Skip to main content

Full text of "Federal Register 1995-10-26: Vol 60 Iss 207"

See other formats


Vol. 60 


No. 207 


Thursday 
October 26, 1995 




United States 
Government 
Printing Office 

SUPERINTENDENT 
OF DOCUMENTS 
Washington, DC 20402 


SECOND CLASS NEWSPAPER 

Postage and Fees Paid 
U.S. Government Printing Office 
(ISSN 0097-6326) 


OFFICIAL BUSI 
Penalty for private 




III 


A FR UMISE346U DEC 95 R 
UMI SERIALS ACQUISITIONS 
300 N ZEEB RD 
PO BOX 1346 

ANN ARBOR MI 48106 





























































































I 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 



SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES 


FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, 
(notj^blished on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by 
the Office of the Federal Reg^er, National Archives and Records 
Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Raster 
Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C Ch. IS) and the 
re lati ons of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register 
(1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only ^ the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wasnington, DC 
20402. 

The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making 
available to the public regulations and l^al notices issue^y 
Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and 
Executive Orders and Federal agerrcy documents having general 
applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published 
act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of public 
interest. Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office 
of the Federal Register the day before drey are published, unless 
earlier filing is requested by the issuing agency. 

The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration 
authenticates this issue of the Federal Ragisler as foe official serial 
publication established under the FederalKemster Act 44 U.S.C. 
1507 provides that the contents of the Federa R^foter shall be 
judicially noticed. 

The Federal Register is published in paper, 24x microfiche and as 
an online datahase through GPO Access, a service of the U.S. 
Government Printing Office. The online database is updated by 6 
a.m. each day the Federal Register is published. The database 
includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 
(January 2,1994) fimvard. It is available on a Wide Area 
Infrmnation Server (WAIS) through the Internet and via 
asjrnchronous dial-in. The annual subscription fee for a single 
workstation is $375. Six-month subscriptions are available fi>r $200 
and one month of access can be purchued for $35. Discoimts are 
available for multiple-workstation subscriptions. To subscribe, 
Internet users should telnet to swais.acoes8.spo.gov and login as 
newuser (all lower case); no password is required. Dial-in users 
should use communications software and modem to call (202) 
512—1661 and login as swais (all lower case); no password is 
required; at the second login pronmt, login as newuser (all lower 
case); no password is required. Follow me instructions on the 
screen to register fm a subscription for tire Federal Online 

via GPO Access. For assistance, contact the GPO Access User 
Support Team by sending Internet e-mail to 
helpifeeid805.eids.gpo.gov, or a fex to (202) 512-1262, or by calling 
(202) 512-1530 behveen 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The annual subscription price fm the Federal Rwp«»—• paper 
edition is $494, or $544 ror a combined Federal Rntieler, Fedwal 
Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affiscted (lSa) 
subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Regietar 
including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $433. Six month 
subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge 
fat individual copies in paper Cum is $8.00 for each imue, or $8.00 
Cm each group of pages as actually bound; m $1.50 Cor each issue 
in microfiche Conn. All jMices include regular domestic postage 
and handling. International customers please add 25% for foreign 
handling. Remit check at money order, made payable to the 
Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit 
Account, VISA or MasterCard. Mail to: New Orders, 

Simerintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 
15250-7954. 

There are no restrictions on the republication of material apDearing 
in the Federal Regiater. 

Haw To Cile This PabHcetioo; Use the volume number and the 
page number. Example: 60 FR 12345. 


202-512-1800 

512-1806 


PUBUC 
Sidiscriptions: 

Paper or fiche 

Assistance with public subscriptions 

Online: 

Telnet swais.acce88.gpo.gov, login as newuser <enter>, no 
password <enter>; or use a modem to call (202) 512-1661, 
login as swais, no password <enter>. at the second login as 
newuser <enter>, no password <enter>. 

Assistance with onlme subscriptions - 202-512-1530 

Single copieediack copies: 

Paper or fiche 512-1800 

Assistance with public single copies 512-1803 


FEWRAL AGENCIES 
Subscriptions: 

Paper or fiche 

Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 


523-5243 

523-5243 


For< 

at the nd of this isNS. 


, see the Rsadsr Aids ssctioa 


FI»: 


WHO: 

IVHAT: 


VfHY: 


THE FEDERAL REGISTER 
WHAT FT IS AND HOW TO USE IT 

Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register. 

Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present: 

1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal Register 
system and the public's role in the development of 
regulations. 

2. The relationship between the Federal Register and Code of 
Federal Relations. 

3. The important elements of typical Federal Register 
docunwnts. 

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

To provide the puUic with access to information necessary to 

reaesich Federal agency regulations urhich directly affect them. 

There will be no discussion of specific agency regulations. 


WASHINGTON. DC 

[Tliraa Saitional 


WHEN: 


WHERE: 


November 14 at 9K)0 am 
November 28 at 9K)0 am 
December 5 at 9:00 am 
Office of the Federal RegistOT Conference 
Room, 800 North Cq)itol Street NW., 
Washington, DC (3 blocks north of Union 
Station Metro) 

RESERVATICmS: 202-523-4538 


0 


Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post consumer waste 




Contents 


Federal Register 
Vol. 60, No. 207 
Thursday, October 26, 1995 


III 


Administration on Aging 

See Aging Administration 

Aging Administration 
NOTICES 

Agency information collection activities under OMB 
review: 

Proposed agency information collection activities; 
comment request, 54878 

Agricultural Research Service 

NOTICES 

Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially 
exclusive: 

Union Camp Corp., 54839 

Agriculture Department 

See Agricultural Research Service 

See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

See Food Safety and Inspection ^rvice 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

NOTICES 

Environmental statements; availability, etc.: 

Nonregulated status determinations— 

Dupont Agricultural Products; genetically engineered 
cotton, 54839-54840 

Army Department 

See Engineers Corps 

NOTICES 

Environmental statements; availability, etc.: 

U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, 54863 
Meetings: 

Science Board, 54864-54865 

Yakima Training Center Cultmral and Nahual Resources 
Committee, 54865 

Arts and Humanities, National Foundation 

See National Foundation on the Arts and the Hiunanities 

Civil Rights Commission 

NOTICES 

Meetings; State advisory committees: 

Hawaii, 54841 

Coast Guard 

RULES 

Drawbridge operations: 

Virginia, 54805-54806 
Ports and waterways safety: 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, NC; safety zone, 54806- 
54807 

PROPOSED RULES 
Drawbridge operations: 

New York, 54823-54825 

Commerce Department 

See International Trade Administration 

See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 


Commission of Fine Arts 
NOTICES 

Meetings, 54847 

Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements 
NOTICES 

Cotton, wool, and man-made textiles: 

Bangladesh, 54847-54848 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

RULES 

Organization, functions, and authority delegations:' 
^mmission headquarters offices; address change, etc., 
54801-54803 

Comptroller of the Currency 

PROPOSED RULES 

Commimity development corporation and project 
investments, 54819-54820 

Corporation for National and Community Service 
NOTICES 

National and Conunimity Service Act of 1990 and Domestic 
Volunteer Service Act of 1973; reauthorization, 54848 

Defense Department 

See Army Department 
See Engineers Corps 
RULES 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): 

Miscellaneoiis amen^ents 
Correction, 54817-54818 
PROPOSED RULES 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): 

Contingent fees, 54920 
Legal proceedings costs, 54918 
NOTICES 

" Civilian health and medical program of imiformed services 
(CHAMPUS): 

DRG-based payment system; 1996 FY, 54848-54862 

Education Department 
NOTICES 

Agency information collection activities under OMB 
review: 

Proposed agency information collection activities; 
comment request, 54865-54866 
Special education and rehabilitative services: 

Blind vending facilities imder Randolph-Sheppard Act— 
Arbitration panel decisions, 54866-54867 

Employment Standards Administration 

See Wage and Hour Division 

Energy Department 

See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office 
See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
NOTICES 

Environmental statements; availability, etc.: 

Surplus highly enriched uraniiun; disposition, 54867- 
54869 
Meetings: 

National Coal Coimcil, 54874-54875 





IV 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Contents 


Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office 

NOTICES 

Meetings: 

State Energy Advisory Board, 54873-54874 

Engineers Corps 

NOTICES 

Meetings: 

Environmental Advisory Board, 54863 


Environmental Protection Agency 

RULES 

Air quality implementation plans; approval and 
promulgation; various States: 

Illinois, 54807-54812 
Washington, 54812-54814 
PROPOSED RULES 

Air quality implementation plans; approval and 
promulgation; various States: 

Illinois, 54832 
Washington, 54832-54833 

Executive Office of the President 

See Presidential Documents 

Federal Aviation Administration 

RULES 

Airworthiness directives: 

British Aerospace, 54799-54800 
British Aerospace; correction, 54800-54801 
PROPOSED RULES 
Airworthiness directives: 

Airbus, 54820-54822 
NOTICES 

Advisory circulars; availability, etc.: 

Normal category airplanes— 

Rotorcraft certification; national standardization, 
54908-54909 

Transport category airplanes— 

Rotorcraft certification; national standardization, 54909 
Airport noise compatibility program: 

Noise exposiuo map— 

McGhee-Tyson Airport, TN, 54909-54910 
Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: 

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport, CA, 54910 

Federal Communications Commission 

RULES 

Common carrier services: 

Terminal equipment, connection to telephone network; 
correction, 54814-54815 
Television broadcasting: 

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition 
Act of 1992— 

Rates for cable programming service tiers; home 
shopping offset requirement eUminated, 54815- 
54817 

NOTICES 

Meetings: 

Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, 54875 
Rulemaking proceedings; petitions filed, granted, denied, 
etc., 54875 

Federal Election Commission 

NOTICES 

Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54915 


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

NOTICES 

Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: 

Jamaica Energy Partners et al., 54869-54873 

Federal Highway Administration 

NOTICES 

Environmental statements; notice of intent: 

Winnebago County, IL, et al., 54910-54911 

Federal Maritime Commission 

NOTICES 

Complaints filed: 

Orient Overseas Container Line (USA), Inc., et al., 54875 
Freight forwarder licenses: 

ITO El Paso International Transport Organization, Inc., et 
al., 54876 

MACH I Air Services Inc.; correction, 54876 

Federal Reserve System 

NOTICES 

Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: 

BANKFIRST Corp., Inc., 54876 

DFC Acquisition Corp. Two; correction, 54876 

Financial Management Service 

See Fiscal Service 

Fine Arts Commission 

See Commission of Fine Arts 

Fiscal Service 

NOTICES 

Federal debt collection and discount evaluation; Treasury 
current value of funds rate, 54911 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

PROPOSED RULES 

Meat and poultry inspection: 

Pathogen reduction; hazard analysis and critical control 
point (HACCP) systems; technical conference, 54819 
NOTICES 
Meetings: 

Meat and poultry inspection, etc.: food safety forum, 
54840-54841 

General Services Administration 

RULES 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): 

Miscellaneous amendments 
Correction, 54817-54818 
PROPOSED RULES 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): 

Contingent fees, 54920 
Legal proceedings costs, 54918 
NOTICES 
Privacy Act: 

Systems of records, 54876-54878 

Health and Human Services Department 

See Aging Administration 

See Inspector General Office, Health arid Human Services 
Department 

See National Institutes of Health 
NOTICES 

Scientific misconduct findings; administrative actions: 
Lorenzo, Nicholas Y., M.D., 54878 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Contents 


Health Care Financing Administration 

See Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services 
£)ep>artment 

Housing and Urban Development Department 

NOTICES 

Agency information collection activities imder OMB 
review: 

Proposed agency information collection activities; 
comment request, 54880-54881 

Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services 
Department 
NOTICES 

Program exclusions; list, 54880 

Interior Department 

See Land Management Bureau 

Internal Revenue Service 

RULES 

Excise taxes: 

Deposit procedures 
Correction, 54803 

international Trade Administration 

NOTICES 

Antidiunping: 

Large newspaper printing presses and components 
(assemble or unassembled) horn— 

Germany and Japan, 54841 
Countervailing duties: ^ 

Hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from— 
United Kingdom, 54841-54847 
Pasta from— 

Italy and Turkey, 54847 

international Trade Commission 

NOTICES 

Import investigations: 

Drawer slides from— 

China, 54882 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

NOTICES 

Environmental statements; availability, etc.: 

RLTD Railway Corp. et al., 54882-54883 
Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: 

Florida Progress Corp. et al., 54883 
Railroad services abandonment: 

Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 54883-54884 
Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 54884 

Justice Department 

See Prisons Bureau 

Labor Department 

See Wage and Hour Division 

Land Management Bureau 

RULES 

Public land orders: 

' Oregon, 54814 
NOTICES 

Closure of public lands: 

Oregon, 54881 
Meetings: 

Front Range Resource Advisory Council, 54881-54882 


Resorurce management plans, etc.: 

Pocatello Resource Area, ID, 54882 
Survey plat filings: 

Idaho,54882 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

RULES 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): 

Miscellaneous amen^ents 
Correction, 54817-54818 
PROPOSED RULES 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): 

Contingent fees, 54920 
Legal proceedings costs, 54918 

National Bankruptcy Review Commission 

NOTICES 

Meetings, 54884 

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 

NOTICES 

Meetings: 

Arts National Cormcil, 54884-54885 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

PROPOSED RULES 

Motor vehicle safety standards: 

Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment— 
Signal lamps geometric visibility requirements, and 
rear side marker color, 54833-54838 

National Institutes of Health 

NOTICES 

Meetings: 

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
54878-54879 

Research Grants Division special emphasis panels, 
54879-54880 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

RULES 

Fishery conservation and management: 

Gulf of Alaska groundfish, 54818 
Pacific Halibut Commission, International: 

Pacific halibut fisheries 

Area 2A closure to non-treaty commercial fishing, 
54818 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NOTICES 

Agency information collection activities imder OMB 
review: 

Proposed agency information collection activities; 
comment request, 54885-54886 

Postal Service 

NOTICES 

Meetings; Simshine Act, 54915 

Presidential Documents 

PROCLAMATIONS 

Special observances: 

Consumers Week, National (Proc. 6843), 54931-54932 
United Nations Day (Proc. 6844), 54933-54934 
Veterans Day (Proc. 6845), 54935-54936 





VI 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Contents 


Prisons Bureau 
PROPOSED RULES 

Inmate control, custody, care, etc.: 

Discipline and good conduct time, 54922-54928 

Public Health Service 

See National Institutes of Health 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

PROPOSED RULES 

Securities: 

Ownership reports and trading by officers, directors, and 
principal security holders (insider trading) 

Correction, 54823 
NOTICES 

Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: 

American Stock Exchange, Inc., 54886-54889 
' Chicago Board Options ^change, Inc., 54889-54893 
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 54893-54895 
Government Securities Clearing Corp., 54895-54896 
National Association of Securities E)ealers, Inc., 54896- 
54899 

National Securities Clearing Corp., 54899-54900 
New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 54900-54904 
Philadelphia Stock Exchmge, Inc., 54904-54905 
Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: 

Options Price Reporting Authority, 54905-54906 
Portfolios for Diversified Investment, 54906-54907 
Public utility holding company filings, 54907-54908 

Textile Agreements Implementation Committee 

See Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements 

Transportation Department 

See C^st Guard 

See Federal Aviation Administration 
See Federal Highway Administration 
See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Treasury Department 

See Comptroller of the Currency 

See Fiscal Service 

See Internal Revenue Service 

United States Information Agency 

NOTICES 

Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: 
International creative arts exchanges program, 54911- 
54912 

Publication of quarterly reference journal and provision 
of research service for overseas educational advisers, 
54912-54914 


Veterans Affairs Department 

PROPOSED RULES 
Disabilities rating schedide: 

Mental disorders, 54825-54831 

Wage and Hour Division 
RULES 

Fair Labor Standards Act: 

Training wage and seasonal industry provisions; CFR 
parts removed, 54804-54805 

Seasonal agricultural services; CFR parts removed, 54803- 
54804 


Separate Parts In This Issue 
Part II 

Department of Defense, General Services Administration, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 54918 

Part III 

Department of Defense, General Services Administration, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 54920 

Part IV 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, 54922-54928 

PartV 

The President, 54931-54936 


Reader Aids 

Additional information, including a list of public laws, 
telephone nrunbers, and finding aids, appears in the Reader 
Aids section at the end of this issue. 


Electronic Bulletin Board 

Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law 
numbers. Federal Register finding aids, and a list of 
documents on public inspection is available on 202-275- 
1538 or 275-0920. 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Contents VII 



CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE 

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


3 CFR 

Proclamabons: 

6843... 

...54931 

49 CFR 
Proposed Rules: 

571.. 

15844 . 

...54933 

SO CFR 

301. 

672. 

8848 . . 

...54935 

9 CFR 


Proposed Rules: 



308 

...54819 


310. 

...54819 


318..... 

...54819 


3?0 . 

...54819 


325. 

...54819 


396 . 

...54819 


327.... 

...54819 


381. 

...54819 


12 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 

24. 

...54819 


14 CFR 

39 (2 documents). 

...54799, 


Proposed Rules: 

39. 

54800 

....54820 


17 CFR 

1. 

....54801 


3. 

....54801 


9. 

....54801 


10.. 

....54801 


11... 

.54801 


21. 

.54801 


Proposed Rules: 

240. 

.54823 


26 CFR 

40 .. . 

. 54803 


28 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 



541.. 

.54922 


29 CFR 

502. 

.54803 


603 

.54803 


517... 

.54804 


526 . 

. 54804 


33 CFR 

117. 

.54805 


165 .... 

. 54806 


Proposed Rules: 

117. 

.54823 


38 CFR 

Proposed Rules: 



4 . 

.54825 


40 CFR 

52 (3 documents). 

.54807, 


54810,54812 


Proposed Rules: 

52 (3 documents). 

.54832 


43 CFR 

Public Land Orders: 

7169... 

.54814 


47 CFR 

68. 

.54814 


76. 

.54815 


48 CFR 

11. 

.54817 


12. 

.54817 


52. 

.54817 


Proposed Rules: 

3112 documents). 

.54918, 


54920 



.54833 

.54818 

.54818 


















































54799 

Rules and Regulations 

Thursday, October 26, 1995 


Federal Register 
Vol. 60, No. 207 


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 
contains regulatory documents havirtg general 
applicability and l^al effect, most of which 
are keyed to and codified in the Code of 
Federal Regulations, which is pubfished under 
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. 

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by 
the Superinterxient of Documents. Prices of 
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL 
REGISTER issue of each week. 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


Federal Aviation Administration 
14CFRPart39 

pocket No. 94 NM' 1 35-AP; Amendment 
39-«416; AD 95-22-08] 

Airworthiness Directives; British 
Aerospace Model Viscount 744,745D, 
and 810 Airplanes 

agency: Federal Aviation 
Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes 
an existing airworthiness directive (AD), 
applicable to certain British Aerospace 
M^el Viscount 744, 745D, and 810 
airplanes, that currently establishes 
time-in-service limits for components of 
the fuselage pressure vessel, and 
requires modifications and inspections 
of various fuselage components to 
assure the continued structural integrity 
of these airplanes through the 
manufacturer’s design life goal. This 
amendment requires additional 
modifications and inspections of the 
fuselage pressure vessel to extend the 
fuselage pressure vessel life from 30 to 
45 years since new. This amendment is 
prompted by results of a review of 
fatigue test findings, stress analysis, and 
in-service history associated with 
pressure vessel components. The 
actions specified by this AD €ue 
intended to prevent reduced structural 
capability of the fuselage pressvu:e 
vessel. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer, 
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington 98055—4056; telephone 
(206) 227-2148; fax (206) 227-1149. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 
proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 


Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) 
by superseding AD 65-20-04, 
amendment 39-3138 (23 FR 5506, 
February 9,1978), which is applicable 
to certain British Aerospace Model 
Viscovmt 744, 745D, and 810 airplanes, 
was published in the Federal Rq^er 
on May 9,1995 (60 FR 24587). The 
action proposed to require various 
modifications and inspections of the 
fuselage pressure vessel to extend the 
fuselage pressure vessel life from 30 to 
45 years since new. 

Interested persons have been afforded 
an opportimity to participate in the 
making of this amendment. No 
comments were submitted in response 
to the proposal or the FAA’s 
determination of the cost to the public. 
The FAA has determined that air safety 
and the public interest require the 
adoption of the rule as proposed. 

There are approximately 29 Model 
Viscount 744, 745D, and 810 series 
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected 
by this AD. 

The actions that are currently 
required by AD 65-20-04 take 
approximately 200 work hours per 
airplane to accomplish, at an average 
labor rate of $60 per work hoiu. 

Required parts cost approximately 
$37,000 per airplane. Based on these 
figiues, the total cost impact on U.S. 
operators of the actions required by AD 
65-20-04 is estimated to be $1,421,000, 
or $49,000 per airplane. 

The new actions that are required by 
this new AD will take approximately 
400 work hoius per airplane to 
accomplish, at an average labor rate of 
$60 per work horn. Required parts will 
cost approximately $37,400 per 
airplane. Based on these figures, the 
total cost impact on U.S. operators of 
the new requirements of this AD is 
estimated to be $1,780,600, or $61,400 
per airplane. 

The total cost impact figures 
discussed above are based on 
assiunptions that no operator has yet 
accomplished any of the requirements 
of this AD action, and that no operator 
would accomplish those actions in the 
futiue if this AD were not adopted. 

The regulations adopted herein will 
not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the 
national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. Therefore, in 


accordance with Executive Order 12612, 
it is determined that this final rule does 
not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 
certify that this action (1) is not a 
“significant regulatory action’’ imder 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 
"significant rule’’ imder DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procediues (44 
FR 11034, Febru^ 26,1979); and (3) 
will not have a significant economic 
impact, positive or negative, on a 
substantial niunber of small entities 
under the criteria of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has 
been prepared for this action and it is 
contained in the Rules Docket. A copy 
of it may be obtained from the Rules 
Docket at the location provided under 
the caption ADDRESSES. 

List Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation. Aircraft, Aviation 
safety. Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 
authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 39 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
part 39) as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 
DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101,40113, 
44701. 

§39.13 [Amended] 

2. Section 39.13 is amended by 
removing amendment 39-3138 (23 FR 
5506, February 9,1978), and by adding 
a new airworthiness directive (AD), 
amendment 39-9416, to read as follows: 

95-22-08 British Aerospace Regional 
Aircraft limited (Formerly British 
Aerospace Commercial Aircraft Limited, 
Vicker-Armstrongs Aircraft Limited): 
Amendment 39-9416. Docket 94-NM- 
135-AD. Supersedes AD 65-20-04, 
Amendment 39-3138. 

Applicability: All Model Viscovmt 744, 
74SD, and 810 airplanes, certificated in any 
category. 

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane 
identified in the preceding applicability 
provision, regardless of wheOier it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area 
subject to the requirements of this AD. For 




54800 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


airplanes that have been modified, altered, or 
repaired so that the performance of the 
requirements of this AD is affected, the 
owner/operator must use the authority 
provided in paragraph (d) of this AD to 
request approval from the FAA. This 
approval may address either no action, if the 
current configuration eliminates the unsafe 
condition; or different actions necessary to 
address the imsafe condition described in 
this AD- Such a request should include an 
assessment of the effect of the changed 
configuration on the imsafe condition 
addressed by this AD. In no case does the 
presence of any modification, alteration, or 
repair remove any airplane from the 
applicability of this 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 
accomplished previously. 

To prevent reduced structural capability of 
the fuselage pressure vessel, accomplish the 
following: 

(a) To operate the airplane for a maximum 
of 30 years since the date of manufecture or 
75,000 total landings, whichever occius first, 
accomplish the following: 

(1) Perform visual, eddy current, dye 
penetrant, and x-ray inspections in 
accordance with Sections 2 through 10 of 
British Aerospace Preliminary Te^nical 
Leaflet (PTL) No. 221, Issue 10, dated May 1^ 
1994 (for Model Viscount 744 and 745D 
airplanes); or PTL No. 94, Issue 10, dated 
September 1,1993 (for Model Viscount 810 
airplanes); as applicable. Perform the initial 
inspection at the later of the times specified 
in paragraphs (a)(l)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this 
AD. Thereafter, repeat these inspections at 
the repetitive intervals specified in the 
applicable PTL. 

(1) Prior to the threshold specified in 
Sections 2 through 10 of the applicable PTL; 
or within the next repetitive inspection 
specified in Sections 2 through 10 of the 
applicable PTL following the immediately 
preceding inspection accomplished in 
accordance with PTL No. 221, Issue 4 (for 
Model Viscount 744 and 745D airplanes), or 
PTL No. 94, Issue 4 (for Model Viscount 810 
airplanes); whichever occurs first. Or 

(ii) Within 60 days after the effective date 
of this AD. 

(2) Install the modifications specified in 
Sections 2 through 10 of British Aerospace 
PTL No. 221, Issue 10, dated May 1,1994 (for 
Model Viscount 744 and 745D airplanes); or 
PTL No. 94, Issue 10, dated September 1, 
1993 (for Model Viscount 810 airplanes); as 
applicable. Accomplish this installation at 
the later of the times specified in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Prior to the accumulation of the number 
ofequivalent flights at 6.5 pounds per square 
inch (psi) specified in the initial compliance 
columns of Sections 2 through 10 of ^e 
applicable PTL. Or 

(ii) Within 60 days after the effective date 
of this AD. 

Note 2: The number of equivalent flights at 
6.5 psi is detennined by using the procedure 
specified in Section 1, Part 6, Paragraph 6.6, 
of PTL No. 221 or PTL No. 94, as applicable. 

(3) Modify the components of the 
pressurization system to reduce the cabin 
pressure maximum pressure setting to 3.5 
psi, in accordance with Section 1, Part 7, 


Paragraph 7.5.2 of British Aerospace PTL No. 
221, Issue 10, dated May 1,1994 (for Model 
Viscount 744 and 745D airplanes); or PTL 
No. 94, Issue 10, dated September 1,1993 
(for Model Viscount 810 airplanes); as 
applicable. Accomplish this modification at 
the later of the times specified in paragraphs 
(a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 25 years 
since date of manufecture, or prior to the 
accumulation of the number of flights 
equivalent to 17,000 flights at 6.5 psi; 
whichevOT occurs first. Or 

(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date 
of this AD. 

(b) This paragraph is applicable only to 
airplanes listed in British Aerospace I^L No. 
320, Issue 3, dated October 1,1993 (for 
Model Viscount 744 and 745 D airplanes); 
and PTL No. 189, Issue 5, dated May 1,1994 
(for Model Viscount 810 airplanes). To 
operate the airplane for a maximum of 45 
years since date of manufecture or 75,000 
total landings, whichever occius first: Prior 
to the accumulation of 30 years since date of 
manufecture, or within 2 months after the 
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 
later, perform the inspections, change the 
inspection times, install the modifications, 
and perform all other actions specified in the 
applicable PTL. 

(c) If any crack(s) or corrosion is found 
during any inspection required by this AD, 
prior to further flight, repair in accordance 
with British Aerospace ^L No. 221, Issue 
10, dated May 1,1994 (for Model 744 and 
745D airplanes), or PTL No. 94, Issue 10, 
dated September 1,1993 (for Model 810 
airplanes). 

(d) An alternative method of compliance or 
adjustment of the compliance time diat 
provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, 
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators 
shall submit their requests through an 
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance 
Inspector, who may add comments and then 
send it to the Manager, Standardization 
Branch, ANM-113. 

Note 3: Information concerning the 
existence of approved alternative methods of 
compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Standardization Branch, 
ANM-113. 

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in 
accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to 
a location where the requirements of this AD 
can be accomplished. 

(f) This amendment becomes effective on 
November 27,1995. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 
20,1995. 

Darrell M. Pederson, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

(FR Doc. 95-26557 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 4910-13-U 


14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 95-4IM-13S-nAD; Amendment 
39-G343; AO 95-17-13] 

Airworthiness Directives; British 
Aerospace Model BAe 146 and Model 
Avro 146-RJ Airplanes. 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 
Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 
typographical error that appeared in 
airworthiness directive (AD) 95-17-13, 
amendment 39-9343, that was 
published in the Federal Register on 
August 28,1995 (60 FR 44417). The 
typographical error resulted in reference 
to paragraph numbers of that AD that do 
not exist. This AD is applicable to 
certain British Aerospace Model BAe 
146 and Model Avro 146-RJ airplanes 
and requires modification of the left- 
and ri^t-hand elevators to improve 
water drainage. 

DATES: Effective September 12,1995. 

The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the 
regulations was previously approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of 
September 12.1995 (60 FR 44417, 
August 28,1995). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer, 
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington 98055-4056; telephone 
(206) 227-2148; fax (206) 227-1149. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (Dn August 
15,1995, the FAA issued AD 95-17-13, 
amendment 39-9343 (60 FR 44417, 
August 28,1995), to require 
modification of the left- and right-hand 
elevators to improve water drainage. As 
published, that AD contained a 
typographical error in paragraph (a)(1) 
of the AD. That paragraph specified that 
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(l)(i), 
(a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3)(iii) are to be 
accomplished. However, paragraphs 
(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3)(iii) do not exist in 
this AD. The correct paragraph 
references are paragraphs (a)(l)(i), 
(a)(l)(ii),and(a)(l)(iii). 

Since no other part of the regulatory 
information has been changed, the final 
rule is not being republish^. 

The effective date of the AD remains 
September 12,1995. 

Accordingly, the final rule document 
(FR Doc. 95-20629), which was 
published on August 28,1995, at 60 FR 
44417, is corrected as follows: 

§39.13 [Corrected] 

On page 44418, in the third column, 
the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) 





Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54801 


of AD 95-17-13, amendment 39-9343, 
is corrected to read as follows: 
***** 

(a) * * * 

(1) For all airplanes: Accomplish the 
following requirements of paragraphs 
(a)(l)(i), (B)(l)(ii), and (a)(l)(iii) of this 
AD: 

***** 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 
16,1995. 

Darrell M. Pedmson, 

Acting Manager. Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

(FR Doc. 95-25991 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLMQ CODE 4t10-13-P 


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 
COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 1,3.9,10,11. and 21 

Change of Address; Change In Titles 
of Office and Personnel 

AQENCY: Commodity Futiues Trading 
Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futmres 
Trading Commission is amending its 
regulations to reflect changes in office 
tides, personnel titles emd address in its 
regulations. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Stacy Yochum, Office of the Executive 
Director, Commodity Futines Trading 
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20581, (202) 418-5157. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, 
the Commission changed the title of the 
Division of Economics and Education to 
the Division of Economic Analysis. Also 
in 1984, the Commission combined the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals with the 
Complaints Section to create the Office 
of Proceedings. The former Hearing 
Clerk was given the title of Proceedings 
Clerk. At the same time, the 
Commission reassigned the 
administrative duties of the vacant 
position of Chief Administrative Law 
Judge to the Director of the Office of 
Proceedings. In 1990, the Commission 
e limin ated the Opinions Section as a 
separate entity within the Office of 
General Counsel and the Chief of the 
Opinions Section became the Deputy 
General Counsel for Opinions and 
Review. As of October 1,1995, the 
Commission moved its headquarters 
offices, including the Office of 
Proceedings, to Three Lafayette Centre, 
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, EXH 
20581. The Commission is now 


amending its regulations to reflect these 
changes. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 1, 3,9, 
10,11, and 21 

Administrative practice and 
procedure, Conunodity Futures Trading 
Commission, and Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. 

Based upon the foregoing, pursuant to 
its authority contained in section 
2(a)(ll) of the Commodity Exchange 
Act, 7 U.S.C. 4a(j), the Conunission 
hereby amends 17 CFR Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART I^AMENDED] 

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

Authority: 7 U.S.C. la, 2, 2a, 4,4a, 6,6a, 

6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6b, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 

6o, 6p, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 9,12,12a, 12c, 13a, 13a- 
1.16,16a, 19, 21, 23.24. 

§ 1.66 [Amended] 

2. Section 1.66, paragraphs (b)(2), 
(b)(3) and (b)(5)(ii) are amend^ by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceed^gs Clerk” in each place it 
occiurs. 

I 

PARTS—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 3 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. la. 2.4.4a, 6.6b, 6c, 
6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6b, 6i. 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 8, 

9, 9a, 12,12a, 13b. 13c, 16a, 18,19. 21. 23; 

5 U.S.C. 552, 552b. 

§3.50 [Amended] 

2. Section 3.50, paragraph (d) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

§3.55 [Amended] 

3. Section 3.55, paragraphs (b), (c) and 
(e)(2) are amended by removing 
“Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in each place it 
occurs. 

§3.56 [Amended] 

4. Section 3.56, paragraphs (b)(3), (c) 
and (e)(2) are eunended by removing 
“Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in eac£ place it 
occurs. 

§3.60 [Amended] 

5. In § 3.60, the introductory text of 
paragraph (b), paragraph (b)(2)(ii), the 
introductory test of paragraph (c), 
paragraph (d)(3), paragraph (h)(4) and 
paragraph (h)(5)(i) are amended by 
removing “Hetuing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in each place it 
occurs. 


§3.64 [Amended] 

6. Section 3.64, paragraphs (a), (b)(1), 
(b)(2) and (d) are amended by removing 
“Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in eac^ place it 
occurs. 

PARTS—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 9 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4a, 6c, 7a, 12a, 12c, 

16a, unless otherwise noted. 

§9.9 [Amended] 

2. Section 9.9, paragraph (b)(1) 
introductory text is amended by 
removing “Chief of the Opinions 
Section, or the Chiefs designee” and 
adding “Deputy General Counsel for 
Opinions and Review, or designee” in 
its place. 

3. Section 9.9, paragraphs (b)(3) and 
(b)(4) are amended by removing “Chief 
of the Opinions Section” and adding 
“Deputy General Coimsel for Opinions 
and Review” in each place it occurs. 

PART 10—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority for part 10 continues 
to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L 93-463, sec. 101(a)(ll), 
88 StaL 1391; 7 U.S.C 4a(j), imless otherwise 
noted. 

2. Section 10.2, paragraph (i) is 
revised to read as follows: 

§ 10.2 Definitions. 
***** 

(i) Proceedings Clerk means that 
member of the Commission’s staff 
designated as such in the Commission’s 
Office of Proceedings. 

***** 

3. The first sentence of § 10.4 is 
revised to read as follows: 

§ 10.4 Business address; hours. 

'The Office of Proceedings is located at 
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street 
NW., Wasl^gton, DC 20581.* * * 

§10.7 [Amended] 

3. Section 10.7 is amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in its place. 

4. Section 10.10, paragraph (a)(l)(iii) 
is revised to read as follows: 

§ 10.10 Ex parte communications. 

(a) * * * 

(D* * * 

(iii) The Deputy General Coimsel for 
Opinions and Review and staff of the 
Office of General Counsel. 

***** 

5. Section 10.10, paragraph (a)(l)(iv) 
is amended by removing “Office of 
Hearings and Appeals” and adding 
“Office of Proceedings” in its place. 




54802 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


§10.12 [Amended] 

6. Section 10.12, paragraph (a)(3) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Cleric” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

7. Section 10.12, paragraph (b) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

8. Section 10.12, paragraph (d) is 
revised to read as follows: 

§ 10.12 Service and filing of documents; 
form and execution. 
***** 

(d) Filing of documents with the 
Proceedings Clerk. (1) All documents 
which are required to be served upon a 
party shall be filed conciirrently with 
the Proceedings Clerk. A document 
shall be filed by delivering it in person 
or by certified or registered mail with 
return receipt requested to: 

Proceedings Clerk, Office of Proceedings, 
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20581. 

(2) To be timely filed, a document 
must be received by the Proceedings 
Clerk within the time prescribed for 
filing. 

***** 

9. Section 10.12, paragraphs (e)(1), 
(e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(6) are amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in each place it 
occurs. 

10. In § 10.12, the concluding text of 
paragraph (f)(1) is amended by removing 
“Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in its place. 

11. Section 10.12, paragraph (g) is 
revised to read as follows: 
***** 

(g) Official docket. The Proceedings 
Clerk will maintain the official docket 
for each proceeding. The official docket 
is available for public inspection in the 
Commission’s Office of Proceedings. 

§ 10.22 [Amended] 

12. Section 10.22, paragraph (b) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

§10.23 [Amended] 

13. Section 10.23, paragraph (a) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

§10.26 [Amended] 

14. Section 10.26, paragraph (a), 
introductory text, iS amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in its place. 


§10.42 [Amended] 

15. Section 10.42, paragraph (c)(1) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

§10.44 [Amended] 

16. Section 10.44, paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) 
and (f)(1) are amend^ by removing 
“Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in ea(± place it 
occurs. 

§10.65 [Amended] 

17. Section 10.65, paragraph (b) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

§10.68 [Amended] 

18. Section 10.68, paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (b)(3) are amended by removing . 
“Chief Administrative Law Judge” and 
adding “Director of the Office of 
Proceedings” in each pilace it occum. 

§ 10.81 [Amended] 

19. Section 10.81 is amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in its place. 

§ 10.83 [Amended] 

20. Section 10.83 is amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in its place. 

§10.84 [Amended] 

21. Section 10.84, paragraph (b) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in each 
place it occurs. 

22. Section 10.84, paragraph (c) 
concluding text is amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in its place. 

§10.92 [Amended] 

23. Section 10.92, paragraphs (a), 
(b)(2) and (b)(3) are amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in each place it 
occiurs. 

§10.102 [Amended] 

24. Section 10.102, paragraph (a) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in each 
place it occurs. 

25. Section 10.102, paragraph (c) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

§10.103 [Amended] 

26. Section 10.103, paragraph (a) is 
eunended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 


§10.105 [Amended] 

27. Section 10.105 is amended by 
removing “Hearing Clerk” and adding 
“Proceedings Clerk” in its place. 

§10.108 [Amended] 

28. Section 10.108, paragraph (d) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

§10.109 [Amended] 

. 29. The introductory text of § 10.109 
is amended by removing “Chief of the 
Opinions Section” and adding “Deputy 
General Counsel for Opinions and 
Review” in its place. 

30. Section 10.109, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 
is amended hy removing “Chief’ and 
adding “Deputy General Counsel for 
Opinions and Review” in its place. 

31. Section 10.109, paragraph (b) is 
amended by removing “Chief of the 
Opinions Section” and adding “Deputy 
General Counsel for Opinions and 
Review” in its place. 

32. Section 10.109, paragraph (c) is 
amended by removing “Hearing Clerk” 
and adding “Proceedings Clerk” in its 
place. 

PART 11—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 11 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4a(j), 9 and 15,12, 
12a(5), unless otherwise noted. 

§11.2 [Amended] 

2. Section 11.2, paragraph (a) is 
amended by removing “Director of the 
Division of Economics and Education” 
and adding “Director of the Division of 
Economic Analysis” in its place. 

PART 21—[AMENDED] 

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

Authority: 7 U.S.C. la, 2, 2a, 4, 6a, 6c, 6f, 
6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 12a, 19, and 21; 

5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(b), unless otherwise 
noted. 

§21.02a [Amended] 

2. Section 21.02a, paragraph (c) is 
amended by removing “Director of 
Economics and Education” and adding 
“Director of the Division of Economic 
Analysis” in its place. 

The foregoing rules shall be effective 
October 26,1995. The Conunission finds that 
the amendments relate solely to agency 
organization, procedure or practice and that 
the public procedures and publication prior 
to the effective date of the amendments, in 
accordance with the Administrative 
Procedure Act, as codified, 5 U.S.C. 553, are 
not required. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54803 


Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 
1995, by the Commission. 

Lynn K. Gilbert, 

Deputy Secretary of the Commission. 

IFR Doc. 95-26371 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 6351-01-P 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
Internal Revenue Service 
26CFRPart40 

[TD8616] 

RIN 1545-AT26 

Deposits of Excise Taxes; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 
Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to temporary 
regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 
correction to the temporary regulations 
(TD 8616), which were published in the 
Federal Register for Tuesday, August 
29,1995 (60 FR 44758). The temporary 
regulations relate to deposits of excise 
taxes. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Hoffinan, (202) 622-3130 (not a 
toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Background 

' The temporary regulations that are the 
subject of diis correction are under 
section 6302 of the Internal Revenue 
Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, TD 8616 contains a 
typographical error that is in need of 
correction. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the 
temporary regulation which is the 
subject of FR Doc. 95-21438, is 
corrected as follows: 

On page 44759, coliunn one, the 
authority citation " Authority: 26 U.S.C. 
780* * *” is corrected to read 
“Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *”. 
Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief 
Counsel (Corporate). 

[FR Doc. 95-26583 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLINO cooe 4a3(M>1-P 


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Wage and Hour Division 

29 CFR Parts 502 and 503 

Workers Employed in Seasonal 
Agricultural Services Under Section 
201A of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act 

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, 
Employment Standards Administration, 
Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule; removal of 
regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor is 
issuing a final rule to remove the 
regulations found at 29 CFR parts 502 
and 503, which were promulgated 
under § 210A of the Inunigration and 
Nationality Act (INA), as amended by 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
of 1986 (IRCA). These regulations 
implement requirements of a special 
program for nonimmigrants in seasonal 
agricultural services which ended with 
fiscal year 1992, or September 30,1992. 
The regulations do not afiect the current 
operation of any program and are being 
removed from Ae CFR. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is efiective 
November 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Richard M. Brennan, Acting Director, 
Division of Policy and Analysis, Wage 
and Hour Division, Employment 
Standards Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor, room S-3506, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20210; telephone (202) 219-8412. 
This is not a toll fiee number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
(Pub. L. 96-511). The information 
collection requirements previously 
approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget under Regulations, 29 CFR 
parts 502 and 503 expired September 
30,1992. 

n. Background 

Section 302 of the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Public 
Law 99-603, November 6,1986) added 
sections 210 and 210A to the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 
which established a special program for 
certain agricultural workers. Under this 
special agricultural worker (SAW) 
program, the status of a nonimmigrant 
worker could be adjusted during an 18- 
month period ending November 30, 
1988 to “lawfully admitted for 


temporary residence” if certain resident 
and work conditions were 
demonstrated. Section 210A of INA 
established a framework for admitting 
additional nonimmigrants, referred to as 
replenishment agricultural workers 
(RAWs), if a shortage of workers in 
seasonal agricultural services developed 
during the period beginning with Fiscal 
Year 1990 and ending with Fiscal Year 
1993, or September 3 0,199 2. 

The regulations, 29 CFR parts 502 and 
503, were promulgated pursuant to 
§ 210A of ffie INS, as amended. The 
regulations at 29 CFR part 502 establish 
a reporting procedure for employers to 
report employment information on 
certain resident nonimmigrant workers 
employed in seasonal agricultural 
services (SAWs), and the regulations at 
29 CFR part 503 establish the procediire 
to be used by the Secretaries of 
Agricultural and Labor in determining 
the number of additional individuals 
wbo could acquire status under § 210A 
of the INA as replenishment agricultural 
workers (RAWs) to replenish a shortage 
of seasonal agricultural workers. 

The employer reporting requirements 
and the agricultural worker 
replenishment process established by 
§ 210A ceased with the Fiscal Year 
ending September 30,1992. Because the 
regulations at 29 CFR parts 502 and 503 
do not affect the current operation of 
any program, the Department has 
decided that it is no longer necessary to 
continue publication of these 
regulations, in future editions of title 29, 
and the regulations are, therefore, being 
removed from the CFR. 

Executive Order. 12866/Section 202 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 

This rule is not a “significant 
regulatory action” within the meaning 
of Executive Order 12866. The 
regulations at 29 CFR parts 502 and 503 
do not afiect the current operation of 
any program, and their removal from 
title 29 will not: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely afiect in a material 
way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities; (2) create 
a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency; (3) 
materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President’s priorities, or 
the. principles set forth in Executive 






54804 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory 
impact analysis has been prepared. 

The requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-5) do not apply to non-notice 
rules issued under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Because no notice of proposed 
rulemaking is required for the rule 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the requirements 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public 
Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1165, 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq. pertaining to regulatory 
flexibility analysis, do not apply to this 
rule. See 5 U.S.C 601(2). In any event, 
this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial 
niunber of small entities. The 
obligations and responsibilities 
established under die regulations to be 
removed finm title 29 ceased with the 
Fiscal Year ending September 30,1992. 

Document Preparation. This document 
was prepared under the direction and control 
of Maria Echaveste, Administrator, Wage and 
House Division, Employment Standards 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 502 and 
503 

Administrative practice and 
procedures. Agriculture, Aliens, 
Farmers, Immigration, Investigations, 
Penalties, Reporting requirements. 
Transportation. 

Promulgation of Final Rule 

For the reasons set out in the 
preamble: 

PART 502—[REMOVED] 

1. Under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 
and Reorganization Plan Number 6 of 
1950 (64 Stat. 1263) and 5 U.S.C. 552- 
556, Title 29, Code of Federal 
Regulations, is hereby amended by 
removing peut 502. 

PART 503—[REMOVED] 

2. Under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 
and Reorganization Plan Number 6 of 
1950 (64 Stat. 1263) and 5 U.S.C. 552- 
556, Title 29, Code of Federal 
Regulations, is hereby amended by 
removing part 503. 

Signed at Washington, D.C., on this 20th 
day of October, 1995. 

Maria Echaveste, 

Administrator, Wage and Hour Division. 

|FR Doc. 95-26534 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BajJNQ CODE 4510-27-M 


29 CFR Parts 517 and 526 

Training Wags and Seasonai industry 
Provisions Under the Fair Lat>or 
Standards Act 

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, 
Employment Standards Administration, 
Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule; removal of 
regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor is 
issuing a final rule to remove the 
regulations foimd at 29 CFR parts 517 
and 526, which were promulgated 
under the Fair Labor Standards Act 
(FLSA). These regulations implement 
provisions of the FLSA which have 
ended or were repealed by subsequent 
amendments. The training wage 
authorization under 29 CFR part 517 
expired March 31,1993, and the partial 
exemptions from the FLSA’s overtime ■ 
requirements for employees in 
industries of a seasonal nature or for 
employees in industries with annual 
recurring seasonal peaks of operation 
were rep^ed by 1974 amendments 
effective December 31,1976. These 
regulations do not affect the current 
operation of any program and are being 
removed from ^e CFR. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective 
November 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Richard M. Brennan, Acting Director, 
Division of Policy and Analysis, Wage 
and Hour Division, Employment 
Standards Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Room S-3506, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20210; telephone (202) 219-8412. 
This is not a toll free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
(Pub. L. 96-511). Information collection 
requirements imder these regulations, 
previously approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget, have expired. 

n. Background 

Section 6 of The Fair Labor Standards 
Amendments of 1989 (Public Law 101- 
157), enacted on November 17,1989, 
among other provisions, permitted 
employers to pay employees under the 
age of 20 a training wage rate of at least 
85 percent of the minimum wage for up 
to 90 days. Different employers were 
permitted to pay the employee the 
training wage for an additional 90 days 
if such employer(s) provided bn-the-job 
training in accordance with criteria 
established by the Secretary. The new 


training wage provisions were effective 
fiem April 1,1990 through March 31, 
1993, and were implemented by 
Regulations, 29 CFR part 517, on March 
1,1990 (55 FR 7450). Because the 
training wage authority ceased on 
March 31,1993, the regulations at 29 
CFR part 517 do not effect the current 
operation of any pr ogr am. 

Regulations, 29 C^ part 526, were 
promulgated pursuant to partial 
overtime exemptions in §§ 7 (c) and (d) 
of the FLSA for employers employing 
employees in an industry found by the 
Se(^tary to be of a seasonal nature; or 
for employers who employ employees 
in industries foimd by the Secretary to . 
be characterized by marked annual 
recurring peaks of operation, or to be of 
a seasonal nature and engaged in the 
handling, packing, storing, preparing, 
first processing, or caiming of any 
perishable agricultural or horticultural 
commodities in their raw or natural 
state. The exemptions provided by §§ 7 
(c) and (d) were repealed by Section 19 
of the Fair Labor Standards 
Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93- 
259, enacted April 8,1974, 88 Stat. 55), 
effective as of December 31,1976. The 
regulations at 29 CFR part 526 do not 
affect the current operation of any 
program. 

For the above reasons, the Department 
has decided that it is no longer 
necessary to continue publication of 
these regulations in future editions of 
title 29, and the regulations are, 
therefore, being removed fi'om the CFR. 

Executive Order 12866/Section 202 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 

This rule is not a "significant 
regulatory action” within the meaning 
of Executive Order 12866. The 
regulations at 29 CFR parts 517 and 526 
do not affect the current operation of 
any program, and their removal from 
title 29 will not: (1) Have an aimual 
effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely affect in a material 
way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities; (2) create 
a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency; (3) 
materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President’s priorities, or 
the principles set forth in Executive 
Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory 
impact analysis has been prepared. 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54805 


The requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-5) do not apply to non-notice 
rules issued imder 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Because no notice of proposed 
rulemaking is required for the rule 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the requirements 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public 
Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1165, 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq. pertaining to regulatory 
flexibility analysis, do not apply to this 
rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). In any event, 
this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The 
obligations and responsibilities- 
established under die regulations to be 
removed from title 29 have either ceased 
or have been repealed. 

Document Preparation. This document 
was prepared under the direction and control 
of Maria Echaveste, Administrator, Wage and 
Hour Division, Employment Standards 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 

List of Subjects 

29 CFR Part 517 

Employment, Investigations, Labor, 
Law enforcement. Training. 

29 CFR Part 526 

Agriculture, Employment, Labor, 
Wages. 

Promulgation of Final Rule 

For the reasons set out in the 
preamble: 

PART 517—(REMOVED] 

1. Under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 
and Reorganization Plan Number 6 of 
1950 (64 Stat. 1263) and 5 U.S.C. 552- 
556, Title 29, Code of Federal 
Regulations, is hereby amended by 
removing part 517. 

PART 526—[REMOVED] 

2. Under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 
and Reorganization Plan Number 6 of 
1950 (64 Stat. 1263) and 5 U.S.C. 552- 
556, Title 29, Code of Federal 
Regulations, is hereby amended by 
removing part 526. 

Signed at Washington, D.C., on this 20th 
day of October, 1995. . 

Maria Echaveste, 

Administrator, Wage and Hour Division. 

[FR Doc. 95-26533 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 4510-27-M 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Coast Guard 
33 CFR Part 117 
[CQD05-05-023] 

Draufttridge Operation Regulations; 

York River, Yorktown, VA 

agency: Coast Guard, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adopting 
as final the interim rule published in the 
Federal Register on June 14,1995, 
changing the regulations governing the 
operation of the drawbridge across York 
River, mile 7.0, at Yorktown, Virginia, 
by extending the periods of restricted 
bridge openings during the morning and 
evening rush hours. This is intend^ to 
provide relief to highway traffic during 
the extended rush hours on the roads 
and highways linked by this 
drawbridge, while still providing for the 
reasonable needs of navigation. , 
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is elective on 
November 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ann Deaton, Bridge Administrator, 
Fifth Coast Guard District, at (804) 398- 
6222! 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORk.lATION: 

Draftiiig Information: The principal 
persons involved in drafting this document 
are Linda L. Gilliam, Project Manager, Bridge 
Administration Section, and CAPT R. A. 

Knee, Project Counsel, Fifth Coast Guard 
District L^al Office. 

Regulatory History 

On June 14,1995, the Coast Guard 
published an interim final rule with 
request for comments entitled York 
River, Yorktown, Virginia, in the 
Federal Register (60 FR 31246). The 
comment period ended September 12, 
1995, The Coast Guard received no 
comments on the interim final rule. On 
July 7,1995, the Coast Guard issued 
Public Notice 5-857 requesting 
comments on the interim final rule. The_ 
comment period ended September 12, 
1995. The Coast Guard received no 
comments on the public notice. A 
public hearing was not requested and 
one was not held. 

Background and Purpose 

The Virginia Department of 
Transportation requested further 
regulation of the (^orge P. Coleman 
Memorial Bridge across York River, mile 
7,0, at Yorktowh, Virginia, dming the 
morning and evening rush hours. The 
Coast Guard is extending the periods of 
restricted bridge openings during the 


morning and evening rush hours by 
requiring the bridge to remain closi^ 
fiom 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 3 p.m. 
to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal h^days, year round. 
Vessels in distress, or in an emergency 
situation will be allowed passage 
through the bridge at any time as stated 
in Title 33 CFR 117.31(b). 

The Virginia Department of 
Transportation’s (VDOT) request was ' 
based in part on traffic problems 
associated with current construction of 
a new bridge at this location. VDOT also 
dted an increase in highway traffic 
crossing the bridge since the Park 
Service recently closed access to Route 
17 at the Colonial Parkway and a change 
in the operating schedule of the 
Newport News Shipbuilding and 
Drydock which has resulted in motorists 
crossing the bridge earlier in the 
morning and later in the evening. 

In developing this schedule, the Coast 
Guard conside^ all views, and 
believes this final rule will not unduly 
restrict vessel passage through the 
bridge, since vessel operators can plan 
transits around the operating schedule. 
The Coast Guard believes that it is in the 
public interest to further limit openings 
of the Coleman Bridge. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 and does not 
require an assessment of potential costs 
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 
order. It has been exempted from review 
by the Office of Management and 
Budget imder that order. It is not 
significant under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; 
February 26,1979). The Coast Guard 
expects the economic impact of this rule 
to be so minimal that a full Regulatory 
Evaluation under paragraph lOe of the 
regulatory policies and procedures of 
DOT is unnecessary. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the U.S. Coast 
Guard must consider whether this final 
rule will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. “Small entities” include 
independently owned and operated 
small businesses that are not dominant 
in their field and that otherwise qualify 
as “small business concerns” under 
section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 632). Because it expects the 
impact of this rule to be minimal, the 
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b) that this rule will not have a 






54806 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. 

CoUectifm of InibnnatioB 

This rule contains no collection of 
information requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). 

Federalism 

The Coast Guard has analyzed this 
rule under the principals and criteria 
contained in Executive Order 12612, 
and it has been determined that the 
proposed rulemaking does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant die preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard considered the 
environmental impact of this rule and 
concluded that under section 
2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant 
instruction M16475.1B, (as amended, 59 
FR 38654, 29 July 1994), this rule is 
categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A 
Categorical Exclusion Determination 
statement has been prepared and placed 
in the rulemaking docket. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 
Bridges. 

Regulations 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 
OPERATION REGULATIONS 

Accordingly, the interim rule 
amending 33 CFR part 117 which was 
published at 60 FR 31246 on June 14, 
1995, is adopted as a final rule without 
change. 

Dated: October 11,1995. 

W.J. Ecker, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 
Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc 95-26524 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BKJJNO CODE 4»10-14-M 


33 CFR Part 165 
[COD 05-05-068] 

RIN 2115-AA97 

Safety Zone: Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC 

agency: Coast Guard, DOT. 

ACTION: Temporary rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard Captain of 
the Port, Wilmington, has established a 
safety zone in the Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway (AICW) along Marine Corps 
Base Camp Lejetme (MCB), North 
Carolina. The safety zone encompasses 


the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway between lighted dayboards 64 
and 65. The safety zone is ne^ed to 
protect people, vessels, and property 
from safety hazards associated with the 
laimching of inert line charges in 
support of amphibious assault training. 
Ei^ of vessels or persons into this 
zoneis prohibited unless specifically 
authorized by the Captain of the Port. 
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is 
effective from 8 a.m. on October 28, 
through 6 p.m. October 31,1995 local 
time, unless soonerterminated by the 
Captain of the Port Wilmington. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ltjg 
K.J. Delooff, USCG, Project Officer, c/o 
Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Office, 272 North Front 
Street, Wilmington, North Carolina 
28401-3907. Phone: (910) 343-4895, 
Extension 108. 

SUPPLEMENARY INFORMATION: 

Drafting Information 

The drafters of this regulation are Ltjg 
K.J. Delooff, project officer for the 
Captain of the Port, October 
Wilmington, North Carolina, and Lt 
K.A. Duignan, project attorney. Fifth 
Coast Guard District Legal Office. 

Discussion of Regulation 

The Coast Guard has been requested 
by MCB Camp Lejeime to estabUsh a 
s^ety zone to prevent damage or injury 
which could result from a training 
exercise. The exercise involves a 
training assault on a simulated mined 
beach. The assault involves firing an 
inert line charge which clears the 
simulated minefield. The line charge is 
propelled by a 5 foot solid fuel rocket 
which trails the inert explosives. The 
rocket is typically prevented from flying 
its full fli^t by a cable attached to the 
firing point. If this cable breaks, the 
rocket motor and possibly the line 
charge could impact in the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway. The safety zone 
will prevent vessels ^m transiting 
during the firing of the line charge and 
prevent possible property damage, 
injury, or death. 

The safety zone will be effective from 
8 a.m. on October 28,1995 and will 
cease at 6 p.m. on October 31,1995 
imless terminated sooner by the Captain 
of the Port Wilmington. The actual 
times the waterway will be closed will 
be approximately 30-90 minute periods 
one to three times per day. When actual 
firing is not scheduled to take place, the 
waterway will be open for traffic. 
Mariners will be notified via VHF 
channel 16 when the waterway is about 
to be closed for firing. Vessels from 
either the U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. Navy 


will be patrolling each end of the safety 
zone to inform and control vessel traffic. 

