act for Public Assistanceor Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75percent of the total eligible costs.

The time period prescribed for theimplementation of section 310(a),Priority to Certain Applications forPublic Facility and Public HousingAssistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be fora period not to exceed six months afterthe date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuantto the authority vested in the Director ofthe Federal Emergency ManagementAgency under Executive Order 12148, Ihereby appoint Warren Pugh of theFederal Emergency Management Agencyto act as the Federal CoordinatingOfficer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the followingareas of the State of West Virginia tohave been affected adversely by thisdeclared major disaster:Brooke, Grant, Greenbriar, Hancock, Hardy,

Marshall, Monroe, Ohio, Pendleton,Pleasants, Pocahontas, Preston, Randolph,Summers, Tucker, Tyler, Webster, andWetzel Counties for Individual Assistance,Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation;and

Hampshire, Mason, and Wood Counties forIndividual Assistance and HazardMitigation only.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.83.516, Disaster Assistance.)James L. Witt,Director.[FR Doc. 96–2706 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

[FEMA–1096–DR]

West Virginia; Amendment to Notice ofa Major Disaster Declaration


SUMMARY: This notice amends the noticeof a major disaster for the State of WestVirginia, (FEMA–1096–DR), datedJanuary 25, 1996, and relateddeterminations.EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Pauline C. Campbell, Response andRecovery Directorate, FederalEmergency Management Agency,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The noticeof a major disaster for the State of West

Virginia, is hereby amended to includethe following areas among those areasdetermined to have been adverselyaffected by the catastrophe declared amajor disaster by the President in hisdeclaration of January 25, 1996:Berkeley, Jefferson, Mercer, Mineral, Morgan,

and Nicholas Counties for IndividualAssistance, Public Assistance, and HazardMitigation; and

Hampshire County for Public Assistance(already designated for IndividualAssistance and Hazard Mitigation).


FEDERAL MEDIATION ANDCONCILIATION SERVICE

Labor-Management CooperationProgram; Application Solicitation

AGENCY: Federal Mediation andConciliation Service.ACTION: Publication of Final Fiscal Year1996, Program Guidelines/ApplicationSolicitation for Labor-ManagementCommittees.

SUMMARY: The Federal Mediation andConciliation Service (FMCS) ispublishing the final Fiscal Year 1996Program Guidelines/ApplicationSolicitation for the Labor-ManagementCooperation program to inform thepublic. The program is supported byFederal funds authorized by the Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978,subject to annual appropriations. Nocomments were received from thepublic. The guidelines are based on anassumption that this program will befunded at its anticipated level. Shouldthere be a significant change in theprogram’s final appropriation, a revisedfinal version will be published in theFederal Register.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peter L. Regner, 202–606–8181.

Labor-Management CooperationProgram Application Solicitation forLabor-Management Committees FY1996

A. IntroductionThe following is the final solicitation

for the Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 cycle ofthe Labor-Management CooperationProgram as it pertains to the support oflabor-management committees. Theseguidelines represent the continuingefforts of the Federal Mediation andConciliation Service to implement the


provisions of the Labor-ManagementCooperation Act of 1978 which wasinitially implemented in FY81. The Actgenerally authorizes FMCS to provideassistance in the establishment andoperation of plant, area, public sector,and industry-wide labor-managementcommittees which:

(A) Have been organized jointly byemployers and labor organizationsrepresenting employees in that plant,area, government agency, or industry;and

(B) Are established for the purpose ofimproving labor-managementrelationships, job security, andorganizational effectiveness; enhancingeconomic development; or involvingworkers in decisions affecting their jobs,including improving communicationwith respect to subjects of mutualinterest and concern.

The Program Description and othersections that follow, as well as aseparately published FMCS Financialand Administrative Grants Manual,make up the basic guidelines, criteria,and program elements a potentialapplicant for assistance under thisprogram must know in order to developan application for funding considerationfor either a plant, area-wide, industry, orpublic sector labor-managementcommittee. Directions for obtaining anapplication kit may be found in SectionH. A copy of the Labor-ManagementCooperation Act of 1978, included inthe application kit, should be reviewedin conjunction with this solicitation.

B. Program Description

Objectives

The Labor-Management CooperationAct of 1978 identifies the followingseven general areas for which financialassistance would be appropriate:

(1) To improve communicationbetween representatives of labor andmanagement;

(2) To provide workers and employerswith opportunities to study and explorenew and innovative joint approaches toachieving organizational effectiveness;

(3) To assist workers and employersin solving problems of mutual concernnot susceptible to resolution within thecollective bargaining process;

(4) To study and explore ways ofeliminating potential problems whichreduce the competitiveness and inhibitthe economic development of the plant,area, or industry;

(5) To enhance the involvement ofworkers in making decisions that affecttheir working lives;

(6) To expand and improve workingrelationships between workers andmanagers; and

(7) To encourage free collectivebargaining by establishing continuingmechanisms for communicationbetween employers and their employeesthrough Federal assistance in theformation and operation of labor-management committees.

The primary objective of this programis to encourage and support theestablishment and operation of jointlabor-management committee’s to carryout specific objectives that meet theforementioned general criteria. The term‘‘labor’’ refers to employees representedby a labor organization and covered bya formal collective bargainingagreement. These committees may befound at either the plant (worksite),area, industry, or public sector levels. Aplant or worksite committee is generallycharacterized as restricted to one ormore organizational or productive unitsoperated by a single employer. An areacommittee is generally composed ofmultiple employers of diverse industriesas well as multiple labor unionsoperating within and focusing uponcity, county, contiguous multicounty, orstatewide jurisdictions. An industrycommittee generally consists of acollection of agencies or enterprises andrelated labor union(s) producing acommon product or service in theprivate sector on a local, state, regional,or nationwide level. A public sectorcommittee consists either of governmentemployees and managers in one or moreunits of a local or state government,managers and employees of publicinstitutions of higher education, or ofemployees and mangers of publicelementary and secondary schools.Those employees must be covered by aformal collective bargaining agreementor other enforceable labor-managementagreement. In deciding whether anapplication is for an area or industrycommittee, consideration should begiven to the above definitions as well asto the focus of the committee.

In FY 1996, competition will be opento plant, area, private industry, andpublic sector committees. Public Sectorcommittees will be divided into twosub-categories for scoring purposes.Once sub-category will consist ofcommittees representing state/localunits of government and publicinstitutions of higher education. Thesecond sub-category will consist ofpublic elementary and secondaryschools.

Special consideration will be given tocommittee applications involvinginnovative or unique efforts. Allapplication budget requests shouldfocus directly on supporting thecommittee. Applicants should avoidseeking funds for activities that are

clearly available under other Federalprograms (e.g., job training, mediation ofcontract disputes, etc.).

Required Program Elements1. Problem Statement—The

application, which should havenumbered pages, must discuss in detailwhat specific problem(s) face the plant,area, government, or industry and itsworkforce that will be addressed by thecommittee. Applicants must documentthe problem(s) using as much relevantdata as possible and discuss the fullrange of impacts these problem(s) couldhave or are having on the plant,government, area, or industry. Anindustrial or economic profile of thearea and workforce might prove usefulin explaining the problem(s). Thissection basically discusses WHY theeffort is needed.

2. Results or Benefits Expected—Byusing specific goals and objectives, theapplication must discuss in detailWHAT the labor-managementcommittee as a demonstration effort willaccomplish during the life of the grant.Applications that offer to provideobjectives after a grant is awarded willreceive little or no credit in this area.While a goal of ‘‘improvingcommunication between employers andemployees’’ may suffice as one over-allgoal of a project, the objectives must,whenever possible, be expressed inspecific and measurable terms.Applicants should focus on the impactsor changes that the committee’s effortswill have. Existing committees shouldfocus on expansion efforts/resultsexpected from FMCS funding. Thegoals, objectives, and projected impactswill become the foundation for futuremonitoring and evaluation efforts.

3. Approach—This section of theapplication specifies HOW the goals andobjectives will be accomplished. At aminimum, the following elements mustbe included in all grant applications:

(a) A discussion of the strategy thecommittee will employ to accomplishits goals and objectives;

(b) A listing, by name and title, of allexisting or proposed members of thelabor-management committee. Theapplication should also offer a rationalefor the selection of the committeemembers (e.g., members represent 70%of the area or plant workforce).

(c) A discussion of the number, type,and role of all committee staff persons.Include proposed position descriptionsfor all staff that will have to be hired aswell as resumes for staff already onboard;

(d) In addressing the proposedapproach, applicants must also presenttheir justification as to why Federal


funds are needed to implement theproposed approach;

(e) A statement of how often thecommittee will meet as well as anyplans to form subordinate committeesfor particular purposes; and

(f) For applications from existingcommittees (i.e., in existence at least 12months prior to the submissiondeadline), a discussion of past effortsand accomplishments and how theywould integrate with the proposedexpanded effort.

4. Major Milestones—This sectionmust include an implementation planthat indicates what major steps,operating activities, and objectives willbe accomplished as well as a timetablefor WHEN they will be finished. Amilestone chart must be included thatindicates what specificaccomplishments (process and impact)will be completed by month over thelife of the grant using October 1, 1996,as the start date. The accomplishment ofthese tasks and objectives, as well asproblems and delays therein, will serveas the basis for quarterly progressreports to FMCS.

5. Evaluation—Applicants mustprovide for either an external evaluationor an internal assessment of the project’ssuccess in meeting its goals andobjectives.

An evaluation plan must bedeveloped which briefly discusses whatbasic questions or issues the assessmentwill examine and what baseline data thecommittee staff already has or willgather for the assessment. This sectionshould be written with the application’sown goals and objectives clearly inmind and the impacts or changes thatthe effort is expected to cause.

6. Letters of Commitment—Applications must include currentletters of commitment from all proposedor existing committee participants andchairpersons. These letters shouldindicate that the participants supportthe application and will attendscheduled committee meetings. Ablanket letter signed by a committeechairperson or other official on behalf ofall members is not acceptable. Weencourage the use of individual letterssubmitted on company or unionletterhead represented by theindividual. The letters should match thenames provided under section 3(b).

7. Other Requirements—Applicantsare also responsible for the following:

(a) The submission of data indicatingapproximately how many employeeswill be covered or represented throughthe labor-management committee;

(b) From existing committees, a copyof the existing staffing levels, a copy ofthe by-laws, a breakout of annual

operating costs and identification of allsources and levels of current financialsupport;

(c) A detailed budget narrative basedon policies and procedures contained inthe FMCS Financial and AdministrativeGrants Manual;

(d) An assurance that the labor-management committee will notinterfere with any collective bargainingagreements; and

(e) An assurance that committeemeetings will be held at least everyother month and that written minutes ofall committee meetings will be preparedand made available to FMCS.

Selection Criteria

The following criteria will be used inthe scoring and selection of applicationsfor award:

(1) The extent to which theapplication has clearly identified theproblems and justified the needs thatthe proposed project will address.

(2) The degree to which appropriateand measurable goals and objectiveshave been developed to address theproblems/needs of the area. For existingcommittees, the extent to which thecommittee will focus on expandedefforts.

(3) The feasibility of the approachproposed to attain the goals andobjectives of the project and theperceived likelihood of accomplishingthe intended project results. Thissection will also address the degree ofinnovativeness or uniqueness of theproposed effort.

(4) The appropriateness of committeemembership and the degree ofcommitment of these individuals to thegoals of the application as indicated inthe letters of support.

(5) The feasibility and thoroughnessof the implementation plan inspecifying major milestone and targetdates.

(6) The cost effectiveness and fiscalsoundness of the application’s budgetrequest, as well as the application’sfeasibility vis-a-vis its goals andapproach.

(7) The overall feasibility of theproposed project in light of all of theinformation presented for consideration;and

(8) The value to the government of theapplication in light of the overallobjectives of the Labor-ManagementCooperation Act of 1978. This includessuch factors as innovativeness, sitelocation, cost, and other qualities thatimpact upon an applicant’s value inencouraging the labor-managementcommittee concept.

C. Eligibility

Eligible grantees include state andlocal units of government, labor-management committees (or a laborunion, management association, orcompany on behalf of a committee thatwill be created through the grant), andcertain third party private non-profitentities on behalf of one or morecommittees to be created through thegrant. Federal government agencies andtheir employees are not eligible.

Third-party private, non-profitentities which can document that amajor purpose or function of theirorganization has been the improvementof labor relations are eligible to apply.However, all funding must be directedto the functioning of the labor-management committee, and allrequirements under Part B must befollowed. Applications from third-partyentities must document particularlystrong support and participation fromall labor and management parties withwhom the applicant will be working.Applications from third-parties whichdo not directly support the operation ofa new or expanded committee will notbe deemed eligible, nor willapplications signed by entities such aslaw firms or other third parties failingto meet the above criteria.

Applicants who received fundingunder this program in the past forcommittee operations are generally noteligible to apply. The only exceptionsapply to third-party grantees who seekfunds on behalf of an entirely differentcommittee.

D. Allocations

The FY 1996 appropriations for thisprogram has not yet been approved.FMCS has been given a tentativeallocation of approximately $1.25million for this program. Although weexpect this amount will not be changedsignificantly, FMCS reserves the right toamend this Solicitation should thatoccur. If that happens, the public will benotified by notice in the FederalRegister. Specific funding levels willnot be established for each type ofcommittee. Instead, the review processwill be conducted in such a manner thatat least two awards will be made in eachcategory (plant, industry, public sector,and area), providing that FMCSdetermines that at least two outstandingapplications exist in each category.After these applications are selected foraward, the remaining applications willbe considered according to meritwithout regard to category. Anadditional $250,000 has been reservedfor the listed continuation of FY94-funded grantees.


In addition to the competitive processidentified in the preceding paragraph,FMCS will set aside a sum not to exceedthirty percent of its appropriation to beawarded on a non-competitive basis.These funds will be used only tosupport industry-specific national-scopeinitiatives and/or regional industrymodels with high potential forwidespread replication.

FMCS reserves the right to retain upto an additional five percent of the FY96appropriation to contract for programsupport purposes (such as evaluation)other than administration.

E. Dollar Range and Length of Grantsand Continuation Policy

Awards to continue and expandexisting labor-management committees(i.e., in existence 12 months prior to thesubmission deadline) will be for aperiod of 12 months. If successfulprogress is made during this initialbudget period and if sufficientappropriations for expansion andcontinuation projects are available,these grants may be continued for alimited time at a 40 percent cash matchratio. Initial awards to establish newlabor-management committees (i.e., notyet established or in existence less than12 months prior to the submissiondeadline), will be for a period of 18months. If successful progress is madeduring this initial budget period and ifsufficient appropriations for expansionand continuation projects are available,these grants may be continued for alimited time at a 40 percent cash matchratio.

The dollar range of awards is asfollows:—Up to $35,000 in FMCS funds per

annum for existing inplant applicants;—Up to $50,000 over 18 months for new

in-plant committee applicants;—Up to $75,000 in FMCS funds per

annum for existing area, industry andpublic sector committees applicants;

—Up to $100,000 per 18-month periodfor new area, industry, and publicsector committee applicants.Applicants are reminded that these

figures represent maximum Federalfunds only. If total costs to accomplishthe objectives of the application exceedthe maximum allowable Federalfunding level and its required granteematch, applicants may supplementthese funds through voluntarycontributions from other sources.

F. Match Requirements and CostAllowability

Applicants for new labor-managementcommittees must provide at least 10percent of the total allowable project

costs. Applicants for existingcommittees must provide at least 25percent of the total allowable projectcosts. All matching funds may comefrom state or local government sourcesor private sector contributions, but maygenerally not include other Federalfunds. Funds generated by grant-supported efforts are considered‘‘project income,’’ and may not be usedfor matching purposes.

It will be the policy of this programto reject all requests for indirect oroverhead costs as well as ‘‘in-kind’’match contributions. In addition, grantfunds must not be used to supplantprivate or local/state government fundscurrently spent for these purposes.Funding requests from existingcommittees should focus entirely on thecosts associated with the expansionefforts. Also, under no circumstancesmay business or labor officialsparticipating on a labor-managementcommittee be compensated out of grantfunds for time spent at committeemeetings or time spent in trainingsessions. Applicants generally will notbe allowed to claim all or a portion ofexisting staff time as an expense ormatch contribution.

For a more complete discussion ofcost allowability, applicants areencouraged to consult the FY96 FMCSFinancial and Administrative GrantsManual which will be included in theapplication kit.

G. Application Submission and ReviewProcess

Applications should be signed byboth a labor and managementrepresentative and be postmarked nolater than May 4, 1996. No applicationsor supplementary materials can beaccepted after the deadline. It is theresponsibility of the applicant to ensurethat the application is correctlypostmarked by the U.S. Postal Service orother carrier. An original applicationcontaining numbered pages, plus threecopies, should be addressed to theFederal Mediation and ConciliationService, Labor-Management ProgramServices, 2100 K Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20427. FMCS will notconsider videotaped submissions orvideo attachments to submissions.

After the deadline has passed, alleligible applications will be reviewedand scored initially by one or moreCustomer Review Boards. The Board(s)will recommend selected applicationsfor further funding consideration. TheDirector, Labor-Management ProgramServices, will finalize the scoring andselection process. The individual listedas contact person in Item 6 on theapplication form will generally be the

only person with whom FMCS willcommunicate during the applicationreview process.

All FY96 grant applicants will benotified of results and all grant awardswill be made before September 30, 1996.Applications submitted after the May 4deadline date or that fail to adhere toeligibility or other major requirementswill be administratively rejected by theDirector, Labor-Management ProgramServices.

H. Contact

Individuals wishing to apply forfunding under this program shouldcontact the Federal Mediation andConciliation Service as soon as possibleto obtain an application kit. These kitsand additional information orclarification can be obtained free ofcharge by contacting Karen Pierce orLinda Stubbs, Federal Mediation andConciliation Service, Labor-Management Program Services, 2100 KStreet NW., Washington, DC 20427; orby calling 202–606–8181.John Calhoun Wells,Director, Federal Mediation and ConciliationService.[FR Doc. 96–2736 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6732–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 951 0091]

Illinois Tool Works Inc.; ProposedConsent Agreement With Analysis ToAid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: This Consent Agreement,accepted subject to final Commissionapproval, settles alleged violations offederal law prohibiting unfair ordeceptive acts and practices and unfairmethods of competition arising from theacquisition of all of the voting securitiesof Hobart Brothers Company by IllinoisTool Works Inc. The proposedcomplaint alleges that the merger, ifconsummated, would violate Section 7of the Clayton Act, as amended, andSection 5 of the FTC Act, as amended,in the markets for industrial powersources and industrial engine drives—which, rated at 250 amperes and above,generate the power to operate arcwelding systems—in the United States.Under the terms of the proposed ordercontained in the Consent Agreement,ITW will be required to divest all of theassets and businesses relating to theindustrial power sources and industrialengine drives of Hobart Brothers


Company (‘‘Hobart’’) to PrestoliteElectric Incorporated (‘‘Prestolite’’),pursuant to a January 17, 1996, AssetPurchase Agreement, as modified by aJanuary 24, 1996, Undertaking (‘‘AssetPurchase Agreement’’) or, in thealternative, to an acquirer that meets theCommission’s approval.DATES: Comments must be received onor before April 8, 1996.ADDRESSES: Comments should bedirected to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,Room 159, 6th Street and PennsylvaniaAvenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20580.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AnnMalester, FTC/S–2035, Washington,D.C. 20580 (202) 326–2682; or ChristinaPerez, FTC/S–2214, Washington, D.C.20580 (202) 326–2682.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuantto Section 6(f) of the Federal TradeCommission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.46, and Section 2.34 of theCommission’s Rules of Practice (16 CFR2.34), notice is hereby given that thefollowing consent agreement containinga consent order to cease and desist,having been filed with and accepted,subject to final approval, by theCommission, has been placed on thepublic record for a period of sixty (60)days. Public comment is invited. Suchcomments or views will be consideredby the Commission and will be availablefor inspection and copying at itsprincipal office in accordance withSection 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’sRules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Agreement Containing Consent Order

The Federal Trade Commission(‘‘Commission’’), having initiated aninvestigation of the proposedacquisition by Illinois Tool Works Inc.(‘‘ITW’’) of Hobart Brothers Company(‘‘Hobart’’), and it now appearing thatITW, hereinafter sometimes referred toas ‘‘Proposed Respondent,’’ is willing toenter into an agreement containing anorder to divest assets, and providing forcertain other relief:

It is hereby agreed by and betweenProposed Respondent ITW, by its dulyauthorized officers and attorneys, andcounsel for the Commission that:

1. Proposed Respondent ITW is acorporation organized, existing, anddoing business under and by virtue ofthe laws of the state of Delaware withits office and principal place of businesslocated at 3600 West Lake Avenue,Glenview, Illinois 60025–5811.

2. Proposed Respondent admits all thejurisdictional facts set forth in the draftof complaint here attached.

3. Proposed Respondent waives:a. any further procedural steps;

b. the requirement that theCommission’s decision contain astatement of findings of fact andconclusions of law;

c. all rights to seek judicial review orotherwise to challenge or contest thevalidity of the order entered pursuant tothis agreement; and

d. any claim under the Equal Accessto Justice Act.

4. This agreement shall not becomepart of the public record of theproceeding unless and until it isaccepted by the Commission. If thisagreement is accepted by theCommission it, together with the draft ofcomplaint contemplated thereby, will beplaced on the public record for a periodof sixty (60) days and information inrespect thereto publicly released. TheCommission thereafter may eitherwithdraw its acceptance of thisagreement and so notify the ProposedRespondent, in which event it will takesuch action as it may considerappropriate, or issue and serve itscomplaint (in such form as thecircumstances may require) anddecision, in disposition of theproceeding.

5. This agreement is for settlementpurposes only and does not constitutean admission by Proposed Respondentthat the law has been violated as allegedin the draft of complaint here attached,or that the facts as alleged in the draftcomplaint, other than jurisdictionalfacts, are true.

6. This agreement contemplates that,if it is accepted by the Commission, andif such acceptance is not subsequentlywithdrawn by the Commission pursuantto the provisions of Section 2.34 of theCommission’s Rules, the Commissionmay, without further notice to ProposedRespondent, (1) issue its complaintcorresponding in form and substancewith the draft of complaint hereattached and its decision containing thefollowing order to divest in dispositionof the proceeding, and (2) makeinformation public with respect thereto.When so entered, the order shall havethe same force and effect and may bealtered, modified, or set aside in thesame manner and within the same timeprovided by statute for other orders. Theorder shall become final upon service.Delivery by the U.S. Postal Service ofthe complaint and decision containingthe agreed-to order to ProposedRespondent’s address as stated in theagreement shall constitute service.Proposed Respondent waives any rightit may have to any other manner ofservice. The complaint may be used inconstruing the terms of the order, andno agreement, understanding,representation, or interpretation not

contained in the order or the agreementmay be used to vary or contradict theterms of the order.

7. Proposed Respondent has read theproposed complaint and ordercontemplated hereby. ProposedRespondent understands that once theorder has been issued, it will berequired to file one or more compliancereports showing that it has fullycomplied with the order. ProposedRespondent further understands it maybe liable for civil penalties in theamount provided by law for eachviolation of the order after it becomesfinal.

Order

I

It is ordered that, as used in thisorder, the following definitions shallapply:

A. ‘‘Respondent’’ or ‘‘ITW’’ meansIllinois Tool Works Inc., its directors,officers, employees, agents andrepresentatives, predecessors,successors and assigns; its subsidiaries,divisions, groups and affiliatescontrolled by Illinois Tool Works Inc.,and the respective directors, officers,employees, agents, representatives,successors, and assigns of each.

B. ‘‘Hobart’’ means Hobart BrothersCompany, an Ohio corporation, with itsprincipal office and place of businesslocated at 600 West Main Street, Troy,Ohio 45373, its directors, officers,employees, agents and representatives,predecessors, successors and assigns; itssubsidiaries, divisions, groups andaffiliates controlled by Hobart BrothersCompany, and the respective directors,officers, employees, agents,representatives, successors, and assignsof each.

C. ‘‘Commission’’ means the FederalTrade Commission.

D. ‘‘Acquisition’’ means theacquisition by respondent of all of theissued and outstanding Hobart capitalstock, by means of a statutory mergerbetween Hobart and ITW AcquisitionCorp., a Delaware corporation which isa wholly-owned subsidiary of ITW.

E. ‘‘Industrial Power Sources’’ meansstatic arc welding power sources ratedat 250 amperes or higher, including, butnot limited to, any such power sourcesusing inverter technology.

F. ‘‘Industrial Engine Drives’’ meansrotating arc welding power sourcesrated at 250 amperes or higher.

G. ‘‘Battery Chargers’’ means devicesused to charge industrial batteries.

H. ‘‘Aircraft Ground Power Units’’means power conversion devices thatprovide power to aircraft that are on theground.


I. ‘‘Assets and Businesses’’ means allassets, businesses and goodwill, tangibleand intangible, including, withoutlimitation, the following:

1. all machinery, fixtures, equipment,vehicles, transportation facilities,furniture, tools and other tangiblepersonal property;

2. all customer lists, vendor lists,catalogs, sales promotion literature,advertising materials, researchmaterials, technical information,management information systems,software, software licenses, inventions,copyrights, trademarks , trade names(excluding the Hobart trade name), tradesecrets, intellectual property, patents,technology, know-how, specifications,designs, drawings, processes and qualitycontrol data;

3. the exclusive right to use theHobart trade name in connection withthe research, development, manufactureand sale of Industrial Power Sourcesand Industrial Engine Drives.

4. inventory;5. rights, titles and interests in and to

the contracts entered into in theordinary course of business withcustomers (together with associated bidand performance bonds), suppliers,sales representatives, distributors,agents, personal property lessors,personal property lessees, licensors,licensees, consignors and consignees;

6. all rights under warranties andguarantees, express or implied;

7. all books, records, and files; and8. all items of prepaid expense.J. ‘‘Hobart Industrial Welding

Equipment Business’’ means all of theAssets and Businesses used in theresearch, development, manufactureand sale by Hobart of:

1. Industrial Power Sources;2. Industrial Engine Drives;3. Battery Chargers; and4. Aircraft Ground Power Units.K. ‘‘Hobart Power Conversion

Operations’’ means all of the Assets andBusinesses used in the research,development, manufacture and sale byHobart of:

1. Static arc welding power sources;2. Rotating arc welding power

sources;3. Battery Chargers; and4. Aircraft Ground Power Units.L. ‘‘Prestolite’’ means Prestolite

Electric Incorporated, a Delawarecorporation, with its principal officeand place of business located at 2100Commonwealth Blvd., Ann Arbor,Michigan 48105.

M. ‘‘Marketability, Viability andCompetitiveness’’ of the HobartIndustrial Welding Equipment assetsmeans that the assets when used inconjunction with the assets of the

acquirer are capable of operating abusiness which is substantially similarto the Hobart Industrial WeldingEquipment Business at the time of theacquisition, with substantially similarsales levels and product lines.

IIIt is further ordered that:A. ITW shall divest, absolutely and in

good faith, the Hobart IndustrialWelding Equipment Business. TheHobart Industrial Welding EquipmentBusiness shall be divested either:

1. Within one (1) month of the datethis order becomes final, to Prestolite,pursuant to the January 17, 1996, AssetPurchase Agreement between Hobartand Prestolite as modified by theJanuary 24, 1996, Undertaking,embodied in Confidential Appendix I[not attached]. If divested to Prestolite,the Hobart Industrial WeldingEquipment Business shall excludeAircraft Ground Power Units; or

2. Within twelve (12) months of thedate this order becomes final, to anacquirer that receives the prior approvalof the Commission and only in amanner that receives the prior approvalof the Commission. In the event that theacquirer does not choose to acquire theBattery Charger or Ground Power Unitassets and businesses, because theacquirer does not need such assets inorder to engage in the Industrial PowerSource and Industrial Engine DriveBusinesses, respondent shall not berequired to divest such assets.

B. The purpose of the divestiture is toensure the continuation of the HobartIndustrial Welding Equipment Businessas an ongoing, viable operation, engagedin the research, development,manufacture and sale of IndustrialPower Sources and Industrial EngineDrives, and to remedy the lessening ofcompetition resulting from the proposedacquisition as alleged in theCommission’s complaint.

C. Until the Hobart Industrial WeldingEquipment Business has been divested,ITW shall:

1. Maintain the Marketability,Viability, and Competitiveness of theHobart Industrial Welding EquipmentBusiness, and shall not cause or permitthe destruction, removal, wasting,deterioration, or impairment of anyassets or business it may have to divest,except in the ordinary course ofbusiness and except for ordinary wearand tear, and it shall not sell, transfer,encumber or otherwise impair theMarketability, Viability orCompetitiveness of the Hobart IndustrialWelding Equipment Business; and

2. Expend funds for research anddevelopment, quality control,

manufacturing and marketing of each ofthe Hobart Industrial WeldingEquipment Business products at a levelnot lower than that budgeted for the1995 fiscal year, and shall increase suchspending as is deemed reasonablynecessary in light of competitiveconditions.

D. Upon reasonable notice from theacquirer to respondent, respondent shallprovide, at no cost, such assistance tothe acquirer as is reasonably necessaryto enable the acquirer to design andmanufacture Industrial Power Sourcesand Industrial Engine Drives insubstantially the same manner andquality employed or achieved by Hobartprior to the Acquisition. Such assistanceshall include reasonable consultationwith knowledgeable employees ofrespondent and training at the acquirer’sfacility for a period of time sufficient tosatisfy the acquirer’s management thatits personnel are appropriately trainedin the design and manufacture ofIndustrial Power Sources and IndustrialEngine Drives. Respondent shall conveyall know-how necessary to design andmanufacture Industrial Power Sourcesand Industrial Engine Drives insubstantially the same manner andquality employed or achieved by Hobartprior to the Acquisition.

However, respondent shall not berequired to continue providing suchassistance for more than nine (9)months.

IIIIt is further ordered that:A. If ITW has not divested, absolutely

and in good faith and with theCommission’s prior approval, theHobart Industrial Welding EquipmentBusiness within twelve (12) months ofthe date this order becomes final, theCommission may appoint a trustee todivest the Hobart Industrial WeldingEquipment Business. In the event thatthe Commission or the Attorney Generalbrings an action pursuant to § 5(l) of theFederal Trade Commission Act, 15U.S.C. § 45(l), or any other statuteenforced by the Commission, ITW shallconsent to the appointment of a trusteein such action. Neither the appointmentof a trustee nor a decision not to appointa trustee under this paragraph III. shallpreclude the Commission or theAttorney General from seeking civilpenalties or any other relief available toit, including a court-appointed trustee,pursuant to § 5(l) of the Federal TradeCommission Act, or any other statuteenforced by the Commission, for anyfailure by ITW to comply with thisorder.

B. If a trustee is appointed by theCommission or a court pursuant to


paragraph III.A. of this order, ITW shallconsent to the following terms andconditions regarding the trustee’spowers, duties, authority, andresponsibilities:

1. The Commission shall select thetrustee, subject to the consent of ITW,which consent shall not beunreasonably withheld. The trusteeshall be a person with experience andexpertise in mergers and divestitures. IfITW has not opposed, in writing,including the reasons for opposing, theselection of any proposed trustee withinten (10) days after notice by the staff ofthe Commission to ITW of the identityof any proposed trustee, ITW shall bedeemed to have consented to theselection of the proposed trustee.

2. Subject to the prior approval of theCommission, the trustee shall have theexclusive power and authority to divestthe Hobart Industrial WeldingEquipment Business.

3. Within ten (10) days afterappointment of the trustee, ITW shallexecute a trust agreement that, subject tothe prior approval of the Commissionand, in the case of a court-appointedtrustee, of the court, transfers to thetrustee all rights and powers necessaryto permit the trustee to effect thedivestiture required by this order.

4. The trustee shall have twelve (12)months from the date the Commissionapproves the trust agreement describedin Paragraph III.B.3. to accomplish thedivestiture, which shall be subject to theprior approval of the Commission. If,however, at the end of the twelve monthperiod, the trustee has submitted a planof divestiture or believes that divestiturecan be achieved within a reasonabletime, the divestiture period may beextended by the Commission, or, in thecase of a court-appointed trustee, by thecourt; provided, however, theCommission may extend this periodonly two (2) times.

5. The trustee shall have full andcomplete access to the personnel, books,records and facilities related to theHobart Industrial Welding EquipmentBusiness, or to any other relevantinformation, as the trustee may request.ITW shall develop such financial orother information as the trustee mayrequest and shall cooperate with thetrustee. ITW shall take no action tointerfere with or impede the trustee’saccomplishment of the divestiture. Anydelays in divestiture caused by ITWshall extend the time for divestitureunder this Paragraph in an amountequal to the delay, as determined by theCommission or, for a court-appointedtrustee, by the court.

6. The trustee shall use his or her bestefforts to negotiate the most favorable

price and terms available in eachcontract that is submitted to theCommission, subject to ITW’s absoluteand unconditional obligation to divestat no minimum price. The divestitureshall be made in the manner and to theacquirer as set out in Paragraph II. ofthis order; provided, however, if thetrustee receives bona fide offers frommore than one acquiring entity, and ifthe Commission determines to approvemore than one such acquiring entity, thetrustee shall divest to the acquiringentity selected by ITW from amongthose approved by the Commission.

7. The trustee shall serve, withoutbond or other security, at the cost andexpense of ITW, on such reasonable andcustomary terms and conditions as theCommission or a court may set. Thetrustee shall have the authority toemploy, at the cost and expense of ITW,such consultants, accountants,attorneys, investment bankers, businessbrokers, appraisers, and otherrepresentatives and assistants as arenecessary to carry out the trustee’sduties and responsibilities. The trusteeshall account for all monies derivedfrom the divestiture and all expensesincurred. After approval by theCommission and, in the case of a court-appointed trustee, by the court, of theaccount of the trustee, including fees forhis or her services, all remaining moniesshall be paid at the direction of ITW,and the trustee’s power shall beterminated. The trustee’s compensationshall be based at least in significant parton a commission arrangementcontingent on the trustee’s divesting theHobart Industrial Welding EquipmentBusiness.

8. ITW shall indemnify the trusteeand hold the trustee harmless againstany losses, claims, damages, liabilities,or expenses arising out of, or inconnection with, the performance of thetrustee’s duties, including all reasonablefees of counsel and other expensesincurred in connection with thepreparation for, or defense of any claim,whether or not resulting in any liability,except to the extent that such liabilities,losses, damages, claims, or expensesresult from misfeasance, grossnegligence, willful or wanton acts, orbad faith by the trustee.

9. If the trustee ceases to act or failsto act diligently, a substitute trusteeshall be appointed in the same manneras provided in Paragraph III.A. of thisorder.

10. The Commission or, in the case ofa court-appointed trustee, the court,may on its own initiative or at therequest of the trustee issue suchadditional orders or directions as maybe necessary or appropriate to

accomplish the divestiture required bythis order.

11. The trustee may also divest suchadditional ancillary assets andbusinesses of the Hobart PowerConversion Operations and effect sucharrangements as are necessary to assurethe Marketability, Viability andCompetitiveness of the Hobart IndustrialWelding Equipment Business.

12. The trustee shall have noobligation or authority to operate ormaintain the Hobart Industrial WeldingEquipment Business.

13. The trustee shall report in writingto ITW and the Commission every sixty(60) days concerning the trustee’s effortsto accomplish divestiture.

IVIt is further ordered that consistent

with ITW’s obligation to maintain theMarketability, Viability andCompetitiveness of the Hobart IndustrialWelding Equipment Business, ITW mayengage in any business other than theHobart Industrial Welding EquipmentBusiness, including without limitation,the welding equipment business it iscurrently operating through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Miller Electric Mfg.Co.

VIt is further ordered that within sixty

(60) days after the date this orderbecomes final and every sixty (60) daysthereafter until ITW has fully compliedwith Paragraphs II. and III. of this order,ITW shall submit to the Commission averified written report setting forth indetail the manner and form in which itintends to comply, is complying, andhas complied with Paragraphs II. and III.of this order. ITW shall include in itscompliance reports, among other thingsthat are required from time to time, afull description of the efforts beingmade to comply with Paragraphs II. andIII. including a description of allsubstantive contacts or negotiations forthe divestiture required by this order,including the identity of all partiescontacted. ITW shall include in itscompliance reports copies of all writtencommunications to and from suchparties, all internal memoranda, and allreports and recommendationsconcerning the divestiture.

VIIt is further ordered that ITW shall

notify the Commission at least thirty(30) days prior to any proposed changein the corporate respondent such asdissolution, assignment, sale resultingin the emergence of a successorcorporation, or the creation ordissolution of subsidiaries or any other


change in the corporation that mayaffect compliance obligations arising outof the order.

VIIIt is further ordered that, for the

purpose of determining or securingcompliance with this order, ITW shallpermit any duly authorizedrepresentatives of the Commission:

A. Access, during office hours and inthe presence of counsel, to inspect andcopy all books, ledgers, accounts,correspondence, memoranda and otherrecords and documents in thepossession or under the control of ITW,relating to any matters contained in thisorder; and

B. Upon five (5) days notice to ITW,and without restraint or interferencefrom ITW, to interview officers,directors, or employees of ITW, whomay have counsel present, regardingany such matters.

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order ToAid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject tofinal approval, an agreement containinga proposed Consent Order from IllinoisTool Works Inc. (‘‘ITW’’). The proposedConsent Order requires ITW to divest allof the assets and businesses relating tothe industrial power sources andindustrial engine drives of HobartBrothers Company (‘‘Hobart’’) toPrestolite Electric Incorporated(‘‘Prestolite’’), pursuant to a January 17,1996, Asset Purchase Agreement, asmodified by a January 24, 1996,Undertaking (‘‘Asset PurchaseAgreement’’) or, in the alternative, to anacquirer that meets the Commission’sapproval.

The proposed Consent Order has beenplaced on the public record for sixty(60) days for reception of comments byinterested persons. Comments receivedduring this period will become part ofthe public record. After sixty (60) days,the Commission will again review theagreement and the comments received,and will decide whether it shouldwithdraw from the agreement or makefinal the agreement’s proposed Order.

Pursuant to a letter of intent datedMay 2, 1995, ITW proposed to acquireall of the voting securities of Hobart forapproximately $225 million in ITWcommon stock. The proposed complaintalleges that the merger, if consummated,would violate Section 7 of the ClaytonAct, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, andSection 5 of the Federal TradeCommission Act as amended, 15 U.S.C.§ 45, in the markets for industrial powersources and industrial engine drives inthe United States.

Industrial power sources arestationary pieces of welding equipment,rated at 250 amperes and above, thatgenerate the power needed to operate anarc welding system by connecting to anexisting source of electricity, such as awall outlet, and transforming thatelectricity into the precise current andvoltage needed for welding. Industrialengine drives are portable powersources, rated at 250 amperes andabove, that use gas or diesel fuel,instead of electricity, as a source ofpower. Industrial power sources andindustrial engine drives are criticalcomponents of arc welding systemswhich are used in a broad range ofindustries, ranging from industrialfabrication to shipbuilding. There are noviable substitutes for either industrialpower sources or industrial enginedrives. Alternative welding processesand methods of joining metal are onlyused for specialized applications andcould not be used in a cost effectivemanner for applications whereindustrial power sources or industrialengine drives are used.

ITW’s acquisition of Hobart wouldreduce the number of significantindustrial power source and industrialengine drive competitors in the UnitedStates from three to two. In theindustrial power source market, thepost-acquisition Herfindahl-HirschmanIndex (‘‘HHI’’) would increase by 858points to 4856. In the industrial enginedrive market, the post-acquisition HHIwould increase by 298 points to 4538.

New entry into the United Statesindustrial power source and industrialengine drive markets is extremely timeconsuming, costly and difficult. Inaddition to designing and developing aline of products, a new entrant mustestablish the brand reputation andcustomer acceptance necessary toconvince customers to purchase from acompany other than the well-established competitors. It takes well inexcess of two years to accomplish thesesteps and achieve a significant marketimpact.