The safety zone can be described as 
follows: 

The waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway from lighted dayboard 
number 64 at approximately 34° 33' 

59.7" North, 077° 16' 50.5" West to 
lightedjdayboard 65 at approximately 
34° 33' .03" North, 077° 18' 30" West. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C 553, a 
notice of proposed rulemaking was not 
published for this regulation and good 
cause exists for making this regulation 
effective in less than 30 days after 
Federal Register publication. Publishing 
a NPRM and delaying the effective date 
would be contrary to the public interest 
since immediate action is needed to 
protect mariners from potential hazards 
associated with potential flight of an 
inert rocket propelled line charge over 
navigable waters. The final schedule for 
this event and other related activities 
was not communicated to the Coast 
Guard in sufficient time to allow for a 
period for comments. 

Assessment 

This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 and does not 
require an assessment of potential costs 
and benefits \mder section 6(a)(3) of that 
order. It has not been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget imder 
that order. It is not significant imder the 
regulatory policies and procediues of 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
(44 FR 11040, February 26,1979). 

The Coast Guard expects the 
economic impact of this rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory 
Evaluation imder paragraph lOe of the 
regulatory policies and procedures of 
DOT is imnecessary. 

Collection of Information 

This rule contains no information 
collection requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). 

Federalism 

The Coast Guard has analyzed this 
rule under the principles and criteria 
contained in Executive Order 12612 and 
has determined that this proposal does 
not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard considered the 
environmental impact of this rule and 
conclude that, under paragraph 
2.B.2.e(34) of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1B (amended by 59 FR 38654), 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54807 


this rule is categorically excluded from 
frulher environmental documentation. 

List of Subjefits in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety. Navigation 
(water). Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. Security measures. 
Waterways. 

For the reasons set out in the 
preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 
33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165-(AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 165 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05-l(g), 6.04-1,6.04-6. and 160.5; 
49 CFR 1.46. 

2. A new temporary § 165.T5068 is 
added to read as follows: 

S165.TS068 Safety Zone: Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway, Marine Corps Base 
Camp Le|eune, North Carolina. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 
safety zone: 

(1) The waters of the Atlantic 
Inlracoastal Waterway from lighted 
dayboard niunber 64 at approximately 
34* 33' 59.7" North, 077* 16' 50.5" West 
to lighted dayboard 65 at approximately 
34* 33' .03" North, 077* 18' 30" West 
(Datum: NAD 83). 

(b) Definitions. The following 
definition applies to this section: The 
designated representative of the Captain 
of the Port means: Any Coast Guard 
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 
who has been authorized by the Captain 
of the Port, Wilmington, North Carolina 
to act on his behalf. 

(c) The Captain of the Port and the 
Duty Officer at the Marine Safety Office, 
Wilmington, North Carolina, can be 
contact^ at telephone number (910) 
343-4895. 

(d) The designated representative on 
each vessel enforcing the safety zone 
can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 
16. 

(e) Regulation. The limitations on 
entry and use of the water area of the 
safety zone created by this regulation as 
described in the general regulations 
contained in 33 CFR 165.23, will only 
be in effect during the time periods 
ann ounced on VHF channel 16. 

(f) During the annoimced time 
periods, entry into this safety zone is 
prohibited except as authorized by the 
Captain of the Port. 

(g) Effective Dates. This section is 
effective from 8 a.m. on October 28 
through 6 p.m. October 31,1995 local 
time, the zone will be activated 
intermittently up to three times daily 
(approximately 30-90 minutes each 
period in duration) by annoimcement 
on VHF chtinnel 16. 


Dated: September 19,1995. 

TJ..Rke, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 
Port, Wilmington, NC. 

(FR Doc. 95-26522 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 4aiO-14-M 



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 
PL125-1-7030a: FRL-5312-7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans; Illinois 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 
Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 5.1995, the State of 
Illinois submitted a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
request to the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA) for automotive/transportation 
and business machine plastic parts 
coatings operations as part of die State’s 
15 percent (%) Reasonable Further 
Progress (RIT) plan control measures for 
Volatile Organic Matter (VOM) 
emissions. VOM, as defined by the State 
of Illinois, is identical to “volatile 
organic compounds’’ (VOC), as defined 
by USEPA. VOC is one of the air 
pollutants which combine on hot 
summer days to form groimd-level 
ozone, commonly known as smog. 

Ozone pollution is of particular concern 
because of its harmful effects upon limg 
tissue and breathing passages. RFP 
plans are intended to bring areas which 
have been exceeding the public health 
based Federal ozone air quality standard 
closer toward the goal of reaching and 
maintaining attainment with this 
standard, llie control measures 
specified in this plastic parts SIP 
revision are expected by Illinois to 
reduce VOC (VOM) emissions by 0.28 
tons per day in the Chicago area. No 
applicable sources exist in the Metro- 
East (East St. Louis) area at this time. 

A supplement to the May 5,1995, SIP 
revision request was submitted on May 
26,1995. USEPA made a finding of 
completeness in a letter dated July 13, 
1995. A final approval action is being 
taken because the submittal meets all 
pertinent Federal requirements. This 
SIP revision establishes VOM emission 
limits for applicable plastic parts 
sources located in the Chicago and 
Metro-East ozone nonattainment areas. 
The USEPA is publishing this action 
without prior proposal because USEPA 
views this action as a noncontroversial 
revision and anticipates no adverse 


comments. However, USEPA is 
publishing a separate document in this 
Federal Register publication, which 
constitutes a “proposed approval” of the 
requested SIP revision and clarifies that 
the rulemaking will not be deemed final 
if timely adverse or critical co mm ent.*: 
are filed. If USEPA receives comments 
adverse to or critical of the approval, 
USEPA will withdraw this approval 
before its effective date by publishing a 
subsequent Federal Register document 
which withdraws this ^al action. All 
public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking 
document. Please be aware that USEPA 
will institute another conunent period 
on this action only if warranted by 
significant revisions to the rulemaking 
b^d on any comments received in 
response to today’s action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on Uiis action 
should do so at this time. 

DATES: 'The direct final rule is effective 
on December 26,1995, unless USEPA 
receives adverse or critical comments by 
November 27,1995. If the effective date 
is delayed, timely notice will be 
published in the Federal Register. 
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision 
request tmd USEPA’s analysis 
(Technical Support Document) are 
available for inspection at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is 
recommended that you telephone Mark 
J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082 before 
visiting the Region 5 Office.) 

Written comments should be sent to: 

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Relation 
Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(the Act) requires all moderate and 
above ozone nonattainment areas to 
achieve a 15% reduction of 1990 
emissions of VOC (VOM) by 1996. In 
Illinois, the Chicago ama is classified as 
“severe” nonattainment for ozone, 
while the Metro-East area is classified as 
“moderate” nonattainment. As such, 
these areas are subject to the 15% RFP 
reqmrement. 

On September 12,1994, the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency 
(lEPA) filed the proposed plastic parts 
coating rule with the Illinois Pollution 
Control Board (Board). A public hearing 






54808 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


on the rule was held on November 4, 
December 2, and December 16,1994, in 
Chicago, Illinois; on April 20,1995, the 
Board adopted a Final Opinion and 
Order f(Nr the proposed amendment. The 
rule became efibctive on May 9,1995; it 
was published in the Illinois State 
Register on May 19,1995. The lEPA 
formally submitted the plastic parts 
coating rule to USEPA on May 5,1995, 
as a revision to the Illinois SIP for 
ozone; supplemental documentation to 
this revision was submitted on May 26, 
1995. In doing so, lEPA believes that 
this SIP revision’s new control 
requirements for plastic parts coating 
sources will help reduce VOM 
emissions enou^ to meet the 15% RFP 
requirements. 

n. Aaaljrsis State Submittal 

The May 5,1995, submittal includes 
the following new or revised rules: 

Part 211: Deflnltlons and Qeneral 
Provisions 

Subpart B: Definitions 

211.660 Automodve/Transportation Plastic 
Parts 

211.670 Baked Coatings 

211.820 Business Machine Plastic Parts 


219.205(f) Daily-Weighted Average Limits 
for Plastic Parts 

219.207(h) Alternative Emission 
Limitations for Plastic Parts 

This SIP revision applies to sources in 
the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 
ozone nonattaiiunent area which apply 
coati^s to the following plastic parts: 

(1) 'me interior and exterior plastic 
components of automobiles, trucks, 
tractors, lawn mowers, and other like 
mobile equipment intended for primary 
use on land, with the exception of the 
following: plastic parts coated on the 
main (body) paint line in automobile 
and light duty refinishing of 
automobiles, trucks, tractors, lawn 
mowers, and other like mobile 
equipment. 

(2) The plastic housings and other 
exterior plastic components of 
electronic office equipment and of 
medical and musical equipment, 
including, but not limited to the 
following: computers, monitors, printers 
and keyboards, facsimile machines, 
copiers, microfiche readers, cellular and 
standard phones, and pencil sharpeners. 
The internal electrical components of 
business machines are, however, 
excluded firom being applicable to this 
rule. 


211.1880 Electromagnetic Interference/ 
Radio Frequency Interference (EMI/RFI) 
Shielding Coatings 
211.1900 Electrostatic Prep Coat 
211.2360 Flexible Coating 
211.2630 Gloss Reducers 
211.4055 Non-Flexible Coating 
211.4740 Plastic Part 
211.5480 Reflective Argent Coating 
211.5600 Resist Coat 
211.6060 Soft Coat 
211.6140 Specialty Coatings 
211.6400 Stencil Coat 
211.6580 Texture Coat 
211.6880 Vacuum Metallizing 

Part 218: Organic Material Emission 
Standards and Limitations for the Chicago 
Area 

Subpart F: Coating Operations 

218.204(n) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts 
Coating: Automotive/Transportation 
218.204(o) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts 
Coating: Business Machine 
218.205(g) Daily-Weighted Average Limits 
for Plastic Parts 

218.207(i) Alternative Emission Limitations 
for Plastic Parts 

Part 219: Organic Material Emission 
Standards and Limitations for the Metro- 
East St Louis Area 

Subpart F: Coating Operations 

219.204(m) Emission Limits for Plastic 
Pacts Coating: Automotive/ ' 
Transportation 

219.204(n) Emission Limits for Plastic Parts 
Coating: Business Machine 


The Illinois plastic parts coating rule 
establishes VOM emission limitations 
which can be met in one of three ways: 
(a) Through the use of coatings meeting 
a low-VOM content limit (218.204 [n] 
and [o]/219.204 [m] and [n]), (b) having 
coating lines which apply coatings that 
are all subject to the same VOM content 
limit (specified in section 218/219.204) 
meet a daily-weighted average limit 
based upon that content limit 
(218.205[g]/219.205[fj), or (c) use of an 
add-on capture system and control 
device (218.207[i]/219.207[h]). 

The VOM content limits for plastic 
parts coatings established in sections 
218/219.204 are specified below. The 
limits are expressed in units of VOM per 
voliune of coating (minus water and any 
compoimds whi(^ are specifically 
exempted from the defi:^tion of VOM). 



Plastic Parts Coating: Automotive/ 


. Transportation 


(1) Interiors: 

(A) Baked: 



(i) Color coat. 

0.49 

4.1 

(ii) Primer. 

0.46 

3.8 

(B) Air Dried: 

(i) Color coat. 

0.38 

3.2 

(ii) Primer. 

0.42 

3.5 

(2) Exteriors (flexible and 
norvflexS)le): 

(A) Baked: 

(i) Primer. 

0.60 

5.0 



kg/I 

Ib/gal 

(ii) Primer non-flexible ... 

0.54 

4.5 

(iii) Clear coat. 

0.52 

4.3 

(hr) Color coat. 

0.55 

4.6 

(B) Air Dried- 
(i) Primer... 

0.66 

5.5 

(ii) Clear coat.. 

0.54 

4.5 

(iii) Color coat (red & 
black) . 

0.67 

5.6 

(iv) Color coat (others) .. 

0.61 

5.1 

(3) Specialty: 

(A) Vacuum metallizing 
basecoats, texture 

hasAnrtfit.<t . 

0.66 

5.5 

(B) Black coatings, reflec¬ 
tive argent coatings, air 

bag cover coatings, and 
soft coatings . 

0.71 

5.9 

(C) Gloss reducers, vacu¬ 
um metallizing topcoats, 
and texture topcoats. 

0.77 

6.4 

(D) Stencil coatings, adhe¬ 
sion primers, ink pad 
coati^, electrostatic 
prep coatings, arvi resist 
coatings . 

0.82 

6.8 

(E) Head lamp lens coat¬ 
ings .. 

0.89 

7.4 


Plastic Parts Coating: Business Machine 


(1) Primer... 

0.14 

1.2 

(2) Color coat (norvtexture 
coat) . 

0J28 

2.3 

(3) Color coat (texture coat) . 

0.28 

2.3 

(4) Electromagnetic inter¬ 
ference/radio frequency in¬ 
terference shielding coat¬ 
ings . 

0.48 

4.0 

(5) Spedalty Coatings: 

(A) Soft Coat. 

0.52 

4.3 

(B) Plating Resist. 

0.71 

5.9 

(C) Plating Sensitizer. 

0.85 

7.1 


In addition to meeting the provisions 
for emission limitations found within 
the Illinois plastic parts rule, applicable 
sorirces will have to meet provisions for 
test methods and reporting and 
recordkeeping, as specified in the rule. 

in. Final Rulemaking Action 

The USEPA has undertaken its 
analysis of the SIP revision request, 
based upon its plastic parts coating 
Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 
docvunent, and has determined that the 
rule’s control requirements are 
equivEdent to what is Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) 
for this source category. On this basis, 
the USEPA has determined that this SIP 
revision request is approvable. 

The USEPA is publishing this action 
without prior proposal because USEPA 
views this action as a noncontroversial 
revision and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, USEPA is 
publishing a separate dociunent in this 
Federal Register publication, which 
























Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54809 


constitutes a “proposed approval" of the 
requested SIP revision and clarifies that' 
the rulemaking will not be deemed final 
if timely adverse or critical comments 
are filed. The “direct final” approval 
shall be effective on December 26,1995, 
imless USEPA receives adverse or 
critical comments by November 27, 

1995. If USEPA receives comments 
adverse to or critical of the approval 
discussed above, USEPA will withdraw 
this approval before its effective date by 
publisUng a subsequent Federal 
Register notice which withdraws this 
final action. All public comments 
received will then be addressed in a 
subsequent rulemaking document. 

Please be aware that USEPA will 
institute another comment period on 
this action only if warranted by 
significant revisions to the rulemaking 
based on any comments received in 
response to today’s action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, USEPA hereby 
advises the public that this action will 
be effective on December 26,1995. 

This action has been classified as a 
Table 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures 
published in the Federal Register on 
January 19.1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as 
revised by an October 4,1993, 
memorandum firom Michael H. Shapiro, 
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 
and ludiation. The Office of 
Management and Budget has exempted 
this regulatory action finm Executive 
Order 12866 review. 

Nothing in this action should be 
construed as permitting, allowing or 
establishing a precedent for any fiiture 
request for revision to any SIP. USEPA 
shall consider each request for revision 
to the SEP in light of specific technical, 
economic, and environmental factors 
and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(“Unfunded Mandates Act”) (signed 
into law on March 22,1995) requires 
that the USEPA prepare a budgetary 
impact statement before promulgating a 
rule that includes a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or by private sector, of 
$100 million or more in any one year. 
Section 203 requires the USEPA to 
establish a plan for obtaining input finm 
and informing, educating, and advising 
any small governments ^at may be 
significantly or uniquely.affected by the 
rule. 

Under section 205 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act, the USEPA must identify 
and consider a reasonable number of 


regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a 
budgetary impact statement must be 
prepared. The USEPA must select from 
those alternatives the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least biirdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule, unless the USEPA explains 
why this alternative is not selected or 
the selection of this alternative is 
inconsistent with law. 

Because this final rule is estimated to 
result in the expenditine by State, local, 
and tribal governments or die private 
sector of less then $100 million in any 
one year, the USEPA has not prepared 
a budgetary impact statement or 
specifically addressed the selection of 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or 
least burdensome alternative. Because 
small governments will not be 
significantly or imiquely affected by this, 
rule, the USEPA is not required to 
develop a plan with regard to small 
governments. This rule only approves 
the incorporation of existing state rules 
into the SIP. It imposes no additional 
requirements. 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 
assessing the impact of any proposed or 
final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604.) Alternatively, USEPA may 
certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small not-for- 
profit enterprises, and government 
entities with jurisdiction over 
populations of less than 50,000. 

dip approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter 1, part D of the Clean Air Act 
do not create any new requirements, but 
simply approve requirements that the 
State is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the Federal SIP approval does 
not impose any new requirements, I 
certify that it does not have a significant 
impact on any small entities affected. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship imder the 
Act, preparation of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of the State action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its 
actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA., 
427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 
this action must be filed in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by December 26, 
1995. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of 
this final rule does not affect the finality 


of this rule for the purposes of judioAl 
review nor does it extend the time 
within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not 
postpone the effectiveness of such rule 
or action. This action may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to * 
enforce its requirements. (See Section 
307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control. Environmental 
protection. Incorporation by reference. 

Dated: September 22,1995. 

David A. Ullrich, 

Acting Regional Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 
preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Reflations is 
amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 

Subpart O—Illinois 

2. Section 52.720 is amended by 
adding paragraph (c)(116) to read as 
follows: 

§ 52.720 Identification of plan. 
***** 

(c) * * * 

(116) On May 5,1995, and May 26, 
1995, the State submitted a rule for 
automotive/transportation and business 
machine plastic parts coating 
operations, which consisted of new 
volatile organic compound emission 
limitations to the Ozone Control Plan 
for the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 
areas. 

fi) Incorporation by reference. Illinois 
Administrative Code. Title 35: 
Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: 
Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution 
Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions 
Standards and Limitations for 
Stationary Sources. 

(A) Part 211: Definitions and General 
Provisions, Subpart B; IDefinitions, 
Sections 211.660 Automotive/ 
Transportation Plastic Parts, 211.670 
Baked Coatings, 211.820 Business 
Machine Plastic Parts, 211.1880 
Electromagnetic Interference/Radio 
Frequency Interference Shielding 
Coatings, 211.1900 Electrostatic Prep 
Coat, 211.2360 Flexible Coatings, 
211.2630 Gloss Reducers, 211.4055 
Non-Flexible Coating, 211.4740 Plastic 
Part, 211.5480 Reflective Argent 
Coating, 211.5600 Resist Coat, 211.6060 
Soft Coat, 211.6140 Specialty Coatings, 
211.6400 Stencil Coat, 211.6580 Texture 
Coat, and 211.6880 Vacuum Metallizing, 







54810 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


amended at 19 Ill. 6823, effective May 
9,1995. 

(B) Part 218: Organic Material 
Emission Standards and Limitations for 
the Chicago Area, Subpart F; Coating 
Operations, Sections 218.204 Emission 
Limitations, Subsection (n) Plastic Parts 
Coating: Automotive/Tninsportation 
and (o) Plastic Parts Coating: Business 
Machine, 218.205 Daily-Weighted 
Average Limitations, Subsection (g), and 

218.207 Alternative Emission 
Limitations, Subsection (i), amended at 
19 Ill. 6848, effective May 9,1995. 

(C) Part 219: Organic Material 
Emissions Standards and Limitations for 
the Metro-East Area. Subpart F; Coating 
Operations, Section 219.204 Emission 
Limitations, Subsection (m) Plastic Parts 
Coating: Automotive/Transportation 
and (n) Plastic Parts Coating: Business 
Machine, 219.205 Daily-Weighted 
Average Limitations, Subsection (f), and 

219.207 Alternative Emission 
Limitations, Subsection (h), amended at 
19 Ill. Reg. 6958, effective f^y 9,1995. 

(FR Doc 95-26585 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 

BIUJNO OOOE 6660-«0-P 

40CFRPart52 

PL12fr-1-7031a; FRL-6299-q 

Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans; Illinois 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 
Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 5,1995, the State of 
Illinois submitted a State - 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
request to the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA) for wood furniture coating 
operations as part of the State’s 15 
percent (%) Reasonable Further Progress 
(RFP) plan control measures for Volatile 
Organic Matter (VOM) emissions. A 
supplement to this request was 
submitted on May 26,1995. USEPA 
made a finding of completeness in a 
letter dated July 13,1995. A final 
approval action is being taken because 
the submittal meets all pertinent Federal 
requirements. The SIP revision modifies 
the source size applicability cut-off for 
wood fumitiue coating operation 
facilities located in the Chicago and 
Metro-East St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment areas firom 100 to 25 tons 
of VOM emitted, or potential to emit, 
per year. The USEPA is publishing this 
action without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this action as a 
noncontroversial revision and 
anticipates no adverse comments. 


However, USEPA is publishing a 
separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, which constitutes 
a “proposed approval’’ of the requested 
SIP revision and clarifies that the 
rulemaking will not be deemed final if 
timely adverse or critical comments are 
filed. If USEPA receives comments 
adverse to or critical of the approval, 
USEPA will withdraw this approval 
before its effective date by publishing a 
subsequent Federal Register document 
which withdraws this final action. All 
public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking 
document. Please be aware that USEPA 
will institute another conunent period 
on this action only if warranted by 
significant revisions to the rulemaking 
b^d on any comments received in 
response to today’s action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. 

DATES: The direct final rule is effective 
on December 26,1995, unless USEPA 
receives adverse or critical comments by 
November 27,1995. If the effective date 
is delayed, timely notice will be 
published in the Federal Register. 
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision 
request and USEPA’s analysis 
(Technical Support Document) are 
available for inspection at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is 
recommended that you telephone Mark 
J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082 before 
visiting the Region 5 Office.) 

Written comments should be sent to: 

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Regulation 
Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(the Act) requires all moderate and 
above ozone nonattaimnent areas to 
achieve a 15% reduction of 1990 
emissions of VOM by 1996 (VOM, as 
defined by the State of Illinois, is 
identical to “volatile organic 
compounds’’, as defined by USEPA). In 
Illinois, the Chicago area is classified as 
“severe” nonattainment for ozone, 
while the Metro-East area is classified as 
“moderate” nonattainment. As such, 
these areas are subject to the 15% RFP 
retirement. 

On September 12,1994, the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency 


(lEPA) filed the proposed amended 
wood furniture coating rule with the 
Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board). 
A public hearing on the rule was held 
on November 4, December 2, and 
December 16,1994, in Chicago, Illinois, 
and on April 20,1995, the Board 
adopted a Final Opinion and Order for 
the proposed amendment. The rule 
became effective on May 9,1995, and it 
was published in the Illinois State 
register on May 19,1995. The EEPA 
formally submitted the wood furniture 
coating rule to USEPA on May 5,1995, 
as a revision to the Illinois SIP for 
ozone, and supplemental 
documentation to this revision was 
submitted on May 26,1995. In doing so, 
lEPA believes that this SIP revision will 
insure that no increase in VOM 
emission for this sorirce category occurs 
which negatively impacts Illinois’ 15% 
RFP plan. 

n. Anal 3 rsi 8 of State Sulmiittal 

The May 5,1995 revision extends the 
applicability of Illinois’ wood furniture 
coating rule requirements to those 
sources emitting, or having the potential 
to emit, 25 tons of VOM per year. The 
requirements were originally applicable 
only to those sources emitting or having 
a potential to emit 100 tons or more per 
year of VOM. 

USEPA’s Control Techniques 
Guideline (CTG) for wood furniture 
coating operations, which is to specify 
what Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) is for this source 
category, has yet to be finally published. 
(Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires 
moderate and above ozone 
nonattainment areas to submit rules 
covering each post-1990 CTG source 
category which are equivalent to RACT 
as specified by each source category’s 
CTG, by certain dates set forth by 
USEPA upon issuing each CTG.) The 
Illinois rule is considered to be interim 
RACT at this time; however, after the 
wood furniture coating CTG is issued by 
USEPA, Illinois will need to revise its 
rule, as necessary, in light of the new 
document, as required by Section 
182(b)(2) of the Act. 

m. Final Rulemaking Action 

The USEPA has vmdertaken its 
analysis of the SIP revision request and 
has determined that this SIP revision 
request is f.pprovable. However, after 
the final woc^ furniture coating CTG is 
issued by USEPA, Illinois will need to 
revise its wood furniture coating rule, as 
necessary, in li^t of the new document, 
as required by Action 182(b)(2) of the 
Act. 

This rule, applicable to the Chicago 
and Metro-East St. Louis ozone 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54811 


nonattainment areas, amends 35 Illinois 
Administrative Code section 218.208(b) 
and 219.208(b). 

The USEPA is publishing this action 
without prior proposal because USEPA 
views this action as a noncontroversial 
revision and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, USEPA is 
publishing a separate document in this 
Federal Register publication, which 
constitutes a “proposed approval” of the 
requested SIP revision and clarifies that 
the rulemaking will not be deemed final 
if timely adverse or critical comments 
are filed. The “direct final” approval 
shall be effective on December 26,1995, 
unless USEPA receives adverse or 
critical cwnments by November 27, 

1995. If USEPA receives comments 
adverse to or critical of the approval 
discussed above, USEPA will withdraw 
this approval before its effective date by 
publisMng a subsequent Federal 
Register document which withdraws 
this final action. All public comments 
received will then be addressed in a 
subsequent rulemaking document. 
Please be aware that USEPA will 
institute another comment period oh 
this action only if warranted by 
significant revisions to the rulemaking 
based oh any comments received in 
response to today’s action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. If no such ' 
comments are received, USEPA hereby 
advises the public that this action will 
be efiective on December 26,1995. 

This action has been classified as a 
Table 3 action by tbe Regional 
Administrator under the procedures 
published in the Federal Register on 
January 19,1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as 
revised by a July 10,1995 memorandum 
finm Mary Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation. 
The Office of Management and Budget 
has exempted this regulatory action 
from Executive Order 12866 review. 

Nothing in this action should be 
construed as permitting, allowing or 
establishing a precedent for any friture 
request for revision to any SIP. USEPA 
shall consider each request for revision 
to the SIP in light of specific technical, 
economic, and environmental factors 
and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(“Unfunded Mandates Act”) (signed 
into law on March 22^ 1995) requires 
that the USEPA prepare a budgetary 
impact statement before promulgating a 
rule that includes a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100 million or more in any one year. 


Section 203 requires the USEPA to 
establish a plan for obtaining input fix)m 
and informing, educating, and advising 
any small governments that may be 
significantly or imiquely affected by the 
rule. 

Under section 205 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act, the USEPA must identify 
and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a 
budgetary impact statement must be 
prepared. The USEPA must select from 
those alternatives the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule, unless the USEPA explains 
why this alternative is not selected or 
the selection of this alternative is 
inconsistent with law. 

Because this final rule is estimated to 
result in the expenditure by State, local, 
and tribal governments or the private 
sector of less then $100 million in any 
one year, the USEPA has not prepared 
a budgetary impact statement or 
specifically ad^essed the selection of 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or 
least burdensome alternative. Because 
small governments will not be 
significantly or uniquely affected by this 
rule, the USEPA is not required to 
develop a plan with regard to small 
governments. This rule only approves 
the incorporation of existing state rules 
into the SIP. It imposes no additional 
requirements. 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 
assessing the impact of any proposed or 
final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604.) Alternatively, USEPA may 
certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial 
munber of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small not-for- 
profit enterprises, and government 
entities with jurisdiction over 
populations of less than 50,000. 

SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 
do not create any new requirements, but 
simply approve requirements that the 
State is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the Federal SIP-approval does 
not impose any new requirements, I 
certify that it does not have a significant 
impact on any small entities affected. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the 
Act, preparation of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of the State action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its 
actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA., 


427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 
this action must be filed in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by December 26, 

1995. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of 
this final rule does not afiect the finality 
of this rule for the piuposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time 
within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not 
postpone the effectiveness of such rule 
or action. This action may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See Section 
307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection. Air 
pollution control,Incorporation by 
reference. 

Dated: August 9,1995. 

Valdas V. Adamkus, 

Regional Administrator. 

For tbe reasons stated in the 
preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows: 

PART 52—{AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 

Subpart O—Illinois 

2. Section 52.720 is amended by 
adding paragraph (c)(115) to read as 
follows: 

§ 52.720 Identification of plan. 
***** 

(c) * * * 

(115) On May 5,1995, and May 26, 
1995, the State submitted an amended 
coating rule which consisted of a 
tightened applicability cut-off level for 
wood furniture coating operations to the 
Ozone Control Plan for the Chicago and 
Metro-East St. Louis areas. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. Illinois 
Administrative Code, Title 35: 
Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: 

Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution 
Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions 
Standards and Limitations for 
Stationary Sources. 

(A) Part 218: Organic Material 
Emission Standards and Limitations for 
the Chicago Area, Subpart F; Coating 
Operations, Sections 218.208 
Exemptions from Emission Limitations, 
Subsection (b), amended at 19 Ill. Reg. 
6848, effective May 9,1995. 

(B) Part 219: Organic Material 
Emissions Standards and Limitations for 






54812 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


the Metro-East Area, Subpart F; Coating 
Operations, Section 219.208 Exemptions 
horn Emission Limitations, Subsection 
(b), amended at 19 IlL Reg. 6958, 
elective May 9,1995. 

(FR Doc. 95-26587 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ COOC WM-80-P 


40CFRPart52 

[WA8-1-5478a; WA36-1-6e51a: FRL-5315- 
7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans: Washington 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 
Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
approves PM-10 contingency measures 
for Seattle and Kent, Washington. At the 
same time, EPA is providing notice that 
the conditicms required imder the Jime 
23,1994 (59 FR 32370), conditional 
approval of the Seattle PM-10 
attainment plan have been met. 

DATES: This action is effective on 
December 26,1995, unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by 
November 27,1995. If the effective date 
is delayed, timely notice will be 
published in the Federal Register. 
ADDRESSES: Written comments should 
be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SiP 
Manager, EPA Air & Radiation Branch 
(AT-082), Docket WA36-1-6951,1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101. 

Documents which are incorporated by 
reference are available for public 
inspection at the Air and Radiation 
Do^et and Information Center, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M Street. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. 
Copies of material submitted to EPA 
may be examined dxuing normal 
business horns at the following 
locations: EPA, Region 10, Air & 
Radiation Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue 
(AT-082), Seattle, Washington 98101, 
and the Washington Department of 
Ecology, PO Box 47600, Olympia, 
Washington 98504. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
George Lauderdale, EPA Air & Radiation 
Branch (AT-082), 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553- 
6511. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Seattle and Kent, Washington 
areas were designated nonattainment for 
PM-10 and classified as moderate under 
sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the 


Clean Air Act, by operation of law uppn 
enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990. ‘ See 56 FR 56694 
(Nov. 6,1991) (official designation 
codified at 40 CFR 81.348). The air 
quality planning requirements for 
moderate PM-10 nonattaimnent areas 
are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of part 
D, title I of the Act. The EPA has issued 
a “General Preamble” describing EPA’s 
preliminary views on how EPA intends 
to review SIP’s and SIP revisions 
submitted under title I of the Act, 
including those State submittals 
containing moderate PM-10 
nonattainment area SIP requirements 
(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16. 
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 

1992)). Because EPA is describing its 
interpretations here only in broad terms, 
the reader should refer to the General 
Preamble for a more detailed discussion 
of the interpretations of title I advanced 
in this proposal and the supporting 
rationale. In this rulemaking action on 
the Washington moderate PM-10 SIP for 
the Seattle and Kent nonattainment 
areas, EPA is proposing to apply its 
interpretations, taking into 
consideration the specific factual issues 
presented. Additional information 
supporting EPA’s action on these 
particular areas is available for 
inspection at the address indicated 
above. 

Those States containing initial 
moderate PM-10 nonattaiiunent areas 
(those areas designated nonattainment 
under section 107(d)(4)(B)) were 
required to submit attainment plans by 
November 15,1991, with some 
plovisions due at a later date. States 
with initial moderate PM-10 
nonattainment areas were required to 
submit contingency measures by 
November 15,1993 which become 
effective without further action by the 
State or EPA, upon a determination by 
EPA that the area has failed to achieve 
RFP or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by 
the applicable statutory deadline (see 
section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-44). 

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out 
provisions governing EPA’s review of 
SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). 
Section 110(k)(4) of the Act authorizes 
EPA to conditionally approve a plan 
revision based on a commitment by the 
State to adopt specific enforceable 
measures by a date certain, but not later 
than one year after the date of approval 
of the plan revision. EPA would then 
assess the approvability of the submittal 


■ Tne 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act 
made significant changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 
101-549,104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to 
the Clean Air Act, as amended ("the Act"). The 
Clean Air Act is codihed, as amended, in the U.S. 
Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 


after the State fulfilled its commitment. 
Previous EPA actions include approval 
of the Kent attainment area plan and 
conditional approval of the Seattle 
attainment area plan. 

EPA conditionally approved the 
Seattle moderate area plan on June 23, 
1994 (see 59 FR 32370). The conditional 
approval was based on the commitment, . 
contained in the May 11,1994, SIP 
submittal, by the Washington 
Department of Ecology (Ecology) to 
decrease the emission limits for point 
sources contributing to the PM-10 
problem. During review of the 
November 15,1991 SIP submittal for 
Seattle, EPA concluded that the plan 
needed specific enforceable emission 
limits for several point sources in the 
area. Emission contributions from those 
sources had been estimated in the plan 
at the actual level. Those actual 
emissions were unenforceable because 
the sources could emit additional 
pollution without violating any 
regulation. Washington’s regulations in 
effect set higher emission limits than the 
facilities were actually emitting. Before 
EPA could fully approve the attainment 
plan, the attainment and three year 
maintenance demonstrations would 
have to be based on the allowable 
emissions from the point sources. On 
May 11,1995, Ecology submitted these 
new emission limits and adequately 
demonstrated attaiiunent and three year 
maintenance using the new limits. 
Progress in attaining the PM-10 
standards in Seattle has been 
demonstrated by the area not exceeding 
the PM-10 24-hour health standard 
since 1989. The emission limits were 
developed, implemented and will be 
enforc^ by the Puget Sound Air 
Pollution Authority (PSAPCA) through 
Orders of Approval issued for each 
source by the agency. 

In addition to the enforceable 
emission limits. Ecology also submitted 
on May 11,1995 a contingency measure 
for the Seattle nonattainment area. As 
provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, 
all moderate nonattainment area SIP’s 
that demonstrate attainment must 
include contingency measures (see 
generally 57 FR 13543—44). These 
measures were required to be submitted 
by November 15,1993 for the initial 
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. 
These measures must take effect without 
further regulatory action by the State or 
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that 
the area has failed to make RFP or attain 
the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable 
statutory deadline. 

Ecology did not submit a contingency 
measure for Seattle by the November 15, 
1993, statutory deadline. EPA sent a 
letter (dated January 13,1994) to the 





Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1095 / Rules and Regulations 54813 


Governor of Washington noting the 
deficiency to submit the contingency 
measvire and initiating an 18 month 
timefiame for the state to correct the 
problem. On May 11,1995, Ecology 
submitted the Seattle contingency 
measure. This measure bans the use of 
all uncertified woodstoves in the tirea 
where woodstoves are a major 
contributing factor to any NAAQS 
violations. Implementation of this 
measure would occur if the area fails to 
attain or maintain the NAAQS for PM- 
10. The PSAPCA relation which 
allows implementation of the 
contingency measure is Regulation I, 
Section 13.07. State law allows this 
regulation to take effect on or after July 
1,1995. 

EPA approved all elements of the 
Kent, Washington, PM-10 
nonattainment plan that were due on 
November 15,1991, in a March 16,1993 
Federal Register dociunent (see 58 FR 
14194). In that approval, EPA took no 
action on the contingency measure 
element becaiise it was not due imtil 
November 15,1993. Ecology made the 
case in a May 11,1994, letter that the 
shut down of a major point source, 
.S alm on Bay Steel, resulted in 
significantly more control than was 
necessary to demonstrate attainment. 
After further discussion with Ecology 
and PSAPCA, EPA has concluded that 
the contingency measure requirement 
has been met in the Kent area through 
the attainment and three-year 
maintenance emission reduction plan. 
The magnitude and permanence of the 
closing of the steel facility reduced the 
emissions so dramatically that EPA 
thinks it is reasonable for Ecology to 
include some of the actual reductions as 
early implementation of a contingency 
measure. Actual air quality monitoring 
in the nonattainment area verifies 
significant improvement to the air 
quality of the area. Neither the 24-hour 
or annual PM-10 NAAQS have been 
exceeded since 1986. The highest 24- 
hour value in the past three years was 
92 pg/m 3 . This action completes EPA 
approval of all elements of the Kent 
PM-10 attainment plan. 

n. This Action 

EPA is taking three separate actions 
with this notice; approval of an 
uncertified woodstove ban contingency 
measure for the Seattle, Washington 
PM-10 nonattainment area, approval of 
the major plant closure overcontrol 
contingency ipeasure element for the 
Kent, Washington PM-10 area, and 
notice that the conditions have been met 
for the Jime 23,1994, conditional 
approval of the Seattle PM-10 plan 
wUch includes allowable emission 


limitations. These actions will complete 
EPA’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
attaimnent area plan approvals for both 
the Kent and Seattle PM-10 
nonattainment areas. 

m. Administrative Review 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare 
a regulatory flexibility analysis 
assessing the impact of any proposed or 
final rule on smdl entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify 
that the rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial n\imber of small 
entities. Small entities include small 
bvisinesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities 
with jurisdiction over populations of 
less than 50,000. 

SIP approvals imder section 110 and 
subchapter 1, Part D of the CAA do not 
create any new requirements, but 
simply approve requirements that the 
state is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the federal SIP-approval does 
not impose any new requirements, I 
certify that it does not have a significant 
impact on any small entities affected. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the 
federal-state relationship under the 
CAA, prep£iration of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 
U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2). 

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed 
into law on March 22,1995, EPA must 
prepare a budgetary impact statement to 
accompany any proposed or final rule 
that includes a Federal mandate that 
may result in estimated costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate; or to the private sector, of 
$100 million or more. Under Section 
205, EPA must select the most cost-., 
effective and least bmdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA^s determined that the approval 
action promulgated does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more 
to either State, loced, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. This Federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements 
under State or local law, and imposes 


no new Federal requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to 
State, local) or tribal governments, or to 
the private sector, result fiom this 
action. 

The EPA has reviewed this request for 
revision of the federally-approv^ SIP 
for conformance with the provisions of 
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 
enacted on November 15,1990. The 
EPA has determined that this action 
conforms with those requirements. 

Nothing in this action should be 
construed as permitting or allowing or 
establishing a precedent for any future 
request for revision to any SIP. Each 
request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific 
technical, economic and environmental 
factors and in relation to relevant 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 

This action has been classified as a 
Table 3 action for signature by the 
Regional Administrator under the 
procedures published in the Federal 
Register on January 19,1989 (54 FR 
2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 

1995 memorandiun from Mary Nichols, 
Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation. 

The EPA is publishing this action 
without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial 
amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate 
document in this Federal Register 
publication, the EPA is proposing to 
approve the SIP revision should adverse 
or critical comments be filed. This 
action will be effective December 26, 
1995, imless, by November 27,1995, 
adverse or critical comments are 
received. 

If the EPA receives such comments, 
this action will be withdrawn before the 
effective date by publishing a 
subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public 
comments received will be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on this 
action serving as a proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time. If no 
such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this action will be 
effective December 26,1995. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 
this action must be filed in the United 
States Covul of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by December 26, 
1995. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of 
this final rule does not affect the finaUty 
of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time 
within which a petition for judicial 






54814 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, CDctober 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


review may be filed and shall not 
postpone the efiectiveness of such rule 
or action. This action may not be 
challenged later in proce^ngs to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 
307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)). 

It has been determined that this rule 
is not a “significant regulatory action” 
rmder the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to 
0MB review. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection. Air 
pollution control. Incorporation by 
reference. Particulate matter. . 

Note: Incorporation by reference of the 
Implementation Plan for the State of 
Washington was approved by the Director of 
the Office of Fede^ Register on July 1,1982. 

Dated: October 2,1995. 

Chuck Clarice, 

Regional Administrator. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401-7671q. 

Subpart WW—Washington 

2. Section 52.2470 is amended by 
adding paragraph (c) (58) to read as 
follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 
***** 

(c) * * * 

(58) On February 21,1995 and May 
11,1994, WDOE submitted to EPA 
revisions to the Washington SIP 
addressing the contingency measures for 
the Seattle and Kent PM-10 
nonattainment plans. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) February 21,1995 letter from the 
Washington Elepartment of Ecology to 
EPA Region 10 submitting PSAPCA 
Section 13.07—Contingency Plan, 
adopted December 8,1994, as a revision 
to the Seattle PM-10 attainment plan 
and the Washington SIP. 

(B) May 11,1994 letter from WDOE to 
. EPA Region 10 submitting clarifying 

documentation to the contingency 
measure for Kent Valley PM-10 
attainment plan. 

IFR Doc. 95-26592 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 

BILUNQ CODE 6660-50-P 


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Public Land Order 7169 
[08-043-1430-01; QPS-134; OR-61332] 

Withdrawal of National Forest System 
Land for Wocus Point; Oregon 

AGENCY: Biureau of Land Management, 
Interior. 

ACTION: Public Land Order. 

SUMMARY: This order unthdraws 86.85 
acres of National Forest System land in 
the Winema National Forest from 
mining for a period of 20 years for the 
Department of Agricultmre, Forest 
Service, to protect the cultural resource 
sites at Wocus Point. The land has been 
and will remain open to such forms of 
disposition as may by law be made of 
National Forest System land and to 
mineral leasing. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26,1995. 

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 in 
the Secretary of the Interior by Section 
204 of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976,43 U.S.C. 

1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows: 

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the 
follovnng described National Forest 
System land is hereby writhdrawn from 
location and entry imder the United 
States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 
(1988)), but not from leasing imder the 
mineral leasing laws, to protect the 
cultural resource sites at Wocus Point: 

Willamette Meridian 
Winema National Forest 
T, 31 S.. R. 9 E., 

Sec. 30, lots 2 and 3. and N’ANEV4SWV4. 
The area described contains 86.85 acres in 
Klamath County. 

2. The withdrawal made by this order 
does not alter the applicability of those 
public land laws governing the use of 
the National Forest System land under 
lease, license, or permit, or governing 
the disposal of their mineral or 
vegetative resources other than under 
the mining laws. 

3. This withdrawal will expire 20 
years from the effective date of this 
order unless, as a result of a review 
conducted before the expiration date 
pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976,43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1988), the 
Secretary determines that the 
withdrawal shall be extended. 


Dated: October 16,1995. 

Bob Armstrong, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. 95-26607 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 4310-3S-P 


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 68 
[CC Docket No. 79-143] 

Connection of Terminal Equipment to 
the Telephone Network 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 
Commission. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

summary: This document contains 
typographical corrections to final 
regulations which were published 
March 31,1980 (45 FR 20830). The 
regulations relate to conditions, to 
registration of terminal equipment, 
regarding hazardous voltage limitations. 
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Elizabeth Nightingale, (202) 418-2352, 
Network Services Division, Common 
Carrier Bureau. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Background 

The final regulations that are the 
subject of these corrections concern 
conditions, to registration of terminal 
equipment under Part 68, regarding 
hazardous voltage limitations under 
§ 68.306(a). 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final regulations 
contain errors which may prove to be 
misleading and are in need of 
clarification. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 68 

Communications common carriers. 
Telecommunications. 

Accordingly, 47 CFR Part 68 is 
corrected by making the following 
correcting amendments: 

PART 68—CONNECTION OF 
TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE 
TELEPHONE NETWORK 

1. The authority citation for 47 CFR 
Part 68, Subpart D, continues to read as 
follows: 

Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 303,48 Stat., as 
amended, 1066,1068,1082 (47 U.S.C. 154, 
155, 303). 

§68.306 [Corrected] 

2. In § 68.306, paragraph (a)(4) is 
amended by removing the designations 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54815 


for (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) each place they 
appear. 

3. In § 68.306, paragraph (a)(5) is 
amended by removing the designations 
for (i), (ii), and (iii) each place diey 
appear. 

Federal Communications Commission. 
William F. Caton, 

Acting Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-25247 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
Ba.UNQ CODE 6712-01-M 


47CFRPart76 

[MM Docket Nos. 92-266; 93-215, FCC 95- 
343] 

Rates for Cable Programming Service 
Tiers; External Costs 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 
Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This Twelfth Order on 
Reconsideration (“The Order”) amends 
the Commission’s rules to eliminate the 
requirement that cable operators, when 
adding home shopping channels to 
cable programming service tiers, offset 
the per channel mark up with revenues 
received as sales commissions firom 
such home shopping channels. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23,1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paul Glenchur, Cable Services Bureau, 
(202) 416-1150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 
synopsis of the Commission’s Twelfth 
Order on Reconsideration in MM Elocket 
Nos. 92-266 and 93-215, FCC 95-343, 
adopted August 7,1995 and released 
August 8,1995. The complete text of 
this dociunent is available for 
inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference 
Center, 1919 M St. NW., Washington, 
DC, and also may be purchased from the 
Commission’s copy contractor. 
International Transcription Service 
(ITS) at 2100 M St. NW., Washington, 
DC 20037, (202) 857-3800. 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Sixth Order on 
Reconsideration, Fifth Report and 
Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (“Going Forward Order”), 
59 FR 62614 (December 6,1994), the 
Commission adopted rules providing 
incentives for cable operators to add 
new channels to their cable 
programming service tiers. Those rules 
allow operators a per channel mark up 
of up to 20 cents. With respect to home 
shopping channels, however, operators 
are required to offset this mark up with 
sales commission revenues received 


from such channels. Several 
programming entities, including Home 
Shopping Network, Inc. (“HSN”) and 
QVC, Inc. (“QVC”), filed petitions for 
reconsideration of the sales commission 
ofiset requirement. In this Twelfth 
Order on Reconsideration, the 
Commission grants these petitions for 
reconsideration and eliminates the 
home shopping offset requirement. 

n. Elimination of Offsets 

A. Background 

2. Generally, an operator will pay a 
licensing fee to a programmer for the 
right to carry that programmer’s service. 
This licensing fee, or program cost, is 
part of the overall cost that a 
programmer can recover as an “external 
cost” when rates are adjusted to account 
for the addition of a program service to 
an operator’s chaimel lineup. In an 
eftort to ensine that an operator’s 
program cost reflects the actual cost of 
carrying a program service, the 
Commission, in the Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 58 FR 29736 (May 21, 

1993), required that revenues received 
from a programmer, or shared by a 
programmer with an operator, be netted 
agaipst programming costs when 
calculating net programming costs that 
can be recovered through regulated 
rates. 

3. In the Going Forward Order, the 
Commission established new rules 
governing the amount by which an 
operator can mark up its rates in 
addition to license fees to account for 
the addition of new channels to its 
CPST. These rules establish a mark up 
per channel of up to 20 cents subject to 
an overall cap of $1.20 for the first two 
years. Moreover, in that Order, the 
Commission applied the revenue 
ofisetting requirement to the per 
channel mark up for channels added to 
Cable Programming Service Tiers 
(“CPSTs”). Specifically, the Going 
Forward Order provided that revenues 
received from programmers must be 
deducted from programming costs and, 
to the extent revenues remain, from the 
operator’s mark up. Offsetting applies 
on a chaimel-by-channel basis. In 
addition, the Going Forward Order 
reaffirmed that commissions received by 
an operator firom programmers will be 
treated as revenues received from 
programmers. Thus, commissions 
received by operators must first be 
netted against programming costs. 
Remaining commission revenues must 
be deducted from the per channel 
adjustment. 


B. Petitions for Reconsideration 

4. A number of parties filed petitions 
for reconsideration in response to the 
Going Forward Order. Home shopping 
entities such as QVC, Inc. and Home 
Shopping Network. Inc. contend that 
requiring operators to ofiset the 
operator’s mark up with sales 
commissions discriminates against 
home shopping services. They argue 
that other programming networks ofier 
advertising availabilities to ofierators 
and the value represented by such 
advertising availabilities is not ofiset 
against programming costs or the 
channel adjustment. In their view, this 
establishes a regulatory disincentive to 
add home shopping while encouraging 
the addition of traditional programming. 
Moreover, QVC contends that mark ups 
for channels added to the CPST reflect 
“network costs” which, unlike 
programming costs, are not as 
susceptible to manipulation or artificial 
inflation. Consequently, QVC argues, a 
primary piupose for restricting external 
cost recovery to net operator cost is 
absent in the case of network cost 
recovery embodied in the operator’s 
mark up. HSN and Jones Infomercial 
Network further contend that the 
regulatory complexity and burdens 
associated with the accounting and 
ofiset of commission revenues 
discourage operators from adding home 
shopping chaimels. Furthermore, 
Petitioner Black Entertainment 
Television (“BET”) argues that the 
elimination of the offset for sales 
commission revenues could benefit 
subscribers by allowing sales 
commission revenues to cover some of 
its channel’s operating costs. In turn, 

BET asserts, operators would be less 
inclined to raise subscriber rates for the 
service. BET also contends that the 
ofiset rule discourages operators frnm 
carrying niche programming that may 
contain both a traditional programming 
component and a shopping service. 

5. Several parties, in response to 
petitions for reconsideration, have urged 
the Commission to retain the offset 
requirement for home shopping 
revenues. The Arts and Entertainment 
Network favors retention of the ofiset 
requirement. It argues that direct cash 
payments to operators in the form of 
commissions encourage operators to 
base programming choices on financial 
incentives offered by borne shopping 
services rather than on the quality of a 
channel’s programming. Lifetime TV 
argues that the ofiset requirement is 
needed to enable non-shopping 
networks to compete for limited channel 
space on cable systems. According to 
Lifetime, traditional program networks 






54816 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


cannot match the economic incentives 
of home shopping channels if carriage of 
such channels allows recovery of both a 
channel adjustment mark up and 
unrestricted revenue from sales 
commissions. With respect to 
advertising availabilities, a nximber of 
respondents challenge the petitioners’ 
view that the absence of an offset for 
advertising availabihties discriminates 
against home shopping channels. 
Respondents argue that local advertising 
availabilities difier horn commissions 
because they do not involve direct cash 
compensation and require operators to 
incur costs to produce advertisements 
and to acquire equipment necessary to 
air them. In addition, ESPN claims that 
home shopping channels are not 
disadvantaged in comparison to 
traditional programmers because home 
shopping channels can also provide 
advertising availabilities to local 
operators. Finally, the Qty of St. Joseph 
and Benton Charter Township (West 
Michigan Communities), in a petition 
for reconsideration, urge application of 
the revenue offset as a tier-based 
adjustment rather than an adjustment on 
a channel-by-channel basis. In response 
to the West Michigan Commimities 
Petition, QVC and Time Warner argue 
that governing statutes do not require 
tier-^sed offsets and that Commission 
rules properly apply the offsets on a 
channel-by-channel basis. 

C. Discussion 

6. Based on the petitions for 
reconsideration and other comments in 
the record, we have determined that 
requiring operators to offset the mark up 
with home shopping sales commissions 
creates a disincentive for operators to 
carry home shopping services. 
Accordingly, in this Order, we eliminate 
this requirement. 

7. We agree with petitioners that 
requiring operators to offset the per . 
channel mark up with home shopping 
sales commissions creates a disincentive 
for operators to add home shopping 
services. As we explained in the Going 
Forward Order, the twenty-cent per 
channel operator mark up falls within 
the historical range of rate increases 
imposed by operators who add new 
channels and adjust their rates 
accordingly in competitive 
environments. The allowance of this 
mark up is independent of the type of 
programming or the program licensing 
fee associated with adding the channel. 
Requiring operators to offset this mark 
up with revenues derived from sales 
commissions effectively eliminates the 
mark up in any case where commission 
revenues exceed program costs to the 
operator (usually zero in the case of 


home shopping channels) and the . 
otherwise dlowable mark up. Although 
we presume that cash payments to the 
operator in the form of commissions 
represent significant value to the 
operator, the partial or complete 
elimination of the mark up for adding a 
home shopping diannel is a 
disincentive for an operator to add such 
a service. At the same time, we 
recognize that other programming 
networks may offer local advertising 
availabilities to operators for carriage of 
their services without putting the mark 
up at risk. By reducing or eliminating 
the operator mark up when home 
shopping channels raise sales 
commission revenue for operators, the 
offset requirement effectively penalizes 
the operator, and home shopping 
channels indirectly, by taking away the 
mark up simply because many 
customers in the operator’s territory 
purchase products from the home 
shopping service. Consequently, the 
offset requirement has the effect of 
disfevoring carriage of home shopping 
services while favoring the carriage of 
traditional programming services that 
can provide incentives to operators in 
the form of advertising availabilities not 
subject to the revenue offset rule. 

8. As indicated a ove, some 
commenters argue that the Commission 
does not have to treat offsets against 
sales commission revenues and 
advertising availabilities in the same 
way to promote neutral incentives to 
add channels. For example, it has been 
argued that availabilities are different 
b^ause operators may incur production 
and equipment costs when utilizing the 
availabilities. Although advertising 
availabilities may entail some 
production costs, as suggested by ESPN 
and Lifetime Television, we believe that 
operators, as a general matter, limit their 
utilization of availabilities to instances 
where the net gain from such use 
exceeds the associated costs. Therefore, 
we do not think commissions are so 
different from availabilities to warrant 
granting different offset treatment. 
Finally, we are unpersuaded by 
suggestions that, because home 
shopping services theoretically could 
offer advertising availabilities, 
exempting the value of advertising 
availabilities from the offset 
requirement does not provide a 
comparative advantage to traditional 
networks. Generally, home shopping 
channels, unlike traditional program 
networks, are not developed or designed 
to attract commercial advertisers to air 
advertising time as is traditionally the 
case with other programmers. 
Consequently, advertising availabilities 


do not appear to be a viable alternative 
for home shopping channels. Exempting 
the revenue offset requirement for 
advertising availabilities creates an 
inhr>rent disparity between home 
she iping services and channels that 
have been developed with the objective 
of becoming attractive advertising 
vehicles. 

9. The offset requirement for home 
shopping sales commissions also creates 
administrative and practical difffculties. 
Although the channel adjustment factor 
remains available to the operator if 
revenues fixim an added shopping 
service fail to match the 20-cent 
markup, the operator is still obligated to 
incur accounting costs and burdens, and 
some degree of regulatory scrutiny, to 
ensure compliance with the revenue 
offset rule. This burden may be 
sufficient to discourage an operator finm 
adding to the CPST an innovative 
shopping service or a hybrid channel 
containing both additional programming 
and shopping services. As a regulatory 
matter, &e revenues derived from sales 
commissions can vary with each 
reporting period which renders difficult 
the incorporation of these fluctuations 
into the ratemaking process. Indeed, the 
Commission has not applied the offset 
requirement to advertising availabilities 
in part because of similar administrative 
burdens. Recently, the Court of Appeals 
upheld as reasonable the Commission’s 
decision to forgo an offset requirement 
for advertising revenues. 

10. We recognize respondents’ 
concerns that allowing operators the 
ability to recover the 20-cent mark up 
regardless of the success of an added 
shopping service enhances the 
economic attractiveness of adding such 
channels. We reaffirm our belief, 
however, that Commission regulations 
should not influence the operator’s 
decision for or against such services by 
making standard cost recovery available 
for carriage of one type of program 
service but not another. The decision to 
add a shopping service or a traditional 
programming service should be left to 
the operator’s business judgment. 
Similarly, we will not discourage 
“traditional” services from adding a 
shopping component or providing 
advertising availabilities, with 
concomitant revenue incentives for 
operators, to their program offerings. By 
eliminating the revenue offset 
requirement as it applies to the 
operator’s mark up, we neutralize 
availability of the mark up as a factor in 
the operator’s decision to determine 
what kinds of program services should 
be added to the CPST. 

11. This Order does riot affect our 
requirement that revenue from shopping 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 54817 


conunissions must be applied as an 
offset against program costs. We remain 
concerned that a programmer’s 
definition of program cost can be 
manipulated to raise such costs 
artificially. Accordingly, we limit the 
scope of ^s Order to the revenue offset 
requirement for home shopping sales 
commissions as it applies to the per 
channel mark up only. 

m. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

12. Pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-12, 
the Ckimmission’s final analysis with 
respect to the Twelfth Order on 
Reconsideration is as follows: 

13. Need for and purpose of this 
action. The Commission, in compliance 
with section 3 of the Cable Television 
Consiuner Protection and Competition 
Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. 543 (1992), 
pertaining to rate regulation, adopts 
revised rules intended to ensure that 
cable services are offered at reasonable 
rates with minimum regulatory and 
administrative burdens on cable 
entities. 

14. Summary of issues raised by the 
public in response to the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 
Comments were filed in response to the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 
HSN and Jones hiformercial Network 
explain that operators face significantly 
less complexity when deciding to carry 
traditional advertiser-supported 
channels rather than home shopping 
services. They argue that advertising 
availabilities represent value to 
operators and that such value, unlike 
shopping commission revenue, need not 
be offset against the channel adjustment 
mark up, rendering less bmdensome the 
addition of non-shopping channels. 

15. Significant alternatives considered 
and rejected. In the course of this 
proceeding, home shopping channels 
and other programming entities 
submitted requests to delete shopping 
commission revenue from the offset 
rule. This was the only proposal 
advanced by petitioners and the only 
alternative to current rules consider^ 
in connection with this specific action. 
In this Order, the Commission is 
providing relief to certain programmers 
seeking the elimination of regulatory 
burdens associated with the carriage of 
their channels. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

16. The fjequirements adopted herein 
have been ^alyzed with respect to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and 
have been found to impose new or 
modified information collection 
requirements on the public. 
Implementation of any new or modified 


requirement will be subject to approval 
by the Office of Management and 
Budget as prescribed by the Act. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

17. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 
pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 612 
and 623 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C. sections 
154(i). 154(j), 303(r), 532, 542(c) and 
543, the rules, requirements and 
policies discussed in this Order are 
adopted and part 76 of the 
Commission’s^les, 47 CFR part 76, is 
amended as set forth below. 

18. It is further ordered that the 
petitions for reconsideration filed by 
QVC, Inc. and Home Shopping Network, 
Inc. are granted consistent wiffi this 
Order, llie Petition for Reconsideration 
filed by the West Michigan 
Communities is denied. 

19. It is further ordered that the 
regulations established in this Ordw 
shall become effective February 23, 

1996. 

Federal Communications Commission. 
William F. Caton, 

Acting Secretary. 

Amendatory Text 

Title 47, Part 76 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows: 

PART 76—CABLE TELEVISION 
SERVICE 

1. The authority citation for part 76 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 543(c). 

2. Section 76.922 is amended by 
revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii) to read as 
follows: 

§ 76.922 Rates for the basic service tier 
and cable programming services tiers. 
***** 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Per Channel Adjustment. 
Operators may increase rates by a per 
channel adjustment of up to 20 cents 
per subscriber per month, exclusive of 
programming costs, for each channel 
added to a CPST between May 15,1994, 
and December 31,1997, except that an 
operator may take the per channel 
adjustment only for channel additions 
that result in an increase in the highest 
number of channels offered on all 
CPSTs as compared to May 14,1994, 
and each date thereafter. Any revenues 
received from a programmer, or shared 
by a programmer and an operator in 
connection with the addition of a 
channel to a CTST shall first be 
deducted from programming costs for 
that channel pursuant to paragraph 


(d)(3)(x) of this section and then, to the 
extent revenues received from the 
programmer are greater than the 
programming costs, shall be deducted 
from the per channel adjustment. This 
deduction will apply on a channel by 
channel basis. With respect to the per 
channel adjustment only, this deduction 
shall not apply to revenues received by 
an operator from a programmer as 
commissions on sales of products or 
services offered through home shopping 
services. 

* - * * * * 

(FR Doc. 95-26526 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BiLiJNQ cooe ens-oi-M 


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 
ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 
SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 11,12. and 52 
[FAC 90-32 Correction] 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 
Corrections 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), 
General Services Administration (GSA), 
and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Corrections. 


SUMMARY: The Federal Acquisition 
Regulatory Council is issuing 
corrections to Federal Acquisition 
Circular 90-32, FAR Case 94-790, 
Acquisition of Commercial Items, 
published at 60 FR 48206, September 
18,1995. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1,1995. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FAR 
Secretariat, Room 4037, GS Building, 
Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. 
Please cite correction to FAC 90-32. 

Corrections 

PART 11—DESCRIBING AGENCY 
NEEDS 

1. On page 48238, in the center 
column, following the table of contents, 
the authority citation for Part 11 should 
read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486 (c); 10 U.S.C. 
Chapter 137; 42 U.S.C. 2473 (c). 

PART 12—ACQUISITION OF 
COMMERCIAL ITEMS 

12.303 [Corrected] 

2. In 12.303 on page 48244, in the 
third column, in paragraphs (b)(2) 





54818 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 


through (b)(5) “Block 16B”, “Block 18”, 
“Blo(^ 19”, and “Block 24” should read 
“Block 18B”, “Block 19”, “Block 20”, 
and “Block 25”, respectively. 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 
AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

52.212-4 [Corrected] 

3. In 52.212-3 on page 48252, in the 
center colunm, imder ^e definition of 
Women-owned small business concern, 
paragraphs (a) and (h) should be 
corre^y designated as (1) and (2). 

Dated: October 19,1995. 

Edward C Loeb, 

Deputy Project Manager for the 
Implementation of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of1994. 

(FR Doc. 95-26488 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
BRJJNQ COOK 6820-CP-M 


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration 

50 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. 950106003; I.D. 102095A] 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Close Area 
2A to Non-treaty Commercial Rshing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Commerce. 

ACTION: Inseason action. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator 
for Fisheries, NOAA, on behalf of the 
International Pacific Halibut 
Commission (IPHC), publishes this 
inseason action pursuant to IPHC 
regulations approved by the U.S. 
Government to govern the Pacific 
halibut fishery. This action is intended 
to enhance the conservation of the 
Pacific halibut stock. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 6 p.m., local time, 
September 26,1995 through December 
31.1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Pennoyer, 907-586-7221; 

William W. Stelle, Jr., 206-526-6140; or 
Donald McCaughran, 206-634-1838. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC, 
under the Convention between the 


United States of America and Canada 
for the Preservation of the Halibut 
Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean 
and Bering Sea (signed at Ottawa, 
Ontario, on March 2,1953), as amended 
by a Protocol Amending the Convention 
(signed at Washington, DC, on March 
29,1979), has issued this inseason 
action pursuant to IPHC regulations 
governing the Pacific halibut fishery. 
The regulations have been approved by 
NMFS (60 FR 14651, March 20,1995). 
On behalf of the IPHC, this inseason 
action is published in the Federal 
Register to provide additional notice of 
its effectiveness, and to inform persons 
subject to the inseason action of the 
restrictions and requirements 
established therein. 

Inseason Action 

1995 Halibut Landing Report No. 16 

Area 2A Non-treaty Commercial Halibut 
Fishery Closed 

The IPHC estimates that the Area 2A 
catch limit of 105,000 lb (47.62 metric 
tons (mt)) was reached after the 
September 26 fishing period. This catch 
limit includes approximately 14,000 lb 
(6.35 mt) that was “rolled-over” from 
the incidental commercial catch of 
halibut allocated to the salmon troll 
fishery. Therefore, Area 2A is closed to 
commercial halibut fishing for the 
remainder of 1995. 

Dated: October 23,1995. 

Richard W. Surdi, 

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries 
Conservation and Management, National 
Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 95-26619 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
BHJJNQ cooe 3S10-22-f 


50 CFR Part 672 

[Docket No. 950206041-6041-01; I.D. 
102395B] 

Groundfish Of the Gulf of Alaska; Trawl 
Gear Directed Fishery for Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Commerce. 

ACTION: Closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed 
fishery for groundfish by vessels using 


trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), 
except for directed fishing for pollock 
by vessels using pelagic trawl gear in 
those portions of the GOA that remain 
open to directed fishing for pollock. 

Tliis action is necessary because the 
1995 Pacific halibut prohibited species 
catch (PSC) limit for trawl gear in the 
GOA has been caught. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local 
time (A.l.t), October 23,1995, until 12 
midnight, A.l.t., December 31,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Thomas Pearson, 907-486-6919. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
groimdfish fishery in the GOA exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS 
according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for Groimdfish of the Gulf of 
Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed 
by regulations implementing the FMP at 
50 CFR parts 620 and 672. 

The Final 1995 Harvest Specifications 
of Groundfish for the GOA (60 FR 8470, 
February 14,1995) established the 1995 
Pacific halibut PSC limit for vessels 
using trawl gear at 2,000 metric tons 
(mt). The Director, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, has determined, in accordance 
with § 672.20(f)(3)(i), that vessels 
engaged in directed fishing for 
groimdfish with trawl gear in the GOA 
have caught the 1995 Pacific halibut 
PSC limit. Therefore, NMFS is closing 
the directed fishery for groundfish by 
vessels using trawl gear in the GOA, 
except for directed fishing for pollock 
by vessels using pelagic trawl gear in 
those portions of the GOA that remain 
open to directed fishing for pollodi. 

Classification 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 
672.20 and is exempt finm review under 
E.0.12866. 

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

Dated: Octobw 23,1995. 

Richard W. Surdi, 

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries 
Conservation and Management, National 
Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 95-26641 Filed 10-23-95; 3:51 pm] 
BHJJNQ,CODE 3510-22-F 




Proposed Rules 


Federal Register 
Vol. 60, No. 207 
Thursday, October 26, 1995 


54819 


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 
contains notices to the public of the proposed 
issuance of rules arKl regulations. The 
purpose of these notices is to give interested 
persons an opportunity to participate in the 
rule making prior to the adoption of the final 
rules. 


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and inspection Service 

9 CFR 308, 310,318,320,325, 326, 327, 
and 381 

[Docket No. 93-016E] 

Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis 
and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
Systems—Extension of Comment 
Period 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 
conunent period. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS) is extending 
the comment period for the proposed 
rule, “Pathogen Reduction; Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Point 
(HACCP) Systems” (60 FR 6774, 
February 3,1995) until Monday, 
November 13,1995, so that the 
transcript of the Secretary’s Food Safety 
Forum, annoimced elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register, can be 
added to the rulemaking record. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 
or before November 13,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Send an original and two 
copies of written comments to: FSIS 
Docket Clerk, Docket #93-016P, Docket 
Room 4352, South Agricultine Building, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, DC 20250. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 
Paula Cohen, Director, Regulations 
[Development, Policy Evaluation and 
Planning Staff, FSIS, USDA, Room 3801, 
South Building, Washington, DC 20250, 
(202) 720-7164. 

Done at Washington, DC, on October 20, 
1995. 

Michael R. Taylor, 

Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety. 

(FR Doc. 95-26614 Filed 10-23-95; 1:38 pm) 
BILLMG CODE 3410-OM-P 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency 

12 CFR Part 24 

[Docket No. 95-26] 

RIN 1557-AB46 

Community Development Corporation 
and Project Investments 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, Treeisury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency (OCC) is proposing to 
amend its regulation regarding 
Commimity Development Corporation 
and Project Investments. The proposal • 
removes a provision that requires banks 
to reinvest profits, dividends and other 
distributions from commimity 
development investments in activities 
that promote the public welfare and is 
intended to encoiirage public welfare 
investments by national banks. 

OATES: Comments must be received by 
November 27,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 
directed to: Commimications [Division, 
Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, 250 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20219. Fax # 202-874- 
5274. Attention: Docket No. 95-26. In 
addition, comments may be sent by 
electronic mail to 

REG.COMMENTS@OCC.TREAS.GOV. 
Comments will be available for public 
inspection and photocopying at the 
same location. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Matthew Roberts, Director, Community 
and Consumer Law Division, 202/874— 
5750; Janice Booker, [Director, 
Commimity Development Division, 202/ 
874-4940. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Introduction 

The OCC is currently reviewing 12 
CFR part 24 as another component of its 
Regulation Review Program. Part 24 
permits pubfic welfare investments by 
national banks, subject to certain 
limitations. As part of the review of 12 
CFR part 24, the OCC is proposing to 
change one provision immediately. 
Currently, part 24 requires a bank to 
reinvest the profits, dividends and other 


distributions horn its equity and debt 
investments in a community 
development corporation (CDC) or 
community development (CD) project in 
activities that primarily promote the 
public welfare. This proposal would 
remove that requirement. 

Background 

National banks are authorized under 
12 U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh) to make 
investments that are designed primarily 
to promote the public welfare, including 
the welfare of low- and moderate- 
income families and communities (such 
as through the provision of housing, 
services, or jobs) consistent with safe 
and sound banking practices.* Pursuant 
to this authority, the OCC issued part 24 
on December 27,1993, to establish 
various requirements for permissible 
public welfare investments. These 
requirements include a provision, 
coffified at 12 CFR 24.4(a)(4), that 
prescribes how a bank may use certain 
proceeds from its 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh) 
investments. This provision requires 
that the profits, dividends, tax credits, 
and other distributions from equity 
investments, or interest income fi'om 
debt investments, received by a bank 
fi'om a CDC or CD project investment be 
devoted to activities that primarily 
promote the public welfare. Further, in 
the case of an investment in a for-profit 
CDC subsidiary, the profits, dividends 
and other distributions must be 
reinvested in the CDC during its first 
three years of operation. 

Section 24(Eleventh) does not require 
reinvestment of proceeds. The OCC 
included this provision in part 24 based 
on its practice in implementing 12 
U.S.C. 24(Eighth), which was enacted 
prior to 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh). Under 
12 U.S.C. 24(Eighth), as construed in 
former Interpretive Ruling 7.7480, (12 
CFR 7.7480), national banks were 
authorized to contribute to community 
funds, or to charitable, philanthropic, or 
benevolent instrumentalities conducive 
to the public welfare.^ In 1971, the OCC 
revised Interpretive Ruling 7.7480 to 
permit banks to make “investments,” as 
long as the investments were 
predominantly civic, community or 


■ The Eleventh paragraph was added to section 24 
by the Depository Institutions Disaster Relief Act of 
1992, enacted on October 23,1992. Pub.L. 102—485, 
Section 6(a), 106 Stat. 2774 (1992). 

* 12 U.S.C. 24(Eighth). The interpretive ruling was 
replaced by 12 CFR part 24 in 1993. 58 FR 68464 
(December 27,1993). 




54820 


Federal Register J Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


public in nature. At that time, the OCC 
concluded that it may be inconsistent 
with the underlying charitable purposes 
of 12 U.S.C. 24(£ighth) for a bank to 
retain profits on these investments. 
Interpretive Ruling 7.7480 therefore 
required banks to reinvest profits, 
dividends and other distributions in 
public piupose activities. 

Although part 24 was drafted under 
the authority of 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), 
which provides direct authority for 
public welfare “investments,” it 
retained the reinvestment provision as 
one means of furthering the public 
welfare nature of investments made 
pursuant to this authority. 

Discussion 

The OCC proposes to remove the 
reinvestment provision, 12 CFR 
24.4(a)(4). The statute does not restrict 
institutions £rom earning and retaining 
profits on investments made pursuant to 
12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), as long as such 
investments are designed primarily to 
promote the public welfare. Reactions to 
the current rule indicate, however, that 
in some instances the reinvestment 
provision discourages banks firom 
making such investments. For example, 
the requirement that banks reinvest low- 
income housing tax credits in restricted 
activities can diminish a bank’s 
economic incentive for participating in 
that type of low-income housing 
development. The (X)C believes that 
remov^ of the reinvestment provision 
will further the basic objective of 12 
U.S.C 24(Eleventh) by helping to 
encourage banks to make more 
investments. 

The OCC also believes that the 
proposal is consistent with bank safety 
and soimdness. The proposal will 
enable banks to retain profits, dividends 
and other distributions from CDC 
subsidiaries and CD projects or to 
redeploy such proceeds to the CDC or 
other public welfare investments based 
upon an overall assessment by a bank’s 
management of its financial needs and 
public welfare investment objectives. 
While the proposal will encoturage 
banks to make investments to promote 
the public welfare, it will not constrain 
a bajok’s use of investment proceeds nor 
hamper a bank’s ability to ensure the 
sound o{>eration of the bank as a whole. 

Commenters are invited to address 
with as much specificity as possible: 

(1) The extent to which removal of the 
provision will encourage public welfare 
investments; 

(2) whether there are safety and 
soundness reasons to retain or remove 
the provision; and 


(3) any other reasons why the current 
requirement should be retained or 
eliminated. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

It is hereby certified that this notice 
of pmposed rulemaking, if adopted as a 
final rule, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking, if adopted as a final rule, 
will reduce somewhat the regulatory 
burden on national banks, regardless of 
size, by removing a requirement for 
making public welfare investments. 

Executive Order 12866 

The OCC has determined that this 
proposal is not a significant regulatory 
action imder Executive Order 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The OCC has determined that this 
proposal will not result in expenditures 
by State, local, and tribal governments, 
or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million in any one year. 
Accordingly, a budgetary impact 
statement is not required imder section 
202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 24 

Community development. Credit, 
Investments, National banks. Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons set forth in the 
preamble, part 24 of title 12, chapter I, 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
proposed to be amended as set forth 
below; 

PART 24—COMMUNITY 
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND 
PROJECT INVESTMENTS 

1. The authority citation for part 24 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), 93a, 

161, 481, and 1818. 

§24.4 [Amended] 

2. Paragraph (a)(2) of § 24.4 is 
amended by adding “and” atthe end of 
the paragraph. 

3. Paragraph (a)(3) of § 24.4 is 
amended by removing the “; and” at the 
end of the paragraph and adding a 
period. 

4. Paragraph (a)(4) of § 24.4 is 
removed. 


Dated: October 2,1995. 

Eugene A. Ludwig, 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

(FR Doc. 95-26556 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BiLUNQ CODE 4810-33-P 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 
[Docket No. 95-NM-156-AD] 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Modei 
A300. A300-600, A310, A330. and A340 
Series Airpianes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 
Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: 'This document proposes the 
supersedure of an existing airworthiness 
directive (AD), applicable to all Airbus 
Model A300, A300-600, A310, A330, 
and A340 series airplanes, that currently 
requires an inspection of the sliding 
side windows in the cockpit to identify 
the part number of the windows. For 
airplanes on which a certain suspect 
window is installed, that AD also 
requires either deactivation of the 
sliding window defogging system; or 
installation of thermo-sensitive 
indicators, daily inspections of those 
indicators, and deactivation of the 
defogging system, if necessary; or 
replacement of the window with a 
serviceable window. The actions 
specified by the proposed AD are 
intended to prevent rupture of a cockpit 
sliding window and subsequent rapid 
decompression of the fuselage due to 
fracture of the window as a result of 
thermal stress created by overheating of 
the wires of the heating element in a 
localized area. This action would 
require replacement of certain windows 
with serviceable windows, which, when 
accomplished, terminates the 
requirements of the AD. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 
December 6,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 
triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Transport 
Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, 
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM- 
156-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. 
Comments may be inspected at this 
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. 

'The service information referenced in 
the proposed rule may be obtained from' 




54821 


Federal Register / Vol. 


Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice 
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 
This information may be examined at 
the FAA, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Renton, Washington. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Charles D. Huber, Aerospace Engineer, 
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington 98055—4056; telephone 
(206) 227-2589; fax (206) 227-1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 
participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such 
written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. Commimications shall 
identify the Rules Docket number and 
be submitted in triplicate to the address 
specified above. All communications 
received on or before the closing date 
for comments, specified above, will be 
considered before taking action on the 
proposed rule. The proposals contained 
in this notice may be changed in light 
of the comments received. 

Comments are specifically invited on 
the overall regulatory, economic, 
environmental, and energy aspects of 
the proposed rule. All comments 
submitted will be available, both before 
and after the closing date for comments, 
in the Rules Docket for examination by 
interested persons. A report 
summarizing each FAA-public contact 
concerned with the substance of this . 
proposal will be filed in the Rules 
Do(±et. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this notice 
must submit a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard on which the following 
statement is made: “Comments to 
Docket Number 95-NM-156-AD.” The 
postcard will be date stamped and 
returned to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

Any person may obtain a copy of this 
NPRM by submitting a request to the 
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
ANM-103, Attention: Rules Docket No. 
95-NM-156-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue 
SW., Renton, Washington 98055—4056. 

Discussion 

On January 19,1995, the FAA issued 
AD 95-01-51, amendment 39-9125 (60 
FR 5564, January 30,1995), applicable 
to all Airbus Model A300, A300-600, 
A310, A330, and A340 series airplanes, 
to require an inspection of the sliding 
side windows in the cockpit to identify 


60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


the part number of the windows. For 
airplanes on which a certain suspect 
window is installed, that AD also 
requires either deactivation of the 
sliding window defogging system; or 
installation of thermo-sensitive 
indicators, daily inspections of those 
indicators, and deactivation of the 
defogging system, if necessary; or 
replacement of the window with a 
serviceable window. That action was 
prompted by reports of fracture of the 
sliding side window in the cockpit due 
to thermal stress created by overheating 
of the wires of the heating element in a 
localized area. The requirements of that 
AD are intended to prevent such 
fractures, which could lead to rupture of 
a cockpit sliding window and 
subsequent rapid decompression of the 
fuselage. 

AD 95-01-51 also contains a 
provision for the optional replacement 
of PPG Industries windows with 
serviceable windows manufactmed by 
PPG Industries or by SPS. If 
accomplished, this replacement 
constitutes terminating action for the 
requirements of the AD. In the preamble 
to AD 95-01-51, the FAA indicated that 
the AD was considered to be interim 
actij^n until finaLaction was identified. 
The FAA has determined that “final 
action” in addressing the unsafe 
condition that is the subject of this AD 
is the replacement of the suspect PPG 
Industries windows with serviceable 
windows (provided as an optional 
action in 95-01-51). 

Additionally, since the issuance of 
AD 95-01-51, Airbus has issued All 
Operators Telex (AOT) 30-01, Revision 
2, dated March 6,1995, which describes 
procedures for an inspection of the left- 
and right-hand sliding side windows in 
the cockpit to identify the part number 
of the windows. For airplanes equipped 
vsrith certain suspect windows 
manufactured by PPG Industries, the 
AOT also describes procedures for 
deactivation of the associated window 
defogging system; or installation of 
thermo-sensitive indicators, daily 
inspections of those indicators, and 
deactivation of the window defogging 
system, if necessary. The AOT also 
describes procedures for replacement of 
certain sliding windows with 
serviceable windows. Accomplishment 
of the replacement eliminates the need 
for the inspections, deactivation of the 
window defogging system, and 
installation of thermo-sensitive 
indicators. The Direction Generate de 
I’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the 
airworthiness authority for Fr^ce, 
classified this AOT as mandatory and 
issued French airworthiness directives 
94-285-173(B)R1 (for Model A300, 


A306-600, and A310 series airplanes), 
94-283-006(B)Rl (for Model A330 
series airplanes), and 94-284-014(B)Rl 
(for Model A340 series airplanes), all 
dated April 12,1995, in order to assure 
the continued airworthiness of these 
airolanes in France. 

These airplane models are 
manufactured in France and are type 
certificated for operation in the United 
States under the provisions of section 
21.29 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 
applicable bilateral airworthiness 
agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral 
airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has 
kept the FAA informed of the situation 
described above. The FAA has 
examined the findings of the DGAC, 
reviewed all available information, and 
determined that AD action is necessary 
for products of this type design that are 
certificated for operation in the United 
States. 

Since an vmsafe condition has been 
identified that is likely to exist or 
develop on other airplanes of the same 
type design registered in the United 
States, the proposed AD would 
supersede AD 95-01-51 to continue to 
require an inspection of the sliding side 
windows in the cockpit to identify the 
part number of the windows. For 
airplanes on which a certain suspect 
window is installed, the proposed AD 
also would continue to require either 
deactivation of the sliding window 
defogging system; or installation of 
thermo-sensitive indicators, daily 
inspections of those indicators, and 
deactivation of the defogging system, if 
necessary. The proposed AD also would 
require the eventual replacement of 
suspect windows with serviceable 
windows. Replacement of the windows 
would constitute terminating action for 
the requirements of the AD. The actions 
would be required to be accomplished 
in accordance with the AOT described 
previously. 

There are approximately 66 Model 
A300, A300-600, and A310 series 
airplanes of U.S. registry that would be 
affected by this proposed AD. 
(Currently, there are no Model A330 or 
A340 series airplanes on the U.S. 
Remster.) 

Ine inspections that are currently 
required by AD 95-01-51 take 
approximately 1 work hour per airplane 
to accomplish, at an average labor rate 
of $60 per work hour. Based on these 
figures, the total cost impact on U.S. 
operators of the actions currently 
required is estimated to be $3,960, or 
$60 per airplane. 

The replacement of the windows, 
which is proposed in this new AD 
action, would take approximately 7 





54822 


Federal Register / Vol. 



work hours per airplane to accomplish, 
at an average labor rate of $60 per work 
hour. Required parts would be provided 
by the manufacturer at no cost to 
operators. Based on these figures, the 
total cost impact on U.S. operators of 
the proposed requirements of this AD is 
estimated to be $27,720, or $420 per 
airplane. 

The total cost impact figiues 
discussed above are based on 
assumptions that no operator has yet 
accomplished any of the current or 
proposed requirements of this AD 
action, and that no operator would 
accomplish those actions in the future if 
this AD were not adopted. 

The regulations proposed herein 
would not have substantial direct effects 
on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, 
in accordance with Executive Order 
12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 
certify that this proposed regulation (1) 
is not a “significant regulatory action” 
imder Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 
a “significant rule” imder the DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 
FR11034, February 26,1979); and (3) if 
promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact, positive or negative, 
on a substantial number of small entities 
under the criteria of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft . 
regulatory evaluation prepared for this 
action is contained in the Rules Docket. 
A copy of it may be obtained by 
contacting.the Rules Docket at the 
location provided imder the caption 
ADDRESSES. 

List of Sub)ects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation. Aircraft, Aviation 
safety. Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 
authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 
39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 
(14 CFR part 39) as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 
DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101,40113, 
44701. 


60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 


$39.13 [Amended] 

2. Section 39.13 is amended by 
removing amendment 39-9125 (60 FR 
5564, January 1,1995), and by adding a 
new airworthiness directive (AD), to 
read as follows: 

Aiihus Industrie: Docket 95-NM-156-AO. 
Supersedes AD 95-01-51, Amendment 
39-9125. 

Applicability: All Model A300, A300-600, 
A310. A33U, and A340 series airplanes, 
certificated in any category. 

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane 
identified in the preceding applicability 
provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area 
subject to the requirements of this AD. For 
airplanes that have been modified, altered, or 
repaired so that the performance of the 
requirements of this AD is affected, the 
owner/operator must use the authority 
provided in paragraph (e) of this AD to 
request approval from the FAA. This 
approval may address either no action, if the 
current configuration eliminates the unsafe 
condition; or different actions necessary to 
address the unsafe conditiorrdescribed in 
this AD. Such a request should include an 
assessment of the effect of the changed 
configuration on the unsafe condition 
addrmsed by this AD. In no case does the 
presence of any modification, alteration, or 
repair remove any airplane from the 
applicability of this AI). ^ 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 
accomplished previously. To prevent rupture 
of a codcpit sliding window and subsequent 
rapid decompression of the fuselage due to 
fiecture of the window as a result of thermal 
stress created by overheating of the wires of 
the heating element in a localized area, 
accomplish the following: 

(a) Within 7 days after February 14,1995 
(the effective date of AD 95-01-51, 
amendment 39-9125), perform an inspection 
of the left- and right-hand sliding side 
windows in the cockpit to identify the part 
number (P/N) of those windows, in 
accordance with paragraph 4.1 of Airbus All 
Operators Telex (AOT) 30-01, dated 
December 22,1994; or Revision 2, dated 
March 6,1995. 

. (b) If no window manu&ctured by PPG 
Industries having P/N NPl 75202-1 (left-hand 
side) or NPl75202-2 (right-hand side) is 
installed, no further action is required by this 
AD. 

(c) If any window manufactured by PPG 
Industries having P/N NP 175202-1 (left- 
hand side) or NP 175202-2 (right-hand side) 
is installed, prior to further flight, 
accomplish either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of 
this AD in accordance with Aiibus AOT 30- 
01, dated December 22,1994; or Revision 2, 
dated March 6,1995. 

(1) Deactivate the associated sliding 
window defogging system in accordance with 
the procedures specified in paragraph 4.2.2 
of the AOT. The defogging system may 
remain deactivated until the window is 
replaced in accordance with paragraph (d) of 
this AD. Or 

Note 2: This AD may permit the defogging 
system to be deactivated for a longer time 


1995 / Proposed Rules 


than is specified in the Master Minimum 
Equipment List (MMEL). In any case, the 
provisions of this AD prevail. 

(2) Install thermo-sensitive indicators in 
two areas of the sliding side window (left- 
and right-hand sides) in accordance with the 
procedures specified in paragraph 4.3 of the 
AOT. Thereafter, perform a daily inspection 
of the indicators to determine if the 60-degree 
segment of any indicator turns fttim light 
grey to black, in accordance with the 
procedures specified in paragraph 4.3 of the 
AOT. If any indicator turns blade, prior to 
further fli^t, deactivate the associated 
sliding window deft^ging system in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this AD. 

(d) Within 90 days after the effective date 
of this AD, replace any PPG Industries 
window having part number (P/N) NP 
175202-1 (left-hand side] or NP 175202-2 
(right-hand side) with a serviceable window 
manufactured by PPG Industries or by SPS, 
as listed in paragraph 5.1 of AOT 30-01, 
dated December 22,1994; or paragraphs 5.2.1 
(PPG Industries windows) and 5.2.2 (SPS 
windows) of AOT 30-01, Revision 2, dated 
March 6,1995. Accomplish the replacement 
in accordance with the procedures specified 
in AOT 30-01, dated Drcember 22,1994, or 
Revision 2, dated March 6,1995. After such 
replacement, no further action is required by 
this AD. 

(e) An alternative method of compliance or 
adjustment of the compliance time that 
provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used if approved by the Manager, 
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators 
shall submit their requests through an 
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance 
Inspector, who may add comments and then 
send it to the Manager, Standardization 
Branch, ANM-113. 

Note 3: Information concerning the 
existence of approved alternative methods of 
compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Standardization Branch, 
ANM-113. 

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in 
accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 
of.the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to 
a location where the requirements of this AD 
can be accomplished. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 
20,1995. 

Darrell M. Pederson, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 95-26558 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 4910-1S-U 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


54823 


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION 

17CFR Part 240 

[Release Nos. 34-36356A; 35-26389A; IC- 
21406A; File No. S7-21-^] 

RIN 3235-AF66 

Ownership Reports and Trading by 
Officers, Directors and Principai 
Security Hoiders; Correction 

AGENCY: Seciirities and Exchange 
Co mmi ssion. 

ACTION: Correction to proposed rules. 

SUMMARY: This dociunent contains a 
correction to the alternative proposed 
amendment to Seciuities Exchange Act 
Rule 16b-3 that was published on 
October 17,1995 (60 FR 53832). 

DATES: Comments should be received on 
or before December 15,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 
submitted in triplicate to Jonathan G. 
Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20549. Comment 
letters should refer to File No. S7-21- 
94. All comments received will be 
available for pubUc inspection and 
copying in the Commission’s Public 
Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., 20549. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Anne M. Krauskopf at (202) 942-2900, 
Division of Corporation Finance, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20549. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 
October 11,1995, the Commission 
proposed amendments to the rule that 
exempts certain employee benefit plan 
transactions from the short-swing profit 
recovery provisions of Section 16(b) * of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(“Exchange Act”) ^ that would broaden 
the exemption and extend it to other 
transactions between issuers and their 
officers and directors.^ As published, 
the text of the proposed amended rule 
inadvertently omitted fi-om the 
shareholder approval standard of 
Alternative Proposed Rule 16b- 
3(c)(l)(ii) the requirement that, where a 
meeting is held, the vote be of the 
majority of the securities of the issuer 
present, or represented, and entitled to 
vote at the meeting. It is the 
Commission’s intention that the 
procedural standards for obtaining 
shareholder approval for purposes of 


' 15 U.S.C. 78p(b). 

215 U.S.C. 78a et seq. (1988). 

3 Release No. 34-36356 (Oct. 17,1995) (60 FR 
53832). 


Alternative Proposed Rule 16b- 
3(c)(l)(ii) would remain the same as 
currently required imder Rule 16b- 
3(b).4 

Accordingly, the proposed rule that 
would exempt transactions between 
issuers and ^eir officers and directors 
that was the subject of FR Document 
95-25626 is corrected as follows: 

PART 240—[CORRECTED] 

On page 53840, in the first column, 
paragraph (c)(l)(ii) of proposed 
§ 240.16b-3 is revised to read as 
follows: 

§ 240.166-3 Transactions between an 
Issuer and its officers or directors. 
***** 

(c) * * * 

( 1 ) * * * 

(ii) The transaction is approved or 
ratified, in compliance with section 14 
of the Act, by either: the affirmative 
votes of the holders of a majority of the 
securities of the issuer present, or 
represented, and entitled to vote at a 
meeting duly held in accordance with 
the applicable laws of the state or other 
jvuisffiction in which the issuer is ' 
incorporated; or the written consent of 
the holders of a majority of the 
securities of the issuer entitled to vote, 
provided that such ratification occurs 
no later than the date of the next annual 
meeting of shareholders; or 
***** 

Dated: October 20,1995. 

By the Commission. 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26576 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 8010-01-P 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 
[CQD09-95-D22] 

RIN-2115-AE47 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 
Buffalo River, NY 

agency: Coast Guard, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 
a change to the operating regulations 
governing the Michigan Avenue bridge, 
mile 1.3, Ohio Street bridge, mile 2.1 
South Park Avenue bridge, mile 5.3, and 
the Conrail railroad bridges at miles 
4.02 and 4.39 across the Buffalo River, 


«17 cant 240.166-3(5). 


all at Buffalo. NY. The proposed rule 
would not require drawtenders to be in 
constant attendance at their bridges 
during periods of time when there is 
little or no significant navigation on the 
river. Additionally, the Qty of Bufialo 
would be allowed to use a roving 
drawtender to operate the Ohio Street 
and Michigan Avenue bridges. This 
action would relieve the bridge owners 
of the burden of having drawtenders in 
constant attendance at their bridges and 
should still provide for the reasonable 
needs of navigation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 
or before December 26,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 
Commander (obr). Ninth Coast Guard 
District, 1240 East Ninth Street, 
Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2060, or may be 
delivered to room 2083D at the above 
address between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. 'The telephone number is (216) 
522-3993. 

The Commander Ninth Coast Guard 
District maintains the public docket for 
this rulemaking. Comments will become 
part of the docket and will be available 
for inspection and copying at the above 
address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 
Robert W. Bloom, Jr., Chief, Bridge 
Branch at (216) 522-3993. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

The Coast Guard encourages 
interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written data, 
views, or argvunents. Persons submitting 
comments should include their names 
and addresses, identify this rulemaking 
(CGD09-95-022) and the specific 
section of this proposal to which each 
comment appUes, and give a reason for 
each comment. Please submit two 
copies of all comments and attachments 
in an unboimd format, no larger than 
8 V 2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying 
and electronic filing. Persons wanting 
acknowledgment of receipt of comments 
should enclose a stamped, self- 
addressed postcard or envelope. 

The Coast Guard will consider all 
comments received dviring the comment 
period. It may change this proposal in 
view of the comments. 

The Coast Guard plans no public 
hearing. Persons may request a public 
hearing by writing to Mr. Robert W. 
Bloom, Jr. at the address under 
ADDRESSES. The request should include 
reasons why a hearing would be 
beneficial. If it determines that the 
opportimity for oral presentations will 
aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard 
will hold a public hearing at a time and 








54824 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


place announced by a later notice in the 
Federal Register. 

Drafting Information: The principal 
persons involved in drafting this document 
are Mr. Bob Bloom, Project Manager, Bridge 
Branch, and Lieutenant C. Dahill, Project 
Counsel, Ninth Coast Guard District. 

Background and Purpose 
Presently, the City of Buffalo bridges 
are required to open on signal. However, 
the Michigan Avenue and Ohio Street 
bridges need not open for the passage of 
vessels from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 
from 4 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday 
through Saturday; and South Paik 
Avenue bridge need not open for the 
passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 8:30 
a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., 

Monday through Saturday. On Sundays, 
and on New Years’s Day, Memorial Day, 
Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving 
Day and Christmas Day or days 
observed in lieu of any of these under 
State law, the closed periods are not in 
effect. 

The Conrail railroad bridges are 
required to open on signal ^tween the 
Hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., and 
between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. 
if notice is received at least four hours 
in advance of a vessel’s time of intended 
passage through the draws. 

As allowed oy 33 CFR 117.45, during 
the winter months, 26 December 
through 20 March, bridges on the 
Buffalo River have not been required to 
have a drawtender in constant 
attendance and have been required to 
open on signal only if notice was 
received at least four hoiurs in advance 
of a vessel’s time of intended passage 
through the draws. 

The City of Buffalo requested that 
they not required to keep a 
drawtender in constant attendance at 
the Ohio Street bridge and that the 
drawtender from the Michigan Avenue 
bridge be used as a roving drawtender 
to open the Ohio Street bridge for the 
passage of vessels. Additionally, the 
City requested that the year round 
operation of South Park Avenue bridge 
be changed by not requiring the 
drawtender to be in attendance at the 
bridge imless a four hour advance notice 
has been provided. 

The two Conrail railroad bridges over 
Buffalo River at miles 4.02 and 4.39, 
respectively, would be required to open 
on signal only when notice is received 
at least four hours in advance of a 
vessel’s time of intended passage 
through the draws all year long. 

Discussion of Proposed Amendment 

Bridgetender logs furnished by the 
City of Buffalo and Conrail showed that 
vessel traffic through South Park 


Avenue bridge and tbe two Conrail 
bridges is greatly reduced, especially 
during the winter months. Conrail also 
noted that the marine interests expected 
to navigate above the Conrail bridges 
expressed no objection to a four hour 
advance notice requirement. 

The proposal would not require the 
City to keep a drawtender at the Ohio 
Street bridge. That bridge would be 
operated by having the drawtender from 
the Michigan Avenue bridge respond to 
a vessel signaling for the Ohio Street 
bridge to open by driving a vehicle to 
the bridge and opening it for the passage 
of the vessel. The City reports that the 
average travel time to drive between the 
bridges and start the opening procedure 
is approximately 20 minutes. 
Additionally, the roving drawtender 
will be equipped with a marine 
radiotelephone at all times while 
enroute between the bridges to maintain 
communications with inbound and 
outbound vessels. 

The periods of time during the 
morning and evening vehicle rush hours 
when the City’s drawbridges need not 
open for tbe passage of vessels will not 
be changed. The proposed winter 
operating schedule will not require 
drawtenders to be at the Michigan 
Avenue and Ohio Street bridges at all 
times from December 16 through March 
21. The bridges would be required to 
open on signal only after receiving 
notice at least four hours in advance of 
a vessels time of intended passage 
through the draws. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposal is not a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 and does not 
require an assessment of potential costs 
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 
order. It has been exempted from review 
by the Office of Management and 
Budget under that order. It is not 
significant under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR11040, 
February 26,1979). The Coast Guard 
expects the economic impact of this 
proposal to be so minimal that a full 
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 
lOe of the regulatory policies and 
procedures of DOT is unnecessary. We 
conclude this because the periods of 
time specified by these regulations 
when the bridge would be unattended 
are periods when there are few requests 
to have the bridge opened for the 
passage of a vessel. Also, the addition of 
a marine radiotelephone will enable the 
roving drawtender to keep in 
commimications with a transiting vessel 
which will allow the vessel to begin 


approaching the draw in a more timely 
manner. 

All marine interests in the area have 
agreed to the change during preliminary 
discussions. ' 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard 
must consider whether this proposal, if 
adopted, will have*a significant 
economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. “Small 
entities’’ include independently owned . 
and operated small businesses that are 
not dominant in their field and 
otherwise qualify as “small business 
concerns’’ imder section 3 of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). 

Since the proposed rule allows the 
owners of the highway and railroad 
bridges to remove bridgetenders from 
the bridge during times when there is 
little or no significant vessel traffic on 
the Buffalo River, and because those 
vessels that would transit the River 
during these times can do so by giving 
notice in advance of their time of 
intended passage through the draw, the 
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b) that this proposal, if adopted, 
will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. 

Collection of Information 

This proposal contains no collection 
of information requirements imder Jhe 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). 

Federalism 

The Coast Guard has analyzed this 
proposal under the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 
12612 and has determined that this 
proposal does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard considered the 
environmental impact of this proposal 
and concluded that, under section 
2.B.2.g.5 of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1B, promulgation of operating 
requirements or procedures for 
drawbridges is categorically excluded 
from further environmental 
documentation. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 
Bridges. 

For reasons set out in the preamble, 
the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 
CFR part 117 as follows: 



54825 


C- ’ 

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 
OPERATING REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 
continues to read as follows. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 
CFR 1.05-l(g); section 117.255 also issued 
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587,106 
Stat. 5039. 

2. Section 117.773 is revised to read 
as follows: 

§117.773 Buffalo River. 

(a) The draw of the Michigan Avenue 
bridge, mile 1.3, at Buffalo, shall operate 
as follows: 

(1) From March 22 through December 
15, the draw shall open within 20 
minutes of signal. However, the draw 
need not open horn 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m., 
and from 4 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday 
through Satiuday. 

(2) From December 16 through March 
21, the draw shall open on signalif 
notice is given at least 4 hours in 
advance of a vessels’s time of intended 
passage through the draw. 

(b) The draw of the Ohio Street 
bridge, mile 2.1, at Buffalo, shall operate 
as follows: 

(1) From March 22 through December 
15, the draw shall open on signal within 
20 minutes after a request is made to the 
Michigan Avenue drawtender. However, 
the draw need not open from 7:30 a.m. 
to 9 a.m., and from 4 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., 
Monday through Saturday. 

(2) From December 16 through March 
21, the draw shall open on signal if 
notice is given at least 4 hours in 
advance of a vessel’s time of intended 
passage through the draw. 

(c) The draws of the Conrail railroad 
bridges, miles 4.02 and 4.39, both at 
Buffalo, shall open on signal if notice is 
given at least 4 hours in advance of a 
vessel’s time of intended passage 
throu^ the draws. 

(d) The South Park Avenue, miles 5.3, 
at Buffalo, shall open on signal if notice 
is given at least 4 hours in advance of 

a vessel’s time of intended passage 
through the draw. However, the draw 
need not open from 7 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. 
and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday 
through Saturday. 

(e) The periods when the bridges need 
not open on signal prescribed in (a)(1), 
(b)(1), and (d) in this section shall not 
be effective on Sundays, and on New 
Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of 
July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, 
Christmas Day, or days observed in lieu 
of any of these imder State law. 

(f) Marine radiotelephones shall be 

‘ maintained at the Michigan Avenue and 
Ohio Street bridges. The City of Buffalo 
shall maintain and monitor a marine 
radiotelephone for use by the Michigan 


Avenue drawtender while enroute 
between the Michigan Avenue and Ohio 
Street bridges. The drawtender shall 
maintain communications with the 
vessel until the vessel has cleared both 
the Ohio Street and Michigan Avenue 
draws. 

Dated; October 13,1995. 

Paul). Pluta, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 
Ninth Coast Guard District, Acting. 

(FR Doc. 95-26523 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
BILUNG CODE 4910-14-M 


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 4 
RIN 2900-AF01 

Schedule for Rating Disabilities; 

Mental Disorders 

AGENCY: Departmentjof Veterans Affairs. 
ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend that 
portion of its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities dealing with Mental 
Disorders. This is part of the first 
comprehensive review of the rating 
schedule since 1945. The intended 
effect of this action is to update the 
section of the rating schedule on mental 
disorders to ensure that it uses ciurent 
medical terminology and unambiguous 
criteria, and that it reflects medical 
advances which have occurred since the 
last review. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 
VA on or before December 26,1995. 
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: 
Director, Office of Regulations 
Management (02D), Department of 
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC 20420 or hand 
deliver written comments to: Office of 
Regulations Management, Room 1176, 
801 Eye St., NW., Washington, DC 
20001. Comments should indicate that 
they are submitted in response to “RIN 
2900-AF01.’’ All written comments 
received will be available for public 
inspection in the Office of Regulations 
Management, Room 1176, 801 Eye St., 
NW., Washington, DC 20001 between 
the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday (except 
holidays). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Carol! McBrine, M.D., Consultant, 
Regulations Staff, Compensation and 
Pension Service, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7210. 


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior tO 
the start of its comprehensive review of 
the rating schedule, VA contracted with 
an outside consulting firm to offer 
suggestions for changes in the rating 
schedule to help fulfill the goals of 
revising and updating the medical 
criteria. This proposed amendment 
includes many of their suggestions. 

Some recommendations, however, 
addressed areas other than evaluation 
criteria, such as percentage evaluations 
and frequency of examinations. Since 
these suggestions are clearly beyond the 
scope of the contract and deal with 
issues which would affect the internal 
consistency of the entire rating schedule 
rather than one section, we have 
generally not adopted them. The 
comments of the consultants are 
incorporated into the discussions below. 

VA published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register on May 2,1991 (56 FR 20170) 
in order to solicit comments and 
suggestions from interested groups and 
the general public. In response to this 
notice, we received Comments from 
several employees of VA and one from 
The American Legion. All of the 
commenters recommended a change in 
the rating criteria for mental disorders, 
urging more clarity and objectivity, and 
more extensive and definitive 
guidelines. 

In the current rating schedule, 

§§ 4.125 through 4.l3l and the notes in 
§ 4.132 contain general information 
about mental disorders and guidelines 
for their evaluation. The material is 
organized randomly, however, and we 
propose to reorganize it so that 
everything dealing with a single topic is 
grouped together. We also propose to 
make a number of editorial changes in 
the material to make the provisions 
clearer and less ambiguous and to make 
the terminology more current. We 
further propose to remove material 
which is not regulatory, i.e., which 
neither prescrilMs VA policy nor limits 
the action a rating board may take. 
Additionally, we propose to incorporate 
regulator)^ material from the notes in 
§4.132 into §§4.125 through 4,129, 
reorganizing and rewording it, and 
removing repetitious material. This will 
assure that all of the regulatory 
provisions are in one area of the 
schedule, in orderly groupings, rather 
than spread throughout. 

Muim of § 4.125 contains general 
information stating, for example, that 
there have been rapid advances in 
modem psychiatry during and since 
World War 11, which have produced a 
better understanding of the etiology, 
psychodynamics, and 
psychopathological changes which 



54826 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


occur in mental diseases and emotional 
disturbances, and that the field of 
mental disorders represents the greatest 
possible variety of etiology, chronicity, 
and disabling efiects and requires 
difierential consideration in these 
respects. We propose to remove that 
material because it neither prescribes 
VA policy nor establishes procedures a 
rating board must follow and is, 
therefore, not appropriate in a 
regulation. 

TTie only information in § 4.125 
which is essential is the statement that 
psychiatric nomenclature in the rating 
schedule is based on the third edition of 
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 
(DSM-in), published by the American 
Psychiatric Association in 1980, and 
that rating specialists should familiarize 
themselves thoroughly with that 
manual. The contract consultants 
recommended that we make changes in 
the mental disorders section to assure 
that it is consistent with the current 
DSM Manual, and we propose to update 
the terminology and categories of 
mental disorders by basing them on the 
newest revised edition, DSM-IV, which 
was published in 1994. The DSM 
Manuals are used in the United States 
as the basis for the diagnosis and 
classification of mental disorders. They 
are referred to by, and their terminology 
is incorporated into, psychiatry 
textbooks. They represent the common 
language of both VA and non-VA health 
care providers and researchers and, 
therefore, provide rating specialists with 
a standard by which examinations from 
ail sources can be compared and 
assessed. The use of DSM-IV as the 
basis for terminology and diagnostic 
classification of mental disorders for VA 
purposes is, therefore, unquestionably 
appropriate. We propose to present this 
material in a note rather than assigning 
it an entire section of the CFR. 

We propose to change the title of 
§4.125 from “General considerations” 
to “Diagnosis of mental disorders” and 
to divide it into two paragraphs, the first 
requiring that the rating board return an 
examination report to tihe examiner if 
the diagnosis does not conform to DSM- 
IV or is not supported by the findings 
in the report, and th&secopd directing 
the rating board to determine whether a 
change in diagnosis of a mental disorder 
represents progression of a prior 
diagnosis, correction of an error in a 
prior diagnosis, or development of a 
new and separate condition. This 
material is taken from §§ 4.126 
(Substantiation of diagnosis) and 4.128 
(Change of diagnosis). 

We propose to place all material about 
evaluation of mental disorders in 
§ 4.126 and to change the title from 


“Substantiation of diagnosis” to 
“Evaluation of disability firom mental 
disorders.” This material is taken frnm 
§§ 4.129 and 4.130, a statement and 
notes under DC 9511, notes (1) and (4) 
under DC 9325, and notes under the 
general rating formula for 
psychoneurotic disorders. We propose 
to divide this section into four 
paragraphs dealing with symptoms and 
remissions, social impairment, organic 
mental disorders, and conditions 
diagnosed both as physical and mental 
disorders. 

Paragraph (a) of § 4.126 establishes 
the general basis for evaluating mental 
disorders as the frequency, severity, and 
duration of psychiatric symptoms, the 
length of remissions, and the veteran’s 
capacity for adjustment during 
remissions. It further requires that an 
evaluation be based on all evidence of 
record bearing on occupational and 
social impairment. This material is 
derived ^m material currently found at 
§ 4.130, Evaluation df psychiatric 
disability. We have deleted the 
statement currently found in § 4.130 
that the examiner’s analysis of the 
symptomatology is an “essential.” Since 
we propose to revise the evaluation 
criteria to rely on specific signs and 
symptoms rather than on a subjective 
determination as to whether a disorder 
results in total, severe, considerable, 
definite, or mild social and industrial 
impairment, it is the signs and 
symptoms that the examiner documents 
rather than his or her assessment of 
their level of severity that will 
determine the evaluation that the rating 
specialist assigns. We also propose to 
delete the statement that describes time 
lost from gainful work and decrease in 
work efficiency as “two of the most 
important determinants of disability.” 
Since the proposed evaluation criteria 
are structured aroimd the nature and 
extent of occupational and social 
impairment, including decreased 
reliability, productivity, and work 
efficiency, that statement is no longer 
necessary. 

Paragraph (b) directs the rating board 
to consider the extent of social 
impairment, but not to assign an 
evaluation solely on the basis of social 
impairment. This is based on the 
current regulatory material in §4.129 
and in note (1) following the general 
rating formula for psychoneurotic 
disorders, and represents no substantive 
change. The contract consultants 
recommended a greater emphasis on 
social impairment in rating mental 
disability, but because our statutory 
authority to establish the rating 
schedule, 38 U.S.C. 1155, requires that 
ratings be based, as far as practicable. 


upon the average impairments of 
earning capacity, we do not propose to 
adopt that recommendation. 

Paragraph (c) directs the rating board 
to evaluate delirium, dementia, and 
amnestic and other cognitive mental 
disorders under the general rating 
formula for mental disorders and to 
combine this evaluation with those for 
neurological or other physical 
impairments stemming from the same 
etiology, e.g., a head injury. This 
represents no substantive change from 
material currently contained in notes (1) 
and (2) under DC 9325. 

Paragraph (d) directs the rating board 
to evaluate a single disability that has 
been diagnosed both as a physical 
condition and as a mental disorder 
under the diagnostic code which 
represents the dominant (more 
disabling) aspect of the condition. This 
represents no substantive change from 
information in notes (4) and (2) at the 
end of the rating schedules for 
psychoneurotic disorders and 
psychological factors affecting physical 
condition, respectively, except that we 
have deleted “major degree of 
disability” and substituted “dominant 
(more disabling) aspect of the 
condition” for clarity. 

We propose to change the title of 
§ 4.127 from “Mental deficiency and 
personality disorders” to “Mental 
retardation and personality disorders,” 
since the term “mental deficiency” is 
obsolete and no longer in common use. 
This is not a substantive change. 

We propose that § 4.127 state that 
although mental retardation and 
personality disorders will not be 
considered as disabilities under the 
terms of the schedule, a mental disorder 
that is superimposed upon, but clearly 
separate from, the mental retardation or 
personality disorder may be a disability 
for VA compensation purposes. This 
represents a revision of the language in 
the current § 4.127 for the sake of clarity 
but does not represent a substantive 
change. 

Altnough the contract consultants 
suggested that we add a category for 
psychoactive substance abuse disorders, 
we have not done so because substance- 
related disorders are addressed 
elsewhere in regulations (38 CFR 3.1 (m) 
and 3.301). 

We propose to change the title of 
§4.128 from “Change of diagnosis” to 
“Convalescence ratings following 
extended hospitalization,” and to 
include in It material from a note under 
DC 9210 regarding the need to continue 
a total evaluation following a period of 
hospitalization lasting six months or 
more and to schedule a mandatory 
examination six months after the 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


54827 


veteran is discharged or released to 
nonbed care. W^ropose to add a 
requirement that a change in evaluation 
based on that or any subsequent 
examination shall ^ subject to the 
provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(e), which 
require a 60-day notice before VA can 
reduce an evaluation and an additional 
60-day notice before the reduced 
evaluation takes effect. While the fact 
that an individual is no longer 
hospitalized usually means there has 
been some improvement, stabilization 
and return to usual activities in the face 
of a severe mental disorder is often 
difficult to achieve. Making changes 
subject to § 3.105(e) will preclude 
changes in evaluation unless a stable 
level of improvement has occurred, and 
will help to prevent a cycle of changes 
in evaluations followed by further 
examinations, further changes in 
evaluations, etc. 

We propose to move the regulatory 
material on social impairment from 
§4.129 to §4.126, paragraph (b), as 
discussed above, and to change the title 
of § 4.129 from “Social inadaptability’’ 
to “Mental disorders due to psychic 
trauma.’’ We propose to include in the 
revised § 4.129 the regulatory material 
from § 4.131, which requires an 
evaluation of not less than 50 percent 
when a mental disorder that develops in 
service as a‘result of a highly stressful 
event is severe enough to cause the 
veteran’s release from active service. 

As discussed above, we propose to 
delete the contents of §4.130, titled 
“Evaluation of psychiatric disability’’ in 
favor of the proposed paragraph (a) of 
§ 4.126 and the proposed evaluation 
criteria for mental disorders. 

We propose to retain the substance of 
§ 4.131, “Mental disorders due to 
psychic trauma,’’ in § 4.129 and to 
delete §4.131. 

There are currently four notes in 
§ 4.132 following the rating formula for 
psychoneuroses. Notes (1), prohibiting 
assignment of evaluations based on 
social impairment only, and (4), 
concerning evaluation of a single 
disability which has been diagnosed 
both as aq)hysical and mental disability, 
have been incorporated into § 4.126, as 
discussed above. We propose to delete 
note (2), which discusses the 
requirements for a compensable rating 
from mental disorders; it is redundant 
since the proposed §§4.125 and 4.126 
and general rating formula set forth 
clear diagnostic emd evaluation 
requirements. We also propose to 
incorporate the regulatory content of 
note (3), regarding the return of an 
inadequate examination report to the 
examiner, and note (1) under DC 9511, 
concerning the diagnosis of 


psychological disorders, into §4.125, 
the section on diagnosis. We propose to 
delete the part of note (3) that discusses 
requirements for the diagnosis of 
conversion disorder, as ffiis is discussed 
in detail in DSM-IV. 

We propose to incorporate the 
regulatory content of note (2) under DC 
9511, about the evaluation of a single 
condition diagnosed both as a mental 
and a physical disorder, into § 4.126, the 
section on evaluation, in order to keep 
in one place all of the regulatory 
material on evaluation of mental 
disorders. 

The conditions included under 
§ 4.132 are currently divided into four 
categories: psychotic disorders (DC’s 
9201 through 9210), organic mental 
disorders (^’s 9300 through 9325), 
psychoneurotic disorders (DC’s 9400 
through 9411), and psychological factors 
affecting physical condition (DC’s 9500 
through 9511). The contract consultants 
recommended that we reclassify some 
diseases in accordance with the current 
version of the DSM, and we propose to 
do that. We propose to reorganize the 
conditions into eight categories that 
conform more closely to the categories 
in DSM-IV, thus making it easier for 
Tating specialists to correlate the 
diagnoses given on VA and non-VA 
exams with the conditions in the rating 
schedule. This reorganization will 
require a number of changes in the 
arrangement and titles of diagnostic 
codes. We also propose to add 
diagnostic codes for several conditions 
that are encountered frequently enough 
in VA claims to warrant their inclusion 
in the rating schedule, but which are not 
currently found there. 

We propose a new category of 
“Schizophrenia and other psychotic 
disorders.’’ Except for schizoaffective 
disorder, discussed below, we propose 
no change in the diagnostic codes 
pertaining to schizophrenia (DC’s 9201 
through 9205), whicm cover conditions 
with characteristic psychotic symptoms 
during the active phase, involving 
delusions, hallucinations, or certain 
characteristic disturbances in affect and 
the form of thought. We do, however, 
propose to change the evaluation 
criteria for schizophrenia and all other 
conditions in the section on mental 
disorders, as will be discussed later in 
the preamble. 

We propose to delete diagnostic codes 
9206, bipolar disorder, manic, 
depressed, or mixed, and 9207, major 
depression with psychotic features, 
since we are providing a category for 
mood disorders that will include 
conditions such as these, and these 
changes will be addressed further when 
mood disorders are discussed. 