Although foreign industrial powersource and industrial engine drivemanufacturers offer some products inthe United States, these foreignmanufacturers lack the necessaryproduct designs and brand reputationand customer acceptance necessary toeffectively compete in this country. Asa result, these companies have hadvirtually no competitive impact on theUnited States markets.

ITW’s acquisition of Hobart posesserious antitrust concerns. In the UnitedStates markets for industrial powersources and industrial engine drives, theacquisition would eliminate direct

actual competition between ITW andHobart, enhance the likelihood ofcoordinated interaction, increase thelikelihood that quality andtechnological innovation would bereduced, and thereby increase thelikelihood that consumers would beforced to pay higher prices.

Under the proposed Consent Order,ITW is required to divest the Hobartindustrial power source and industrialengine drive assets and businesses toPrestolite within one month of the datethe order becomes final pursuant to theAsset Purchase Agreement. Under theterms of the Asset Purchase Agreement,ITW is required to divest all of theassets and businesses used in theresearch, development, manufactureand sale by Hobart of industrial powersources and industrial engine drives,including an exclusive license of theHobart trade name for five years. ITWhas agreed not to market industrialpower sources and industrial enginedrives under the Hobart name for sevenyears and will provide Prestolite withthe option to also acquire a non-exclusive license to use the Hobartname for retail, as opposed to industrial,power sources or engine drives, whichare rated below 250 amperes. Inaddition, ITW will be required toprovide personnel, assistance andtraining in order to transfer industrialpower source and industrial enginedrive technology and know-how toPrestolite.

If the transaction with Prestolite is notconsummated within one month of thedate the order becomes final, ITW isrequired to divest the Hobart industrialpower source and industrial enginedrive assets to an acquirer that receivesthe prior approval of the Commissionand in a manner approved by theCommission within twelve months ofthe date the order becomes final. Theacquirer, at its option, may also acquirethe battery charger and aircraft groundpower unit assets and businesses ofHobart, if such assets are necessary toengage in the industrial power sourceand industrial engine drive businesses.If ITW fails to divest the assets withintwelve months, a trustee may beappointed to divest the assets, as well asadditional ancillary assets included inHobart’s Power Conversion Business.The purpose of the divestiture is toensure the continuation of the HobartIndustrial Welding Equipment Businessas an ongoing, viable operation, engagedin the research, development,manufacture and sale of industrialpower sources and industrial enginedrives, and to remedy the lessening ofcompetition resulting from theacquisition.


The Order also requires ITW toprovide the Commission a report ofcompliance with the divestitureprovisions of the Order within sixty (60)days following the date the Orderbecomes final, and every sixty (60) daysthereafter until ITW has completed therequired divestiture.

The purpose of this analysis is tofacilitate the public comment on theproposed Order, and it is not intendedto constitute an official interpretation ofthe agreement and proposed Order or tomodify in any way their terms.

By direction of the Commission.Donald S. Clark,Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2705 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6750–01–P



[Docket No. 96F–0031]

Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.; Filing ofFood Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcingthat Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., has fileda petition proposing that the foodadditive regulations be amended toprovide for the safe use of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one as a biocide inrubber latex for use in the manufactureof rubber articles intended for repeateduse in contact with food.DATES: Written comments on thepetitioner’s environmental assessmentby March 11, 1996.ADDRESSES: Submit written commentsto the Dockets Management Branch(HFA–305), Food and DrugAdministration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,rm. 1–23, Rockville, MD 20857.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VirD. Anand, Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition (HFS–216), Food andDrug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,Washington, DC 20204, 202–418–3081.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))),notice is given that a food additivepetition (FAP 3B4389) has been filed byReichhold Chemicals, Inc., P.O. Box13582, Research Triangle Park, NC27709–3582. The petition proposes toamend the food additive regulations in§ 177.2600 Rubber articles intended for

repeated use (21 CFR 177.2600) toprovide for the safe use of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one as a biocide inrubber latex for use in the manufactureof rubber articles intended for repeateduse in contact with food.

The potential environmental impactof this action is being reviewed. Toencourage public participationconsistent with regulations promulgatedunder the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), theagency is placing the environmentalassessment submitted with the petitionthat is the subject of this notice ondisplay at the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) for publicreview and comment. Interested personsmay, on or before March 11, 1996,submit to the Dockets ManagementBranch (address above) writtencomments. Two copies of any commentsare to be submitted, except thatindividuals may submit one copy.Comments are to be identified with thedocket number found in brackets in theheading of this document. Receivedcomments may be seen in the officeabove between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday. FDA will alsoplace on public display anyamendments to, or comments on, thepetitioner’s environmental assessmentwithout further announcement in theFederal Register. If, based on its review,the agency finds that an environmentalimpact statement is not required andthis petition results in a regulation, thenotice of availability of the agency’sfinding of no significant impact and theevidence supporting that finding will bepublished with the regulation in theFederal Register in accordance with 21CFR 25.40(c).

Dated: January 22, 1996.Alan M. Rulis,Director, Office of Premarket Approval,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.[FR Doc. 96–2667 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

Advisory Committees; Notice ofMeetings

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announcesforthcoming meetings of public advisorycommittees of the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA). This notice alsosummarizes the procedures for themeetings and methods by whichinterested persons may participate inopen public hearings before FDA’sadvisory committees.

FDA has established an AdvisoryCommittee Information Hotline (thehotline) using a voice-mail telephonesystem. The hotline provides the publicwith access to the most currentinformation on FDA advisory committeemeetings. The advisory committeehotline, which will disseminate currentinformation and information updates,can be accessed by dialing 1–800–741–8138 or 301–443–0572. Each advisorycommittee is assigned a 5-digit number.This 5-digit number will appear in eachindividual notice of meeting. Thehotline will enable the public to obtaininformation about a particular advisorycommittee by using the committee’s 5-digit number. Information in the hotlineis preliminary and may change before ameeting is actually held. The hotlinewill be updated when such changes aremade.MEETINGS: The following advisorycommittee meetings are announced:

Obstetrics and Gynecology DevicesPanel of the Medical Devices AdvisoryCommittee

Date, time, and place. February 26,1996, 8:30 a.m., Corporate Bldg., 9200Corporate Blvd., rm. 020B, Rockville,MD. A limited number of overnightaccommodations have been reserved atthe Gaithersburg MarriottWashingtonian Center. Attendeesrequiring overnight accommodationsmay contact the hotel at 301–590–0044and reference FDA Panel meeting block.Reservations will be confirmed at thegroup rate based on availability.Attendees with a disability requiringspecial accommodations should contactSociometrics, Inc., 301–608–2151. Theavailability of appropriateaccommodations cannot be assuredunless prior written notification isreceived.

Type of meeting and contact person.Open public hearing, 8:30 a.m. to 9:30a.m., unless public participation doesnot last that long; open committeediscussion, 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; AlfredW. Montgomery, Center for Devices andRadiological Health (HFZ–470), Foodand Drug Administration, 9200Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,301–594–1180, or FDA AdvisoryCommittee Information Hotline, 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in theWashington, DC area), Obstetrics andGynecology Devices Panel, code 12524.

General function of the committee.The committee reviews and evaluatesdata on the safety and effectiveness ofmarketed and investigational devicesand makes recommendations for theirregulation.


Agenda—Open public hearing.Interested persons may present data,information, or views, orally or inwriting, on issues pending before thecommittee. Those desiring to makeformal presentations should notify thecontact person before February 10, 1996,and submit a brief statement of thegeneral nature of the evidence orarguments they wish to present, thenames and addresses of proposedparticipants, and an indication of theapproximate time required to make theircomments.

Open committee discussion. Thecommittee will discuss general issuesrelating to a premarket approvalapplication for a tubal occlusion devicefor female sterilization. The committeewill also be presented with data fromthe Centers for Disease Control on theU.S. Collaborative Review ofSterilization, ‘‘CREST’’ study.

Food Advisory Committee

Date, time, and place. February 28and 29, 1996, 8 a.m., Holiday Inn—Alexandria (formerly the Old ColonyInn), Commonwealth Ballrooms C andD, 625 First St., Alexandria, VA.

Type of meeting and contact person.Open committee discussion, February28, 1996, 8 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.; openpublic hearing, 3:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.,unless public participation does not lastthat long; open committee discussion,February 29, 1996, 8 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.;open public hearing, 1:15 p.m. to 1:45p.m., unless public participation doesnot last that long; open committeediscussion, 1:45 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Lynn A.Larsen, Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition (HFS–5), Food andDrug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,Washington, DC 20204, 202–205–4727,or Catherine M. DeRoever, AdvisoryCommittee Staff (HFS–22), 202–205–4251, FAX 202–205–4970, or FDAAdvisory Committee InformationHotline, 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the Washington, DC area), FoodAdvisory Committee, code 10564.

General function of the committee.The committee provides advice onemerging food safety, food science, andnutrition issues that FDA considers ofprimary importance in the next decade.

Agenda—Open public hearing.Interested persons may present data,information, or views, orally or inwriting, on issues pending before thecommittee. Those desiring to makeformal presentations should notify thecontact person by close of businessFebruary 21, 1996, and submit a briefstatement of the general nature of theevidence or arguments they wish topresent, the names and addresses of

proposed participants, and anindication of the approximate timerequired to make their comments.Comments may be limited to 5 minutes.

Open committee discussion. Thecommittee will discuss the agency’sresponses to public comments on its1992 policy for labeling, notification,testing, and allergenicity of foodsderived from new plant varieties. Theprimary focus of the meeting will be adiscussion of the status of labelingpolicies, both domestic andinternational, for foods derived usingbiotechnology. The committee will alsodiscuss the actions andrecommendations of its ephedraworking group, which met on October11 and 12, 1995. The recommendationsof the working group, together with anyamendatory comments from thecommittee, will be formally referred toFDA. If time permits, the committee willdiscuss FDA’s concern about adversehealth effects resulting fromconsumption of a fish known as escolar(also called oil fish, castor oil fish, orpurgative fish), which is found intropical or subtropical seas.

Under 21 CFR 14.20 and 14.35,interested persons may submit writteninformation or views on the matter(s)before the committee. Voluminous dataare to be accompanied by a summary.Submissions must be made to theExecutive Secretary and not directly toany committee members. Substantivesubmissions received at least 3 weeksprior to a meeting may be included inmembers’ briefing materials;submissions received later will bedistributed at the committee meeting.All submissions that includecopyrighted materials must beaccompanied by documentedpermission for duplication anddistribution at no copyright expense toFDA.

At least 50 copies of each submissionmust be provided; sufficient additionalcopies may be requested by the agencyfor distribution to the public at ameeting. Fewer copies of voluminoussubmissions will be required; onlysummaries of such submissions will beprovided to committee members, withcomplete copies of submissions beingmade available for circulation amongcommittee members and for viewing bythe public at a meeting.

More detailed information regardingthe meeting agenda that may becomeavailable prior to the meeting will beprovided to the public via the 800number given above.

FDA public advisory committeemeetings may have as many as fourseparable portions: (1) An open publichearing, (2) an open committee

discussion, (3) a closed presentation ofdata, and (4) a closed committeedeliberation. Every advisory committeemeeting shall have an open publichearing portion. Whether or not it alsoincludes any of the other three portionswill depend upon the specific meetinginvolved. There are no closed portionsfor the meetings announced in thisnotice. The dates and times reserved forthe open portions of each committeemeeting are listed above.

The open public hearing portion ofeach meeting shall be at least 1 hourlong unless public participation doesnot last that long. It is emphasized,however, that the 1 hour time limit foran open public hearing represents aminimum rather than a maximum timefor public participation, and an openpublic hearing may last for whateverlonger period the committeechairperson determines will facilitatethe committee’s work.

Public hearings are subject to FDA’sguideline (subpart C of 21 CFR part 10)concerning the policy and proceduresfor electronic media coverage of FDA’spublic administrative proceedings,including hearings before publicadvisory committees under 21 CFR part14. Under 21 CFR 10.205,representatives of the electronic mediamay be permitted, subject to certainlimitations, to videotape, film, orotherwise record FDA’s publicadministrative proceedings, includingpresentations by participants.

Meetings of advisory committees shallbe conducted, insofar as is practical, inaccordance with the agenda publishedin this Federal Register notice. Changesin the agenda will be announced at thebeginning of the open portion of ameeting.

Any interested person who wishes tobe assured of the right to make an oralpresentation at the open public hearingportion of a meeting shall inform thecontact person listed above, either orallyor in writing, prior to the meeting. Anyperson attending the hearing who doesnot in advance of the meeting request anopportunity to speak will be allowed tomake an oral presentation at thehearing’s conclusion, if time permits, atthe chairperson’s discretion.

The agenda, the questions to beaddressed by the committee, and acurrent list of committee members willbe available at the meeting location onthe day of the meeting.

Transcripts of the open portion of themeeting may be requested in writingfrom the Freedom of Information Office(HFI–35), Food and DrugAdministration, rm. 12A–16, 5600Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,approximately 15 working days after the


meeting, at a cost of 10 cents per page.The transcript may be viewed at theDockets Management Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration,rm. 1–23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15working days after the meeting, betweenthe hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday. Summary minutes ofthe open portion of the meeting may berequested in writing from the Freedomof Information Office (address above)beginning approximately 90 days afterthe meeting.

This notice is issued under section10(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2), andFDA’s regulations (21 CFR part 14) onadvisory committees.

Dated: February 2, 1996.Michael A. Friedman,Deputy Commissioner for Operations.[FR Doc. 96–2664 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces aforthcoming meeting of a publicadvisory committee of the Food andDrug Administration (FDA). This noticealso summarizes the procedures for themeeting and methods by whichinterested persons may participate inopen public hearings before FDA’sadvisory committees.

FDA has established an AdvisoryCommittee Information Hotline (thehotline) using a voice-mail telephonesystem. The hotline provides the publicwith access to the most currentinformation on FDA advisory committeemeetings. The advisory committeehotline, which will disseminate currentinformation and information updates,can be accessed by dialing 1–800–741–8138 or 301–443–0572. Each advisorycommittee is assigned a 5-digit number.This 5-digit number will appear in eachindividual notice of meeting. Thehotline will enable the public to obtaininformation about a particular advisorycommittee by using the committee’s 5-digit number. Information in the hotlineis preliminary and may change before ameeting is actually held. The hotlinewill be updated when such changes aremade.MEETING: The following advisorycommittee meeting is announced:

Clinical Chemistry and ClinicalToxicology Devices Panel of theMedical Devices Advisory Committee

Date, time, and place. February 26,1996, 9 a.m., Holiday Inn—Gaithersburg, Ballroom, TwoMontgomery Village Ave., Gaithersburg,MD. A limited number of overnightaccommodations have been reserved atthe hotel. Attendees requiring overnightaccommodations may contact the hotelat 301–948–8900 and reference FDA’sPanel meeting block. Reservations willbe confirmed at the group rate based onavailability. Attendees with a disabilityrequiring special accommodationsshould contact Sociometrics, Inc., 301–608–2151. The availability ofappropriate accommodations cannot beassured unless prior written notificationis received.

Type of meeting and contact person.Open public hearing, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.,unless public participation does not lastthat long; open committee discussion,10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; closed presentation ofdata, 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.; open committeediscussion, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.; Cornelia B.Rooks, Center for Devices andRadiological Health (HFZ–440), Foodand Drug Administration, 2098 GaitherRd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301–594–1243, or FDA Advisory CommitteeInformation Hotline, 1–800–741–8138(301–443–0572 in the Washington, DCarea), Clinical Chemistry and ClinicalToxicology Devices Panel, code 12514.

General function of the committee.The committee reviews and evaluatesdata on the safety and effectiveness ofmarketed and investigational devicesand makes recommendations for theirregulation.

Agenda—Open public hearing.Interested persons may present data,information, or views, orally or inwriting, on issues pending before thecommittee. Those desiring to makeformal presentations should notify thecontact person before February 12, 1996,and submit a brief statement of thegeneral nature of the evidence orarguments they wish to present, thenames and addresses of proposedparticipants, and an indication of theapproximate time required to make theircomments.

Open committee discussion. Thecommittee will discuss a premarketnotification submission (510(k)) for anoninvasive transcutaneous glucosemonitor intended for the quantitativedetermination of blood glucose indiabetics.

Closed presentation of data. Thesponsor of the 510(k) will present to thecommittee trade secret and/orconfidential commercial information.

This portion of the meeting will beclosed to permit discussion of thisinformation (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)).

Each public advisory committeemeeting listed above may have as manyas four separable portions: (1) An openpublic hearing, (2) an open committeediscussion, (3) a closed presentation ofdata, and (4) a closed committeedeliberation. Every advisory committeemeeting shall have an open publichearing portion. Whether or not it alsoincludes any of the other three portionswill depend upon the specific meetinginvolved. The dates and times reservedfor the separate portions of eachcommittee meeting are listed above.

The open public hearing portion ofeach meeting shall be at least 1 hourlong unless public participation doesnot last that long. It is emphasized,however, that the 1 hour time limit foran open public hearing represents aminimum rather than a maximum timefor public participation, and an openpublic hearing may last for whateverlonger period the committeechairperson determines will facilitatethe committee’s work.

Public hearings are subject to FDA’sguideline (subpart C of 21 CFR part 10)concerning the policy and proceduresfor electronic media coverage of FDA’spublic administrative proceedings,including hearings before publicadvisory committees under 21 CFR part14. Under 21 CFR 10.205,representatives of the electronic mediamay be permitted, subject to certainlimitations, to videotape, film, orotherwise record FDA’s publicadministrative proceedings, includingpresentations by participants.

Meetings of advisory committees shallbe conducted, insofar as is practical, inaccordance with the agenda publishedin this Federal Register notice. Changesin the agenda will be announced at thebeginning of the open portion of ameeting.

Any interested person who wishes tobe assured of the right to make an oralpresentation at the open public hearingportion of a meeting shall inform thecontact person listed above, either orallyor in writing, prior to the meeting. Anyperson attending the hearing who doesnot in advance of the meeting request anopportunity to speak will be allowed tomake an oral presentation at thehearing’s conclusion, if time permits, atthe chairperson’s discretion.

The agenda, the questions to beaddressed by the committee, and acurrent list of committee members willbe available at the meeting location onthe day of the meeting.

Transcripts of the open portion of themeeting may be requested in writing


from the Freedom of Information Office(HFI–35), Food and DrugAdministration, rm. 12A–16, 5600Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,approximately 15 working days after themeeting, at a cost of 10 cents per page.The transcript may be viewed at theDockets Management Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration,rm. 1–23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15working days after the meeting, betweenthe hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday. Summary minutes ofthe open portion of the meeting may berequested in writing from the Freedomof Information Office (address above)beginning approximately 90 days afterthe meeting.

The Commissioner has determined forthe reasons stated that those portions ofthe advisory committee meetings sodesignated in this notice shall be closed.The Federal Advisory Committee Act(FACA) (5 U.S.C. app. 2, 10(d)), permitssuch closed advisory committeemeetings in certain circumstances.Those portions of a meeting designatedas closed, however, shall be closed forthe shortest possible time, consistentwith the intent of the cited statutes.

The FACA, as amended, provides thata portion of a meeting may be closedwhere the matter for discussion involvesa trade secret; commercial or financialinformation that is privileged orconfidential; information of a personalnature, disclosure of which would be aclearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy; investigatory filescompiled for law enforcement purposes;information the premature disclosure ofwhich would be likely to significantlyfrustrate implementation of a proposedagency action; and information incertain other instances not generallyrelevant to FDA matters.

Examples of portions of FDA advisorycommittee meetings that ordinarily maybe closed, where necessary and inaccordance with FACA criteria, includethe review, discussion, and evaluationof drafts of regulations or guidelines orsimilar preexisting internal agencydocuments, but only if their prematuredisclosure is likely to significantlyfrustrate implementation of proposedagency action; review of trade secretsand confidential commercial orfinancial information submitted to theagency; consideration of mattersinvolving investigatory files compiledfor law enforcement purposes; andreview of matters, such as personnelrecords or individual patient records,where disclosure would constitute aclearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy.

Examples of portions of FDA advisorycommittee meetings that ordinarily shallnot be closed include the review,discussion, and evaluation of generalpreclinical and clinical test protocolsand procedures for a class of drugs ordevices; consideration of labelingrequirements for a class of marketeddrugs or devices; review of data andinformation on specific investigationalor marketed drugs and devices that havepreviously been made public;presentation of any other data orinformation that is not exempt frompublic disclosure pursuant to the FACA,as amended; and, deliberation toformulate advice and recommendationsto the agency on matters that do notindependently justify closing.

This notice is issued under section10(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2), andFDA’s regulations (21 CFR part 14) onadvisory committees.

Dated: February 2, 1996.Michael A. Friedman,Deputy Commissioner for Operations.[FR Doc. 96–2689 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–1–F

[Docket No. 96N–0026]

Peripheral Blood Stem Cells:Discussion of Procedures forCollection, Processing, and ProductCharacterization; Notice of PublicWorkshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing apublic workshop to discuss proceduresfor preparation, processing, andcharacterization of human peripheralblood stem cells. The purpose of thisscientific workshop, sponsored by FDAand the National Heart, Lung, and BloodInstitute, National Institutes of Health,is to identify and discuss the steps forthe collection, processing, and storage ofperipheral blood stem cells fortransplantation and to identify areas inneed of further research. The scientificinformation presented at this workshopwill aid FDA in regulating peripheralblood stem cells and identifying productstandards.DATES: The public workshop will beheld on February 22 and 23, 1996, from8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Preregistration isrecommended because seating islimited. Registration is requested byFebruary 16, 1996.ADDRESSES: The public workshop willbe held at the National Institutes of

Health, Bldg. 10, Masur Auditorium,9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regarding information on registration:Dawn Apple, KRA Corp., 1010Wayne Ave., suite 850, SilverSpring, MD 20910, 301–495–1591,or FAX 301–495–9410.

Regarding information on theworkshop agenda: Richard Lewis,Center for Biologics Evaluation andResearch (HFM–380), Food andDrug Administration, 1401Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD20852, 301–827–3524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thepurpose of this workshop is to identifyand discuss steps for collection,processing, and storage of peripheralblood stem cells for transplantation andto identify what additional scientificdata is needed in this area.

Topics to be discussed include thefollowing: Product viability testing,donor leukopheresis, donor testing,product storage/transfer conditions,definition of cell types and numbers inthe product, and differences betweenallogeneic and autologous use ofperipheral blood stem cells.

FDA intends to make available at thisworkshop a draft document discussingthe regulatory approach FDA believes isappropriate for human peripheral bloodstem cell products for transplantationand, shortly thereafter, will publish inthe Federal Register a notice ofavailability for the draft document. FDAwill solicit written comments on itsdraft document. Written commentsreceived will be reviewed andconsidered in determining whetheramendments to, or revisions of, theapproach are warranted.

Dated: February 5, 1996.William K. Hubbard,Associate Commissioner for PolicyCoordination.[FR Doc. 96–2845 Filed 2–6–96; 11:47 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

Health Care Financing Administration

Public Information CollectionRequirements Submitted for PublicComment and Recommendations

AGENCY: Health Care FinancingAdministration, HHS.

In compliance with the requirementof section 3506(c)(2)(A) of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, theHealth Care Financing Administration(HCFA), Department of Health andHuman Services, is publishing thefollowing summaries of proposedcollections for public comment.Interested persons are invited to send


comments regarding this burdenestimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including anyof the following subjects: (1) Thenecessity and utility of the proposedinformation collection for the properperformance of the agency’s functions;(2) the accuracy of the estimatedburden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,utility, and clarity of the information tobe collected; and (4) the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology tominimize the information collectionburden.

1. Type of Information CollectionRequest: Reinstatement, without change,of a previously approved collection forwhich approval has expired; Title ofInformation Collection: Identification ofExtension Units of Outpatient PhysicalTherapy and Outpatient SpeechPathology Providers; Form No.: HCFA–381; Use: The Medicare Programrequires outpatient physical therapy andoutpatient speech pathology (OPT/OSP)providers to be surveyed to determinecompliance with Federal requirements.The HCFA–381 is the form used toidentify OPT/OSP locations; Frequency:Annually; Affected Public: Business orother for profit; Number of Respondents:2,300; Total Annual Hours: 575.

2. Type of Information CollectionRequest: Reinstatement, without change,of a previously approved collection forwhich approval has expired; Title ofInformation Collection: Fire SafetySurvey Report; Form No.: HCFA–2786A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, P, Q; Use:These forms are used by the StateAgency to record data collected in orderto determine compliance withindividual conditions during fire safetysurveys and report it to the FederalGovernment; Frequency: Annually;Affected Public: State, local or tribalgovernments; Number of Respondents:53; Total Annual Hours: 20,637.

To obtain copies of the supportingstatement for the proposed paperworkcollections referenced above, accessHCFA’s WEB SITE ADDRESS at http://www.ssa.gov/hcfa/hcfahp2.html , or toobtain the supporting statement and anyrelated forms, E-mail your request,including your address and phonenumber, to [email protected], or callthe Reports Clearance Office on (410)786–1326. Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collections must be mailedwithin 60 days of this notice directly tothe HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officerdesignated at the following address:HCFA, Office of Financial and HumanResources Management Planning andAnalysis Staff, Attention: John Burke,Room C2–26–17, 7500 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850.

Dated: February 1, 1996.Kathleen B. Larson,Director, Management Planning and AnalysisStaff, Office of Financial and HumanResources, Health Care FinancingAdministration.[FR Doc. 96–2650 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120–03–P

Submitted for Collection of PublicComment: Submission for OMBReview

In compliance with the PaperworkReduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),the Health Care FinancingAdministration (HCFA), Department ofHealth and Human Services, isannouncing that the InformationCollection Requests (ICR) abstractedbelow have been forwarded to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) forreview and comment. Interested personsare invited to send comments regardingthe burden estimate or any other aspectof this collection of information,including any of the following subjects:(1) The necessity and utility of theproposed information collection for theproper performance of the agency’sfunctions; (2) the accuracy of theestimated burden; (3) ways to enhancethe quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (4) theuse of automated collection techniquesor other forms of informationtechnology to minimize the informationcollection burden.

1. Type of Information CollectionRequest: Reinstatement, with change, ofa previously approved collection forwhich approval has expired; Title ofInformation Collection: Peer ReviewOrganization (PRO) Reporting Forms;Form Nos.: HCFA 613–627; Use: PROsare authorized to review inpatient andoutpatient services for quality of careprovided and to eliminate unreasonable,unnecessary, and inappropriate careprovided to Medicare beneficiaries. ThePROs are required to report the resultsof the review to HCFA. Frequency:Monthly, quarterly; Affected Public:Business or other for profit; Number ofRespondents: 53; Total Annual Hours:10,759.

2. Type of Information CollectionRequest: Revision of a currentlyapproved collection; Title ofInformation Collection: InformationCollection Requirements in HSQ 108–F,Assumption of Responsibilities; FormNo.: HCFA R–71; Use: Rule establishesthe review functions to be performed bythe PRO and outlines the relationshipsamong PROs, providers, practitioners,

beneficiaries, fiscal intermediaries, andcarriers. Frequency: Monthly, quarterly;Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Number of Respondents: 53;Total Annual Hours: 46,653.

3. Type of Information CollectionRequest: Extension of a currentlyapproved collection; Title ofInformation Collection: Medical RecordsReview Under Prospective PaymentSystem (PPS); Form No.: HCFA R–50;Use: PROs are authorized to conductmedical review activities under the PPS.In order to conduct medical reviewactivities, we depend upon hospitals tomake available specific records.Frequency: Annually; Affected Public:Business or other for profit; Number ofRespondents: 6,412; Total AnnualHours: 22,400.

4. Type of Information CollectionRequest: Reinstatement, without change,of a previously approved collection forwhich approval has expired; Title ofInformation Collection: Home HealthAgency Survey and Deficiencies Report,Home Health Functional AssessmentInstrument; Form Nos.: HCFA–1572,HCFA–1515; Use: In order to participatein the Medicare program as a homehealth agency (HHA) provider, the HHAmust meet Federal standards. Theseforms are used to record informationabout patients’ health and providercompliance with requirement and reportinformation to the Federal Government.Frequency: Annually; Affected Public:Business or other for profit; Number ofRespondents: 8,622; Total AnnualHours: 129,330.

5. Type of Information CollectionRequest: Reinstatement, without change,of a previously approved collection forwhich approval has expired; Title ofInformation Collection: Survey TeamComposition and Workload Report;Form No.: HCFA–670; Use: This formwill provide information on resourceutilization applicable to survey activityin the Medicare/Medicaid provider/supplier types and Clinical LaboratoryImprovement Amendment (CLIA)laboratories. This information will assistHCFA in determining Federalreimbursement for surveys conducted.Frequency: Annually; Affected Public:State, local, or tribal governments;Number of Respondents: 53; TotalAnnual Hours: 71,667.

To request copies of the proposedpaperwork collections referenced above,E-mail your request, including youraddress, to [email protected], or callthe Reports Clearance Office on (410)786–1326. Written comments andrecommendations for the proposedinformation collections must be sentwithin 30 days of this notice directly tothe OMB Desk Officer designated at the


following address: OMB HumanResources, and Housing Branch,Attention: Allison Eydt, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Room 10235,Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: February 1, 1996.Kathleen B. Larson,Director, Management Planning and AnalysisStaff, Office of Financial and HumanResources, Health Care FinancingAdministration.[FR Doc. 96–2649 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120–03–P

Health Resources and ServicesAdministration

National Practitioner Data Bank:Change in User Fee

The Health Resources and ServicesAdministration (HRSA), Department ofHealth and Human Services (DHHS), isannouncing a discount in the feecharged to entities authorized to requestinformation from the NationalPractitioner Data Bank (Data Bank) forqueries which meet all requirements forfully automated processing.

The current fee structure wasannounced in the Federal Register ofJune 7, 1995 (60 FR 30090). The user feeis $3.00 per name per query submittedvia telecommunications network andpaid via an electronic funds transfer orcredit card, with query response sent viathe telecommunications network. A$3.00 surcharge is charged for queriessubmitted electronically on diskette to

pay for the extra handling and mailingcosts for these queries. A $4.00surcharge is charged for all querieswhich are paid for by check or moneyorder to cover the cost of debtmanagement.

The Data Bank is authorized by theHealth Care Quality Improvement Act of1986 (the Act), title IV of Public Law99–660, as amended (42 U.S.C. 11101 etseq.). Section 427 (b)(4) of the Actauthorizes the establishment of fees forthe costs of processing requests fordisclosure and of providing suchinformation.

Final regulations at 45 CFR part 60 setforth the criteria and procedures forinformation to be reported to anddisclosed by the Data Bank. Section 60.3of these regulations should be consultedfor the definition of terms used in thisannouncement.

A reassessment of the full operatingcosts related to processing requests fordisclosure of Data Bank information, asrequired by the DHHS AppropriationsAct of 1994 (title II of Pub. L. 103–112,dated October 21, 1993), as well as ananalysis of the comparative costs of thevarious methods for filing and payingfor queries, has resulted in a decision tofurther reduce fees for users when theyboth query and receive responses via thetelecommunications network as well aspay query fees by credit card, electronicfunds transfer or such other electronictransfer options as may be offered in thefuture. The options to query and payuser fees by these means facilitate thequerying process and make it less costly

to both users and the Data Bank than allother available options.

Accordingly, the Department isimplementing a $1.00 discount from thecurrent $3.00 per name per query fee forqueries submitted both electronicallyand paid via the methods describedabove, with receipt by electronicmethod. The discounted fee for suchqueries will be $2.00. This change iseffective January 1, 1996.

The criteria set forth in § 60.12 (b) ofthe regulations and allowable costsrequired by the Appropriations Act of1994 were used in determining theamount of this new fee. The criteriainclude such cost factors as: (1)Electronic data processing time,equipment, materials, computerprogrammers and operators or otheremployees; and (2) preparation ofreports—materials, photocopying,postage, and administrative personnel.

When a query is for information onone or more physicians, dentists, orother health care practitioners, theappropriate total fee will be $3.00 (lessa $1.00 discount or plus a $3.00 and/ora $4.00 surcharge for submission andpayment as described above) multipliedby the number of individuals aboutwhom information is being requested.For examples, see the table below.

The fee charged will be reviewedperiodically, and revised as necessary,based upon experience. Any changes inthe fee, and the effective date of thechange, will be announced in theFederal Register.

Query method Fee per name in query, by method of payment Examples

Electronic query (Telecom net-work) with electronic payment.

$2.00 (if paid electronically via credit card or other electronic meansand response received electronically ($3.00 fee less $1.00 dis-count).

10 names in query. 10×$2=$20.00.

Electronic query (Diskette) withelectronic payment.

$6.00 (if paid electronically via credit card or other electronic meansand response received on paper) ($3.00 fee plus $3.00 surcharge).

10 names in query. 10×$6=$60.00.

Electronic query (Telecom net-work) with non-electronic pay-ment.

$7.00 (if not paid via credit card or other electronic means) ($3.00 feeplus $4.00 surcharge).

10 names in query. 10×$7=$70.00.

Electronic query (Diskette) withnon-electronic payment.

$10.00 (if not paid via credit card or other electronic means) ($3.00fee plus $3.00 and $4.00 surcharges).

10 names in query.10×$10=$100.00

Dated: February 5, 1996.Ciro V. Sumaya,Administrator.[FR Doc. 96–2687 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–15–P



[OR–110–6310–04–241A]

Emergency Closure of Public Lands:Jackson County, Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Medford District Office, AshlandResource Area.ACTION: Emergency closure of publiclands and access roads in JacksonCounty, Oregon.

Notice is hereby given that certainpublic lands in Jackson County, Oregonare hereby temporarily closed to allpublic use, including vehicle operationand sightseeing, from January 25, 1996,until notice is rescinded. The closure ismade under the authority of 43 CFR9268.3(d)(1)(l) and 8364.1(a).

The public lands affected by thisemergency closure are specificallyidentified as follows:

Keno Access Road (39–7E–31) and HowardPrairie Hook-Up Road (38–4E–32) T. 38 S.,R. 4 E., Secs. 19, 29, 32, 33, 34, and 35,


and T. 38 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 13, WillametteMeridian, Jackson County, Oregon.

The following persons, operatingwithin the scope of their official duties,are exempt from the provisions of thisclosure order: Bureau employees; state,local and federal law enforcement andfire protection personnel; and theholders of BLM permits and/orcontracts. Access by additional partiesmay be allowed, but must be approvedby the Authorized Officer of hisrepresentative.

Any person who fails to comply withthe provisions of this closure order maybe subject to the penalties provided in43 CFR 8360.0–7, which include a finenot to exceed $1,000.00 and/orimprisonment not to exceed 12 months,as well as the penalties provided underOregon State law.

The public land temporarily closed tounauthorized public use under thisorder will be posted with signs at pointsof public access.

The purpose of this emergencytemporary closure is to protect personsfrom potential harm and protectvaluable public unauthorized abuse.

This closure is effective from January25, 1996, until this notice is rescinded.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dave Jones, District Manager, MedfordDistrict Office, at (541) 770–2200.

Dated: January 30, 1996.David A. Jones,District Manager.[FR Doc. 96–2731 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–33–M

[CO–050–05–1110–00]

Front Range Resource AdvisoryCouncil (Colorado) Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with theFederal Advisory Committee Act of1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix, noticeis hereby given that the next meeting ofthe Front Range Resource AdvisoryCouncil (Colorado) will be held onTuesday, February 20, 1996 in CanonCity, Colorado. The meeting isscheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. at BLM’sCanon City District Office, 3170 EastMain Street, Canon City, Colorado.Notice of this meeting was delayed untila Continuing Resolution was passed toavoid the possibility of cancelling themeeting. The agenda for the Front RangeResource Advisory Council meeting willinclude: update on Rangeland Standardand Guidelines, issues for futureResource Advisory Council

involvement, and discussion on offeringa Rangeland Ecosystem Managementcourse.

All Resource Advisory Councilmeetings are open to the public.Interested persons may make oralstatements to the Council at 9:30 a.m. orwritten statements may be submitted forthe Council’s consideration. The DistrictManager may limit the length of oralpresentations depending on the numberof people wishing to speak.DATES: The meeting is scheduled forTuesday, February 20, 1996 from 9 a.m.to 5 p.m.ADDRESSES: Bureau of LandManagement (BLM), Canon City DistrictOffice, 3170 East Main Street, CanonCity Colorado 81212; Telephone (719)269–8500; TDD (719) 275–4346.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KenSmith at (719–269–8500).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summaryminutes for the Council meeting will bemaintained in the Canon City DistrictOffice and will be available for publicinspection and reproduction duringregular business hours within thirty (30)days following the meeting.Donnie R. Sparks,District Manager.[FR Doc. 96–2647 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–JB–M

[CO–010–06–1020–00–241A]

Northwest Colorado ResourceAdvisory Council Meetings

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatthe next meetings of the NorthwestColorado Resource Advisory Councilwill be held on Wednesday, February28, 1996 in Meeker, Colorado;Thursday, March 14, 1996 in Craig,Colorado; and Thursday, April 11, 1996in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.DATES: Meetings are scheduled forWednesday, February 28, 1996;Thursday, March 14, 1996 andThursday, April 11, 1996.ADDRESSES: For further information,contact Lynda Boody, Bureau of LandManagement (BLM), Grand JunctionDistrict Office, 2815 H Road, GrandJunction, Colorado 81506; Telephone(970) 244–3000; TDD (970) 244–3011.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Allmeetings are scheduled to begin at 9a.m. Wednesday, February 28, 1996:This meeting will be held at the Bureauof Land Management, White RiverResource Area Office, 73544 Highway

64, Meeker, Colorado 81641 in theConference Room.

Thursday, March 14, 1996: Thismeeting will be held at the Holiday Innof Craig, 300 South Colorado, Hwy. 13,Craig, Colorado 81625.

Thursday, April 11, 1996: Thismeeting will be held at the GarfieldCounty Courthouse, 109 Eighth St.,Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, Roomnumber 301.

The agenda for these meetings willfocus on general Council business,standards and guidelines for grazing,and issue identification by ResourceArea Managers.

All Resource Advisory Councilmeetings are open to the public.Interested persons may make oralstatements to the Council, or writtenstatements may be submitted for theCouncil’s consideration. Publiccomment will be taken throughout themeeting. Depending on the number ofpersons wishing to make oralstatements, a per-person time limit maybe established by the Grand Junction/Craig District Manager.

Summary minutes for the Councilmeeting will be maintained in the GrandJunction and Craig District Offices andwill be available for public inspectionand reproduction during regularbusiness hours within thirty (30) daysfollowing the meeting.

Dated: January 30, 1996.

Mark T. Morse,

Grand Junction/Craig District Manager.

[FR Doc. 96–2730 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]


[NV–030–96–1020–00–24–1 A]

Sierra Front/Northwest Great BasinResource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,Interior.ACTION: Notice of meetings of the SierraFront/Northwest Great Basin ResourceAdvisory Council meeting locations andtimes.

SUMMARY: In accordance with theFederal Land Policy and ManagementAct and the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act of 1972 (FACA, 5 U.S.C.,the Department of the Interior, Bureauof Land Management (BLM), Councilmeetings will be held as indicatedbelow. The agenda for each meetingincludes approval of minutes of theprevious meeting, discussion anddevelopment of Standards andGuidelines for management of thepublic lands within the jurisdiction of


the Council and determination of thesubject matter for future meetings.

All meetings are open to the public.The public may present writtencomments to the Council. The publiccomment period is listed below.DATES, TIMES: Sierra Front/NorthwestGreat Basin Resource Advisory Council,BLM Carson City Office, 1535 HotSprings Road, Carson City, NV 89706:February 29 starting 10 a.m.; publiccomment will be at 3:30 p.m. Themeeting will continue March 1 at 8 a.m.

Sierra Front/Northwest Great BasinResource Advisory Council, BLMNevada State Office, 850 Harvard Way,Reno, NV 89520: March 14 starting at 10a.m.; public comment will be at 3:30p.m. The meeting will continue onMarch 15 beginning at 8 a.m.