We propose to update the title of 
diagnostic code 9208 from “paranoid 
disorders (specify type)’’ to “delusional 
disorder’’ and place it in the category of 
schizophrenia and other psychotic 
disorders, in accord with DSM-IV. This 
disorder is characterized by a persistent, 
nonbizarre delusion that is not due to 
any other mental or physical disorder. 

We also propose to delete DC 9209, 
major depression with melancholia, 
another condition that will be moved to 
the category of mood disorders. 

We propose to revise the title of E)C 
9210, “atypical psychosis,’’ to 
“psychotic disorder, not otherwise 
specified (atypical psychosis),’’ and put 
it in the same category with other 
psychotic disorders, in accord with 
DSM-IV. We also propose to put 
schizoaffective disorder, now part of DC 
9205 (schizophrenia, residual type; 
schizoaffective disorder; other and 
unspecified types), in this category as 
diagnostic code 9211. Although 
schizoaffective disorder is linked to 
schizophrenia in the current schedule, 
DSM-IV names it as a separate 
psychotic disorder rather than as a type 
of schizophrenia. 

We propose to change the title of the 
current category of “Organic mental 
disorders’’ to “Delirium, dementia, and 
amnestic and other cognitive disorders’’ 
in accordance with DSM-IV. The 
conditions in this section demonstrate a 
psychological or behavioral abnormality 
associated with transient or permanent 
dysfunction of the brain. We also 
propose to consolidate the 16 types of 
dementia in the current schedule into 
fewer categories, since several, such as 
dementia associated with endocrine 
disorder (DC 9322) and dementia 
associated with systemic infection (DC 
9324), are quite uncommon (only about 
one-tenth of one percent of VA 
beneficiaries being compensated for 
dementia have one of these types of 
dementia); and a number of others, such 
as dementia associated with central 
nervous system syphilis (DC 9301), 
dementia associated with intracranial 
infections other than syphilis (DC 9302), 
and dementia associated with epidemic 
encephalitis (DC 9315), lend themselves 
to logical groupings based on etiology 
(in this case, infection). 

DSM-IV provides a classification of 
dementias that is more complex than is 
needed or useful for VA purposes. For 
example, it has separate categories for 
dementia due to Huntington’s disease, 
due to Pick’s disease, and due to 
Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, all of which 
are uncommonly seen for VA rating 
purposes. 

We propose a reorganization better 
suited to VA purposes, and requiring 




54828 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


less revision of the schedule than would 
be needed to adopt the entire DSM-IV 
structure. We propose to use six 
diagnostic codes for specific dementias, 
many of them the same as are now 
present. We propose to retain some 
types because of their frequent 
occurrence and relevance to veterans, 
dementia due to head trauma, (DC 9304, 
dementia associated with brain trauma 
in the current schedule), for example, 
and some because they represent 
clusters of a particular etiology, as 
discussed above. We propose to retain 
diagnostic codes for the types of 
dementia most conunonly seen in the 
general population, vascular dementia 
(currently DC’s 9305 and 9306, multi¬ 
infarct dementia with cerebral 
arteriosclerosis and multi-infarct 
dementia due to causes other than 
cerebral arteriosclerosis, respectively), 
and dementia of the Al^eimer’s type 
(currently E)C 9312, primary 
degenerative dementia). This 
reorganization will not afreet how 
dementias are evaluated, since all types 
will be evaluated under the same 
criteria, but will allow separation of the 
most common types by etiology. 

We propose to delete DC’s 9303 
(currently dementia associated with 
alcoholism) and 9325 (currently 
dementia associated with drug or poison 
intoxication (other than alcohol)), in 
accord with DSM-IV, which categorizes 
them as subtypes of dementia due to 
general medical conditions, further 
discussed below. We propose to change 
DC 9304 (dementia associated with 
brain trauma) to dementia due to head 
trauma, because this is more modem 
terminology, and E)C 9301 (dementia 
associated with central nervous system 
syphilis) to dementia associated with 
infection. We propose to include in the 
revised E)C 9301 &e conditions now 
evaluated under E)C’s 9301, 9302 
(dementia associated with intracranial 
infections other than syphilis), 9315 
(dementia associated with epidemic 
encephalitis), and 9324 (dementia 
associated with systemic infection), 
since the number of cases of dementia 
due to infection is small, and the 
specific type of infection has no bearing 
on the evaluation. 

We propose to delete current 
diagnostic codes 9307 (dementia 
associated with convulsive disorder), 
9308 (dementia associated with 
distmhances of metabolism), 9309 
(dementia associated with brain tumor), 
and 9322 (dementia associated with 
endocrine disorder), and to rate these 
conditions under a single new 
diagnostic code, 9326, titled dementia 
due to other neurologic or general 
medical conditions (including 


endocrine disorders, metabolic 
disorders, drugs, alcohol, poisons. 

Pick’s disease, brain tvunors, etc.). This 
category encompasses in a single 
miscellaneous category a number of 
uncommon conditions that DSM-IV 
names separately. 

We propose to change the title of DC 
9305 ^m multi-infarct dementia with 
cerebral arteriosclerosis to vascular 
dementia and to have it encompass 
multi-infarct dementia due to causes 
other than cerebral arteriosclerosis (DC 
9306), which we propose to delete, 
since both are due to vascular disease 
and may be difficult to distinguish. 

They are addressed as a single entity in 
DSM-rV. 

In practice, it may be impossible to 
determine whether a dementia fits into 
DC 9310 tdementia due to unknown 
cause) or DC 9311 (dementia due to 
undiagnosed cause). We therefore 
propose to delete EC 9311 and revise 
£C 9310 to encompass both as dementia 
of unknown etiology. We propose to 
retain DC 9312 but to alter the title from 
dementia, primary, degenerative, to 
dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, in 
accord with DSM-IV. 

We also propose to add diagnostic 
code 9327, organic mental disorder, 
other, to provide a code for conditions 
such as amnestic disorder, organic 
personality disorder, and other 
cognitive disorders that are not 
dementias. 

We propose to create a new category 
for anxiety disorders, in accord with 
DSM-IV. This category will include 
several of the conditions currently listed 
under the category of psychoneurotic 
disorders: “generalized anxiety 
disorder” (DC 9400), “obsessive 
compulsive disorder” (DC 9404), “other 
and unspecified neurosis” (DC 9410), 
“post-traumatic stress disorder” (DC 
9411), and “specific (simple) phobia; 
social phobia” (DC 9403) (modified 
from the current “phobic disorder,” in 
accord with terminology in DSM-IV). 

We propose to move some of the 
conditions now listed under 
psychoneurotic disorders to new 
categories: DC 9401, dissociative 
amnesia; dissociative fugue; dissociative 
identity disorder (currently psychogenic 
amnesia; psychogenic fugue; multiple 
personality) and DC 9408, 
depersonalization disorder, to the 
category' of dissociative disorders, as 
discussed below; DC 9402, conversion 
disorder; psychogenic pain disorder, 
and DC 9409, hypochondriasis, to 
somatoform disorders, as discussed 
below; and to delete DC 9405, 
dysthymic disorder; adjustment 
disorder with depressed mood; major 
depression without melancholia, also as 


discussed below. We also propose to 
add to anxiety disordei^ two conditions 
that occur frequently enough that 
diagnostic codes are needed and which 
are not now included in the rating 
schedule: “panic disorder and/or 
agoraphobia” (DC 9412) and “anxiety 
disorder, not otherwise specified” (DC 
9413). While “other and unspecified 
neurosis” (DC 9410 in the current 
schedule) is not limited to anxiety 
disorders, we propose to place it in this 
category as a matter of convenience, 
rather than giving it a separate category. 

We propose to create a category ror 
dissociative disorders, conditions, 
according to DSM-IV, where there is a 
disturbance in the usually integrated 
functions of identity, memory, 
consciousness, or perception of the 
environment. Included in this category 
will be: “dissociative amnesia; 
dissociative fugue; dissociative identity 
disorder (multiple personality 
disorder)”, (DC 9416, changed from 
9401 to keep conditions in this category 
together) and “depersonalization 
disorder” (DC 9417, changed from 9408 
for the same reason). 

In accord with DSM-IV, we propose 
to add a category for somatoform 
disorders, conditions characterized by 
the presence of physical symptoms that 
suggest a general medical condition and 
are not explained by a general medical 
condition, by the direct effects of a 
substance, or by another mental 
disorder. We propose to move two 
disorders, “conversion disorder; 
psychogenic pain disorder” (DC 9402) 
and “hypochondriasis” (DC 9409), that 
are currently listed under the category 
of psychoneuroses to this category and 
give them new diagnostic codes (DC’s 

9424, 9422, and 9425) so that the 
somatofonh disorders can be grouped 
together. We propose to split 
“conversion disorder; psychogenic pain 
disorder” into “conversion disorder,” 
DC 9424, and “pain disorder” (the 
current term for psychogenic pain 
disorder), DC 9422, since the two 
conditions are distinct, and to change 
the diagnostic code for 
“hypochondriasis” from DC 9409 to DC 

9425. We also propose to add two other 
conditions: “somatization disorder” (DC 
9421), a commonly seen somatoform 
disorder not included in the present 
schedule, and “undifferentiated 
somatoform disorder” (DC 9423), for 
somatoform disorders that do not fit 
elsewhere and for which there is no 
suitable code in the current schedule. 

We propose to establish a new 
category in the rating schedule for mood 
disorders, which are characterized, 
according to DSM-IV, by a disturbance 
in mood as the predominant feature. We 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


54829 


propose to place in this category: 
bipolar disorder (DC 9432), dysthymic 
disorder (DC 9433), and major 
depressive disorder (DC 9434). Major 
depressive disorder is currently 
included under three diagnostic codes: 
9207 (major depression with psychotic 
features), 9209 (major depression with 
melancholia), and 9405 (dysthymic 
disorder; adjustment disorder with 
depressed mood; major depression 
without melancholia). Since DSM-IV 
does not recognize three varieties of 
major depressive disorder, we propose 
to evaluate it imder a single diagnostic 
code, 9434 (major depressive disorder). 
We also propose to change the 
diagnostic codes for dys&ymic disorder 
(currently dysthymia, DC 9405) and 
bipolar disorder (DC 9206) to DC’s 9433 
and 9432, respectively, in order to group 
the mood disorders together. 

For the sake of completeness, we 
propose to provide diagnostic codes for 
two additional mood disorders not 
currently included in the rating 
schedule: cyclothymic disorder (DC 
9431), which, although related to 
bipolar disorder, is classified as a 
separate entity by DSM-IV, and mood 
disorder, not otherwise specified (DC 
9435), which allows the evaluation of 
conditions with mood symptoms that do 
not meet the criteria for any specific 
mood disorder. As part of &is 
reorganization, we propose to remove 
DC 9405 (“dysthymic msorder; 
adjustment disorder with depressed 
mood; major depression without 
melancholia’’) since we are providing 
separate diagnostic codes for both 
“dysthymic disorder’’ (DC 9433) and 
“major depressive disorder’’ (DC 9434) 
imder the category of mood disorders. 

A category of mental disorders that 
the current rating schedule does not 
specifically address, but that is seen 
fairly often in the veteran population, is 
adjustment disorder. The essential 
feature of an adjustment disorder is the 
development of clinically significant 
emotional or behavioral symptoms in 
response to an identifiable psychosocial 
stressor or stressors. We propose to add 
a new category and diagnostic code 
(9440) for Tronic adjustment disorder. 

The current rating schedule provides 
separate rating formulas for psychotic 
disorders, organic mental disorders, and 
psychoneurotic disorders. The formula 
for psychoneurotic disorders provides 
some specific criteria at each evaluation 
level, but also uses “mild,” “definite,” 
“considerable,” and “severe” industrial 
impairment at certain levels. Formulas 
for the other two provide specific 
criteria only at the 100 percent level and 
assign less than total evaluations based 
on whether there is “mild,” “definite,” 


“considerable,” or “severe” impairment 
of social and industrial adaptability at 
the other levels. Because those are non¬ 
specific terms, they are subject to 
interpretation by individual rating 
boards, and it is possible that they may 
not be applied consistently. For 
example, the current criterion for the 50 
percent level of evaluation for psychotic 
disorders is: “considerable impairment 
of social and industrial adaptaoility.” 
This offers no objective guidance for the 
rating board and makes comparison of 
one exam with another difficult. We 
propose to provide more objective 
criteria that will in turn result in more 
consistent evaluations. 

The contract consultants 
recommended that we base the 
evaluation of mental disorders on more 
extensive objective descriptions of their 
possible efiects and with examples of 
signs and symptoms at various levels. In 
keeping with that recommendation, we 
propose to evaluate all mental disorders 
except eating disorders under a single 
formula, providing objective criteria 
based on signs and symptoms which 
characteristically produce a particular 
level of disability. For example, we 
propose criteria for the 50 percent level 
to be: “moderately severe impairment in 
social and occupational functioning 
with reduced reliability and 
productivity due to such symptoms as: 
flattened affect; circumstantial, 
circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; 
panic attacks more than once a week; 
difficulty in understanding complex 
commands; impairment of short—and 
long-term memory (e.g., retention of 
only highly learned material, forgetting 
to complete tasks); impaired judgment; 
impaired abstract thyiking; disturbances 
of motivation and mood; difficulty in 
establishing and maintaining effective 
relationships at work and socially.” 
These criteria are clearly more objective 
than the present rating formulas, and 
providing such objective criteria at each 
level of evaluation will result in more 
consistent evaluations and will offer 
greater ease in comparing examinations. 

The symptoms indicated at each level 
are not intended to be comprehensive 
(and could not be, because of the 
multitude of symptoms in mental 
disorders), but to provide an objective 
framework that will enable rating boards 
to assign consistent evaluations for 
mental disorders based on signs and 
symptoms. The proposed criteria are 
more objective than the current ones 
because they focus on the level of 
impairment of occupational and social 
functioning as related to the specific 
symptoms which are present, whether 
the symptoms are persistent or 
transient, their frequency (e.g., of panic 


attacks), and their severity (e.g., degrees 
of memory loss are given at different 
levels). With more specific and objective 
criteria, the rating board can make a 
determination of the level of severity 
based on all the evidence of record, 
including the detailed report of all signs 
and symptoms, relevant information 
regarding employment, report of daily 
activities, etc., and will not have to 
attempt an assessment based on whether 
the evidence corresponds to the non¬ 
specific language in the current 
schedule. 

In the current rating schedule, DC’s 
9500 through 9511 represent 
psychological factors afiecting physical 
conditions in various body systems, and 
they are in their own category. 

Evaluation is directed to ^ made under 
the general rating formula for 
psy^oneurotic disorders. In DSM-IV, 
the condition of “psychological factors 
affecting physical condition” has been 
renamed “psychological factors 
affecting medical condition” (PFAMC) 
and placed in a new category, “Other 
conditions that may be a focus of 
clinical attention.” DSM-IV states that 
PFAMC refers to the presence of one or 
more specific psychological or 
behavioral factors that adversely affect a 
general medical condition. There are 
therefore two components in PFAMC: a 
medical condition and psychological 
factors. There is no need for a separate 
code and evaluation criteria for this 
condition, and we propose to delete 
DC’s 9500 through 9511. Psychological 
factors that do not constitute a 
recognized mental disorder would not 
be service-connectable in their own 
right. A separate evaluation for each 
service-connected component would be 
made as usual under the appropriate 
diagnostic code(s). An additional 
separate evaluation for PFAMC would 
not be warranted, emd in fact would 
represent pyramiding (see 38 CFR 4.14). 

We propose to add one other category, 
“eating disorders,” a group of mental 
disorders characterized by gross 
disturbances in eating behavior. This 
category will include anorexia nervosa 
(DC 9520) and bulimia nervosa (DC 
9521), conditions which are commonly 
diagnosed but cannot be appropriately 
rated under the proposed general rating 
criteria for mental disorders because 
their more disabling aspects are 
manifested primarily by physical 
findings rather than by psychological 
symptoms. We propose that the criteria 
bie based partly on the extent of weight 
loss (per DSM-IV) and partly on the 
extent of incapacitating episodes and 
needed periods of hospitalization. 

The contract consultants suggested we 
include the categories of sexual 




54830 


Federal Register / Vol. 


disorders and sleep disorders in the 
revised schedule. Sexual disorders, 
which include sexual dysfunctions such 
as sexual desire disorders and orgasmic 
disorders, paraphilias such as fetishism 
and sexual sadism, and gender identity 
disorders, do not have any inherent 
eOect on employability, and we do not 
propose to include them in the 
schedule. Sleep disorders are often 
manifested by significant physical 
manifestations, and narcolepsy is 
currently addressed in the rating 
schedule under neurologic disorders (as 
DC 8108). We published a proposed 
revision of the respiratory disorders 
section of the rating schedule (58 FR 
4962-69) that will include sleep apnea 
(as IX! 6846). We therefore do not 
propose to add a separate category for 
sleep disorders to the mental disorders 
section of the schedule. 

Section 4.16 of 38 CFR was 
established to assure that any veteran 
unable to secure or follow a 
substantially gainful occupation because 
of service-connected disabilities will be 
awarded a total evaluation eveti though 
the scheduler evaluation does not reach 
that level. Section 4.16(c) provides that 
where the only service-connected 
disability is a mental disorder assigned 
a 70 percent scheduler evaluation, but 
which nonetheless precludes the 
veteran from securing or following a 
substantially gednful occupation, the 
mental disorder will be assigned a 100 
percent scheduler evaluation rather than 
an extra-schedular total evaluation. We 
propose to delete § 4.16 (c), because, in 
our judgment, it is possible that a 
veteran may be properly evaluated at a 
level less than 100 percent based on 
average impairment, but because of 
unique aspects of his or her individual 
situation, might still be unable to secure 
or follow a substantially gainful 
occupation. In order to allow rating 
specialists the flexibility to fairly 
evaluate such situations, we propose to 
have § 4.16(a) apply to mental disorders 
in the same manner that it does to other 
disabilities. 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 
this regulatory amendment will not 
have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities as 
they are defined in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 
The reason for this certification is that 
this amendment would not directly 
affect any small entities. Only VA 
beneficiaries could be directly affected. 
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 
this amendment is exempt from the 
initial and final regulatory flexibility 
analysis requirements of sections 603 
and 604. 


60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 


This rule has been reviewed under 
Executive Order 12866 by the Office of 
Management and Budget. 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance program numbers are 64.104 and 
64.109. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4 

Disability benefits. Individuals with 
disabilities. Pensions, Veterans. 

Approved: July 19,1995. 

Jesse Brown, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 
preamble, 38 CFR part 4 is proposed to . 
be amended as set forth below: 

PART 4—SCHEDULE FORMATING 
DISABILITIES 

1. The authority citation for part 4 
continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155. 

§4.16 [Amended] 

2. Iri § 4.16, paragraph (c) is removed. 

Subpart B—Disability Ratings 

3. Section 4.125 is revised to read as 
follows: 

§ 4.125 Diagnosis of mental disorders. 

(a) If the diagnosis of a mental 
disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or 
is not supported by the findings on the 
examination report, the rating board 
shall return the report to the examiner 
to substantiate the diagnosis. 

(b) If the diagnosis of a mental 
disorder is changed, the rating board 
shall determine whether the new 
diagnosis represents progression of the 
prior diagnosis, correction of an error in 
the prior diagnosis, or development of a 
new and separate condition. If it is not 
clear from the available records what 
the change of diagnosis represents, the 
rating board shall return the report to 
the examiner for a determination. 

4. Section 4.126 is revised to read as 
follows: 

§ 4.126 Evaluation of disability from 
mental disorders. 

(a) When evaluating a mental 
disorder, the rating board shall consider 
the frequency, severity, and duration of 
psychiatric symptoms, the length of 
remissions, and the veteran’s capacity 
for adjustment during periods of 
remission. The rating board shall assign 
an evaluation based on all the evidence 
of record that bears on occupational and 
social impairment rather than on the 
examiner’s assessment of the level of 
disability at the moment of the 
examination. 

(b) When evaluating the level of 
disability from a mental disorder, the 


1995 / Proposed Rules 


rating board will consider the extent of 
social impairment, but shall not assign 
an evaluation solely on the basis of 
social impairment. 

(c) Delirium, dementia, and amnestic 
and other cognitive disorders shall be 
evaluated imder the general rating 
formula for mental disorders; neurologic 
deficits or other impairments stemming 
firom the same etiology (e.g., a head 
injury) shall be evaluated separately and 
combined with the evaluation for 
delirium, dementia, or amnestic or other 
cognitive disorder (see § 4.25 of this 
part). 

(d) When a single disability has been 
diagnosed both as a physical condition 
and as a mental disorder, the rating 
board shall evaluate it using a 
diagnostic code which represents the 
dominant (more disabling) aspect of the 
condition (see § 4.14 of this part). 

5. Section 4.127 is revised to read as 
follows: 

§4.127 Mental retardation and personality 
disorders. 

Mental retardation and personality 
disorders will not be considered as 
disabilities under the terms of the 
schedule, but a mental disorder that is 
superimposed upon, but clearly separate 
from, the mental retardation or 
personality disorder may be a disability 
for VA compensation purposes. 

6. Section 4.128 is revised to read as 
follows: 

§ 4.128 Convalescence ratings following 
extended hospitalization. 

If a mental disorder has been assigned 
a total evaluation due to a continuous 
period of hospitalization lasting six 
months or more, the rating board shall 
continue the total evaluation 
indefinitely and schedule a mandatory 
examination six months after the 
veteran is discharged or released to 
nonbed care. A change in evaluation 
based on that or any subsequent 
examination shall be subject to the 
provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter. 

7. Section 4.129 is revised to read as 
follows: 

§ 4.129 Mental disorders due to psychic 
trauma. 

When a mental disorder that develops 
in service as a result of a highly stressffil 
event is severe enough to bring about 
the veteran’s release fix)m active military 
service, the rating hoard shall assign an 
evaluation of not less than 50 percent 
and schedule an examination within the 
six month period following the veteran’s 
discharge. 

8. Section 4.130 is revised to read as 
follows: 



54831 


Federal Register / Vol. 


§ 4.130 Schedule of ratings—mental 
disorders. 

Note: The nomenclature employed in this 
portion of the rating schedule is l»sed upon 
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, of the 
American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV). 
Rating boards must be thoroughly familiar 
with this manual to properly implement the 
directives in §4.125 through §4.129 and to 
apply the general rating formula for mental 
disorders in §4.130. 

Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic 
Disorders 

9201 Schizophrenia, disorganized type 

9202 Schizophrenia, catatonic type 

9203 Schizophrenia, paranoid type 

9204 Schizophrenia, undifferentiated 
type 

9205 Schizophrenia, residual type; 
other and unspecified types 

9208 Delusional disorder 

9210 Psychotic disorder, not otherwise 
specified (atypical psychosis) 

9211 Schizoaffective disorder 

Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic and 
Other Cognitive Disorders) 

9300 Delirium 

9301 Deihentia due to infection (HIV 
infection, syphilis, or other 
systemic or intracranial infections) 

9304 Dementia due to head trauma 

9305 Vascular dementia 

9310 Dementia of unknown etiology 
9312 Dementia of the Alzheimer’s t)rpe 

9326 Dementia due to other neurologic 
or general medical conditions 
(endocrine disorders, metahohc 
disorders, drugs, alcohol, poisons. 
Pick’s disease, brain tumors, etc.) 

9327 Organic mental disorder, other 

Anxiety Disorders 

9400 Generalized anxiety disorder 

9403 Specific (simple) phobia; social 
phobia 

9404 Obsessive compulsive disorder 

9410 Other and imspecified neurosis 

9411 Post-traumatic stress disorder 

9412 Panic disorder and/or 
agoraphobia 

9413 An^ety disorder, not otherwise 
specified 

Dissociative Disorders 

9416 Dissociative amnesia; 
dissociative fugue; dissociative 
identity disorder (multiple 
personality disorder) 

9417 Depersonalization disorder 

Somatoform Disorders 

9421 Somatization disorder 

9422 Pain disorder 

9423 Undifferentiated somatoform 
disorder 

9424 Conversion disorder 

9425 Hypochondriasis 


60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 


Mood Disorders 

9431 Cyclothymic disorder 

9432 Bipolar disorder 

9433 Dysthymic disorder 

9434 Major depressive disorder 

9435 Mood disorder, not otherwise 
specified 

Chronic Adjustment Disorder 
9440 Chronic adjustment disorder 

General Rating Formula for Mental 
Disorders 

Total occupational and social 
impairment, due to such symptoms as: 
gross impairment in thought processes 
or communication; persistent delusions 
or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate 
behavior; persistent danger of hurting 
self or others; intermittent inability to 
perform activities of daily living 
(including maintenance of minimal 
personal hygiene); disorientation to time 
or place; memory loss for naifies of close 
relatives, own occupation, or own 
name—100. 

Severe occupational and social 
impairment, with deficiencies in most 
areas, such as work, school, family 
relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, 
due to sudi symptoms as: Suicidal 
ideation; obsessional rituals which 
interfere with routine activities; speech 
intermittently illogical, obscure, or 
irrelevant; near-continuous panic or 
depression affecting the ability to 
function independently, appropriately 
and effectively; impaired impulse 
control (such as unprovoked irritability 
with periods of violence); spatial 
disorientation; neglect of personal 
appearance and hygiene; difficulty in 
adapting to stressffil circumstances 
(including work or a worklike setting); 
inability to establish and maintain 
effective relationships—70, 

Occupational and social impairment 
with reduced reliability and 
productivity due to such symptoms as: 
Flattened afiect; circumstantial, 
circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; 
panic attacks more than once a week; 
difficulty in imderstanding complex 
commands; impairment of short- and 
long-term memory (e.g., retention of 
only highly learned material, forgetting 
to complete tasks); impaired judgment; 
impaired abstract thinking; distiubances 
of motivation and mood; difficulty in 
establishing and maintaining effective 
work and social relationships—50. 

Occupational and social impairment 
with'occasional decrease in work 
efficiency and intermittent periods of 
inability to perform occupational tasks 
(although generally functioning 
satisfactorily, with routine behavior, 
self-care, and conversation normal), due 


1995 / Proposed Rules 


to such symptoms as: Depressed mood, 
anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks 
(weekly or less often), chronic sleep 
impairment, mild memory loss (such as 
forgetting names, directions, recent 
events)—30. 

Occupational and social impairment 
due to mild or transient symptoms 
which decrease work efficiency and 
ability to perform occupational tasks 
only during periods of significant stress, 
or; symptoms controlled by continuous 
medication—10. 

A mental condition has been formally 
diagnosed, but symptoms are not severe 
enough either to interfere with 
occupational and social functioning or 
to require continuous medication—0. 

Eating Disorders 

9520 Anorexia nervosa 

9521 Bulimia nervosa 

Rating Formula for Eating Disorders 

Self-induced weight loss to less than 
80 percent of expected minimum 
weight, with incapacitating episodes of 
at least six weeks total duration, and 
requiring hospitalization more than 
twice a year for parenteral nutrition or 
tube feeding—100. 

Self-induced weight loss to less than 
85 percent of expected minimum weight 
with incapacitating episodes of six or 
more weeks total duration per year—60. 

Self-induced weight loss to less than 
85 percent of expected minimum weight 
with incapacitating episodes of more 
than two but less than six weeks total 
duration per year—30. 

Binge eating followed by self-induced 
vomiting or other measures to prevent 
weight gain, or resistance to weight gain 
even when below expected minimum 
weight, with diagnosis of an eating 
disorder and incapacitating episodes of 
up to two weeks total duration per 
year—10. 

Binge eating followed by self-induced 
vomiting or other measures to prevent 
weight gain, or resistance to weight gain 
even when below expected minimum 
weight, with diagnosis of an eating 
disorder but without incapacitating 
episodes—0. 

Note: An incapacitating episode is a period 
during which bed rest and treatment by a 
physician are required. 

§§ 4.131 and 4.132 [Removed] 

9. §4.131 and §4.132 are removed. 

[FR Doc. 95-26567 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
BILLINQ CODE 8320-01-P 




54832 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 

40CFRPart52 
[IL12&-1-7030b: FRL-5312-8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans; Illinois 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 
Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States 
Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA) proposes to approve Illinois’ 
May 5,1995, State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision request establishing new 
rules for automotive/transportation and 
business machine plastic parts coating 
operations as part of the State’s 15 
percent Reasonable Further Progress 
Plan control measures for the control of 
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). In 
the final rules section of this Federal 
Register, the USEPA is approving this 
action as a direct final rule without 
prior proposal because USEPA views 
this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set 
forth in the direct final rule. If no 
adverse comments are received in 
response to that direct final rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in 
relation to this proposed rule. If USEPA 
receives adverse comments, the direct 
final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. USEPA will 
not institute a second comment period 
on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this document should 
do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 
must be received on or before November 
27,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 
be mailed to: J. Elmer Bort 2 »r, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, 
Regulation Development Branch (AR18- 
J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Copies of the State submittal and 
USEPA’s analysis of it are available for 
inspection at: Regulation JDevelopment 
Section, Regulation Development 
Branch (AR18-J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Mark J. Palermo, Regulation 
Development Section, Regulation 
Development Branch (AR18-J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 


Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6082. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 
additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section 
of this Federal Register. 

Dated: September 22,1995. 

David A. Ullrich, 

Acting Regional Administrator. 

(FR Doc. 95-26586 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6560-«0-P 


40CFRPart52 
pL126-1-7031b; FRL-5299-e] 

Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans; Illinois 

agency: Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States 
Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA) proposes to approve Illinois’ 
May 5,1995, request to revise the State’s 
Wood Furniture Coating rule as part of 
the State’s 15 percent Reasonable 
Further Progress Plan control measures 
for the control of Volatile Organic 
Matter. In the final rules section of this 
Federal Register, the USEPA is 
approving this action as a direct final 
rule without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial 
action and anticipates no adverse 
comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are 
received in response to that direct final 
rule, no further activity is contemplated 
in relation to this proposed rule. If 
USEPA receives adverse comments, the 
direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. USEPA will 
not institute a second comment period 
on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this notice should do so 
at this time. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 
must be received on or before November 
27,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 
be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, 
Regulation Development Branch (AR18- 
J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Copies of the State submittal and 
USEPA’s analysis of it are available for 
inspection at: Regulation IDevelopment 
Section, Regulation Development 
Branch (AR18-J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 


Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Mark J. Palermo, Regulation 
Development Section, Regulation 
Development Branch (AR18-J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6082, 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 
additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section 
of this Federal Register. 

Dated; August 9,1995. 

Valdas V. Adamkus, 

Regional Administrator. 

IFR Doc. 95-26588 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE OSeO-SO-P 


40 CFRPart52 

[WA8-1-5478b; WA36-1-6951b; FRL-5315- 

Approval and Promulgation of State 
Implementation Plans: Washington 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve 
the PM-10 contingency measures for 
Seattle and Kent, Washington into the 
Washington State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). At the same time, EPA is 
providing notice that the conditions 
required under the June 23,1994 (59 FR 
32370), conditional approval of the 
Seattle PM-10 attainment plan have 
been met. The SIP revision was 
submitted by the State to satisfy certain 
Federal Clean Air Act requirements for 
contingency measures. In the Final 
Rules Section of this Federal Register, 
the EPA is approving the Stater’s SIP 
revision as a direct final rule without 
prior proposal because the Agency 
views this as a noncontroversial 
revision amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. A detailed rationale 
for the approval is set forth in the direct 
final rule. If no adverse comments are 
received in response to this proposed 
rule, no further activity is contemplated 
in relation to this rule. If the EPA 
receives adverse comments, the direcSl 
final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. The EPA 
will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 
must be received in writing by 
November 27,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 
be addressed to Montel Livingston, 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


54833 


Environmental Protection Specialist 
(AT-082), Air Programs Section, at the 
EPA Regional Office listed below. 

Copies of the documents relevant to this 
proposed rule are available for public 
inspection during normal business 
hours at the following locations. The 
interested persons wanting to examine 
these documents should make an 
appointment with the appropriate office 
at least 24 hours before the visiting day. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 10, Air Programs Section, 1200 
6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 

The State of Washington Department of 
Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, 

WA 98504-7600. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
George Lauderdale, Air Programs 
Branch (AT-082), EPA, 1200 6th 
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553- 
6511. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 
information provided in the Direct Final 
action which is located in the Rules 
Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated; October 2,1995. 

Chwdc Clarke, 

Regional Administrator. 

(FR Doc. 95-26591 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BHJJNG CODE 666fr-50-P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 
[Docket No. 95-72; Notice 1] 

RIN 2127-AF75 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices 
and Associated Equipment 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This notice proposes 
amendments to Standard No. 108, the 
Federal motor vehicle standard on 
lighting, which are intended to 
harmoni 2 » the Standard’s geometric 
visibility requirements for signal lamps, 
and rear side marker color, with those 
of the ECE. With harmonization of 
international standards in mind, the 
notice also seeks comments on whether 
the performance and installation of ^nt 
and rear fog lamps ought to be regulated 
by Standard No. 108. Harmonization of 
motor vehicle safety regulations 
worldwide, without reducing safety, 
would allow manufacturers to reduce 
costs by producing to a single world 


vehicle standard rather than several, 
thus reducing costs and improving the 
flow of trade. These actions implement 
the grant of a petition for rulemaking 
submitted by the Groupe de Travail 
Bruxelles. 

DATES: Comments are due December 26, 
1995. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 
Docket No. 95-72; Notice 1 and be 
submitted to: Docket Section, room 
5109,400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours 
are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich 
Van Iderstine, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 
202-366-5275; FAX: 202-366-4329). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Harmonization of Geometric Visibility 
Requirements 

The Groupe de Travail Bruxelles 1952 
(“GTB”) is composed of vehicle and 
lamp manufacturers from Europe, Japan, 
and the United States. GTB is an 
advisory group for the two organizations 
operating under the United Nations’ 
Economic Commission for Europe that 
are involved in establishing motor 
vehicle lighting standards: The Meeting 
of Experts on Lighting and Light 
Signalling (GRE) and the Working Party 
on the Construction of Motor Vehicles 
(WP29). 

GTB is seeking to “harmonize” the 
geometric visibility requirements of the 
United States and Europe through 
petitioning NHTSA for an amendment 
to Standa^ No. 108, and GRE and 
WP29 for amendments to ECE 
Regulation No.48 Uniform Provisions 
Concerning the Approval of Vehicles 
With Regard to the Installation of 
Lighting and Light-Signalling D^ces 
(“SCE R48”), specifically ECE R48.01. 
Under present lighting regulations, 
motor vehicle manufacturers must 
produce four different lighting packages 
for the same vehicle in order for it to be 
sold in the United States, the United 
Kingdom, continental Europe, and 
Japan. Harmonization of lifting 
requirements, without reducing safety, 
would reduce costs to manufacturers 
and purchasers, and improve the flow of 
trade. 

In its petition of June 15,1994, GTB 
asked NHTSA to amend or introduce 
geometrib visibility requirements for the 
following lamps and reflectors: backup 
lamp, firont and rear turn signal lamps, 
stop lamps including the center 
hig^moimted stop lamp, parking lamps, 
taillamps, rear fog lamp, reflectors 
(front, intermediate, side, and rear), 
marker lamps (fix>nt, intermediate, and 
side), and daytime running lamps. The 


petition noted that rear fog lamps are 
not presently included in Standard No. 
108, and that many items of lighting 
equipment are not presently subject to 
geometric visibility requirements. 

By way of explanation, “geometric 
visibility” is not a defined term in 
Standard No. 108. It refers to the 
visibility of a lamp or reflector moimted 
on a vehicle through a range of angles 
from left to right, and from up to down, 
with reference to the lens centefpoint 
(e.g., from 45 degrees left to 45 degrees 
ri^t). With the exception of the center 
highmounted stop lamp (S5.1.1.27), the 
geometric visibility requirements for 
motor vehicle lamps are not set out in 
full in the text of Standard No. 108, but 
are contained in related SAE Standards 
that have been incorporated by 
reference in Standard No. 108. SAE 
requirements are not uniform and were 
adopted on an ad hoc basis. 

The changes that GTB requested 
would afiect passenger cars only, and 
would expand the range of visibility 
requirements for many lamps, especially 
turn signal lamps and parking lamps. 
GTB believes that a majority of vehicles 
being sold in the United States already 
meet the requirements. For those that do 
not, the petitioner suggests that “the 
necessary design changes should not be 
difficult to implement, assuming that 
adequate lead time is provided.” 

The requested rulemaking would add 
a fifth table to Standard No. 108 of 
lamps covered by geometric visibility 
requirements and a new paragraph in 
S5.1.1 which would apply to the 
vehicles presently subject to tables III 
and rv, i.e., not only passenger cars, but 
also multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, trailers, and buses whose overall 
width is less than 80 inches (2032 mm). 
This section would allow manufacturers 
the option of providing geometric 
visibility of at least 12.5 sq. cm. or. 
“meeting ECE Reg 48.01 paragraph 6.” 
This would result in imposing 
geometric visibility requirements on five 
lamps and fom reflectors not currently 
subject to geometric visibility 
specifications. 

Options Presented by the Petition 

NHTSA has examined the possibility 
of incorporating ECE R48 into Standard 
No. 108, and decided that it is 
imnecessarily complex and could be 
confusing. For example, a turn signal 
lamp is allowable under R48: 

as meeting ECE Reg. 48.01 Addendum 47 
paragraph 6, dated March 22,1994, and 
meeting the geometric visibility requirements 
specifi^ in: • • * ECE Regulation, R-6 
Revision 2, 9 Aug. 1993 Front and Bear Turn 
Signals. 


J 




54834 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


Geometric visibility requirements 
appear in both ECE R48 and in ECE R6. 
According to the text cited above, turn 
signal lamps shall meet all requirements 
of ECE R48 other than geometric 
visibility which would be those of R6. 
Thus, it seems mmecessary to reference 
ECE R48 when the geometric 
requirements appear to be those of ECE 
R-6. Fmrther, there are numerous 
references beyond R48 and R-6 
incorporated in those regulations. These 
are automatically updated, unlike 
Standard No. 108, where the SAE 
materials incorporated by reference are 
not automatically changed by updates. 

There is also the matter of 
terminology. SAE J222 refers to parking 
lamps also as front position lamps. Yet 
there are separate categories for these in 
ECE R48 (6.9 Front Position Lamp, p. 

37; Paridng Lamp, 6.12, p. 41). NUTTSA 
could not recommend incorporating 
ECE R48 without modifying some of its 
provisions in the text of Standard No. 
108. At the very least, the new Table 
requested by the petitioner ought to 
cross reference the appropriate 
geometric visibility sections of that 
regulation with the lamps to which they 
apply. 

Further, there needs to be language 
that more clearly defines the lamp 
categories and the vehicles to which 
they apply. 

Annex 1 of R6 is far more preferable 
for incorporation into Standard No. 108. 
The geometric visibility provisions of 
R6 are not termed as such but appear to 
be the “minimiun angles requir^ for 
light distribution in space of * * * 
categories of direction indicators” in 
Annex 1 to R6. They are expressed in 
a series of diagrams. This is much 
clearer. Presumably, NHTSA could 
adopt text defining the 6 categories of 
turn signal lamps. 

By far, the more preferable 
amendment would be the incorporation 
of the requested new Table. However, 
this raises a further issue: whether the 


Table should comprise only those items 
or equipment currently subject to 
geometric visibility requirements, or 
whether all lamps and reflectors 
requested by GTB should be included? 

With respect to the option of 
restricted coverage. Standard No. 108 
does not prohibit a manufacturer of 
vehicles for sale in the United States 


from meeting European geometric 
visibility requirements with respect to 
any of the nine equipment items not 
now covered. The lack of geometric 
visibility requirements for these nine 
items means that European and 
Japanese manufactiurers need not 
concern themselves with this aspect of 
performance in designing vehicles for 


the American market. On the other 
hand, an American manufacturer must 
design its vehicles to comply with 
geometric visibility requirements for 
Aese nine items if it wishes to sell in 
Euroman markets. 

Although the silence of Standard No. 
108 on geometric visibility requirements 
for the nine items in no way 
disadvantages foreign manufacturers, in 
many minds it may not be synonymous 
with “harmonization.” To some 
members of GTB, “harmonization” often 
means identicality of regulations while, 
to NHTSA, a harmonized regulation is 
not necessarily identical but one that is 
broad enough to encompass “windows 
of harmony.” This allows a common 
vehicle to be manufactured and sold in 
many countries having different 
regulations. Thus, to encourage the ECE 
Ix^ies to harmonize their lighting 
regulations and to forestall any 
questions of preemption by the 
individual States in America, NHTSA 
has tentatively decided that it is in the 
interest of motor vehicle safety to make 
the list inclusive and to regulate the 
aspect of performance of lighting 
equipment called “geometric visibility” 
for the lighting equipment requested. As 
previously noted, the geometric 
visibility of some lighting equipment is 
already covered by Standard No. 108. 
NHTSA believes ^at a geometric 
visibility requirement for all lamps and 
reflectors is already either explicit or 
implicit in paragraph S5.3.1.1. Under 
this paragraph, ea(^ lamp shall be 
located so that it meets the visibility 
requirements in any applicable SAE 
Standard or Recommended Practice. 

Additionally, under this paragraph, 
no part of the vehicle shall prevent any 
lamp fi’om meeting the photometric 
output at any test point specified in 
Standard No. 108. However, if motor 
vehicle equipment does prevent 
compliance with photometries by any 
required lamp or reflective device, an 
auxiliary lamp or reflector shall be 
provided that does meet the 
photometric requirements. In NHTSA’s 
opinion, the effect of a final rule will 
make explicit what has always been 
inrolied. 

To accomplish this, NHTSA is 
proposing a new paragraph S5.1.1.30, 
applicable to the vehicles covered by 
Tables m and IV (i.e., those less than 80 
inches in overall width). The new 
paragraph would allow continued 
conformance to the existing 
requirements or to the “geometric 
visibility of at least 12.5 square 
centimeters of the light-emitting surface 
through a field of view as indicated in 
Table V, except for side marker lamps 
and reflex reflectms which have no area 


requirement.” Although the petitioner 
did not request it, as part of NHTSA’s 
good faith effort towards compatibility . 
of standards worldwide, the agency is 
proposing that the existing requirements 
be phased out in favor of the 
harmonized ones after two years 
(comment is especially requested on 
lead time). The definition of “Light- 
emitting Surface” that appears in SAE 
Standard J387 “Terminology, Motor 
Vehicle Lighting” would be added and 
defined to mean “that part of the 
exterior surface of the lens that encloses 
the light source and is required for 
conformance with photometric and 
colorimetric requirements.” This 
definition is necessary because the term 
ears in the proposied requirement, 
able V would be added to cover 15 
items of lighting equipment (lamps and 
reflectors), including the rear fog lamp. 
While a rear fog lamp is not required 
motor vehicle equipment, if a 
manufacturer chooses to provide one, it 
would then be required to meet the 
geometric visibility requirements (but 
no other requirements would apply at 
the present time). 

The visibility requirements are 
expressed with relation to the 
Horizontal (H) and Vertical (V) axes of 
the lamp or reflector. As an example, 
the geometric visibility requirement for 
a front turn signal lamp would be minus 
45 degrees to plus 45 degrees at 
Horizontal, and minus 15 degrees to 
plus 15 degrees at Vertical. 

NHTSA, however, is not proposing to 
adopt ECE’s backup lamp geometric 
visibility requirements because of its 
possibly adverse effect on safety. 
Standard No. 108 requires that the 
center of the backup lamp lens be seen 
from anywhere on a vertical transverse 
plane located three feet behind the 
vehicle and extending to three feet on 
either side of the vehicle, starting from 
two feet and ending at six feet above the 
road surface. For a minivan whose 
backup lamps are about 33 inches above 
the ground. Standard No. 108’s 
requirement creates upward visibility 
angles greater than 45 degrees. For 
passenger cars with lower lamp heights, 
the angles are even larger. Allowing 
these angles to be as small as ECE’s 15 
degrees upward would allow a 
significant reduction in the ability of a 
pedestrian to see the lamp’s signal. 

Rear Side Marker Color 

In its good faith efforts towards 
worldwide compatibility of standards, 
NHTSA itself has tentatively decided 
that a further area where harmonization 
might be achieved is the color of rear 
side marker lamps and reflectors. These 
are not mandatory items of equipment 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


54835 


in the ECE, unlike the United States. 
However, if rear side marker lamps and 
reflectors are provided, under ECE 
regulations, they must be amber with a 
few exceptions. In the United States, the 
required color is red, with no 
exceptions. 

Allowance of amber as an optional 
color for rear side marker equipment 
could improve harmony of requirements 
world wide without, in the opinion of 
the agency, derogating from safety. 
Therefore, the agency is proposing 
amendments to Tables I and in that 
would allow amber as an optional color 
for rear side marker equipment. If there 
are any safety concerns, NHTSA 
anticipates that commenters will bring 
them to the agency’s attention. 

Regulation of Fog Lamps 

Another aspect of motor vehicle 
lighting that might be appropriate for 
harmonization is the regulation of front 
and rear fog lamps. These are not items 
of motor vehicle equipment mandated 
by Standard No. 108.' They are regulated 
by the States as each jurisdiction deems 
appropriate. NHTSA has no information 
as to the extent that European and 
Japanese manufacturers must modify 
the fog lamps and their installations on 
their vehicles in order to meet the 
regulations of the States. Should 
NHTSA assert its jurisdiction over that 
aspect of motor vehicle equipment 
performance and specify performance 
requirements (in addition to geometric 
visibility) for front and rear fog lamps as 
optional equipment, that would 
preempt State regulations and could 
afford windows of harmonization with 
standards of the ECE. With respect to 
this issue, NHTSA is especially desirous 
of receiving comments from European 
and Japanese manufacturers and State 
motor vehicle officials. 

The performance requirements that 
appear appropriate to NHTSA would be 
SAE Standard J583 JUN93 “Front Fog 
Lamps” and SAE Standard J1319 JUN93 
“Fm Tail Lamp”. 

NHTSA is taking this action on its 
own initiative to demonstrate its good 
faith in exploring possible areas of 
harmonization of standards. 

Proposed Effective Date 

The amendments would be effective 
30 days after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register. At that 
time, manufacturers would have the 
option for the succeeding two years to 
conform to either the present or the 
harmonized geometric visibility 
requirements. After two yeeirs, the 
harmonized specifications would be the 
sole geometric visibility requirements. 
As noted previously, it is likely that 


many of the proposed requirements are 
already being met by manufacturers 
selling in world markets. 

However, when compliance with the 
final rule becomes mandatory, it will 
afiect U.S. vehicle lines that are not sold 
in world markets. NHTSA therefore 
seeks comments on the appropriateness 
of a two-year leadtime for mandatory 
compliance with the final rule, and a 
discussion of related costs or other 
impacts upon the commenter. 

Finally, the proposal would reinstate 
the lighting item “Headlamps” and 
headlamp mmmting requirements of 
SAE J566 in Table I, which were 
mist^enly omitted when Table I was 
amended to reflect the addition of 
section S7 Headlighting requirements to 
the standard. References to S7 would 
also be added imder the vehicle-type 
columns, in the manner set forth in 
Table m. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 
Executive Order 12866 and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

This rulemaking action was not 
reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
Ftirther, it has been determined that the 
rulemaking action is not significant 
under Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. The 
piupose of the rulemaking action is to 
make an existing requirement clearer 
and to harmonize regulations. It is 
fmticipated that the costs of the final 
rule would be so minimal as not to 
warrant preparation of a full regulatory 
evaluation. Vehicles presently selling in 
world markets are presumed to comply 
with the proposed rule. NHTSA has 
asked for comments on the costs and 
other impacts associated with a two- 
year leadtime for mandatory compliance 
of those vehicles not presently 
complying. This could involve 
relocation of certain lamps and 
reflectors and associated sheet metal 
changes, or redesign of lamps or 
reflectors. These could be easily 
accommodated within the present or 
next design cycle. If the comments 
received indicate that the imparts are 
more than minimal NHTSA will prepare 
a full regulatory evaluation before 
issuing a final rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 
action for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. It is not 
anticipated that a final rule based on 
this proposal would have a significant 
effect upon the environment. The 
composition of lighting equipment 
would not change from those presently 
in production. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The agency 
has also considered the impacts of this 


rulemaking action in relation to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the 
reasons stated above and below, I certify 
that this rulemaking action would not 
have a significant economic impact 
upon a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory 
flexibility analysis has been prepaid. 
Manufactiurers of motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment, those afiected 
by the rulemaking action, are generally 
not small businesses vtrithin the 
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. 

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism). 
This rulemaking action has also been 
analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in 
Executive Order 12612, and NHTSA has 
determined that this rulemaking action 
does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment. 

Civil Justice. A final rule based on this 
proposal would not have any retroactive 
effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever 
a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect, a state may not adopt or 
maintain a safety standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance which 
is not identical to the Federal standard. 

49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure 
for judicial review of final rules 
establishing, amending or revoking 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 
That section does not require 
submission of a petition for 
reconsideration or other administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit 
in court. 

Request for Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 
submit comments on the proposal. It is 
requested but not required that 10 
copies be submitted. 

All comments must not exceed 15 
pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be 
appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This 
limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary 
arguments in a concise fashion*. 

If a commenter wishes to submit 
certain information under a claim of 
confidentiality, three copies of the 
complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business 
information, should be submitted to the 
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street 
address given above, and seven copies 
from which the purportedly confidential 
information has been deleted should be 
submitted to the Docket Section. A 
request for confidentiality should be 
accompanied by a cover letter setting 
forth the information specified in the 




54836 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


agency’s confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512. 

All comments received before the 
close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the 
proposal Mdll be considered, and will be 
available for examination in the docket 
at the above address both before and 
after that date. To the extent possible, 
comments filed after the closing date 
will also be considered. Ck)mments 
received too late for consideration in 
regard to the final rule will be 
considered as suggestions for further 
rulemaking action. Comments on the 
proposal will be available for inspection 
in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it 
becomes available in the docket after the 
closing date, and it is recommended that 
interested persons continue to examine 
the docket for new material. 

Those persons desiring to be notified 
u(K)n receipt of their comments in the 
rules docket should enclose a self- 
addressed. stamped postcard in the 
envelope with their comments. Upon 
receiving the comments, the docket 
supervisor will retiun the postcard by 
mail. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety. Motor 
vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 
CFR Part 571 would be amended as 
follows: 


PART 571-4FEDERAL’MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for Part 571 
would continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C 322, 30111, 30115, 
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.108 would be amended 
by: 

a. adding to paragraph S4, in 
alphabetical order, a new definition 
“Light-emitting Surface”, 

b. adding a new paragraph S5.1.1.30, 

c. revising the heading of Table I, 
revising the text preceding the table, 
and adding Headlamps as the first entry, 

d. revising the text preceding the table 
and the entries for Reflex reflectors and 
Side marker lamps in Tables I, n, in and 
IV, and 

e. adding a new Table V to follow 
Table IV and to precede the Note to the 
standard, to read as follows: 

§571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, 
reflective devices, and associated 
equipment 

* * * * * 

S4 Definitions. 

***** 

Light-emitting Surface means all or 
part of the exterior surface of the 
transparent or translucent Jens that 
encloses the lighting or light-signalling 
device and allows conformance with 


photometric and colorimetric 
requirements. 

***** 

S5.1.1.30. (a) Each passenger car, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, 
or bus, of less than 80 inches overall 
width, manufactured before [two years 
after the effective date of the final rule], 
when equipped with any item of 
lighting equipment listed in Table V, 
may provide geometric visibility of at 
least 12.5 square centimeters of the 
projected light-emitting surface 
perpendicular to the axis of viewing 
through a field of view as indicated in 
Table V, except for side marker and 
reflex reflectors which have no area 
requirement. 

(b) Each passenger car, multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, of less 
than 80 inches overall width 
manufactured on or after [two years 
after the effective date of the final rule], 
when equipped with any item of 
lighting equipment listed in Table V, 
shall provide geometric visibility of at 
least 12.5 square centimeters of the 
projected light-emitting smface 
perpendicular to the axis of viewing 
through a field of view as indicated in 
Table V, except for side marker and 
reflex reflectors which have no area 
requirement. 

***** 


Table I.—Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment 

[Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of 80 (2032) or more inches (MM) overall width] 


Item 


Multipurpose peissenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses 

Trailers 

Applicable SAE standard or rec¬ 
ommended practice (See S6 for 
subreferenced SAE materials) 


Heaciamps. 


Saa S7. . 

None... 

J566, January 1960. 


Reflex reflectors. 

Side marker lamps 

• 

.. 4 red; 2 amber; or 2 red; 4 aiiiber 
9 rad; 9 amhar; or 4 amhar. 

• * 

4 red; 2 amber; or 2 red; 4 amber 

2 red; 2 amber; or 4 amber 

* • 

J594f, January 1977.' 

J592e, July 1972. 



* 


• * 















Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 54837 

Table II.—Location of Required Equipment 

[Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of 80 (2032) or more inches (MM) overall width] 


Location on— 


Item 


Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses 


Trailers 


Height above road surface meas¬ 
ured from center of item on vehi¬ 
cle at curb weight 


Reflex reflectors. On the rear—1 red on each side On the rear—1 red on each side 

of the vertical centerline, as far of the vertical centerline, as far 


Do. 


Side marker lamps 


apart as practicable, and at the 
same height. On each side—1 
red or amber as far to the rear 
as practicable, and 1 amber as 
far to the front as practicable. 
....do. 


apart as practicable, and at the 
same height On each side—1 
red or amber as far to the rear 
as practicable, and 1 amber as 
far to the front as practicable. 

....do. Not less than 15 inches, and on 

the rear of trailers not more 
than 60 inches. 


Table ML—Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment 

[All passenger cars and motorcycles, eind multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers, of less than 80 (2032) inches (MM) 

overall width] 


Item 


Passenger cars, multipur¬ 
pose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses 


Trailers 


Motorcycles 


Applicable SAE standard 
or recommended practice 
(See S6 for subreferenced 
SAE materials) 


Reflex reflectors .. 4 red; 2 amber; or 2 red; 4 

amber. 


Side marker lamps . 2 red; 2 amber; or 4 

amber. 


4 red; 2 amber; or 2 red; 4 
amber. 


2 red; 2 amber; or 4 
amber. 


3 red; 2 amber; or 1 red; 4 
amber. 


J594f, January 1977. 


None . J592e, July 1972. 


Table IV.— Location of Required Equipment 

[All passenger cars and motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of less than 80 (2032) inches (MM) overall 

width] 



Item 

Location on— 

Passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, trail¬ 
ers, and buses 

Motorcycles 

- Height above road surface meas¬ 
ured from center of item on vehi¬ 
cle at curb weight 





• • 


Reflex reflectors. On the rear—1 red on each side On the rear—1 red on the vertical Not less than 15 inches, nor more 

of the vertical centerline, at the centerline, except that, if two than 60 inches.' 

same height, and as far apart are used on the rear, they shall 

as practicable. On each side—1 be symmetrically disposed 

red as far to the rear as prac- about the vertical centerline. On 

ticable, aixf 1 atmber as far to each side—1 red or amber as 

the front as practicable. On far to the rear as practicable, 

each side—1 red or amber as and 1 amber as far to the front 

far to the rear as practicable, as practicable. 

and 1 amber as far to the front 

as practicable. 


Side marker lamps. On each side—1 red or amber as Not required. Not less than 15 inches. 

far to the rear as practicable, 
and 1 amber as far to the front 
as practicable. 























54838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


Table V.—Specifications for Geometric Visibility of Installed Lighting Devices 


Lighting device 

Axis 

Geometric visibility requirement 

Front Turn Signal Lamp. 

H 

-45° to+45®. 


V 

-15° to+15°.’ 

Rear Turn Signal Lamp ... 

H 

-15° to+45°. 


V 

-15° to +15°.’ 

Stop Lamp ... 

H 

- 45° to +45°. 


V 

-15° to+15°.’ 

Front Parking Lamp... 

H 

-45° to+45°. 


V 

-15° to+15°.’ 

Tail Lamp..... 

H 

-45° to+45°. 


V 

-15° to+15°.’ 

Rear Fog Lamp... 

H 

-10° to+10°. 


V 

-5° to+5°. 

Rear Reflex Reflector... 

H 

-30° to+30°. 


V 

-10° to+10°.’ 

Front Side Reflex Reflector. 

H 

-45° to+45°. 


V 

-10° to+10°.’ 

Intermediate Side Reflex Reflector... 

H 

- 45° to +45°. 


V 

-10° to+10°.’ 

Rear Side Reflex Reflector.. 

H 

-45° to+45°. 


V 

-10° to+10°.’ 

Front Side Marker Lamp. 

H 

- 45° to +45°. 


V 

-10° to+10°.’ 

Intermediate Side Marker Lamp. 

H 

-45° to+45°. 


V 

-10° to+10°.’ 