Sierra Front/Northwest Great BasinResource Advisory Council, BLMCarson City Office, 1535 Hot SpringsRoad, Carson City, NV 89706: March 28starting at 10 a.m.; public comment willbe at 3:30 p.m. The meeting willcontinue on March 29 beginning at 8a.m.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoanSweetland, BLM Public Affairs Officer,1535 Hot Springs Road, Carson City, NV89706–0638. (Phone: 702–885–6000)

Dated this 30th day of January, 1996.John O. Singlaub,

District Manager, Carson City District.

[FR Doc. 96–2732 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–M

[NV–020–1430–01; N–57999]

Airport Lease Application

ACTION: Notice of Airport LeaseApplication N–57999.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatpursuant to section 302 of the FederalLand Policy and Management Act ofOctober 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2762), inaccordance with provisions of federalregulations under 43 CFR 2920, anapplication has been filed forauthorization of a private airport leaseon the following described lands:

Mount Diablo Meridian, NevadaT. 44 N., R. 37 E.,

Sec. 11: SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4,E1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4.

The area described contains 5.73 acres andis located near Orovada in Humboldt County,Nevada.

For a period of 45 days from the dateof this notice, interested persons maysubmit comments to the DistrictManager, Bureau of Land Management,705 E. 4th St., Winnemucca, NV 89445.

In the absence of adverse comments,the application will be processed inaccordance with proper applicationprocedures.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Uponpublication in the Federal Register, theland will be segregated from all otherforms of appropriation under the publicland laws.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Realty Specialist Mary Figarelle, Bureauof Land Management, 705 E. 4th St.,Winnemucca, NV 89445, or call 702–623–1500.

Dated: January 24, 1996.Ron Wenker,Winnemucca District Manager.[FR Doc. 96–2669 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P

Bureau of Reclamation

Narrows Project, Small ReclamationProject Act (SRPA) Loan Program,Utah

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,Interior.ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare adraft environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation(Reclamation) intends to prepare a draftenvironmental impact statement (EIS),pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C.4332. The draft EIS will address theeffects of various alternativesconsidered for the Narrows Project(Project), SRPA Application.

The purpose of the Project would beto provide water for irrigation andmunicipal use in north Sanpete County,Utah. The proposed project wouldinclude construction of a dam onGooseberry Creek to impound and storewater and construction of a tunnel/pipeline to deliver Project water toirrigation and municipal water users innorthern Sanpete County, Utah. Thisprovides notice that a new Draft andsubsequent Final EIS will be preparedwhich will supersede the contractor-prepared Final EIS.DATES AND ADDRESSES: No formalscoping meetings are planned. Thoseinterested in the Project are invited tosubmit comments. These commentsshould relate to potential environmentalissues and impacts or reasonablealternatives to the proposed action.These comments should be submitted inwriting by March 15, 1996, to KerrySchwartz, Environmental ProtectionSpecialist, Bureau of Reclamation,Provo Area Office, 302 East 1860 South,

Provo, Utah 84604–7317; or MichaelStuver, Regional Loan Engineer, Bureauof Reclamation, Upper ColoradoRegional Office, 125 South State Street,Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:To be placed on a mailing list forsubsequent information concerning thisEIS, either write Kerry Schwartz at theaddress above, or call (801) 379–1000.For answers to questions concerning theproject please write Michael Stuver atthe address above, or call (810) 524–3305 extension 3.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnFebruary 2, 1995, Reclamation filed acontractor-prepared final EIS for theproposed Narrows Project. On May 8,1995, the Upper Colorado RegionalDirector executed a Record of Decisionfor the Project based on this EIS. OnSeptember 11, 1995, Reclamation filed aFederal Register Notice to rescind thisRecord of Decision. Reclamation intendsto prepare a new EIS to replace theprevious contractor-prepared EIS. Theprevious EIS material will be treated asenvironmental information submittedby the applicant for use by the agencyin preparing an EIS, pursuant to 40 CFR,Section 1506.5(a).

Dated: February 2, 1996.

Charles A. Calhoun,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 96–2728 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]


Fish and Wildlife Service

Receipt of Applications for Permit

The following applicants haveapplied for a permit to conduct certainactivities with endangered species. Thisnotice is provided pursuant to section10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, etseq.):

PRT–810466Applicant: Ken Wilson, Kerrville, TX

The applicant requests a permit toauthorize interstate and foreigncommerce, export, and cull of excessmale barasingha (Cervus duvauceli) andEld’s deer (Cervus eldi) from his captiveherd for the purpose of enhancement ofthe survival of the species.PRT–810465Applicant: A.R. Galloway Exotic Ranch,

Pearsall, TX

The applicant requests a permit toauthorize interstate and foreigncommerce, export, and cull of excess


male barasingha (Cervus duvauceli) andEld’s deer (Cervus eldi) from his captiveherd for the purpose of enhancement ofthe survival of the species.PRT–693112Applicant: University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, MI

The applicant requests a permit toexport and re-import non-livingmuseum specimens of endangered andthreatened species of plants and animalspreviously accessioned into thepermittee’s collection for scientificresearch. This notification coversactivities conducted by the applicantover a period of five years.PRT–810513Applicant: Florida Department

Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL

The applicant requests a permit toexport egg shells collected from nestswhere hatchling emergences hadalready occurred of green sea turtle(Chelonia mydas) for the purpose ofscientific research.PRT–810521Applicant: Zoological Society of San Diego,

San Diego, CA

The applicant requests a permit toimport five male and seven femalecaptive-hatched Jamaican iguana(Cyclura collei) from Hope ZoologicalGardens, Kingston, Jamaica, for thepurpose of scientific research andenhancement of the species throughcaptive breeding and conservationeducation.PRT–810611Applicant: Matson’s Laboratory, Milltown,

MT

The applicant requests a permit toimport teeth collected from wood bison(Bison bison athabascae) in theMackenzi Sanctuary herd, from theDepartment of Renewable Resources,Government of the NorthwestTerritories, Canada, for the purpose ofgaining data used in an ongoingpopulation management program. Thisnotification covers activities conductedby the applicant over a period of fiveyears.PRT–809138Applicant: Zoological Society of San Diego,

San Diego, CA

The applicant requests a permit to re-export one captive-hatched red-crownedcrane (Grus japonensis) to the CracidsBreeding and Conservation Center,Lanaken, Belgium, for the purpose ofenhancement of the species throughcaptive breeding.PRT–810098Applicant: Little Rock Zoological Garden,

Little Rock, AR

The applicant requests a permit toimport one captive-born Sumatranorangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) fromthe Metro Toronto Zoo, Ontario,Canada, for the purpose of enhancementof the species through captive breeding.PRT–810619Applicant: The Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, AZ

The applicant requests a permit toimport one captive-born male Brazilianocelot (Leopardus pardalis mitis) fromSan Paulo Zoo, San Paulo, Brazil, for thepurpose of enhancement of the speciesthrough captive breeding.PRT–807708Applicant: Philadelphia Zoological Garden,

Philadelphia, PA

The applicant requests a permit toimport an additional captive-bornfemale bicolored tamarin (Saguinusbicolor bicolor) from the Jersey WildlifePreservation Trust, Channel Islands,United Kingdom, for the purpose ofenhancement of the species throughcaptive breeding. This amends theFederal Register Notice of October 25,1995.PRT–810681Applicant: John Dorrance, III, Devils Tower,

WY

The applicant requests a permit toimport the sport-hunted trophy of onemale bontebok (Damaliscus pygarcusdorcas) culled from a captive herdmaintained under the managementprogram of the Republic of South Africa,for the purpose of enhancement of thesurvival of the species.

Written data or comments should besubmitted to the Director, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Office of ManagementAuthority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,Room 420(c), Arlington, Virginia 22203and must be received by the Directorwithin 30 days of the date of thispublication.

Documents and other informationsubmitted with these applications areavailable for review, subject to therequirements of the Privacy Act andFreedom of Information Act, by anyparty who submits a written request fora copy of such documents to thefollowing office within 30 days of thedate of publication of this notice: U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Office ofManagement Authority, 4401 NorthFairfax Drive, Room 420(c), Arlington,Virginia 22203. Phone: (703/358–2104);FAX: (703/358–2281).

Dated: February 2, 1996.Caroline Anderson,Acting Chief, Branch of Permits, Office ofManagement Authority.[FR Doc. 96–2681 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Information Collection Under Review

Office of Management and Budget(OMB) approval is being sought for theinformation collection listed below.This proposed information collectionwas previously published in the FederalRegister and allowed 60 days for publiccomment.

The purpose of this notice is to allowan additional 30 days for publiccomments from the date listed at the topof this page in the Federal Register.This process is conducted in accordancewith 5 Code of Federal Regulation, Part1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestionsregarding the item(s) contained in thisnotice, especially regarding theestimated public burden and associatedresponse time, should be directly to theOffice of Management and Budget,Office of Regulatory Affairs, Attention:Department of Justice Desk Officer,Washington, DC, 20530. Additionally,comments may be submitted to OMB viafacsimile to 202–395–7285. Commentsmay also be submitted to theDepartment of Justice (DOJ), JusticeManagement Division, InformationManagement and Security Staff,Attention: Department ClearanceOfficer, 1001 G Street, NW, Washington,DC, 20530. Additionally, comments maybe submitted to DOJ via facsimile to202–514–1534.

Written comments and suggestionsfrom the public and affected agenciesshould address one or more of thefollowing points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency/component,including whether the information willhave practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of theagencies/components estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology,e.g., permitting electronic submission ofresponses.

The proposed collection is listedbelow:

(1) Type of information collection.New Collection.


(2) The title of the form/collection.Organizational Study, Evaluation of the‘‘Comprehensive Community-WideApproach to Gang Prevention,Intervention and Suppression Program.’’

(3) The agency form number, if any,and the applicable component of theDepartment sponsoring the collection.Form: None. Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, Office ofJustice Programs, United StatesDepartment of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be askedor required to respond, as well as a briefabstract. Primary: Not-for-ProfitInstitutions. Other: State, Local or TribalGovernments. The study focuses oninformation about program policies andmechanisms used to analyze andaddress the gang problem, includinginterorganizational relationships, and totest the effectiveness of the OJJDPapproach over time. Respondents willbe mainly administrative personnel inorganizations participating in theprogram and a comparable group notparticipating in the comprehensiveapproach.

(5) An estimate of the total number ofrespondents and the amount of timeestimated for an average respondent torespond. 250 responses per year at 2.0hours per response.

(6) An estimate of the total publicburden (in hours) associated with thecollection. 500 annual burden hours.

Public comment on this proposedinformation collection is stronglyencouraged.

Dated: February 1, 1996.Robert B. Briggs,Department Clearance Office, United StatesDepartment of Justice.[FR Doc. 96–2704 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–18–M

Notice of Consent Decree inComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and LiabilityAction; Ralph Riehl, et al.

In accordance with the DepartmentalPolicy, 28 CFR § 50.7, notice is herebygiven that a consent decree in UnitedStates v. Ralph Riehl, et al., Civil ActionNo. 89–226E, was lodged with theUnited States District Court for theWestern District of Pennsylvania onDecember 28, 1995.

On October 16, 1989, the UnitedStates filed a complaint against theowners and operator of, and certaintransporters to, the Millcreek DumpSuperfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’), pursuant toSection 107(a) of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensationand Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.9607(a). This proposed Consent Decree

resolves the liability of Sitter TruckingCompany, James Sitter, Gilbert Sitter,and Ronald Sitter (‘‘the Sitters’’) forresponse costs incurred and to beincurred by the United States at the Site.The proposed Consent Decree requiresthe Sitters to pay $40,000.00 inreimbursement of response costs.

The Department of Justice will acceptwritten comments relating to thisConsent Decree for thirty (30) days fromthe date of publication of this notice.Please address comments to theAssistant Attorney General,Environment and Natural ResourcesDivision, Department of Justice, P.O.Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station,Washington, D.C. 20044 and refer toUnited States v. Ralph Riehl, et al., DOJNo. 90–11–3–519.

Copies of the proposed ConsentDecree may be examined at the Office ofthe United States Attorney, WesternDistrict of Pennsylvania, FederalBuilding and Courthouse, Room 137,6th and State Streets, Erie,Pennsylvania, 15219; Region III Officeof the Environmental ProtectionAgency, 841 Chestnut Building,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; andat the Consent Decree Library, 1120 GStreet NW., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.20005 (202) 624–0892. A copy of theproposed Decree may be obtained inperson or by mail from the ConsentDecree Library, 1120 G Street NW., 4thFloor, Washington, D.C. 20005. Whenrequesting a copy of the proposedConsent Decree, please enclose a checkin the amount of $6.75 (twenty-fivecents per page reproduction costs)payable to the ‘‘Consent DecreeLibrary.’’Joel M. Gross,Environmental Enforcement Section,Environment and Natural Resources Division,U.S. Department of Justice.[FR Doc. 96–2659 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decrees;Selma Pressure

In accordance with the policy of theDepartment of Justice, 28 CFR 50.7, andpursuant to Section 122(d)(2) of theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’),42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), notice is herebygiven that two proposed ConsentDecrees in United States v. SelmaPressure Treating Co., et al., werelodged with the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District ofCalifornia, Fresno Division, on January2, 1996. This action was brought

pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA, 42U.S.C. 9607.

Under one proposed Consent Decree,Gerald Petery and Selma LeasingCompany agree to pay a total of$720,000 to the United States and$80,000 to the State of California. Underthe other proposed Consent Decree,Mary Ann Schuessler and SelmaPressure Treating Company agree to paya total of $675,000 to the United Statesand $75,000 to the State of California.These funds are being paid to reimbursethe United States for environmentalresponse actions taken at the SelmaPressure Treating facility in Selma,California. Response activities arecontinuing at this site.

The Department of Justice willreceive, for a period of 30 days from thedate of this publication, commentsrelating to the proposed ConsentDecrees. Comments should be addressedto the Assistant Attorney General of theEnvironment and Natural ResourcesDivision, Department of Justice,Washington, D.C. 20530 and shouldrefer to United States v. Selma PressureTreating Co., et. al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–2–383.

The proposed Consent Decrees maybe examined at the office of the UnitedStates Attorney, 3654 Federal Building,1130 O Street, Fresno, California; theRegion IX Office of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 75 HawthorneStreet, San Francisco, CA 94105; and atthe Consent Decree Library, 1120 GStreet NW., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.20005, (202) 624–0892. Copies theproposed Consent Decrees may beobtained in person or by mail from theConsent Decree Library, 1120 G StreetNW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC. 20005.In requesting a copy, please refer to thereferenced case and enclosed a check inthe amount of $8.50 for the decree withGerald Petery and Selma LeasingCompany and $6.00 for the decree withMary Ann Schuessler and SelmaPressure Treating, ($0.25 per pagereproduction costs), payable to‘‘Consent Decree Library.’’Joel Gross,Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,Environment and Natural Resources Division.[FR Doc. 96–2660 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of a Consent DecreePursuant to the Clean Air Act, theClean Water Act, and the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act

In accordance with Departmentalpolicy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is herebygiven that a proposed Consent Decree inUnited States v. Shell Oil Company,


Civil Action No. 96–0328, Sec. A, Mag2, was lodged on January 26, 1996, withthe United States District Court for theEastern District of Louisiana.

The Consent Decree between theUnited States and Shell Oil Companyresolves violations of the Clean Air Act(‘‘CAA’’), New Source PerformanceStandards (‘‘NSPS’’) and NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants (‘‘NESHAP’’); the SafeDrinking Water Act (‘‘SDWA’’); theEmergency Planning and CommunityRight to Know Act (‘‘EPCRA’’); theClean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’) and thecompany’s National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (‘‘NPDES’’) Permits;and the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (‘‘RCRA’’) and the stateand federal hazardous wasteregulations. These violations occurred atthe company’s refinery and chemicalfacilities in Norco, Louisiana. TheConsent Decree includes a requirementthat Shell Oil Company pay a civilpenalty of $1,000,000.

The Department of Justice willreceive, for a period of thirty (30) daysfrom the date of this publication,comments relating to the proposedConsent Decree. Comments should beaddressed to the Assistant AttorneyGeneral for the Environment andNatural Resources Division, Departmentof Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, andshould refer to United States v. Shell OilCompany, DOJ Ref. No. 90–7–1–629A.

The proposed Consent Decree may beexamined at the office of the UnitedStates Attorney, Hale Boggs Building,Room 201, 501 Magazine Street, NewOrleans, Louisiana 70130; the Region VIOffice of the Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,Texas 75202; and at the Consent DecreeLibrary, 1120 G Street NW., 4th Floor,Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the proposed ConsentDecree may be obtained in person or bymail from the Consent Decree Library,1120 G Street NW., 4th Floor,Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting acopy please refer to the referenced caseand enclose a check in the amount of$4.75 (25 cents per page reproductioncosts), payable to the Consent DecreeLibrary.Joel M. Gross,Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,Environment and Natural Resources Division.[FR Doc. 96–2661 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

United States of America vs. PacificScientific Company; Proposed FinalJudgment and Competitive ImpactStatement

Notice is hereby given pursuant to theAntitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h), that a proposedFinal Judgment, Stipulation, andCompetitive Impact Statement havebeen filed with the United StatesDistrict Court for the District ofColumbia In United States vs. PacificScientific Company, Civ. No. 96–0165.The proposed Final Judgment is subjectto approval by the Court after theexpiration of the statutory 60-day publiccomment period and compliance withthe Antitrust Procedures and PenaltiesAct, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h).

On January 30, 1996, the UnitedStates filed a Complaint seeking toenjoin a transaction by which PacificScientific agreed to acquire Met One,Inc. Pacific Scientific and Met One aremajor manufacturers of drinking waterparticle counters. The Complaintalleged that the proposed acquisitionwould substantially lessen competitionin the manufacture and sale of drinkingwater particle counters in the UnitedStates in violation of Section 7 of theClayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15U.S.C. § 1.

The proposed Final Judgment ordersdefendant to sell all of PacificScientific’s U.S. assets and rightsrelating to the research anddevelopment, manufacture and sale ofPacific Scientific’s Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Systems, other thanreal property, and Met One’s softwarerelating to Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems, and other assets ifnecessary to make an economicallyviable competitor in the manufactureand sale of drinking water particlecounters. The Stipulation effects a holdseparate agreement that, in essence,requires Pacific Scientific to ensure that,until the divestiture mandated by theFinal Judgment has been accomplished,Met One’s operation will be heldseparate and apart from, and operatedindependently of, Pacific Scientific’sassets and businesses. A CompetitiveImpact Statement filed by the UnitedStates describes the Complaint, theproposed Final Judgment, and remediesavailable to private litigants.

Public comment is invited within thestatutory 60-day comment period. Suchcomments, and the responses thereto,will be published in the FederalRegister and filed with the Court.Written comments should be directed to

Craig W. Conrath, Chief, Merger TaskForce, Antitrust Division, Room 3700,1401 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.20530 (202–307–5779). Copies of theComplaint, proposed Final Judgmentand Competitive Impact Statement areavailable for inspection in Room 207 ofthe U.S. Department of Justice, AntitrustDivision, 325 7th Street NW.,Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone:(202) 514–2481), and at the office of theClerk of the United States District Courtfor the District of Columbia, Third Streetand Constitution Avenue NW.,Washington, D.C. 20001.

Copies of any of these materials maybe obtained upon request and paymentof a copying fee.Constance K. Robinson,Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia

In the matter of: United States of America,Plaintiff vs. Pacific Scientific Company, acorporation; Defendant Docket No.: 96–0165.

Stipulation

It is stipulated by and between theundersigned parties, by their respectiveattorneys, as follows:

(1) The Court has jurisdiction over thesubject matter of this action and overeach of the parties hereto, and venue ofthis action is proper in the District forthe District of Columbia.

(2) The parties stipulate that a FinalJudgment in the form hereto attachedmay be filed and entered by the Court,upon the motion of any party or uponthe Court’s own motion, at any timeafter compliance with the requirementsof the Antitrust Procedures andPenalties Act (15 U.S.C. § 16), andwithout further notice to any party orother proceedings, provided thatplaintiff has not withdrawn its consent,which it may do at any time before theentry of the proposed Final Judgment byserving notice thereof on defendant andby filing that notice with the Court.

(3) Pacific Scientific shall abide byand comply with the provisions of theproposed Final Judgment pending entryof the Final Judgment, and shall, fromthe date of the signing of thisStipulation, comply with all the termsand provisions of the proposed FinalJudgment as though the same were infull force and effect as an order of theCourt.

(4) Pacific Scientific shall prepare anddeliver reports in the form required bythe provisions of paragraph B of SectionVII of the proposed Final Judgmentcommencing no later than February 29,1996, and every thirty days thereafterpending entry of the Final Judgment.


(5) In the event plaintiff withdraws itsconsent, as provided in paragraph 2above, or if the proposed FinalJudgment is not entered pursuant to thisStipulation, this Stipulation shall be ofno effect whatever, and the making ofthis stipulation shall be withoutprejudice to any party in this or anyother proceeding.

Dated: January 26, 1996.For Plaintiff United States of America.

Craig W. Conrath,Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,Antitrust Division, Merger Task Force, 1401H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202)307–5779.

For the Defendant Pacific ScientificCompany.Donald I. Baker,Baker & Miller, PLLC, 700 Eleventh Street,NW., Suite 615, Washington, D.C. 20004,(202) 637–9499, Attorney For PacificScientific Company.

In the United States District Court forthe District of Columbia

In the matter of: United States of America,Plaintiff v. Pacific Scientific Company, acorporation Defendant. Civil Action No.: 96–0165.

Final JudgmentWhereas plaintiff, United States of

America (hereinafter ‘‘United States’’)having filed its Complaint herein, anddefendant, by their respective attorneys,having consented to the entry of thisFinal Judgment without trial oradjudication of any issue of fact or lawherein, and without this Final Judgmentconstituting any evidence against or anadmission by any party with respect toany issue of law or fact herein;

And whereas, defendant has agreed tobe bound by the provisions of this FinalJudgment pending its approval by theCourt;

And whereas, prompt and certaindivestiture of certain assets is theessence of this agreement;

And whereas, the parties intend torequire defendant to divest, as a viableline of business, the Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Assets so as toensure, to the sole satisfaction of theplaintiff, that the Acquirer will be ableto manufacture and sell Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Systems as a viable,ongoing line of business;

And whereas, defendant hasrepresented to plaintiff that thedivestitures required below can and willbe made and that defendant will laterraise no claims of hardship or difficultyas grounds for asking the Court tomodify any of the divestiture provisionscontained below;

Now, therefore, before the taking ofany testimony, and without trial or

adjudication of any issue of fact or lawherein, and upon consent of the partieshereto, it is hereby ordered, adjudged,and decreed as follows:

I. JurisdictionThis Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and overeach of the parties hereto. TheComplaint states a claim upon whichrelief may be granted against thedefendant under Section 7 of theClayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C.§ 18).

II. DefinitionsAs used in this Final Judgment:A. ‘‘Drinking Water Quality

Monitoring Systems’’ means waterparticle detection systems used in theevaluation of potable water, includingbut not limited to: (1) on-line systems,such as the ‘‘Water Particle CountingSystem’’ (WPCSTM), (2) portablesystems, such as the VersaCount LVTM/LogEasyTM integrated water sampleparticle counting system, and (3)laboratory-based systems, such asstationary liquid batch sample particlecounting systems.

B. ‘‘Pacific Scientific’’ meansdefendant Pacific Scientific Company, aCalifornia corporation with itsheadquarters in Newport Beach,California, and includes its successorsand assigns, their subsidiaries, affiliates,directors, officers, managers, agents andemployees.

C. ‘‘Met One’’ means Met One, Inc., aCalifornia corporation with itsheadquarters in Grants Pass, Oregon,and its successors and assigns, theirsubsidiaries, affiliates, directors,officers, managers, agents andemployees.

D. ‘‘Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Assets’’ means all of PacificScientific’s U.S. assets and rightsrelating to the research anddevelopment, manufacture and sale ofPacific Scientific’s Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Systems, other thanreal property, and Met One’s softwarerelating to Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems. Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Assets include, butare not limited to, all Pacific Scientificrights to patents, trade secrets,technology, know-how, specifications,designs, drawings, processes,production information, manufacturinginformation, testing and quality controldata, servicing information, researchmaterials, technical information,distribution information, informationstored on management informationsystems (and specifications sufficientfor the Acquirer to use suchinformation), software specific to

drinking water qualify monitoringsystems, inventory sufficient for theAcquirer to complete all safety andefficacy studies, studies or testsnecessary to obtain EPA or othergovernmental approvals, and all data,contractual rights, materials andinformation relating to obtaining EPAapprovals and other government orregulatory approvals within the UnitedStates, and certain rights to brand ortrade names (excluding the HIAC/Royco, Royco, Pacific Scientific, andMet-One trade names). Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Assets also includeall Pacific Scientific customer lists,customer information, prospects,mailing lists, quotations and proposalsfor Drinking Water Quality MonitoringSystems and their applications, servicecontracts for Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems and theirapplications, advertising materials,advertising assistance, marketingtraining, and marketing assistance forDrinking Water Quality MonitoringSystems and their applications, andcopies of and rights to software andtechnical information for DrinkingWater Quality Monitoring Systems andtheir applications. Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Assets shall includeassets sufficient, to the sole satisfactionof the plaintiff, to ensure that theAcquirer will be able to manufactureand sell Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems as a viable, ongoingline of business.

E. ‘‘Divestiture Assets’’ means theDrinking Water Quality MonitoringAssets, or such lesser portion thereof asis sufficient to ensure, to the solesatisfaction of the plaintiff, that theAcquirer will be able to manufactureand sell Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems as a viable, ongoingline of business.

F. ‘‘Acquirer’’ means the entity orentities to whom Pacific Scientific shalldivest the Divestiture Assets.

III. Applicability

A. The provisions of this FinalJudgment apply to the defendant, itssuccessors and assigns, theirsubsidiaries, affiliates, directors,officers, managers, agents, andemployees, and all other persons inactive concert or participation with anyof them who shall have received actualnotice of this Final Judgment bypersonal service or otherwise.

B. Pacific Scientific shall require, as acondition of the sale or otherdisposition of all or substantially all ofthe Divestiture Assets other than asprovided in this Final Judgment, thatthe acquiring party or parties agree to be


bound by the provisions of this FinalJudgment.

IV. Requirement to Hold SeparatePrior to the divestiture contemplated

by this Final Judgment:A. Pacific Scientific shall preserve,

hold, and continue to operate thebusiness of Pacific Scientific and thebusiness of Met One as ongoingbusinesses, with their assets,management, and operations separate,distinct, and apart from one another.Pacific Scientific shall use allreasonable efforts to maintain thebusiness of Pacific Scientific and thebusiness of Met One as viable and activecompetitors.

There shall be no exchange betweenPacific Scientific or Met One of anyconfidential business information (otherthan accounting information required inthe ordinary course of business) or anytechnology or know-how.

B. Pacific Scientific shall not, withoutthe consent of the United States, sell,lease, assign, transfer, or otherwisedispose of, or pledge as collateral forloans (except such loans and creditfacilities as are currently outstanding orreplacements or substitutes therefor) theDivestiture Assets or any business assetsof Met One, except that any such assetthat is replaced in the ordinary courseof business with a newly purchasedasset may be sold or otherwise disposedof, provided the newly purchased assetis identified as a replacement for anasset to be divested.

C. In its efforts to preserve andmaintain the business of PacificScientific and the business of Met Oneas viable and active competitors, theobligations of Pacific Scientific shallinclude, but are not limited to:preserving all equipment, all rights tobrand or trade names, patents, tradesecrets, technology, know-how,specifications, designs, drawings,processes, production information,manufacturing information, testing andquality control data, servicinginformation, research materials,technical information, distributioninformation, customer lists, informationstored on management informationsystems (and specifications sufficientfor the Acquirer to use suchinformation), software specific to PacificScientific’s or Met One’s divestitureassets, inventory sufficient for theAcquirer to complete all safety andefficacy studies, studies or testsnecessary to obtain EPA or othergovernmental approvals, and all data,contractual rights, materials andinformation relating to obtaining EPAapprovals and other government orregulatory approvals within the United

States. These obligations do notpreclude sales in the ordinary course ofbusiness.

D. Pacific Scientific shall provide andmaintain sufficient working capital tomaintain the Divestiture Assets businessand the business of Met One as viable,ongoing businesses.

E. Pacific Scientific shall provide andmaintain sufficient lines and sources ofcredit to maintain the Divestiture Assetsbusiness and the business of Met One asviable, ongoing businesses.

F. Pacific Scientific shall preserve thebusiness assets of Pacific Scientific andMet One in a state of repair equal totheir state of repair as of the date ofPacific Scientific’s acquisition of MetOne.

G. Pacific Scientific shall maintain onbehalf of the businesses of PacificScientific and Met One in accordancewith sound accounting practice,separate, true and complete financialledgers, books and records reporting theprofit and loss and liabilities of thebusinesses on a monthly and quarterlybasis.

H. Pacific Scientific shall refrain fromterminating or reducing any currentemployment, salary, or benefitagreements for any management,engineering, or other technicalpersonnel employed by Met One or byPacific Scientific in connection with theDivestiture Assets business of PacificScientific, except in the ordinary courseof business, without the prior approvalof the United States.

I. Pacific Scientific shall refrain fromtaking any action that would have theeffect of reducing the scope or level ofcompetition between the businesses ofPacific Scientific and Met One withoutthe prior approval of the United States.

J. Pacific Scientific shall refrain fromtaking any action that would jeopardizeits ability to divest the DivestitureAssets as a viable ongoing line ofbusiness.

K. When an agreement has beenreached for the sale of the DivestitureAssets that is satisfactory to the plaintiffin its sole discretion, Pacific Scientificmay be released from the restrictions ofthis Part IV once the divestiture sale hasbeen consummated, in the solediscretion of the plaintiff. Such releaseshall become effective when plaintiff sonotifies the Court.

V. Divestiture of AssetsA. Pacific Scientific is hereby ordered

and directed, within 30 days of the datethis Order is entered, to divest theDivestiture Assets. Plaintiff, in its solediscretion, may agree to an extension ofthis time period, and shall notify theCourt in such circumstances.

B. Divestiture of the DivestitureAssets under Section V.A shall beaccomplished in such a way as to satisfythe United States that the DivestitureAssets can and will be operated by theAcquirer as a viable, ongoing line ofbusiness.

Divestiture of the Divestiture Assetsunder Section V.A shall be made to apurchaser for whom it is demonstratedto the sole satisfaction of the UnitedStates that (1) the purchase is for thepurpose of competing effectively in themanufacture and sale of Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Systems, and (2) theAcquirer has the managerial,operational, and financial capability tocompete effectively in the manufactureand sale of Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems.

C. Pacific Scientific shall take allreasonable steps to accomplish quicklythe divestitures contemplated by thisFinal Judgment.

D. Pacific Scientific agrees that, if itfails to divest the Divestiture Assetswithin the time specified in SectionV.A, it shall not oppose nor contest inany way a civil contempt penalty of notmore than $100,000 as may berecommended and moved for by theUnited States. Pacific Scientific furtheragrees that, if it fails to divest theDivestiture Assets within the timespecified in Section V.A, it shall notoppose nor contest in any way civilcontempt penalties of not more than$10,000 per day, for each day after thedate the United States moves for theappointment of a trustee pursuant toSection VI.A until the date it consentsto appointment of a trustee pursuant toSection VI, as may be recommended andmoved for by the United States.

VI. Appointment of Trustee

A. In the event that Pacific Scientifichas not divested the Divestiture Assetswithin 30 days of the date this Order isentered, the Court shall, on applicationof the United States, appoint a trusteeselected by the United States to effectthe divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.Unless plaintiff otherwise consents inwriting, the divestiture shall beaccomplished in such a way as to satisfyplaintiff, in its sole discretion, that theDivestiture Assets can and will be usedby the Acquirer as a viable on-going lineof business. The Divestiture shall bemade to an Acquirer for whom it isdemonstrated to plaintiff’s solesatisfaction that the Acquirer has themanagerial, operational, and financialcapability to compete effectively, andthat none of the terms of the divestitureagreement interfere with the ability ofthe purchaser to compete effectively.


B. After the appointment of a trusteebecomes effective, only the trustee shallhave the right to sell the DivestitureAssets. The trustee shall have the powerand authority to accomplish thedivestiture at the best price thenobtainable upon a reasonable effort bythe trustee, subject to the provisions ofSection VII of this Final Judgment, andshall have such other powers as theCourt shall deem appropriate. Thetrustee shall have the power andauthority to hire at the cost and expenseof defendant any investment bankers,attorneys, or other agents reasonablynecessary in the judgment of the trusteeto assist in the divestiture, and suchprofessionals and agents shall be solelyaccountable to the trustee. The trusteeshall have the power and authority toaccomplish the divestiture at the earliestpossible time to a purchaser acceptableto plaintiff, and shall have such otherpowers as this Court shall deemappropriate. Defendant shall not objectto a sale by the trustee on any groundsother than the trustee’s malfeasance, oron the grounds that the sale is contraryto the express terms of this FinalJudgment. Any such objections bydefendant must be conveyed in writingto plaintiff and the trustee within ten(10) days after the trustee has providedthe notice required under Section VII.

C. The trustee shall serve at the costand expense of Pacific Scientific, onsuch terms and conditions as the Courtmay prescribe, and shall account for allmonies derived from the sale of theassets sold by the trustee and all costsand expenses so incurred. Afterapproval by the Court of the trustee’saccounting, including fees for itsservices and those of any professionalsand agents retained by the trustee, allremaining money shall be paid toPacific Scientific and the trust shallthen be terminated. The compensationof such trustee and that of anyprofessionals and agents retained by thetrustee shall be reasonable in light of thevalue of the Divestiture Assets andbased on a fee arrangement providingthe trustee with an incentive based onthe price and terms of the divestitureand the speed with which it isaccomplished.

D. Pacific Scientific shall use its bestefforts to assist the trustee inaccomplishing the required divestiture.The trustee and any consultants,accountants, attorneys, and otherpersons retained by the trustee shallhave full and complete access to thepersonnel books, records, and facilitiesof Pacific Scientific and Met One, anddefendant shall develop financial orother information relevant to such assetsas the trustee may reasonably request,

subject to reasonable protection fortrade secret or other confidentialresearch, development, or commercialinformation. Defendant shall take noaction to interfere with or to impede thetrustee’s accomplishment of thedivestiture.

E. After its appointment, the trusteeshall file monthly reports with theparties and the Court setting forth thetrustee’s efforts to accomplish thedivestiture ordered under this FinalJudgment. If the trustee has notaccomplished such divestiture withinsix (6) months after its appointment, thetrustee shall thereupon promptly filewith the Court a report setting forth (1)the trustee’s efforts to accomplish therequired divestiture, (2) the reasons, inthe trustee’s judgment, why the requireddivestiture has not been accomplished,and (3) the trustee’s recommendations.The trustee shall at the same timefurnish such report to the parties, whoshall each have the right to be heard andto make additional recommendationsconsistent with the purpose of the trust.The Court shall thereafter enter suchorders as it shall deem appropriate inorder to carry out the purpose of thetrust, which may, if necessary, includeextending the trust and the term of thetrustee’s appointment by a periodrequested by the United States.

F. The Acquirer shall not, without theprior written consent of the UnitedStates, sell any of the acquired assets to,or combine any of the acquired assetswith those of, Pacific Scientific duringthe life of this decree. Furthermore, theAcquirer shall notify plaintiff 45 days inadvance of any proposed sale of all orsubstantially all of the assets, or controlover those assets, acquired pursuant tothis Final Judgment.

VII. NotificationA. Pacific Scientific or the trustee,

whichever is then responsible foreffecting the divestiture required herein,shall notify plaintiff of any proposeddivestiture required by Section V or VIof this Final Judgment. If the trustee isresponsible, it shall similarly notifyPacific Scientific. The notice shall setforth the details of the proposedtransaction and list the name, address,and telephone number of each personnot previously identified who offered orexpressed an interest or desire toacquire any ownership interest in theDivestiture Assets, together with fulldetails of the same. Within fifteen (15)days after receipt of the notice, plaintiffmay request additional informationconcerning the proposed divestiture, theproposed purchaser, and any otherpotential purchaser. Pacific Scientific orthe trustee shall furnish the additional

information within fifteen (15) days ofthe receipt of the request. Within thirty(30) days after receipt of the notice orwithin fifteen (15) days after receipt ofthe additional information, whichever islater, the United States shall notify inwriting Pacific Scientific and thetrustee, if there is one, if it objects to theproposed divestiture. If the UnitedStates fails to object within the periodspecified, or if the United States notifiesin writing Pacific Scientific and thetrustee, if there is one, that it does notobject, then the divestiture may beconsummated, subject only to PacificScientific’s limited right to object to thesale under Section VI.B. Upon objectionby the United States or by PacificScientific under Section VI.B, theproposed divestiture shall not beaccomplished unless approved by theCourt.

B. Thirty (30) days from the datewhen this Order becomes final, andevery thirty (30) days thereafter until thedivestiture has been completed or atrustee is appointed, Pacific Scientificshall deliver to plaintiff a written reportas to the fact and manner of compliancewith Section V of this Final Judgment.Each such report shall include, for eachperson who during the preceding thirty(30) days made an offer, expressed aninterest or desire to acquire, entered intonegotiations to acquire, or made aninquiry about acquiring any ownershipinterest in the Divestiture Assets or anyof them, the name, address, andtelephone number that person and adetailed description of each contactwith that person during that period.Pacific Scientific shall maintain fullrecords of all efforts made to divest allor any portion of the Divestiture Assets.

VIII. FinancingPacific Scientific shall not finance all

or any part of any purchase madepursuant to Sections V or VI of thisFinal Judgment without the priorwritten consent of the United States.

IX. Compliance InspectionFor the purpose of determining or

securing compliance with this FinalJudgment, and subject to any legallyrecognized privilege, from time to time:

A. Duly authorized representatives ofthe United States, including consultantsand other persons retained by theplaintiff, shall, upon the written requestof the Assistant Attorney General incharge of the Antitrust Division, and onreasonable notice to Pacific Scientificmade to its principal offices, bepermitted:

1. access during office hours toinspect and copy all books, ledgers,accounts, correspondence, memoranda,


and other records and documents in thepossession or under the control ofdefendant, which may have counselpresent, relating to any matterscontained in this Final Judgment; and

2. subject to the reasonableconvenience of Pacific Scientific andwithout restraint or interference fromthem, to interview Pacific Scientificdirectors, officers, employees, andagents, who may have counsel present,regarding any such matters.

B. Upon the written request of theAssistant Attorney General in charge ofthe Antitrust Division, made to PacificScientific at its principal offices, PacificScientific shall submit written reports,under oath if requested, with respect toany of the matters contained in thisFinal Judgment as may be requested.

C. No information nor any documentsobtained by the means provided in thisSection IX shall be divulged by anyrepresentative of the United States toany person other than a duly authorizedrepresentative of the Executive Branchof the United States, except in thecourse of legal proceedings to which theUnited States is a party (including grandjury proceedings), or for the purpose ofsecuring compliance with this FinalJudgment, or as otherwise required bylaw.

D. If at the time information ordocuments are furnished by PacificScientific to plaintiff, Pacific Scientificrepresents and identifies in writing thematerial in any such information ordocuments for which a claim ofprotection may be asserted under Rule26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, and Pacific Scientific markseach pertinent page of such material,‘‘Subject to claim of protection underRule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure,’’ then plaintiff shallgive ten (10) days notice to PacificScientific prior to divulging suchmaterial in any legal proceeding (otherthan a grand jury proceeding) to whichPacific Scientific is not a party.

X. Retention of JurisdictionJurisdiction is retained by this Court

for the purpose of enabling any of theparties to this Final Judgment to applyto this Court at any time for such furtherorders and directions as may benecessary or appropriate for theconstruction, implementation, ormodification of any of the provisions ofthis Final Judgment, for the enforcementof compliance herewith, and for thepunishment of any violations hereof.

XI. TerminationThis Final Judgment will expire on

the tenth anniversary of the date of itsentry.

XII. Public InterestEntry of this Final Judgment is in the

public interest.Dated: llllllllllllllll

Court approval subject to procedures ofAntitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15U.S.C. § 16lllllllllllllllllllll

United States District Judge

United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia

In the matter of: United States of America,Plaintiff, v. Pacific Scientific Company,Defendant. Case Number 1:96CV00165.Judge: James Robertson. Deck Type:Antitrust. Date Stamp: 01/30/96.