Rear Side Marker Lamp... 

H 

-45° to+45°. 


V 

-10° to+10°. 

High Mounted Stop Lamp..'. 

H 

-T0°to+10°. 


V 

-5° to+10°. 

Daytime Running Lamp. 

H 

-20° to+20°. 


V 

-10° to+10°. 


' Angle below horizontal may be reduced to 5° if the lamp is less than 750 mm. above the ground. 


***** 

Issued on October 17.1995. 

Barry Felrice, 

Associate Administrator for Safety 
Performance Standards. 

[FR Doc. 95-26498 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BaiJNQ CODE 4eie-6a-p 


r 





































Notices 


Federal Register 
Vol. 60. No. 207 
Thursday, October 26, 1995 


54839 


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 
contains documents other thsin rules or 
proposed rules that are applicabie to the 
public. Notices of hearings and investigations, 
committee meetings, agency decisions arxf 
rulings, delegations of auth<^, filing of 
petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions aie 
examples of documents appearing in this 
section. 


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultui^l Research Service 

Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive 
License 

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, 
USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Agricultural Research Science, intends 
to grant to Union Camp Corporation of 
Wayne, New Jersey, an exclusive license 
for all uses in the field of tree seedling 
coatings to U.S. Patent Application 
Serial No. 08/233,173 filed April 26, 
1994, “Non-Separable Starch-Oil 
Compositions.” Notice of Availability 
was published in the Federal Register 
on October 24,1994. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 
or before November 27,1995. 
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, 
ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
Room 401, Building 005, BARC-West, 
Baltimore Boulevard, Beltsville, 
Maryland 20705-2350. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

June Blalock of the Office of Technology 
Transfer at the Beltsville address given 
above; telephone; 301-504-5989. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
Federal Government’s patents rights to 
this invention are assigned to the United 
States of America, as represented by the 
Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the 
public interest to so license this 
invention as Union Camp Corporation 
has submitted a complete and sufficient 
application for a license. The 
prospective exclusive license will be 
royalty-bearing and will comply with 
the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 
209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective 
exclusive license may be granted unless, 
within sixty days from the date of this 
published Notice, the Agricultural 
Research Service receives written 
evidence and argument which 


establishes that the grant of the license 
would not be consistent with the 
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 
CFR 404.7. 

R.M. Parry, Jr., 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 95-26532 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
BILUNQ CODE 341IM)3-M 

Animal and Plant Health inspection 
Service 

[Docket No. 95-075-1] 

Dupont Agricultural Products; Receipt 
of Petition for Determination of 
Nonregulated Status for Cotton 
Genetically Engineered for Tolerance 
to Sulfonylurea Herbicides 

agency: Animal and Plant Healt^ 
Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. ' 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 
that the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service has received a 
petition from Dupont Agricultmral 
Products seeking a determination of 
nonregulated status for a cotton line 
designated as 19-51a that has been 
genetically engineered for tolerance to 
sulfonylurea herbicides. The petition 
has been submitted in accordance with 
our regulations concerning the 
introduction of certain genetically 
engineered organisms and products. In 
accordance with those regulations, we 
are soliciting public comments on 
whether this cotton line presents a plant 
pest risk. 

DATES: Written comments must be 
received on or before December 26, 
1995. 

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and 
three copies of your comments to 
Docket No. 95-075-1, Regulatory 
Analysis and Development, PPD, 
APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road 
Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. 
Please state that your comments refer to 
Docket No. 95-075-1. A copy of the 
petition and any comments received 
may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, 
South Building, 14th Street and 
Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except holidays. Persons wishing access 
to that room to inspect the petition or 
comments are asked to call in advance 
of visiting at (202) 690-2817. 


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 
Sivramiah Shantharam, Team Leader, 
Biotechnology Permits, BBEP, APHIS, 
Suite 5B05,4700 River Road Unit 147, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1237; (301) 734- 
7612. To obtain a copy of the petition, 
contact Ms. Kay Peterson at (301) 734- 
7612. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
regulations in 7 CFR part 340, 
‘‘Introduction of Organisms and 
Products Altered or Produced Through 
Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant 
Pests or Which There Is Reason to 
Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, 
among other things, the introduction 
(importation, interstate movement, or 
release into the environment) of 
organisms and products altered or 
produced through genetic engineering 
that are plant pests or that there is 
reason to believe are plant pests. Such 
genetically engineered organisms and 
products are considered ‘‘regulated 
articles.” 

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide 
that any person may submit a petition 
to the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a 
determination that an article should not 
be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. 
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 
describe the form that a petition for 
determination of nonregulated status 
must take and the information that must 
be included in the petition. 

On September 13,1995, APHIS 
received a petition (APHIS Petition No. 
95-256-Olp) from Dupont Agricultural 
Products (Dupont) of Wilmington, DE, 
requesting a determination of 
nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 
340 for a sulfonylurea-tolerant cotton 
line designated as 19-5 la. The Dupiont 
petition states that the subject cotton 
line should not be regulated by APHIS 
because it does not present a plant pest 
risk. 

As described in the petition, cotton 
line 19-51a has been genetically 
engineered with a gene from tobacco 
which encodes an altered acetolactate 
synthase enzyme that enhances 
tolerance to sulfonylurea herbicides. 
The subject cotton line was developed 
through the use of the Agrobacterium 
tumefaciens transformation system. 

Dupont’s cotton line 19-51a is 
currently considered a regulated article 
under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 
because it contains gene sequences 
derived from the plant pathogen A. 






54840 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


tumefaciens. The subject cotton line has 
been evaluated in field trials conducted 
since 1991 under APHIS permits or 
notifications. In the process of 
reviewing the applications for field 
trials of the subject cotton, APHIS 
determined that the vectors and other ■ 
elements were disarmed and that the 
trials, which were conducted under 
conditions of reproductive and physical 
contaiiunent or isolation, would not 
present a risk of plant pest introduction 
or dissemination. 

In the Federal Plant Pest Act, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 15Caa et seq.), “plant 
pest” is defined as “any living stage of: 
Any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs, 
snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate 
animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic 
plants or reproductive parts thereof, 
viruses, or any organisms similar to or 
allied with any of the foregoing, or any 
infectious substances, which can 
directly or indirectly injiire or cause 
disease or damage in any plants or parts 
thereof, or any processed, manufactured 
or other products of plants.” APHIS 
views this definition very broadly. The 
definition covers direct or indirect 
injury, disease, or damage not just to 
agricultural crops, but also to plants in 
general, for example, native species, as 
well as to organisms that may be 
beneficial to plants, for example, 
honeybees, rhizobia, etc. 

This genetically engineered cotton 
line is also currently subject to 
regulation by other agencies. The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
is responsible for the regulation of 
pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fimgicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(Flk'kA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et 
seq.). FIFRA requires that all pesticides, 
including herbicides, be registered prior 
to distribution or sale, unless exempt by 
EPA regulation. Plants that have been 
genetically modified for tolerance or 
resistance to herbicides are not 
regulated under the FIFRA because the 
plants themselves are not considered 
pesticides. 

In cases in which the genetically 
modified plants allow for a new use of 
an herbicide or involve a different use 
pattern for the herbicide, the EPA must 
approve the new or different use. In 
conducting such an approval, the EPA 
considers the possibility of adverse 
effects to human health and the 
environment horn the use of this 
herbicide. When the use of the herbicide 
on the genetically modified plant would 
result in an increase in the residues of 
the herbicide in a food or feed crop for 
which the herbicide is currently 
registered, or in new residues in a crop 
for which the herbicide is not currently 
registered, establishment of a new 


tolerance or a revision of the existing 
tolerance would be required. Residue 
tolerances for pesticides are established 
by the EPA imder the Federal Food, 

Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 
U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and the Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) enforces 
tolerances set by the EPA under the 
FFDCA. 

The FDA published a statement of 
policy on foods derived firom new plant 
varieties in the Federal Register on May 
29,1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). The FDA 
statement of policy includes a 
discussion of the FDA’s authority for 
ensuring food safety imder the FFDCA, 
and provides guidance to industry on 
the scientific considerations associated 
with the development of foods derived 
firom new plant varieties, including 
those plants developed through the 
techniques of genetic engineering. 

In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the 
regulations, we are publishing this 
notice to inform the public that APHIS 
will accept written comments regarding 
the Petition for Determination of 
Nonr^gulated Status from any interested 
person for a period of 60 days from the 
date of this notice. The petition and any 
comments received are available for 
public review, and copies of the petition 
may be ordered (see the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice). 

After the comment period closes, 
APHIS will review the data submitted 
by the petitioner, all written comments 
received during the comment period, 
and any other relevant information. 
Based on the available information, 
APHIS will furnish a response to the 
petitioner, either approving the petition 
in whole or in part, or denying the 
petition. APHIS will then publish a 
notice in the Federal Register 
announcing the regulatory status of 
Dupont’s cotton line 19-5 la and the 
availability of APHIS’ written decision. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150aa-150jj, 151-167, 
and 1622n; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, 
and 371.2(c). 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 
October 1995. 

Lonnie J. King, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service. 

(FR Doc. 95-26616 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 3410-34-P 


Food Safety and Inspection Service 

[Docket No. 95-047N] 

Food Safety Forum 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, USDA. 


ACTION: Notice of meeting and invitation 
to file comments. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Agriculture 
will hold a Food Safety Forum on 
November 8,1995, in Washington, DC. 
The Fonun will focus on food safety 
reform issues beyond the specific issues 
addressed in FSIS’ February 3,1995, 
Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis 
and CMtical Control Point (HACCP) 
Systems proposed rule. FSIS seeks 
suggested topics for the Food Safety 
Forum agenda. Those unable to attend 
the Food Safety Forum are encouraged 
to provide written comments on food 
safety reform issues. 

DATES: The Forum will be held on 
November 8,1995 fi-om 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
ADDRESSES: The Forum will be 
convened at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, 14th and Independence 
Avenue, Back of the South Building 
Cafeteria (between the 2nd and 3rd 
wings). 

Suggested topics should be submitted 
by November 1,1995. Written 
comments on food safety reform should 
be submitted in triplicate by November 
13,1995. Send suggested topics and 
written comments to the FSIS Docket 
Clerk, DOCKET 95-047N, Room 4352, 
South Agriculture Building, Food Safety 
and Inspection Service, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 
Charles Danner, Director, Planning 
Office, Policy Evaluation and Planning 
Stafi, FSIS, USDA, Room 6904, Franklin 
Court, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 
501-7138. Persons who wish to attend 
the Fonun should contact Ms. Lisa 
Parks at (202) 501-7138; fax (202) 501- 
7642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Secretary 
of Agriculture Dan Glickman is holding 
a Food Safety Forum on November 8, 
1995, in Washington, DC. The purpose 
of the Forum is to foster discussion 
among all interested parties concerning 
improvement of the Department of 
Agriculture’s meat and poultry 
inspection programs. The Forum is 
intended to address food safety reform 
issues beyond the specific issues 
addressed in FSIS’ Pathogen Reduction; 
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 
Point (HACCT) Systems proposal. 
However, a transcript of the Food Safety 
Forum discussions will be made part of 
that rulemaking record. 

Food Safety Forum agenda topics 
include: (1) Whether legislative changes 
to the Federal meat and poultry 
inspection acts are needed; (2) how 
USDA can best improve food safety 
through FSIS organizational change, 
regulatory reform, reliance on user fees. 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54841 


effective resource allocation, and other 
means; (3) cooperation between USDA 
and State inspection programs; and (4) 
government and private sector roles in 
consumer education regarding safe food 
handling practices. Suggestions for 
additional topics should be submitted to 
FSIS no later than November 1,1995. 

Those who wish to express their 
views on these or other food safety 
reform issues, but are unable to attend 
the Forum, are encouraged to provide 
written comments to FSIS by Monday, 
November 13,1995. 

Persons who wish to attend the 
Forum should contact Ms. Lisa Parks at 
(202) 501-7138; fax (202) 720-7642. 
Please contact Ms. Parks to make 
arrangements for sign language and oral 
interpreters. 

Done at Washington, DC, on: October 20, 
1995. 

Michael R. Taylor, 

Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety. 

(FR Doc. 95-26613 Filed 10-23-95; 1:39 pml 
BILUNO CODE 3410.0M-P 


COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 
of the Hawaii Advisory Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 
the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights, that a meeting of the 
Hawaii Advisory Committee to the 
Commission will convene at 2 p.m. and 
adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 
November 29,1995, at the Ala Moana 
Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, 
Hawaii 96814. The purpose of the 
meeting is to orient newly appointed 
members and plan future projects and 
activities. 

Persons desiring additional 
information, or plaiming a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact 
Committee Chairperson Oswald 
Stender, 808-523-6203, or Thomas V. 
Pilla, Acting Director of the Western 
Regional Office, 213-894-3437 (TDD 
213-894-0508). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting 
and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the 
Regional Office at least five (5) working 
days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted 
pursuant to the provisions of the rules 
and regulations of the Commission. 


Dated at Washington, DC, October 18, 
1995. 

Carol-Lee Hurley, 

Chief Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 
[FR Doc. 95-26538 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE 633S-01-P 


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
International Trade Administration 

[A-428-821, A-688-837] 

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Determinations: Antidumping 
Investigations of Large Newspaper 
.Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, From Germany and 
Japan 

AQENCY: Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
William H. Crow n or V. Irene Darzenta, 
Office of Antidiunping Investigations, 
Import Administration, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington 
D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0116 or 
(202) 482-6230, respectively. 

The Applicable Statute: 

Unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the statute are references to 
the provisions effective January 1,1995, 
the effective date of the amendments 
made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(URAA). 

Postponement of Preliminary 
Determinations 

On October 16,1995, Rockwell 
International Corporation, the 
petitioner, requested that the 
Department postpone the preliminary 
determinations of these investigations 
by 50 days. Pursuant to section 773 
(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are postponing 
the date of the preliminary 
determinations as to whether sales of 
large newspaper printing presses horn 
Germany and Japan have been made at 
less than fair value rmtil no later than 
January 26,1996. 

This notice is published pursuant to 
section 733(c)(2) of the Act. 

Dated: October 20,1995. 

Richard W. Moreland, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Investigptions, Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. 95-26627 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNO CODE 3S10-OS-P 


[C-412-811] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth 
Carbon Steel Products From the 
United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review. 

SUMMARY: On May 10,1995, the 
Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal 
Register its preliminary results of 
administrative review of the 
countervailing duty order on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon 
Steel Products from the United 
Kingdom for the period September 17, 
1992, through December 31,1993. We 
have completed this review and 
determine the net subsidy to be 20.33 
percent ad valorem for Allied Steel and 
Wire Limited (ASW Limited), and 7.03 
percent ad valorem for all other 
companies for the period September 17, 

1992, through December 31,1992; we 
further determine the net subsidy to be 
20.33 percent ad valorem for ASW 
Limited, 2.68 percent ad valorem for 
United Engineering Steels (UES), and 
9.76 percent ad valorem for all other 
companies for the periods January 1, 

1993, through January 14.1993, and 
March 22,1993, through December 31, 
1993. We will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess countervailing duties 
as indicated above. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26.1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Melanie Brown or Christopher Cassel, 
Office of Countervailing Compliance, 
Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Strget and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-4406; (202) 482-4847. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Background 

On May 10,1995, the Department 
published in the Federal Register (60 
FR 24833) the preliminary results of its 
administrative review of the 
coimtervailing duty order on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon 
Steel Products from the United 
Kingdom. The Department has now 
completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

We invited interested parties to 
comment on the preliminary results. On 






54842 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


June 9,1995, case briefs were submitted 
by the Government of the United 
IQngdom (UKG) and UES, a producer of 
the subject merchandise which exported 
hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel 
products to the United States during the 
review period (respondents), and Inland 
Steel Bar Co. and USS/Kobe Steel Co. 
(petitioners). On June 16,1995, rebuttal 
comments were submitted by UES and 
by petitioners. 

On July 28,1995, UES presented an 
additional argument with respect to the 
preliminary results. Although it was 
made after the deadline for submission 
of briefs and rebuttal briefs in this 
review, UES’ submission was prompted 
by an event which occurred after those 
deadlines, and’ which according to UES, 
allegedly affects the results of this 
review. That event was the 
Department’s remand determination, 
fil^ with the Court of International 
Trade (QT) on July 17,1995, in a 
related case. See Remand Determination 
on the General Issue of Privatization: 
Certain Carbon Steel Products from the 
United Kingdom (July 17,1995) 
[Privatization Remand Determination). 
Thus, the Department determined that it 
was appropriate to consider UES’ 
argument and allow interested parties to 
respond to it. Petitioners submitted tbeir 
rebuttal argument on August 18,1995. 

The review covers the period 
September 17,1992, through December 

31.1993. The review involves two 
companies accoimting for virtually all 
shipments to the United States of the 
subject merchandise during the review 
period, and fifteen programs. 

Applicable Statute and Regulations 

The Department is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance 
with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
statute and to the Department’s 
, regulations are in reference to the 
provisions as th^ existed on December 

31.1994. However, references to the 
Department’s Countervailing Duties; 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Request for Public Comments, 54 FR 
23366 (May 31,1989) [Proposed 
Regulations), are provided solely for 
ftu^er explanation of the Department’s 
coimtervailing duty practice. Although 
the Department has withdrawn the 
particular rulemaking proceeding 
pursuant to which the Proposed 
Regulations were issued, the subject 
matter of these regulations is being 
considered in connection with an 
ongoing rulemaking proceeding which, 
among other things, is intended to 
conform the Department’s regulations to 
the Uruguay Roimd Agreements Act. 

See 60 FR 80 (Jan. 3,1995). 


Scope of the Review 

Imports covered by this review are 
hot-rolled bars and i^s of non-alloy or 
other alloy steel, whether or not 
descaled, containing by weight 0.03 
percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent 
or more of bismuth,, in coils or cut 
lengths, and in numerous shapes and 
sizes. Excluded from the scope of this 
review are other alloy steels (as defined 
by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72, 
note 1 (f)), except steels classified as 
other alloy steels by reason of 
containing by wei^t 0.4 percent or 
more of lead or 0.1 percent or more of 
bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also 
excluded are semi-finished steels and 
flat-rolled products. Most of the 
products covered in this review are 
provided for under subheadings 
7213.20.00.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the 
HTSUS. Small quantities of these 
products may also enter the United 
States imder the following HTSUS 
subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 
7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 
7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 
7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 
7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and 
7228.30.80. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for 
convenience and for Customs piirposes, 
our written description of the scope of 
this proceeding is dispositive. 

Best Information Available for ASW 
Limited 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the 
Department to use best information 
available (BIA) “whenever a party or 
any other person refuses or is imable to 
produce information requested in a 
timely manner and in the form required, 
or otherwise significantly impedes an 
investigation’’. 

In determining what rate to use as 
BIA, the Department follows a two- 
tiered methodology. The Department 
normally assigns lower BIA rates for 
those respondents who cooperated in an 
administrative review and rates based 
on more adverse assumptions for 
respondents who did not. See Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
D^erminations; Certain Steel Products 
from Mexico, 58 FR 37352, 37361 (July 
9,1993). 

In this review ASW Limited did not 
respond to the Department’s two 
requests for information; therefore, we 
are assigning ASW Limited a rate based 
on BIA. The rate we are applying is 
20.33 percent ad valorem. This rate 
reflects the rate ASW Limited received 
in the investigation (see Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead 


and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products 
from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6237, 
6243 (January 27,1993)) [Lead Bar). To 
this rate we added the weighted average 
rate calculated in this review for the 
Inner Urban Areas Act, since this 
program was not examined by the 
Department during the investigation. 

Calculation Methodology for 
Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes 

We calculated the net subsidy on a 
country-wide basis by first calculating 
the subsidy rate for each company 
subject to the administrative review. We 
then weight-averaged the rate received 
by each company using as tbe weight its 
share of total UK exports to the United 
States of subject merchandise. To 
determine the value of the exports of 
ASW Limited based on BIA (see Best 
Information Available for ASW Limited, 
above), we subtracted the value of UES’ 
exports of subject merchandise to the 
United States from the total value of 
merchandise imported under the 
HTSUS numbers which cover the 
merchandise subject to this order, as 
reported in the U.S. IM-146 import 
statistics. 

We then summed the individual 
companies’ weight-averaged rates to 
determine the subsidy rate fi'om all 
programs benefitting exports of subject 
merchandise to the United States. Since 
the country-wide rate calculated using 
this methodology was above de 
minimis, as defined by 19 CFR § 355.7 
(1994), for both 1992 and 1993, we 
proceeded to the next step, and 
examined the net subsidy rate 
calculated for each company to 
determine whether individual company 
rates differed significantly fi'om the 
weighted-average coimtry-wide rate, 
pursuant to 19 CFR § 355.22(d)(3). 

For 1992, ASW Limited had a 
significantly different net subsidy rate 
pursuEmt to 19 CFR § 355.22(d)(3). This 
company is treated separately for 
assessment purposes for the 1992 
period. All other companies are 
assigned the coimtry-wide rate for this 
period. For 1993, both ASW Limited 
and UES had significantly different net 
subsidy rates pursuant to 19 CFR 
§ 355.22(d)(3). These companies are 
both treated separately for assessment 
and cash deposit purposes for the 1993 
period. All other companies are 
assigned the country-wide rate for this 
period. 

Analysis of Programs 

Based upon analysis of the 
questionnaire responses, verification, 
and written comments firom the 
interested parties we determine the 
following: 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 54843 


I. Programs Conferring Subsidies 

A. Allocation of Subsidies From British 
Steel Corporation to UES 

UES is a joint venture company 
formed in 1986 by British Steel 
Corporation (BSC) and Guest, Keen & 
Nettlefolds (GKN). In return for shares 
in UES, BSC contributed a major portion 
of its Special Steels Business and GKN 
contributed its Brymbo Steel Works and 
its forging business. BSC was wholly 
owned by the UKG at the time the joint 
venture was formed; BSC was privatized 
in 1988 and now bears the name British 
Steel pic (BS pic). 

In the preliminary results of this 
review, we allocated to UES a portion of 
the subsidies previously bestowed on 
BSC under the following programs: 

1. Equity Infusions 

2. Regional Development Grant Program 

3. National Loan Finds Loan 

Cancellation 

4. European Coal and Steel Community 

(ECSC) Article 54 Loans/Interest 
Rebates 

For a complete explanation of the 
methodology used to allocate subsidies 
from BSC to UES, see Preliminary 
Results of Administrative Review: 

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth 
Carbon Steel Products from the United 
Kingdom, 60 FR 24833, 24834-35 (May 
10,1995). Our analysis of the comments 
submitted by the interested parties, 
summarized below, has not led us to 
change our findings in the preliminary 
results. 

B.' Inner Urban Areas Act 

In the preliminary results of this 
review^ we found the Inner Urban Areas 
Act to be countervailable. Our analysis 
of the comments submitted by the 
interested parties, summarized below, 
has not led us to change this finding. 

II. Program Found Not to Confer 
Subsidies 

In the preliminary results of this 
review, we found ECSC Article 55 
Assistance to be non-countervailable. 
Our analysis of the comments submitted 
by the interested parties, summarized 
below, has not led us to change these 
findings. 

III. Programs Found Not to be Used 

In the preliminary results of this 
review, we found that respondents did 
not apply for or receive benefits under 
the following programs dming the 
period of review: 

A. New Community Instrument Loans 

B. ECSC Article 54 Loan Guarantees 

C. NLF Loans 

D. ECSC Conversion Loans 


E. European Regional Development 

Fund Aid 

F. Article 56 Rebates 

G. Regional Selective Assistance 

H. ECSC Article 56(b)(2) Redeplojmient 

Aid 

I. BRITE/EuRAM II 

Our analysis of the comments 
submitted by the interested parties, 
summarized below, has not led us to 
change our findings. 

Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Petitioners argue that the 
Department should calculate the rate of 
cash deposit of estimated countervailing 
duties based on UES’ current status as 
a wholly owned subsidiary of BS pic. 
Because BS pic purchased all shares in 
UES previously owned by GKN on 
March 6.1995, UES’ cash deposit rate 
should be adjusted to reflect the 
purchase and should be applied to both 
UES and BS pic. 

Petitioners claim that revising the 
cash deposit rate as suggested is within 
the Department’s authority. They claim 
that the Department could accurately 
estimate the cash deposit rate either by 
(1) allocating all of the subsidies given 
to BSC over the combined production of 
UES and BS pic, and using the result as 
the cash deposit rate for the BS plc-^UES 
pairing; or, (2) setting the cash deposit 
rate for the BS plc-UES pairing at the 
rate found in the Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Steel Products From the United 
Kingdom, 58 FR 37393 (July 9,-1993); or, 
(3) estimating the countervailing duty 
rate by calculating the 1992 subsidy 
benefit and adding back the adjustment 
for repayment of subsidies. 

Petitioners argue that unlike 
antidumping duty reviews, the statute 
does not require use of the rate 
established in the review as the deposit 
rate. This suggests that the Department 
may adjust the deposit rate as necessary 
to estimate the countervailing duty most 
likely to be assessed in future periods. 
Petitioners further argue that the need 
for an accurate estimation of the 1995 
deposit rate in this proceeding is not 
obviated by the fact that a sul^equent 
administrative review will determine an 
exact assessment rate for 1995, taking 
into accovmt the purchase in question. 

UES argues that the coimtervailing 
duty deposit rate for UES may not be 
increas^ over the net subsidy found in 
this administrative review. They 
maintain that the Department’s practice 
(as specified in the ^oposed 
Regulations] calls for establishing a- 
different cash deposit rate only when 
“program-wide changes’’ have occurred 
subsequent to the review period and 
before the preliminary results of review 


are published. Moreover, UES argues, 
the Proposed Regulations specify that 
program-wide changes may not be 
limited to an individual firm or firms, 
and must be “effectuated by an official 
act, such as the enactment of a statute, 
regulation or decree.’’ BS pic’s 
acquisition of GKN’s shares does not 
meet any of these requirements, 
according to UES. 

UES also notes that in the 
investigation of lead and bismuth bar 
from Brazil, the Department specifically 
rejected arguments made by 
respondents that a change in the 
ownership of a company should be 
considered as a program-wide change ' 
that should afi'ect the cash deposit rate. 

If the privatization of a company is not 
a program-wide change, then surely the 
purchase of shares also is not a program¬ 
wide change that requires the 
adjustment of the cash deposit rate. 
According to UES, petitioners fail to 
show that the mere acquisition of shares 
in UES by BS pic changes the liability 
for coimtervailing duties that would 
otherwise attach to the production of 
lead bar by UES. Finally, UES maintains 
that the Department cannot establish a 
cash deposit rate for BS pic because BS 
pic has not had the opportunity to 
participate in this proceeding or to 
submit comments on this issue as 
required by both U.S. international 
obligations and the Department’s 
regulations. 

Department’s Position: Contrary to 
petitioners’ arguments, the Department 
has no basis in this review to adjust 
UES’ cash deposit rate to account for BS 
pic’s acquisition. First, because this 
event occurred well after the review 
period, the Department did not seek to 
examine it during the review. Thus, 
there is no information in the record 
from which the Department could 
determine whether or how to adjust the 
cash deposit rate. Second, while a cash 
deposit rate may differ from the 
assessment-rate, the regulations provide 
for establishing a different cash deposit 
rate only in particular circumstances. 
Specifically, section 355.50(a) of the 
Department’s Proposed Regulations 
mandates consideration only when a 
change is program-wide and 
measurable. S^tion 355.50(b) of the 
Proposed Regulations defines “program¬ 
wide change’’ as a change “[n]ot limited 
to an individual firm or firms’’ and 
“[ejffectuated by an official act, such as 
the enactment of a statute, regulation, or 
decree, or contained in the schedule of 
an existing statute, regulation or 
decree.’’ BS pic’s acquisition of GKN’s 
shares in UES is limited to an 
individual firm or firms, namely BS pic, 
UES and GKN. 






54844 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


In the Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth 
Carbon Steel Products From Brazil, 58 
FR 6213, 6220 (January 27,1995), the 
Department stated: “lw]e do not 
consider that privatization, in and of 
itself constitutes a program-wide 
change, or that a privatization program 
is the type of program contemplated for 
consideration under, . . the Proposed 
Regulations.” BS pic’s acquisition of 
GI^’s shares in UES does not represent 
a privatization; it is only a sale of 
shares. Such a transaction does not 
constitute a program-wide change. 
Because the event in question does not 
constitute a program-wide change, the 
question of whether the change can be 
measured (the second criteria delineated 
in the Proposed Regulations) becomes a 
moot issue. Moreover, the position 
argued by petitioners that the new rate 
should apply to the UES and BS pic 
“pairing” brcomes moot as well. 

Comment 2: Petitioners argue that the 
Department should calculate the 
countervailing duty rate without 
adjusting for the repayment of subsidies. 
Petitioners take issue with the 
repayment methodology arguing that it 
leads to absiud results. Namely, because 
BSC (a subsidized company) aiul GKN 
(an unsubsidized company) contributed 
the same value of assets for each share 
of UES they received, it would be 
illogical to assert that the amount 
received by BSC includes repa 3 rment for 
past subsides while the amount 
received by GKN for assets of the same 
value does not. Moreover, if the 
repayment is included, then BSC did 
overpay for its UES shares, and the 
overpayment constitutes a subsidy. 

Petitioners note that the only 
available alternative, to consider the 
subsidies as part of the value of the 
Special Steels division, has already been 
rejected by the Department in the 
Certain Steel cases. At that time, the 
Department stated that treating the 
assets themselves as the subsidy violates 
the longstanding principle that the 
subsidy is measured upon the receipt of 
the benefit, not upon the use of the 
benefit. 

UES argues that the Department has 
properly determined that a subsidy 
repayment occurred when UES acquired 
pi^uctive facilities from BSC. As the 
Department explained in its remand 
determination, “the Department used 
the term ‘repayment’ in Certain Steel in 
a broader context to include situations 
where subsidies are ‘allocated’ between 
the seller and the entity being sold.” 
Remand Determination: Certain Hot- 
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel 
Products from the United Kingdom 


(October 12,1993) {Lead Bar Remand 
Determination) at 4-6. 

Department’s Position: We disagree 
with petitioners’ reasoning. Petitioners 
appear to imply that repayment of 
subsidies is in addition to the agreed- 
upon value of the assets. The 
Department has never stated or implied 
that. Instead, the Department’s 
repayment methodology is intended to 
determine the portion of the sales price 
of the productive xmit (in this case, the 
Specialty Steels Division) which 
represents repayment of prior subsidies 
bestowed on the seller of the productive 
unit (in this case, BSC), when that seller 
has been found to have received 
subsidies. See General Issues Appendix 
appended to the Final Countervailing 
Duty Determination: Certain Steel 
Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 
37259 (July 9,1993) {General issues 
Appendix). 

According to the Department’s 
methodology, when the productive unit 
is sold, a portion of the sales price is 
deemed to repay a portion of the 
outstanding subsidies, which remain 
with the seller. This methodology is 
simply used to allocate the subsidies 
between the seller and the buyer. As the 
Department explained in its remand 
determination, “(wjhen a productive 
unit is sold by a company which 
continues to operate (su(^ as BSC), the 
potentially allocable subsidies which 
could have traveled with the productive 
unit, but did not because they were 
accounted for as part of the piurchase 
price, simply stay with the selling 
company.” Lead Bar Remand 
Determination at 5. To the extent that 
GKN received the same “payment” for 
the assets it contributed to UES, the 
Department has not applied its 
repayment methodology because there 
were no allegations diiring the 
investigation or in this review that GKN 
had received subsidies prior to the 
formation of UES. 

Comment 3: Petitioners refer the 
Department to the arguments they made 
with respect to the imderlying 
investigation of Lead Bar before the CTT 
in inland Steel Bar Co. v. United States 
{inland Steel) by submitting their 
December 6,1993, Brief in Support of 
Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.2 Motion for 
Judgment on the Agency Record and 
their March 15,1994, Reply Brief. 
Petitioners allege in these court briefs 
that the Department improperly 
reallocated back to BSC a portion of the 
subsidies properly chargeable to UES. 
The briefs also allege that the statute 
requires the use of sales ratios rather 
than asset ratios in allocating subsidies, 
and the Department’s use of asset ratios 


was an improper exercise of 
Departmental discretion. 

Department’s Position: The arguments 
presented in the briefs have already 
been considered and rejected by the 
Department in the Lead Bar Remand 
Determination. In this proceeding, 
petitioners have not submitted any new 
evidence or arguments which would 
warrant reconsideration of these issues. 

Comment 4: UES argues that since the 
Department has published notice of the 
CIT’s decision in inland Steel, 858 F. 
Supp. 179 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), the 
Department is legally prohibited from 
taking action inconsistent with that 
decision. In inland Steel, the CIT found 
that “(wjith no countervailable benefit 
surviving the arm’s length transaction 
between BSC and UES, there is no 
benefit conferred to UES and, therefore, 
no countervailable subsidy within the 
meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1677(5).” 

Therefore, UES argues that there is no 
basis for the Department’s 
determination that UES, an independent 
company that paid fair market value for 
its assets, is subsidized as a result of 
funds provided to BSC. Moreover, the 
CIT found in Aimcor et al. v. United 
States, 871 F. Supp. 447, 451 (Ct. Inti. 
Trade 1994) {Aimcor) that in order for 
the Department to find a countervailable 
subsidy, it must be demonstrated that 
the bounty or grant “went to the 
manufacture, production, or export of 
the merchandise in question.” 

According to UES, this decision also 
makes it clear that the cmmtervailing 
duty statute does not permit the 
Department simply to presmne that one 
company’s production benefits from 
funds received by another company, 
absent substantial evidence that the 
benefit was “passed through” to the 
company under investigation. 

Petitioners argue that Federal Circuit 
and QT holdings support the 
Department’s practice of waiting for a 
conclusive court decision before 
changing the rate of cash deposit of 
estimate duties. They note that Federal 
Circuit cases (e.g., Timken) have 
authorized the Department to wait until 
issuance of a “conclusive” decision (one 
that ends all chance of appeal, e.g., a 
final decision by the Federal Circuit or 
final decisions by the CIT that are not 
appealed) before liquidating entries or 
changing the rate of cash deposit of 
estimated countervailing duties. 

Moreover, petitioners argue that 
rather than supporting the CIT’s 
decision in inland Steel, Aimcor 
supports the Department’s conclusion 
that changes in ownership do not affect 
countervailability. Petitioners further 
maintain that in this case, unlike the 
situation in Aimcor, at the time the 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54845 


subsidies were bestowed on BSC, the 
Specialty Steels Division was part of 
BSC, rather than a partially owned 
subsidiary. 

Department’s Position: The 
Department is not required to follow a 
err opinion that is before the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
According to the Federal Circuit’s 
opinion in Timken Co. v United States, 
893 F.2d 337, 339 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 
(Timken), an appealed CIT decision is 
not a “final court decision” within the 
meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e). Further, 
under Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. 

United States, 732 F. 2d 924 (Fed. Cir. 
1984) and NTN Bearing Corp. v. United 
States, 892 F.2d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1989), 
the administrative handling of entries 
(including collection of estimated 
duties), should not be altered by coxirt 
decisions, except for suspension of 
liquidation, until the issuance of such a 
final court decision. Because the appeal 
of the final countervailing duty 
determination on certain hot-rolled lead 
and bismuth carbon steel products from 
the United Kingdom is still pending 
before the Federal Circuit, there is not 
yet a final court decision which the 
Department is required to follow. 

With respect to respondents” 
privatization argument that there is no 
basis for determining that UES is 
subsidized as a result of funds provided 
to BSC, they have presented no new 
evidence that would warrant 
reconsideration of the Department’s 
determination that past subsidies 
bestowed upon BSC passed-through to 
UES. The arguments presented by UES 
have been previously and thoroughly 
addressed by the Department. See e.g.. 
Lead Bar 58 FR at 6238; General Issues 
Appendix 58 FR at 37259 and Lead Bar 
Remand Determination. Thus, the 
Department’s preliminary results remain 
unchanged with respect to this issue. 

Comment 5: UES argues that the 
Department has improperly allocated 
the benefit of alleged subsidies over a 
period representing the average useful 
life (AUL) of assets in the steel industry; 
the Department’s amortization of 
subsidies using the AUL method is 
contrary to law and unsupported by 
substantial evidence. UES further argues 
that the CIT has found that the AUL 
methodology is arbitrary and bears no 
necessary relationship to the benefit 
from the subsidy funds (see British Steel 
pic V. United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254, 
1293-99 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995) British 
Steel))- Thus, the Department should 
abandon this approach. 

Petitioners note that British Steel is 
pending and that the Department should 
not decide the appropriate allocation 
period in this case until this issue has 


been resolved by the CIT. Moreover, 
petitioners note that UES suggests no 
alternative to the 15-year allocation 
period. 

Department’s Position: The 
Department has already considered and 
rejected respondent’s arguments in prior 
determinations. See e.g.. Lead Bar 58 FR 
at 6245 and General Issues Appendix 58 
FR at 37225. UES has not submitted 
new arguments or evidence that would 
lead us to reconsider the AUL method. 

It is the Department’s position that 
although the actual duration of the 
benefit is not identifiable, the 
Elepartment must nevertheless choose a 
reasonable period over which to allocate 
grants and equity infusions. The 
competitive position of any company 
ultimately depends upon its productive 
activity; without production, there are 
no other commercial and competitive 
factors that are relevant for a' 
manufacturing enterprise. Further, the 
statute focuses on benefits to production 
of the subject merchandise. A 
company’s renewable physical assets 
are absolutely essential to production; 
and renewable physical assets have a 
determinable average useful life. The 
AUL has competitive significance 
because the renewal of physical assets is 
essential to production. The Depeirtment 
therefore concludes that the AUL of the 
renewable physical assets provides a 
reasonable approximation of the 
commercial and competitive benefits for 
all non-recurring subsidies, not just 
subsidies spent on acquiring renewable 
physical assets. 

In addition, we agree with petitioners 
with respect to British Steel. There has 
not been a final and conclusive court 
ruling on the general issue of allocation. 
Therefore, absent new facts, the 
Department is applying the AUL 
methodology. 

Comment 6: The UKG argues that the 
Department should reverse its 
preliminary finding concerning the 
grants under the Inner Urban Areas Act 
_ (lUAA). The UKG argues that the aid 
granted under the lUAA is assistance 
“to be used for environmental 
improvement (i.e., beautification of 
industrial areas).” Thus, the UKG 
concludes, such assistance is not a 
subsidy “provided with respect to the 
manufacture, production or exportation 
of merchandise,” within the meaning of 
Aimeor, and therefore should not be 
treated as a countervailable subsidy. 
Moreover, according to the UKG, such 
assistance does not confer a benefit that 
gives rise to a competitive advantage as 
required by Cabot Corp. v. United 
States, 9 CIT 389, 494-495, 620 F. Supp. 
722, 729 (1985) (Cabot) and British Steel 
Corp. V. United States, 9 CIT 85, 95, 605 


F. Supp. 286,194 (1985) (1985 British 
Steel). 

Department’s Position: The statute 
and the Department’s regulations 
require the Department to countervail a 
subsidy that is limited in law to an 
enterprise or industry or group thereof 
located in a particular region. In the 
case of a program conferring a grant, 
such as the lUAA, a countervailable 
benefit exists in the amount of the grant. 
See section 771(5) of the Act and 
sections 355.43(b)(3) and 355.44(a) of 
the Proposed Regulations. In the 
preliminary results of review’, we 
determined that aid under the lUAA 
was limited to enterprises located in 
selected regions of the United Kingdom. 
We also determined that the grant was 
bestowed upon UES Ltd., a 
manufacturer and exporter of the subject 
merchandise. 

The UKG appears to be arguing that 
the assistance is tied specifically to 
beautification and not to the production 
or exportation of merchandise. We 
disagree with this analysis. The lUAA 
provides assistance for environmental 
improvement (i.e. beautification of 
industrial areas) and economic 
regeneration. In the grant approval 
notification documents to UES, the UKG 
specified that the 1988 funds were for 
recladding the Templeborough plant 
buildings and the 1992 funds were for 
repairing, cleaning, and painting a 
service gantry which is part of the plant 
facility. Thus, the stated pxirpose of 
these grants was for maintenance of 
production facilities. The grants benefit 
the entire operation of the company and 
are appropriately allocated to total sales 
of the company. Just because a benefit 
is not tied directly to production does 
not mean that it does not provide a 
benefit to the company’s operations and 
thus to all merchandise produced by 
that company, including subject 
merchandise. Accordingly, we disagree 
with the UKG’s contention that the grant 
in question does not confer a benefit 
that gives rise to a competitive 
advantage per the court’s decision in 
Cabot and 1985 British Steel. 

In addition, the fact that the grant 
received by UES Ltd. under this 
program was “to be used for 
environmental beautification” is not 
dispositive for purposes of our analysis. 
“(Tjhe statute requires the Department 
to countervail an allocated share of the 
subsidies received by producers, 
regardless of their effect.” General 
Issues Appendix 58 FR at 37260. The 
statute does not direct the Department 
to consider the use to which subsidies 
are put or to measure their effect on the 
recipient’s subsequent performance. See 





54846 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


General Issues Appendix 58 FR at 
37260-61. 

The UKG incorrectly relies on Aimcor 
in support of its proposition that the aid 
granted under the lUAA “should not be 
treated as a countervailable subsidy.” In 
Aimcor, the Department found, and the 
QT affirmed, that the purchase of 
FESILVEN’s stock by CVG, the parent 
company of FESILVEN, did not 
constitute a coimtervailable subsidy. 
FESILVEN was the sole producer and 
exporter of the subject merchandise, 
ferrosilicon. The Department found “an 
insufficient identity of interests to 
warrant treating CVG and FESILVEN as 
a single entity,” and thus determined 
that CVG’s purchase of FESILVEN’s 
stock “did not result in a bounty or 
grant because no benefit inured to 
FESILVEN in the transaction.” 871 F. 
Supp. at 450. Thus, the issue before the 
Court in Aimcor was not the purpose or 
use of the subsidy at hand, but whether 
any benefit was “attributable” (i.e., 
assigned or allotted) to a related 
producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise. If so, the Department must 
countervail such subsidies. 

Comment 7; UES argues that the 
Department’s preliminary determination 
is inconsistent with the Department’s 
recent remand determination in British 
Steel. In the preliminary results, the 
Department determined that a portion of 
the coimtervailable subsidies previously 
bestowed on BSC traveled with its 
Specialty Steels Division when this 
division was spun-off to form UES. In 
the remand determination, the 
Department found that the Specialty 
Steels Divisiop was not a corporate 
entity capable of receiving a subsidy 
and tiius no subsidies could have 
followed it to UES. See Privatization 
Remand Determination at 41. Thus, UES 
argues, the Department is double¬ 
counting these subsidies and 
coimtervailing them both with respect 
to the merchandise covered by the 
countervailing duty order on Certain 
Carbon Steel Products from the United 
Kingdom and the merchandise covered 
by the instant countervailing duty order. 

Petitioners argue that respondents 
misread the Department’s remand 
determination, and note that the 
Department did not concede that UES 
received no subsidies, but rather the 
Department’s findings were based on 


best information available. As explained 
in the Privatization Remand 
Determination, British Steel’s failure to 
provide the information necessary to 
determine the portion of BSC’s 
subsidies allocable to UES resulted in 
the Department’s finding that all of 
BSC’s subsidies remained with BSC. On 
the issue of double-counting of 
subsidies, petitioners argue that both 
British Steel and UES should properly 
deposit estimated coimtervailing duties 
until the coiuls decide which company 
is liable. Fiirthermore, jmtitioners note 
that the general issue of compliance 
with QT decisions that are on appeal 
has been addressed and disposed of by 
the QT in Inland Steel, and by the 
Federal Circuit, which has held that “an 
appealed QT decision is not a ‘final 
court decision’ within the plain 
meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e).” 

Timken. 

Department’s Position: During the 
remand proceedings in British Steel, the 
Department noted that the Court’s 
decision and its instructions for 
analyzing the spin-off of the Specialty 
Steels Division resulted in a remand 
determination which was inconsistent 
with other determinations in related 
cases, specifically, the instant case. The 
Department stated that “[t]o the extent 
that the Department’s implementation of 
the Court’s opinion leads to 
“inconsistent determinations,” we note 
that we have registered our 
disagreement with the Coiul’s opinion 
and that the general issue of 
privatization and pre-privatization spin- 
ofis, including the UES spin-off, is on 
appeal to the United States Court of 
Appeal for the Federal Circuit.” 
{Privatization Remand Determination at 
41). The Privatization Remand 
Determination is currently pending 
before the QT. Furthermore, the appeal 
of Inland Steel Bar Co. v. the United 
States is pending before the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 
accordance with the Federal Circuit’s 
reasoning in Timken, since there is no 
“final” court decision, we are not 
instituting any changes in the 
privatization and spin-off methodology. 

Final Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 
355.22(b)(1), an administrative review 
“normally will cover entries or exports 


of merchandise during the most recently 
completed reporting year of the 
government of the affected country.” 
However, because this is the fiist 
administrative review of this 
countervailing duty order, in 
accordance with 19 CF 355.22(b)(2), it 
covers the period, and the 
corresponding entries, “from the date of 
suspension of liquidation * * * to the 
end of the most recently completed 
reporting yeeir of the government of the 
afiected country.” This period is 
September 17,1992 through December 

31.1993. Because the reporting year of 
the UKG is the calendar year, we 
calculated a separate net subsidy for 
each year, 1992 and 1993. 

Further, diuing the 1993 calendar 
year, certain entries were not subject to 
suspension of liquidation. The 
Department issued its preliminary 
affirmative coimtervailing duty 
determination on September 17,1992 
(57 FR 42974). Pursuant to section 705 
of the Act and Article 5.3 of the GATT 
Subsidies Code, the Department cannot 
require suspension of liquidation for 
more than 120 days without the 
issuance of a countervailing duty order. 
Accordingly, the Department instructed 
Customs to terminate the suspension'of 
liquidation of the subject merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after January 15, 
1993. The Department reinstated 
suspension of liquidation and the cash 
deposit requirement for entries made on 
or after March 22,1993, the date of 
publication of the countervailing duty 
order. Thus, merchandise entered on or 
after January 15^ 1993, and before March 

22.1993, is to be liquidated without 
regard to coimtervailing duties. 

V For the period September 17,1992, 
through December 31,1992, we 
determine the net subsidy to be 20.33 
percent ad valorem for ASW Limited 
and 7.03 percent ad valdrem for all . 
other companies. For the periods 
January 1,1993, through January 14, 
1993, and March 22,1993, through 
December 31,1993, we determine the 
net subsidy to be 20.33 percent ad 
valorem for ASW Limited, 2.68 percent 
ad valorem for UES, and 9.76 percent ad 
valorem for all other companies. 

Thus, the Department will instruct the 
U.S. Customs Service to assess the 
following countervailing duties: 


Period 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Rate 

(percent) 

September 17,1992-December 31,1992 .;... 

ASW Limited . 

20.33 


All other compsmies . 

7.03 












Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 54847 


Period 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Rate 

(percent) 

January 1,1993-danuary 14,1993 . 

ASW 1 imitAH . 

20.33 

2.68 

9.76 

20.33 

2.68 

9.76 

March 22,1993-December 31,1993 ... 

IJFS . 

Al Other companies . 

ASW Limited . 


IJFS . 

AH other companies . 


The Department will also instruct the 
U.S. Customs Service to collect a cash 
deposit of estimated coimtervailing 
duties of 20.33 percent of the f.o.b. 
invoice price on all shipments of the 
subject merchandise from ASW Limited, 
2.68 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price 
on all shipments of the subject 
merchandise from UES, and 9.76 
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all 
shipments of the subject merchandise 
from all other companies, except 
Glynwed (which was excluded from the 
order during the original investigation), 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of the final results of this 
review. 

This notice serves as a reminder to 
parties subject to administrative 
protective order (APO) of their 
responsibility concerning the 
disposition of proprietary information 
disclosed under in accordance 
with 19 CFR 355.34(d). Timely written 
notification of retum/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. 
Failure to comply with the regulations 
and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation. 

This administrative review and notice 
are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 
CFR 355.22. 

Dated: October 19,1995. 

Paul L. JoSe, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration. 

[FR Doc. 95-26629 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 

BILUNQ CODE 3S10-OS-P 


[C-475-819, C-489-806] 

Alignment of the Final Countervailing 
Duty Determinations With the Final 
Antidumping Duty Determinations: 
Certain Pasta (“Pasta”) From Italy and 
Turkey 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Vincent Kane (Italy) or Elizabeth 
Graham (Turkey), Office of 


Countervailing Investigations, Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 3099,14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 
D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-2815 
and 482-4105, respectively. 

APPUCABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: 
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations 
to the statute are references to the ' 
provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended by the Uruguay Roimd 
Agreements Act effective January 1, 

1995 (the Act). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 
October 17,1995, we published 
preliminary affirmative countervailing 
duty determinations pertaining to Pasta 
firom Italy and Turkey (60 FR 53739 and 
53747). 

On October 19,1995, we received a 
request from petitioners to postpone the 
final determinations in these 
investigations until the date of the final 
antidumping determinations in the 
companion antidmnping investigations 
of Pasta from Italy and Turkey, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 355,20(c)(1). 
Therefore, pursuant to petitioners’ 
request and the Department’s 
Regulations, we are postponing the final 
countervailing duty determinations in 
these investigations until February 21, 
1996, the date of the final antidiunping 
duty determinations in the companion 
antidumping investigations of Pasta 
from Italy and Turkey. 

This notice is published in 
accordance with Section 705(a)(1) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 355.20(c)(3)(1994). 

Barbara R. Stafford, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations. 
IFR Doc. 95-26628 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 3510-OB-M 


THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 
Notice of Meeting 

The Commission of Fine Arts’ next 
meeting is scheduled for 16 November 
1995 at 10^00 AM in the Commission’s 
offices in the Pension Building, Suite 
312, Judiciary Square, 441 F Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 to 
discuss various projects affecting the 
appearance of Washington, D.C., 


including buildings, memorials, parks, 
etc.; also matters of design referred by 
other agencies of the government. 

Inquiries regarding the agenda and 
requests to submit written or oral 
statements should be addressed to 
Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, 
Commission of Fine Arts, at the above 
address or call the above number. 

Dated in Washington, D.C. October 19, 
1995. 

Charles H. Atherton, 

Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26610 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ coos 6330-01-M 


COMMITTEE FOR THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 
AGREEMENTS 

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain 
Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textile 
Products Produced or Manufactured in 
Bangiadesh 

October 20,1995. 

AGENCY: Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements 
(CITA). 

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the 
Commissioner of Customs adjusting 
limits. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross 
Arnold, International Trade Specialist, 
Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, (202) 482- 
4212. For information on the quota 
status of these limits, refer to the Quota 
Status Reports posted on the bulletin 
boards of each Customs port or call 
(202) 927-5850. For information on 
embargoes and quota re-openings, call 
(202) 482-3715. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 
3,1972, as amended; section 204 of the 
Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 
U.S.C 1854). 

The current limits for certain 
categories are being adjusted, variously, 
by recrediting unused carryforward and 
unused special carryforward and special 
shift. In a previous directive, the limit 
for Categories 645/646 was reduced for 

















54848 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


swing applied to Categories 351/651. 

The reduction to Categories 645/646 is 
being cancelled and replaced by a 
reduction to Category 641. 

A description of the textile and 
appmrel categories in terms of HTS 
numbers is available in the 
CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel 
Categories with the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (see 
Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531, 
published on December 20,1994). Also 
see 60 FR 5371, published on January 
27,1995. 

The letter to the Commissioner of 
Customs and the actions taken pursuant 
to it are not designed to implement all 
of the provisions of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act and the Uruguay Roimd 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, but 
are designed to assist only in the 
implementation of certain of their 
provisions. 

D. Michael Hutchinson, 

Acting Chairman, Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements. 

Conunittee for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements 

October 20.1995. 

Commissioner of Customs, 

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 
20229. 

Dear Commissioner. This directive 
amends, but does not cancel, the directive 
issued to you on January 24,1995, by the 
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 
of Textile Agreements. That directive 
. concerns imports of certain cotton, man¬ 
made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable 
tiber teKtiles and textile products, produced 
or manulactiuad in Bangladesh and exported 
during the twelve-month period which began 
on January 1,1995 and extends through 
December 31,1995. 

Effective on October 23.1995, you are 
directed to amend further the January 24, 
1995 directive to adjust the limits for the 
following categories, as provided for under 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and the 
Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing: 


Category 

Adjusted twelve-iTx>nth 
limit' 

342/642 . 

306,796 dozen. 

638/639 . 

1,117,518 dozen. 

641 . 

548,295 dozen. 

645/646 . 

256,897 dozen. 


' The limits have not been adjusted to ac¬ 
count for any imports exported after December 
31. 1994. 


The Committee for the Implementation of 
Textile Agreements has determined that 
these actions fall within the foreign affairs 


exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 
U.S.C553(a)(l). 

Sincerely, 

D. Michael Hutchinson, 

Acting Chairman, Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Affeements. 

[FR Doc.95-26626 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 3510-OR-F 


CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 
COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Reauthorization of the National and 
Community Service Act of 1990, as 
Amended, and the Domestic Volunteer 
Service Act of 1973, as Amended 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 
Community Service. 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 
and Commimity Service invites written 
comments from the public regarding the 
reauthorization of the Corporation and 
of programs implemented under the 
National and Community Service Act of 
1990, as amended by the National and 
Community Service Trust Act of 1993, 

42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq., and the 
Domestic Volunteer ^rvice Act of 1973, 
£is amended, 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq. The 
statutory authorization for the 
Corporation and its programs expires on 
September 30,1996. In order to 
contribute in a timely manner to 
Congressional reauthorization 
discussions, the Corporation is 
reviewing its statutory provisions and 
programs. To ensure an opportunity for 
public participation, the Corporation 
invites public comments. 

DATES: Only written comments will be 
considered. Comments must be 
submitted on or before December 15, 
1995. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 
addressed to Terry Russell, General 
Counsel, Corporation for National 
Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20525. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Myimg J. Lee, Associate General 
Counsel, Corporation for National 
Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW,, 
Washington, DC 20525. Telephone: 

(202) 606-5000, ext. 548. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
Corporation is a government corporation 
that engages Americans of all ages and 
backgrounds in community-based 
service. This service addresses the 
nation’s education, public safety, 
human, and environmental needs by 
achieving direct and demonstrable 
results. In doing so, the Corporation 
fosters civic responsibility, strengthens 


the ties that bind us together as a 
people, and provides educational 
opportunity for those who make a 
substantial commitment to service. 

Pursuant to the National and 
Community Service Act of 1990, as 
amended, ^e Corporation makes grants 
to States, subdivisions of States, Indian 
tribes, U.S. Territories, public or private 
nonprofit organizations. Federal 
agencies and institutions of higher 
education to carry out service programs 
as part of AmeriCorps* National, 
AmeriCorps* State, Learn and Serve 
America (School and Community Based 
and Higher Education), or AmeriCorps* 
NCCC (National Civilian Community 
Ctms). 

The Corporation also oversees 
programs implemented under the 
Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, 
as amended, including AmeriCorps* 
VISTA (Volunteers in Service to 
America) and National Senior Service 
Corps (Retired Seniors Volimteer 
Program (RSVP), Senior Companions, 
and Foster Grandparents) programs. 

In order to contribute in a timely 
manner to the discussions concerning 
the reauthorization of the Corporation 
and its programs, the Corporation 
invites public commentary on any 
aspect of the Corporation for National 
Service, its policies, and its programs. 
Specific statutory references are 
preferred, but are not necessary to the 
submission of comments. All comments 
will be considered but the Corporation 
will not be able to reply individually to 
each submitter. 

Dated: October 23,1995. 

Terry Russell, 

General Counsel, Corporation for National 
and Community Service. 

[FR Doc. 95-26625 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE eOSO-28-P 


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Civilian Health and Medical Program of 
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); 
FY 96 Updates 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 
ACTION: Amendment to notice. 

SUMMARY: On October 3,1995, 60 FR 
51779, the Department of Defense 
published the “Notice of DRG Revised 
Rates” without Tables 1 and 2. These 
tables provide the rates apd weights to 
be used under the CHAMPUS DRG- 
based pajonent system during FY 1996, 
This amendment is to display the 
updated rates and weights for Tables 1 
and 2. 







Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54849 


EFFECTIVE DATE: The rates and weights 
which affect the CHAMPUS DRG-hased 
payment system contained in this notice 
are effective for admissions occurring on 
or after October 1,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Marty Maxey, Program Development 
Branch, OCHAMPUS, telephone 303- 
361-1227. 

Dated: October 20,1995. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 
Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILUNG CODE SOOIMM-M 





54850 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Table 1 - National Urban and Rural Adjusted 
Standardized Amounts, Labor/Non labor, and 
Cost Share Per Diem 


The following summary provides the adjusted standardized amounts 
and the cost-share per diem for beneficiaries other than dependents of 
active-duty members. 

The adjusted standardized amounts are effective for admissions 
occurring on or after October 1, 1995. 


National Large Urban Adjusted 

Standardized Amount.$3,158.41 

L203or portion.*.....$2,255.10 

Non labor portion.$903.31 

National Other Areas 

Standardized Amount.$3,059.59 

Labor portion.$2,184.55 

Non labor portion...$875.04 


The cost-share per diem is effective for inpatient days of care 
occurring on or after October 1, 1995. 


Cost-share per diem for beneficiaries other than dependents 

of active duty members..$330.00 











Table 2 - CHAMPUS WEIGHTS AND THRESHOLD 


_FedCTal^Regs^ / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


M >. 2 CMNM^tMC>4 S 


54851 


I ^oor«‘0^in9iottr^«oor»»r^^^iAr^iooo^iA^^iA^<oiA«nwr*.vr«>.«Ar>»ftA»«» 

€v«rOMCS|«HCMCS|Cs|CMMMfOC4C«IC4C«l«4CMM<n<M*HOi|CMe-I^C4C4e4«-ie4 





(4 0} 

X u 

CO H 

O X 

X M 

X X 

H 04 

(9 CO 

Z O 

m H 

U X 

u 

aJ 

M CO 

CO 

X Q 

U % 

H U 

2 S 

Id 

S X 

s § 

U Q 

u 3 

5 -> 

< tj 

C9 £ 


^r^tn^(OCMVC4lOVCir^^VC4r)<M«€Mr^<nMC4«nC4C4«OfOC4»-4C4«^«4v€4< 


g <no«ooa>o«-io«-i 

H2o^Of^r*^<n^o<OtHi 
M u ^ ^ ^ 

S"= 


I V (T) OB «o •ncoa>r4inc<io\fooc4atr>«no<o«nor>'*'r‘(n< 
<v(Oin«o«ow'vW'v<-i«nco«<wMMWinme4n>Sf-<<o«. 


X ^ OOOC^vHOOOOO^OOOO 


ai * 

Oi (A CQ 

»H < M 

•. CQ 


^3 1-* M 

^ ^ V w B 

A H O U W I 
iC 

gggs> 

I V ?- >-• O M ; 


g «H »H M < 

u ^ E E & 

Q O U O W 


I tn 

oc 

M 

8 

U O 

u o 

' ® _ :t3E 
I u X S U 

I of (0 01 m 

ill" 

M 2l 3 CQ 

04 0< 3 

•• o o o 


U M •« 

OQ a < 
U X 3 

mi 


•O ^ r* 4-1 iu lu I 
r-l aH I O O I 
K A A O I 


« H H U < 
I O CO IQ > 

I CQ >4 >4 M 

IH n IQ H 
IQ (£ I 

IQ «Q S I 

;^|8§! 

!5^^8I 

I 04 u u u ; 
• CO zx o I 


S^«<9S 
o S 5 5 8.10 


O (il 

XX•H€Mm«rlA^o^*a>9»o^c4fn^l0^r**a><^o^C4ro^^<or^€DO\o^^4ro^•n^r»QD 

Qg •H.H«Ha-<.-»eH^r-«a-leHCMC4CMCMC4CMC<C4Me4ni»>inn<n«nr><nfO 


IRIS 








DRG CHAMPUS ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC SHORT STAY LONG STAY 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION WEIGHT MEAN LOS MEAN LOS THRESHOLD THRESHOLD 

39 LENS PROCEDURES WITH OR WITHOUT VITRECTOMY 0.5036* 1.9 1.5 1 9 9 


54852 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1 995 / Notices 

to«ovMo>MMV>r>r>(n(n'vor'Otinioa>r«ro«>r>we4<oocDa>r'Wv«oo«a>vrocMr'ir)r)a\r.ieMaD.-iin 

.H CS| <M.H CM <MCM.-I.HeM.-I.HCM.HCM.-< 

r>CM«oAO«in<OrMvi^io<nr>vin.H.HO«ot^m«<ocMCDCMO<o«<n^ao<oo«oo>in0>o«inr>r>inota>r.. 
^^*'*CM.MfHCM CM CMrM^fH.HCMrM CMfH.HCM.HCMtHfH<FMffH CMCM.FM(C>CMNCMCMCMCMCMCMfHCMCM 


|..CO«0«^CMCM<»CM^OlOO>VPODlO®.Hr'Mr»MOOr'OaBeOO\»CMr-0«OeMCMCMO»CMt~»OnOBO»OCMO 

rM.-I.HnCM('>nCMCM«.HCMt-4t-lrMrMrMvM<*)^.H<*)CMCMlOCMCMCMCMCMCM.-inCMCMr'«PCM<0<O'rWVCOCMiO^ 


CMCMa«eo<oo.-itn0>«o<ooaDmnaoocMininwo>wv.-)ioin<n«oa>«sor'^r'vaar*rMr>toa)Oinr-coo< 

CMCMiHtnCO'r^CMCMlO.Hn.HrOCMCMCMCMVCMrMmCMCMSCMOmrOCMCMCMvrOCMOtaomr-eDininr'VCMWV 



a CO E-> 
S S V 
o o o: 


u u 
^ § 






fH 

^ I 
A O 


V 

2 

(0 

8o 

i 




tH 

I 

A O 
U U 


Ou 

r* oH • >4 

-4 1 It b 

AO .2 

o a 

p 

o o 

§§ 

M tH 

Q O 

B o 
X X 

01 CO 

U Cd 2 

g Q H 3 

o ^ 

H H 

u u 
X X 

<<gg 

o o 

^ 'V 

gg 

BB 


X X 

r- 

X X 

X X 

u u 
p p 

M M tH 
*1 H 

X X «• < 

r- r- .H 

.H .H 1 

A A O 

><<««• 

o o 

X X 
X X 



H 

M X X 01 • . 
^ H H U X X 

8 8 


X 01 u 
X >. >. 
01 01 
(H 

01 X X 
U 01 01 
X u u 
U X X 



; X 8 Q o Q X 

XXX 

u u o 

X X 12 


S B ti B 

M u U U fiU 

EM Cu U4 o 

O X X z u 
ffi M M M X 
X 

w >;><>- >< 

X X X X 

^ o o o o 

illii 

O M M H M 

5 X X X X 
01 01 m 01 
3 U U U U 
X X X X X 


PLEURAL EFFUSH 










54854 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Q 
fe* * 


O K 

gg! 


<eokin<ocBm«r-r'<o^w«n'r^(OCM)Ofnr‘r>-minr-.-ivfnin<MaBin(or-<nr4c>io^winMWO<oa»o 

,-1 r-lf-l M Mr4C4CM,-l r4.-l 


H O 
to X 
m 
t* u 

gSi 

X {1 




U (0 

ss 

*-• 


oor^miocDOvtoweo.-tnmNWr'Ootneti 

e«r4rHCMr4C4CMfHr4rO«Mear>O«mr>«U>va0 


i,HtoeDwina>iomo«n0>or>oo«or.i(O<n(n<o«M(oa«r*'ioao 

''wrOr^<<>«M(Mr4r4W'<r(Me4rocMr^Min(>t(nc4<nr)e<i'vro«4C4 


U 00 
M O 
f-> ,J 


M Z 


<n€si.^c«iMv<nc>i<7tCMr^Of^oofovo^inotVDotiO€^vHr^oD^ooc>r^o\iocoMioo^foc4^«Hr^oDfHr^^u>.-4f^ 

v<MCii«nc>iMe<icMr4inM«roo<o9»'«w^,Hv)ninM«Ninr4.-itov<n«4wcMO«fnr'in«cMv«M«o«m<n 


00 H 

§1 


o^o^^co^oo^^^o<o<6^o^e4•HlOcoa)to^^^l/)o<^^^ocol^c^lcooo^<^o^lOCM^oor^<Ov-tco€^l 

^c^<o<no9\r)(')C4a>c<i9^o>(n<n<T^fO«Ht/)9\i/)^v^^fO<*)toor^M9koo(ncMom^4Do>m^r*‘C^a>r«o^cM 

MinvcMr^a)^cooDiA^VfHif>«HOr*'OChcMM>ooior^r*‘C«io^oc4r*’^^ooVfHO«Hr^r*oooiOM(or*»<^ 

r^^^f^^<o<6^^cMr»CD<MCM^ooc4m«-4^«o«-4Cs^(n<DOCDinoDC40f^r^a>inot60«o»mai<rv^€MOD^r>- 

OOC>OOOOO^OCM€s|f0fHC4^r-4^v*HrHvHO^Of-lOO^^vHOMOC^«-4^OOOOOO«HOOO 


o 

bo 

X X 


u u u s S 
isaa 
< < < (0 00 
X tc 
00 to 00 u u 
X X X 5 o 

u u u X X 
Q Q O O O 
X X X 01 00 
O O O M M 

m m CO o Q 

M M M 

OQOgg 

iilis 

>>>00 


H H Z X 
M M M X X 
X X Z H H 
U U U >4 

O O O X X 


o 

0 “ 

o o 

X X 


Qj Oi 

233 

0^0 

- O o 


b 

b o 

X z 

ra CO 
u u 
(0 CO 
O O 
Z 2 

s s 

M M 
Q O 


U 

O 

O 

O O 

X X 


o 

Bo 

X X 

1 ^ *-1 

rH I 
A A O 



,4 2 2 


U U U 
ca CD CD 
O < < < 

o m m n 
CJ O Cd Cd u 
>v X X X 

*»gBg 

0 ) CQ U U Cd 
u cd g u u 
a: X o O o 

g o ec oi PC 

o dt Od Ou 
Cd (d 

bb^^^ 

0^ oi X X X 
Oi X cd u u 
O Q O 
»d td O O O 

■‘Sgg 


X X 


_ 33bb 

ZZ2XXHUU SpCdU 

pppxxb z VO m 03 

UtJU<XU«a>a 

y y " 

'<<<<< 


o o Q o a 


u u 

< X X 
2 0 0 
MOO 
CD 2 2 
2 >1 >< 

< CO CO 



^'^bo 

Id W _ ^ 

gg22 

•d »d <H oH 

sa^'^ 

o o u u 

5 2 0 0 
Cd < < 
X bu 

00 00 

«a •« Cd U 
X X 

^^gg 

O 2 2 Cd U 
O M M O O 

O _ D D O O 
O O O O X X 
^ ;^2 2 X X 
2 2mm 

< *c 


bb 


b 


0 o 2 :b 

2200 

O 0 M M 

< < Q O 
M M 

a Q u ^ 

^ ^ X X 

< < M M 

X X o o 
M M 2 2 
O O M M 
2 2 X X 

M M X X 

X X 

X X Q a 

_Cd M 

f' Q a E-> H 
^ , M Cd Cd < < 
COC 0 |i|-<MM I MMOO 
CdtdXX 220 XXMM 
XXUUXX 00,d,d 
td M M X X 
O »4 ,d Z Z 
X X X o O 

U o o o o 


M X X U Cd 

£ 00 ““^ 

e-i X X ^ ^ 
CO U Cd M H 

Cd X X o o 
X H M U U 
O O O X X 


rss 


XXX 

O tJ o 

X X < X < 

2 2 0 0 0 

M M (1 t" f-* 

Z Z 00 to CO 


g o O O td Cd 
Q X X X X 
Cd td Cd U 

bbcoco^^ 

XXUUXX 
X X C£ 00 o O 

2 Z z 

Cd td 
U U U Cu 

. _bb-^ 

E- €-> X X 
CO CO X X U ^ 

^ *8 Z X 
M M IH M 

2 2 U U 2 2 

< < X X M M 


2 2 

ss 
2 2 

^^MUUUOO 

2222 XX>>mm 


g 

X b'b B B 

_ u u u u 
< Q Q O Q 
M 2 2 2 2 
2 U U U U 
S Cu 0 ^ cu 
cd Om Od fiu 
X < < < < 


2 2 

CO CO 

u u 
X X 

gg 

Cd Cd 

bb 

X X 
X X 

X X 

gg 

i£ 


b 

bo 

X X 

CO 00 

u u 
K X 

g g 

u u 

bb 

X X 
X X 

X X 

d d 

' z z 
u u 
H H 
CO CO 
>- >- 
CO CO 


H Eh 
CO m 

u u 
o o 




X X 
u u 
X X 

SB 


fi Eh 
CO CO 

u u 
o o 


u 

u 

b o 

2 2 

X X I 
u u 
X o u 
U ,4 U 

bg= = 

CJ _ 3 O O 
00 MM 

^ O Eh Eh 
2 2 M X X 
Eh U U 
u u X X X 
CD CD U 
< < X Q Q 
XX U U 
X X Q Eh Eh 
X X U < < 
O O Eh O O 
Z Z «C M M 
U U U ,J u 
X X M X X 

. .^55 

M M Z O O 
. .022 
O O O D D 


^J'$t;®®>®MCM<»>^i0tDr'®<Ti0MCM(n»m<cr'0><«OMtM«n»i0t0r-®a>OM«M«»>»inu>rH<T»i»»o-j 
T^'»H»Hr^HB-'»tf>ininin«nmininioin®u®®«»o®®®tor~r~i^r'tH|>.t^rHi^r~®® 
■tM.H.HMMMMM..4.H.HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.HMMMMM.HMM 


1 *^ fo fn 


182 ESOPHAGITIS, GASTROENT t MISC DIGEST DISORDERS AGE 







Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54855 


Q 

S O 

H X 
01 m 

Cd 
O cc, 

1“ 


»OMr'»«o<nww«oo^r-,^«r<nr'<M^«DOBCM<M<o^ov,moc4ior'^cv4»«D«>r'iOio^r»r'«oioi>- 

,H CMr-lr4 C>l,-IC4(')CMr-l,-lrHC4C4C4C>l<MrHrH<rHr-l C4CM^ w-t r-t r-t ^ 

'rHioi*><o*o<riMCMa\cMOao<')oooooi«'laE>r>r'<04n«>(')r^00i<oaDV>f')r'ao<o«Of«iw«no\r>m«ONwatm 
l•-)C4,H<MCSICMNmC4<n<O<^ICMCMC>l(0CM(nC>JCMMMC<ICMrHr4(nrHC^ICM<M,H«4^4^lr-l,HC<l .HCiScM «H 


& X 
CO 
(I u 
X X 
O X 
X t-> 
n 


U CO 

ss 

*-• 




oiox<oxr^<oo^iA,-40oxr^,-iXf^^oo<Dr*fOxo^x«HO^fOcnr^x9t^aooocoioxr*>oDxwooixx^i 
CM N CM 04 CM (o CM.-M x<oxM>in<niAfor>‘«eoin«v«ne4fOCMiAr>v<oin<ne4vin<*)cM>H<>)aH>H«4cM«o«4r4fH< 


r''rOt^CDO«a>OOOXv<Oa\t^O\<')CM^Vr^CM,-t^XOinXVOO(0«-t,HXv4«XvHV(')r4f-IXIOXVV,MV 

cMCMcicMnvt'ioocOf-cfloconwvo^-ir'r'WWinfo^cMtoxvinaDincMr'OkMrmcMincMCMrHCMvcMfOCMCM 


(nr>r'M>ro<o<vio>H«oxr~r><')<Or-«xinM><OfOXr4'vtninror>o«c4CMCD(oo,-«u>r'fO«oa>*ecMcovvcMxx 
f^o(Or4r'<nror4V>(no<nr‘r>CMX«r-ofoor~x,-io\a>r-<vr'Xxr»oinoown,-i4roocMinmiocMr*‘ 
YCMini0^lAOtlOO^OOkfOWO^X^OO^aD^CM^Or^CD<*l^,-«CO^COVflO,HC00^40 0DtHlOVCMOOWOveOV 
in<nr'«cootn«or'r4«owcMa>CMmcM(nx(nc4r-tt^o>iOasvinvxcMCMXx«oo»i/i,Ha)aoxcM»cMr>x 
OOOOOv-tOOl0r-ll'l,-ICM,H>-l,-inini0»H,Hr4,-IOOOCMCM,-l,-«>HCM,-l,-(CM,-i«4O,-lr4OOO,HO,HOO 



C9 m 

O D 
Z 


fO^ir)v>r'xaio,-iC4<O'vmvor'OO9>o,-(CMPivinior~xovo,-<cMfOvinM)r'X<nOr4CMr')vi/)«or>x0i 
00<DaDaOOOOOa>a>0>a>Cn<»<<TlW>0'<T>eftOOOOOOOOOO,H»H*-»«-t,H<-t»H,H,H»MC4CMCMCMC4CMCMCMCMCM 
■^,-t,-(,-|,H,-<rH,-t,H^,-4n4,-),H,-(r4CMCMCMCMCMCMCM<MCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 


230 LOCAL EXCISION t REMOVAL OF INT FIX DEVICES OF HIP 








DRG CHAMPUS ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC SHORT STAY LONG STAY 

number description weight mean LOS MEAN LOS THRESHOLD THRESHOLD 

231 LOCAL EXCISION t REMOVAL OF INT FIX DEVICES EXCEPT HIP « FEMUR 1.1349 2.8 2.2 1 16 7 


54856 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


r'OtOkw«onok«ne«OinocMv(n«oaooooDC4mr>r'minMr>vio<omaBO«in cm o 

»M'»CM"r«OCM»OlO^«»)^CO»l*»<MCMCMn<M.-l»H«r»M»MCMCMW.-I.H»HCMOO»'W<MeMCM'»CM«®in«»>l»>CMeM»«»> 


CMroa><MOCMr-'rr'OaDO)«o>o\a>o\«oco.-in«oo<MChOtno\oeaocMa>wcM.HOa>eootor'rMinoo*M 

c4r>'(Ooooo«nr'Oo«o«io<')«n<ncM(nnincM<Mr4r'CMCMCMfncMCMrM«H«cMV>io<ov<*)ineMa>«vr)M>co<')<ov 


in<o^n«r'VO«o>reDaoaD.H(noDinrHmt«tocM<7io«o«(nr-ow<oinvin.H«D(DO)<oa>wtoor'ina>mcM 

orovoooininr'ior'C>ia>i^«0\vor')r^o\inrMom<')<o.-««««rHao«o«(')M>ovr'«oa><oeoo«cMin.-t 

.H.Hi^r)CM«oo«ioo«(nrHr'r«o\io«oin<M(DO<WrHrMO>cMO<o<o<OrHOr-'roo(ncMOiovoncMeooa>t^ 

o^tnmota^invcoMrcoaowi^inmioiocDintnncMvvmcMtfttftr'rMr'vcMaD.-iaDCMwr'rMeDWCM'rioo^in 

0 CM.-l 000 ^>HrM 000000000000 r 4000 .-l 000 rH 0 CM.-l«M>H 0 .HrM 0 .-l 00^0000 


V 

bo 

X X 

88 


b: It 

6 6 


2 2 

§§ 
U U 


CO to 
>- >* 
CO CO 

e< f-> 
u u 

.j 

gg 

CO CO 

ss 

£ 8 B 

O CO 00 

o 2 2 

g X £ 

It ec cc 
X U £i3 
H X X 

$88 




CO CO 

u u 

It ft 
D D : 
t- (- I 


lu $ 

M H 

X Cid 

, iJ 

8 g 


2 8 


o o 
u o 

X X 


2 ra CO 

XXX 

u u 
Mr a Q 

to s s 

U CO CO 
X *-• M 

3 0 0 


O td td 
< D 3 CO 
X CO CO M 
bi CO CO H 
CO IH tH l-l 
H( O H H X 
t- 2 X 

. (d -- 


O 

bo 

X X 


XX o 

S? i? a 

0 . a. (d 

o o o 

XX td 

XX X 

t- E-i m 

$ $ CO 2 

U 3 
O U w O 

M HI X CO 

Cu b. 3 

CO M HI < X 

X U U X 

Id Cd td O b< 

o X a. oc O 

ffi CO CO X 

E-> CO 


X 


Cd X 2 2 E-r 

E- H 2 2 X 

n < o O Id 

O X u u to 


$5 

u 8 

X 35 to 


_ HI to 
to CO o 

O HI HI Id <• 
< O O X 
C CO CO 
M Id td I 2 

o 2 2 2 C9 

td O O O HI 

X o m 2 CO 


F 8 
80 S 

00 _ ^ eg 

^ 2 2 o 

2 2 H- 2 

td r- r* C5 

3r-r-r4rMr-l I X 

CO ^ .H I A A O M 

CO A A O O 

HI Cd td td 

E-> U Cd td'C9 C9 C9 td 

O QfS < < < 3 

u ^ ^ ^ u 

2 X X X > 

% «td Cd td HI 

O Q O HU 

U222C90C9U U 

XxgtdtdCdtdU 

S X X X i i i O * * 
mEnSSS 

hicoXXXxxXmiUU 

MCOXXXXXXXXX 
CO POOXXXCd22 
XOCuXX333E-<t5CS 
3 X CO HI *-■ 

ffiE-<XXXXXX>.iJ 

tdOOOOOOcoS 

Ml O X 

0000000.4 

coxcocococococo<x 

HICOHIMHIHIHIHIE-'O 
E->OQOOQQOCd£u 
MO O 

§8.-g 

HE-MHEiE-OOU 
concocococo3tdtd 
CO » U H E^ 

Mtd ^•.«%k«.IOtOCO 

§ XC0C0C0C0C0C0XO»4 

^ Id td < < 

ilEEEEe'Eil^ 


bo 

M ** 

CO CO CO 

M U M M 

U O E-r H 

X U MM 

Cd U O O O 

^ 3 3 CO 

O 2 2 0 0 Cd 

X O O X 

n 00 CO Cd Cd 3 

O >1 u O Q 

O O E- E- Cd 


o 

u 

8 o 


2 2 



2 M M X X 

••<0000 

2 3 3 

>-r (9 O O X X 

CO M O O Cd td 

X O Id U U CJ 

o S u 0 O O 

MX 3 3 

n I X X 

sg O O 2 2 
M M 

2 X X X X 

Cd td Cd m « 

U X u u 

X P O O X X 

td X 3 3 p p 

Cu bi to 

8 8 g g E-r e X 

2 M CO CO X X 3 

< m td Cd Q 

2 M X X U U U 

CD O p P X X Q 

M X br X Cd td O : 

r-l 05 

a O Q Q X 


t) o 
MOO 

822 

ec €C 

H Oi flu 


2 Q Q S O M 

ec *M cc tc cc cc o 

P O O O O 

U4 ^ *v.. M 

0) «««*«« flu 

u cu 

O O H f-t ^ H Ml 

flC M Cu Cu Cu yu 

H E^ O (9 CD CD 2 

$ < 2 2 2 2 M 

td Cd M M M M X 

X X X X X X td 

o ffi m CO CO CO X 


E- E-r EH 
CO E-r E-r 

8 8 8 
Cd ffi ffl 
Z D 3 
< CO CO 

8 2 2 
ffi M M 

3 X X 
to CO CO 


2 2 


-»CO 

2 2 X 

Cd 

to CO Q 

XXX O 

U U O O 

Q Q to O 

X X M O O 

O O Q _ 

CO CO 2 2 

M M E-r 
a Q 0} I-- 



cM<’^v>nlO^<BO<OMCMl^M'ln<0r-xcooMCMfO’vmlor'Ooo^OMC4<O'WlO^Ol—oocnOMCMm^mco^x 
mr'omnfommi^'Mr'VM'^'VMrMrM'Mr'MrtnininioinininffiiniACDiocDCDcoioioioiocor-r-i'-r'r-f'C-r-r- 

CM<MCMCMCMCM<MeMCM(MCMCMCMCMCMCM<M<MC4CMCMCJ<MCMCMCMCMCMCMCMC4<M<MC4CMCM<MCM(M(MCMCMCMCMr4CM<M 









DRG CHAMPUS ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC SHORT STAY LWG STAY 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION WEIGHT MEA N LOS MEAN LOS THRESHOLD THRESHOLD 

279 CELLULITIS AGE 0-17 0.4591 3.4 2.8 1 17 9 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 




mworoa«cnr-<MaDe«.Hr'^o>.-i<or'r><noNm(nr-.Hn<n<»r'r.ti^«r*-(nm(n(nf-tr'Ofsia>o>«>otincMa\ 

CM.Hr.icMCM(BinaD(OCM.H.H«o<n<^r>i<ncMCMro(ncMaoi^in(n<n<M'WMN.HmM(M'rm<Min<simc4<Mi-ii-)CMr4 


v^<oo\oo-4<^(M«o^«o<oo««neMOvcoo».H««Dr'OC4(n<«incM«trHO(n<nn.Ht'vw«in'weoo<>4 

(ncMr4(nrOrH«Ot-ivc4CMr40<nvroin(ncM'rv(no>r^W'«'mfoio<’)i')fHmn<MV>t^«rv>ro«<n<ncsir4«nc4 


r-i~c4«ocMina>(*)ir)<«'(Mr'r~aDnaDinaio<ovPi«>r.i\cv>.HeiCMaoot--^ao«ovin«oocMa>(')o»cM^t-io^ 

r'.wot<D'«vinr'Oin«>>nvoov«oo^v.-i\ovoo<flr)U>r><^n(')r)«o<nvtno\csiinc<4maoocMr-oom 

r-tHln'vOln(MvOln(n^oo\^cf^aoo(Oc^l^)r.|0^or-a>n<n^o.-)<Mr'lnoor'^>o^o■n^■vo<^wv<Dro<n 

«0vo^«^.^._i(viou>cno<v«no\r'tnoiomeDO\iotn'v.HC4CM«OkOrHO«r-a>ovOvio<oinaDio«<0romcM 

OOOOOCMCMC4.HOOO<nOOOrHOOOOOnrgCM<H-40rHt-lOOOi-lOCMr-tOr.|00000000 


o 

u 

o o 

X S 


u u u 

§ s s 


!-•€-> ft 
ft ft ft 

3 D D O 
O U O O 
CQ CQ CQ 
3 3 D 3 
0} (0 CO 

to 

» ...» a: 

Z Z Z M 
M M M Q 
Z Z Z OC 
(0 CO CQ o 

CO 

U fl] U M 

Z X z o 

ft ft Eh 

O O O M 

ft ft ft z 

CO 


5S5o 

^ ^ ^ 5 

ft tt ft r 


z 

M 

oc 

Q W 
Q to 
2 CC 

8“B 

z u 

^SB 

* CQ o 5 

2 ^ 

Z M >. 

M Z 

Q 5 

Z Z ft 

own 

CO 3 3 
M O ft 

a M 

Ou 

z (u 

2°- 

Z ft 2 
O D U 
Z Z Z 
M £ Q 
X< < 


Z 3 
O Q 
U. CO 


CO ft ft 
U M M 

Z Z Z 

B ft ft 

D D 


o 

o 

£ O ^ 


u 

u 

o 

CO O O 


o 

o 



o o 

o o 

3 3 3 



tv. 

z 


3 3 

3 3 

O hQ vO 

O 


ft 

to z z 

O 

ft ft 

ft ft M 

2 0 0 

O _ 


M M 1 

CO CO 

O O 

* A A 

A A O 

Z 2 2 

CQ ^ 



O 1 1 

to 3 3 

Cd Cd 


cd 10 CO 

sss 

to (0 CO 
0 ^ a: oc 

U Cl] u 
Q O O 

oc QC oc 
o o o 

CO (0 CO 
M M IH 

o o o 
wo 


CO Z Z 
CO 

z z z 

BSS 

u 

8BB 


§§s 

H H €h 
U Cl] CO 
XXX 


BS 

z >* 

Cu X 


m CO 

SB 

D OC I 
O Cu 
ta 

B^ 

oc CO 
04 CO 

qS 

BB 

OC oc 
>-• 

X X 
H H 


z z 

U ti] 

oc oc 

Cl] Cl] 
X X 
f- fH I 
O O I 


► If) I 

mi; 
A O 

: b] td 

; § § 
CO CO 
Cd Cd 
6 h Jh 
Cd Cd 


BBS 

M M M 
ft ft Et 
M M *H 

Z Z Z 

ft ft ft I 

3 3 3: 
Z Z Z I 


CO u 

M O 

u 

o o o 

ts. 

3 3 

CO CO (0 
£ Z Z 
CO U ft 
Z Q Q Z 

o z z 3 
o o 3 

CO CO <0 z 
Z M M CO 

o a o z 
z 3 
Z to CO z 
to Z Z H 


z z z 
to u to 
goo 

ffi ffi ffi 

z z z 
o o o 

3 3 3 


o 

u 

B o 


»■ oi V* 3 3 

z z z ^ ^ 

U U U £ £ 
ft ft Et O O 

to to to ft ft 
z z z b b 
3 3 3 to to 

MM * » »ft Et 
zz>t>4>t>t<4; 
UOUCOUtOEtEt 

SSBBBBSB 

ZZmmmmZZ 

UlOZZZZZZ 


o 

o 

o o 

u o u 

3 3 3 

to to CO 
u u u 
z z z 

B B B 

Cd Cd Cd 

BBB 

z z z 
z z z 

z z .o 
u u 3 
Q O Z 

§ 9 * 

ss 

a CQ z 

3 

Z Z CQ 
0 0 2 
2 2 3 


o 

u 

B o 

B 3 3 


z 

d 

3 

O 3 ft M ft 
>» M M I b 
3 A A 0 | 

CQ to CO U Et 

SSSSx 

B » » »S 

u m CO CQ 2 

8 U to U M 

z z z z 

gBBB = 

Z U to >a 

^BBB>-I 

Z Z Z Z u : 
Z z Z Z 2 

ft Q 

u 3 3 iJ M 

z 3 3 3 z 
m X X z z 

2 ft ft ft U 

3 u u u X 

z z z g 


“g 

i 


£ £ ft ft D D 3 


O A A O 

o 

u u u u 
o o c3 eg ca 
^ < z < 

CO CQ m 

SSBBB 

CO CO M M M 

Oj cu Cd Cd Cd 
O O Uo M Ct4 
Cd Cd Z Z Z 
CO Z Z M *H M 

iiliii 

M ft ft M ft ft 

Q 

>t >t >t >- >t 

2 2 2 2 2 2 
U M M M M M 

z z z z z z 
3 3 3 3 3 
Z 

^ y* >t >* 
H Cd U Cd Cd Cd 

2§§§§§ 
Q M M M M M 

< ^ ^ k: X 


CO CO 

BB 

CO CO 


CO CO 

% % 
o o 


O O ft ft 

» » >; 
« CQ SS 
CO U 2 2 

2 2 M M 
O O Z Z 
ft ft 3 3 
CQ CQ 

m VI 

>t >t 

Z Z >t >t 

3 3 to CO 
M M B § 

Z Z M M 
3 3 Z Z 


OMCM<').«m«ortO]0\OMCsimvin<ortaooNOM<Mrovmci>rtooovOMCM(nvmcortooo«OM(M<n^m«> 

OOaDCSaO<DaOCDaDaa(DO>0>0>cn<ncn(nO\<Tv(7>OOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMCMf4NCMC4r4<M 

c.jeMCMCMeMCMfMCMfMCMeMCMc'gfMCMeMfjf'iC'jcMctlc'^mcociforjc'lMfOCQc'icnotocncnfOfOc'JiticAfOcofncnm 


54857 






54858 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


cB<om9><o<oo«oo\aB'«'<oc4ro«n«><0Ow«oin«orMO>fl«oinat<owa>r^mr><0iOtf>io,-)r-io«okmaominnv 

t-i (Mr-ies|r-IC4<MrH<Mr-l r4C4 




cMN«k«onooinr4«a><M<M>HCMaoflDi^vocMmo\<nr>«n,-4rHeDa9«ncs>H«einr4«,-)floocMO0«r'r'Ooiinoo 

CM4n,-l,Hnr4(Mm'rC<IC«<*)CM,Hr4C4,-IMr)(')C4CMCM«M,-tr')mrOCMC<J«OI'><MMC4,-)CSI,H<')vCMe<l,-lfn<*)rHr4r4 


csivcMr4ve4«nin'«'foc4vfn,-)C4v,-i(nvvin<n«o<nr4v<0'vmcMr'<’)CMncMr4c<4«<im<0(n<')cM^(oc4,-ic<i 


CM<M<omf-tasinotvifleDOr'<or'Oo\ininin<'i<Or4r'<-icM«r-r-i(oro(0,Hr-(<oc<iot«><T(r‘<BO«voc><rH(B 

«)t'ro«o<no<*><ovo«mroeDaDO>w^in<nvinm'r«or'mo(nt'vt^'v(')N'voesoi')'r't'i*)<')r4ioeor'<n 

CM«ONOveD<oo«v^invinr'rorov«ov<BCDCMeMt'CM0«9ir>oinu>inio<ovotrHr'r'<oin,-iaoo>cTt,-tflor' 

w<o^(')0>to>oo^*o9l^mcDtnnr'r-lfoasao'•■aovlOcsl«no^fooa>c4,-<o^e^o«<Mt~'«o<sl<'>r~'<O(')o\|~'m(OV> 

OOO0OO0,-lr40Or40O>-<OOr4OOOOO0OOr-tc-lr4OCMr-«O0OOOOr4,HO0OO0OOO 


o 

o 

o o 

X s 


u u u 

§ § s 

O) CO ra 
bl u u 
o) m (Q 

o o o o 

Z 2 2 U 
Q <5 o o 
< < < o o 

M M M 'V 
0 0 0 2 2 


A O 

u u 
o 

o >• >-• >< 
u o o o 

O O- 


CO 2 X !-> (- f- 

2 f' y y 5 

O r- r* ^ < < < 

M r-l ,H I K K cc 

(0 A A O E-i H El 

E-> U U U >» >• >• 

(J O to to OC o' or? 


Vi to 
u ca 
tc oc 

SB 

u u 

BB 

a: oc 

04 04 




|t 3 

2 M 

M OC 

O' E- 
D m 


U 2 

s 

o u 
•H oc 
2 O 


< < < s < 

2 2 2 
U U M M M 

OC OC 2 oc: 2 u u 
D O D O D 

U U •« 4 a 


o:2>*>->i 

E-> E-> U U U 

"”§g§: 

O O M M M 

<<222 

2X222 
U CO U 
Cd bJ X Z X 

ggsss 


u u 
2 2 


2 2 

O O 

ii 


11 

H H O § § 

< < 2 Z Z 

H E- 

m to « 

O O to 0} to 
2 2 U U U 
2 2 2 2 2 

ooBBB 

< < u u u 

2 2 B B B 

E-> E-i 2 2 2 
0 0 2 2 2 
2 2 

O O CO 2 CO 
CO CO O O O 
2 2 E- E- E" 
<< CO CO CO 
2 2 0 0 0 
E« E- E" E- H 


< 2 
O M 


OC 

g£ 

tu 

CO & 

o o 

2 0 O 

S X O 
O U 

o u o 

BBx^ 

2 2 

2 2 « 
X X 
• <00 
2 2 El Eh 
• • CO to 
O O >H >- 
CO CO 

X X 

o o o o 

H Eh > > 
CO to *-l M 
>H >H E- Eh 

CO CO O O 

ggii 

M M 2 2 


CO o o 
O t5-tS 
2 < < 


2 2 2 2 

o a 

o o o o 
oc oc ^ J 
2 2 < < 
O O £ £ 
2 2 


^ § 

O M to 

U Eh < 

O b M 

o og o 

X X Q 

2 

>H >H 2 Eh 
2X0 CO 

2 2 2 >H 

O o to 
2 2 0 

Eh H J P 

2 2 < > 

0 0 2 M 

> ^ O o t; 

X 2 2 2 

Eh < Q 
O O 2 0 

M M (u 2 

Eh Eh O - 2 
< < 2 0 
Eh Eh Z O 2 
to to O M 
O O M Eh O 

? ? ■ 
04 04 



1 B , 

p ^ ^ u 

>00 2 

^ to < 
^ X X U 2 
< 2 to 

O O to 2 M 

M CH M Q ^ 

^ ^ 2 
,•0^2 

>H X X p O 

2 O O > 2 

pg§S§ 

o < < o 

O ^ ^ 2 2 
2 2 Z 2 O 
O < < Eh 

Eh M t-t to Z 

52$2gg5 

S§§2° 

M Z 2 O 2 
2 2 2 m £ 

2 O O >H 
(u O CO g 

BBB^g 

M 2 2 M 

SSSSSBg 

o o o o Q 

CO z z 2 < 

M D Q 2 

> < < O •« 

O « «2 

00 O 
O 2 2 O Z 

M M fH 0 M 

> 2 2 < 2 
O O 2 O 

O Eh Eh O Eh 
2 3 0 0 3 


B 

Bo 

X X 


ii 


i B 


o u 

B^£ 

2 X X 


g§ 

2 2 

u 

04 04 

o o 


^20 

§gs 

M Eh < 

CO 2 2 


^ g 

3 tH I 

I U o 


^ • o 

U 2 Eh 

< O >H 

2 m 

to 2 

M O ^ 

< to M 

W B 
£^o 

M OC 

H H 04 
O 4 U 03 

gB“ 

X o o 

O 2 ,4 


2 2 
O O 
Eh Eh 
D D 


2 : 2 

2 o < 


8 o 
o o 


2 O 
h-l O 

g o 

sIb 

gs§ 

^2§ 
% CO M 
o X 

sBi 


r z 

CO CO CO 
H H > 
0) CO M 

gel 

tn M 2 

BBS 

BB“= 

O O CO 
X X ^ 

Oi Ou < 

CO CO Z 
X X CO 
U 4 

CO CO X 

ill 

% « 01 

>-• to 

< M 3 

§Bg 

<20 
2 M 2 


m 

o 

CO m 

o O 

5S 55 

O to 

? < 
to M 
< Q 

M 

Q to 

CO M 
2 Eh 

$ Ij 

M 2 

O^g 

0000 

■v. V. 

X X X X 


b b M M 
U Cd »4 .4 
CO CO U Cd 
Q O 

Si5S 

CO CO o O 
CO CO < < 

o o > > 


f*^aD9^o^cs)r)^40^or^a>o^o«Hcsifnvintf 


r>r)rnnmfOfn<nn(*>fn<^<n mri r> m fo <n fo ro n m <n<nrofO<nfO<ocnmfOfor><ncofO<n<oro<n(nfOfO«nro 


374 VAGINAL DELIVERY W STERILIZATION t/OR D 4 C 






Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 54859 


wi^ostooniMmi^r' 


^ r-l ^ <M CM •-« C4 ^ N N N ,H CM CM CM r-l CM CM rM ,-1 


tne«,-««o<ovu>i^r-«ao,-<in9>«oaDOetr'WaBinvflDio,-iaor*'M>«or«'«n<>> 

C4rMCMC4CMC4CM<MC4rOCMCMCMCM<nrMCMCM«MCMCMCMCM<nCMCMCMCM<-lrM,H 


gi 
(0 
Cl u 
ee tc 
O X 
X H 
(0 






u m 

ss 


,HCM»OOCMr>CM«n<M«> 

CMCMCMCMCMtHrMrMCM^ 


ioooninco,-ir*‘<DrMCMr')o«iovao>H«MrminrMMinr'ionMotcM«v 

rM*oio<')fncMn«CMmcocMW<nior>'4n«ncMC4CM(ncM<Din«rv«n<ncM<M 



ir)a>,-(vCMin'rM>r^<0 

C4CMinCMn'M,H,-IC4CM 


I 


r*>-icMr>«i^<no«ior'<oinocM,-iflo<e«ein>-«v 0 «r'evocMCMOOkr>avo« 
rMC'iov'Tcnvm. c')(^,-ir')o«aBot(ni*>'wO('tcMr~<'icMr>inM)v<ocMCM 


CO [-• 
3 X 


04 O 



r>4-ioroinr-ir4 004-<in 
•Hin^HtHr-iCDOOCOmfO 

cotnr>cacoo\om*cco 

<OMrr'flO'<r«nincMcofo 


pooooooooo 


_ ♦ ♦ 
vmcMooininovmcMOotini-iM-otcocoiOrMioocDioinaoo^wwmvtv 
mMriOi-io<o<o<')f»at«oino\aDOOcD<'iin,H(')f^aor'fHrMfH<0'r,-<r> 
OrMlO^Or~«Or~CM^O»«00»tl)M>t-t.Hr'»OlO«OCM4-IVBCMCMO(>lOr'<0 
f-tfniflCMOiocMrowcMr-^H^oOfHmvaoottnwwr-veooaBOtvtn* 


ocMt-irM>-i 04 -i^ocMr)^cMf-icM<nr-icMOOOOrMOco^ 4 -<ooooo 



VIRAL ILLNESS & FEVER OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN AGE 0-17 











54860 


Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


<M(n^C^(S|C4CM<MC4<M^^ <n N <H<M M rH 3 3 W S S S S S S S S S 3 S 

I I 

• <MfOC4<M€MCMmCMf*)C«IC4C>l COin C^CMf-«CMfH€Mf-lr4«-l fl C4«^C4 CSIC^cnC^C^t^fOCM C4C^C^C4 


^ o 

< 1-4 
CO z 




M Q 

2S «lOC4«rcI«C>J.H.H ^'ol .H^e4rHC<4.H'WC4»in<nvM<n,4^r0^in' ' 


Ir»oo\^<n^r*‘f0o^too^c<j 


xz • • • • • • • • — j®'^<^®J®®OnO«HOOO\Or^lOOfOC4^<n^C4iOOOO<^«0«HO 

®<n ■*)®^®<M(nfOCsJ€MOJCMv-IC^fOC4Vr-4<DlOva)«OO^tOC4€^(DvO 


fo m ^ 00 

I H ^ ^ ^ 

» X 9t m CD «-4 

I O 00 V IT) ^ 

I g ^ C 4 d o o 


o .-I r^ OD 00 o o 
ro fO 00 ro iH ,H C 4 

«0 O' «.< «0 O CM rH 

00 o o >-t r* 'r 00 

O .H .-I rM O O O 


0^00 lOOVWmVrM 


I Q u Cl] 

: M u u 
' m cc z z 

I 3 O U U 

§ a a a 

u w z z 

(0 .J Cl] u 

U) D < a. Q. 

D a > u u 

> < Q Q 

: o oc 

I o cu 13 O 

; J 3 O D D 

O g£ z a: a: 

: X Q o Q Q 

I O ^ k] 

; o o o o 


m m I 
U CD U I 
D D o 
X X u I 

a o u o I 
fe fe S * 

O O I 

00 01 z Z 

H H U U 

b C r £ 

ee^si 

Ou Cu Cu U ! 
U U K X 
H f-> < 
V U I 
t-t M U. U 

X X O O I 

o o 

H H 01 01 
«•«•§§! 
o o H H < 

assgi 

Z Z M M 
O O iJ 14 
0} CQ X X 

oi S. u u 


U (m 

m o o 
u u o 

I 01 

I 2 * » S5 

i § 01 01 S 

I < ^ £ r 01 
M 2 O O M 
I Q O ^ H X 
M CU Cb 

If ^55* 

: y H (Q 01 CO 
I O M 0£ 
> X i4 <• •« iC 
I Oil M U 
I ffi 01 01 X 

;o^i§§S 

I • bl M M bu 

: o X 01 CO < 


CO XU 
CD X (3 


U u 14 m 
M X u < 

a sc z a 

£ 3 M 

(u z u 

O M X > 

^ 2 S * 

>< Z Q M 

X u u 

o 3 y 01 

H U O M 
01 bi X CO 

•-t z X o 

.§ 

O 01 X 41 
^ X • M 

X o o o u 

iC X M X X 


X K Z U U 

u u u z X 
f-> 5 E f- M (3 

U X X X Z 
< O U X 3 




r 


Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 54861 


Q 

5 o 

H X 
0) CO 

u 
(9 K 

gg 


« «n 
Im «»i fo 


•r «n 00 04 o 

CM n ^ 04 


o m <o 00 o 

<»> «n 04 04 04 


oomin^r'>Of-ir'v>-iOiH04iO>-i>-i< 

V04'r<n04 04 04 r00404<H04<H 


'•■»Hr-t»f0^f~I^OI~001 

inrom«»)<orvo4«ncno4t-i( 


•-l•-l04 04('>•HC0m00O00Olfl<••04C0m04«0l0v 

i«r mcMcocMco^f-tm min(no4roo404e404 


<( s 

€h O 
CO X 
<0 
H Cd 
cc ec 
O X 
X E-> 
CO 


U CO 

ss 

gi 


CM^>-( I I •n'H 04 .- 4 .H.HrH^^.P 4 ^^.-C^<H^.-l<-ir-l^.-«in<« 0000404 CM^V 04 ^tH^ I 

»4 rM 04 


OCOO rMIOf-tOOO 

• • • I. 

00^0 r'>-l<')K)04 


OOC*)OOl^CnOkC7lfHfOfOr^«^00€MOCn^OOM>COO*'0\0*VOOO€MC^OO«HO«MM>Ot 
jH00fl0OO00'»«0-'*<»>'<»<»»-4 00^»M2«<^»vj»4or4dcDt^«0» 00 04 »00l«^ 

r)04>HiH .H .H cnv^m^-l^aHfHi-laHOO 


00 «r 

CM O 


«o •-« 00 04 in 
o m M" cn 


ioo4io>-io>iocoor~ooio4ei^eMOM'040<H004oooinoeMinr40«ino«-iioo4 

Nowr>-<nor>oioiO(noo(no4(n>-i<-<oooo<a'eir'0(nocMO«><-ieicMCMOO 

.-i-H 04 in>-«ioo4inm«-iv 04O4«-«>-if-icM>-tf-ii-i 


oi m 
cn r» 


t-4 

OD 0\ 00 
^ Ok CO 
CM M 




cMco«H^0fn ooa>^oDOOfnr^«Ha)oo\<vvco^ooo^^a>r^o\<ooc40to^^^iOot^iO<o 
ooor^cMCT^ <^<^^oo^c')r*‘r^<nior**ocMinr*>o^o^^cAr*-e40fH«ocMCMC^ooc^CMr^u>^«H 
or*f**o^<*i cMr*‘^^r*i/)f0^r*^ooocM«HO<oioooo^<^a)OOvr^r^fO^<^roOM><ncMr^ 
<MCM<no^<ft ^ <’^^io^\oiom<M<nf-i<Dnvor-4iOtf^v)<n^<n^^<n^oDOin«H^or^r^cMO« 

lO 00 40 lO ^,CM ^CMr>4rMCM^«HO^OO€h^r**O^ODr*^QOC*>lO^(O^OOa>inCM«M 

<-« fH «-• «H 


2 U3 
M OC 

u 


U X 
•J • 

Ou o 


m 

M 

00 

o 

CO z 
n CD 
CO < 

o tt 
z a 
H ca 

O M < 
X O X 



X M 

o 

r- 

3 3 0 

z 


(0 < Z 

C9 

A 

X M 

< 


X M X 

CO M 

CO 

O O X 

U Q 


H Z 

CO 

< 

•< tj O 

O Z 


3 X Eh 

Z O 

CO 

M X 

C9 U 

oc 

1; ^ ° 

< z 

3 

Z O U 

M 


o 

p 

I 3 X 

u u 
1 tJ o 




E- 3 
3 

o o 
< z 


SoH 

X u u 
H fi X 
ti *5 2 
* 3 3 
u 

CO X bl 
M Z X 

8 = g 

z u u 

w X g 

<30 

M 5 X 

O U X 

X g • 
U X X 
H X . 
CO O 
>- • 

CO X ^ 

>< d M 

X CO 

o o z 

H M U 

^ ^ 

K < X 
M E-I U 
X CO I 

w 9 5 
U X o 
X X 2 


g 

o o 

X s 

CO CO 

u u 
X X 

gg 

CO CO 

Bg 

X X 
X X I 


Q «a 

Z X 
O 

Si 

«• % 

CO 

H ^ 
8^“ 
H^.g 

H U X 

XXX 
CO u 

■ 5 Sf ^ 

•122 


BBz 

asi 

> > H 

XXX 
U U U 
XX? 

BS3 


ggg 

X !-■ E- 
X CO CO 

< O O 
ac u u 
X X 
u g g 

BSS 

m E- £-. 


04 H 


isg 

E- g w 
O CO 
Eh X 

g x u 
3 
X X 

M 3 M 
X X Eh 
M U 3 
Z X 3 
0^2 
)H Q 

U X 
3 X 
X M n 
M z u 

Eh X 
3 .3 
3 Eh Q 
2 Z U 

<18 
2 u X 

M X 
Z ffi u 
5 3 e: X 
u 3 S 


X X 

^g 

Eh U 

§8 
O X 
M X 


Z X 

M O 
CO 

u §2 

3 M 
X CO 
*H 2 
Eh U 

3 t< 

2 u 


X 

u 

X 

Eh 

X 

u 

CO 
X M 
u m 
X o 

X z 
3 g 

r ^ 

Cu M 
O Q 

03 >H 

aa 

l§ 

882 
M 0^ CO 
H a« 

M CO 
Q H < 

z 8 u < 
Q Eh Eh 3 

8^ as 

u u u 
X X u 

Q Eh 

u X m 3 

t: “ X g 

3XM< 


u 8 


^ o >* 

o * z < 

3 w X 
< X o u 
X O 3 X 

* * s § 

O X 

> > 3 U 


t) 

t) 

8o 

s s 


U U 

d Q 

d d 

o o 

z X 


8 8 

u u 

H Eh 
CO CO 

>* >H 

o o 
u u 
3 3 

o o 

X X 

o o 
t) o 


Ss 

Q C9 
U X 
<9 < 


ffi X X 
O X X 
X 

X X X ffi 

o o o 

SS *2 *2 «: 

O < < X 

a 

X Eh Eh O 
3 3*^ 


ffi X X 
O X X 
X 

ffi ffi X X X ffi ffi 

o o o o o o 

X X X 3 X X 
X X O < < X X 

X X 2 * X X 

o u X e Eh o o 

Z X 3 3 3 Z 
M Eh Eh r- 

X 5 3 S 


M 

a 

Q 

Q g 

82 


3-2--=^*= 

2ozzzz2ozzz 

X^-o-hZZh-h. 

H .8888 . .888 

ggxxxxggxxx 

OOxxxxOOxxx 
XX XX 

XXXXXXXX X'X X 

__oooo ooo 

XX XX 

OOUCuEuImOOEuUU 
MMMM MMM 

Cu2 bib4222Zb4Ui2ZZ 

I-IC9 •-imc90C9@mm@@@ 

Zm ZZmmmmZZmmm 


8^ 

O fiu 

OC 

a* oc 
o 
oc 

O Cm 
M 
Cm 2 
M o 
2 M 
O CO 


2 

M 

^ 


CO 


CdOOOCOCOCOCdCDCOCOCQ 

S.coOUCOCQOOOOcocoOOO 

O Q ^ M •N^'s.'v'v 

COUZZOZZZZZZZZZZZ 

MM 

UOQO 

cou C9t90t9C9C9C9C9C9C9C9C9t9C9 

MM . kOIOIOIOIOIVlOIOIOIOlOlOIOIOI 

QQ(9C9oioioioi9>9ioveioio\oi9iotai 

« %0«<^•H«H«-l«H^fH•-l«-4•-ICM<MCM€M^4 

OOO^OVIIIIIIIIIIIIII 

OOl lOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

lomoooooooooooooooo 
r^r»iniooookn(niOinioinooooo 
V Vr«*r-r-l«-«*-<*H«HtH^»-l4^<MCM«MCMeM 


X X 

u 

Z>---- 

S M M M < Z < < 

X Z X X (J 3 3 


X X CO o 

o o z 

u u < . 

CO CQ X u 
O O Eh Eh 

22 

X X 


§8 
3 U 
3 Z 


a: < ffi 

.M > M 

EnffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiXffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0) 

X 

U C9 u 

a 8 a 

8^8 
u o u 
z z z 


uuuuuuuuu 

aaaaaaaaa 

888888888 

lUUUUUUUUU 

zzzzzzzzz 


u u u u 

saaa 

8888 
u u u u 
z z z z 


u u u u 

a a a a 


5 C 
u u u u 
z z z z 


(9 ffi 
Q 3 


MCMmHrinior'moioMCMrOHrmior-maioMCMmvinoMCMm^mior'aooiOMCMmvinior-xoiOM 

^^^rHrH^rHrH^aOOOOOOOODOOQOODmaDOIOId9IOIOIOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMC4CM 


622 NEONATE, BIRTHWT >24996, H SIGNIF OR PROC, W MULT MAJOR PROB 8.6113 











54862 


JF^eralJRe^ger^/^ol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 i 


a 


U 


>1 O 

< 

t-> o 

(Q X 
01 
H U 

SS^ 

X H 
01 


U CO 

ss 


I I 


m <o 

«0 M 


•Hr'cn 0>aomooomtH< 

• • • I. 

««»)«») •-iNCMOCMONr'' 


0\ OD 
O <M 


CMr-oOGonoco 


ooeo c4to<n lA^movcM^r-oii'i 

lOflo 041^^0 •-(Oo>r'r'Or'«)«t> 

Noov oocnoionr'ooo 
OOr- "TOW CMrH'rCMrOCMCOO^tO 

• • I ... I. 

C40 CMrHO ONOrHOOCnOO 



(9 m 
z 


rov>nvoi^aoo\o.-icM(n^m\oor4 

cvioicMcjfMtMC'iPinc'iinpiPinoo 

\cvouivoto«ccovo«ovo<ou>vo\co>o> 


(FR Doc. 95-26535 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 

BILUNQ CODE S000-04-C 


Notices 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54863 


Office of the Secretary of the Army 

Record of Decision on the Finai 
Supplement to the 1989 Environmental 
Improt Statement for Proposed 
Actions at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll 

agency: Department of the Army. 
ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice of availability is 
for the Record of Decision (ROD) on the 
Final Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement (FSEIS) for Proposed 
Actions at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll 
(USAKA) (U.S. Army Strategic Defense 
Command (USASSEfc), December 1993). 
The FSEIS assessed the potential 
environmental impacts for two 
proposed actions: To increase the level 
of strategic defense test and evaluation 
activities to support the development 
for deployment of missile defense 
systems; and to implement new 
environmental standards for USAKA. 
The ROD makes a decision only on the 
increase in the level of strategic defense 
test and evaluation activities. A 
modified Low Level-of-Activity has 
been selected in lieu of the Intermediate 
Level-of-Activity alternative as 
proposed in the FSEIS. 

Lead Agency: USASSDC. 

Cooperating Agency: Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization. 

Selected Action: The ROD identifies a 
modified Low Level-of-Activity, as the 


selected action instead of the 
Intermediate Level-of-Activity as 
proposed in the FSEIS. The ROD 
describes the specific actions to be 
included in the modified Low Level-of- 
Activity, and identifies the required 
mitigation measmes to avoid, minimize, 
or reduce the impacts of the proposed 
actions to nonsignificant levels. The 
modified Low I^vel-of-Activity gives 
full consideration to recent budgetary 
and administrative guidance/direction 
in the development of testing of Theater 
Missile Defense (TMD) and National 
Missile Defense (NMD) program 
elements. The ROD clearly reflects a 
shift to TMD program testing at USAKA 
while maintaining some support for 
NMD programs. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for the ROD may 
be forwarded to: Commander, U.S. 

Army Space and Strategic Defense 
Command, Attn: Kenneth R. Sims, 
CSSD-EN-V, P.O. Box 1500, Himtsville, 
AL 35807-3801. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Verbal comments and questions 
regarding the ROD may be directed to 
Mr. Ed Vaughn at (205) 955-3887. 

Dated: October 5,1995. 

Raymond J. Fatz, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational 
Health) OASA (I,L6’E). 

(FR Doc. 95-26527 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE 3710-OB-M 


Department of the Army 

Corps of Engineers; Chief of Engineers 
Environmental Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Corps of Engineers, Department 
of the Army, Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 


SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L 92-463), this 
annotmces the forthcoming Executive 
Session of the Chief of Engineers 
Environmental Advisory Board. The 
meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 
3:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 28,1995. 
The meeting location is the 
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Room 8222D, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20314-1000. The 
meeting is open to the public and any 
interested person may attend. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 
Paul D. Rubenstein, Office of 
Environmental Policy, U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 20314- 
1000, (202) 761-8731. 

Gregory D. Showalter, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 95-26537 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3710-e2-M 





54864 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Army Sciance Board; Notice of Closed 
Meeting 

In accordance with secticai 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is 
made of the following Committee 
Meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science Board 
(ASB). 

Date of Meeting: October 23,1995. 

Time of Meeting: 1300-1600. 

Place: Killeen. TX. 

Agenda: The Army Science Board’s (ASB) 
Ad Hoc Study on “The Impact of Information 
Warfare on ^^y Command, Control, 
Commimications, Computers and 
Intelligence (C4I) Systems” will meet for four 
hours to outline the final report and begin the 
report writing for the study. This meeting 
will be closed to the public in accordance 
with section 552b(c) of title 5. U.S.C, 
specifically subparagraph (4) thereof, and 
Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix 2. subsection 10(d). 
The proprietary matters to be discussed are 
so inextricably intertwined so as to preclude 
opening any portion of this meeting. For 
further information, please contact Michelle 
Diaz at (703) 695-0781. 