Competitive Impact StatementThe United States, pursuant to

Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Proceduresand Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’), 15 U.S.C.§ 16(b)–(h), files this CompetitiveImpact Statement relating to theproposed Final Judgment submitted forentry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I. Nature and Purpose of the ProceedingThe United States filed a civil

antitrust Complaint on January 30, 1996,alleging that the proposed acquisition ofall of the outstanding shares of Met One,Inc. (‘‘Met One’’) by Pacific ScientificCompany (‘‘Pacific Scientific’’) wouldviolate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15U.S.C. § 18, and Section 1 of theSherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.Pacific Scientific and Met One are thenation’s two leading manufacturers ofdrinking water particle counters.

The Complaint alleges that thecombination of these major competitorswould substantially lessen competitionin the manufacture and sale of drinkingwater particle counters in the UnitedStates. The prayer for relief seeks: (1) ajudgment that the proposed acquisitionwould violate Section 7 of the ClaytonAct, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, andSection 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,15 U.S.C. § 1; and (2) a preliminary andpermanent injunction preventing PacificScientific and Met One from carryingout the proposed merger, or any similaragreement, understanding or plan.

Shortly before that suit was filed, aproposed settlement was reached thatwould permit Pacific Scientific tocomplete its acquisition of Met One’sstock, yet preserve competition in themarket in which the transaction wouldraise significant competitive concerns.A Stipulation and a proposed FinalJudgment embodying the proposedsettlement were filed as well.

The Stipulation effects a hold separateagreement that, in essence, requiresPacific Scientific to ensure that, untilthe divestiture mandated by the Final

Judgment has been accomplished, MetOne’s operations will be held separateand apart from, and operatedindependently of, Pacific Scientific’sassets and businesses.

The proposed Final Judgment ordersdefendant to sell all of PacificScientific’s U.S. assets and rightsrelating to the research anddevelopment, manufacture and sale ofPacific Scientific’s Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Systems, other thanreal property, and Met One’s softwarerelating to Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems, and other assets ifnecessary, to make an economicallyviable competitor in the manufactureand sale of drinking water particlecounters.

The United States and PacificScientific have stipulated that theproposed Final Judgment may beentered after compliance with theAPPA. Entry of the proposed FinalJudgment would terminate this action,except that the Court would retainjurisdiction to construe, modify, orenforce the provisions of the proposedFinal Judgment and to punish violationsthereof.

II. Description of the Events Giving Riseto the Alleged Violation

A. The Defendant and the ProposedTransaction

Defendant Pacific Scientific Companyis a California corporation with itsheadquarters in Newport Beach,California. Pacific Scientific Companyreported annual sales in 1994 ofapproximately $234,700,000. HIAC/ROYCO, the division of PacificScientific that manufactures and sellsdrinking water particle counters,reported 1994 sales of $13,011,000, ofwhich $1,270,000 came from drinkingwater particle counter sales.

Met One, Inc. is a Californiacorporation with its headquarters inGrants Pass, Oregon. Met One reportednet sales in 1994 of approximately$11,800,000, of which approximately$1,180,000 came from drinking waterparticle counter sales. Louis J. Petralli,Jr. is the majority and controlling ownerof Met One.

Pacific Scientific proposes to acquireall outstanding stock of Met One forPacific Scientific stock, and merge MetOne into a newly created acquisitionsubsidiary.

B. The Drinking Water Particle CounterMarket

Drinking water particle counters aredevices sold largely to municipalitiesfor the purpose of protecting againstcontamination of public drinking water


1 Turbiditymeters are not part of the relevantmarket. Turbidity is an optical measurement ofsolid contamination suspended as particles in afluid. Turbiditymeters have significantly differentattributes than drinking water particle counters. Forexample, turbiditymeters cannot detect smallquantities of microorganisms such asCryptosporidium, as particle counters can. And,unlike drinking water particle counters,turbiditymeters do not provide exact data for thesize and number of particles in a given medium.Municipalities do not consider turbiditymeters tobe substitutes for drinking water particle counters.

2 The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’) is awidely-used measure of market concentration.Following the acquisition, the appropriate post-merger HHI, calculated from 1994 dollar sales,would be 4842, an increase of 2108 from thepremeger HHI.

supplies. The drinking water particlecounters made and sold by defendantare capable of detecting particles thesize of potentially deadlymicroorganisms that may exist in publicdrinking water supplies. Drinking waterparticle counters such as those made bydefendant generally include fourcomponents: a sensor, which directs alaser beam from a laser diode throughthe water being tested; a sampler, whichprovides a means to transport a sampleof the water in which the particles arebeing counted undisturbed through thesensor; a counter, which sorts thesignals from the sensor by voltage andassigns a particle size to the signals; andsoftware, which translates data into areadable format.

Because drinking water particlecounters are able to detect potentiallyharmful contaminants in publicdrinking water with greater sensitivityand efficiency than other technologies,such as turbiditymeters andmicroscopes, municipalities purchasethem to satisfy their concerns for thepurity and safety of their drinkingwater. For example, in 1993, 28 peoplein Milwaukee died as a result ofdrinking water contamination by onesuch microorganism—Cryptosporidium.At the time of that tragedy, Milwaukeehad installed turbiditymeters but hadnot installed drinking water particlecounters. Since 1993, Milwaukee hasinstalled drinking water particlecounters.1

Municipalities generally purchasedrinking water particle counters throughformal bid procedures. Although priceis an important factor, municipalitiesalso consider quality, reliability, service,and the reputation of the qualifyingfirms. Municipalities routinely requestfrom each firm as part of that firm’s bidpackage a list of references from pastsuccessful bids. Municipalities alsoroutinely invite drinking water particlecounter competitors to demonstrate thecapabilities of their respective devicesprior to the municipality’sdetermination of the bid winner.

C. Competition Between PacificScientific and Met One

Pacific Scientific and Met Onecompete directly in the manufactureand sale of drinking water particlecounters. Pacific Scientific’s WaterParticle Counting System and Met One’son-line particle counting systems areregarded by municipalities as closesubstitutes, for they offer similarfunctionality, performance and features.

Pacific Scientific and Met Onerecognize the rivalry between theirproducts in the relevant geographicmarket. Each firm has engaged incomparative selling techniques andcompetitive pricing strategies againstthe other firm in order to increase thelikelihood of successful sales. Throughthese activities, Pacific Scientific andMet One have each operated as asignificant competitive constraint on theother’s prices and have each providedimpetus for technological improvementsin the other’s systems. For example,when Met One was awarded the 1994contract for particle counters providedto the City of San Francisco, PacificScientific wrote the city reminding itthat Pacific Scientific rather than MetOne was the low bidder. In its letter,Pacific Scientific also provided the citya detailed comparison of the PacificScientific product versus the Met Oneproduct. It has been common practicefor municipalities to conduct side byside evaluations or demonstrations ofthe Pacific Scientific and Met Onedrinking water particle counters inconsidering the merits of each product’ssoftware and hardware capabilities.

D. Anticompetitive Consequences of theAcquisition

The Complaint alleges that theacquisition of Met One, Inc. by PacificScientific Company would reducesubstantially or eliminate competitionin the drinking water particle countermarket in the United States anddecrease incentives to maintain highlevels of quality and service and to keepprices low.

Specifically, the Complaint allegesthat the acquisition would increaseconcentration significantly in what isalready a highly concentrated market.2

After the acquisition, the combinedPacific Scientific/Met One entity woulddominate the drinking water particlecounter market. Based on 1994 sales, themarket share of the combined entity

would be 65% of drinking water particlecounters sold in the United States.

The complaint also alleges that entryinto the market by a new firm sellingdrinking water particle counters wouldnot likely be either timely or sufficientto prevent the harm to competitioncaused by Pacific Scientific’sacquisition of Met One.

III. Explanation of the Proposed FinalJudgment

The proposed Final Judgment wouldpreserve competition in themanufacture and sale of drinking waterparticle counters in the United States.Within 30 days after entry of the FinalJudgment, defendant will divest certainof Pacific Scientific’s U.S. assets andrights relating to the research anddevelopment, manufacture and sale ofPacific Scientific’s Drinking WaterQuality Monitoring Systems, other thanreal property, and Met One’s softwarerelating to Drinking Water QualityMonitoring Systems, and other assets ifnecessary, to create an economicallyviable new competitor in themanufacture and sale of drinking waterparticle counters (in general, the‘‘Divestiture Assets’’).

The proposed Final Judgmentprovides for the imposition of civilcontempt penalties as an additionalincentive for defendant to carry out theprompt divestiture of the DivestitureAssets and maintain competition in thedrinking water particle counter market.

If defendant fails to divest theDivestiture Assets within 30 days afterentry of the Final Judgment, the Court,upon application by the United States,shall appoint a trustee nominated by theUnited States to effect the divestiture ofthe Divestiture Assets. If a trustee isappointed, the proposed Final Judgmentprovides that Pacific Scientific will payall costs and expenses of the trustee.The proposed Final Judgment alsoprovides that the compensation of thetrustee and of any professionals andagents retained by the trustee shall beboth reasonable in light of the value ofthe Divestiture Assets and based on afee arrangement providing the trusteewith an incentive based on the priceand terms of the divestiture and thespeed with which it is accomplished.After appointment, the trustee will filemonthly reports with the parties and theCourt setting forth the trustee’s efforts toaccomplish the divestiture orderedunder the proposed Final Judgment. Ifthe trustee has not accomplished thedivestiture within six (6) months afterits appointment, the trustee shallpromptly file with the Court a reportsetting forth (1) the trustee’s efforts toaccomplish the required divestiture, (2)


3 119 Cong. Rec. 24598 (1973). See United Statesv. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 715 (D. Mass.1975). A ‘‘public interest’’ determination can bemade properly on the basis of the CompetitiveImpact Statement and Response to Comments filedpursuant to the APPA. Although the APPAauthorizes the use of additional procedures, 15U.S.C. 16(f), those procedures are discretionary. Acourt need not invoke any of them unless it believesthat the comments have raised significant issuesand that further proceedings would aid the court inresolving those issues. See H.R. Rep. 93–1463, 93rdCong. 2d Sess. 8–9, reprinted in (1974) U.S. CodeCong. & Ad. News 6535, 6538.

4 United States v. Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666(citations omitted) (emphasis added); see UnitedStates v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d at 463; United Statesv. National Broadcasting Co., 449 F. Supp. 1127,1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); United States v. Gillette Co.,406 F. Supp. at 716. See also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at1461 (whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained in the

Continued

the reasons, in the trustee’s judgment,why the required divestiture has notbeen accomplished, and (3) the trustee’srecommendations. At the same time thetrustee will furnish such report to theparties, who will each have the right tobe heard and to make additionalrecommendations consistent with thepurpose of the trust.

The proposed Final Judgment requiresthat Pacific Scientific and Met One bemaintained separate and apart asindependent entities prior to thedivestiture contemplated by the FinalJudgment.

IV. Remedies Available to PotentialPrivate Litigants

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15U.S.C. § 15, provides that any personwho has been injured as a result ofconduct prohibited by the antitrust lawsmay bring suit in federal court torecover three times the damages theperson has suffered, as well as costs andreasonable attorneys’ fees. Entry of theproposed Final Judgment will neitherimpair nor assist the bringing of anyprivate antitrust damage action. Underthe provisions of Section 5(a) of theClayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(a), theproposed Final Judgment has no primafacie effect in any subsequent privatelawsuit that may be brought againstdefendant.

V. Procedures Available forModification of the Proposed FinalJudgment

The United States and the defendanthave stipulated that the proposed FinalJudgment may be entered by the Courtafter compliance with the provisions ofthe APPA, provided that the UnitedStates has not withdrawn its consent.The APPA conditions entry upon theCourt’s determination that the proposedFinal Judgment is in the public interest.

The APPA provides a period of atleast sixty (60) days preceding theeffective date of the proposed FinalJudgment within which any person maysubmit to the United States writtencomments regarding the proposed FinalJudgment. Any person who wishes tocomment should do so within sixty (60)days of the date of publication of thisCompetitive Impact Statement in theFederal Register. The United States willevaluate and respond to the comments.All comments will be given dueconsideration by the Department ofJustice, which remains free to withdrawits consent to the proposed FinalJudgment at any time prior to entry. Thecomments and the response of theUnited States will be filed with theCourt and published in the FederalRegister.

Written comments should besubmitted to: Craig W. Conrath, Chief,Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division,United States Department of Justice,1401 H Street NW., Suite 3700,Washington, D.C. 20530.

The proposed Final Judgmentprovides that the Court retainsjurisdiction over this action, and theparties may apply to the Court for anyorder necessary or appropriate for themodification, interpretation, orenforcement of the Final Judgment.

VI. Alternatives to the Proposed FinalJudgment

The United States considered, as analternative to the proposed FinalJudgment, a full trial on the merits of itsComplaint against Pacific Scientific.The United States is satisfied, however,that the divestiture of the assets andother relief contained in the proposedFinal Judgment will preserve viablecompetition in the manufacture and saleof drinking water particle counters thatwould otherwise be adversely affectedby the acquisition. Thus, the proposedFinal Judgment would achieve the reliefthe government would have obtainedthrough litigation, but avoids the time,expense and uncertainty of a full trialon the merits of the government’sComplaint.

VII. Standard of Review Under theAPPA for Proposed Final Judgment

The APPA requires that proposedconsent judgments in antitrust casesbrought by the United States be subjectto a sixty-day comment period, afterwhich the court shall determinewhether entry of the proposed FinalJudgment ‘‘is in the public interest.’’ Inmaking that determination,

The court may consider—(1) The competitive impact of such

judgment, including termination of allegedviolations, provisions for enforcement andmodification, duration or relief sought,anticipated effects of alternative remediesactually considered, and any otherconsiderations bearing upon the adequacy ofsuch judgment;

(2) The impact of entry of such judgmentupon the public generally and individualsalleging specific injury from the violationsset forth in the complaint includingconsideration of the public benefit, if any, tobe derived from a determination of the issuesat trial.

15 U.S.C. § 16(e) (emphasis added). Asthe United States Court of Appeals forthe D.C. Circuit recently held, thisstatute permits a court to consider,among other things, the relationshipbetween the remedy secured and thespecific allegations set forth in thegovernment’s complaint, whether thedecree is sufficiently clear, whether

enforcement mechanisms are sufficient,and whether the decree may positivelyharm third parties. See United States v.Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1461–62 (D.C.Cir. 1995).

In conducting this inquiry, ‘‘the Courtis nowhere compelled to go to trial orto engage in extended proceedingswhich might have the effect of vitiatingthe benefits of prompt and less costlysettlement through the consent decreeprocess.’’ 3 Rather,

Absent a showing of corrupt failure of thegovernment to discharge its duty, the Court,in making its public interest finding, should* * * carefully consider the explanations ofthe government in the competitive impactstatement and its responses to comments inorder to determine whether thoseexplanations are reasonable under thecircumstances.

United States v. Mid-AmericaDairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas.¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977).

Accordingly, with respect to theadequacy of the relief secured by thedecree, a court may not ‘‘engage in anunrestricted evaluation of what reliefwould best serve the public.’’ UnitedStates v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462(9th Cir. 1988) quoting United States v.Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9thCir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083 (1981);see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62.Precedent requires that—

The balancing of competing social andpolitical interests affected by a proposedantitrust consent decree must be left, in thefirst instance, to the discretion of theAttorney General. The court’s role inprotecting the public interest is one ofinsuring that the government has notbreached its duty to the public in consentingto the decree. The court is required todetermine not whether a particular decree isthe one that will best serve society, butwhether the settlement is ‘‘within the reachesof the public interest.’’ More elaboraterequirements might undermine theeffectiveness of antitrust enforcement byconsent decree.4


decree are] so inconsonant with the allegationscharged as to fall outside of the ’reaches of thepublic interest.’ ’’) (citations omitted).

5 United States v. American Tel. and Tel Co., 552F. Supp. 131, 150 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom.Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983),quoting United States v. Gillette Co., supra, 406 F.Supp. at 716; United States v. Alcan Aluminum,Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985).

The proposed Final Judgment,therefore, should not be reviewed undera standard of whether it is certain toeliminate every anticompetitive effect ofa particular practice or whether itmandates certainty of free competitionin the future. Court approval of a finaljudgment requires a standard moreflexible and less strict than the standardrequired for a finding of liability. ‘‘[A]proposed decree must be approved evenif it falls short of the remedy the courtwould impose on its own, as long as itfalls within the range of acceptability oris ‘within the reaches of public interest.’(citations omitted).’’5

VIII. Determinative DocumentsThere are no determinative materials

or documents within the meaning of theAPPA that were considered by theUnited States in formulating theproposed Final Judgment.

Dated: January 30, 1996.Respectfully submitted,

John W. Van Lonkhuyzen,Alexander Y. Thomas,Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,Antitrust Division, Merger Task Force, 1401H Street, NW., Suite 3700, Washington, DC20530, (202) 307–6355.[FR Doc. 96–2657 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the NationalCooperative Research and ProductionAct of 1993—Intelligent Processing ofMaterials-Physical Vapor DepositionConsortium (IPM–PVD)

Notice is hereby given that, onOctober 26, 1995, pursuant to section6(a) of the National CooperativeResearch and Production Act of 1993,15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),United Technologies Corporation andGeneral Electric Company filed writtennotifications simultaneously with theAttorney General and the Federal TradeCommission disclosing (1) the identitiesof the parties and (2) the nature andobjectives of the venture. Thenotifications were filed for the purposeof invoking the Act’s provisions limitingthe recovery of antitrust plaintiffs toactual damages under specifiedcircumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b)of the Act, the identities of the partiesare: United Technologies Corporation

acting by and through its Pratt &Whitney Government Engines andSpace Propulsion, Pratt & WhitneyCorporation, acting by and through itsUnited Technologies Research Center,East Hartford, CT; and the GeneralElectric Company, acting by andthrough its GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE),and through its GE CooperativeResearch and Development (GE–CRD)Center, Evendale, OH.

The objective of the program beingpursued by the IPM–PVD is to conductthe development of a sensor packageaimed at reducing processing costs,manufacturing variability and to enableimplementation of advanced TBCarchitectures.Constance K. Robinson,Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.[FR Doc. 96–2658 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and TrainingAdministration

Labor Certification Process for theTemporary Employment of Aliens inAgriculture and Logging in the UnitedStates: 1996 Adverse Effect WageRates and Allowable Charges forAgricultural and Logging Workers’Meals

AGENCY: U.S. Employment Service,Employment and TrainingAdministration, Labor.ACTION: Notice of adverse effect wagerates (AEWRs) and allowable charges formeals for 1996.

SUMMARY: The Director, U.S.Employment Service, announces 1996adverse effect wage rates (AEWRs) foremployers seeking nonimmigrant alien(H–2A) workers for temporary orseasonal agricultural labor or servicesand the allowable charges employersseeking nonimmigrant alien workers fortemporary or seasonal agricultural laboror services or logging work may levyupon their workers when they providethree meals per day.

AEWRs are the minimum wage rateswhich the Department of Labor hasdetermined must be offered and paid toU.S. and alien workers by employers ofnonimmigrant alien agricultural workers(H–2A visaholders). AEWRs areestablished to prevent the employmentof these aliens from adversely affectingwages of similarly employed U.S.workers.

The Director also announces the newrates which covered agricultural and

logging employers may charge theirworkers for three daily meals.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. John M. Robinson, Deputy AssistantSecretary for Employment and Training,U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–4700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:202–219–5257 (this is not a toll-freenumber).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheAttorney General may not approve anemployer’s petition for admission oftemporary alien agricultural (H–2A)workers to perform agricultural labor orservices of a temporary or seasonalnature in the United States unless thepetitioner has applied to the Departmentof Labor (DOL) for an H–2A laborcertification. The labor certificationmust show that: (1) there are notsufficient U.S. workers who are able,willing, and qualified and who will beavailable at the time and place neededto perform the labor or services involvedin the petition; and (2) the employmentof the alien in such labor or serviceswill not adversely affect the wages andworking conditions of workers in theUnited States similarly employed. 8U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c), and1188.

DOL’s regulations for the H–2Aprogram require that covered employersoffer and pay their U.S. and H–2Aworkers no less than the applicablehourly adverse effect wage rate (AEWR).20 CFR 655.102(b)(9); see also 20 CFR655.107. Reference should be made tothe preamble to the July 5, 1989, finalrule (54 FR 28037), which explains ingreat depth the purpose and history ofAEWRs, DOL’s discretion in settingAEWRs, and the AEWR computationmethodology at 20 CFR 655.107(a). Seealso 52 FR 20496, 20502–20505 (June 1,1987).

A. Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs)for 1996

Adverse effect wage rates (AEWRs)are the minimum wage rates which DOLhas determined must be offered andpaid to U.S. and alien workers byemployers of nonimmigrant (H–2A)agricultural workers. DOL emphasizes,however, that such employers must paythe highest of the AEWR, the applicableprevailing wage or the statutoryminimum wage, as specified in theregulations. 20 CFR 655.102(b)(9).Except as otherwise provided in 20 CFRPart 655, Subpart B, the regionwideAEWR for all agricultural employment(except those occupations deemedinappropriate under the specialcircumstances provisions of 20 CFR


655.93) for which temporary alienagricultural labor (H–2A) certification isbeing sought, is equal to the annualweighted average hourly wage rate forfield and livestock workers (combined)for the region as published annually bythe U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA does not provide data onAlaska). 20 CFR 655.107(a).

The regulation at 20 CFR 655.107(a)requires the Director, U.S. EmploymentService, to publish USDA field andlivestock worker (combined) wage dataas AEWRs in a Federal Register notice.Accordingly, the 1996 AEWRs for workperformed on or after the effective dateof this notice, are set forth in the tablebelow:

TABLE.—1996 ADVERSE EFFECTWAGE RATES (AEWRS)

State 1996AEWR

Alabama .......................................... $5.40Arizona ............................................ 5.87Arkansas ......................................... 5.27California ......................................... 6.26Colorado ......................................... 5.64Connecticut ..................................... 6.36Delaware ......................................... 5.97Florida ............................................. 6.54Georgia ........................................... 5.40Hawaii ............................................. 8.60Idaho ............................................... 5.76Illinois .............................................. 6.23Indiana ............................................ 6.23Iowa ................................................ 5.90Kansas ............................................ 6.29Kentucky ......................................... 5.54Louisiana ........................................ 5.27Maine .............................................. 6.36Maryland ......................................... 5.97Massachusetts ................................ 6.36Michigan ......................................... 6.19Minnesota ....................................... 6.19Mississippi ...................................... 5.27Missouri .......................................... 5.90Montana .......................................... 5.76Nebraska ........................................ 6.29Nevada ........................................... 5.64New Hampshire .............................. 6.36New Jersey ..................................... 5.97New Mexico .................................... 5.87New York ........................................ 6.36North Carolina ................................ 5.80North Dakota .................................. 6.29Ohio ................................................ 6.23Oklahoma ....................................... 5.50Oregon ............................................ 6.82Pennsylvania .................................. 5.97Rhode Island .................................. 6.36South Carolina ................................ 5.40South Dakota .................................. 6.29Tennessee ...................................... 5.54Texas .............................................. 5.50Utah ................................................ 5.64Vermont .......................................... 6.36Virginia ............................................ 5.80Washington ..................................... 6.82West Virginia .................................. 5.54Wisconsin ....................................... 6.19Wyoming ......................................... 5.76

B. Allowable Meal Charges

Among the minimum benefits andworking conditions which DOL requiresemployers to offer their alien and U.S.workers in their applications fortemporary logging and H–2Aagricultural labor certification is theprovision of three meals per day or freeand convenient cooking and kitchenfacilities. 20 CFR 655.102(b)(4) and655.202(b)(4). Where the employerprovides meals, the job offer must statethe charge, if any, to the worker formeals.

DOL has published at 20 CFR655.102(b)(4) and 655.111(a) themethodology for determining themaximum amounts covered H–2Aagricultural employers may charge theirU.S. and foreign workers for meals. Thesame methodology is applied at 20 CFR655.202(b)(4) and 655.211(a) to coveredH–2B logging employers. These rulesprovide for annual adjustments of theprevious year’s allowable charges basedupon Consumer Price Index (CPI) data.

Each year the maximum chargesallowed by 20 CFR 655.102(b)(4) and655.202(b)(4) are changed by the samepercentage as the twelve-month percentchange in the CPI for all UrbanConsumers for Food (CPI–U for Food)between December of the year just pastand December of the year prior to that.Those regulations and 20 CFR655.111(a) and 655.211(a) provide thatthe appropriate Regional Administrator(RA), Employment and TrainingAdministration, may permit anemployer to charge workers no morethan a higher maximum amount forproviding them with three meals a day,if justified and sufficiently documented.Each year, the higher maximumamounts permitted by 20 CFR655.111(a) and 655.211(a) are changedby the same percentage as the twelve-month percent change in the CPI–U forFood between December of the year justpast and December of the year prior tothat. The regulations require theDirector, U.S. Employment Service, tomake the annual adjustments and tocause a notice to be published in theFederal Register each calendar year,announcing annual adjustments inallowable charges that may be made bycovered agricultural and loggingemployers for providing three mealsdaily to their U.S. and alien workers.The 1995 rates were published in anotice on February 7, 1995 at 60 FR7215.

DOL has determined the percentagechange between December of 1994 andDecember of 1995 for the CPI–U forFood was 2.8 percent.

Accordingly, the maximum allowablecharges under 20 CFR 655.102(b)(4),655.202(b)(4), 655.111, and 655.211were adjusted using this percentagechange, and the new permissiblecharges for 1996 are as follows: (1) for20 CFR 655.102(b)(4) and 655.202(b)(4),the charge, if any, shall be no more than$7.17 per day, unless the RA hasapproved a higher charge pursuant to 20CFR 655.111 or 655.211(b); for 20 CFR655.111 and 655.211, the RA maypermit an employer to charge workersup to $8.95 per day for providing themwith three meals per day, if theemployer justifies the charge andsubmits to the RA the documentationrequired to support the higher charge.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day ofFebruary, 1996.John M. Robinson,Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employmentand Training, U.S. Employment Service.[FR Doc. 96–2714 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDSADMINISTRATION

Records Schedules; Availability andRequest for Comments

AGENCY: National Archives and RecordsAdministration, Office of RecordsAdministration.ACTION: Notice of availability ofproposed records schedules; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The National Archives andRecords Administration (NARA)publishes notice at least once monthlyof certain Federal agency requests forrecords disposition authority (recordsschedules). Records schedules identifyrecords of sufficient value to warrantpreservation in the National Archives ofthe United States. Schedules alsoauthorize agencies after a specifiedperiod to dispose of records lackingadministrative, legal, research, or othervalue. Notice is published for recordsschedules that (1) propose thedestruction of records not previouslyauthorized for disposal, or (2) reducethe retention period for records alreadyauthorized for disposal. NARA invitespublic comments on such schedules, asrequired by 44 USC 3303a(a).DATES: Request for copies must bereceived in writing on or before March25, 1996. Once the appraisal of therecords is completed, NARA will senda copy of the schedule. The requesterwill be given 30 days to submitcomments.


ADDRESSES: Address requests for singlecopies of schedules identified in thisnotice to the Records Appraisal andDisposition Division (NIR), NationalArchives and Records Administration,College Park, MD 20740. Requestersmust cite the control number assignedto each schedule when requesting acopy. The control number appears inthe parentheses immediately after thename of the requesting agency.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each yearU.S. Government agencies createbillions of records on paper, film,magnetic tape, and other media. In orderto control this accumulation, agencyrecords managers prepare recordsschedules specifying when the agencyno longer needs the records and whathappens to the records after this period.Some schedules are comprehensive andcover all the records of an agency or oneof its major subdivisions. Thesecomprehensive schedules provide forthe eventual transfer to the NationalArchives of historically valuable recordsand authorize the disposal of all otherrecords. Most schedules, however, coverrecords of only one office or program ora few series of records, and many areupdates of previously approvedschedules. Such schedules also mayinclude records that are designated forpermanent retention.

Destruction of records requires theapproval of the Archivist of the UnitedStates. This approval is granted after athorough study of the records that takesinto account their administrative use bythe agency of origin, the rights of theGovernment and of private personsdirectly affected by the Government’sactivities, and historical or other value.

This public notice identifies theFederal agencies and their subdivisionsrequesting disposition authority,includes the control number assigned toeach schedule, and briefly describes therecords proposed for disposal. Therecords schedule contains additionalinformation about the records and theirdisposition. Further information aboutthe disposition process will befurnished to each requester.

Schedules Pending1. Department of Veterans Affairs,

Veterans Health Administration (N1–15–96–1). Records relating to specialsalary rates for certain health careoccupations.

2. Department of State, Bureau ofConsular Affairs (N1–59–96–1). Routine,facilitative, and duplicative records ofthe Office of Public Affairs and PolicyCoordination.

3. Bureau of the Census (N1–29–96–1). 1990 decennial census time andattendance records for temporary

employees (one-time exception toGeneral Records Schedule 2, Item 8).

4. Executive Office of the President,Office of Science and Technology Policy(N1–359–96–1). Electronic and textualrecords created after July 14, 1994 thatdeal with routine administrativematters. (Master File of E–Mail messageswill be preserved.)

5. National Archives and RecordsAdministration (N1–GRS–95–4).Reduction in retention period forprocurement files.

6. Peace Corps (N1–490–95–10).Medical technical procedural guidelinesand field copies; and administrativereference copies of memoranda ofunderstanding.

7. Tennessee Valley Authority (N1–142–93–2). Forest Stand Tally Sheets,1934–1943.

Dated: January 30, 1996.James W. Moore,Assistant Archivist for RecordsAdministration.[FR Doc. 96–2729 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7515–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The Federal Demonstration Project;Phase III Solicitation

AGENCIES: National Science Foundation,National Institutes of Health, Office ofNaval Research, Department of Energy,Department of Agriculture, Air ForceOffice of Scientific Research, ArmyResearch Office, Army MedicalResearch & Material Command, NationalAeronautics & Space Administration,Environmental Protection Agency.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This Notice announces asolicitation to participate in Phase III ofthe Federal Demonstration Project(FDP), to test innovative approaches tostreamline processes and systems forFederally supported research andeducation. FDP Phase III constitutes thecontinuation of the FloridaDemonstration Project Phase I whichran from 1986 through 1988, and theFederal Demonstration Project Phase IIwhich began in September 1988 andwill conclude in June, 1996.DATES: Proposals must be received byC.O.B. on March 20, 1996 (see sectionentitled ‘‘Proposal Submission andDeadline’’) Evaluation and selection oforganizations will be completed aboutMay 1, 1996. Project organization andexecution of Phase II agreements will becompleted about June 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann Datko, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 202–401–4921,[email protected];

Geoffrey Grant, NIH, 301–435–0538,[email protected];

Harry Haraldsen, Air Force Office ofScientific Research, 202–767–4990,[email protected];

Robert Hardy, NSF, 703–306–1240,[email protected];

Richard Kall, NASA 202–358–0459,[email protected];

Charles Paoletti, ONR, 703–696–4606,[email protected];

Dan Shackelford, U.S. Army MedicalResearch and Materiel Command,301–619–7216,

[email protected];

John Showman, EPA, 202–260–6580,[email protected];

Larry Travis, Army Research Office,919–549–4310,[email protected];

Jean Morrow, DOE, 301–903–2452,[email protected]


BackgroundIn April, 1986 NSF, NIH, ONR, DOE

and USDA joined with the Florida StateUniversity System and the University ofMiami in a demonstration of a standardand simplified research supportinstrument. This Florida DemonstrationProject was developed by federalofficials with the encouragement of theGovernment-University-IndustryResearch Roundtable (GUIRR) of theNational Academy of Sciences. ThisDemonstration tested the use of anumber of expanded authorities forgrants administration by researchperforming organizations.Demonstrations focused on such thingsas eliminating most requirements forfederal prior approval of certainexpenditures so long as pertinentgrantee administrative systems wereadequate and effective and allowinggrantees the authority to: a) incur pre-award costs up to 90 days before theeffective date of a grant, b) extend theperiod of the grant for up to one yearwith no additional funds, and c) carryforward balances from one budgetperiod to the next. Based on the resultsof Phase I, OMB authorized expansionof the Demonstration in May, 1988.

FDP Phase II began in September,1988 with 21 educational institutions orconsortia and 10 federal agencies.Initially, seven task groups comprised ofrepresentatives from participatinginstitutions and federal agencies wereformed and charged with developingmodels for administrative reform in a


variety of areas. A uniform set ofpolicies and procedures foradministration of research grants, asimplified continuation applicationprocess and elimination of equipmentscreening were some of FDP Phase IIsuccesses. In addition, during Phase IIFDP responded to an OMB request toprepare a report on the possibility andpracticality of direct charging facilitycosts to grants. FDP Phase II wasrecognized in the National PerformanceReview as the model for testing moreefficient ways for federal agencies tointeract with grantee institutions.

Purpose of ScopeThe purpose of this solicitation is to

provide a mechanism to expand thescope of and broaden the participationin the current Federal DemonstrationProject. The primary focus of this newphase of the FDP will be to serve as thecentral test bed for demonstration ofreengineered processes and systems forfederal support of research andeducation. Emphasis will be placed onelectronic research administration anddemonstrations that provideadministrative relief for facultyresearchers. Primary goals continue tobe increased productivity, increasedstewardship, and decreasedadministrative burden.

Organization of Phase III and Phase IIIActivities

The primary forum within the FDPPhase III for interaction among all theparticipants will continue to be theCommittee of the Whole. Each non-federal member institution ororganization will designate a minimumof two representatives (oneadministrator and one investigator) tothe Committee of the Whole. Similarly,each federal agency participating in theFDP Phase III will designate tworepresentatives (policy/administrative/business and program manager).Additional institutional/agencyrepresentatives may attend andparticipate in meetings as observers, asmay representatives from affiliatemembership groups. The Committee ofthe Whole will meet at least once a year.

In addition to the Committee of theWhole, a Steering Committee will meetat least three times a year. The SteeringCommittee will receive and approverecommendations for newdemonstrations, progress and evaluationreports on demonstrations and pilots,and approve the conveying ofrecommendations to the Office ofScience and Technology Policy. TheSteering Committee will also beresponsible for establishing task forcesand assigning their membership,

developing position papers, reviewingand approving additional affiliatemembership requests and membershipterminations, and undertaking otheractivities consistent with FDPobjectives. All member federal agencieswill be represented on the SteeringCommittee. Depending on the numberof non-federal members, participationmay include one representative fromeach institution or a representativegroup of institutional representativeswhose membership would rotate,offering each institution membership onthe Steering Committee for a set period.

An Executive Committee, consistingof two institutional Steering Committeemembers, two federal agencyrepresentatives, a GUIRR representative,and a senior federal science official willmeet on an as needed basis and will beempowered to take necessary actions onbehalf of the Committee of the Wholeand/or Steering Committee. It will alsodevelop meeting agendas, monitor taskforce progress, identify opportunities fornew demonstrations, and act as liaisonfor the FDP with other groups andindividuals. The Steering Committeewill appoint members to the ExecutiveCommittee annually except for thesenior federal science official who willbe selected from, and named by, theResearch Roundtable Council and willhave an indefinite term of service.

The GUIRR of the National Academycomplex will continue to function as aneutral convenor for the FDP, and willprovide the executive secretariat. It willcontinue to facilitate meetings anddiscussions of the Committee of theWhole and Steering Committee, and thecontributions of the FDP to federalpolicy-making.

The federal agency working groupwill continue to be comprised ofrepresentatives of the federal agencySteering Committee members. Thegroup will convene periodically to forma consensus about proposeddemonstrations and pilots they arewilling to test, as well as new or revisedFDP terms and conditions.

The Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy (OSTP) will be the focal pointwithin the federal government toreceive, review and implement asappropriate recommendationsemanating from FDP activities.

EligibilityThis solicitation is open to all

institutions and organizations otherthan state and local governments thatundertake research or educationalactivities supported with federal fundsthrough a grant or cooperativeagreement mechanism, provided suchorganizations have received at least

$1,000,000 of such federal support overthe past two years. Existing FDPmember institutions and organizationswho have maintained activeparticipation in the current Phase II ofthe FDP will be admitted to Phase IIIupon execution of a memorandum ofagreement (see below) by an appropriatesenior official of the organization.Consortia of federal research oreducation performing institutions ororganizations are not eligible toparticipate in Phase III of the FDP, withthe exception of central system officesof statewide university systems andnon-profit foundations that serve aslegal agents for otherwise eligibleinstitutions (e.g. university researchfoundations). In such cases participationof individual member institutions in theFDP is strongly encouraged. Existingmember institutions of FDP Phase IIconsortia will be admitted to Phase IIIupon execution of the memorandum ofagreement.

The selection of organizations forPhase III of the FDP is intended to bebroadly representative of the federalresearch and education performingcommunity, including large and smallpublic and private colleges anduniversities (including predominantlyundergraduate institutions and HBCUs),non-profit research and educationorganizations (including sciencemuseums), hospitals, and profit-makingorganizations. every effort will be madeto ensure broad representation by type,size, extent of federal support,geographic location and othercharacteristics. However, nocommitment is made to select either aminimum number of organizations or toensure representation by organizationtype or other characteristics.

Expressions of interest in affiliatemembership status by groups such asprofessional associations of researchers,educators or research and educationadministrators, scientific societies, andother such groups are encouraged.While such groups are not eligible forfull FDP membership, theirrepresentatives may attend FDPmeetings as observers and otherwiseparticipate as appropriate in FDPactivities. Affiliate membership statusfor smaller institutions or organizationsunable to commit to the conditions forfull FDP participation (see below) alsowill be considered.

Participation ConditionsAs a condition for participation in

Phase III, the selected organizations willbe required to agree to the followingconditions:

1. Establishment and maintenance ofmanagement and administrative


procedures and systems that complywith the standards and requirements ofthe federal government foradministering federal awards forresearch and education (including lackof material weaknesses in internalcontrol structures as confirmed byapplicable audit requirements andsubstantial compliance with federalpolicies and regulations pertaining togrant administration, such as timelytechnical, invention and financialreporting).

2. Agreement to actively participate inthe FDP, including regular attendance,at institutional expense, of FDPcommittee and task force meetings, andparticipation in new or ongoing FDPdemonstrations and pilots. Failure toattend two or more consecutiveregularly-scheduled FDP committeemeetings will be grounds fortermination of membership.

3. Commitment to continued efforts toreengineer and streamline internalprocesses while enhancing thestewardship of federal support and toprovide a report to the FDP membershipat least every two years on these efforts.

4. Execution of a memorandum ofagreement confirming the above, andsetting forth certain additionalunderstandings and requirements (copyof draft agreement will be furnished onrequest and may also be accessedelectronically via the NSF Home Pageon the World-Wide Web). Federalagencies currently participating in theFDP have agreed that agency grants andcooperative agreements to FDP memberinstitutions and organizations(excluding affiliate members) will begoverned by the ‘‘FDP Terms andConditions’’ (unless otherwiserequired). During Phase III they areexpected to use the FDP as the primaryfocus for tests and demonstrations ofreengineered processes and systems forthe support of research and education.Additional federal agencies may beadmitted to the FDP upon agreement tothese conditions.

What To SubmitProposing organizations must submit

ten (10) copies of a brief proposal (notto exceed 5 pages). The proposal mustbe signed by a senior official authorizedto commit the organization in suchmatters (in the case of educationalinstitutions Provost level or higher). Itmust cover the following:

1. Description of existing and plannedefforts by the proposing institution/organization to reengineer and improvethe effectiveness of systems foradministration of federal support.

2. Description of possible Phase IIIdemonstration and pilot projects

including significance of theadministrative problem or burden to beaddressed, suggested methods/approaches, ways to assess the impacton productivity, and expected benefits.