Michelle P. Diaz, 

Acting Administrative Officer, Army Science 
Board. 

(FR Doc. 95-26514 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BHJJNO CODE 3T1(M)e-M 


Army Science Board; Closed Meeting 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Puh. L. 92-463), annotmcement is 
made of the following Committee 
Meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science Board 
(ASB). 

Date of Meeting: October 23.1995. 


Time of Meeting: 1300-1700. 

Place: Ft Hood, TX. 

Agenda: The Army Science Board’s Ad 
Hoc Study on "Reenj^eering the 
Acqiiisition and Modernization Processes of 
the Institutional Army” will meet for an 
internal strategic planning session. Program 
Objective Memorandum (POM) information 
will be discussed. This meeting will be 
closed to the public in accordance with 
section 552b(c) of title 5, U.S.C. specifically 
subparagraph (4) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C., 
Appendix 2. subsection 10(d). The 
proprietary matters to be discussed are so 
inextricably intertwined so as to preclude 
opening any portion of this meeting. For 
further information, please contact Michelle 
Diaz at (703) 695-0781. 

MiclieUe P. Diaz, 

Acting Administrative Officer, Army Science 
Board. 

[FR Doc. 95-26515 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BHXMQ CODE STKMM-M 


Army Science Board; Notice of Closed 
Meeting 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), annotmcement is 
made of the following Committee 
Meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science Board 
(ASB). 

Date of Meeting: November 16 & 17,1995. 

Time of Meeting: 0930-1700,16 November 
1995,1000-1500,17 November 1995. 

Place: Pentagon—^Washington, DC. 

Agenda: The Army Science Board’s (ASB) 
Ad Hoc Study on “The Impact of Information 
Warfare on Army Conunand, Control, 
Coimnunications, Computers and 
Intelligence (C4I) Systems” will meet for 
briefings relative to the subject imder study. 
These meetings will be closed to the public 
in accordance with Section 552b(c) of title 5, 


U.S.C, specifically subparagraph (4) thereof, 
and Title 5, U.S.C, Appendix 2, subsection 
10(d). The proprietary matters to be 
discussed are so inextricably intertwined so 
as to preclude opening any portion of these 
meetings. For further information, please 
contact Michelle Diaz at (703) 695-0781. 
Michelle P. Diaz, 

Acting Administrative Officer, Army Science 
Board. 

[FR Doc. 95-26539 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BNJJNQ CODE 371(M»-M 


Army Science Board; Notice of Open 
Meeting 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is 
made of the following Committee 
Meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science Board 
(ASB). 

Date of Meeting: November 30, & December 
1.1995. 

Time of Meeting. 0930-1700, 30 November 
1995,1000-1700,1 December 1995. 

Place: Pentagon—^Washington, DC, 

Agenda: The Army Science Board (ASB) 
C4I Issue Group will meet to hear selected 
briefings relative to the study on "A Strategy 
for leveraging Commercial Technologies for 
Future Army Radios.” These meetings will be 
open to the public. Any interested person 
may attend, appear before, or file statements 
with the committee at the time and in the 
manner permitted by the committee. For 
further information, please call Michelle Diaz 
at (703)695-0781. 

Michelle P. Diaz, 

Acting Administrative Officer, Army Science 
Board. 

[FR Doc. 95-26540 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BiLUNQ CODE STKMM-M 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54865 


Army Science Board; Notice of Ciosed 
Meeting 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), annoimcement is 
made of the following Committee 
Meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science Board 
(ASB). 

Date of Meeting: December 7 & 8,1995. 

Time of Meeting: 0900-1700, 7 Etecember 
1995,0900-1600, 8 December 1995. 

Place: Fort Monmouth, N). 

Agenda: The Army Science Board’s (ASB) 
Ad Hoc Study on “Ihe Impact of Information 
Warfore on Army Command, Control, 
Communications, Computers and 
Intelligence (C41) Systems” will meet for two 
days (8/9 November 1995) to hear briefings 
relative to the subject imder study. These 
meetings will be closed to the public in 
accordance with Section 552b(c) of title 5, 
U.S.C, specifically subparagraph (4) thereof, 
and Title 5, U.S.Q, Appendix 2, subsection 
10(d). The proprietary matters to be 
discussed are so inextricably intertwined so 
as to preclude opening any portion of these 
meetings. For fiulher information, please 
contact Michelle Diaz at (703) 695-0781. 
Michelle P. Diaz, 

Acting Administrative Officer, Army Science 
Board. 

(FR Doc. 95-26541 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BIUJNQ cone 371(M)»4I 


Army Science Board; Notice of Closed 
Meeting 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is 
made of the following Committee 
Meeting: 

Name of Committee: Army Science Board 
(ASB). 

Date of Meeting: December 14 & 15,1995. 

Time of Meeting: 0900-1700, December 14, 
1995,1000-1700, December 15,1995. 

Place: Pentagon—^Washington, DC. 

Agenda: The Army Science Board’s (ASB) 
Ad Hoc Study on “The Impact of Information 
Warfare on Army Command, Control, 
Communications, Computers and 
Intelligence (C4I) Systems” will meet to hear 
briefings relative to the subject under study. 
These meetings will be closed to the public 


in accordance with Section 552b(c) of title 5, 
U.S.C, specifically subparagraph (4) thereof, 
and Title 5, U.S.C, Appendix 2, subsection 
10(d). The proprietary matters to be 
discussed are so inextricably intertwined so 
as to preclude oi>ening any portion of (hese 
meetings. For further information, please 
contact Michelle Diaz at (703) 695-0781. 
Michelle P. max. 

Acting Administrative Officer, Army Science 
Board. 

[FR Doc. 95-26542 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3710-OB-M 


Yakima Training Center Cultural and 
Natural Resources Committee 
(Technical Committee) 

AGENCY: Headquarters, I C^orps and Fort 
Lewis, Fort Lewis, Washington, 
Department of the Army, Elefense. 
action: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Lfommittee Act (P.L. 92—463), 
annoimcement is made of the following 
committee meeting: 

Name of Committee: Yakima Training 
Onter Cultural and Natural Resources 
Committee—^Technical Committee. 

Date of Meeting November 9,1995. 
Place: Yakima Training Center, 
Building 266, Yakima, Washington. 
Time: 1 p.m. 

Proposed Agenda: Cultural and 
Natural Resources Management Plan 
review, dlascade Sage. All proceedings 
are open. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

* Stephen Hart, Chief, Qvil Law, (206) 
967-0793. 

Gregory D. Showalter, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 95-26608 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE 371(M)8-M 


Yakima Training Center Cultural and 
Natural Resources Committee (Policy 
Committee) 

agency: Headquarters, I Corps and Fort 
Lewis, Fort Lewis, Washington. 
action: Notice of open meeting. 


SUIMIIARY: In accordance with Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), 
announcement is made of the following 
committee meeting: 

Name of Committee: Yakima Training 
Center Cultural and Natural Resources 
Committee—^Policy Committee. 

Date of Meeting: November 16,1995. 
Place: Yakima Training Center, 
Building 266, Yakima, Washington. 
Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Proposed Agenda: Cultural and 
Natural Resoiuces Management Plan 
review, (Cascade Sage. All proceedings 
are open. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Stephen Hart, Chief, Qvil Law, (206) 
967-0793. 

Gregory D. Showalter, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 95-26609 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BBJJNO CODE 3710-0e-M 


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 
Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 
ACTION: Notice of proposed information 
collection requests. 

SUMMARY: 'The Director, Information 
Resources Group, invites comments on 
the proposed information collection 
requests as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 
submit comments on or before 
December 26,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 
requests for copies of the proposed 
information collection requests should 
be addressed to Patrick). Sherrill, 
Department of Education, 600 
Independence Avenue SW., Room 5624, 
Regional Office Building 3, Washington, 
DC 20202-4651, or should be electronic 
mailed to the internet address 
#FIRB@ed.gov, or should be faxed 202- 
708-9346. 





54866 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


FOR FURTHER INFORMAHON CONTACT: 
Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708-8196. 
Individuals who use a 
telecommimications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information 
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.. Eastern time, 
Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 
that the Department of Education (ED) 
provide interested Federal agencies and 
the public an early opportunity to 
comment on information collection 
requests. The Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) may amend or waive the 
requirement for public consultation to 
the extent that public participation in 
the approval process would defeat the 
purpose of the information collection, 
violate State or Federal law, or 
substantially interfere with any agency’s 
ability to perform its statutory 
obligations. The Director of the 
Information Resources Group, publishes 
this notice containing proposed 
information collection requests at the 
beginning of the Department review of 
the information collection. Each 
proposed information collection, 
grouped by office, contains the 
following: (1) Type of review requested, 
e.g., new, revision, extension, existing 
or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary 
of the collection; (4) Description of the 
need for, and proposed use of, the 
information; (5) Respondents and 
hequency of collection; and (6) 

RepK)rting and/or Recordkeeping 
burden. ED invites public comment at 
the address specified above. Copies of 
the requests are available firom Patrick J. 
Sherrill at the address specified above 

The Department of Education is 
especially interested in public comment 
addressing the following issues: (1) is 
this collection necessary to the proper 
functions of the Department, (2) will 
this information be processed and used 
in a timely manner, (3) is the estimate 
of burden accurate, (4) how might the 
Department enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be 
collected, and (5) how might the 
Department minimize the burden of this 
collection on the respondents, including 
through the use of information 
technology. 

Dated: October 20,1995. 

Gloria Parker, 

Director. Information Resources Group. 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: Repayment Plan Selection. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 


Affected Public: Individual or 
households. 

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping 
Hour ^rden 

Reporting Burden: 

Responses: 525,000. 

Burden Hours: 173,250. 

Abstract: Borrowers in the William D. 
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program will 
use this form to choose a repayment 
plan for their loans(s). 

IFR Doc. 95-26565 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BNJJNQ cooe 4000-01-M 


Arbitration Panei Decision Under the 
Randolph-Sheppard Act 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 
ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel 
decision under the Randolph-Sheppard 
Act. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on 
January 25,1995, an arbitration pemel 
render^ a decision in the matter of 
Robert Hill v. Michigan Commission for 
the Blind (Docket No. R-S/93-2). This 
panel was convened by the Secretary of 
the U.S. Department of Education 
pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d-2, upon 
receipt of a complaint filed by Robert 
Hill. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 
copy of the full text of the arbitration 
panel decision may be obtained firom 
George F. Arsnow, U.S. Department of 
Education, 600 Independence Avenue 
SW., Room 3230, Switzer Building, 
Washington, D.C. 20202-2738. 
Telephone: (202) 205-9317. Individuals 
who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD 
number at (202) 205-8298. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 
to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 
U.S.C. 107d-2(c)), the Secretary 
publishes a synopsis of arbitration panel 
decisions affecting the acfininistration of 
vending facilities on Federal and other 
property. 

Background 

The complainant, Robert Hill, was 
granted a license and was assigned to 
operate a vending facility at the U.S. 
Ajmy Tank-Automotive Command 
(TAraM). Following his assignment, 
staff of the Michigan Commission for 
the Blind, the State licensing agency 
(SLA), made routine visits to 
complainant’s vending facility. 

On one of the routine visits, the staff 
person alleges that certain problems 
were foimd at the facility, which 
included outdated products being sold, 
lack of cleaning and upkeep of the area, 
and lack of timely filing of required 


reports. The SLA staff person also 
alleges that a number of complaints 
from officials at TACOM had been 
received and that these complaints were 
under investigation to confirm their 
validity. 

The SLA staff person provided 
technical assistance to the vendor, 
making numerous suggestions and 
attempting to assist the vendor in 
increasing his profit percentage, which 
was below the norm established by the 
SLA. The SLA staff person encouraged 
Mr. Hill to contact other experienced 
vendors in the vending program for 
assistance. When no improvement was 
noted by the SLA staff person and Mr. 
Hill rejected offers of assistance, the 
business counselor recommended to the 
SLA that Mr. Hill’s license be revoked 
as the result of the sanitation problems, 
the sale of outdated products, the failure 
to meet profit margin standards, and the 
late filing of reports. 

On October 16,1991 the SLA notified 
Mr. Hill that he was failing to comply 
with the vendor’s operating license and 
agreement requirements and that license 
revocation proceedings were pending. 
Subsequently, Mr. Hill’s license was 
revoked, and he requested and received 
a State fair hearing on April 27,1992. 

On July 30,1992 the hearing officer 
rendered an opinion sustaining the 
SLA’s decision to revoke Mr. Hill’s 
vending license. The hearing officer 
considered Mr. Hill’s argument that 
there was a personality conflict between 
himself and the SLA staff person. Mr. 

- Hill alleged that the conflict was due to 
his racial ethnicity and that this was the 
reason for the revocation of his license. 
The hearing officer ruled that this 
argument was not credible. Testimony 
at the hearing indicated that numerous 
attempts had been made by the SLA to 
provide technical assistance and 
training to Mr. Hill and to assist him in 
reaching the 25 percent profit margin 
requirement. Mr. Hill further stated that 
he was not given sufficient 
opportunities to bid on other locations 
after his license revocation. 

On March 12,1993 Mr. Hill filed a 
complaint requesting that the Secretary 
of the U.S. Department of Education 
convene a Federal arbitration panel to 
review the hearing officer’s decision, 
which was adopt^ as final agency 
action by the SLA. The complaint was 
heard by the arbitration panel on 
September 15 and 26,1994. 

Arbitration Panel Decision 

The arbitration panel ruled on three 
issues as follows: (1) Whether the SLA 
discriminated against the complainant 
on the basis of his race. (2) Whether the 
complainant was given sufficient notice 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 J Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54867 


of his violation of the rules in an 
appropriate media for his use. (3) 
Whether a vendor after license 
revocation can be required to wait a 
period of time before reapplying or be 
placed on a waiting list behind other 
vendors bidding on vending locations. 

Concerning the first issue, the panel 
ruled that, contrary to the complainant’s 
claims, the charges of racial 
discrimination were not substantiated 
by testimony. 

With respect to the second issue, the 
panel ruled that the SLA was in 
compliance with the Federal statute and 
regulations and State rules concerning 
communications to licensees. The panel 
found that complainant had resource 
persons who would provide assistance 
in reviewing any commimication 
received by him. Furthermore, the panel 
noted that the SLA staff person 
routinely read to the complainant the 
evaluations and reports prepared during 
the onsite visits. 

Finally, concerning the procedures 
used by the SLA for complainant’s 
reapplication for a vending license, the 
panel ruled that it was appropriate to 
require him to be retrained and 
reoriented and that, if the complainant 
fulfilled these requirements, he should 
be placed on the bidding list for another 
vending location. If complainant did not 
complete retraining requirements, then 
his placement on the bidding list should 
be delayed until such time as he 
complied with that prerequisite. 
However, the panel ruled that, once 
complainant had completed retraining, 
his placement on the bidding list should 
be in accordance with his prior standing 
of seniority. The panel concluded that 
to deny complainant his former 
standing on the bidding list would be 
unreasonable and punitive. 

The views and opinions expressed by 
the panel do not necessarily represent 
the views and opinions of the U.S. 
IDepartment of Education. 

Dated: October 18,1995. 

Howard R. Moses, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 95-26552 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
HLUNQ CODE 400(M)1-P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Disposition of Surpius Highly Enriched 
Uranium; Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice t>f availability. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 
(DOE) announces the availability of the 


Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for Disposition of Surplus Highly 
Enriched Uranium (draft HEU EIS) for 
public review and comment. In 
accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA), the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500- 
1508), and the Department’s NEPA 
Implementation Procedures (10 CFR 
Part 1021), the Department has prepared 
this draft HEU EIS to evaluate 
alternatives for the disposition of United 
States-origin weapons-usable highly 
enriched uranium (HEU) that has b^n, 
or may be, declared surplus to national 
defense needs by the President. 

DATES: The public is invited to comment 
on the draft HEU EIS during a comment 
period that will continue until 
December 11,1995. Comments 
postmarked after that date will be 
considered to the extent practicable. 

The Department will hold two public 
workshops to discuss and receive 
comments on the draft HEU EIS on 
November 14 and 16,1995. The times 
and locations of the workshops are 
provided in the Supplementary 
Information. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft HEU EIS 
and requests for information should be 
directed to: Office of Fissile Materials 
Disposition (MD—4), Attention: HEU 
EIS, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585,1-800-820- 
5134. 

Written comments on the draft HEU 
EIS should be mailed to the following 
address: DOE—Office of Fissile 
Materials Disposition, P.O. Box 23786, 
Washington, DC 20026-3786. 

Comments may also be submitted orally 
(to a recording machine) or by fax to 1- 
800-820-5156. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 
information on the DOE National 
Environmental Policy Act process, 
contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, 
Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance 
(EH—42), U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Ave., SW, 
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600 
or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756. 

Availability of the draft HEU EIS: 
Copies of the draft HEU EIS have been 
distributed to Federal, State, Indian 
tribal, and local officials, agencies, and 
interested organizations and 
individuals. Copies of the draft HEU EIS 
and supporting technical reports are 
also available for public review at the 
locations listed at the end of this Notice. 


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 21,1994, the Department 
published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the 
Federal Register (59 FR 31985) to 
prepare a programmatic EIS (PEIS) for 
weapons-usable fissile materials, 
including both surplus and non-surplus 
HEU. The purpose of the NOI was to 
inform the public of the proposed scope 
of the Storage and Disposition of 
Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS 
(Storage and Disposition PEIS), to solicit 
public input, and to eumounce that 
public scoping meetings would be 
conducted from August through October 
1994.' During that period, 12 public 
meetings were held throughout the 
United States to obtain input regarding 
the scope, alternatives, and issues 
associated with weapons-usable fissile 
materials that should be addressed in 
the Storage and Disposition PEIS. The 
extensive scoping process for the 
Storage and Disposition PEIS included 
options for the disposition of surplus 
HEU. 

In the course of the PEIS public 
scoping process, it appeared that it may 
be more appropriate to analyze the 
impacts of surplus HEU disposition in 
a separate EIS. The Department held a 
public meeting on November 10,1994, 
to obtain comments on this potential 
course of action. While views were 
expressed both pro and con, the 
Department subsequently concluded 
that a separate EIS would be 
appropriate. Accordingly, the 
Elepartment published a notice in the 
Federal Register (60 FR 17344) on April 
5,1995, to inform the public'of the 
proposed plan to prepare a separate EIS 
for the disposition of surplus HEU. 

Alternatives Considered 

The draft HEU EIS assesses 
environmental impacts of five 
reasonable alternatives identified for the 
disposition of up to 200 metric tons of 
surplus HEU. This includes HEU that 
has already been declared surplus (165 
metric tons) as well as additional 
weapons-usable HEU that may be 
declared surplus in the future. The 
material is currently located at facilities 
throughout the Department’s nuclear 
weapons complex, but the majority is 
in, or destined for, interim storage at the 
Department’s Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee. Except for no action, all 
reasonable alternatives involve blending 
HEU with depleted, natural, or low- 
enriched uranium (LEU) to make LEU, 

■ In the NOI, the PEIS was referred to as the Long- 
Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable 
Fissile Materials PEIS. 





54868 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


which is not weapons'Usahle, and the 
majority of which would have potential 
commercial value as non-defense, 
nuclear power plant fuel feed. The 
alternatives, except for the no action 
alternative, represent different ratios of 
blending HEU to LEU for commercial 
use versus blending HEU to LEU for 
disposal as waste. The alternatives also 
represent different combinations of 
blending sites and blending processes. 

Alternative 1 is No Action (continued 
storage of surplus HEU). Alternative 2 is 
No Commercial Use, and represents 
blending all 200 metric tons of surplus 
HEU to waste (fuel/waste ratio of 0/100) 
using four sites. Alternative 3 is Limited 
Commercial Use, and includes 
transferring 50 metric tons of HEU (and 
7,000 metric tons of natural uranium) to 
the United States Enrichment 
Corporation (USEC) for commercial use, 
but blending the remaining 150 metric 
tons of HEU to waste (fuel/waste ratio 
of 25/75). Alternative 3 assumes the 50 
metric tons of commercial material 
would be blended at two commercial 
blending sites, and the waste material 
would 1^ blended at four sites. 
Alternative 4 is Substantial Commercial 
Use, and represents blending 130 metric 
tons of HEIJ for commercial use and 70 
metric tons for disposal as waste (fuel/ 
waste ratio of 65/35). Alternative 5 is 
Maximum Commercial Use, and 
represents blending 170 metric tons of 
HEU for commercial use and 30 metric 
tons for disposal as waste (fuel/waste 
ratio of 85/15). Both Alternatives 4 and 
5 include the proposal to transfer 50 
metric tons of HEU and 7,000 metric 
tons of natural uranium to USEC for 
commercial use. Alternatives 4 and 5 
each have four site variations: a) two 
LXDE sites only, b) two commercial sites 
only, c) all four sites, and d) each site 
alone. 

This draft HEU EIS assesses potential 
environmental im'pacts at two DOE sites 
and two commercial sites where HEU 
conversion and blending could occur: 
EXDE’s Y-12 Plant at the Oak Ridge 
Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 
DOE’S Savannah River Site in Aiken, 
South Carolina; the Babcock & Wilcox 
Naval Nuclear Fuel Division in 
Lynchburg, Virginia; and the Nuclear 
Fuel Services Fuel Fabrication Plant in 
Erwin, Tennessee. The EIS also assesses 
the environmental impacts of necessary 
transportation of materials. 

The alternatives as described are not 
intended to represent exclusive choices 
among which the Department must 
choose, but rather are analyzed to 
represent reasonable points in the 
matrix of possible choices. The draft 
HEU EIS explains how impacts would 
change if the exact fuel/waste ratio or 


division among sites or processes were 
different. 

Preferred Alternative 
The draft HEU EIS identifies DOE’s 
preferred alternative as Alternative 5 
(Maximum Commercial Use) and site 
variation c (all ft jr sites). Under this 
alternative, the commercial use of 
surplus HEU would be maximized and 
the blending would most likely be done 
at some combination of commercial and 
DOE sites. The Department prefers this 
alternative because commercial use of 
LEU derived from surplus HEU would 
serve the objective of rendering these 
materials non-weapons-usable in the 
most timely fashion. It would allow for 
peaceful, beneficial reuse of the 
material, recover investment for the 
Federal Treasury, and reduce 
Government waste disposal costs that 
would be incurred if all (or a greater 
portion of) the material were blended to 
waste. 

Invitation to Comment 

The public is invited to submit 
written and oral comments on any or all 
portions of the draft HEU EIS. DOE’s 
responses to comments received during 
the public comment period will be 
presented in the final HEU EIS. 

DOE will hold two public workshops 
to provide information and receive 
comments on the draft HEU EIS (with 
identical afternoon and evening sessions 
in each location), as detailed in the 
following schedule. The workshop 
format will provide for collection of 
written and oral comments and will 
enable the public to discuss issues and 
concerns with LXDE managers. 
Participants are asked to register for the 
workshops in advance by calling 1-800- 
820-5134. 

Schedule of Public Workshops 

November 14,1995—Knoxville, "rN 
1:00-5:00 pm and 6:00-10:00 pm, 
eastern time, Knoxville Hilton, 501 
Church Avenue, SW, Knoxville, TN 
37902; phone (423) 523-2300, fax 
(423) 546-1716. 

November 16,1995—^Augusta, GA 
1:00-5:00 pm and 6:00-10:00 pm, 
eastern time, Ramada Plaza Hotel 
and Convention Center, 640 Broad 
Street, Augusta, GA 30901; phone 
(706) 722-5541, fax (706) 724-0053. 

DOE Public Reading Rooms 

Copies of the draft HEU EIS as well 
as technical data reports and other 
supporting documents are available for 
public review at the following locations: 
Department of Energy Headquarters, 
Freedom of Information Reading 
Room, Forrestal Building, 1000 


Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, Attn: Carolyn 
Lawson, 202-586-6020 
Albuquerque Operations Office, 

National Atomic Museum, 20358 
Wyoming Blvd., SE., Kirtland AFB, 

NM 87117, Attn: Diane Zepeda, 505- 
845-4378 

Nevada Operations Office, Nevada 
Operations Office, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Public Reading Room, 2753 
South Highland Dr., P.O. Box 98518, 
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, Attn: 
Charlotte Cox, 702-295-1459 
Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Public Reading 
Room, 200 Administration Road, P.O. 
Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8501, 
Attn: Jane Greenwalt, 615-576-1216 
Richland Operations Office, Washington 
State University, Tri-Cities Branch 
Campus, 300 Sprout Road, Room 130 
West, Richland, WA 99352, Attn: 

Terri Traub, 509-376-8583 
Rocky Flats Office, Front Range 
Community College Library, 3645 
West 112th Avenue, Westminister, CO 
80030, Attn: Dennis Connor, 303- 
469-4435 

Savannah River Operations Office, 
Gregg-Graniteville Library, University 
of South Carolina-Aiken, 171 
University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801, 
Attn: Paul Lewis, 803-641-3320, DOE 
Contact: James M. Gaver, 803-725- 
2889 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, U.S. 
Department of Energy, c/o Los Alamos 
Community Reading Room, 1450 
Central, Suite 101, Los Alamos, NM 
87544, Attn: Tom Ribe, 505-665-2127 
Chicago Operations Office, Office of 
Planning, Communications & EEO, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 9800 
South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 
60439, Attn: Gary L. Pitchford, 708- 
252-2013 

Amarillo Area Office, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Amarillo College, Lynn 
Library/Leaming Center, P.O. Box 
447, Amarillo, TX 79178, PH: 806- 
371-5400, FX: 806-371-5470 
U.S. DOE Reading Room, Carson County 
Library, P.O. Box 339, Panhandle, TX 
79068, PH: 806-537-3742, FX: 806- 
537-3780, DOE Contact: Tom Walton, 
PH: 806-477-3120, FX: 806-477- 
3185, Contractor Contact: Kerry 
Cambell, PH: 806-477-4381, FX: 806- 
477-5743 

Sandia National Laboratory/CA, 
Livermore Public Library, 1000 S. 
Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 
94550, Attn: Julie Casamajor, PH: 
510-373-5500, FX: 510-373-5503. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54869 


Issued in Washington, DC, October 20, 
1995. 

Gregory P. Rudy, 

Acting Director, Office of Fissile Materials 
Disposition. 

(FR Doc. 95-26601 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 

BILUNQ CODE 6450-41-P 


Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission 

pocket No. EG96-4-000, et al.] 

Jamaica Energy Partners, et al.; 

Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation 
Filings 

October 19,1995. 

Take notice that the following filings 
have been made with the Commission: 

1. Jamaica Energy Partners 
(Docket No. EG96-4-0001 

Take notice that on October 11,1995, 
Jamaica Energy Partners, do Wartsila 
Power Development, Inc., 116 Defense 
Highway, Suite 301, Annapolis, 
Maryland 21401. filed with Federal' 
Energy Regulatory Commission an 
application for redetermination of 
exempt wholesale generator status 
pursuant to Part 365 of the 
Commission’s Regulations. 

Applicant will own an approximately 
76 MW floating diesel-engine-powered 
electric generating facility located at Old 
Harbour Bay Jamaica. The Facility’s 
electricity will be sold exclusively at 
wholesale, with the possible exception 
of some retail sales in Jamaica. None of 
the electric energy generated by the 
Facility will be sold to consumers in the 
United States. 

Comment date: November 9,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

2. Jamaica Energy Operators 

(Docket No. EG96-5-0001 
Take notice that on October 12,1995, 
Jamaica Energy Operators 
(“Applicant”), c/o Wartsila Power 
Development, Inc., 116 Defense 
Highway, Suite 301, Annapolis, 
Maryland 21401, filed with Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission an 
application for determination of exempt 
wholesale generator status pursuant to 
Part 365 of the Commission’s 
Regulations. 

Applicant is a Jamaican limited 
partnership formed to operate an 
electric generating facility located in 
Old Harbour Bay Jamaica. 

Comment date: November 9,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 


3. Excel Energy Services, Inc. 

(Docket No. ER94-148&-004] 

Take notice that on October 16,1995, 
Excel Energy Services, Inc. filed certain 
information as required by the 
Commission’s September 29,1994, 
order in Docket No. ER94-1488-000. 
Copies of Excel Energy Services, Inc.’s 
informational filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public 
inspection. 

4. Koch Power Services, Inc. 

(Docket No. ER95-218-0021 
Take notice that on July 31,1995, 

Koch Power Services, Inc. tendered for 
filing certain information as required by 
the Commission’s letter order dated 
January 4,1995. Copies of the 
informational filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public 
inspection. 

5. Florida Power Corporation 
(Docket No. ER9&-6-000] 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
Florida Power Corporation (FPC), 
tendered for filing a contract for the 
provision of interchange service 
between itself and Louis Dreyfus 
Electric Power, Inc. (Dreyfus). The ‘ 
contract provides for service imder 
Schedule J, Negotiated Interchange 
Service and OS, Opporttmity Sales. Cost 
support for both schedules has been 
previously filed and approved by the 
Commission. No specifically assignable 
facilities have been or will 1^ installed 
or modified in order to supply service 
under the proposed rates. 

FPC requests Commission waiver of 
the 60-day notice requirement in order 
to allow the contract to become effective 
as a rate schedule on October 3,1995. 
Waiver is appropriate because this filing 
does not change the rate imder these 
two Commission accepted, existing rate 
schedules. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

6. PacifiCorp 

(Docket No. ER96-8-000] 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
PacifiCorp, tendered for filing in 
accordance with 18 CFR Part 35 of the 
Commission’s Rules and Regulations, 
proposed rate revisions to PacifiCorp’s 
FERC Electric Tariff, Volume Nos. 4, 5, 

6, 9 and 10 and Rate Schedule FERC 
Nos. 262, 279, 280, 288, 290, 292 and 
297. 

PacifiCorp requests that an effective 
date of January 1,1996 be assigned. 

Copies of this filing were served on all 
affected parties and to the Wyoming 
Public Service Commission, the Public 


Service Commission of Utah, the Public 
Utility Commission of Oregon, the Idaho 
Public Utilities Commission, the 
Montana Public Service Commission, 
the Public Utilities Commission of 
California the Washington Utilities and 
Transportation Commission and the 
Arizona Corporation Commission. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

7. Jersey Central Power & Light 
Company, Metropolitan Edison 
Company, Pennsylvania Electric 
Company 

(Docket No. ER96-9-000] 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
GPU Service Corporation (GPU), on 
behalf of Jersey Central Power k Light 
Company, Metropolitan Edison 
Company and Pennsylvania Electric 
Company (jointly referred to as the GPU 
Companies), filed a Service Agreement 
between GPU and Hartford Power Sales, 
L.L.C. (Hartford), dated October 1,1995. 
This Service Agreement specifies that 
Hartford has agreed to the rates, terms 
and conditions of the GPU Companies’ 
Energy Transmission Service Tariff 
accepted by the Commission on 
September 28,1995 in Docket No. 
ER95-791-000 and designated as FERC 
Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 3. 

GPU requests a waiver of the 
Commission’s notice requirements for 
good cause shown and an efiective date 
of October 1,1995 for the Service 
Agreement. GPU has served copies of 
the filing on regulatory agencies in New 
Jersey and Peimsylvania and on 
Hartford. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

8. Norstar Energy Limited Partnership 
(Docket No. ER96-1Q-0001 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
NorStar Energy Limited Partnership 
(NORSTAR), tendered for filing with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
pursuant to Rule 205,18 CFR 385.205, 
and 18 CFR 35.12 of the Commission’s 
regulations an Application for Blanket 
Approval of Rate Schedule For Future 
Power Sales at M^ket-Based Rates and 
Waivers and Preapprovals of Certain 
Commission Regulations for 
NORSTAR’s Initial Rate Schedule FERC 
No. 1. 

NORSTAR intends to sell up to 
engage in electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. In these 
transactions, NORSTAR proposes to 
charge market-based rates, mutually 
agreed upon by the parties. All sales and 
purchases will be at arms-length. 





54870 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

9. Indiana Michigan Power Company 
[Docket No. ER96-11-0001 
Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
American Electric Power Service 
Corporation (AEPSC), on behalf of 
Indiana Michigan Power Company 
(I&M), tendered for filing an adjustment 
to the monthly demand charge rates for 
Firm Power supplied by I&M to Wabash 
Valley Power Association, Inc. (Wabash 
Valley) imder the August 31,1988 
Settlement Agreement (Agreement) 
between I&M and Wabash Valley. The 
Commission has previously designated 
this Agreement as I&M’s Rate Schedule 
FERC No. 76. The demand charge 
adjustment is based on a historical 
average of the Producer Price Index as 
provided for in the Agreement. 

A copy of the filing was served upon 
the Indiana Utility Regulatory 
Commission, the Micldgan Public 
Service Commission, and Wabash 
Valley. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

10. Montaup Electric Company 
[Docket No. ER96-12-000] 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
Montaup Electric Company (Montaup) 
filed a revised Exhibit A to a service 
agreement between itself and the 
Pascoag, Rhode Island, Fire District 
(Pascoag) for transmission of Pascoag’s 
entitlement to power fi-om the New York 
Power Authority (NYPA) ptu^uant to 
Montaup’s FERC Electric Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 2. The Exhibit A revises an 
existing Exhibit A filed on September 1, 
1987 in Docket No. ER87-615 covering 
NYPA service through Jime 30,1995. 
The existing Exhibit A has been revised 
to reflect an extension in the term of 
NYPA service finm July 1,1995 through 
the earlier of (i) the termination of the 
customer’s purchase of NYPA Power or 
(ii) Jime 30, 2001. Since the change in 
Exhibit A affects only the term of the 
service and has no effect on rates, and 
is being filed with customer’s consent, 
Montaup requests a waiver of the sixty- 
day notice requirement to permit the 
revised Exhibit A to become effective as 
of July 1,1995. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

11. New England Power Company 
[Docket No. ER96-13-000] 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
New England Power Company tendered 


for filing Amendments to the Support 
Agreements for Improvement to the M- 
139 Line; N-140 Line and Tewksbury 
Substations Agreement between New 
England Power Company and Boston 
Edison Company. The purpose of these 
amendments is to adjust the return on 
equity provisions of these Support 
Agreements. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

12. Entergy Power, Inc. 

[Docket No. ER96-14-000] 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
Entergy Power, Inc. (Entergy Power), 
tendered for filing a unit power sale 
agreement between Entergy Power and 
Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. 
Entergy Power requests waiver of the 
Commission’s cost support 
requirements under § 35.12 or 35.13 of 
the Commission’s Regulations, to the 
extent they are otherwise applicable to 
this filing. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

13. Portland General Electric Company 

[Docket No. ER96-15-000] 

Take notice that on October 2,1995, 
Portlsmd General Electric Company 
(PGE) tendered for filing under FERC 
Electric Tariff, 1st Revised Volume No. 

2, executed Service Agreements 
between PGE and Illinova Power 
Marketing, Inc., Phibro and the Western 
Area Power Administration, Sacramento 
Area. PGE also includes an un-executed 
service agreement for the Morgan 
Stanley Capital Group, Inc. for filing 
under FERC Electric Tariff, 1st Revised 
Volume No. 2. 

Pursuant to 18 CFR 35.11 and the 
Commission’s order issued July 30,1993 
(Docket No. PL95-2-002), PGE 
respectfully requests the Commission 
grant a waiver of the notice 
requirements of 18 CFR 35.3 to allow 
the executed Service Agreements to 
become effective on the dates contained 
in the filing letter. 

Copies of this filing were served upon 
the list of entities appearing on the 
Certificate of.Service attacl^ent to the 
filing letter. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

14. Union Electric Company 
[Docket No. ER96-16-000] 

Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
Union Electric Company (UE), tendered 
for filing a Transmission Service 
Agreement dated October 4,1995 


between AES Power Incorporated (AES) 
and UE. UE asserts that the purpose of 
the Agreement is to set out specific 
rates, terms, and conditions for 
transmission service transactions fi'om 
UE to AES. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

15. Consumers Power Company 
[Docket No. ER96-17-000] 

Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
Consumers Power Company 
(Consumers), tendered for filing two 
amendments which relate to agreements 
under which Consumers provides 
service to the City of Portland 
(Portland). One amendment increases 
the maximum amount of service 
available under an interruptible 
wholesale agreement; the other 
establishes Consumers as Portland’s sole 
supplier of wholesale for resale electric 
service. 

Copies of the filing were served upon 
the Michigan Public Service 
Commission and Portland. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

16. Public Service Electric and Gas 
Company 

[Docket No. ER96-18-O00] 

Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
Public Service Electric and Gas 
Company (PSE&G) of Newark, New 
Jersey, tendered for filing an agreement 
for the sale of energy and capacity to 
Engelhard Power Marketing, Inc. 
(Engelhard). 

PSE&G requests the Commission to 
waiver its notice requirements under 
§ 35.3 of its Rules and to permit the 
Energy Sales Agreement to become 
effective as of October 5,1995. Copies 
of the filing have been served upon 
Engelhard. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

17. Wisconsin Electric Power Company 
[Docket No. ER96-19-000] 

Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company 
(Wisconsin Electric), tendered for filing 
a Western Joint Usa of Transmission 
Agreement between itself and Upper 
Peninsula Power Company (UPPCO). 
The Agreement provides for the 
exchange of transmission services in the 
western portion of Michigan’s Upper 
Peninsula. 

Wisconsin Electric has requested 
waiver of the Commission’s notice 
requirements to permit an effective date 
of November 1,1995. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54871 


Copies of the filing have been served 
on UPPCO, the Copper Range Company, 
the Michigan Public Service 
Commission, and the Public Service 
Commission of Wisconsin. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph £ 
at the end of this notice. 

18. New England Power Qnnpany 

[Docket No. ER96-2(MXX)1 
Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
New Engltmd Power Company (NEP), 
tendered for filing Notices of 
Termination for its FERC Rates 
Schedule No. 324 and Supplement No. 

1 thereto, and Supplement No. 1 to 
Service Agreement No. 30, under NEP’s 
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 
No. 3, which provides transmission 
service for the Rate Schedule No. 324 
power sale. According to the NEP, the 
customer taking service under Rate 
Schedule No. 324 elected not to renew 
or extend its contract. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

19. Public Service Company of 
Colorado 

[Docket No. ER96-21-(X)0] 

Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
Public Service Company of Colorado 
tendered for filing amendments to its 
FERC Electric Service Rate Schedule, 
FERC No. 147. Under the proposed 
amendments Public Service is 
submitting its annual revisions to 
Exhibits B and D, which set forth points 
and delivery levels of power and energy 
transmitted by the Western Area Power 
Administration and Public Service 
Company of Colorado, respectively. 
These amendments will have no impact 
on the rates for service under this 
agreement. 

Public Service requests an effective 
date of October 1,1995 for the proposed 
amendments. 

Copies of the filing were served upon 
the Western Area Power Administration 
Loveland Area Office, and the state 
jurisdictional regulators which include 
the Public Utilities Commission of the 
State of Colorado and the State of 
Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

20. Northeast Utilities Service Company 
[Docket No. ER96-22-0001 

Take notice that on October 3,1995 
Northeast Utilities Service Company 
(NUSCO) tendered for filing, on behalf 
of The Connecticut Light and Power 
Company (CL&P) and Western 


Massachusetts Electric Company 
(WMECO), a Bulk Power Supply Service 
Agreement (Agreement) to provide 
requirements service to Vermont 
Electric Generation and Transmission 
Cooperative, Inc. (VEG&T), a Service 
Agreement between NUSCO and the NU 
System Companies for service under 
NUSCO’s Long-Term Firm Transmission 
Service No. 1 and an amendment to said 
Agreement (Amendment). 

NUSCO requests that the rate 
schedule become effective on the later 
of December 1,1995 or such date that 
the Vermont Public Service Board issues 
a favorable order regarding Vermont 
Electric Cooperative’s (VEC) request for 
an increase in electric rates. NUSCO 
states that copies of the rate schedule 
have been mailed or delivered to the 
parties to the Agreement and the 
Amendment and the affected state 
utility commissions. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

21. Florida Power & Light Company 

[Docket No. ER96-23-000) 

Take notice that on October 3,1995 
Florida Power & Light Company filed a 
letter notice dated September 26,1995, 
from Florida Keys Electric Cooperative 
Association, Inc. to FPL. This letter 
contained information provided 
pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Long- 
Term Agreement to Provide Capacity 
and Energy by Florida Power & Light 
Company to Florida Keys Electric 
Cooperative Association, Inc., dated 
August 15,1991. FPL requests that the 
proposed notice be made effective 
January 1,1996. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

22. CINergy Services, Inc. 

[Docket No. ER96-24-0001 

Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
CINergy Services, Inc. (CINergy) 
tendered for filing service agreements 
imder CINergy’s Non-Firm Point-to- 
Point Transmission Service Tariff (the 
Tariff) entered into between CINergy 
and MidCon Power Services 
Corporation. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

23. Coral Power, Inc. 

[Docket No. ER96-25-000] 

Take notice that on October 3,1995, 
Coral Power, Inc. petitioned the 
Commission for acceptance of Coral’s 
Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, providing 
for the sale of electricity at market-based 


rates; the granting of certain blanket 
approvals; and the waiver of certain 
Commission regulations. Coral is a 
wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of a 
limited partnership comprised of 
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Shell Oil 
Company and Tejas Gas Corp. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

24. Southern California Edison 
Company 

[Docket No. ER96-26-0001 

Take notice that on October 4,1995, 
Southern California Edison Company 
(Edison) tendered for filing a Letter 
Agreement (Letter Agreement) with the 
City of Colton (Colton). The Letter 
Agreement modifies the Rated 
Capability and Minimiun Take 
Obligation referenced in the 
Supplemental Agreement to the 1990 
Integrated Operations Agreement for the 
integration of Colton’s entitlement in 
the Idaho Power Sale Agreement, 
Commission Rate Schedule No. 249.13. 

Edison requests waiver of the 
Commission’s 60 day notice 
requirements and an effective date of 
November 1,1995. 

Copies of this filing were served upon 
the Public Utilities Commission of the 
State of California and all interested 
parties. 

Comment date; November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

25. Southern California Edison 
Company 

[Docket No. ER96-27-0001 

Take notice that on October 4,1995, 
Southern California Edison Company 
(Edison) tendered for filing a Letter 
Agreement (Letter Agreement) with the 
City of Banning (Banning). The Letter 
Agreement modifies the Rated 
Capability and Minimum Take 
Obligation referenced in the 
Supplemental Agreement to the 1990 
Integrated Operations Agreement for the 
integration of Banning’s entitlement in 
the Idaho Power Sale Agreement, 
Commission Rate Schedule No. 248.14. 

Edison requests waiver of the 
Commission’s 60 day notice 
requirements and an effective date of 
November 1,1995. 

Copies of this filing were served upon 
the Public Utilities Commission of 
California and all interested parties. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 




54872 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


26. Southern California Edison 
Omipany 

{Docket No. ER96-28-0001 
Take notice that on October 4,1995, 
Southern California Edison Company 
(Edison) tendered for filing a Letter 
Agreement (Letter Agreement) with the 
City of Azusa (Azusa). The Letter 
Agreement modifies the Rated 
Capability and Minimum Take 
Obligation referenced in the 
Supplemental Agreement to the 1990 
Integrated Operations Agreement for the 
integration of Azusa’s entitlement in the 
Idaho Power Sale Agreement, 
Commission Rate S^edule No. 247.13. 

Edison requests waiver of the 
Commission’s 60 day notice 
requirements and an effective date of 
November 1,1995. 

Copies of this filing were served upon 
the Fliblic Utilities Commission of 
California and all interested parties. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

27. Puget Sound Power & Light 
Company 

[Docket No. ERg6-29-000] 

Take notice that on October 4,1995, 
Puget Sound Power & Light Company 
(Puget) tendered for filing as a change in 
the rate schedule, an Exchange 
Agreement by and between Puget and 
British Coltunbia Power Exchange 
Corporation (Powerex). A copy of the 
filing was served upon Powerex. 

Puget states that the Exchange 
Agreement involves the nonfi^ 
exchange of energy and power between 
specified points of delivery of Puget and 
Powerex. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

28. Arizona Public Service Company 
[Docket No. ER96-3Q-000] 

Takejiotice that on October 4,1995, 
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) 
tendered for filing a Service Agreement 
under APS-Electric Tariff Original 
Volume No. 1 (APS Tariff) with the 
following entity: 

The City of Needles. 

A copy of this filing has been served 
on the above listed entity and the 
Arizona Corporation Commission. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

29. New England Power Company 
[Docket No. ER96-31-0001 

Take notice that on October 4,1995, 
New England Power Company (NEP) 
filed an Interconnection System Study 


Agreement (Agreement) between 
Reading Municipal Light Department 
(Reading) and NEP, tmder which NEP 
has agreed to conduct an 
interconnection study relative to the 
interconnection of Reading’s proposed 
North Reading Substation with NEP’s 
transmission system. NEP requests an 
effective date of December 3,1995. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

30. Kansas City Power & Light 
Company 

[Docket No. ER96-32-0001 
Take notice that on October 5,1995, 
Kansas City Power & Light Company 
(KCPL) tendered for filing a Service 
Agreement dated September 20. 1995, 
between KCPL and Heartland Energy 
Services, Inc. (Heartland). KCPL 
proposes an effective date of September 
20, 1995, and requests waiver of the 
Commission’s notice requirement. This 
Agreement provides for the rates and 
charges for Non-Firm Transmission 
Service between KCPL and Heartland. 

' In its filing, KCPL states that the rates 
included in the above-mentioned 
Service Agreement are KCPL’s rates and 
charges which are conditionally 
accepted for filing by the Commission in 
Docket No. ER94-li.45-000. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

31. Kansas City Power & Light 
Company 

[Docket No. ER96-33-000] 

Take notice that on October 5,1995, 
Kansas Qty Power & Light Company 
(KCPL) tendered for filing a Service 
Agreement dated September 20,1995, 
between KCPL and MidCon Power 
Service Corp. (MidCon). KCPL proposes 
an effective date of September 20,1995, 
and requests waiver of the 
Commission’s notice requirement. This 
Agreement provides for the rates and 
charges for Non-Firm Transmission 
Service between KCPL and Heartland. 

In its filing, KCPL states that the rates 
included in the above-mentioned 
Service Agreement are KCPL’s rates and 
charges which are conditionally 
accepted for filing by the Commission in 
Docket No. ER94-1045-000. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

32. PacifiCorp 
[Docket No. ER96-35-000] 

Take notice that on October 6,1995, 
PacifiCorp, tendered for filing in 
accordance with 18 CFR Part 35 of the 


Commission’s Rules and Regulations, 
Service Agreements with Hinson Power 
Company, Inc. (Hinson), Associated 
Power Services, Inc. (APSI) and Illinova 
Power Marketing Inc. (Illinova) under, 

Pac fiCorp’s FERC Electric Tariff, 

Second Revised Voliune No. 3, Service 
Schedule PPL-3. 

Copies of this filing were supplied to 
Hinson, APSI, Illinova, the Washington 
Utilities and Transportation 
Commission and the Public Utility 
Commission of Oregon. 

A copy of this filing may be obtained 
from PacifiCorp’s Regulatory 
Administration Department’s Bulletin 
Board System through a personal 
computer by calling (503) 464-6122 
(9600 baud, 8 bits, no parity, 1 stop bit). 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

33. Wisconsin Public Service 
[Docket No. ER96-36-000] 

Take notice that on October 6,1995,' 
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 
(WPSC),'tendered for filing an executed 
Transmission Service Agreement 
between WPSC and Wisconsin Power 
and Light. The Agreement provide for 
transmission service imder the T-1 
Transmission Tariff, FERC Original 
Volume No. 4. 

WPSC asks that the agreement become 
effective retroactively to the date of 
execution by WPSC. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

34. The Washington Water Power 
Company 

[Docket No. ER96-37-0001 

Take notice that on October 6,1995, 
The Washington Water Power Company 
(WWP), tendered for filing with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
pursuant to 18 CFR 35.13, a signed 
service agreement under FERC Electric 
Tariff Volume No 4 with Calpine Power 
Marketing, Inc. along with a Certificate 
of Concurrence with respect to 
exchanges. WWP requests waiver of the 
prior notice requirement and requests 
an effective date of November 1,1995. 

A signed Certificate of Concurrence 
with respect to exchanges for Associated 
Power Services, Inc. is also submitted 
with this filing. The executed service 
agreement was approved in Docket No.- 
ER95-806-000. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54873 


35. Commonwealth Electric Company, 
Cambridge Electric Light Company 

(Docket No. ER96-38-000] 

Take notice that on October 6,1995, 
Commonwealth Electric Company 
(Commonwealth) on behalf of itself and 
Cambridge Electric Light Company 
(Cambridge), collectively referred to as 
the “Companies”, tendered for fiUng 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission executed Service 
Agreements between the Companies and 
the following Customers: 

Central Vermont Public Service Corporation 
Chicopee Mrmicipal Lighting Plant 
South Hadley Electric Light Department 

These Service Agreements specify 
hiat the Customers have signed on to 
and have agreed to the terms and 
conditions of the Companies’ Power 
Sales and Exchanges Tariffs designated 
as Commonwealth’s Power Sales and 
Exchanges Tariff (FERC Electric Tariff 
Original Volume No. 3) and Cambridge’s 
Power Sales and Exchanges Tariff (FERC 
Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 5). 
These Tariffs, approved by FERC on 
April 13,1995, and which have an 
effective date of March 20,1995, will 
allow the Companies and the Customers 
to enter into separately scheduled 
transactions under which the 
Companies will sell to the Customers 
capacity and/or energy as the parties 
m^ mutually agree. 

The Companies request an effective 
date as specified on each Service 
Agreement. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

36. Cinergy Services, Inc. 

(Docket No. ER96-39-0001 

Take notice that on October 6,1995, 
Cinergy Services, Inc. (CINERGY), 
tendered for filing on behalf of its 
operating companies, Thp Cincinnati 
Gas & Electric Company (CG&E) and PSI 
Energy, Inc. (PSI), an Interchange 
Agreement, dated September 1,1995, 
between CINERGY, CG&E, PSI and Koch 
Power Services, Inc. (KOCH). 

The Interchange Agreement provides 
for the following service between 
CINERGY and KOCH. 

1. Exhibit A—Power Sales by KOCH 

2. Exhibit B—Power Sales by QNERGY 

CINERGY and KOCH have requested 
an effective date of November 1,1995. 

Copies of the filing were served on 
Koch Power Services, Inc., the Texas 
Public Utility Commission, the 
Kentucky Public Service Commission, 
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and 
the Indiana Utility Regulatory 
Commission. 


Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

37. Cinergy Services, Inc. 

(Docket No. ER96-4(M)00] 

Take notice that on October 6,1995, 
Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy), 
tenders for filing service agreements 
under Cinergy’s Non-F^jpm Point-to- 
Point Transmission Service Tariff (the 
Tariff) entered into between Cinergy and 
Kentucky Utilities Company. 

Cinergy is requesting an effective date 
of October 1,1995. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

38. Enova Energy Management, Inc. 
(Docket No. ER96-41-0001 

Take notice that on October 6,1995, 
Enova Energy Management, Inc. 

(Enova), tendered for filing an 
application for waivers and blanket 
approvals under regulations of the 
Commission and for an order accepting 
its FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1. 
Enova is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
San Diego and Electric Company. 

Enova intends to engage in electric 
capacity and energy transactions as a 
marketer. In these transactions Enoya 
intends to charge market rates as 
mutually agreed to by Enova and the 
purchaser. All other terms of the 
transaction would also be determined 
by negotiation between the parties. All 
sales and ptuchasers will be arms-length 
transactions. 

Comment date: November 2,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

39. El Paso Electric Company 
(Docket No. ES96-4-000] 

Take notice that on October 11,1995, 
El Paso Electric Company (El Paso) filed 
application under § 204 of the Federal 
Power Act seeking authorization to 
issue securities and assume obligations 
and liabilities under a primary plan and 
an alternative plan associated with El 
Paso’s reorganization and emergence 
from bankmptcy. Under the primary 
plan El Paso would issue several series 
of first mortgage bonds, preferred stock 
and common stock. Under the alternate 
plan, El Paso would issue first mortgage 
bonds, second mortgage bonds, 
subordinated debentures, preferred 
stock, and common stock. 

Comment date: November 9,1995, in 
accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. 

Standard Paragraph 
E. Any person desiring to be heard or 
to protest said filing should file a 


motion to intervene or protest with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
825 North Capitol Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance 
with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission’s Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 
385.214). All such motions or protests 
should be filed on or before the 
comment date. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceeding. 
Any person wishing to b^ome a party 
must file a motion to intervene. Copies 
of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public 
inspection. 

Lois D. Cashell, 

Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26596 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ cooe C717-01-P 


Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy 

State Energy Advisory Board 

AGENCY: (Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463; 86 Stat. 770), 
notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the State Energy Advisory 
Board. ' 

DATE AND TIME: November 30-December 
1,1995 from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. 

PLACE: The Madison Hotel, 15th and M 
Streets, Washington, DC, 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
William J. Raup, Office of Technical and 
Financial Assistance (EE-50), Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 
20585, Telephone 202/586-2214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board 

To make recommendations to the 
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy regarding goals 
and objectives and programmatic and 
administrative policies, and to 
otherwise carry out the Board’s 
responsibilities as designated in the 
State Energy Efficiency Programs 
Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L 101- 
440). 

Tentative Agenda 

Briefings on, and discussions of: 

• The FY 1996 Federal budget for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy programs, as passed by Congress. 





54874 


Federal Register / Vbl. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


• Greater involvement of the Board in 
the FY1997 Federal budget process, 

• Review and approval of any 
committee activity. 

Public Participation 

The meeting is open to the public. 
Written statements may be filed with 
the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who 
wish to make oral statements pertaining 
to agenda items should contact William 
J. Raup at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Requests to make 
oral presentations must ^ received five 
days prior to the meeting; reasonable 
provision will be made to include the 
statements in the agenda. The Chair of 
the Board is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate 
the orderly conduct of business. 

Minutes 

The minutes of the meeting will be 
available for public review and copying 
within 30 days at the Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, lE- 
190, Forrestal Building. 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, E)C, between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m.. Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on October 23, 
1995. 

Rachel M. Samuel, 

Acting Deputy Advisory Committee 
Management Officer. 

(FR Doc. 95-26600 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 

BILUNQ COM 64S(M>1-P 


Office of Fossil Energy 

Coal Policy Committee: National Coal 
Council 

AQENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, 
Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 


SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act . 
(Pub. L. 92-463,86 Stat. 770), notice is 
hereby given of the following meeting of 
the Policy Committee of the 
National Coal Coimcil (NCC). 

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, November 
15,1995 at 2 pm. 

PLACE: The Washington Court Hotel on 
Capitol Hill, 525 New Jersey Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Margie D. Biggerstaffi U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy (FE- 
5), Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 
202/586-3867. 


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Parent Council 

To provide advice, information, and 
recommendations to the Secretary of 
Energy on matters relating to coal and 
coal industry issues. 

Purpose of the Meeting 

To report on th^status of the 
consumption issues study and to receive 
comments and recommendations. 

Tentative Agenda: 

—Opening remarks by Clifford Miercort, 
Chairman of the Coal Policy 
Committee. 

—Approval of the final agenda. 

—^Remarks by Department of Energy 
representative (The Honorable 
Patricia Fry Godley, Assistant 
Secretary for Fossil Energy invited). 

—^Report of the Coal Technology 
Subcommittee on the consumption 
issues study. 

—^Report of the Coal Production and 
Utilization Subcommittee. 

—^Discussion of any other business to be 
properly brought before the 
Committee. 

—^Public comment—10-minute rule. 

—^Adjournment. 

Public Participation 

The meeting is open to the public. 

The Chairman of the Committee is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a 
fasldon that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Any member of the 
public who wishes to file a written 
statement with the Committee will be 
permitted to do so, either before or after 
the meeting. Members of the public who 
wish to m^e oral statements pertaining 
to agenda items should contact Ms. 
Margie D. Biggerstafi at the address or 
telephone number listed above. 

Requests must be received at least five 
days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provisions will be made to include the 
presentation on the agenda. 

Transcript 

Available for public review and 
copying at the Public Reading Room, 
Room lE-190. Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., 
Washington, D.C., between 9 AM and 4 
PM, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. 

Issued at Washington, D.C., on October 23, 
1995. 

Rachel M. Samuel, 

Acting Deputy Advisory Committee 
Management Officer. 

(FR Doc. 95-26598 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 

BILUNQ COM 64S(M>1-I> 


National Coal Council 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, 
Department of Energy, 

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act • 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 92-463,86 Stat. 770), 
notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Coal Council. 
DATE AND TIME: Thursday, November 16, 
1995,9:30 am. 

PLACE: The Washington Court Hotel on 
Capitol Hill, 525 New Jersey Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Margie D. Biggerstaffi U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy (FE- 
5), Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone: 
202/586-3867. 

Purpose of the Council: To provide 
advice, information, and 
recommendations to the Secretary of 
Energy on matters relating to coal and 
coal industry issues. 

Tentative Agenda 

—Call to order and opening remarks by 
Joseph Craft IB, Chairman of the 
National Coal Council. 