3. Identification of primaryinstitutional/organizationalrepresentatives including theirbackground and qualifications. One ofthe outcomes of Phase II is a recognitionof the need for greater participation inFDP activities by principal investigatorsand project directors of Federallysupported research and educationactivities. Therefore proposingorganizations should identify bothadministrative and principalinvestigator/project directorrepresentatives and indicate theircommitment to participate in FDPactivities. (It is expected that each FDPPhase III member organization willdesignate two representatives).

4. Indication of the proposingorganization’s top managementcommitment to reengineeradministrative processes and systems,and willingness and commitment tofully participate in FDP activities.

This section also should include abrief summary of the organization’scharacteristics: type of institution/organization, size, Federal R&D/education funding for fiscal years 1994and 1995, by year and funding agency,etc.

Selection Criteria1. Evaluation and assessment of

existing reengineering activities of theorganization in the area ofadministrative processes and systemsand organizational commitment tosame.

2. Significance of proposeddemonstrations and pilot projects andthe extent to which suggested methodsand approaches clearly show potentialto achieve the results sought.

3. Commitment of individualsproposed as lead organizationalrepresentatives and their experience andleadership in improving administrationof federal support.

4. Evidence of organizational and topmanagement commitment to fullparticipation in Phase III. In additionalto the above, equally weighted criteria,consideration will be given to achievingan appropriate representation oforganizations, including organizationtype, size, extent of federal support,geographic location, etc.

Evaluation of Proposals and SelectionProcess

Evaluation of proposals will becarried out by the Standing FDPCommittee on Membership, which is

comprised of federal agency officials,representatives of current FDP memberinstitutions, and GUIRR representatives.The Membership Committee will makethe final selection in consultation withthe Executive Committee of the FDP.

Proposal Submission and DeadlinesTen copies of the organization’s

proposal must be received by C.O.B.March 20, 1996 at the Government—University—Industry ResearchRoundtable, National Academy ofSciences, National Academy ofEngineering, Institute of Medicine, 2101Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,DC 20410. Attention: FDP

Selection and ScheduleEvaluation and selection of

organizations will be completed aboutMay 1, 1996. Project organization andexecution of Phase III agreements willbe completed about June 15, 1996.

Dated: February 2, 1996.Robert B. Hardy,Director, Division of Contracts, Policy andOversight.[FR Doc. 96–2642 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

Documents Containing Reporting orRecordkeeping Requirements: Officeof Management and Budget Review

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Notice of the OMB review ofinformation collection and solicitationof public comment. The NRC herebyinforms potential respondents that anagency may not conduct or sponsor, andthat a person is not required to respondto, a collection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid OMB controlnumber.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) has recentlysubmitted to OMB for review thefollowing proposal for collection ofinformation under the provision of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission, new, revision,or extension: Revision.

2. The title of the informationcollection: 10 CFR Part 20, ProposedRule, Reporting Requirements forUnauthorized Use of LicensedRadioactive Material.

3. The form number if applicable: Notapplicable.

4. How often is the collectionrequired: As the events occur.


5. Who will be required or asked toreport: All NRC licensees.

6. An estimate of the number ofresponses: 19,800.

7. The estimated number of annualrespondents: 20 per year.

8. An estimate of the number of hoursneeded annually to complete therequirement or request: 400 hours forthe 20 licensees that may be affected bythis proposed rule or 20 hours perlicensee.

9. An indication of whether Section3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Notapplicable.

10. Abstract: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is proposing torequire reporting of events that cause, orhave the potential to cause, an exposureof individuals whether or not theexposure exceeds the regulatory limits.This proposed rule would add a newrequirement for licensees to notify theNRC Operations Center within 24 hoursafter finding any event of intentional orallegedly intentional deviation oflicensed radioactive material from itsintended or authorized use. In addition,the proposed rule would add a newrequirement for licensees to notify theNRC when they are unable, within 48hours of discovery of the event, to ruleout that the use was intentional.

Submit by April 8, 1996, commentsthat address the following question:

1. Is the proposed collection ofinformation necessary for the NRC toproperly perform its functions? Does theinformation have practical utility?

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected?

4. How can the burden of theinformation collection be minimized,including the use of automatedcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology?

A copy of the submittal may beviewed free of charge at the NRC PublicDocument Room, 2120 L Street, NW(lower level), Washington, DC 20555–0001. Members of the public who are inthe Washington, DC, area can access thisdocument via modem on the PublicDocument Room Bulletin Board (NRC’sAdvances Copy Document Library),NRC subsystem at FedWorld, 703–321–3339. Members of the public who arelocated outside of the Washington, DC,area can dial FedWorld, 1–800–303–9672), or use the FedWorld Internetaddress: fedworld.gov (Telnet). Thedocument will be available on thebulletin board for 30 days after thesignature date of this notice. Ifassistance is needed in accessing thedocument, please contact the FedWorldhelp desk at 703–487–4608. Comments

and questions should be directed to theOMB reviewer by March 11, 1996: TroyHillier, Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, (3150–0014), NEOB–10202, Office of Management andBudget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted bytelephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is BrendaJ. Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th dayof January, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Gerald F. Cranford,Designated Senior Official for InformationResources Management.[FR Doc. 96–2700 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–498 AND 50–499]

Houston Lighting and PowerCompany, City Public Service Board ofSan Antonio, Central Power and LightCompany, City of Austin, Texas; Noticeof Consideration of Issuance ofAmendments to Facility OperatingLicenses, Proposed No SignificantHazards Consideration Determination,and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering issuance of an amendmentto Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80, issued to HoustonLighting & Power Company, et. al., (thelicensee) for operation of the SouthTexas Project, located in MatagordaCounty, Texas. The original applicationdated May 1, 1995, was previouslypublished in the Federal Register onJune 6, 1995 (60 FR 29876). Thatapplication was supplemented by lettersdated June 22, August 28, November 22,December 19, 1995, January 4, January8 (two letters), and January 23, 1996.

The proposed amendment wouldprovide a special test exception thatwould allow an extension of the standbydiesel generator (SDG) allowed outagetime for a cumulative 21 days on eachSDG once per fuel cycle, and it wouldalso allow an extension of the essentialcooling water (ECW) loop allowedoutage time for a cumulative 7 days oneach ECW loop once per fuel cycle.These extended allowed outage timeswill be used to perform requiredinspections and maintenance on theSDGs and the ECW system duringpower operation.

Before issuance of the proposedlicense amendment, the Commissionwill have made findings required by theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended(the Act) and the Commission’sregulations.

The Commission has made aproposed determination that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration. Underthe Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR50.92, this means that operation of thefacility in accordance with the proposedamendment would not (1) involve asignificant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated; or (2) create the possibility ofa new or different kind of accident fromany accident previously evaluated; or(3) involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety. As required by 10 CFR50.91(a), the licensee has provided itsanalysis of the issue of no significanthazards consideration, which ispresented below:

1. The proposed change does not involvea significant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previouslyevaluated.

The Standby Diesel Generators are notaccident initiators, therefore the increase inAllowed Outage Times for this system doesnot increase the probability of an accidentpreviously evaluated. The three train designof the South Texas Project ensures that evenduring the seven days the Essential CoolingWater loop is inoperable there are still twocomplete trains available to mitigate theconsequences of any accident. If the EssentialCooling Water loop is not inoperable duringthe 21 days the Standby Diesel Generator isinoperable, the Standby Diesel Generator’sEngineered Safety Features bus andequipment in the train will be operable. Thisensures that all three redundant safety trainsof the South Texas Project design areoperable. In addition the EmergencyTransformer will be available to supply theEngineered Safety Features bus normallysupplied by the inoperable Standby DieselGenerator. These actions will ensure that thechanges do not involve a significant increasein the consequences of previously evaluatedaccidents.

2. The proposed change does not create thepossibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previouslyevaluated.

The proposed changes affect only themagnitude of the Standby Diesel Generatorand Essential Cooling Water Allowed OutageTimes once per fuel cycle as identified by themarked-up Technical Specification. Asindicated above, the proposed change doesnot involve the alteration of any equipmentnor does it allow modes of operation beyondthose currently allowed. Therefore,implementation of these proposed changesdoes not create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from any accidentpreviously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involvea significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed changes result in nosignificant increase in core damage or largeearly release frequencies.

Three sets of PSA [probabilistic safetyassessment] results have been presented tothe NRC for the South Texas Project. Onesubmitted in 1989 from the initial Level 1


PSA of internal and external events with amean annual average CDF [core damagefrequency] estimate of 1.7 × 10(¥4), a secondone submitted in 1992 to meet the IPErequirements from the Level 2 PSA/IPE witha CDF estimate of 4.4 × 10(¥5), and anupdate of the PSA that was reported in theAugust 1993 Technical Specificationssubmittal with a variety of CDF estimates fordifferent assumptions regarding the rollingmaintenance profile and differentcombinations of modified TechnicalSpecifications. The South Texas Project PSAwas updated in March of 1995 to include theNRC approved Risk-Based TechnicalSpecifications, Plant Specific Data andincorporate the Emergency Transformer intothe model. This update resulted in a CDFestimate of 2.07 × 10(¥5). When therequested changes are modeled along withthe compensatory actions, the resulting CDFestimate is 2.30 × 10(¥5). While this isslightly higher (approx. 11%) than theupdated results, it is still significantly lower(approx. 46%) than the previous Risk-BasedEvaluation of Technical Specificationsubmitted in 1993. Therefore, it is concludedthat there is no significant reduction in themargin of safety.

Based on the above evaluation, HoustonLighting & Power has concluded that thesechanges do not involve any significanthazards considerations.

The NRC staff has reviewed thelicensee’s analysis and, based on thisreview, it appears that the threestandards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) aresatisfied. Therefore, the NRC staffproposes to determine that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking publiccomments on this proposeddetermination. Any comments receivedwithin 30 days after the date ofpublication of this notice will beconsidered in making any finaldetermination.

Normally, the Commission will notissue the amendment until theexpiration of the 30-day notice period.However, should circumstances changeduring the notice period such thatfailure to act in a timely way wouldresult, for example, in derating orshutdown of the facility, theCommission may issue the licenseamendment before the expiration of the30-day notice period, provided that itsfinal determination is that theamendment involves no significanthazards consideration. The finaldetermination will consider all publicand State comments received. Shouldthe Commission take this action, it willpublish in the Federal Register a noticeof issuance and provide for opportunityfor a hearing after issuance. TheCommission expects that the need totake this action will occur veryinfrequently.

Written comments may be submittedby mail to the Rules Review andDirectives Branch, Division of Freedomof Information and PublicationsServices, Office of Administration, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555, and should citethe publication date and page number ofthis Federal Register notice. Writtencomments may also be delivered toRoom 6D22, Two White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.Federal workdays. Copies of writtencomments received may be examined atthe NRC Public Document Room, theGelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing andpetitions for leave to intervene isdiscussed below.

By March 11, 1996, the licensee mayfile a request for a hearing with respectto issuance of the amendment to thesubject facility operating license andany person whose interest may beaffected by this proceeding and whowishes to participate as a party in theproceeding must file a written requestfor a hearing and a petition for leave tointervene. Requests for a hearing and apetition for leave to intervene shall befiled in accordance with theCommission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice forDomestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10CFR Part 2. Interested persons shouldconsult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714which is available at the Commission’sPublic Document Room, the GelmanBuilding, 2120 L Street, NW.,Washington, DC, and at the local publicdocument room located at the WhartonCounty Junior College, J.M. HodgesLearning Center, 911 Boling Highway,Wharton, Texas 77488. If a request fora hearing or petition for leave tointervene is filed by the above date, theCommission or an Atomic Safety andLicensing Board, designated by theCommission or by the Chairman of theAtomic Safety and Licensing BoardPanel, will rule on the request and/orpetition; and the Secretary or thedesignated Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard will issue a notice of hearing oran appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, apetition for leave to intervene shall setforth with particularity the interest ofthe petitioner in the proceeding, andhow that interest may be affected by theresults of the proceeding. The petitionshould specifically explain the reasonswhy intervention should be permittedwith particular reference to thefollowing factors: (1) The nature of thepetitioner’s right under the Act to bemade party to the proceeding; (2) thenature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest inthe proceeding; and (3) the possibleeffect of any order which may beentered in the proceeding on thepetitioner’s interest. The petition shouldalso identify the specific aspect(s) of thesubject matter of the proceeding as towhich petitioner wishes to intervene.Any person who has filed a petition forleave to intervene or who has beenadmitted as a party may amend thepetition without requesting leave of theBoard up to 15 days prior to the firstprehearing conference scheduled in theproceeding, but such an amendedpetition must satisfy the specificityrequirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the firstprehearing conference scheduled in theproceeding, a petitioner shall file asupplement to the petition to intervenewhich must include a list of thecontentions which are sought to belitigated in the matter. Each contentionmust consist of a specific statement ofthe issue of law or fact to be raised orcontroverted. In addition, the petitionershall provide a brief explanation of thebases of the contention and a concisestatement of the alleged facts or expertopinion which support the contentionand on which the petitioner intends torely in proving the contention at thehearing. The petitioner must alsoprovide references to those specificsources and documents of which thepetitioner is aware and on which thepetitioner intends to rely to establishthose facts or expert opinion. Petitionermust provide sufficient information toshow that a genuine dispute exists withthe applicant on a material issue of lawor fact. Contentions shall be limited tomatters within the scope of theamendment under consideration. Thecontention must be one which, ifproven, would entitle the petitioner torelief. A petitioner who fails to file sucha supplement which satisfies theserequirements with respect to at least onecontention will not be permitted toparticipate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene becomeparties to the proceeding, subject to anylimitations in the order granting leave tointervene, and have the opportunity toparticipate fully in the conduct of thehearing, including the opportunity topresent evidence and cross-examinewitnesses.

If a hearing is requested, theCommission will make a finaldetermination on the issue of nosignificant hazards consideration. Thefinal determination will serve to decidewhen the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that theamendment request involves nosignificant hazards consideration, the


1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35186

(December 30, 1994), 60 FR 2418.3 Letter from J. Craig Long, Foley and Lardner (on

behalf of the Midwest Securities Trust Company),to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission(February 3, 1995). The comment letter is discussedin Section II of this order.

4 Letter from Richard B. Nesson, Executive VicePresident and General Counsel, DTC, to Jerry W.Carpenter, Esq., Assistant Director, Division ofMarket Regulation, Commission (October 11, 1995).

5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36425(October 26, 1995), 60 FR 55623.

6 Letter from William W. Uchimoto, First VicePresident and General Counsel, PhiladelphiaDepository Trust Company (‘‘Philadep’’), toJonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission(November 30, 1995). The comment letter isdiscussed in Section II of this order.

7 The Commission has described ‘‘linkedservices’’ as arrangements where one depository(the ‘‘servicing depository’’) performs for anotherdepository (the ‘‘using depository’’) the core tasksnecessary to deliver the services to the usingdepository’s participants. The Commission hascited as examples of linked services DTC’sprocessing of ID confirmations and affirmations andDTC’s fourth-party delivery service. TheCommission has expressed the view that a servicingdepository should be permitted to charge a usingdepository the same fee it charges its participantsfor the same or a similar service. See SecuritiesExchange Act Release No. 23083 (March 31, 1986)at pages 15–23.

8 Supra note 3. The first commenter, also aregistered securities depository, submitted acomment letter only in response to DTC’s originalfiling and stated that DTC’s filing was an attemptto have the commenter adopt a no-charge policy forrendering most services to DTC in connection withthe operation of the interface between thedepositories. The commenter also focused on thisfiling’s relationship to another pending DTC filingregarding interface fees. The commenter urged the

Continued

Commission may issue the amendmentand make it immediately effective,notwithstanding the request for ahearing. Any hearing held would takeplace after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that theamendment request involves asignificant hazards consideration, anyhearing held would take place beforethe issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petitionfor leave to intervene must be filed withthe Secretary of the Commission, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555, Attention:Docketing and Services Branch, or maybe delivered to the Commission’s PublicDocument Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, bythe above date. Where petitions are filedduring the last 10 days of the noticeperiod, it is requested that the petitionerpromptly so inform the Commission bya toll-free telephone call to WesternUnion at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Unionoperator should be given DatagramIdentification Number N1023 and thefollowing message addressed to WilliamD. Beckner, Director, Project DirectorateIV–1: petitioner’s name and telephonenumber, date petition was mailed, plantname, and publication date and pagenumber of this Federal Register notice.A copy of the petition should also besent to the Office of the GeneralCounsel, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555,and to Jack R. Newman, Esq., Newman& Holtzinger, P.C., 1615 L Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20036, attorney for thelicensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions forleave to intervene, amended petitions,supplemental petitions and/or requestsfor hearing will not be entertainedabsent a determination by theCommission, the presiding officer or thepresiding Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard that the petition and/or requestshould be granted based upon abalancing of the factors specified in 10CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application foramendment dated May 1, 1995, assupplemented by letters dated June 22,August 28, November 22, December 19,1995, January 4, January 8 (two letters),and January 23, 1996, which areavailable for public inspection at theCommission’s Public Document Room,the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,NW., Washington, DC, and at the localpublic document room located at theWharton County Junior College, J.M.Hodges Learning Center, 911 BolingHighway, Wharton, Texas 77488.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd dayof February 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.George Kalman,Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 96–2701 Filed 2–8–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

[Release No. 34–36799; File No. SR–DTC–94–16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; TheDepository Trust Co.; Order Approvinga Proposed Rule Change Clarifying theDepository Trust Company’s Policy onDepository-to-Depository Services andFees

February 1, 1996.On November 29, 1994, The

Depository Trust Company (‘‘DTC’’)filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (‘‘Commission’’) aproposed rule change (File No. SR–DTC–94–16) pursuant to Section19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposalwas published in the Federal Registeron January 9, 1995.2 One comment letterwas received.3 On October 11, 1995,DTC filed an amendment to clarify thefiling.4 Because the amendmentchanged the substance of the filing,notice of the amended proposal waspublished in the Federal Register onNovember 1, 1995.5 One comment letterwas received in response to the noticeof the amended proposal after theexpiration of the comment period.6 Forthe reasons discussed below, theCommission is approving the proposedrule change as amended.

I. Description of the ProposalThe purpose of the proposed rule

change is to clarify DTC’s policy

regarding depository-to-depositoryservices and fees by filing the followingstatement:

With respect to any other securitiesdepository that is registered as a clearingagency under section 17A of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (a ‘‘depository’’),neither DTC nor the other depository shall beobligated to pay each other the fees chargedto participants by virtue of having executedparticipant agreements with one another.DTC shall provide services to the otherdepository, charge fees for those services, andpay for the services provided to DTC, all inaccordance with the terms of a separateagreement, if any, between DTC and the otherdepository respecting such matters.

In the absence of any such separateagreement, however:

1. DTC shall make available to any otherdepository any service that DTC makesavailable to its Participants generally,provided that such depository makes itsservices available to DTC on the same basis.

2. DTC (i) shall not charge for the book-entry delivery services provided to the otherdepository nor pay for the book-entrydelivery services provided by the otherdepository, (ii) shall charge DTC participantfees for services relating to the physicalhandling of certificates rendered by DTC tosuch depository and pay the other depositoryits participant fees for services relating to thephysical handling of certificates rendered toDTC and (iii) shall charge the otherdepository and pay the other depository for‘‘linked services’’ provided, if any.7

DTC states that this policy statementreflects the practices that have beenfollowed by DTC and the otherdepositories since the beginning ofinterdepository processing and isconsistent with the Commission’sexpressed views concerning thesematters.

II. CommentsOne comment letter was received in

response to the original notice ofproposed rule change.8 DTC


Commission to review the two filings as oneproposal; however, the filing regarding interfacefees has since been withdrawn by DTC. SecuritiesExchange Act Release No. 36372 (October 16, 1995),60 FR 54273 (File No. SR–DTC–94–10) (notice ofwithdrawal of a proposed rule change regarding theestablishment of a fee schedule for certain inter-depository deliveries).

The first commenter recently withdrew from thesecurities depository business but remains aregistered securities depository. SecuritiesExchange Act Release No. 36684 (January 5, 1996),61 FR 1195 (order approving a proposed rulechange relating to a decision by Chicago StockExchange, Incorporated to withdraw from theclearance and settlement, securities depository, andbranch receives businesses).

9 Supra note 6.10 Although MSTC recently withdrew from the

securities depository business, it remains aregistered securities depository for equity,corporate, and municipal securities. Supra note 8.

The Participants Trust Company (‘‘PTC’’), whichis temporarily registered as a clearing agency andwhich provides depository facilities for mortgage-backed securities, possibly could be effected by thepolicy statement. For a description of PTC, refer toSecurities Exchange Act Release No. 35482 (March13, 1995), 60 FR 14806 [File No. 600–25] (notice offiling and order approving application for extensionof temporary registration until March 31, 1996). 11 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F) (1988). 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1995).

subsequently amended the filing. TheCommission received one commentletter in response to the amended noticeafter the expiration of the commentperiod.9

The second commenter stated itsbelief that the policy statement isunnecessary because it impactsexclusively upon DTC’s relationshipwith the commenter, also a registeredsecurities depository. Other than DTC,the commenter will be the only otheractively operating registered securitiesdepository providing depositoryservices for equity, corporate, andmunicipal securities.10 The Commissionbelieves DTC’s policy statement is ageneral statement of DTC’s intention toestablish depository-to-depositoryservices and fees with any depository,existing now or in the future, and is notintended to target DTC’s relationshipwith this commenter.

This commenter also stated itsconcern that approval of DTC’s policystatement would interrupt or diminishservices to the commenter. TheCommission does not believe that byapproving DTC’s current practice as anofficial policy the policy statementshould cause an interruption ordiminishment of services to thecommenter or any other depositories.The Commission also does not believethe policy statement will prohibit orlimit access to services offered by anyregistered securities depository orparticipants. The Commission believesthe policy statement should helpencourage the depositories to worktogether to achieve a reciprocal andmutually beneficial relationship. The

policy statement proposes to provideassurance that in the absence of anagreement between depositories allservices provided by DTC to anotherdepository will be reciprocated by theother depository on the same basis. TheCommission believes this should helpassure that depository-to-depositoryservices are available on a similar basisto participants of any depository.

III. DiscussionSection 17A(b)(3)(F) 11 requires that a

clearing agency’s rules be designed tofoster cooperation and coordinationwith persons engaged in the clearanceand settlement of securities transactionsand to remove impediments to andperfect the mechanism of a nationalsystem for prompt and accurateclearance and settlement of securitiestransactions. The Commission believesthat the proposal is consistent withsection 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act becauseit will clarify DTC’s current practicesand policies regarding depository-to-depository services and fees and thusshould help create a structure forestablishing such interdepositoryagreements with other registeredsecurities depositories. This structureshould help facilitate cooperation andcoordination among persons engaged inthe clearance and settlement ofsecurities transactions by ensuring thatabsent an agreement depositoryinterface services will be available toparticipants of any depository andassociated fees will be charged amongdepositories on a reciprocal basis.

The Commission also believes that thepolicy statement should help removeimpediments to and perfect themechanism of a national system forprompt and accurate clearance andsettlement of securities transactions bysetting forth a structure for the chargingof depository-to-depository fees in theabsence of an agreement betweendepositories. This should help preventone depository from charging anotherdepository inappropriately high fees orfrom charging higher per-unit fees thansuch depository charges its participantsgenerally.

The Commission recognizes that thebenefits of a national clearance andsettlement system can be realized onlyif there is cooperation and coordinationamong competing registered securitiesdepositories and that in some instancesCommission review of the application ofthe policy statement will be necessary.To this end, if DTC and anotherregistered securities depository do notenter into a separate agreementregarding depository-to-depository

services and fees and DTC unilaterallydecides to invoke the terms of the policystatement, DTC must notify theCommission in writing of its decisionprior to invoking the terms of the policystatement. The Commission will assesswhether the policy statement is beingimplemented consistently with theterms and goals of section 17A of theAct.

IV. ConclusionThe Commission finds that the

proposal is consistent with therequirements of the Act and particularlywith section 17A of the Act and therules and regulations thereunder.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant tosection 19(b)(2) of the Act, that theproposed rule change (File No. SR–DTC–94–16) be, and hereby is,approved.

For the Commission by the Division ofMarket Regulation, pursuant to delegatedauthority.12

Margaret H. McFarland,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–2675 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Delegation of Authority No. 1–A;Revision 21

Delegation of AuthorityDelegation of Authority No. 1–A

(Revision 20) is revised to read asfollows:

(a) Pursuant to authority vested in meby the Small Business Act of 1958, 72Stat. 384, as amended, authority isdelegated to the following officials inthe following order:1. Deputy Administrator2. General Counsel3. Chief of Staff4. Associate Deputy Administrator for

Management and Administration5. Associate Deputy Administrator for

Economic Development6. Counselor to the Administrator7. Associate Administrator for Field

Operationsto perform, in the event of my absenceor incapacity, any and all acts which theAdministrator is authorized to perform(including, but not limited to, authorityto issue, modify, or revoke delegationsof authority and regulations), except forthe exercise of authority under section9(d) and 11 of the Small Business Act,as amended.

(b) An individual acting in any of thepositions in paragraph (a) remains in the


line of succession only if he or she hasbeen designated acting by theAdministrator or Acting Administratordue to a vacancy in the position.

(c) This delegation is not inderogation of any authority residing inthe above-listed officials relating to theoperations of their respective programs,nor does it affect the validity of anydelegations currently in force and effectand not revoked or revised herein.

Dated: January 30, 1996.Philip Lader,Administrator.[FR Doc. 96–2703 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2329]

United States InternationalTelecommunications AdvisoryCommittee (ITAC), StandardizationSector (ITAC–T) Study Group A;Meeting

The Department of State announcesthat the United States InternationalTelecommunications AdvisoryCommittee (ITAC), TelecommunicationsStandardization Sector (ITAC–T) StudyGroup A will meet February 28, 1996,9:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m., at the Departmentof State, Room 1205, 2201 C Street NW.,Washington, DC.

The agenda will deal primarily withfinal preparations for the upcomingITU–T Study Group 3 Geneva meeting,March 11–20, 1996; a debrief of theJanuary 1996 ITU–T Study Group 2meeting in San Francisco; a debrief ofthe one and one half days preparatorymeeting of Study Group A’s ad hocgroup on Numbering held inWashington February 12 and 13; andcontinuing preparations for the Maymeeting of ITU–T Study Group 2.

Members of the General Public mayattend the meetings and join in thediscussions, subject to the instructionsof the chair. Admittance of publicmembers will be limited to the seatingavailable. In this regard, entrance to theDepartment of State is controlled.Questions regarding the meeting may beaddressed to Mr. Earl Barbely at 202–647–0197. If you wish to attend pleasesend a fax to 202–647–7047 not laterthan 5 days before the scheduledmeetings.

Please include your name, SocialSecurity number and date of birth. Oneof the following valid photo ID’s will berequired for admittance: U.S. driver’slicense with picture, U.S. passport, U.S.government ID (company ID’s are nolonger accepted by Diplomatic

Security). Enter from the ‘‘C’’ StreetMain Lobby.

Dated: February 5, 1996.Earl S. Barbely,Chairman, U.S. ITAC for TelecommunicationStandardization.[FR Doc. 96–2738 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–45–M


United States InternationalTelecommunications AdvisoryCommittee (ITAC) Study Group D;Meeting Notice

The Department of State announcesthat the United States InternationalTelecommunications AdvisoryCommittee (ITAC), Study Group D willmeet on Wednesday, February 28, 1996at 9:00 a.m., Room 1205 of theDepartment of State.

The Agenda will include a review ofthe results of the ITU–T Study Group 8meeting (Feb 1996). Consideration ofcontributions to upcoming meetings ofITU–T Study Group 14 in March, 1996and the ITU–T Study Group 7 meeting,in April of 1996 will also be consideredon the agenda of this meeting. Othermatters within the purview of StudyGroup D may be raised at the meeting.Persons presenting contributions to themeeting of Study Group D should bring20 copies to the meeting.

Members of the General Public mayattend the meeting and join in thediscussions, subject to the instructionsof the chair. Admittance of publicmembers will be limited to the seatingavailable. In this regard, entrance to theDepartment of State is controlled. If youwish to attend please send a fax to 202–647–7407 not later than 5 days beforethe scheduled meeting. Please includeyour name, Social Security number anddate of birth. One of the following validphoto ID’s will be required foradmittance: U.S. driver’s license withpicture, U.S. passport, U.S. governmentID (company ID’s are no longer acceptedby Diplomatic Security). Enter from the‘‘C’’ Street Main Lobby.

Dated: January 29, 1996.Gary M. Fereno,Chairman, U.S. ITAC for Study Group D.[FR Doc. 96–2645 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–45–M


Ad Hoc ’98 Plenipotentiary Committeeof the United States InternationalTelecommunications AdvisoryCommittee (ITAC); Meeting Notice

The Department of State announcesthat a meeting of the Ad Hoc ’98Plenipotentiary Committee under theUnited States International AdvisoryCommittee (ITAC) will be heldWednesday, February 28, 1996, at 9:30a.m. to 11:30 a.m., in room 1105, 2201C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520.The meeting is a part of the planningeffort leading to the InternationalTelecommunication Union’s 1998Plenipotentiary Conference to be held inMinneapolis, Minnesota.

The agenda of this meeting willinclude: (1) A presentation anddiscussion of the organizationalstructure for planning thePlenipotentiary Conference; (2)decisions regarding specific planningcommittees, their membership andleadership; (3) a report by Washingtonbased private sector representatives ontheir planning activities; (4) a report onactivities in Minneapolis.

Members of the general public mayattend the meeting and join in thediscussions, subject to the instructionsof the chair and seating availability. Inthis regard, entry to the building iscontrolled. If you wish to attend, pleasecall 202–647–5205 or send a fax to 202–647–5957 not later than 5 days beforethe scheduled meeting. One of thefollowing valid photo ID’s will berequired for admittance: U.S. driver’slicense with picture, U.S. passport, orU.S. Government ID (company ID’s areno longer accepted by DiplomaticSecurity). Enter from the ‘‘C’’ StreetMain Lobby.

Dated: January 30, 1996.Richard C. Beaird,Chairman, Ad Hoc ’98 PlenipotentiaryCommittee.[FR Doc. 96–2646 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4710–45–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Proposed Advisory Circular (AC)21.25–X, Issuance of Type Certificate:Restricted Category AgricultureAirplanes

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of availability ofProposed Advisory Circular (AC) 21.25–X, and request for comments.


SUMMARY: This notice announces theavailability of and request for commentson a proposed advisory circular (AC)which provides information andguidance for obtaining a type certificatein the restricted category, under 14 CFRpart 21, § 21.25, for small piston andturbo-propeller driven airplanes, whichwill be used for agricultural specialpurpose operations. The AC provides anacceptable means, but not the onlymeans, of meeting the requirements ofpart 21 for the issuance of a typecertificate in the restricted category.This procedure incorporates theappropriate normal categoryairworthiness standards of 14 CFR part23, Airworthiness Standards: Normal,Utility, Acrobatic, and CommuterCategory Airplanes. This material isneither mandatory nor regulatory innature and does not constitute aregulation. Because the information andguidance presented in this AC is notmandatory, the term ‘‘must’’ used in thisAC only applies to an applicant whochooses to follow these procedures. Theapplicant may elect to follow analternate procedure provided theAdministrator finds it to be acceptable.DATES: Comments must be received onor before April 8, 1996.ADDRESSES: Send all comments on theproposed AC to: Federal AviationAdministration, Attention: StandardsOffice, ACE–100, Small AirplaneDirectorate, Aircraft Certificate Service,601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,Missouri 64106.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Terre Flynn, Regulations and PolicyBranch, ACE–111, at the address above,telephone number (816) 426–6941.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyperson may obtain a copy of thisproposed AC by contacting the personnamed above under FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT.

Comments InvitedInterested parties are invited to

submit such written data, views, orarguments as they may desire.Commenters must identify the AC andsubmit comments to the addressspecified above. All communicationsreceived on or before the closing datefor comments will be considered by theStandards Staff before issuing the finalAC. Comments may be inspected at theStandards Office, ACE–110, Suite 900,1201 Walnut, Kansas City, Missouri,between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:00p.m. weekdays, except Federal holidays.

BackgroundThe current philosophy concerning

type certification of restricted category

agricultural airplanes is historicallybased on part 8 of the Civil AirRegulations (CAR). Under this part, theapplicant for a new aircraft was requiredto show compliance with all of theairworthiness requirements of any otheraircraft category prescribed by the CAR,except those requirements which theAdministrator found inappropriate forthe special purpose for which theaircraft was to be used. This part alsoestablished new standards for theissuance of type certificates, alterationsto type certificates, and typecertification procedures. The preamblefor part 8 stated that for such restrictedoperations where public safety is notendangered it appears unreasonable torequire the same level of safety as thatrequired for passenger carrying aircraft.The intent of part 8 was to place theminimum possible burden consistentwith public safety on the applicant fora type certificate in the restrictedcategory. Since the inception of part 8of the CAR and following recodificationof the CAR into the CFR, the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) hascontinued using the basic concepts ofthat part. On February 8, 1965, the FAAissued AC 20–33. This AC notified thepublic that policy informationcontained in Civil Aeronautics Manuals(CAM) 1, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13,and 14 could be used in conjunctionwith specific sections of the CFR, whichcorrespond with the sections of the CARto which the policies were applicable.Approximately 10 years later, in March1975, AC 20–33A temporarily deletedthe reference to CAM 8 in AC 20–33from being applied to any sections ofthe FAR. However, in two months time,AC 20–33B reinstated CAM 8 for usewith part 21, § 21.25, for small restrictedcategory agricultural airplanes. Thispolicy continued until July 1981 whenFAA Order 8130.2, AirworthinessCertification of Aircraft and RelatedApprovals, eliminated CAM 8 frombeing used for certificating newrestricted category agriculturalairplanes.

In October of 1992 two manufacturersof small restricted category agriculturalairplanes petitioned the FAA to developa new set of certification requirementsstrictly for agricultural airplanes. InFebruary of 1993 representatives fromthe FAA’s Small Airplane Directoratemet with a representative for theAgricultural Airplane Manufacturerswho had petitioned the FAA to discussthe certification problems that haddeveloped between the AgriculturalAirplane Manufacturers and the FAA.At this meeting a draft AC that had beendeveloped by the Small Airplane

Directorate to solve the certificationproblem was presented to theAgricultural Airplane Manufacturer’srepresentative. It was mutually agreedupon between the two parties that thedevelopment of an AC that addressedthe certification of new restrictedcategory agricultural airplanes would bethe quickest way of resolving the issuesthat had developed between the FAAand the Agricultural AirplaneManufacturers. After several months ofdiscussion between both parties, it wasagreed that the most efficient way forthe FAA to revise the draft AC was toform a team of engineers and pilots.This team would then visit agriculturaloperators and pilots out in the field andinterview them to determine what theirneeds were for newly certificatedagricultural airplanes. The AgriculturalAirplane Certification Team that wasformed visited many agriculturaloperators and pilots across the southfrom Georgia to Texas. The teamfinished performing these interviews inthe summer of 1994 and met in the fallof 1994 to review their experiences andrevise the existing draft AC. In Januaryof 1995 the team met withrepresentatives of the AgriculturalAirplane Manufacturers, at the SmallAirplane Directorate’s Office, to discussthe revised AC and portions of itspolicy. The AC that has been developedis a product of the combined efforts ofthe FAA’s Agricultural AirplaneCertification Team and representativesof the Agricultural AirplaneManufacturers.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January31, 1996.Michael Gallagher,Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, AircraftCertification Service.[FR Doc. 96–2632 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810–13–M

Federal Railroad Administration

[FRA Waiver Petition Docket No. PB–95–3; Notice No. 2]

Petition for Waivers of Compliance

AGENCY: Federal RailroadAdministration (FRA), Department ofTransportation (DOT).ACTION: Change of hearing date.

SUMMARY: On November 30, 1995, FRApublished in the Federal Register anotice that the FRA received from theAmerican Railway Car Institute (ARCI)a request for waiver of compliance withcertain requirements of the RailroadPower Brakes and DrawbarsRegulations.


The ARCI seeks a permanent waiverof compliance from section 232.2 of theRailroad Power Brakes and DrawbarsStandards (49 CFR Part 232). Thatsection states in part: ‘‘The maximumheight of drawbars for freight cars—shall be 341⁄2 inches, and the minimumheight of drawbars for freight cars onsuch standard-gauge railroads—shall be311⁄2 inches,—ARCI is requesting toIncrease the maximum allowablecoupler height one inch from 34.5inches to 35.5 inches for bottom shelf Ecouplers and top and bottom shelf Ecouplers only. ARCI states that thegranting of this waiver will allowrailroads and car builders to build saferand more efficient cars. It claimsindustry’s need for safer suspensionsystems is being hampered by the smallrange of allowable coupler heights.Railroads, truck manufacturers, andfreight car manufacturers know that railworthiness of many cars would beimproved if spring travel could beincreased. For example, cars negotiatingchanges in super-elevation as they enterand exit curves would be subject to lesswheel unloading if they had softer, morecomplaint, longer travel suspensions.Wheel unloading is most undesirable incurves, as the wheel set is oftendeveloping high lateral forces. Highlateral forces combined with wheelunloading can result in derailment. Thesmall range of allowable coupler heightsseverely limits the use of longer travelsprings. By increasing the allowablerange of coupler height by one inchwould allow designers to make asignificant improvements in railworthiness.

FRA has determined that a publichearing will be held in this matter. Dueto extreme weather conditions whichclosed Federal buildings in Washington,DC., FRA was unable to hold the publichearing scheduled for January 10, 1996.As a consequence, FRA is reschedulingthe public hearing to 10:00 a.m. onFebruary 28, 1996. The hearing locationremains the same and will be held inroom 8236–8238 of the Nassif Building,DOT Headquarters Building, 400Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC.We apologize for any inconvenience thisrescheduling may cause.

The hearing will be informal and willbe conducted in accordance with Rule25 of the FRA Rules of Practice (49 CFRPart 211.25), by a representativedesignated by the FRA. The hearing willbe a nonadversary proceeding in whichall interested parties will be given theopportunity to express their viewsregarding this waiver petition.

Interested parties are invited toparticipate in these proceedings bysubmitting written views, data or

comments. All communicationsconcerning these proceedings shouldidentify the appropriate docket number(e.g., Waiver Petition Number PB–95–3and must be submitted in triplicate tothe Docket Clark, Office of ChiefCounsel, Federal RailroadAdministration, 400 Seventh Street,SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 1,1996.Phil Olekszyk,Deputy Associate Administrator for SafetyCompliance and Program Implementation.[FR Doc. 96–2740 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Agency Information CollectionActivities; Comment Request

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),Treasury.ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The Department of theTreasury, as part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondentburden, invites the general public andother Federal agencies to take thisopportunity to comment on proposedand/or continuing informationcollections, as required by thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995.Currently, the IRS is solicitingcomments concerning Form 3115,Application for Change in AccountingMethod.DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before April 8, 1996 tobe assured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all written commentsto Garrick R. Shear, Internal RevenueService, T:FP, room 5571, 1111Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,DC 20224.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Requests for additional information orcopies of the information collectionshould be directed to Martha R. Brinson,(202) 622–3869, Internal RevenueService, T:FP, room 5571, 1111Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,DC 20224.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Application for Change inAccounting Method.

OMB Number: 1545–0152.Form Number: 3115.Abstract: Form 3115 is used by

taxpayers who wish to change theirmethod of computing their taxableincome. The form is used by the IRS to

determine if electing taxpayers have metthe requirements and are able to changeto the method requested.

Current Actions: Form 3115 is revisedto encourage the submission of detailedand complete information fromapplicants. Many of the questions havebeen reorganized by category to simplifypreparation. Some of the generalquestions have been clarified and anumber of questions in the variousschedules have been eliminated orcombined.

Type of Review: Revision of acurrently approved form.

Affected Public: Individuals,corporations, cooperatives, qualifiedpersonal service corporations, exemptorganizations, partnerships, Scorporations, and insurance companies.

Estimated Number of Respondents:6,400.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 42hrs., 16 min.

Estimated Total Annual BurdenHours: 270,490.

Request for Comments: Commentssubmitted in response to this notice willbe summarized and/or included in therequest for OMB approval. Allcomments will become a matter ofpublic record. Written comments shouldaddress the accuracy of the burdenestimates and ways to minimize burdenincluding the use of automatedcollection techniques or the use of otherforms of information technology, as wellas other relevant aspects of theinformation collection request.

Approved: January 31, 1996.Garrick R. Shear,IRS Reports Clearance Officer.[FR Doc. 96–2656 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATIONAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Utah Lake Wetland Preserve; Notice ofAvailability

AGENCY: Utah Reclamation Mitigationand Conservation Commission.ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: The Draft EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) for Establishment ofthe Utah Lake Wetland Preserve isavailable for review. The EA addressesthe establishment of a preserve throughacquisition from willing sellers ofprivate land, water rights, or otherproperty interests occurring in a specificarea along the southern shore of UtahLake, Utah County, Utah. Thisestablishment would entail limitedmanagement to restore and protect


natural resource values on acquiredproperties. Major wetland developmentsand other large-scale managementactivities are not part of this action.DATES: Comments will be accepted untilMarch 25, 1996.ADDRESSES: Interested persons ororganizations may request copies of thedocument and should submit commentsto Utah Lake Draft EA, UtahReclamation Mitigation andConservation Commission, 111 E.Broadway, Suite 310, Salt Lake City,Utah 84111.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Catherine Quinn, Telephone (801) 524–3146; Fax (801) 524–3148.

Authority: Pub. L. 102–575, 106 Stat. 4600,4625, October 30, 1992.Michael C. Weland,Executive Director.[FR Doc. 96–2653 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANSAFFAIRS

Medical Care Reimbursement Rates forFY 96

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisionsof OMB Circular A–11 section 12.5(a),revised reimbursement rates have beenestablished by the Department ofVeterans Affairs for inpatient andoutpatient medical care furnished tobeneficiaries of other Federal agenciesduring FY 1996. These rates will becharged for such medical care providedat health care facilities under the directjurisdiction of the Secretary on and afterDecember 1, 1995.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Walter J. Besecker, Director, MedicalCare Cost Recovery Office (174),Veterans Affairs Central Office, 810Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC20420, (202) 219–4242.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheInteragency Billing Rates for FY 1996are as follows:Medicine .......................................... $873Surgery ............................................. 1,436Spinal Cord Injury ........................... 768Neurology ......................................... 761Blind Rehabilitation ........................ 774Psychiatry ......................................... 409Intermediate Medicine .................... 302Rehabilitation Medicine .................. 640Substance Abuse .............................. 264

Nursing Home .................................. 238Prescription—Refill ......................... 19Outpatient* ...................................... 188Emergency Dental Outpatient ......... 92

* Rate includes Dialysis treatment.

Prescription refill charges in lieu ofthe outpatient visit rate will be chargedwhen the patient receives no serviceother than the Pharmacy outpatientservice. These charges apply if thepatient receives the prescription refillsin person or by mail.

When medical services forbeneficiaries of other Federal agenciesare obtained by the Department ofVeterans Affairs from private sources,the charges to the other Federal agencieswill be the actual amounts paid by theDepartment of Veterans Affairs for suchmedical services.

Inpatient charges to other Federalagencies will be at the currentInteragency per diem rate for the type ofbed section or discrete treatment unitproviding the care.

Dated: January 29, 1996.Jesse Brown,Secretary of Veterans Affairs.[FR Doc. 96–2672 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains notices of meetings published underthe ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

4813

Vol. 61, No. 27


FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENTBOARD

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m. (EST), February20, 1996.PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room,1250 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.STATUS: Open.MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of the minutes of the January16, 1996, Board meeting.

2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by theExecutive Director.

3. Labor Department audit briefing.4. Investment policy review.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office ofExternal Affairs (202) 942–1640.

Dated: February 5, 1996.Roger W. Mehle,Executive Director, Federal Retirement ThriftInvestment Board.[FR Doc. 96–2880 Filed 2–6–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6760–01–M

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, February 13,1996 at 10:00 a.m.PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,D.C.STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Closed tothe Public.ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g.Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.Matters concerning participation in civil

actions or proceedings or arbitrationInternal personnel rules and procedures or

matters affecting a particular employee

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, February 14,at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,D.C. (Ninth floor).

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open tothe Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of MinutesTitle 26 Certification MattersAdvisory Opinion 1996–2: Stephen M.

Heaton of CompuServe, Inc.Advisory Opinion 1996–3: Irwin Gostin of

the Breeden-Schmidt FoundationAdministrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer,Telephone: (202) 219–4155.Delores Hardy,Administrative Assistant.[FR Doc. 96–2930 Filed 2–6–96; 3:53 pm]BILLING CODE 6715–01–M

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains editorial corrections of previouslypublished Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,and Notice documents. These corrections areprepared by the Office of the FederalRegister. Agency prepared corrections areissued as signed documents and appear inthe appropriate document categorieselsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

4814

Vol. 61, No. 27



Rural Housing and CommunityDevelopment Service

Rural Business and CooperativeDevelopment Service

Rural Utilities Services

Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Part 1944

RIN 0575-AB93

Processing Requests for Section 515Rural Rental Housing Loans

CorrectionIn Proposed Rule document 96–328

beginning on page 1153 in the issue ofWednesday, January 17, 1996 make thefollowing corrections:

(1) On 1153, in the first column:(a) The subagency ‘‘Rural Housing

Service and Community Development’’should read as set forth above.

(b) Under DATES, in the third line‘‘March 8, 1996’’ should read ‘‘March18, 1996’’.

§1944.231 [Corrected]On page 1158, in §1944.231(d)(5), in

the first column, in the table, under‘‘Percentage of households’’ and‘‘Points’’ the final entries should readrespectively ‘‘Less than 5’’ and ‘‘0’’.BILLING CODE 1505–01–D


[FRL-5404-1]

Notice of Proposed ProspectivePurchaser Agreement Pursuant to theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and LiabilityAct of 1980, as Amended by theSuperfund Amendments andReauthorization Act

Correction

In notice document 96–1400beginning on page 2824 in the issue of

Monday, January 29, 1996 make thefollwing correction:

On page 2825, in the first column,under DATES, in the second line replace‘‘[date]’’ with ‘‘February 28, 1996’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D



[AZ–055–06–1430–01; CAAZCA 35669 andCAAZCA 35712]

Notice of Realty Action; ImperialCounty, California

Correction

In notice document 96–1185appearing on page 2260 in the issue ofThursday, January 25, 1996, make thefollowing correction:

In the third column, under EFFECTIVEDATE:, in the sixth line, insert‘‘effective’’ after ‘‘become’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

fede

ral r

egiste

r

4815

ThursdayFebruary 8, 1996

Part II

Department ofHealth and HumanServicesFood and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 189Tin-Coated Lead Foil Capsules for WineBottles; Final Rule




21 CFR Part 189


RIN 0910–AA06

Tin-Coated Lead Foil Capsules forWine Bottles


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending itsregulations to prohibit the use of tin-coated lead foil capsules (i.e., coveringsfor the cork and neck area) on winebottles. Lead in these capsules may, asa result of their intended use, become acomponent of the wine. FDA is takingthis action to reduce exposure to lead tothe extent feasible.DATES: Effective February 8, 1996. Wineis adulterated under the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) if a tin-coated lead foil capsule is applied to thewine bottle on or after February 8, 1996.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael E. Kashtock, Center for FoodSafety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–306), Food and Drug Administration,200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,202–205–4681.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BackgroundIn the Federal Register of November

25, 1992 (57 FR 55485), FDA publisheda proposed rule to prohibit the use oftin-coated lead foil capsules on winebottles (hereinafter referred to as the1992 proposal). The 1992 proposal wasbased on evidence from studies onbottled wine capped with tin-coatedlead foil capsules that showed that thelead in the foil becomes a component offood. No food additive regulation existsfor this use of tin-coated lead foil, noris there a prior sanction for this use.Moreover, this use of tin-coated lead foilis not generally recognized as safe(GRAS). Therefore, FDA tentativelyfound that tin-coated lead foil capsulesused on wine bottles are an unsafe foodadditive under section 409 of the act (21U.S.C. 348), and wine is adulteratedunder section 402 (a)(2)(C) of the act (21U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)), if a tin-coated leadfoil capsule is applied to the wine bottleon or after February 8, 1996. Given thelongstanding use of tin-coated lead foilcapsules as a packaging material forwine, the agency proposed to prohibituse of this capsule by regulation to

make its regulatory status clear. FDAproposed to make any final rule thatissued based upon the 1992 proposaleffective on its date of publication.

II. Summary of and Response toComments

A. Summary of Comments

The agency received 16 comments inresponse to the 1992 proposal. Thirteencomments were from domestic andimported wine merchants, associationsrepresenting domestic winemakers, anda foreign national trade associationrepresenting exporters of wine. Inaddition, one comment was receivedfrom an international trade commission,and two were received from foreigngovernments.

All comments supported the proposalin principle. However, some commentssought clarification of what the proposalwas intended to prohibit. Somecomments raised issues concerningother types of capsules that may containlead used on wine bottles. Somecomments raised concerns aboutregulatory action by individual Statesconcerning capsules used on winebottles.

The majority of the comments reactedfavorably to the proposed effective date,but two comments expressed the needfor further clarification on this issue.

One comment asserted that the wineindustry is being charged with anextraordinary share of the lead-reduction burden.

B. Responses to Comments

1. Several comments stated that the1992 proposal did not clearly identifythe specific type of capsule that FDAproposed to prohibit. One commentrequested that the 1992 proposal beamended to provide a clearer definitionof what is prohibited. The comment alsostated that if the prohibition is to bebased on the amount of lead that ispresent in the capsule, then fairnessrequires that reasonable notice be givenof the precise requirement of the finalrule before it becomes effective. Anothercomment stated that since some tracesof lead may appear in alternative typesof capsules, the final rule should bewritten in such a way that no ambiguityis possible concerning the amount oflead that the capsule may contain.

These comments apparently derive inlarge measure from the fact that theState of California has acted to prohibitthe use of capsules that contain morethan 0.3 percent lead. These commentsare responding to the 1992 proposal’slack of a quantitative level of lead in acapsule that would subject it to

prohibition, inasmuch as the State’saction included such a level.

In response to these comments, FDAemphasizes that the intent of the 1992proposal was not to set a maximumpermissible level of lead in a capsule.The intent was to prohibit the use of tin-coated lead foil capsules as a coveringfor the cork and neck areas of winebottles. In the preamble to the 1992proposed rule, FDA defined ‘‘tin-coatedlead foil capsules’’ as ‘‘capsulescomposed of lead foil coated on bothsides with a thin layer of tin.’’ Thisidentification is not ambiguous. Itclearly differentiates between tin-coatedlead foil capsules, in which lead isintentionally used, and other types ofcapsules known to be used in thebottling of wine (e.g., all tin capsules)that may unavoidably contain some leadas an impurity.

Nonetheless, given the concernsexpressed by the comments, toeliminate the possibility of anyambiguity in the final regulation, theagency is modifying proposed§ 189.301(a) to incorporate thedefinition of ‘‘tin-coated lead foil’’ as itappeared in the preamble of the 1992proposal.

2. Several comments requested thatthe agency define ‘‘all tin-capsules’’ (analternative to tin-coated lead foilcapsules) to include the amount of leadthat may be present in the capsule as anunintended impurity.

As stated above, this final rule is aprohibition of, and applies exclusivelyto, tin-coated lead foil capsules.

It is not FDA’s intent in thisrulemaking to address the regulatorystatus of any other type of capsule (e.g.,tin, aluminum, or plastic). However,FDA recognizes that it is conceivablethat materials, both metallic andnonmetallic, used in other types ofcapsules could become components ofwine, thus subjecting these capsules tothe provisions of the act. FDA providesthe following guidance in response tothe comments that sought an opinion onthe status of various types of capsulesthat may be used in the bottling of wine.

If a substance, such as tin oraluminum, has a history of use as acapsule for wine bottles predatingJanuary 1, 1958, and the substancecould become a component of food as aresult of its intended use, the use maybe GRAS based on common use in foodor food contact. The criteria fordetermining whether the use is GRASare described in § 170.30(c) (21 CFR170.30(c)). Any substance whose use incapsules for wine bottles began afterJanuary 1, 1958, would either have to beGRAS for such use on the basis ofscientific procedures described in


1 The ‘‘California definition’’ refers to a definitionagreed to by the State of California and several wineproducers and importers in a December 6, 1991,consent decree (People of the State of California v.Gallo Vineyards, Inc. et al., No. 640951, San DiegoCounty Superior Court). This decree states in partthat ‘‘lead foil’’ or ‘‘tin-lead foil’’ capsules are ‘‘* ** any foil capsules * * * containing lead as anintended constituent at concentrations greater than.3% by dry weight.’’

§ 170.30(b) or would be required to beused in accordance with a food additiveregulation that prescribes safeconditions of use. In either case, thesubstance must be of a purity suitablefor its intended use.

FDA is aware that the occurrence ofsome amount of lead in tin isunavoidable because lead is a naturallyoccurring impurity in tin ore.Manufacturers are expected to take stepsto control this source of exposure tolead by securing raw materials of thehighest purity practicable.

3. Several comments expressedconcern that the States have or mayenact inconsistent and conflicting lawsthat restrict the amount of lead that maybe present in ‘‘all-tin capsules.’’Therefore, the comments requested thatFDA establish a national definition of‘‘all-tin capsules’’ based on theCalifornia definition 1 to eliminateinconsistencies and conflicts, to levelthe playing field among States, and toprotect imported wine from State-imposed nontariff trade barriers.

The agency understands that somecomments may wish to have apreemptive Federal regulation defining‘‘all-tin capsules.’’ However, this finalrule is a prohibition of, and appliesexclusively to, tin-coated lead foilcapsules as defined by this agency.

It appears that the commentscontemplate that some States maypromulgate regulations that are differentfrom, or more restrictive, than the‘‘California definition’’ of ‘‘all-tincapsules.’’ The agency recognizes that ifindividual States establish variablelimits on the lead content of capsulematerials, burdens on interstatecommerce can result. However, thepotential for such action by individualStates, and the question of what wouldbe an appropriate course of action bythe Federal government in such a case,is outside the scope of this rulemaking.The prohibition of tin-coated lead foilcapsules is absolute. More restrictiveaction by the States with respect to suchcapsules is not possible. As for othermaterials used to make wine capsules,interested persons may wish to petitionthe agency to establish limits on lead insuch materials that have preemptiveeffect. Agency action on such petitionswould be based on the merits of the

petition and the availability of agencyresources.

4. One comment stated that it is unfairfor FDA, and for other agencies of theUnited States, to place excessiveresponsibility on the wine industry toachieve lead reduction in food and notrequire similar efforts from otherindustries.

FDA disagrees with the comment’sallegation that the agency is imposingexcessive responsibility on the wineindustry to achieve lead reduction. Theprohibition on the use of tin-coated leadfoil capsules is only one of the actionsthat the agency has taken to implementits policy to reduce exposure to lead infood to the maximum extent practicable.Other actions include a recentlypublished final rule formally banninglead-soldered food cans (60 FR 33106,June 27, 1995), a final rule lowering theallowable level of lead in bottled water(59 FR 26933, May 25, 1994), thelowering of action guidelines forleachable lead from ceramicware (57 FR29734, July 6, 1992), and a final rulerequiring a warning label on decorativeceramicware, which could bemistakenly used to hold food, in orderto exempt it from the action guidelinesfor leachable lead (59 FR 1638, January12, 1994). FDA is also consideringaction to reduce the specifications forlead in food and color additives and inGRAS ingredients, as described in anadvance notice of proposed rulemakingthat was published in 1994 (59 FR 5363,February 4, 1994).

5. Several foreign comments soughtassurance that wines capped with tin-coated lead foil capsules before January1, 1993, will be permitted to enter theUnited States, and that marketing ofwines capped with tin-coated lead foilcapsules and imported before January 1,1993, will be permitted.

FDA’s 1992 proposal specificallystated that the prohibition on the use oftin-lead foil capsules is applicable toproducts capped after the effective dateof this final rule. Thus, this prohibitionwill not be retroactively applied to anyproduct capped before February 8, 1996,nor is any action required to recall andretrofit any product capped before thatdate. Consequently, European winescapped before the EuropeanCommission (EC) ban of January 1,1993, will not be prohibited from beingimported into the United States ormarketed in the United States by thisrule.

In the 1992 proposal, FDA proposedthat the effective date of this final rulebe the date that it is published in theFederal Register. In the 1992 proposal,the agency stated that information thatit had already received indicated that

the industry anticipated the availabilityof adequate supplies of alternativecapsules by no later than November1992. The industry desired that theprohibition of the use of tin-coatedcapsules not precede the availability ofadequate supplies of alternativecapsules. No comments indicating thatthe industry would not be able tocomply with the effective date werereceived.

III. ConclusionsAfter review and consideration of the

comments received in response to the1992 proposal, FDA concludes that noevidence or information has beenpresented that would cause the agencynot to adopt § 189.301, which prohibitsthe capping of bottled wine with ‘‘tin-coated lead foil capsules.’’

Therefore, FDA is amending 21 CFRpart 189 as proposed with the exceptionthat the agency has modified § 189.301to include the definition of ‘‘Tin-coatedlead foil capsules’’ as discussed incomment 1 of this document and mademinor editorial changes.

IV. Environmental ImpactThe agency has previously considered

the environmental effects of this rule asannounced in the proposed rule (57 FR55485, November 25, 1992). No newinformation or comments have beenreceived that would affect the agency’sprevious determination that there is nosignificant impact on the humanenvironment and that an environmentalimpact statement is not required.

V. Economic ImpactFDA has examined the impacts of this

final rule to prohibit the use of tin-coated lead foil capsules for winebottles as required by Executive Order12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act(Pub. L. 96–354). Executive Order 12866directs agencies to assess all costs andbenefits of available regulatoryalternatives and, when regulation isnecessary, to select regulatoryapproaches that maximize net benefits(including potential economicenvironmental, public health and safety,and other advantages; distributiveimpacts; and equity). The RegulatoryFlexibility Act requires agencies toanalyze regulatory options that wouldminimize any significant impact of arule on small entities. FDA finds thatthis final rule is not a significantregulatory action as defined byExecutive Order 12866. In compliancewith the Regulatory Flexibility Act, theagency certifies that the final rule willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities.


On November 25, 1992, FDApublished an analysis of the economicimpacts of the proposed requirementsunder the previous Executive Order(Executive Order 12291). In thatanalysis the agency stated that banningthe use of tin-lead capsules for winebottles would require the wine industryto use other materials for capsules, suchas polyvinylchloride (PVC), aluminum,or tin. The cost estimates reported inthis regulation did not include costs tothe wine industry in California because

California State law already prohibitedthe use of these capsules in winebottles.

The impact of the proposed regulationwas expected to be an increase in thecost of capsule material and bottlingequipment to the portion of the industrythat still used tin-lead capsules. At thetime of publication of the proposal itwas assumed that the most likelyalternative to tin-lead foil capsules to beused was tin capsules at a total cost tothe industry of $4.5 million annually.

A. Costs

Since the publication of the 1992proposal to ban tin-lead foil capsules,several new alternatives have emergedand existing ones have been improvedthrough better quality, lower prices, orboth. According to a recent tradepublication, there are four basiccapsules that may be used, which arelisted in the chart below (Ref. 1).

PVC (polyvinylchloride) ............................................................................ $40 per 1,000 capsulesPolylam (aluminum/plastic laminate) ........................................................ $60 per 1,000 capsulesAluminum .................................................................................................. $85 per 1,000 capsulesTin ............................................................................................................. $90 per 1,000 capsules

It is assumed in this analysis that onlyimported wines still continue to use tin-lead foil capsules, not including thoseimported from the European Union(EU). Approximately 15 percent ofwines consumed in the United Statesare imported and 5 percent of all winesare from countries other than the EU.Thus, if all such wines used tin-lead foilcapsules, 8.6 million bottles of importedwine would be expected to be convertedaway from tin-lead foil capsules as aresult of this final rule. Since tin-leadfoil capsules cost the same as polylamcapsules, only those wineries who

choose tin or aluminum will incuradditional costs. Assuming that allconversions will be evenly distributedbetween the four options above, costs ofusing different capsules are expected tobe approximately $90,000 per year.

B. Benefits

Benefits of this regulation will berealized in reduced exposure to lead bychildren and pregnant women (fetuses),groups that are particularly sensitive toexposure to lead. Adverse health effectsof lead exposure in these populationgroups occur at lower blood lead levels

than in adults. Exposure to very lowlevels of lead can adversely affect theproduction of the iron-containingcomponent of hemoglobin in childrenand can cause neurobehavioral andgrowth deficits at prenatal (maternal)stages. The agency has previously statedthat for infants and children, the lowestobserved effect level of lead in blood is10 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) (57FR 55485 at 55487, November 25, 1992).

The following table shows estimatesof the current blood lead incidencelevels in the two population groupspredicted to exceed 10 µg/dL (Ref. 2).

TABLE 1.—BACKGROUND INCIDENCE OF BLOOD LEAD LEVELS >10 µG/DL

Population Group Estimated Incidence

Children, age 2 years ............................................................................... 10%Women of child-bearing age ..................................................................... 1%

1. Benefit Estimation for Children Ages3 through 6

Using the estimates in Table 1 andassuming that the same incidence levelsapply for children ages 3 through 6 asfor 2-year olds, then approximately 1.4million children between the ages of 3and 6 have blood lead levels greaterthan 10 µg/dL.

Wine consumption data wereobtained from the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA)Nationwide Consumption Survey. Thissurvey provided the percentage ofchildren who consumed wine at leastonce in a 3-day period and the dailyconsumption distribution (in grams (g))for each group. Approximately 0.12percent of the children ages 3 through6 in this survey, or 1,680 children (1.4million x 0.0012 = 1,680), consumed

wine once in 3 days. The average dailyconsumption of wine for children ages3 through 6 is 51 g/day per child.

Assuming that children who consumeimported wine do so in the sameproportion as national consumption(e.g., 5 percent of the total wineconsumed is imported from non-EUcountries), then an estimated 84children (5 percent of 1,680) may be atrisk.

The capsule contribution of lead fromimported wine is, on average, 6 µg lead(Pb)/day (120 parts per billion (ppb)). Byusing an absorption rate factor of 0.16for children, the blood lead levelincrease attributable to the consumptionof imported wine by these children isestimated to be 1 µg Pb/dL (Ref. 3).

To assess monetary benefits fromreducing this lead intake, this analysis

uses a study by the Centers for DiseaseControl (CDC) that looked at the effectof lead reduction on the lifetimeearnings of consumers. The CDC studyused three ‘‘pathways’’ with associatedparameter estimates to measure thechange in lifetime earnings that wouldresult from a change in 1 µg Pb/dLblood. Each pathway included anestimate of a quarter of an intelligencequotient (IQ) point decrease for each 1µg Pb/dL of blood increase.

The CDC study measured the impactsof a change in blood lead on IQ throughchanges in wages, educationalattainment, and labor force participationrates. Because each of these effects arehighly correlated (wages, education, andlabor force participation), FDA willconservatively use only the strongesteffect, education. FDA used a similar


approach in the economic impactanalysis of the proposed rule to ban leadsoldered food cans (58 FR 33860, June21, 1993). For this factor, it is estimatedthat an increment of 1 µg Pb/dL blooddecreases lifetime earning levels byapproximately 0.2 percent.

Starting from an average expectedlifetime earnings rate of $260,000, thedecrease in the net present value oflifetime earnings from a 1 µg/dL changein blood lead levels will be $512 (.00197x 260,000). For the 84 childrenestimated to be at risk, the lower boundannual benefit of reducing blood leadlevels by 1 µg Pb/dL from domesticwine consumption is estimated to be$43,000 (512 per child). It should benoted that the amount may beunderstated to the extent that thisestimate, a human capital approach,does not represent utility from a higherIQ in nonlabor activities which wouldbe included in a willingness-to-payestimate.

The above calculations are alsoconsidered to be lower bound, as they

only estimate benefits for children withblood lead levels above 10 µg/dL. Usingthe same wine consumption levels asabove (51 g/day), but allowing for effects(linear) below 10 µg Pb/dL blood, theannual benefit of reducing blood leadlevels by 1 µg/dL would be $4.6 million.

Assuming that half the problem issolved each year, over the next 20 yearstotal discounted benefits may rangebetween $81,000 and $5.7 million.2. Benefit Estimation for Fetuses

There are approximately 58 millionwomen between the ages of childbearingage (15 to 44 years). Each year,approximately 3 million (6 percent) arepregnant at any given time. Using theincidence estimates in Table 1 (1percent of 3 million), 30,000 of thesewomen (pregnancies) are estimated tohave blood lead levels above 10 µg/dL.

Dietary exposure to lead (from tin-lead foil capsules) for pregnant womenhas been evaluated in a manner similarto that used for children. The USDAfood consumption survey (1977–1978)reported average wine intake per day forindividuals who drank wine on 1, 2,

and 3 days over a 3-day period. It alsoprovided the wine consumption data forwomen of different age groups,including those of childbearing age (15to 44 years). After eliminating the tin-lead capsules in wine bottles, the leadlevels in imported wine would bereduced by an average of 120 ppb. A 120ppb reduction is equivalent to 120 µg/kilogram of wine. Thus, if a pregnantwoman consumes 100 g of wine per day,the lead intake from wine will bereduced by 12 µg Pb/day. Using thematernal (adult) absorption rate of 0.04,the blood lead level in the fetus wouldbe reduced by 0.50 µg Pb/dL blood (Ref.3).

The figures in the following tablewere derived from the USDA foodconsumption survey data utilizing dataon lead levels in imported wineattributable to the use of tin-lead foilcapsules and the maternal absorptionrate factor just noted. Blood lead levelreductions for each group of wineconsumers are the result of eliminatingthe capsule’s lead contribution.

TABLE 2.—BLOOD LEAD LEVEL REDUCTIONS AFTER ELIMINATING TIN-LEAD CAPSULES

(PREGNANT WOMEN WHO CONSUME WINE AND ARE AT RISK OF REACHING BLOOD LEAD LEVELS OVER 10 µG/DL)

Age femalesNumber of

wine consum-ers

Number of im-ported wineconsumers1

Blood Pb levelreduction (µg/

dL blood)

Drink once in 3 days15–18 ........................................................................................................................................... 37 1.8 0.2919–34 ........................................................................................................................................... 1,542 77 0.3735–44 ........................................................................................................................................... 74 3.7Drink two of 3 days15–18 ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 0.3719–34 ........................................................................................................................................... 411 20 0.7035–44 ........................................................................................................................................... 28 1.4 0.54Drink all 3 days15–18 ........................................................................................................................................... 0 0 019–34 ........................................................................................................................................... 179 8.9 1.3435–44 ........................................................................................................................................... 26 1.3 0.94TOTAL .......................................................................................................................................... 2,300 1152

1 Excludes consumers of wine imported from the EC.2 Pregnancies resulted in live births only.

Assuming 115 fetuses have theirblood lead levels reduced by theamounts shown in Table 2 above, theincrease in the value of lifetime earningsis estimated to be $16,000.

Again, assuming the relationshipbetween IQ and income is linearbenefits are estimated for all fetuseswith nonzero blood lead levels. Theannual upper bound benefit in terms ofan increase in the value of lifetimeearnings is estimated to be $1.6 million.

Thus, the benefit of reducing maternalblood lead levels ranges from $16,000 to$1.6 million.

Assuming half of the lead problem issolved each year, the total discountedbenefits (at 6 percent) to pregnant

women (fetuses) is estimated to be$30,000 to $3 million.

C. SummaryFor this analysis, FDA has assumed

that only imported wines still continueto use tin-lead foil capsules, excludingthose imported from the EU. Costs ofconversion are expected to beapproximately $90,000 annually. Totaldiscounted costs (6 percent) areestimated to be $1.2 million.

Assuming that, (1) the populationgrowth rate in the United Statescontinues to be near the replacementrate, and (2) half of the lead problem isreduced each year, the reduction ofblood lead levels due to ingestion of

wine is expected to result in discountedbenefits ranging from $97,000 to $8.7million.

VI. References

The following references have beenplaced on display in the DocketsManagement Branch (HFA–305), Foodand Drug Administration, 12420Parklawn Dr., rm. 1–23, Rockville, MD20857.

1. Walker, L., ‘‘What’s Next in the WineCapsule Department?,’’ Wine & Vines,74(3):20(3), March 1993.

2. Carrington, C., P. M. Bolger, and R. J.Scheupleia, ‘‘Risk Analysis of Dietary LeadExposure,’’ in press.


3. FDA memorandum, ‘‘ProvisionalTolerable Exposure Levels for Lead,’’ Clark D.Carrington, Division of Toxicological Reviewand Evaluation, to Elizabeth Campbell,Division of Regulatory Guidance, November16, 1990.


Food ingredients, Food packaging.Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended,and under authority delegated to theCommissioner of Food and Drugs, 21CFR part 189 is amended as follows:

PART 189—SUBSTANCESPROHIBITED FROM USE IN HUMANFOOD


Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 701 of theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371).

2. New § 189.301 is added to subpartC to read as follows:

§ 189.301 Tin-coated lead foil capsules forwine bottles.

(a) Tin-coated lead foil is composed ofa lead foil coated on one or both sideswith a thin layer of tin. Tin-coated leadfoil has been used as a capsule (i.e., asa covering applied over the cork andneck areas) on wine bottles to preventinsect infestation, as a barrier to oxygen,and for decorative purposes.Information received by the Food andDrug Administration establishes that theuse of such a capsule on wine bottles

may reasonably be expected to result inlead becoming a component of the wine.

(b) The capping of any bottles of wineafter February 8, 1996, with a tin-coatedlead foil capsule renders the wineadulterated and in violation of section402(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug,and Cosmetic Act because lead from thecapsule, which is an unsafe foodadditive within the meaning of section409 of the act, may reasonably beexpected to become a component of thewine.

Dated: January 29, 1996.William K. Hubbard,Associate Commissioner for PolicyCoordination.[FR Doc. 96–2665 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

fede

ral r

egiste

r

4821


Part III

Department ofHealth and HumanServicesFood and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 331Antacid Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Amendment ofAntacid Monograph; Final Rule




21 CFR Part 331


RIN 0905–AA06

Antacid Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Amendment ofAntacid Monograph


SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is issuing a finalrule that amends the monograph forover-the-counter (OTC) antacid drugproducts by deleting parts of the testingprocedures in subpart C. This final ruleis part of the ongoing review of OTCdrug products conducted by FDA. Also,this final rule is part of theAdministration’s ‘‘ReinventingGovernment’’ initiative which seeks tostreamline government and to ease theburden on regulated industry andconsumers.EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 1997.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William E. Gilbertson, Center for DrugEvaluation and Research (HFD–105),Food and Drug Administration, 5600Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,301–827–2304.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In the Federal Register of June 4, 1974(39 FR 19862), FDA issued a finalmonograph for OTC antacid drugproducts (21 CFR part 331) thatincluded procedures for testing antaciddrug products. An acid neutralizingcapacity test is described in § 331.26.When the final monograph was issuedin 1974, the United States Pharmacopeia(USP) did not include an acidneutralizing capacity test. However, in1980 an acid neutralizing capacity testwas included in the USP (Ref. 1). Thattest is substantially the same as the testfound in the final monograph for OTCantacid drug products. Several revisionsin the USP acid neutralizing capacitytest have been made since 1980 toincrease the accuracy and utility of thetest. The current USP 23/NationalFormulary (N.F.) 18 acid neutralizingcapacity test (Ref. 2) differs from theagency’s antacid monograph testingprocedures, which have not beenrevised.

The FDA recommended disintegrationtest method (in § 331.24) and the

methods in current USP 23/N.F. 18monographs for antacid tablets alsohave some differences. Current USP 23/N.F. 18 procedures include tests forpowder and suspension dosage formsand for products having an acidneutralizing capacity greater than 25milliequivalents (meq) of acid, as wellas a more detailed sample preparationprocedure for capsule dosage forms.

In the Federal Register of September23, 1993 (58 FR 49826), the agencyissued a notice of proposed rulemakingto amend the final monograph for OTCantacid drug products to delete parts ofthe testing procedures in subpart C, asdiscussed above in this document. Theagency discussed the differencesbetween its antacid monographstandards and those in the USP. Theagency mentioned that it could amendits antacid monograph to be consistentwith the USP, but opted to deleteportions of its monograph testingprocedures and refer to the USPprocedures for determination of theantacid product’s acid neutralizingcapacity in place thereof. The agencynoted that USP procedures do notinclude a ‘‘preliminary antacid test’’ (ascontained in § 331.25 of the antacidmonograph) or a procedure for the‘‘determination of percent contributionof active ingredients’’ in a combinationantacid drug product (as contained in§ 331.21 of the antacid monograph). Theagency does not consider the‘‘preliminary antacid test’’ as essentialto the determination of a product’s acidneutralizing capacity. However,manufacturers may elect to continue touse this test as a preliminary screeningprocedure. The agency stated that it wasretaining § 331.21 (‘‘determination ofpercent contribution of activeingredients’’) in the monograph(redesignated as § 331.20) so that aprocedure will be available for makingthat determination. No comments werereceived in response to the agency’sproposed changes in the antacidmonograph.

References

(1) ‘‘United States Pharmacopeia XX—National Formulary XV,’’ United StatesPharmacopeial Convention, Inc., Rockville,MD, p. 912, 1980.

(2) ‘‘United States Pharmacopeia 23—National Formulary 18,’’ United StatesPharmacopeial Convention, Inc., Rockville,MD, pp. 54–55 and 1791–1793, 1994.

II. The Agency’s Final Conclusions onthe Amendment to the Monograph forOTC Antacid Drug Products

In the proposal, the agency referred tothe acid neutralizing capacity testprocedures in USP XXII/N.F. XVII.Since the proposal was published, USP

23/N.F. 18 became official on January 1,1995. The test procedures in botheditions of the USP are the same.Therefore, the agency is referencing USP23/N.F. 18 in this final rule.

The agency is removing the followingsections from ‘‘Subpart C—TestingProcedures’’ in ‘‘Part 331—AntacidProducts for Over-the-Counter (OTC)Human Use’’: §§ 331.20, 331.22, 331.23,331.24, 331.25, and 331.26. The agencyis redesignating § 331.21 as § 331.20 andamending it to refer to the USP 23/N.F.18 test procedure in place of § 331.26,which is being removed. The agency isretaining § 331.29 (‘‘test modifications’’)in case there is a need for anymanufacturer to petition for a testmodification, is redesignating thissection as § 331.21, and is amending itto reference the USP 23/N.F. 18 testprocedure. The agency is also amending§§ 331.10(a) and 331.80(a)(1) to refer toUSP 23/N.F. 18.

III. Analysis of ImpactsAn analysis of the cost and benefits of

this regulation, conducted underExecutive Order 12291, was discussedin the proposed rule (58 FR 49826 at49827). No comments were received inresponse to the agency’s request forspecific comment on the economicimpact of this rulemaking. ExecutiveOrder 12291 has been superseded byExecutive Order 12866.

FDA has examined the impacts of thisfinal rule under Executive Order 12866and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (PubL. 96–354). Executive Order 12866directs agencies to assess all costs andbenefits of available regulatoryalternatives and, when regulation isnecessary, to select regulatoryapproaches that maximize net benefits(including potential economic,environmental, public health and safety,and other advantages; distributiveimpacts; and equity). The agencybelieves that this final rule is consistentwith the regulatory philosophy andprinciples identified in the ExecutiveOrder. In addition, the final rule is nota significant regulatory action as definedby the Executive Order and, thus, is notsubject to review under the ExecutiveOrder.

The Regulatory Flexibility Actrequires agencies to analyze regulatoryoptions that would minimize anysignificant impact of a rule on smallentities. Manufacturers of OTC antaciddrug products should not be affected bythe deletion of certain testingprocedures that have already beenincorporated into the USP/N.F.Accordingly, the agency certifies thatthe final rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantial


number of small entities. Therefore,under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, nofurther analysis is required.

IV. Environmental ImpactThe agency has determined under 21

CFR 25.24(c)(6) that this action is of atype that does not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment. Therefore,neither an environmental assessmentnor an environmental impact statementis required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 331Labeling, Over-the-counter drugs.Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 331 isamended as follows:

PART 331—ANTACID PRODUCTS FOROVER-THE-COUNTER (OTC) HUMANUSE


Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 503, 505,510, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353,355, 360, 371).

2. Section 331.10 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 331.10 Antacid active ingredients.(a) The active antacid ingredients of

the product consist of one or more of theingredients permitted in § 331.11 withinany maximum daily dosage limitestablished, each ingredient is includedat a level that contributes at least 25percent of the total acid neutralizingcapacity of the product, and the finishedproduct contains at least 5 meq of acidneutralizing capacity as measured bythe procedure provided in the UnitedStates Pharmacopeia 23/NationalFormulary 18. The method establishedin § 331.20 shall be used to determine

the percent contribution of each antacidactive ingredient.* * * * *

§ 331.20 [Removed]

3. Section 331.20 Apparatus andreagents is removed from subpart C.

§ 331.21 [Redesignated as § 331.20]

4. Section 331.21 is redesignated as§ 331.20 and revised to read as follows:

§ 331.20 Determination of percentcontribution of active ingredients.

To determine the percent contributionof an antacid active ingredient, place anaccurately weighed amount of theantacid active ingredient equal to theamount present in a unit dose of theproduct into a 250-milliliter (mL)beaker. If wetting is desired, add notmore than 5 mL of alcohol (neutralizedto an apparent pH of 3.5), and mix towet the sample thoroughly. Add 70 mLof water, and mix on a magnetic stirrerat 300±30 r.p.m. for 1 minute. Analyzethe acid neutralizing capacity of thesample according to the procedureprovided in the United StatesPharmacopeia 23/National Formulary18 and calculate the percentcontribution of the antacid activeingredient in the total product asfollows:

Percent contribution = (Total meq.Antacid Active Ingredient x100)/(Totalmeq. Antacid Product).

§ 331.22 [Removed]

5. Section 331.22 Reagentstandardization is removed.

§ 331.23 [Removed]

6. Section 331.23 Temperaturestandardization is removed.

§ 331.24 [Removed]

7. Section 331.24 Tabletdisintegration test is removed.

§ 331.25 [Removed]

8. Section 331.25 Preliminary antacidtest is removed.

§ 331.26 [Removed]

9. Section 331.26 Acid neutralizingcapacity test is removed.

§ 331.29 [Redesignated as § 331.21]

10. Section 331.29 is redesignated as§ 331.21 and revised to read as follows:

§ 331.21 Test modifications.

The formulation or mode ofadministration of certain products mayrequire a modification of the UnitedStates Pharmacopeia 23/NationalFormulary 18 acid neutralizing capacitytest. Any proposed modification and thedata to support it shall be submitted asa petition under the rules established in§ 10.30 of this chapter. All informationsubmitted will be subject to thedisclosure rules in part 20 of thischapter.

11. Section 331.80 is amended byrevising paragraph (a)(1) to read asfollows:

§ 331.80 Professional labeling.

(a) * * *(1) Shall contain the neutralizing

capacity of the product as calculatedusing the procedure set forth in UnitedStates Pharmacopeia 23/NationalFormulary 18 expressed in terms of thedosage recommended per minimumtime interval or, if the labelingrecommends more than one dosage, interms of the minimum dosagerecommended per minimum timeinterval.* * * * *

Dated: January 29, 1996.William K. Hubbard,Associate Commissioner for PolicyCoordination.[FR Doc. 96–2666 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

fede

ral r

egiste

r

4825


Part IV

Department ofCommerceInternational Trade Administration

19 CFR Part 351, et al.Antidumping and Countervailing DutyProceedings: Procedures for ImposingSanctions for Violation of a ProtectiveOrder; Proposed Rule


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

19 CFR Parts 351, 353, 354, and 355

[Docket No. 960123011–6011–01]

RIN 0625–AA43

Antidumping and Countervailing DutyProceedings: Administrative ProtectiveOrder Procedures; Procedures forImposing Sanctions for Violation of aProtective Order

AGENCY: International TradeAdministration, Commerce.ACTION: Proposed rule; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce(‘‘the Department’’) proposes to amendits regulations on administrativeprotective order (‘‘APO’’) procedures inantidumping and countervailing dutyproceedings to simplify and streamlinethe APO administrative process andreduce the administrative burdens onthe Department and trade practitioners.The Department also proposes to amendthe regulations to simplify theprocedures for investigating allegedviolations of APOs and the impositionof sanctions. These changes areproposed in response to and incooperation with the trade practitionersthat are subject to these rules.DATES: Written comments will be dueMarch 11, 1996.ADDRESSES: Address written comments(three copies) to Stephen J. Powell,Chief Counsel for ImportAdministration, Room B–099, U.S.Department of Commerce, PennsylvaniaAvenue and 14th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20230. Commentsshould be addressed: Attention:Proposed Regulations/APO Procedures& APO Sanctions. Each personsubmitting a comment is requested toinclude his or her name and address,and the reasons for anyrecommendation.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoanL. MacKenzie, Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Chief Counsel for ImportAdministration, (202) 482–1310.


General Background

APO Procedures

Since the enactment of the TradeAgreements Act of 1979, the APO hasbeen an important procedure in U.S.antidumping (‘‘AD’’) and countervailingduty (‘‘CVD’’) proceedings. By providingrepresentatives of parties toantidumping and countervailing duty

proceedings access to businessproprietary information submitted to theDepartment by other parties, the APOhas helped to make the U.S. system themost transparent in the world.

In administering its APO procedures,the Department balances two principalobjectives. On the one hand, theDepartment has sought to ensure thatinformation is disclosed under APO ina timely manner to permit parties todefend adequately their interests. At thesame time, the Department must ensurethat its procedures protect againstunauthorized disclosure of businessproprietary information.

Our procedures for the protection ofbusiness proprietary information werelast revised in 1989. After five yearsexperience with these procedures, andafter consultation with the practitionersaffected by these procedures, wedetermined it was time to revise theprocedures.

The Department began a dialogue onAPO procedures with AD/CVDpractitioners, who are the ones mostdirectly affected by these procedures.Specifically, Department staff consultedwith representatives of the InternationalLaw Section of the District of ColumbiaBar, the International Trade Committeeof the Section of International Law andPractice of the American BarAssociation, the ITC Trial LawyersAssociation, and the Customs andInternational Trade Bar Association.The purpose of these consultations wasto explore ways in which the APOprocess could be simplified andstreamlined for all concerned, includingthe Department, while at the same timeproviding protection of businessproprietary information.

Based on these discussions, theDepartment published Notice andRequest for Comment on ProposedChanges to Administrative ProtectiveOrder (APO) Procedures inAntidumping and Countervailing DutyProceedings, APO Application Formand APO, 59 FR 51559 (October 12,1994) (‘‘October Notice’’). In this notice,the Department set forth its initialreform ideas regarding APO procedures,and requested further comments fromthe public on its ideas. In addition, theDepartment requested comments onAPO procedures, as well as on othermatters, in its Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking and Request forComments (Antidumping Duties;Countervailing Duties; Article 1904 ofthe North American Free TradeAgreement), 60 FR 80 (Jan. 3, 1995)(‘‘Advance Notice’’).

The Department received commentsin response to both the October Noticeand the Advance Notice. After analyzing

these comments, the Department hasdrafted regulations that streamline theAPO process significantly and, at thesame time, protect business proprietaryinformation from unauthorizeddisclosure. However, as part of theongoing dialogue with the private sectoron this subject, the Department isrequesting public comment on theseregulations. As with the October Notice,we are also publishing for comment theAPO.

APO SanctionsThe Department also proposes to

amend its regulations concerningsanctions for violations of APOs. Theregulations governing the imposition ofsanctions for APO violations are setforth at 19 CFR part 354. In the six yearssince part 354 was introduced, theDepartment has investigated andresolved numerous allegations ofviolations of APOs. Most charges havebeen settled, and none has resulted ina hearing before a presiding official ora decision by the APO Sanctions Board.Experience also has proven that, even ifan individual has technically violatedthe terms of an APO, it is not alwaysappropriate to impose a sanction.Rather, a warning may be appropriate inmany instances. The Department alsohas found that situations arise in whichthe investigation can be shortenedwithout limiting procedural rights.Additionally, under current regulations,it is unduly cumbersome to withdrawcharges when the Departmentdetermines that they are not warranted.Finally, the Department recognizes thatan individual with prior violationsdeserves to have his or her recordcleared after a period of time withoutfurther violations. Therefore, theDepartment is proposing to amend part354 of its regulations to articulate astandard for issuance of a warning of anAPO violation and to address the othersituations described above.

The Department proposes to amendthe regulations to simplify theprocedures for investigating allegedviolations and the imposition ofsanctions, establish criteria forabbreviating the investigation of analleged violation, include private lettersof reprimand among the sanctionsavailable, and set a policy fordetermining when the Departmentissues warnings instead of sanctions.Further, the Department proposes torevise the provisions dealing withsettlement to make them consistent withpractice. The Department also proposedto simplify the procedures forwithdrawing charging letters. Finally,the proposed amendment adds a sunsetprovision that codifies existing practice


regarding the rescission of chargingletters.

The outstanding issues concerningthese regulations are described in thefollowing analysis of the relevantsections of the proposed regulations.

Explanation of Particular Provisions

APO Procedures

The Department’s AD regulations arecontained in 19 CFR part 353, and itsCVD regulations are contained in 19CFR part 355. Parts 353 and 355 eachcontain separate provisions dealing withthe treatment of business proprietaryinformation and APO procedures. Aspart of a separate rulemaking, theDepartment intends to consolidate theAD and CVD regulations and repealexisting parts 353 and 355. We havedrafted the regulations dealing withAPO procedures in light of this plannedconsolidation. Accordingly, theseregulations will be contained in 19 CFRpart 351, subpart C. More specifically,with the exception of definitionalprovisions, the relevant regulations willbe contained in 19 CFR 351.304, 305,and 306.

Definitions

Section 351.102 will be a definitionalsection, based on existing 19 CFR 353.2and 355.2. It will be publishedseparately with the proposed rules for19 CFR part 351, subpart C. Insofar asAPO procedures are concerned, twonew terms will be defined, nowcontained in the administrativeprotective order.

The first term, ‘‘applicant,’’ is definedas an individual representative of aninterested party that has applied foraccess to business proprietaryinformation under an APO. The secondterm, ‘‘authorized applicant,’’ is definedas an applicant that the Secretary hasauthorized to receive businessproprietary information under an APO,and is a term borrowed from thepractice of the U.S. International TradeCommission (‘‘ITC’’).

Section 351.304 Establishing BusinessProprietary Treatment of Information

Section 351.304 sets forth rulesconcerning the treatment of businessproprietary information in general.Paragraph (a) is a general provision,paragraph (a)(1) of which providespersons with the right to request (i) thatcertain information be consideredbusiness proprietary; and (ii) thatcertain business proprietary informationbe exempt from disclosure under APO.Consistent with section 777(c)(1)(A) ofthe Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’),paragraph (a)(2) provides that, as a

general matter, the Secretary willrequire that all business proprietaryinformation be disclosed to authorizedapplicants, with the exception of (i)customer names in an investigation, (ii)information for which the Secretaryfinds there is a clear and compellingneed to withhold from disclosure, and(iii) classified or privileged information.

Paragraph (b) of § 351.304 addressesthe identification of businessproprietary information in submissionsto the Department. Paragraph (b)(1)deals with the bracketing and labeling ofbusiness proprietary information ingeneral, and is consistent with existingpractice. Paragraph (b)(1) also retainsthe requirements under existing practicethat: (i) A person claiming businessproprietary status for information mustexplain why the information in questionis entitled to that status; and (ii) arequest for business proprietarytreatment must include an agreement topermit disclosure under an APO, unlessthe submitter claims that there is a clearand compelling need to withhold theinformation from disclosure under anAPO. Paragraph (b)(2) is new, andprovides for the double bracketing ofbusiness proprietary information thatthe submitting person claims should beexempt from disclosure under APO, andcustomer names submitted in aninvestigation.

Public VersionsParagraph (c) of § 351.304 deals with

the public version of a businessproprietary submission. Paragraph (c)(1)follows existing practice by permittingparties to file a public version of adocument containing businessproprietary information one businessday after the due date of the businessproprietary version of the document.This practice is known as the ‘‘one-daylag’’ rule. Under current practice,submitting persons may correct thebracketing of information in thebusiness proprietary version up to thedeadline for submission of the publicversion (i.e., they have one day in whichto correct bracketing). The Departmenthas slightly modified the one-day lagrule to require a party to file the finalbusiness proprietary version of thedocument at the same time as thesubmitting party files the public versionof the document. The specific filingrequirements will be contained in§ 351.303 of subpart C of the proposedregulations that the Department willpublish separately. The purpose of thisrequirement is to ensure that theDepartment is reviewing the correctbusiness proprietary version. Absentthis requirement, Department analystswould have to engage in a page-by-page

comparison of the original and correctedbusiness proprietary versions, a time-consuming exercise which benefitsneither the parties nor the Department.

Paragraph (c)(1) continues to permit aparty to claim that summarization is notpossible. However, the Secretary willvigorously enforce the requirement forpublic summaries, and will grant claimsthat summarization is impossible onlyin exceptional circumstances.

Nonconforming SubmissionsParagraph (d) of § 351.304 deals with

nonconforming submissions, i.e.,submissions that do not conform to therequirements of section 777(b) of theAct and paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of§ 351.304. Paragraph (d)(1) is generallyconsistent with existing 19 CFR353.32(d) and 355.32(d), although it ismore precise as to the options availableto a submitting person when theSecretary returns a nonconformingsubmission. Paragraph (d)(2) is based onexisting 19 CFR 353.32(e) and 355.32(e),and provides that the Secretarynormally will determine the status ofinformation within 30 days after the dayon which the information wassubmitted, as provided by section777(c)(1)(C).

Section 351.305 Access to BusinessProprietary Information

Section 351.305 deals withprocedures for obtaining businessproprietary information under APO.These procedures are based on the ideasset forth in the October Notice, andreflect suggestions made in response tothe Department’s request for comments.

The Revised APOParagraph (a) of § 351.305 sets forth a

new procedure based on the use of asingle APO. Instead of issuing a separateAPO to each applicant that requestsdisclosure, under paragraph (a) theSecretary will place a single APO on therecord for each segment of an AD orCVD duty proceeding. The Secretarywill place the APO on the record withinone day after a petition is filed or aninvestigation is self-initiated, or one dayafter the initiation of any other segment.(‘‘Segment of the proceeding’’ will bedefined in § 351.102 as a portion of theproceeding that is reviewable undersection 516A of the Act.) All authorizedapplicants will be subject to the termsof this single APO. This new procedure,which mirrors the practice of the ITCand which is described in more detailin the October Notice, should streamlinethe APO process dramatically, andshould expedite the issuance of APOsand the disclosure of information toauthorized applicants.


Paragraph (a) also sets forth therequirements that are to be included inthe single APO and to which allauthorized applicants must adhere. Inthis regard, in response to thesuggestions of practitioners, theDepartment proposed in its OctoberNotice to eliminate from the APOdetailed internal procedures that firmswere required to follow to protect APOinformation from unauthorizeddisclosure. Instead, the Departmentproposed to permit each applicant toestablish its own internal procedures.All commentators agreed with thisproposal. Therefore, paragraph (a)(1)simply requires that the applicantestablish and follow procedures toensure that there is no unauthorizeddisclosure of APO information.

In its October Notice, the Departmentproposed to continue to place tworestrictions on the use of businessproprietary information contained inelectronic form: (1) Such informationcould be resident on a computer onlywhen the computer was being run; and(2) the information could not beaccessible by a network or a modem.

The commentators differed as towhether it is appropriate to requiredifferent protection depending uponwhether business proprietaryinformation is entered into a computerfor data manipulation purposes or forword-processing purposes. Fourcommentators opposed any specificrestrictions, because they believe thatthere are sufficient technical protectionsavailable to protect such informationfrom unauthorized disclosure. Theyasserted that attempts to prescribespecific, mandatory procedures arefutile, because the handling ofinformation on electronic media issubject to rapid technological change.Procedures may become outdated by thetime they are established. On the otherhand, four commentators asserted thatalthough electronic information may beleft resident in a computer subject toadequate safeguards, the Departmentshould require that such information beused on a stand-alone computer toensure that the information is notaccessible by modem.

The Department recognizes thesensitivity of issues involving thehandling of electronic information.Because there is no unanimity regardingthe use of electronic information oncomputers that are accessible bymodem, we continue to supportrestricting access of electronicinformation by modem. However,restricting access by modem does notnecessarily require the physicalseparation of a computer and a modem.The use of technical restrictions, such as

passwords or encryption, also wouldconstitute an adequate method ofprotecting the information. Therefore,we are not proposing any specifictechnical restrictions, but instead areleaving the method to be used to theindividual authorized applicant.Moreover, we are not limiting access tonetworks, because software is providedon many computer systems through thenetwork. In summary, we haveproposed procedures that, in our view,are sufficiently flexible so as to allowapplicants to take advantage oftechnological advances as they occur,but that also ensure the protection ofAPO information.

On a different matter, fivecommentators suggested that theDepartment reconsider its requirementthat support personnel be employees ofthe firm. They suggested that theDepartment permit the use ofindependent contractors to performphotocopying and other productiontasks involving APO information,provided that: (1) The independentcontractors perform their work on thepremises of the authorized applicant(e.g., at the firm); and (2) theindependent contractors work under thesupervision of an authorized applicant.The commentators stated that, for APOpurposes, firms are able to exerciseessentially the same oversight oversubcontracted individuals as they areover their own employees.

The Department agrees that so long assupport staff is operating on thepremises of the authorized applicant,support staff could be either employeesor independent subcontractors. Inaddition, the Department also will allowparties to use employees orsubcontracted individuals (e.g., courierservices) to pick up APO informationreleased by the Department. In order toguard against unauthorized disclosure,however, the Department will continueits current practice of releasing APOinformation only if the employee orsubcontractor presents a picture ID anda letter of identification from the firm ofthe authorized applicant that authorizesthe Department to release the APOinformation to that particularindividual.

Also regarding support staff, onecommentator suggested that instead ofrequiring support staff to sign the APOapplication and acknowledge the APOterms and conditions, the Departmentshould leave this up to the authorizedapplicant as a matter of its internalprocedures. The Department has notadopted this suggestion, because itwould appear that the Department ispermitting access to businessproprietary information by staff that has

not agreed to protect such information.Instead, we have retained therequirement in the APO that supportpersonnel must agree to anacknowledgment of the APO terms andconditions.

Several commentators raised issuesregarding the Department’s currentrequirement that individualrepresentatives of parties notify theDepartment when their status under anAPO changes (e.g., when they arereassigned to a different matter within afirm or leave the firm), and to certifythat they have complied with the termsof the APO. Two firms commented thatit is important for the Department toretain its current practice of requiringnotification of any changedcircumstances that may affect theparticipation of a representative underan APO. However, one firm requestedthat the Department either eliminate therequirement altogether or let the leadsignatory for each firm make thenecessary certification. This firmpointed out that individualcertifications are not required by theU.S. Court of International Trade(‘‘CIT’’) with respect to a judicialprotective order (‘‘JPO’’).

The Department has decided to retainthe requirements in question. APOaccess is granted in response toindividual requests for such access. Thecertification provided at the conclusionof a segment of the proceeding, upon thedeparture of an individual from a firm,or when an individual no longer willhave access to APO information atteststo the individual’s compliance with theterms under which such access isgranted. The Department and thepersons whose business proprietaryinformation is disclosed under APOhave a legitimate need to be assured thatindividuals who have had access to thatinformation have abided by the terms ofthe APO. Therefore, the regulations(specifically, § 351.305(a)(2)) continueto require notification and appropriatecertification when changedcircumstances affect the participation ofa representative under an APO.

Although, as noted above, theseregulations provide authorizedapplicants with greater flexibilityregarding internal procedures, theDepartment proposed in its OctoberNotice to maintain model guidelines onprocedures that applicants couldimplement to protect APO information.Six commentators addressed thisproposal. Two commentators stated thatit would be useful for the Department tomaintain guidelines and to hold trainingsessions for APO applicants. Theycautioned, however, that suchguidelines should represent suggestions


only, and that they should not betransformed into de facto requirements.Otherwise, the objective of simplifyingthe APO process would be defeated, andthe Department once again would finditself in the position of micro-managingthe internal procedures of applicants.The commentators requested that theDepartment clearly set forth thestandards by which an applicant’sinternal procedures will be judged, andthat it expressly acknowledge that adeparture from any suggestion in theguidelines will not be regarded as a perse violation of an APO. Thecommentators also urged theDepartment to make any guidelinesavailable at the time a party applies foran APO, and that the Department notimplement new APO procedures untiltrade practitioners are provided with theopportunity to comment on theguidelines. Also, with respect to therequirement in the APO application thatparties refrain from asking theDepartment for assistance in handlingelectronic submissions of another party,commentators requested that any suchrequests for assistance not be construedas an APO violation.

In light of these comments, theDepartment intends to issue APOguidelines, and expects that they will beparticularly useful to firms that do nothave an established practice before theDepartment. The Department, however,will consider the APO guidelines as justthat; guidelines rather than actual termsand conditions of the APO. In addition,we will provide an opportunity tocomment on such guidelines before weissue them in final form. As for APOviolations, although the Departmentwould take into account the quality ofan applicant’s internal procedures inconsidering sanctions for an APOviolation, a failure to follow theguidelines certainly would not beconsidered an APO violation. Inaddition, we agree that a request for theDepartment’s assistance in handlinganother party’s electronic submissionswould not constitute an APO violation.

One commentator suggested thatpayment for electronic informationshould be required only whererequested. Apparently, a number of lawfirms do not charge for electronicsubmissions. We agree that payment forthe cost of electronic submissionsshould be required only if payment isrequested, and have incorporated thesuggestion in the general regulationsthat will be published separately.

Certification and Destruction ofBusiness Proprietary Information

Paragraph (a)(4) of § 351.305 requiresthe destruction of business proprietary

information when a party is no longerentitled to it, as well as certification thatdestruction has been completed. Asdiscussed below, parties now may retainbusiness proprietary information afterthe completion of the segment of theproceeding in which the informationwas submitted. The certificationrequirements would then be triggered ata much later date, at the end of the lastsegment of the proceeding for whichinformation may be used. Because thismay vary from case to case, the specifictime at which a party must destroybusiness proprietary information will bedescribed in the APO.

In its October Notice, the Departmentaddressed the present requirement that,at the end of a segment of a proceeding,an authorized applicant certify to thedestruction of APO information withintwo business days of the expiration ofthe time for filing for judicial orbinational panel review. Of the ninecommentators that addressed this issue,all supported extending the deadline to30 days. These commentators noted thatbecause the CIT sends out JPOs by mail,it may take up to a week for a party toreceive a copy of the JPO. Although thismay no longer be an issue with respectto most segments of a proceeding, weagree that if this situation does occur,parties should be given more time inwhich to determine their involvement,if any, in litigation arising out of aparticular segment of a proceeding.Thirty days should cover mostcontingencies, but the Department willbe willing to grant extensions for goodcause shown.

Another commentator pointed outthat if the Department arranged with theCIT to have a single protective orderthat covered the entire duration of boththe Department’s and the Court’sproceedings, this requirement wouldnot be necessary. Under existingpractice, parties obtain an APO for theDepartment’s administrativeproceeding, another one for the ITCproceeding, negotiate a third for ajudicial proceeding, and then obtainanother APO in any remand proceedingwhere new business proprietaryinformation may be placed on therecord. Five commentators proposedstreamlining these procedures. Somesuggested that the JPO cover anyremand proceeding. Others suggested aprotective order that covers proceedingsof both the Department and the CIT. Athird suggested a model JPO.

We agree that it would be beneficialfor all parties to craft either an APO orJPO that would remain in effect throughcourt appeals and remands. We believethat any simplification in this regardwould result in a significant savings in

time and resources to the parties and theagencies, particularly if parties retainbusiness proprietary information formore than a single segment ofproceeding. However, this will requirediscussions between the Departmentand the CIT. We will enter intodiscussions with the relevant entitiestoward this end. In the meantime, theAPO will permit access to new businessproprietary information submitted inthe course of a remand during litigationinvolving the segment of the proceedingin which the initial APO was issued.Parties no longer will have to applyseparately for access under an APOduring a remand proceeding.

One commentator opposed having tosend the Department a copy of the JPO,arguing that the Department of Justiceshould provide the Department with theJPO. In our view, the Department needsto know at the end of a proceedingwhether an authorized applicant is or isnot authorized to retain APOinformation of other parties, andwhether the authorized applicant hastaken the correct steps in this regard.Only the authorized applicant, not theDepartment of Justice, is in a position toknow this information.

The requirements concerning anauthorized applicant’s responsibilitiesat the end of a segment of a proceedingare contained in the APO.

APO ApplicationsParagraph (b) of § 351.305 deals with

the APO application process itself.Paragraph (b)(1) addresses the issue ofmultiple authorized applicants. Undercurrent practice, the Departmentgenerally allows only one representativeof a party to have access to businessproprietary information under an APO.In response to suggestions frompractitioners, in its October Notice theDepartment proposed that twoindependent representatives of a partybe allowed APO access, with onerepresentative being designated as thelead representative. We also proposedgranting APOs separately to non-legalrepresentatives only if they had asignificant practice before theDepartment. The purpose of thisproposal was to ensure that effectivesanctions could be imposed to deterAPO violations.

Five commentators addressed thisissue. One firm opposed granting APOsto independent non-legalrepresentatives, arguing that such apractice would disperse responsibilityfor protecting APO information and thatthe sanction of disbarment from practicebefore the Department might beinadequate. This commentator alsonoted that, unlike the legal profession,


there are no independent ethicalstandards for the other professionstypically involved in AD or CVDproceedings.

Two commentators endorsed theproposal to permit two independentrepresentatives to apply for an APO, andanother commentator supported anunlimited number. However, all of thecommentators that supported givingindependent APO access to multiplerepresentatives added the caveat thatone representative must not be heldaccountable for any APO violation ofanother representative operating underseparate APO authorization.

Under current procedures, theDepartment has allowed access to non-attorney applicants for many years, bothas ‘‘other representatives’’ retained byattorneys and as the sole representativeof a party. We are not proposing tochange this practice. Instead, we areproposing that a party be able to havetwo independent representatives withindependent and separate access toinformation under the APO. Moreover,the Department’s experience hasdemonstrated that non-lawyerapplicants are no more likely to violatethe terms of an APO than lawyerapplicants, and that disclosure to non-lawyer applicants does not increase therisk of an APO violation. In determiningwhether a non-lawyer representative isa qualified applicant for APO accessunder § 351.305(c), the Department willconsider the extent of thatrepresentative’s practice before theDepartment.

As set forth in paragraph (b)(1),generally no more than twoindependent authorized applicants forone party may apply for disclosureunder an APO. In addition, the partymust designate a lead authorizedapplicant if the party has more than oneindependent representative. Withrespect to requests that more than twoindependent representatives bedesignated as authorized applicants, theDepartment will consider such requestson a case-by-case basis.

Application for an APOParagraph (b)(2) of § 351.305

establishes a ‘‘short form’’ applicationprocedure. For some time, parties to ADor CVD proceedings have requested thatthey be allowed to reproduce theDepartment’s APO application on theirown word processing equipment. In theOctober Notice, the Departmentproposed two alternatives that wouldhave permitted such reproduction, butthat also would prevent theunauthorized alteration of therequirements of the APO itself. Fourcommentators proposed as an

alternative a ‘‘short form’’ applicationthat would contain only the informationthat varies from party to party and caseto case. The terms and conditions foraccess would be in the APO placed onthe record of each segment of theproceeding.

The Department agrees that thesuggested ‘‘short form’’ applicationwould address the concerns of both theDepartment and the applicants, and wehave adopted the suggestion inparagraph (b)(2). However, an importantqualification is that an applicant mustacknowledge that any discrepanciesbetween the application and theDepartment’s APO placed on the recordwill be interpreted in a mannerconsistent with the Department’s APO.With this qualification, the newprocedure will enable applicants toreproduce the entire application formon their word processing equipment,thereby facilitating the applicationprocess.

In addition to the incorporation of the‘‘short form’’ application, paragraph(b)(2) also provides that an applicantmust apply to receive all businessproprietary information on the record ofthe particular segment of the proceedingin question. A party no longer mayapply to receive only selected parties’business proprietary information. Thepurpose of this requirement is toeliminate the need for parties to prepareseparate APO versions of submissionsfor each of the different parties involvedin a proceeding, and to reduce thenumber of APO violations that occurthrough the inadvertent service of adocument containing businessproprietary information to parties notauthorized to receive it. However, inorder to avoid forcing parties to receivea submission in which they have nointerest, a party may waive service ofbusiness proprietary information it doesnot wish to have served on it by anotherparty. Thus, for example, Respondent Amay waive its right to be served with acopy of the business proprietary versionof Respondent B’s questionnaireresponse. Nonetheless, if Respondent Areceives a copy by mistake, no APOviolation will have occurred.

Deadline for Application for APOAccess

Paragraph (b)(3) of § 351.305 dealswith the deadline for applying foraccess to business proprietaryinformation under APO. Because theDepartment has received and deniedabout six late APO applications peryear, in the October Notice we requestedcomments on whether there might be abetter procedure to ensure that partiesfile timely applications.

Nine commentators addressed thisissue, and they unanimously pointedout that it does not always make senseto require that APO applications besubmitted early in the segment of aproceeding. Requiring early applicationsmay result in forcing parties to fileprotective APO applications thatsubsequently turn out to beunnecessary, thereby adding to theburden on the Department and theparties. In addition, the commentatorsalso were unanimous that expertrepresentation and access to businessproprietary data are so important to theeffective defense of a party’s intereststhat the Department should provideaccess liberally by one means oranother. With respect to specificdeadlines, the commentators offereddifferent suggestions, ranging from thestatus quo (with extensions available) tono deadline at all.

In dealing with the question of APOapplication deadlines, the Departmentbalances the need to provide maximumaccess by parties to APO informationwith the need to minimize the burdenon the Department in processing APOapplications, as well as the burden onparties that have to serve late applicantswith APO information placed on therecord before a late APO is granted.Based on our experience, parties thatretain representatives in AD or CVDproceedings typically apply for an APOearly in each segment of a proceeding.In light of this fact, and in light of thenew procedure for a single APO, webelieve that the Department and theparties will not be unduly burdened ifAPO applications are receivedthroughout the course of a segment ofthe proceeding. The Department willnot have to issue an amended or newAPO, but instead need only update theAPO service list. Therefore, whileparagraph (b)(3) encourages parties tosubmit APO applications sooner ratherthan later, it permits parties to submitapplications up to the date on whichcase briefs are due. By adopting thisdeadline, however, the Department doesnot intend to allow a late APOapplication to serve as the basis forextending any administrative deadline,such as a briefing or hearing schedule.

We also have taken into account theburden imposed on parties by late APOapplications. Under current rules,parties have only two days in which toserve late applicants with APOinformation that already has beenplaced on the record. Under thedeadline set forth in paragraph (b)(3),the burden on parties may increase. Inrecognition of this, all commentatorsrequested that parties have five days inwhich to serve late APO applicants. In


addition, one commentator suggestedthat late applicants be required to paythe costs associated with the additionalproduction and service of businessproprietary submissions that wereserved on other parties earlier in theproceeding. We agree with thesesuggestions, and are incorporating theminto § 351.301, which will be publishedseparately.

Approval of the APO Application andthe APO Service List

Paragraph (c) of § 351.305 deals withthe approval of an APO application.Under paragraph (c), the Departmentnormally will approve an applicationwithin two days of its receipt in anInvestigation and within five days inother AD and CVD proceedings, unlessthere is a question concerning theeligibility of an applicant to receiveaccess under APO. In that case, theSecretary will decide whether to grantthe application within 30 days of receiptof the application.

If an application is approved, theSecretary will include the name of theauthorized applicant on an APO servicelist that the Department will maintainfor each segment of a proceeding. In thisregard, in the October Notice theDepartment raised the issue as to howthe Department should provide partieswith the APO service list. Severalcommentators suggested that theDepartment directly notify each party bythe most expeditious means availableeach time the APO service list changes.One commentator suggested that theDepartment make the APO service listavailable daily through electronicmeans. Two commentators noted that ifcopies of the list were available only inthe Department’s Central Records Unit,this would be unduly burdensome forD.C.-based representatives andimpractical for out-of-townrepresentatives.

The Department believes that the useof an APO service list will improve andstreamline the APO process only if it isreadily available to all parties, and weagree that the Department must provideparties with notice as to whichrepresentatives of other parties areauthorized applicants. In our view,there are three options: notificationthrough the Internet, by direct facsimilefrom the computer of the Department’sAPO specialist, or by mail. Paragraph (c)provides that the Secretary will use themost expeditious means available toprovide parties with the APO servicelist on the day the list is issued oramended.

With respect to the approval of APOapplications, several commentatorsemphasized the need for expedited

approval in order to ensure timelyaccess. They suggested alternativemethods, such as: (1) The creation of apre-approved roster of members of arepresentative’s firm, or (2) permitting alead signatory in a firm to grant accessto the other professionals within thefirm. Four commentators addressed thisissue. Three commentators supportedthe idea of a roster. However, onecommentator opposed both suggestions,arguing that they would deprive partiesof the opportunity to object, for goodcause, to the suitability of particularapplicants, and that a party never couldbe certain as to exactly who had accessto its business proprietary information.

In the Department’s view, neither ofthe suggested alternatives is acceptable.With respect to the pre-approved rosterapproach, there may be facts peculiar toa particular AD or CVD proceeding or asegment of a proceeding that render anotherwise eligible applicant ineligible,and the roster approach would precludea party from raising legitimateobjections to the approval of an APOapplication. Likewise, the lead signatoryapproach would preclude parties fromexercising their right to object, for goodcause, to the disclosure of APOinformation to a particular individual.

Section 351.306 Use of BusinessProprietary Information

Section 351.306 deals with howbusiness proprietary information may beused.

Use of Business Proprietary Informationby the Secretary

Paragraph (a) deals with the use ofbusiness proprietary information by theSecretary, and is based on existing 19CFR 353.32(f) and 355.32(f). One changeis the reference in paragraph (a)(4) to thedisclosure of information to the U.S.Trade Representative under 19 U.S.C.3571(i). Section 3571(i) (section 281(i)of the URAA) deals with theenforcement of U.S. rights under theWTO Agreement on Subsidies andCountervailing Measures. Also,although the regulation itself is littlechanged, we note that the URAAamended section 777(b)(1)(A)(i) of theAct to clarify that the Department mayuse business proprietary information forthe duration of an entire proceeding(from initiation to termination orrevocation), as opposed to merely theparticular segment of a proceeding forwhich information was submitted.

Use of Business Proprietary Informationby Parties

Paragraph (b) of § 351.306 deals withthe use of business proprietaryinformation by parties from one segment

of a proceeding to another. Paragraph (b)provides that an authorized applicantnormally may retain businessproprietary information obtained in onesegment of a proceeding for twosubsequent consecutive segments.However, paragraph (b) also providesthat normally an authorized applicantmay use such information only in theparticular segment of the proceeding inwhich the information was obtained. Anauthorized applicant may placebusiness proprietary informationreceived in one segment of a proceedingon the record of either of twosubsequent consecutive segments only ifthe information is relevant to an issuein one of the subsequent segments.

The ability to use information indifferent segments of a proceeding raisesthree related issues: (1) Whetherauthorized applicants should be able toretain business proprietary informationafter the conclusion of the particularsegment in which the information isobtained, or whether they should relyon an index of business proprietaryinformation in identifying and selectinginformation to be placed on the recordof a subsequent segment; (2) whetherthere are instances other than thosediscussed above in which an authorizedapplicant should be able to use businessproprietary information in a subsequentsegment; and (3) whether the Secretaryshould reserve the authority to approvewhat is placed on the record from priorsegments.

One commentator argued that forpurposes of five-year reviews undersection 751(c) of the Act, authorizedapplicants should be allowed to retainbusiness proprietary informationobtained under APO in the course ofprior segments. This commentatorargued that the information wouldcontinue to be subject to APO, and thatany harm from the unauthorizeddisclosure of information after theconclusion of a segment of a proceeding(or the entire proceeding) would bereduced because of the passage of time.Another commentator argued that onlythe Department, not the parties, mayhave access to business proprietaryinformation obtained in the course of achanged circumstances or five-yearreview that leads to revocation ortermination, and that parties should nothave access for purposes of preparingnew petitions.

It has been suggested that certain costdata should carry over from segment tosegment for the life of a proceeding byplacing all relevant data from the recordof one segment on the record of the nextsegment. Cost information thus wouldcumulate from one segment to the next.One commentator suggested that the


Department permit APO informationfrom prior segments of a proceeding tobe placed on the record of a subsequentsegment where it is relevant or thesubmitted information is inconsistent.This commentator noted that becausethe Department does not always verifyinformation submitted in reviews, andbecause the Department does not havesubpoena power, the Department coulduse this device to ensure the accuracyof information submitted to it. Anothercommentator would require thatauthorized applicants destroy allinformation at the end of each segmentof a proceeding, and that parties couldrely on recollection where they suspectan inconsistency between segments. Forthis approach to work, a party wouldhave to have access to the Department’sbusiness proprietary record from priorsegments. A fourth commentatorproposed to permit parties to retain allinformation from any segment of aproceeding for the duration of theproceeding.

As discussed above, we propose toallow authorized applicants to retainbusiness proprietary informationobtained under APO for two subsequentconsecutive segments of a proceeding.Thus, authorized applicants would beable to use the information to addressinconsistencies between the records forup to three different segments of aproceeding. We have limited theretention of business proprietaryinformation to three consecutivesegments, because we are concernedwith the undue proliferation of sensitiveproprietary data, and because, with theexception of situations such as five-yearor changed circumstances reviews, datamore than two years old generally is notprobative. For five-year reviews, partiescould rely on the index of businessproprietary information for records ofsegments older than the ones for whichthey have retained information.Although authorized applicantsgenerally will be able to retaininformation only for three consecutivesegments, the Department will tailorAPOs for subsequent segments to theparticular needs of that segment. Thus,for example, an APO for a five-yearreview would allow parties to obtainand use business proprietaryinformation obtained in segments earlierthan the third consecutive precedingsegment.

With respect to the question of theSecretary’s retention of authority toapprove the use of information fromprior segments, there are advantages anddisadvantages. The Department does notwant the record of current segments tobecome crowded with information thatis extraneous and irrelevant. Therefore,

we have included a requirement thatinformation from a prior segment mustbe relevant to an issue in the subsequentsegment. However, we have notincluded a requirement that theSecretary approve parties’ submissionsof information on the record of asubsequent segment. Ultimately, ofcourse, it is the Secretary who mustdecide the relevance and weight to beaccorded to this information, at least atthe administrative level. Thus, partieswho place irrelevant information on therecord of a subsequent segment gain noadvantage, and only waste the time ofthe Department and other parties.

Identifying Parties Business ProprietaryInformation

Paragraph (c) of § 351.306 addressesidentification in submissions ofbusiness proprietary information frommultiple persons. The background ofthis issue was discussed in the OctoberNotice. In the October Notice, theDepartment proposed that APOapplicants be required to request accessto all business proprietary informationsubmitted in a particular segment of aproceeding, a proposal that, asdiscussed above, has been incorporatedinto these regulations. In addition, wealso proposed that in the case ofsubmissions, such as briefs, that includebusiness proprietary information ofdifferent parties, the submission mustidentify each piece of businessproprietary information included andthe party to which the informationpertains. (For example, Information Item#1 came from Respondent A,Information Item #2 came fromRespondent B, etc.) The purpose of thisproposal is to enable parties to submita single APO version of a submissionthat may be served on all partiesrepresented by authorized applicants,instead of forcing parties to submit andserve different APO versions for each ofthe parties involved in a proceeding. Inthe case of a submission served on aparty not represented by an authorizedapplicant (a relatively rare event), thesubmitter still would have to prepareand serve a separate submissioncontaining only that party’s businessproprietary information.

All commentators addressed thisproposal, and, with one exception,endorsed it. The supportingcommentators agreed that this proposal,if adopted, would expedite theproduction and service of documents,reduce the costs of participants, andwould lead to a significant reduction inthe number of inadvertent APOviolations. These commentators alsosupported the Department’s proposal toallow authorized applicants the choice

of being served with hard copy orelectronic information, as well as theability to waive the receipt ofsubmissions of certain parties. They alsoagreed that the identification of thesource of business proprietaryinformation is essential in reducing thepossibility of inadvertent disclosureswhen a party prepares and servessubmissions that contain information ofmultiple parties, and in preventing thepossibility of one party frustrating theeffective representation of an opposingparty.

One commentator strongly opposedthese proposals, asserting that therequirement that an applicant requestaccess to all business proprietaryinformation from all persons wasinconsistent with the requirement insection 777 of the Act that anapplication describe in general termsthe information requested and thereasons for the request. Thiscommentator argued that under section777, a party cannot be compelled torequest access to information for whichthe party has no interest. In thiscommentator’s view, the ability to waiveservice would not correct this defect,because parties still would becompelled to accept businessproprietary information in which theyhave no interest in a submissioncontaining business proprietaryinformation of multiple parties. Forexample, Respondent A would be forcedto accept a submission from Petitionerthat might contain information ofRespondent A, as well as ofRespondents B, C, and D. Thiscommentator believed that more, ratherthan fewer, APO violations would resultfrom parties having to expurgate suchsubmissions, and that multiple parties,rather than the original submitter,would be expurgating documents, withno party knowing whether the otherparties had expurgated informationcorrectly. This commentator also arguedthat the proposals would unnecessarilyshift the burden of complying with APOprocedures from petitioners torespondents, because respondents’representatives would be forced toexpurgate multi-party documents thatthey did not prepare on their own wordprocessing equipment.

Three commentators filed rebuttalcomments. One argued that section 777only requires a party to give a reasonwhy it should have access to businessproprietary information, but that it doesnot preclude the Department fromadopting procedures that best protectthe information. Another commentatorstated that it is more burdensome forparties to prepare multiple party-specific submissions under a deadline


than it is for the receiving party toexpurgate other party’s data from adocument containing multiple-partydata, where there may be no deadline.A third commentator took the positionthat no authorized applicant should beexpurgating a business proprietarydocument to show its client in the firstplace, and that this is the reason forpublic summaries of submissions. Theclient should be familiar enough withits own data to be able to discuss thecase with the authorized applicant.

Given the overwhelming support forthe Department’s proposals, we haveincorporated them into theseregulations. These proposed proceduressimply formalize what has been theDepartment’s practice since 1992.Moreover, we believe that theseproposals balance the different interestsof petitioners and respondents.Although there are risks of inadvertentAPO violations associated with anyoption, we believe that the fact that allauthorized applicants will have accessto the business proprietary informationof all parties (whether or not service iswaived) should reduce significantly thenumber of inadvertent disclosures. Inthis regard, the inadvertent service onan authorized applicant of a submissioncontaining information of a party forwhich the applicant has waived servicewould not constitute an APO violation.

Disclosures to Parties Not AuthorizedTo Receive Business ProprietaryInformation

Paragraph (d) of § 351.306 clarifiesthat no person, including an authorizedapplicant, may disclose the businessproprietary information of another partyto any other person except anotherauthorized applicant or a Departmentofficial described in § 351.306(a)(2). Anyperson who is not an authorizedapplicant and who is served withbusiness proprietary information ofanother party must return thatinformation immediately to the sender,without reading it if possible, and mustnotify the Department so that theDepartment can investigate thedisclosure under 19 CFR part 354. Thepurpose of this requirement is tominimize the damage caused by theunauthorized disclosure of businessproprietary information, disclosures thattypically are inadvertent.

APO Sanction Procedures

Section 354.1 Scope

The proposed amendment to § 354.1would revise cross-reference citations totake into account changes in parts 353and 355 that have occurred since thatsection was promulgated in 1988.

Section 354.3 Sanctions

The proposed amendment to § 354.3concerns the private letter of reprimand,which currently is a sanction commonlyapplied as part of a settlementagreement reached under § 354.7(b). Theproposed amendment would allow theDepartment to issue a private reprimandas a sanction in the first instance, andnot solely as part of a settlement of thecharges. A private reprimand is arelatively mild sanction that isappropriate whenever a violation isminor and technical in nature, theperson who committed the violationtook prompt action to prevent harm tothe submitter of the proprietaryinformation, the violator cooperatedfully with the investigation, and there isno apparent harm to the submitter of theinformation.

The Department proposes that theprivate letter of reprimand wouldaccompany the charging letter as astatement of proposed sanction,described in § 354.7(a)(2). The chargingletter would indicate that if the chargedparty does not take the steps describedin paragraphs (a)(3)–(a)(6) within 30days after the date of service of thecharging letter, the proposed sanction(i.e., the private letter of reprimand)automatically would become final. Thisprocedure would differ from thosepertaining to other proposed sanctions.Other proposed sanctions are enclosedwith the charging letter unsigned andundated, and include a captionindicating that they are proposed. Onlyafter the charged or affected partyaccepts the proposed sanction is it sentin final form. In contrast, if theproposed sanction is a privatereprimand, it would be enclosed withthe charging letter in its final form,without a caption and signed and datedby the Deputy Under Secretary. Unlesscontested within 30 days, it wouldbecome effective. The charging letterwould clearly explain this procedure.

Section 354.5 Report of Violation andInvestigation

Paragraph (c)(1) introduces anexpedited investigation procedure.Frequently, an individual contacts theDepartment to report his or her ownAPO violation, and provides all or mostof the relevant details over thetelephone or by letter. If the violation isrelatively minor and the businessproprietary information clearly has notbeen disclosed to anyone who is notentitled to access, the investigation maybe substantially abbreviated. Theexpedited system would apply in casesin which little further inquiry isnecessary. This proposed amendment

pertains only to the investigation anddoes not affect any sanction that mightbe imposed as a result of a chargingletter issued on the basis of theinvestigation. Paragraph (c)(2) containsthe text of current paragraph (c).

The amendment to paragraph (d)(2)reflects proposed changes in the termsof the APO, as discussed above. (Seealso the October Notice). TheDepartment’s standard forms no longerwill contain detailed procedures forsafeguarding business proprietaryinformation. Instead, it will be theresponsibility of the individual subjectto an APO to take appropriate measuresto protect business proprietaryinformation received under an APO.Accordingly, the list of examples ofAPO violations simply refers to theprocedures described in the APO.

Section 354.6 Initiation of ProceedingsExperience in administering APO

sanctions has made it clear that thereare certain circumstances that do notwarrant the imposition of a sanction,even though a person subject to an APOtechnically has violated the terms of theAPO. Consequently, the Department hasdeveloped a policy regarding theinstances when it issues a warning,rather than imposing a sanction. Theamendment to § 354.6(b) codifies thispolicy, and enunciates a four-prongedstandard for issuing a warning.

The first criterion in paragraph (c)(1)is that the person has taken due care.Due care is an objective standardmeaning that the person had taken allthe steps that a careful individual wouldtake to establish, maintain, and observeadequate procedures to safeguardbusiness proprietary information. Thestandard recognizes that, despiteappropriate precautions, errors occur.The due care requirement avoidssubjective appraisal of the intent of theindividual involved. Because peoplerarely intend to violate an APO, whethera violation was intentional orinadvertent is not a relevant inquiry.

The second prong of the warningstandard, contained in paragraph (c)(2),is that the Department cannotpreviously have found the person tohave violated an APO. The Departmentwill not take into account any other on-going APO violation investigationinvolving that person, even if the otheralleged violation occurred first.

Third, as reflected in the first clauseof paragraph (c)(3), a warning is neverappropriate if the business proprietaryinformation actually has been disclosedto an unauthorized person. Manytechnical violations, such as the failureto return or destroy documentscontaining proprietary information at


the specified time, do not result in anydisclosure. In other instances,nondisclosure is fortuitous. To cite acommon example, a person subject to anAPO is able to retrieve, unopened, adocument containing businessproprietary information that the personsent to someone who was notauthorized to have access. In thissituation, either the person who sent thedocument realized the error andimmediately retrieved the document, orthe recipient realized that he or sheshould not have the document andpromptly notified the sender or theDepartment. Under either scenario, thenondisclosure depends on timing, and,especially in the latter case, on the goodfaith of the recipient in returning thedocument without opening, reading,copying or transmitting it. To thisextent, then, whether a first-timeviolator receives a warning or a sanctionmay depend on factors not entirelywithin the person’s control.Nondisclosure remains a valid criterionfor issuing a warning, however, becausedisclosure markedly increases thepotential for harm to the submitter ofthe information.

The second clause of paragraph (c)(3)takes into account the fact thatsometimes the submitter claims that ithas been harmed by an APO violation,but the Department determinesotherwise. For example, a submittermay claim that there could besubstantial harm because the publicversion of a document containedbusiness proprietary information, yetthe Department’s investigation showsthat no unauthorized person saw thepublic version before all copies wereretrieved. Therefore, although there mayhave been a technical APO violation,the Department follows a limited ‘‘noharm, no foul’’ rule.

Finally, paragraph (c)(4) takes intoaccount the cooperation, or lack thereof,of the person alleged to have committedan APO violation.

Section 354.7 Charging letterThe amendment to § 354.7(b) moves

the text providing for settlement fromthe end to the beginning of theparagraph, because in practice chargesare often settled. Charged or affectedparties seeking a settlement oftenrequest a hearing, but in their requestsask that a hearing officer not beappointed while settlement talks arepending. In this way, they preserve theirrights to a hearing while effectivelystaying the complicated hearing processand stopping the period for proceedingwithout a hearing, which is provided forin § 354.13. Amended paragraph (b)codifies this practice.

Less frequently, however, theDepartment amends, supplements, orwithdraws charging letters. Revisedparagraph (b) would provide alternatemethods of withdrawing charges. Theexisting regulation requires that apresiding official be appointed toapprove the withdrawal. Theamendment establishes a three-tieredapproach. First, under paragraph (b)(1),if no hearing has been requested (or,under the provision for proceedingwithout a hearing, no supportinginformation is presented), theDepartment could withdraw a chargingletter without prejudice to future actionbased on the same violation. However,if a hearing has been requested but nopresiding official has been appointed,under paragraph (b)(2) the Departmentcould withdraw the charging letter, butthe Deputy Under Secretary would beprecluded from subsequently seekingsanctions for the same alleged violation.Finally, under paragraph (b)(3), where ahearing has been requested and apresiding official appointed, thepresiding official would have to approveany withdrawal and also determinewhether or not the withdrawal wouldbar the Department from taking futureaction based on the same violation.

Section 354.9 Request for a hearing

The amendment to § 354.9 is intendedto conform with and reinforce theamendment to § 354.7 that enables aparty to request a hearing to preserve itsrights pending settlement discussions.

Section 354.15 Sanctions byagreement

The amendment to § 354.15 moves thesubstance of paragraph (e) to a new§ 345.18, which deals with sanctionstaken by agreement between the DeputyUnder Secretary and a party, as well assanctions imposed by a final decisionunder § 354.15.

Section 354.18 Public Notice ofSanctions

Section 354.18 is a new section thatcontains the substance of current§ 354.15(e), and that pertains topublication in the Federal Register ofsanctions imposed under a finaldecision. In addition, § 354.18 providesfor the publication of notice ofsettlement agreements. The amendmentcodifies the Department’s currentpractice of publishing notices thatviolations have occurred, even if thesanction is a private reprimand. TheDepartment does not publish notices ofwarning letters, because no chargingletter is issued and no sanctions areimposed.

Section 354.19 Sunset

For years, the Department hasincluded in settlement agreements asunset provision that provides for therescission of the charging letter. New§ 354.19 codifies this practice withrespect to settlements, and also extendsthe possible availability of sunset to allcases. Expunging an individual’s recordafter a period of time if that person hasnot mishandled proprietary informationin the meantime is fair and reasonable.

Classification

E.O. 12866

This proposed rule has beendetermined to be not significant forpurposes of Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule would impose nonew reporting or record keepingrequirements for purposes of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Assistant General Counsel forLegislation and Regulation of theDepartment of Commerce has certifiedto the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of theSmall Business Administration thatthese amendments would not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small businessentities because the rule that they wouldamend does not have such an impactand, furthermore, the amendmentswould tend to simplify the procedurespertaining to administration of APOsanctions. The Deputy Under Secretaryfor International Trade is responsible forregulations governing sanctions forviolations of administrative protectiveorders. The Assistant Secretary forImport Administration is responsible forthe regulations governing issuance anduse of administrative protective orders.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Parts 351,353, 354, and 355

Business and industry, Foreign trade,Imports, Trade practices.

Dated: January 20, 1996.Timothy J. Hauser,Deputy Under Secretary for InternationalTrade.

Dated: December 15, 1995.Susan G. Esserman,Assistant Secretary for ImportAdministrations.

For the reasons stated, it is proposedthat 19 CFR Ch. III be amended asfollows:

1. Part 351 is added to read as follows:


PART 351—ANTIDUMPING ANDCOUNTERVAILING DUTIES

Subpart A—[Reserved]

Subpart B—[Reserved]

Subpart C—Information and Argument

Sec.351.304 Establishing business proprietary

treatment of information.351.305 Access to business proprietary

information.351.306 Use of business proprietary

information.Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C.

1667f.

Subpart A—[Reserved]

Subpart B—[Reserved]

Subpart C—[Information andArgument]

§ 351.304 Establishing businessproprietary treatment of information.

(a) Claim for business proprietarytreatment. (1) Any person that submitsfactual information to the Secretary inconnection with a proceeding may:

(i) Request that the Secretary treat anypart of the submission as businessproprietary information that is subject todisclosure only under an administrativeprotective order,

(ii) Claim that there is a clear andcompelling need to withhold certainbusiness proprietary information fromdisclosure under an administrativeprotective order, or

(iii) In an investigation, identifycustomer names that are exempt fromdisclosure under administrativeprotective order under section777(c)(1)(A) of the Act.

(2) The Secretary will require that allbusiness proprietary informationpresented to, or obtained or generatedby, the Secretary during a segment of aproceeding be disclosed to authorizedapplicants, except for:

(i) Customer names submitted in aninvestigation,

(ii) Information for which theSecretary finds that there is a clear andcompelling need to withhold fromdisclosure, and

(iii) Privileged or classifiedinformation.

(b) Identification of businessproprietary information—(1) In general.A person submitting information mustidentify the information for which itclaims business proprietary treatmentby enclosing the information withinsingle brackets. The submitting personmust provide with the information anexplanation of why each item ofbracketed information is entitled tobusiness proprietary treatment. All

persons submitting a request forbusiness proprietary treatment alsomust include an agreement to permitdisclosure under an administrativeprotective order, unless the submittingparty claims that there is a clear andcompelling need to withhold theinformation from disclosure under anadministrative protective order.

(2) Information claimed to be exemptfrom disclosure under administrativeprotective order. (i) If the submittingperson claims that there is a clear andcompelling need to withhold certaininformation from disclosure under anadministrative protective order (seeparagraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section), thesubmitting person must identify theinformation by enclosing theinformation within double brackets, andmust include a full explanation of thereasons for the claim.

(ii) In an investigation, the submittingperson may enclose non-publiccustomer names within double brackets(see paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section).

(iii) The submitting person mayexclude the information in doublebrackets from the business proprietaryinformation version of the submissionserved on authorized applicants. See§ 351.303 for filing and servicerequirements.

(c) Public version. (1) A person filinga submission that contains informationfor which business proprietarytreatment is claimed must file a publicversion of the submission. The publicversion must be filed on the firstbusiness day after the filing deadline forthe business proprietary version of thesubmission (see § 351.303(b)). Thepublic version must contain a summaryof the bracketed information insufficient detail to permit a reasonableunderstanding of the substance of theinformation. If the submitting personclaims that summarization is notpossible, the claim must beaccompanied by a full explanation ofthe reasons supporting that claim.

(2) If a submitting party discovers thatit has failed to bracket informationcorrectly, the submitter may file acomplete, corrected businessproprietary version of the submissionalong with the public version (see§ 351.303(b)). However, at the close ofbusiness on the day on which the publicversion of a submission is due underparagraph (c)(1) of this section, thebracketing of business proprietaryinformation will become final. Oncebracketing has become final, theSecretary will not accept any furthercorrections to the bracketing ofinformation in a submission, and theSecretary will treat non-bracketedinformation as public information.

(d) Nonconforming submissions—(1)In general. The Secretary will return asubmission that does not meet therequirements of section 777(b) of theAct and this section with a writtenexplanation. The submitting person maytake any of the following actions withintwo business days after receiving theSecretary’s explanation:

(i) Correct the problems and resubmitthe information;

(ii) if the Secretary denied a requestfor business proprietary treatment, agreeto have the information in questiontreated as public information;

(iii) if the Secretary granted businessproprietary treatment but denied a claimthat there was a clear and compellingneed to withhold information under anadministrative protective order, agree tothe disclosure of the information inquestion under an administrativeprotective order; or

(iv) submit other material concerningthe subject matter of the returnedinformation. If the submitting persondoes not take any of these actions, theSecretary will not consider the returnedsubmission.

(2) Timing. The Secretary normallywill determine the status of informationwithin 30 days after the day on whichthe information was submitted. If thebusiness proprietary status ofinformation is in dispute, the Secretarywill treat the relevant portion of thesubmission as business proprietaryinformation until the Secretary decidesthe matter.

§ 351.305 Access to business proprietaryinformation.

(a) The administrative protectiveorder. The Secretary will place anadministrative protective order on therecord within one day after the day onwhich a petition is filed or aninvestigation is self-initiated, or one dayafter initiating any other segment of aproceeding. The administrativeprotective order will require theauthorized applicant to:

(1) Establish and follow procedures toensure that no employee of theauthorized applicant’s firm releasesbusiness proprietary information to anyperson other than the submitting party,an authorized applicant, or anappropriate Department officialidentified in section 777(b) of the Act.

(2) Notify the Secretary of anychanges in the facts asserted by theauthorized applicant in itsadministrative protective orderapplication;

(3) Take the necessary steps to protectbusiness proprietary information duringjudicial proceedings or binational panel


proceedings under section 516A of theAct.

(4) Destroy business proprietaryinformation by the time required underthe terms of the administrativeprotective order;

(5) Immediately report to theSecretary any apparent violation of theadministrative protective order; and

(6) Acknowledge that anyunauthorized disclosure may subject theauthorized applicant, a partner,associate, or employee, and any partner,associate, employer, or employee of theauthorized applicant’s firm to sanctionslisted in part 354 of this chapter (19 CFRpart 354).

(b) Application for access underadministrative protective order. (1)Generally, no more than twoindependent representatives of a partyto the proceeding may have access tobusiness proprietary information underan administrative protective order. Aparty must designate a lead firm if theparty has more than one independentauthorized applicant firm.

(2) A representative of a party to theproceeding may apply for access tobusiness proprietary information underthe administrative protective order bysubmitting Form ITA–367 to theSecretary. Form ITA–367 must identifythe segment of the proceeding involved,the identity and eligibility for disclosureof the applicant, and the agreement ofthe applicant to be bound by theadministrative protective order. FormITA–367 may be prepared on theapplicant’s own word processingsystem, accompanied by a certificationthat the application is consistent withForm ITA–367 and an acknowledgmentthat any discrepancies will beinterpreted in a manner consistent withForm ITA–367. An applicant mustapply to receive all business proprietaryinformation on the record of thesegment of a proceeding in question, butmay waive service of businessproprietary information it does not wishto have served on it by other parties tothe proceeding.

(3) To minimize the disruption causedby late applications, an applicationshould be filed before the firstquestionnaire response has beensubmitted. Where justified, however,applications may be filed up to the dateon which the case briefs are due, butany applicant filing after the firstquestionnaire response is submitted willbe liable for costs associated with theadditional production and service ofbusiness proprietary informationalready on the record.

(c) Approval of access underadministrative protective order;administrative protective order service

list. The Secretary will grant access to aqualified applicant by including thename of the applicant on anadministrative protective order servicelist. Access normally will be grantedwithin two days of receipt of theapplication in an Investigation andwithin five days in other AD and CVDproceedings unless there is a questionregarding the eligibility of the applicantto receive access. In that case, theSecretary will decide whether to grantthe applicant access within 30 days ofreceipt of the application. The Secretarywill provide by the most expeditiousmeans available the administrativeprotective order service list to parties tothe proceeding on the day the servicelist is issued or amended.

§ 351.306 Use of business proprietaryinformation.

(a) By the Secretary. The Secretarymay disclose business proprietaryinformation submitted to the Secretaryonly to:

(1) An authorized applicant;(2) An employee of the Department of

Commerce or the International TradeCommission directly involved in theproceeding in which the information issubmitted;

(3) An employee of the CustomsService directly involved in conductinga fraud investigation relating to anantidumping or countervailing dutyproceeding;

(4) The U.S. Trade Representative asprovided by 19 U.S.C. 3571(i);

(5) Any person to whom thesubmitting person specificallyauthorizes disclosure in writing; and

(6) A charged party or counsel for thecharged party under 19 CFR part 354.

(b) By an authorized applicant. Anauthorized applicant may retainbusiness proprietary information for thetime authorized by the terms of theadministrative protective order, whichnormally will permit an authorizedapplicant to retain business proprietaryinformation obtained in one segment ofa proceeding for two subsequentconsecutive segments. Normally, anauthorized applicant may use businessproprietary information only forpurposes of the segment of a proceedingin which the information wassubmitted. If business proprietaryinformation that was submitted in anearlier segment of the proceeding isrelevant to an issue in either of twosubsequent consecutive segments of aproceeding, or in any scope oranticircumvention inquiry, anauthorized applicant may place suchinformation on the record of thesubsequent segment or scope orcircumvention inquiry.

(c) Source of business proprietaryinformation. (1) If a party submits adocument containing businessproprietary information, the submittingparty must identify contiguously witheach item of business proprietaryinformation the interested party thatoriginally submitted the item (e.g.,Petitioner, Respondent A, RespondentB).

(2) If a party to a proceeding is notrepresented by an authorized applicant,a party submitting a documentcontaining business proprietaryinformation must serve theunrepresented party with a version ofthe document that contains only theunrepresented party’s businessproprietary information, but not thebusiness proprietary information ofother parties.

(d) Disclosure to parties notauthorized to receive businessproprietary information. No person,including an authorized applicant, maydisclose the business proprietaryinformation of another person to anyother person except another authorizedapplicant or a Department officialdescribed in paragraph (a)(2) of thissection. Any person that is not anauthorized applicant and that is servedwith business proprietary informationmust return it to the senderimmediately, without reading it to theextent possible, and must notify theDepartment. An allegation of anunauthorized disclosure will subject theperson that made the allegedunauthorized disclosure to aninvestigation and possible sanctionsunder 19 CFR part 354.



Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C.1677f.

3. Part 353 is proposed to be amendedby removing §§ 353.32 through 355.34,and redesignating §§ 353.35 through353.38 as 353.32 through 353.35respectively.


4–5. The authority citation for part354 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, and 19 U.S.C.1677.

6. Section 354.1 is revised to read asfollows:

§ 354.1 Scope.This part sets forth the procedures for

imposing sanctions for violation of anadministrative protective order issuedunder 19 CFR 353.34 or 355.34, or


successor regulations, as authorized by19 U.S.C. 1677f(c).

7. Section 354.3 is amended byrevising paragraph (a)(3) and (a)(4), andby adding a new paragraph (a)(5), asfollows:

§ 354.3 Sanctions(a) * * *(3) Other appropriate administrative

sanctions, including striking from therecord any information or argumentsubmitted by, or on behalf of theviolating party or the party representedby the violating party; terminating anyproceeding then in progress; or revokingany order then in effect;

(4) Requiring the person to returnmaterial previously provided by theDepartment and all other materialscontaining the business proprietaryinformation, such as briefs, notes, orcharts based on any such informationreceived under an administrativeprotective order; and

(5) Issuing a private letter ofreprimand.* * * * *

8. Section 354.5 is amended byrevising paragraphs (c) and (d)(2), asfollows:

§ 354.5 Report of violation andinvestigation.

* * * * *(c)(1) The appropriate Director will

provide a report of the investigation tothe Deputy Under Secretary, afterreview by the Chief Counsel, no laterthan 90 days after receiving informationconcerning a violation if:

(i) The person alleged to have violateda protective order personally notifiedthe Department and reported theparticulars surrounding the incident;and

(ii) the alleged violation did not resultin any actual disclosure of businessproprietary information. Upon theappropriate Director’s request, and ifextraordinary circumstances exist, theDeputy Under Secretary may grant theappropriate Director up to an additional90 days to conduct the investigation andsubmit the report.

(2) In all other cases, the appropriateDirector will provide a report of theinvestigation to the Deputy UnderSecretary, after review by the ChiefCounsel, no later than 180 days afterreceiving information concerning aviolation. Upon the appropriateDirector’s request, and if extraordinarycircumstances exist, the Deputy UnderSecretary may grant the appropriateDirector up to an additional 180 days toconduct the investigation and submitthe report.

(d) * * *

(2) Failure to follow the proceduresoutlined in the protective order forsafeguarding proprietary information.* * * * *

9. Section 354.6 is revised as follows:

§ 354.6 Initiation of proceedings.(a) In general. After an investigation

and report by the appropriate Directorunder § 354.5(c) and consultation withthe Chief Counsel, the Deputy UnderSecretary will determine whether thereis reasonable cause to believe that aperson has violated a protective order.If the Deputy Under Secretarydetermines that there is reasonablecause, the Deputy Under Secretary alsowill determine whether sanctions or awarning is appropriate for the violation.

(b) Sanctions. In determining underparagraph (a) of this section whethersanctions are appropriate, and, if so,what sanctions to impose, the DeputyUnder Secretary will consider thenature of the violation, the resultingharm, and other relevant circumstancesof the case. If the Deputy UnderSecretary determines that sanctions areappropriate, the Deputy Under Secretarywill initiate a proceeding under this partby issuing a charging letter under§ 354.7. The Deputy Under Secretarywill determine whether to initiate aproceeding no later than 60 days afterreceiving a report of the investigation.

(c) Warning. If the Deputy UnderSecretary determines under paragraph(a) of this section that a warning isappropriate, the Deputy Under Secretarywill issue a warning letter to the personbelieved to have violated a protectiveorder. Sanctions are not appropriate anda warning is appropriate if:

(1) The person took due care;(2) The Department has not

previously found the person to haveviolated a protective order;

(3) The violation did not result in anydisclosure of the business proprietaryinformation or the Department isotherwise able to determine that theviolation caused no harm to thesubmitter of the information; and

(4) The person cooperated fully in theinvestigation.

10. Section 354.7 is amended byrevising paragraph (b), as follows:

§ 354.7 Charging letter.

* * * * *(b) Settlement and amending the

charging letter. The Deputy UnderSecretary and a charged or affectedparty may settle a charge brought underthis part by mutual agreement at anytime after service of the charging letter;approval of the presiding official or theadministrative protective orderSanctions Board is not necessary. The

charged or affected party may request ahearing but at the same time request thata presiding official not be appointedpending settlement discussions.Settlement agreements may includesanctions for purposes of § 354.18. TheDeputy Under Secretary may amend,supplement, or withdraw the chargingletter as follows:

(1) If there has been no request for ahearing, or if supporting informationhas not been submitted under § 354.13,the withdrawal will not preclude futureactions on the same alleged violation.

(2) If a hearing has been requested butno presiding official has beenappointed, withdrawal of the chargingletter will preclude the Deputy UnderSecretary from seeking sanctions at alater date for the same alleged violation.

(3) The Deputy Under Secretary mayamend, supplement or withdraw thecharging letter at any time after theappointment of a presiding official, ifthe presiding official determines thatthe interests of justice would thereby beserved. If the presiding official sodetermines, the presiding official willalso determine whether the withdrawalwill preclude the Deputy UnderSecretary from seeking sanctions at alater date for the same alleged violation.* * * * *

11. Section 354.9 is amended byrevising paragraph (b), as follows:

§ 354.9 Request for a hearing.(a) * * *(b) Upon timely receipt of a request

for a hearing, and unless the partyrequesting a hearing requests that theUnder Secretary not appoint a presidingofficial, the Under Secretary willappoint a presiding official to conductthe hearing and render an initialdecision.

§ 354.15 [Amended]12. Section 354.15 is amended by

removing paragraph (e).

§ 354.17 [Amended]13. Section 354.17(b) is amended to

change the citation of 19 CFR 353.30and § 355.20 to 19 CFR 351.205.

14. Section 354.18 is added to part354, to read as follows:

§ 354.18 Public notice of sanctions.If there is a final decision under

§ 354.15 to impose sanctions, or if acharging letter is settled under§ 354.7(b), notice of the Department’sdecision or of the existence of asettlement will be published in theFederal Register. If a final decision isreached, such publication will be nosooner than 30 days after issuance of afinal decision or after a motion to


reconsider has been denied, if such amotion was filed. In addition, wheneverthe Deputy Under Secretary subjects acharged or affected party to a sanctionunder § 354.3(a)(1), the Deputy UnderSecretary also will provide suchinformation to the ethics panel or otherdisciplinary body of the appropriate barassociations or other professionalassociations and to any Federal agencylikely to have an interest in the matter.The Deputy Under Secretary willcooperate in any disciplinary actions byany association or agency. Whenever theDeputy Under Secretary subjects acharged or affected party to a privateletter of reprimand under § 354.3(a)(5),the Department will not make public theidentity of the violator, nor will theDepartment make public the specifics ofthe violation in a manner that wouldreveal indirectly the identity of theviolator.

15. Section 354.19 is added to part354, to read as follows:

§ 354.19 Sunset.(a) If, after a period of three years from

the date of a final decision or settlementin which sanctions were imposed, thecharged or affected party has fullycomplied with the terms of thesanctions and has not been found tohave violated another protective order,the party may request in writing that theDeputy Under Secretary rescind thecharging letter. A request for rescissionmust include:

(1) A description of the actions takenduring the preceding three years incompliance with the terms of thesanctions; and

(2) A letter certifying that: the chargedor affected party complied with theterms of the sanctions; the charged oraffected party has not received anotheradministrative protective order sanctionduring the three-year period; and thecharged or affected party is not thesubject of another investigation for apossible violation of a protective order.

(b) Subject to the Chief Counsel’sconfirmation that the charged or

affected party has complied with theterms set forth in paragraph (a) of thissection, the Deputy Under Secretarywill rescind the charging letter within30 days after receiving the writtenrequest.



Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C.1677f.

17. Part 355 is amended by removing§§ 355.32 through 355.34, andredesignating §§ 355.35 through 355.39as 355.32 through 353.36 respectively.* * * * *

Note: The following appendix will notappear in the Code of Federal Regulations:Appendix to 19 CFR Part 351, Subpart C—Application for Administrative ProtectiveOrder in Antidumping or CountervailingDuty Proceeding, and AdministrativeProtective Order.

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P











[FR Doc. 96–2697 Filed 2–7–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–C

i

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 61, No. 27


CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal RegulationsGeneral Information, indexes and other finding

aids202–523–5227

Public inspection announcement line 523–5215

LawsPublic Laws Update Services (numbers, dates, etc.) 523–6641For additional information 523–5227

Presidential DocumentsExecutive orders and proclamations 523–5227The United States Government Manual 523–5227

Other ServicesElectronic and on-line services (voice) 523–4534Privacy Act Compilation 523–3187TDD for the hearing impaired 523–5229

ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD

Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law numbers,Federal Register finding aids, and list of documents on publicinspection. 202–275–0920

FAX-ON-DEMAND

You may access our Fax-On-Demand service. You only need a faxmachine and there is no charge for the service except for longdistance telephone charges the user may incur. The list ofdocuments on public inspection and the daily Federal Register’stable of contents are available using this service. The documentnumbers are 7050-Public Inspection list and 7051-Table ofContents list. The public inspection list will be updatedimmediately for documents filed on an emergency basis.

NOTE: YOU WILL ONLY GET A LISTING OF DOCUMENTS ONFILE AND NOT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Documents onpublic inspection may be viewed and copied in our office locatedat 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700. The Fax-On-Demandtelephone number is: 301–713–6905

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, FEBRUARY

3539–3776............................. 13777–4206............................. 24207–4348............................. 54349–4584............................. 64585–4734............................. 74735–4848............................. 8

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING FEBRUARY

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Registerpublishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), whichlists parts and sections affected by documents published sincethe revision date of each title.1 CFRCh. III .................................35393 CFRProclamations:6863...................................37776864...................................4347Executive Orders:12778 (Revoked by

EO 12988)......................472912866 (See EO

12988) ............................472912964 (Amended by

EO 12987)......................420512987.................................420512988.................................4729Administrative Orders:Presidential Determination:No. 96–9 of January

22, 1996 .........................42075 CFRCh. XXX.............................4349530.....................................3539531.....................................3539534.....................................3539550.....................................3539575.....................................3539581.....................................3539582.....................................3539630.....................................3539950.....................................45851201...................................45854001...................................43497 CFRCh. XLII..............................3779905.....................................3544944.....................................3544945.....................................35461485...................................35481901...................................37791940...................................37791951...................................37792003...................................37792903...................................42094001...................................37874284...................................3779Proposed Rules:920.....................................3604999.....................................36061755...................................47541944...................................48141980...................................38534279...................................38534287...................................38538 CFRProposed Rules:212.....................................4374264.....................................4374274a...................................437810 CFR830.....................................4209835.....................................4209Proposed Rules:2.........................................437835.......................................475472.......................................36191035...................................3877

1036...................................387711 CFR100...........................3549, 4302102.....................................4302104.....................................3549105.....................................3549106.....................................4302109...........................3549, 4302110.....................................4302114...........................3549, 4302Proposed Rules:100.....................................3621110.....................................3621114.....................................362112 CFR21.......................................4332208.....................................4338211.....................................4338225.....................................4338701...........................3788, 4213709.....................................3788741.....................................37881401...................................4349Proposed Rules:701.....................................4238705.....................................4238741.....................................423614 CFR39 ..................3550, 3792, 379371.......................................458797 ........3552, 3795, 3796, 3797Proposed Rules:39.............................3882, 475671 ..................4379, 4380, 438173.......................................388415 CFR771.....................................3555799.....................................355516 CFR22.......................................3799Proposed Rules:409.....................................438218 CFRProposed Rules:Ch. I.........................3799, 459619 CFR4.........................................3568132.....................................3569148.....................................3569Proposed Rules:351.....................................4826353.....................................4826354.....................................4826355.....................................482620 CFRProposed Rules:404.....................................438921 CFR80.......................................3571189.....................................4816331.....................................4822510.....................................4735558.....................................4349Proposed Rules:101.....................................3885

ii Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Reader Aids

1220...................................459722 CFR9b.......................................3800Proposed Rules:228.....................................424024 CFR290.....................................458025 CFRProposed Rules:Ch. VI.................................362326 CFR1.........................................434928 CFR2.........................................4350Proposed Rules:35.......................................438929 CFRProposed Rules:Ch. XIV ..............................3624103.....................................42461904...................................40301952...................................403030 CFR206.....................................3800260.....................................3800Proposed Rules:Ch. II ..................................4390931.....................................3625943.....................................362831 CFR103.....................................4326595.....................................380532 CFR311.....................................3813321.....................................3814835.....................................4351838.....................................4351843.....................................4351848.....................................4352

Proposed Rules:838.....................................439034 CFR668.....................................3776690.....................................3776Proposed Rules:Ch. VI.................................4198201.....................................3772361.....................................4390646.....................................475840 CFR51.......................................458852 .......3572, 3575, 3578, 3579,

3581, 3582, 3584, 3586,3588, 3589, 3591, 3815,3817, 3819, 3821, 3824,4215, 4216, 4217, 4352,

435370 ..................3827, 4217, 422080.......................................383281.............................3591, 435782.......................................4736180 ................4591, 4592, 4593271.....................................4742281...........................3591, 3599282.....................................4224300.....................................4747Proposed Rules:52 .......3631, 3632, 3633, 3634,

3635, 3891, 3892, 4246,4391, 4392, 4598

70.............................3893, 424876.......................................389380.......................................389481.............................3635, 439289.......................................460090.......................................460091.......................................4600180...........................4621, 4623268.....................................4758271.....................................4758302.....................................4758

41 CFR302–11...............................383842 CFRProposed Rules:100.....................................424943 CFR3100...................................47484100...................................4227Public Land Orders:3689 (Revoked in part

by PLO 7182).................43597183...................................475244 CFR10.......................................4227Proposed Rules:62.......................................363546 CFRProposed Rule:108.....................................4132110.....................................4132111.....................................4132112.....................................4132113.....................................4132161.....................................413247 CFR0.........................................43591.........................................435915.......................................360017.......................................435921.......................................435922.......................................435923.......................................435924.......................................435925.......................................435973 ........4232, 4233, 4234, 435974.......................................435978.......................................435980.......................................435987.......................................435990 ........3600, 3841, 4234, 435994.......................................4359

95.......................................435997.......................................4359Proposed Rules:20.......................................364461.......................................364469.......................................364473.............................4392, 439376.......................................3657

48 CFR228.....................................3600252.....................................36003509...................................3846Proposed Rules:Ch. 53 ................................4393909.....................................3877

49 CFR531.....................................4369571.....................................4370Proposed Rules:525.....................................4249541.....................................4249555.....................................4249571...........................4249, 4624581.....................................4249

50 CFR14.......................................384917.......................................4372229.....................................3851611...........................4304, 4311620.....................................3602672 ................3602, 4304, 4594675.....................................4311676...........................4304, 4311Proposed Rules:17.............................4394, 440123.......................................3894285.....................................3666424.....................................4710

iiiFederal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Reader Aids

REMINDERSThe rules and proposed rulesin this list were editoriallycompiled as an aid to FederalRegister users. Inclusion orexclusion from this list has nolegal significance.

RULES GOING INTOEFFECT TODAY

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAir programs:

Stratospheric ozoneprotection--Significant new

alternatives policyprogram; published 2-8-96

Superfund program:National oil and hazardous

substances contingencyplan--National priorities list

update; published 2-8-96

HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationAnimal drugs, feeds, and

related products:Sponsor name and address

changes--DuPont Merck

Pharmaceutical Co.;published 2-8-96

Food for human consumption:Tin-coated lead foil capsules

for wine bottles; useprohibition; published 2-8-96

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENTFederal regulatory review:

Mortgage Review Board;hearing proceduresstreamlined; published 1-9-96

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirworthiness directives:

Jetstream; published 1-9-96

COMMENTS DUE NEXTWEEK

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTCommodity CreditCorporationLoan and purchase programs:

Foreign markets foragricultural commodities;

development agreements;comments due by 2-15-96; published 2-1-96

AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENTGrain Inspection, Packersand StockyardsAdministrationGrain standards:

Rice; fees; comments dueby 2-12-96; published 1-11-96

COMMERCE DEPARTMENTNational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationPacific Halibut Commission,

International:Pacific halibut fisheries

Catch sharing plan;comments due by 2-12-96; published 1-29-96

DEFENSE DEPARTMENTAcquisition regulations:

Small disadvantagedbusiness concerns;comments due by 2-12-96; published 12-14-95

Federal Acquisition Regulation(FAR):Disaster Relief Act activities;

comments due by 2-12-96; published 12-12-95

Impairment of long-livedassets; comments due by2-12-96; published 12-14-95

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYAcquisition regulation:

Confidential businessinformation; collection,use, access, treatment,and disclosure; solicitationprovisions and contractclauses; comments dueby 2-13-96; published 12-15-95

Air quality implementationplans; approval andpromulgation; variousStates:Missouri; comments due by

2-13-96; published 2-5-96Pesticides; tolerances in food,

animal feeds, and rawagricultural commodities:2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacedic

acid; comments due by 2-16-96; published 2-7-96

FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSIONCommon carrier services:

Fixed point-to-pointmicrowave service;comments due by 2-12-96; published 1-26-96

FEDERAL RESERVESYSTEMConsumer leasing (Regulation

M):

Revisions and official staffcommentary; revisionComment request

extension; commentsdue by 2-15-96;published 12-6-95

Securities:Credit by banks for purpose

of purchasing or carryingmargin stocks (RegulationU)Amendments; comments

due by 2-15-96;published 12-12-95

GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATIONFederal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR):Disaster Relief Act activities;



HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES DEPARTMENTFood and DrugAdministrationHazard Analysis Critical

Control Point (HACCP)principles:Fish and fishery products,

safe processing andimporting; procedures;comments due by 2-16-96; published 12-18-95

Medical devices:Unapproved devices; export

requirements; commentsdue by 2-12-96; published11-27-95

NATIONAL AERONAUTICSAND SPACEADMINISTRATIONFederal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR):Disaster Relief Act activities;



OFFICE OF UNITED STATESTRADE REPRESENTATIVETrade Representative, Officeof United StatesNAFTA tariff-rate quotas;

weekly allocation:Fresh tomatoes; comments

due by 2-12-96; published12-14-95

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTCoast GuardOffshore supply vessels,

including liftboats; commentsdue by 2-14-96; published11-16-95

Uniform State WaterwaysMarking System andWestern Rivers MarkingSystem conforming withUnited States Aids etc.;comments due by 2-12-96;published 12-29-95

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTFederal AviationAdministrationAirmen certification:

Pilot, flight instructor, groundinstructor, and pilot schoolcertification rules;comments due by 2-12-96; published 12-14-95

Airworthiness directives:de Havilland; comments due

by 2-13-96; published 1-9-96

Boeing; comments due by2-12-96; published 12-6-95

Curtiss-Wright; commentsdue by 2-13-96; published1-29-96

Dornier; comments due by2-13-96; published 1-3-96

Empresa Brasileira deAeronautica, S.A.(EMBRAER); commentsdue by 2-12-96; published12-12-95

Fokker; comments due by2-12-96; published 12-12-95

Franklin; comments due by2-13-96; published 1-29-96

Hamilton Standard;comments due by 2-12-96; published 12-13-95

Learjet; comments due by2-12-96; published 12-12-95

Teledyne ContinentalMotors; comments due by2-13-96; published 1-29-96

Class E airspace; commentsdue by 2-15-96; published1-8-96

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTNational Highway TrafficSafety AdministrationMotor vehicle safety

standards:Air brake system--

Medium and heavyvehicles stability andcontrol during braking;comments due by 2-12-96; published 12-13-95

Steering control rearwarddisplacement; commentsdue by 2-15-96; published12-29-95

TRANSPORTATIONDEPARTMENTResearch and SpecialPrograms AdministrationHazardous materials:

iv Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 1996 / Reader Aids

Hazardous materialstransportation--Federal regulatory review;

‘‘direct final rule’’;comments due by 2-16-96; published 12-18-95

TREASURY DEPARTMENTCustoms ServiceCountry of origin marking:

Geographic location markingother than country oforigin on imported articles;requirements; commentsdue by 2-15-96; published12-27-95

TREASURY DEPARTMENTGovernment Securities Act of

1986; financial responsiblityand reporting andrecordkeeping requirementsamendments; comments dueby 2-16-96; published 12-18-95

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

This is a list of public billsfrom the 104th Congresswhich have become Federallaws. It may be used inconjunction with ‘‘P L U S’’(Public Laws Update Service)on 202–523–6641. The text oflaws is not published in theFederal Register but may beordered in individual pamphletform (referred to as ‘‘sliplaws’’) from theSuperintendent of Documents,U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402(phone, 202–512–2470).

S. 1341/P.L. 104–102Saddleback Mountain-ArizonaSettlement Act of 1995 (Feb.6, 1996; 110 Stat. 50)Note: A cumulative list ofPublic Laws for the FirstSession of the 104thCongress was published inPart II of the FederalRegister on February 1, 1996.Last List February 5, 1996