—^Approval of final agenda. 

—Remarks by The Honorable Hazel R, 
O’Leary, Secretary of Energy (Invited). 
—Report of the Coal Policy Committee. 
—^Membership to approve consumption 
issues study. 

—^Discussion of tmy other business 
properly brought before the Council. 

—^Public comment—10-minute rule. 

—Adjournment. 

Public Participation 

The meeting is open to the public. 

The Chairman of the Council is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a 
fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Any member of the 
public who wishes to file a written 
statement with the Council will be 
permitted to do so, either before or after 
the meeting. Members of the public who 
wish to m£^e oral statements pertaining 
to agenda it^s should contact Ms. 
Margie D. Biggerstaff at the address or 
telephone number listed above. 

Requests must be received at least five 
days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provisions will be made to include the 
pjesentation on the agenda. 

Transcript 

Available for public review and 
copying at the Public Reading Room, 
Room lE-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 am and 4 
pm, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54875 


Issued at Washington, D.C., on October 23, 
1995. 

Rachel M. Samuel, 

Acting Deputy Advisory Committee 
Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 95-26599 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILLING CODE 645(M)1-P 


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION 

Public Safety Wireless Advisory 
Committee; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCIES: The National 
Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA), Larry Irving, 
Assistant Secretary for Communications 
and Information, and the Federal 
Commuiycations Commission (FCC), 
Reed E. Himdt, Chairman. 

ACTION: Notice of the next meeting of the 
Operational Requirements 
Subcommittee of the Public Safety 
Wireless Advisory Committee. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, this notice 
advises interested persons of the next 
meeting of the Operational 
Subcommittee of the Public Safety 
Wireless Advisory Committee. The 
NTIA and the FCC established a Public 
Safety Wireless Advisory Committee 
and Subcommittees to prepare a final 
report to advise the NTIA and the FCC 
on operational, technical and spectrum 
requirements of Federal, state and local 
Public Safety entities through the year 
2010. All interested parties are invited 
to attend and to participate in the next 
round of meetings of the Subcommittee. 
DATES: Friday, November 17,1995; 9 

а. m.-12 p.m. 

ADDRESS: County of San Bernardino, 
County Government Center, Board 
Chambers, 385 North Arrowhead Drive, 
San Bernardino, California 92415. 
supplementary: The agenda for the 
meeting is as follows: 

1. Welcoming Remarks 

2. Review of Agenda 

3. Administrative Matters 

4. Overview of Subcommittee Mission 

5. Overview of Subcommittee Goals 

б. Overview of Subcommittee Work 
Organization 

7. Solicitation of Public Comment 

8. Other Business 

9. Closing Remarks 

The Co-Designated Federal Officers of 
the Public Safety Wireless Advisory 
Committee are William Donald 
Speights, NTIA, and John J. Borkowski, 
FCC. For public inspection, a file 
designated WTB-1 is maintained in the 
Private Wireless Division of the 


Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, 
Room 8010, 2025 M Street NW., 
Washington, D.C. 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 
information regarding the Operational 
Requirements Subcommittee, contact: 
Paul H. Wieck at 515-281-5261 
(telephone), 515-242-6136 (fax), or 
wieck@safe.ia.gov (Internet). For 
information regarding accommodations, 
transportation, and the Advisory 
Committee, contact: Deborah Behlin at 
202-418-6050 (telephone), 202 418- 
2643 (fax), or dbehlin@fcc.gov 
(Internet). Information is also available 
from the Internet at the Public Safety 
Wireless Advisory Committee homepage 
(http://pswac.ntia.doc.gov). 

Federal Communications Conunission. 

Robert H. McNamara, 

Chief, Private Wireless Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau. 

(FR Doc. 95-26561 Filed l(>-25-95:’8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 6712-01-M 


[Report No. 2108] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Actions 
in Ruiemaking Proceedings 

October 23,1995. 

Petition for reconsideration have been 
filed in the Commission rulemeiking 
proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.429(e). The full text of these 
documents are available for viewing and 
copying in Room 239,1919 M Street 
NW., Washington, D.C. or may be 
purchased from the Commission’s copy 
contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. 
Opposition to this petition must be filed 
November 13,1995. See Section 
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47 
CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition 
must be filed within 10 days after the 
time for filing oppositions has expired. 
Subject: Amendment of Section 

73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM 
Broadcast Stations. (Fair Bluff, NC) 
(MM Docket No. 95-44, RM-8602) 
Number of Petition Filed: 1 
Subject: Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 
of the Commission’s Rules to 
Provide for the Use of 200 Channels 
Outside the Designated Filing Area 
in the 896-901 MHz and the 935- 
940 MHz Bands Allotted to the 
Speciahzed Mobile Radio Pool (PR 
Docket No. 89-553) 

Implementation of Section 309(j) of 
the Communications Act— 
Competitive Bidding (PP Docket 
No. 93-253) 

Implementatino of Sections 3(n) and 
332 of the Communications Act (GN 
Docket No. 93-252) 


•Numbe of Petition Filed: 1 
Subject: Amendment of Section 

73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM 
Broadcast Stations. (Farmington, 
Grass Valley, Jackson, Linden, 
Placerville and Fair Oaks, California 
and Carson City and Sun Valley, 
Nevada) (MM Docket No. 90-189) 
Number of Petition Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 
William F. Caton, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26525 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE CTIZ-OI-M 


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 95-16] 

Orient Overseas Container Line (USA), 
Inc. and Orient Overseas Container 
Line V. Independent Cargo Express, 

Inc.; Notice of Filing of Compiaint and 
Assignment 

Notice is given that a complaint filed 
by Orient Overseas Container Line 
(USA), Inc. and Orient Overseas 
Container Line (“Complainants”) 
against Independent Cargo Express, Inc. 
(“Respondent”) was served October 19, 
1995. Complainants allege that 
Respondent has violated section 10(a)(1) 
of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 
app. 1709(a)(1), by fraudulently failing 
to pay to complainant ocean freight due 
on numerous shipments of cargo. 

This proceeding has been assigned to 
the Office of Administrative Law Judges. 
Hearing in this matter, if any is held, 
shall commence within the time 
limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, 
and only after consideration has been 
given by the parties and the presiding 
officer to the use of alternative forms of 
dispute resolution. The hearing shall 
include oral testimony and cross- 
examination in the discretion of the 
presiding officer only upon proper 
showing that there are genuine issues of 
material fact that cannot be resolved on 
the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, 
depositions, or other documents or that 
the nature of the matter in issue is such 
that an oral hearing and cross- 
examination are necessary for the 
development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 
502.61, the initial decision of the 
presiding officer in this proceeding shall 
be issued by October 20,1996, and the 
final decision of the Commission shall 
be issued by February 20,1997. 

Joseph C. Polking, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26521 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 6730-01-M 





54876 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Ocean Freight Forwarder License 
Applicants 

Notice is hereby given that the 
following applicants have hied with the 
Federal Maritime Commission 
applicants for licenses as ocean freight- 
forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the 
Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 
1718 and 46 CFR part 510). 

Persons knowing of any reason Why 
any of the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to 
contact the Office of Freight Forwarders, 
Federal Maritime Commission, 
Washington, D.C. 20573. 

ITO El Paso International Transport 
Organization, Inc., 9601 Carnegie 
Avenue, El Paso, TX 79925, Officers: 
Georg Koenigsmann, President; Dieter 
Schmekel, Vice President 
Worldwide Logistics, 8900 Bellanca 
Avenue, Unit G, Los Angeles, CA 
90045, Clara Gay, Sole Proprietor 
Manfred J. Koberg, 4505 N.W. 72nd 
Ave., Miami FL 33166, Sole 
Proprietor. 

Dated: October 20,1995. 

By the Federal Maritime Commission. 
Joseph C. Polking, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26520 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNG CODE S730-01-M 


Ocean Freight Forwarder License 
Applicants; Correction 

In the Federal Register notice 
published September 26,1995 (60 FR 
49605) the reference to “NACH 1 Air 
Services Incorporated” is corrected to 
read: 

“MACH I Air Services Incorporated” 
Dated; October 23,1995. 

Joseph C. Polking, 

Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26597 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE S/aO-OI-M 


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

BANKFIRST Corporation, Inc.; 
Formation of, Acquisition by, or 
Merger of Bank Holding Companies 

The company listed in this notice has 
applied for the Board’s approval under 
section 3 of the Bank Holding Company 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and § 225.14 of the 
Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to 
acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are 
considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act 
(12 U.S.C. 1842(c)) 


The application is available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the 
application has been accepted for 
processing, it will also be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of 
Governors, Interested persons may 
express their views in writing to ffie 
Reserve Bank indicated for that 
application or to the offices of the Board 
of Governors. Any comment on an 
application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of 
a hearing, identifying sjiecifically any 
questions of fact that are in dispute and 
summarizing the evidence that would 
be presented at a hearing. 

Comments regarding this application 
must be received not later than 
November 20,1995. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of 
Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480: 

1. BArJKFIRST Corporation, Inc., 
Sioux Falls, South Dakota; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of 
BANKFIRST, National Association, 
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a de novo 
bank. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, October 20,1995. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 95-26595 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNG CODE B21l>-01-f 


DFC Acquisition Corporation Two; 
Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or 
Bank Holding Companies; Correction 

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 
95-25004) published on page 52680 of 
the issue for Tuesday, October 10,1995. 

Under the Federal Reserve B6mk of 
Kansas City heading, the entry for DFC 
Acquisition Corporation Two, is revised 
to read as follows: 

1. DFC Acquisition Corporation Two, 
Kansas City, Missotiri, and Dickinson 
Financial Corporation, Kansas City, 
Missouri; to acquire 7.64 percent of the 
voting shares of UMB Financial 
Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri; and 
thereby indirectly acquire UMB Bank, 
N.A., Kansas City, Missouri; UMB Bank, 
Boonville, Missouri; UMB Bank North 
Central, Brookfield, Missouri; UMB 
Bank, Jefferson City, Missouri; UMB 
Bank Northeast, Monroe City, Missouri; 
UMB Bank Cass Covmty, Peculiar, 
Missouri; UMB Bank Northwest, St. 
Joseph, Missouri; UMB Bank of St. 
Louis, N.A., St. Louis, Missouri; UMB 
Bank Southwest, Carthage, Missouri; 
UMB Bank Warrensburg, Warrensburg, 


Missouri; UMB Bank Warsaw, Warsaw, 
Missouri; UMB Bank Colorado, 

Security, Colorado; UMB Bank USA, 
New Castle, Delaware; UMB First State 
Bank of Morrisonville, Illinois; UMB 
Bank Kansas, Overland Park, Kansas; 
and UMB National Bank of America, 
Salina, Kansas. 

In connection with this application, 
DFC Acquisition Corporation Two, also 
has applied to indirectly acquire shares 
of the following nonbanking activities 
which are conducted by UMB’s 
nonbank subsidiaries: Scout Brokerage 
Services, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, 
providing securities brokerage services 
pursuant to § 225.25(b)(15)(i), acting as 
a dealer in bank-eligible securities 
pursuant to § 225.25(b)(16), and 
providing investment advisory services 
pursuant to §§ 225.25(b)(4)(iii), (iv), and 
(b)(15)(ii). United Missouri Insurance 
Company, Phoenix, Arizona, to engage 
in reinsuring credit life insurance, 
pursuant to § 225.25(b)(8)(i). UMBCDC, 
Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, to engage in 
community development, pursuant to § 
225.25(b)(6). UMB Consulting Services, 
Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, to engage in 
management consulting to depository 
institutions pursuant to § 225.25(b)(ll). 
UMB U.S.A., N,A., Falls City, Nebraska 
to engage in making and servicing loans 
through a credit card bank, pursuant to 
§ 225.25(b)(1). 

Comments on this application must 
be received by November 3,1995. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, October 20,1995. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

IFR Doc. 95-26594 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNG CODE eZIO-OI-F 


GENERAL SERVICES 
ADMINISTRATION 

System of Records Subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 

action: Notice of a system of records 
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. 

SUMMARY: The following notice is 
reissued to show that the record system 
GSA/HRO—4, Labor-management 
relations files, is still in effect. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
record system Labor-management 
relations files, GSA/HRO-4, contains 
information regarding GSA employees 
who are union officials, who are in an 
exclusively recognized union, or who 
have filed a grievance xmder the 
negotiated grievance procedure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Mary L. Cunningham, Records Officer, 
(202)501-1534. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54877 


Dated: October 4,1995. 

Kenneth S. Stacey, 

Acting Director, Information Management 
Division. 

QSA/HRO-4 23-4)0-0007 
SYSTEM name: 

Labor-management relations files. 
SYSTEM location: 

The system is in use in the personnel 
offices of GSA at the addresses listed in 
the appendix following this notice, and 
in service and staff offices throughout 
GSA. 

PERSONS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: 

GSA employees who are union 
officials or who are in an exclusively 
recognized union. It includes any GSA 
employee who has filed a grievance 
under the negotiated grievance 
preceding. 

TYPES OF RECORDS M THE SYSTEM: 

The records are union dues 
withholding requests or revocations, 
lists of employees elected or appointed 
imion officials, grievances settled by an 
arbitrator, and forms showing the 
amormt of time imion officials spent 
representing bargaining unit members. 

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTAINmQ THE SYSTEM: 

5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. 

purpose: 

To record employees who are in a 
union, are under dues withholding, are 
elected or appointed union officers, use 
official time for representing bargaining 
unit members, or have had a grievance 
settled by an arbitrator. 

ROUTME USES OF THE RECORD SYSTEM, 
INCLUDINQ THE TYPES OF USERS AND THEIR 
PURPOSES IN THE USINQ IT: 

a. To the Department of Labor for 
carrying out its functions regarding 
labor-management relations in the 
Federal service. 

b. To officials of labor unions 
recognized under Pub. L. 95-454 when 
needed in their duties of representing 
employees concerning personnel 
policies, practices, and working 
conditions. 

c. To disclose information to a 
Federal, State, or local agency 
responsible for investigating, 
prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing 
a statute, rule, regulation, or order, 
where the General Services 
Administration (GSA) becomes aware of 
an indication of a violation or potential 
violation of civil or criminal law or 

lation. 

To provide information to a 
congressional office when requested by • 
the person lyho is the subject of the 
records. 


e. To disclose information to another 
Federal agency or to a court when the 
Government is a party to a judicial 
proceeding before the court. 

f. To disclose data to the Office of 
Personnel Management for producing 
summary statistics to support the 
function for which the records are 
collected, or for related work force 
studies. While published statistics and 
studies do not identify persons, the data 
elements in a study may occasionally be 
structured so as to allow someone to 
infer the identity of a person. 

g. To disclose information to the 
Office of Management and Budget for 
reviewing private relief legislation at 
any stage of the clearance process. 

n. To disclose information to the 
Merit Systems Protection Board, 
including the Office of Special Counsel; 
the Federal Labor Relations Authority 
and its General Counsel; or the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, 
when requested in performing their 
official duties. 

i. To an authorized appeal or 
grievance examiner, formal complaints 
examiner, equal employment 
opportimity investigator, arbitrator, or 
other authorized official investigating or 
settling a grievance, complaint, or 
appeal filed by the employee who is the 
subject of the record. 

j. To the Office of Personnel 
Management under the agency’s 
responsibility for evaluating Federal 
personnel management. 

k. To an expert, consultant, or 
contractor of GSA as needed to perform 
a Federal duty. 

l. To the extent that official personnel 
records in the custody of GSA are 
covered within a record system 
published by the Office of Personnel 
Management as a Govemmentwide 
system, they are considered part of that 
system. Other official personnel records 
covered by a notice published by GSA 
and considered to be a separate record 
system may be transferred to the Office 
of Personnel Management under official 
personnel proraams as a routine use. 

Policies and practices for storing, 
retrieving, accessing, retaining, and 
disposing of records in the system: 

storage: 

Paper records and machine listings 
are kept in file cabinets. 

retrievabiuty: 

The records are filed alphabetically by 
name. 

safeguards: 

When not is use by an authorized 
person, the records are stored in a 
locked metal file cabinet or in a secured 
room. 


retention and disposal: 

The Office of Personnel disposes of 
the records as scheduled in the 
handbook GSA Records Maintenance 
and Disposition System (OAD P 
1820.2A). 

SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: 

The Director of Personnel, 18th & F 
Streets, NW., Washington, IDC 20405. 
Mailing address: General Services 
Administration (CP), Washington. DC 
20405. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 

A current employee may address a 
request as to whether he or she is 
identified in the record system to the 
immediate supervisor or their personnel 
officer at the address given in ffie 
appendix following this notice, or to the 
director of personnel at the above 
address. Former employees may send 
their request to the director of persoimel 
where they were last employed. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: 

A request from a current employee to 
review a record related to him- or 
herself should be directed to either’s 
supervisor or to a personnel officer at 
the address listed in the appendix, or to 
the director of personnel (system 
manager) at the address above. Former 
employees should direct their request to 
a personnel officer where they were last 
employed. See 41 CFR part 105-64 for 
the identification required. 

PROCEDURE FOR CONTESTING A RECORD: 

GSA rules for reviewing a record, 
contesting the content, and appealing an 
initial decision are in 41 CFR part 105- 
64 published in the Federal Register. 

RECORD sources: 

Officials preparing files, and records 
submitted by employees, including the 
one who is ffie subject of the record. 

Appendix of Record S 3 rstem Locations 
Central Office, Personnel Operations Division 
(CPS), General Services Administration, 
18th & F Streets NW., Washington, DC 
20405. Tel. (202) 501-0040 
National Capital Region, Regional Personnel 
Office (WCP), General Services, 
Administration, 7th & D Streets SW., 
Washington, DC 20407, Tel. (202) 708- 
5335 

Northeast and Caribbean Region, Regional 
Personnel Office (2CP), General Services 
Administration, 26 Federal Plaza, New 
York, NY 10278 Tel. (212) 264-8138 
Mid-Atlantic Region, Regional Personnel 
Office (3CP), General Services 
Administration, The Wanamaker Building, 
100 Penn Square East—room 836, 
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396, Tel. (215) 
656-5625 

Southeast Region, Regional Personnel Office 
(4GP), General Services Administration, 






54878 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No, 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Summit Building, 401 West Peachtree 
Street. Atlanta, GA 30365-2550 Tel. (404) 
331-3181 

Great Lakes Region, Regional Personnel 
Office (5CP), General Services 
Administration, 230 South Dearborn Street, 
Chicago, IL 60604 Tel.(312) 353-5550 
The Heartland Region, Regional Personnel 
Office (6CP), General Services 
Administration, 1500 East Bannister Road, 
Kansas City, MO 64131 Tel. (816) 926- 
7206 

Greater Southwest Region, Regional 
Personnel Office (7^), General Services 
Administration, 819 Taylor Street, Fort 
Worth, TX 76102, Tpl. (817) 334-2366 
Pacihc Rim Region, Regional Personnel 
Office (9CP), General Services 
Administration, 525 Market Street, San 
Francisco. CA 95105 Tel. (415) 744-5185. 

[FR Doc. 95-26606 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BIUINQ CODE 6820-a4-M 


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

Findings of Scientific Misconduct 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 
ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 
the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 
has made final findings of scientific 
misconduct in the following case: 

Nicholas Y. Lorenzo, M.D., Mayo 
Foundation: On October 16,1995, ORI 
foimd that Nicholas Y. Lorenzo, M.D., 
formerly of the Mayo Fovmdation, 
committed scientific misconduct by 
falsifying and fabricating data 
incorporated in an abstract submitted 
for presentation at a professional 
meeting; the research was supported by 
a Public Health Service (PHS) grant. 

Or. Lorenzo has enter^ into a 
Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with 
ORI in which he has accepted ORI’s 
finding and has agreed to exclude 
himself voluntarily, for the three (3) 
year period beginning October 16,1995, 
from: 

(1) Any contracting or subcontracting 
with any agency of the United States 
Government and from eligibility for, or 
involvement in, ncnprocurement 
transactions (e.g., grants and cooperative 
agreements) of the United States 
Government, as defined in 45 CFR Part 
76 and 48 CFR Subparts 9.4 and 309.4 
(Debarment Regulations); and 

(2) serving in any advisory capacity to 
PHS, including but not limited to 
service on any PHS advisory committee, 
board, and/or peer review committee, or 
as a consultant. 

The above voluntary exclusion, 
however, shall not apply to Dr. 


Lorenzo’s future training or practice of 
clinical medicine whether as a medical 
student, resident, fellow, or licensed 
practitioner unless that practice 
involves research or research training. 

The abstract was withdrawn prior to 
publication, and thus, no correction of' 
the literature is required. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Director, Division of Research 
Investigations, Office of Research 
Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700, 
Rockville, MD 20852. 

Lyle W. Bivens, 

Director, Office of Research Integrity. 

(FR Doc. 95-26566 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 416e-17-P 


Administration on Aging 

Public Information Collection 
Requirement Submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (0MB) for 
Clearance 

The Administration on Aging (AoA), 
IDepartment of Health and Human 
Services, will be submitting to the 
Office of Management and Budget 
(0MB) the following proposal for the 
collection of information in compliance 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(Public Law 96-511): Title VI Program 
Performance Reports; 

Type of Request: Extension and 
Revision; 

Use: To revise an existing information 
collection from Title VI grantees to use 
in reporting on certain information on 
programs funded by Title VI as required. 
imder Section 202(a](19) of the Older 
Americans Act, as amended; 

Frequency: Semi-Annually; 

Respondent: Tribal Organizations and 
Non-Profit Organizations representing 
Native Hawaiians; 

Estimated number of responses: 228; 

Estimated Burden Hours: 456. 

Additional Information or Comments: 
The Administration on Aging will be 
submitting to the Office of Management 
and Budget for approval a revised 
reporting system for the Title VI 
Program Performance reports, pursuant 
to requirements in Section 202(a)(19), 
Sec. 614(a)(2), and Sec. 614(a)(3) of the 
Older Americans Act. The revised 
reporting system would become 
effective in fiscal year 1996. The revised 
form would include the following 
elements: 

• Total number services provided; 

• Unduplicated number of persons 
needing services; 

• Staffing—^Volimteers; 

• Others, not paid by Title VI funds; 

• Numbers of meal sites operated 
during budget period; 


• Total number of resources used to 
support the Title VI programs; 

• Participant Age categories. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent 
within 30 days of the publication of this 
notice directly to the following address: 
Administration on Aging, Wilbur ]. 
Cohen Federal Bldg., 330 Independence 
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20201, ATT: 
Reginald A. Newsome. 

William F. Benson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging. 

(FR Doc. 95-26568 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 4150-04-M 


National institutes of Health 

National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed 
Meetings 

Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meetings: 

Name of SEP: National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis 
Panel-Training Grant (T32) Application. 

Date: November 9,1995. 

Time: 8 a.m. 

Place: Solar Bldg., Room 1A03,6003 
Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892. 

Contact Person: Dr. Madelon C. Halula, 
Scientific Review Adm,, 6003 Executive 
Boulevard, Solar Bldg., Room 4C16, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-2550. 

Purpose/Agenda: To review grant 
applications. 

Name of SEP: Safety Evaluation for Anti- 
Infective Therapies. 

Date: November 15,1995. 

Time: 9 a.m. 

Place: NIH, Natcher Bldg. 45, Conference 
Room H, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 
20892. 

Contact Person: Dr. Peter Jackson, 
Scientific Review Adm., Solar Bldg., Room 
4ClO, 6003 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, (301) 496-8426. 

Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate contract 
proposals. 

The meetings will be closed in 
accordance with the provisions set forth 
in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 
5, U.S.C. Applications and/or proposals 
and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material 
and personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the 
applications and/or proposals, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54879 


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Programs Nos. 93.855, Immunology, Allergic 
and Immunologic Diseases Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 
Research, National Institutes of Health.) 

Dated: October 20,1995. 

Susan K. Feldman, 

Committee Management Officer, NIH. 

(FR Doc. 95-26528 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M 


Division of Research Grants; Notice of 
Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given of the following Division 
of Research Grants Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meetings: 

Purpose/Agenda: To review individual 
grant applications. 

Name of SEP: Chemistry and Related 
Sciences. 

Date: November 9,1995. 

Time: 12 p.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 4176, 
Telephone Conference. 

Contact Person: Dr. Mike Radtke, Scientific 
Review Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Room 4176, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 
435-1728. 

Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences. 

Date: November 20,1995. 

Time: 8:30 a.m. 

Place: Ramada Hotel, Olde Towne 
Alexandria, Virginia. 

Contact Person: Dr. Priscilla Chen, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4104, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 436-1787. 

Name of SEP: Behavioral and 
Neurosciences. 

Date: November 28,1995. 

Time: 2 p.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 5179, 
Telephone Conference. 

Contact Person: Dr. Luigi Giacometti, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5179, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1246. 

Name of SEP: Behavioral and 
Neurosciences. 

Date: November 29,1995. 

Time: 2 p.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 5179, 
Telephone Conference. 

Contact Person: Dr. Luigi Giacometti, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5179, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1246. 

Purpose/Agenda: To review Small 
Business Innovation Research. 

Name of SEP: Behavioral and 
Neurosciences. 

Date: November 1,1995. 

Time: 8:30 a.m. 

Place: Holiday Inn, Chevy Chase, 
Maryland. 

Contact Person: Dr. Keith Murray, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5149, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1716. 


Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences. 
Date: November 14,1995. 

Time: 8:30 a.m. 

Place: Bethesda Marriott Hotel, Bethesda, 
Maryland. 

Contact Person: Dr. Nancy Shinowara, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1173. 

Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological 
Sciences. 

Date: November 28,1995. 

Time: 3 p.m. 

Place: Double Tree Hotel, Rockville, 
Maryland. 

Contact Person: Dr. Peggy McCardle, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room* 5198, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1258. 

The meetings will be closed in 
accordance with the provisions set forth 
in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 
5, U.S.C Applications and/or proposals 
and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material 
and personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the 
applications and/or proposals, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy. 

This notice is being published less 
than 15 days prior to the meeting due 
to the urgent need to meet timing 
limitations imposed by the grant review 
cycle. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393- 
93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 
93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS) 

Date: October 20,1995. 

Susan K. Feldman, 

Committee Management Officer, NIH. 

[FR Doc. 95-26529 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE 4140-01-M 


Division of Research Grants; Notice of 
Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given of the following Division 
of Research Grants Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meetings: 

Purpose/Ag^nda: To review individual 
grant applications. 

Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences. 

Date: November 16-18,1995. 

Time: 8 p.m. 

Place: Galatin Gateway Inn, Bozeman, 
Montana. 

Contact Person: Dr. Nancy Shinowara, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1173. 

Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences. 

Dote; November 17,1995. 


Time: 2 p.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 4218, 
Telephone Conference. 

Contact Person: Dr. Shirley Hilden, 

Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4218, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1198. 

Name of SEP: Microbiological and 
Immunological Sciences. 

Date: November 21,1995. 

Time: 1 p.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 4198, 
Telephone Conference. 

Contact Person: Dr. Mohindar Poonian, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4198, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1218. 

Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological 
Sciences. ^ 

Date: December 1,1995. 

Time: 10 a.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 5196, 
Telephone Conference. 

Contact Person: Ms. Carol Campbell, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5196, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1257. 

Name of SEP: Microbiological and 
Inununological Sciences. 

Date: December 5,1995. 

Time: 1 p.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 4184, 
Telephone Conference. 

Contact Person: Dr. Martin Slater, 

Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4184, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1149. 

Purpose/Agenda: To review Small 
Business Innovation Research. 

Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological 
Sciences. 

Date; November 8-9,1995. 

Time: 9 a.m. 

Place: Doubletree Hotel, Rockville, 
Maryland. 

Contact Person: Dr. Anita Sostek, Scientific 
Review Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Room 5202, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 
435-1260. 

Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences. 
Date: November 9,1995. 

Time: 3 p.m. 

Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 5118, 
Telephone conference. 

Contact Person: Dr. Paul Parakkal, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5118, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1172. 

Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences. 
Date: Dumber 3-5,1995. 

Time: 7 p.m. 

Place: Stanford Terrace Inn, Palo Alto, CA. 
Contact Person: Dr. Anthony Carter, 
Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-1167. 

The meetings will be closed in 
accordance with the provisions set forth 
in secs. 552b(2)(4) and 522b(c)(6), Title 
5, U.S.C. Applications and/or proposals 
and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material 
and personal information concerning 




54880 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


individuals associated with the 
applications and/or proposals, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of 
ptersonal privacy. 

This notice is being published less 
than 15 days prior to the meeting due 
to the urgent need to meet timing 
limitations imposed by the grant review 
cycle. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393- 
93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 

93.892,93,893, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS) 

Date: October 20,1995. 

Susan K. Feldman, 

Ck}mmittee Management Officer, NIH. 

[FR Doc. 95-26530 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
BIUJNQ CODE 4140-41-M 

Office of Inspector General 

Program Exclusions: September 1995 

AQENCY: Office of Inspector General, 
HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of program exclusions. 

During the month of September 1995, 
the HHS Office of Inspector General 
imposed exclusions in the cases set 
forth below. When an exclusion is 
imposed, no program payment is made 
to anyone for any items or services 
(other than an emergency item or 
service not provided in a hospital 
emergency room) furnished, ordered or 
prescribed by an excluded party imder 
the Medicare, Medicaid, Maternal and 
CSiild Health Services Block Grant and 
Block Grants to States for Social 
Services programs. In addition, no 
program payment is made to any 
business or facility, e.g., a hospital, that 
submits bills for payment for items or 
services provided by an excluded party. 
Program beneficiaries remain free to 
decide for themselves whether they will 
continue to use the services of an 
excluded party even though no program 
payments will be made for items and 
services provided by that excluded 
party. The exclusions have national 
efiect and also apply to all Executive 
Branch procurement and non- 
procurement programs and activities. 



PROGRAM-RELATED CONVICTIONS 


DOMINELLI, FRANK C, HUN¬ 
TINGTON, NY. 10/10/95 

ERICKSON, BRUCE L, GREAT 

F/U.LS, MT. 09/10/95 

GREAT FALLS EYE SURGERY 
CTR, GREAT FALLS, MT . 09/10/95 


Subject—city. State 

Effective 

date 

GREENSTEIN, GERALD N, 
JAMESTOWN, NY. 

10/10/95 

JACK, J/tNE B, BOWDOINHAM, 
ME. 

10/10/95 

KANG, NAMIL IL, ANCHOR¬ 
AGE, AK . 

10/10/95 

KANG, YEUNG K, ANCHOR¬ 
AGE, AK . 

10/10/95 

KUSKOKWIM INN, BETHEL, AK 

10/10/95 

TEEKAH, LYNDA, NEW YORK, 
NY ... 

10/10/95 

WESTERN NY HEARING AID 
SERVICE, JAMESTOWN, NY 

10/10/95 


PATIENT ABUSE/NEGLECT CONVICTIONS 


ARANGO, LUCERO, 

OSSINING, NY . 

HOWSON, SCOTT e] GREEN¬ 
FIELD, MA . 

LEWIS, DORIS, COLLEGE 
STATION, AR ... 

10/10/95 

10/10/95 

10/10/95 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CONVICTIONS 

STRAWDER, RICHARD HOR- 


ACE, AGOURA HILLS, CA .... 

10/10/95 


LICENSE REVOCATION/SUSPENSION/ 
SURRENDER 


BRIGHAM. STEVEN. VOOR- 
HEES, NJ. 

10/10/95 

CLAUSING. VERNON D. SE¬ 
ATTLE. WA. 

10/10/95 

CORMACK, MAUREEN, MIL¬ 
FORD, CT. 

10/10/95 

GAJEWAY, CHARLES. TROY, 

NY. 

10/10/95 

HILL. JAMES W, WATER- 
TOWN. MA . 

10/10/95 

KOBA, JACQUELINE, MIDDLE- 
FIELD. CT. 

10/10/95 

MENHART, KARL ALBERT. PO¬ 
MONA, CA . 

10/10/95 

MOHAN, BRIJ, STATEN IS¬ 
LAND. NY . 

10/10/95 

MORELEWICZ, HENRY, BUF- 


FALO, NY . 

10/10/95 

MOUSTAFA, WAYEL A. BEV- 


ERLY, MA . 

10/10/95 

PEL, SATWANT KAUR, GLEN 
ROCK. NJ . 

10/10/95 

PINDER, DENISE, ROCKY 

HILL, CT . 

10/10/95 

RIST-RISUCCI, GAIL. GLAS¬ 
TONBURY. CT . 

10/10/95 

SCOTT. JANET. NORTH 

HAVEN, CT. 

10/10/95 

STEWART. JUDI A, EL 

CENTRO,CA . 

10/10/95 


FEDERAUSTATE EXCLUSION/ 
SUSPENSION 



Subject—city. State 

Effective 

date 

RABINER, HERBERT H. OAK- 


LAND GARDENS. NY . 

10/10/95 


DEFAULT ON HEAL LOAN 


DEMETRY, DONALD J, FOR¬ 
EST PARK, IL.. 

10/10/95 

DIETER, LAWRENCE ALBERT, 
LOS OSOS, CA . 

10/10/95 

EASLEY, WAYLAND A, SHAK¬ 
ER HEIGHTS. OH . 

10/10/95 

HARRIGAN, DAVID C. ABSE- 
CON.NJ . 

10/10/95 

HUGHES. ALLAN D, WORCES¬ 
TER, MA . 

10/10/95 

KLINE. KURT W. 

PLATTSBURGH. NY . 

10/10/95 

LATAILLE, EDWARD P. SAN 
DIEGO. CA . 

, 10/10/95 

NELSON. ROGER W. WATER¬ 
FORD. Ml. 

10/10/95 

VAN OLPHEN, ANNEKA M, EL 
CERRITO, CA. 

10/10/95 

WELLS.^KENNETH, CHULA 
VISTA. CA . 

10/10/95 


Dated: October 4,1995. 

William M. Libercci, 

Director, Health Care Administrative 
Sanctions, Office of Civil Fraud and 
Administrative Adjudication. 

IFR Doc. 95-26602 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 4160-04-P 


DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Housing—Federal Housing 
Commissioner 

[Docket No. FR-3917-N-27] 

Notice of Proposed Information 
Coliection for Pubiic Comment 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Housing—^Federal Housing 
Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The proposed information 
collection requirement described below 
will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. The Department is 
soliciting public comments on the 
subject proposal. 

DATES: Comments due: December 26, 
1995. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 
invited to submit comments regarding 
this proposal. Comments should refer to 
the proposal by name and/or OMB 
Control Number and should be sent to: 
Oliver Walker, Housing, Department of 
Housing & Urban Development, 451— 








































Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54881 


7th Street, SW., Room 9116, 

Washington, DC 20410. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Oliver Walker, Telephone number (202) 
708-1694 (this is not a toll-free number) 
for copies of the proposed forms and 
other available documents. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
Department will submit the proposed 
information collection to OMB for 
review, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35, as amended). 

The Notice is soliciting comments 
from members of the public and 
affecting agencies concerning the 
proposed collection of information to: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the 
functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have 
practical utility; (2) Evaluate the 
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of 
information; (3) Enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and (4) Minimize the 
burden of the collection of information 
on those who are to respond; including 
through the use of appropriate 
automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, 
e.g., permitting electronic submission of 
responses. 

This Notice also lists the following 
information: 

Title of Proposal: Lease and Sale of 
HUD-Acquired Single Family Properties 
for the Homeless. 

OMB Control Number: 2502-0412. 

Description of the need for the 
information and proposed use: The 
information allows HUD to determine 
whether an applicant qualifies as a 
homeless provider for the purposes of 
lease or purchase of a HUD-acquired 
property. Without the information, the 
Department would be tmable to 
establish eligibility. Eligible applicants, 
including state and local governments, 
may apply to HUD to become approved 
as l^meless providers. Such approval 
permits the applicant to lease a HUD- 
owned single family home with an 
option to piurchase, for use in housing 
the homeless. 

Agency form numbers: Not applicable. 

Members of affected public: 

Homeless. 

An estimation of the total numbers of 
homrs needed to prepare the information 
collection is 600, the number of 
respondents is 300, frequency of 
response is 1, and the hoius of response 
is 2. 


Status of the proposed information 
collection; Extension of a currently 
approved collection 

Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, 4 U.S.C Chapter 35, 
as amended. 

Dated: October 10,1995. 

Nicolas P. Retsinas, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 
Housing Commissioner. 

IFR Doc. 95-26551 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BtLUNQ CODE 4210-27-M 


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[OR-050-1210-00:66-006] 

Prineville District; Ciosure of Pubiic 
Lands; Oregon 

October 19,1995. 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 
Interior. 

ACTION: Notice is hereby given that 
Pictograph Cave, Deschutes County, 
Oregon, is seasonally closed to all 
visitor use. 

Pictograph Cave in Eleschutes Cotmty, 
Oregon, and the sinkhole areas adjacent 
to both entrances, are closed to all 
visitor use from October 15 to May 1. 
These dates are subject to change as a 
result of annual weather conditions or 
as more specific data pertaining to use 
of the site by sensitive bat species is 
acquired. Closure dates will be posted at 
the cave site and at the Prineville 
District Office. The purpose of this 
closure is to protect the Townsend’s big- 
eared bat {Plecotus townsendii) from 
hiunan disturbance during hibernation. 
This species is extremely sensitive to 
human disturbance in the winter 
months; any disturbance that awakens 
the bats during this period may result in 
their death. Pictograph Cave is a known 
hibemacula site for Ae Townsend’s big- 
eared bat. Exemptions to this closure 
will apply to administrative personnel 
(Bureau of Land Management, Forest 
Service, and Oregon Department of Fish 
& Wildlife) for monitoring purposes; 
other exemptions to this restriction may 
be made on a case-by-case basis by the 
authorized officer. Exemptions could 
include approved research, essential 
search and rescue, other emergency 
actions or administrative operations for 
cave resources protection. The authority 
for this closure is 43 CFR 8364.1: 
Closure and restriction orders. 

A more specific location of public 
lands under this closure order is not 
provided in order to protect sensitive 
cave resources. Cave locations are 
exempt firom the Freedom of 


Information Act under the Federal Cave 
Resources Protection Act of 1988. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Sarah Nichols, Wildlife Biologist, BLM 
Prineville District, P.O. Box 550, 
Prineville Oregon 97754, telephone 
(503)447-8725. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Violation 
of this closure order is punishable by a 
fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 
imprisonment not to exceed 12 months 
as provided in 43 CFR 8360.0-7. 

Dated: October 19,1995. 

James L. Hancock, 

District Manager, Prineville District Office. 
(FR Doc. 95-26604 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M 


[CO-050-1020-00] 

Front Range Resource Advisory 
Council (Colorado) Meeting 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 
Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In.accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix, notice 
is hereby given that the next two 
meetings of the Front Range Resource 
Advisory Council (Colorado) will he 
held on Wednesday, November 8,1995 
and Tuesday, November 21,1995 in 
Canon City, Colorado. Both meetings are 
scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. at BLM’s 
Canon City District Office, 3170 East 
Main Street, Canon City, Colorado. The 
agenda for the meeting November 8 will 
focus on the development of standards 
for rangeland health and guidelines for 
livestock grazing. The agenda for the 
meeting November 21 will include a 
tour of public land in the Canon City 
area firom 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. followed by 
a work session which will focus on the 
further development of standards for 
rangeland health and guidelines for 
livestock grazing. 

All Resource Advisory Council 
meetings are open to the public. 
Interested persons may make oral 
statements to the Coimcil at 9:30 a.m. 
November 8 and 2:30 p.m. on November 
21 or written statements may be 
submitted for the Council’s 
consideraticHi. The District Manager 
may limit the length of oral 
presentations depending on the number 
of people wishing to speak. 

DATES: The meetings are scheduled for 
Wednesday, November 8,1995 from 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday, November 
21,1995 firom 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.. 
ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), Canon City District 





54882 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Office, 3170 East Main Street, Canon 
City Colorado 81212; Telephone (719) 
275-0631; TDD (719) 275-4346. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ken Smith, at (719) 275-0631. 
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Summary 
minutes for the Council meeting will be 
maintained in the Canon Qty District 
Office and will be available for public 
inspection and reproduction during 
regular business hoiirs within thirty (30) 
days following the meeting. 

Donnie R. Sparks, 

District Manager. 

(FR Doc. 95-26648 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
BMJJNG CODE 4310.gB-M 


PD-030-1050-00] 

Intent To Prepare a Planning 
Amendment to the Pocatello Resource 
Management Plan 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 
Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare a 
Planning Amendment to the Pocatello 
Resource Management Plan. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 43 CFR part 1600, 
the Pocatello Resoiirce Area proposes to 
amend its Resource Management Plan to 
include the following described lands, 
found in Bannock and Caribou 
Counties. Idaho, as two new Areas of 
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

Boise Meridian, Idaho 
Indian Rocks 
T. 7 S.. R. 36 E., 

Section 34; E'ASE'A. 

T. 8 S.. R. 36 E., 

Section 2: SWV4NWV4. W’/tSW'A. 

Section 3 : S’/iiNE’A. EViSEiASW’A. SE’A. 
Section 10: NEV4, E'AE'ANW'A, N’ASE’A, 
E’ASWV 4 SEV 4 . SEV4SEV4. 

Section 11: W’AW’A. 

Section 14; W’A. 

Section 15: NE’ANE’A, EVzSE’ANE’A, 
E’AE’ASE’A. 

Section 22; E’ANE’ANE’A, SE’ANE’A, 
E»ASEV 4 , E'ANW'ASE'A. 

Section 23: NWV4, WV2SWV4. 

Section 26: NWV4NWV4, S’ANW'A, SW’A. 
Section 27: E’ANE’A 

Section 34: SE’ANE'A, NE’ASE’A, N'ASE’A 
SEV 4 , SEV4SEV4SEV4. 

Section 35: W’A, SW’ANE’A, W'ASE’A. 

T. 9 S.. R. 36 E., 

Section 2: S’AN’A, SE’ASW'A, NV2SWV4. 
Petticoat Peak 
T. 8 S.. R. 38 E., 

Section 1: SVzSW’ANW’A, E’ASW’A, 
SEV 4 SWV 4 . S’ASW’A, SEV4. 

Section 2 ; SVzSE'A, S’ANE’ASE’A, 
NEV4NEV4SEV4, SEV4NWV4SEV4, 
E’ASE’ASW’A, SWV4SEV4SWV4. 

Section 11 : N’ANW'ANE’A, NV2NEV4NEV4, 
SEV4NEV4NEV4. 

Section 12: NV 2 NWV 4 , N’AN’ASE’ANW’A, 
E’ANW'ANE’A. 


Potential issues include, but may not 
be limited to, grazing management, ofh 
road vehicle use, riparian/wetland 
management, and mineral extraction. 
Should these areas be found suitable for 
designation, the Pocatello Resource 
Management Plan will be amended to 
include the new Areas of CMtical 
Environmental Concern and specific 
management plans will be prepared for 
each. 

The following resources will be 
considered in preparing the 
amendments: wildlife, soils, land status, 
range, threatened and endangered plant 
and animal species, cultural resources, 
and recreation. The dates of the public 
meetings will be released in the local 
news media. Relevant documents will 
be available for public review at the 
BLM, Pocatello Resource Area Office, 
Pocatello, Idaho. 

For a period of 30 days from the date 
of publication of this Notice, interested 
parties may submit comments to Jefi S. 
Steele, Pocatello Area Manager, Bureau 
of Land Management, 1111N. 8th Ave., 
Pocatello, Idaho 83201. 

Dated: October 18,1995. 

Mary Gaylord, 

District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 95-26605 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 4310-GO-P 


PD-e57-1030-00] 

Filing of Fiats of Survey; Idaho 

The plat of the following described 
land was officially filed in the Idaho 
State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, Boise, Idaho, effective 
9:00 a.m., October 17,1995. 

The plat representing the dependent 
resurvey of portions of the subdivisional 
lines and the boundaries of Mineral 
Survey Nos. 1293 and 1294, the 
subdivision of section 14, and a metes- 
and-boimds survey in section 14, T. 7 
N., R. 4 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, 

Group No. 879, was accepted. October 
17,1995. 

The survey was executed to meet 
certain administrative needs of the 
Bureau of Land Management. 

All inquiries concerning the survey of 
the above described land must be sent 
to the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, 
Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, 3380 Americana Terrace, 
Boise, Idaho, 83706 

Dated; October 17,1995. 

Duane E. Olsen, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho. 

(FR Doc. 95-26536 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE 431(M1CMM 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
COMMISSION 

pnvestigation No. 731-TA-723 (Final)] 

Certain Drawer Slides From China 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 
Commission. 

ACTION: Termination of investigation. 

SUMMARY: On October 19.1995, the 
Commission received a letter from 
petitioner in the subject investigation 
(Hardware Designers, Inc.) withdrawing 
its petition. Accordingly, pursuant to 
§ 207.40(a) of the Commission’s Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
207.40(a)), the antidumping 
investigation concerning Certain Drawer 
Slides fixim China (Investigation No. 
731-TA-723 (Final)) is terminated. 
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Olympia Hand (202-205-3182), Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International 
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- 
impaired individuals are advised that 
information on this matter can be 
obtained by contacting the 
Commission’s TDD terminal on 202- 
205-1810. Persons with mobility 
impairments who will need special 
assistance in gaining access to the 
Commission should contact the Office 
of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. 
Information can also be obtained by 
calling the Office of Investigations’ 
remote bulletin board system for 
personal computers at 202-205-1895 
(N,8,1). 

Authority: This investigation is being 
terminated under authority of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, title VII. This notice is published 
pursuant to § 207.40 of the Cktnunission’s 
rules (19 CFR § 207.40). 

Issued: October 20,1995. 

By order of the Commission. 

Donna R. Koehnke, 

Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26559 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 7020-02-P 


INTERSTATE COMMERCE 
COMMISSION 

Availability of Environmental 
Assessments 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332, the 
Commission has prepared and made 
available environmental assessments for 
the proceedings listed below. Dates 
environmental assessments are available 
are listed below for each individual 
proceeding. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54883 


To obtain copies of these 
environmental assessments contact Ms. 
Tawanna Glover-Banders, Interstate 
Commerce Commission, Section of 
Environmental Analysis, Room 3219, 
Washington, DC 20423, (202) 927-6203. 

Comments on the following 
assessment are due 15 days after the 
date of availability: 

AB—457X, RLTD Railway Corporation— 
Notice of Exemption—Abandonment 
from Reenie’s Point to Northport, In 
Leelanau County, MI. EA available 
10/23/95. 

AB-167 (Sub-No. 1152X), Consolidated 
Rail Corporation—Abandonment 
Exemption—in Cook County, IL. EA 
available 10/20/95. 

Comments on the following 
assessment are due 30 days after the 
date of availability: 

AB-6 (Sub-No. 370X), Bmlington 
Northern Railroad Company— 
Abandonment of a Line of Railroad 
Between M.P. 00.00 near Mesa, WA 
and M.P. 11.20 near Basin City, WA 
in Franklin County, Washington. EA 
available 10/20/95. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26850 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 703S-01-P 


[Finance Docket No. 32762] 

Florida Progress Corporation, 

Progress Capital Holdings, Inc., 

Electric Fuels Corporation and . 
Progress Rail Services Corporation: 
Acquisition and Operation Exemption; 
Sidney & Lowe Railroad, Inc. 

AQENCY: Interstate Commerce 
Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of exemption. 

SUMMARY: The Commission, pmsuant to 
49 U.S.C. 10505, exempts from the prior 
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
11343-45 the acquisition and operation 
of Sidney & Lowe Railroad, Inc. (S&LR), 
by Florida Progress Corporation, 
Progress Capital Holdings, Inc., Electric 
Fuels Corporation and Progress Rail 
Services Corporation, subject to 
standard labor protective conditions. 
S&LR is a class III short line rail carrier 
that operates over approximately 11 
miles of mainline track firom Brownson, 
NE, to Himtsman, NE. 

DATES: This exemption will be effective 
on November 25,1995. Petitions for stay 
must be filed by November 10,1995. 
Petitions to reopen must be filed by 
November 20,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to 
Finance Docket No. 32762 to: (1) Office 


of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 
Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20423; and (2) 
Petitioners’ representative: Betty Jo 
Christian, Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 
Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 

ITDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 
927-5721.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional information is contained in 
the Commission’s decision. To obtain a 
copy of the full decision, write to, call, 
or pick up in person from: DC NEWS & 
DATA, INC., foterstate Commerce 
Commission Building, 1201 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 2229, 
Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: 
(202) 289-4357/4359. (Assistance for 
the hearing impaired is available 
through TDD services at (202) 927- 
5721.) 

Decided; October 17,1995. 

By the Ckimmission, Chairman Morgan, 
Vice Chairman Owens, and Commissioners 
Simmons and McDonald. Commissioner 
McDonald did not participate in the 
disposition of this proceeding. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26582 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNG CODE 7036-«1-P 


[Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 176X)] 

Norfolk and Western Railway 
Company—Abandonment Exemption— 
Des Moines, lA 

Norfolk and Western Railway 
Company (NW) has filed a verified 
notice under 49 CFR Part 1152 Subpart 
F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon a 
2.3-mile rail line between mileposts SD- 
334.6 and SD-336.8 and between 
mileposts SD-339.6 and 339.7 in Des 
Moines, lA. 

NW has certified that: (1) No local 
traffic has moved over the line for at 
least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on 
the line can be rerouted over other lines; 
(3) no formal complaint filed by a user 
of rail service on ^e line (or by a State 
or local government entity acting on 
behalf of such user) regarding cessation 
of service over the line either is pending 
with the Commission or with any U.S. 
District Court or has been decided in 
complainant’s favor within the last 2 
years; and (4) the requirements at 49 
CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 
CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 
1105.11 and 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to 
government agencies), and 49 CFR 


1105.12 (newspaper publication) have 
been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 
employee adversely affected by the 
abandonment shall be protect^ under 
Oregon Short Line R. Cp .— 

Abandonment — Goshen. 360 LC.C. 91 
(1979). To address whether employees 
are adequately protected, a petition for 
partial revocation imder 49 U.S.C. 
10505(d) must be filed. 

This exemption will be effective 
November 25,1995, imless stayed or a 
statement of intent to file an offer of 
financial assistance (OFA) is filed. 
Petitions to stay that do not involve 
environmental issues,' statements of 
intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 
1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking 
requests under 49 (3FR 1152.29 ’ must 
be filed by November 6,1995. Petitions 
to reopen or requests for public use 
conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must 
be filed by November 15,1995. An 
original and 10 copies of any such filing 
must be sent to the Office of the 
Secretary, Case Control Branch. 

Interstate Commerce Commission. 
Washington, DC 20423. In addition, one 
copy must be served on James R. 
Pas^all, Norfolk Southern Corporation, 
Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 
23510. 

If the verified notice contains false or 
misleading information, the exemption 
is void ab initio. 

NW has filed an environmental report 
which addresses the abandonment’s 
effects, if any, on the environment and 
historic resources. The Commission’s 
Section of Environmental Analysis 
(SEA) will issue an environmental 
assessment (EA) by October 31,1995. A 
copy of the EA may be obtained by 
writing to SEA (Room 3219, Interstate 
Commerce Commission, Washington, 
DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser at 
(202) 927-6248. Comments on 
environmental and historic preservation 
matters must be filed within 15 days 
after the EA becomes available to the 
public. 

Environmental, historic preservation, 
public use, or trail use/rail banking 
conditions will be imposed, where 
appropriate, in a subsequent decision. 


■ The Commission will grant a stay if an informed 
decision on environmental issues (whether raised 
by a party or by the Commission in its independent 
investigation) cannot be made before the 
exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Out- 
of-Service Rail Lines. 51.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any 
request for a stay should be bled as soon as possible 
so that the Commission may take appropriate action 
before the exemption's effe^ive date. 

* See Exempt, of Rail Abandonment—Offers of 
Finan. Assist.. 4 I.C.C2d 164 (1987). 

>The Commission will accept late-filed trail use 
requests so long as the abandonment has not been 
consummated and the abandoning railroad is 
willing to negotiate an agreement. 




54884 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


Decided: October 20,1995. 

By the Commission, Joseph H. Dettmar, 
Acting Director, Office of PixKeedings. 
Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

IFR Doc. 95-26579 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 

BiLUNQ CODE 7035-01-P 


Pocket No. AB-290 (Sub41o. 175X)] 

Norfolk Southern Railway Company; 
Abandonment Exemption; at Virginia 
Beach, VA 

Norfolk Southern Railway Company 
(NS) has filed a notice of exemption 
under 49 CFR part 1152 Subpart F— . 
Exempt Abandonments to abandon 
approximately 1.7 miles of rail line 
extending between milepost VB-15.4 
milepost VB-17.1 at Virginia Beach, VA. 

NS has certified that: (1) No local 
traffic has moved over the line for at 
least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 
traffic on the line; (3) no formal 
complaint filed by a user of rail service 
on the line (or by a state or local 
government entity acting on behalf of 
such user) regarding cessation of service 
over the line either is pending with the 
Commission or with any U.S. District 
Court or has been decided in favor of 
the complainant within the 2-year 
period; and (4) the requirements at 49 
CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 
CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 

1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 

1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 
49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to 
governmental agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to use of this 
exemption, any employee adversely 
affected by the abandonment shall be 
protected under Oregon Short Line R. 
Co. — Abandonment — Goshen. 360 I.C.C. 
91 (1979). To address whether this 
condition adequately protects affected 
employees, a petition for partial 
revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) 
miist be filed. 

Provided no formal expression of 
intent to file an offer of financial 
assistance (OFA) has been received, this 
exemption will be effective on 
November 25,1995 (imless stayed 
pending reconsideration). Petitions to 
stay that do not involve environmental 
issues,' formal expressions of intent to 


' A stay will be issued routinely where an 
informed decision on environmental issues 
(whether raised by a party or by the Commission’s 
Section of Environmental Analysis in its 
independent investigation) cannot be made prior to 
the effective date of the notice of exemption. See 
Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 
377 (1989). Any entity seeking a stay on 
environmental grounds is encouraged to file 
promptly so that the Commission may act on the 
request before the effective date. 


file OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 
and trail use/rail banking requests under 
49 CFR 1152.29 3 must be filed by 
November 6,1995. Petitions to reopen 
or requests for public use conditions 
under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by 
November 15,1995, with: Office of the 
Secretary, Clase Control Branch, 
Interstate Commerce Commission, 
Washington, DC 20423. 

A copy of any pleading filed with the 
Commission should be sent to 
applicant’s representative: James R. 
Paschall, Norfolk Southern Corporation, 
Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 
23510. 

If the notice of exemption contains 
false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ah initio. 

NS has filed an environmental report 
which addresses the abandonment’s 
effects, if any, on the environment and 
historic resources. The Section of 
Environmental Analysis (SEA) will 
issue an environmental assessment (EA) 
by October 31,1995. Interested persons 
may obtain a copy of the EA by writing 
to SEA (Room 3219, Interstate 
Commerce Commission, Washington, 
DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser, 
Chief of SEA, at (202) 927-6248. 
Comments on environmental and 
historic preservation matters must be 
filed within 15 days after the EA 
becomes available to the public. 

Environmental, historic preservation, 
public use, or trail use/rail banking 
conditions will be imposed, where 
appropriate, in a subsequent decision. 

Decided: October 20,1995. 

By the Commission, Joseph H. Dettmar, 
Acting Director, Office of Proceedings. 
Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

IFR Doc. 95-26581 Filed 10-25-95: 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P 


NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY REVIEW 
COMMISSION 

Emergency Commission Meeting 

AGENCY: National Bankruptcy Review 
Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of emergency meeting. 

DATES: November 1,1995, Wednesday, 
9 a.m. to 12 noon. 

ADDRESSES: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 
Bonaparte Room, 4th Floor, 555 Canal 
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70140. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Contact Jarilyn Dupont or Carmelita 


2 See Exempt, of Rail Abandonment Offers of 
Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987). 

^The Commission will accept late-filed trail use 
statements so long as it retains jurisdiction. 


Pratt at the National Bankruptcy Review 
Commission, (202) 273-1813, c/o 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 
One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 4—170, 
Washington, D.C. 20544 (mailing 
address) (or 20002, street address). 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
meeting will be open to the public. 

Since certain information was not 
available at the time of the first 
organizational meeting on October 20, 
1995, the dkimmission continued the 
meeting in order to obtain the necessary 
information and called an emergency 
meeting to finish the agenda items 
originally scheduled for October 20, 
1995. 

Jarilyn Dupont, 

Executive Director/General Counsel. 

IFR Doc. 95-26671 Filed 10-25-95: 8:45 am] 

BILUNG CODE 6820-35-M 


NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

National Endowment for the Arts 

National Council on the Arts 126th 
Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public 
Law 92-463), as amended, notice is 
hereby given that a meeting of the 
National Council on the Arts wrill be 
held on November 3-4,1995 in Room 
M-09 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20506. The meeting 
will be held on November 3rd from 9 
am-5:30 pm and on November 4th from 
9 am-1 pm. 

This meeting will be open to the 
public. Topics for discussion will 
include a Legislative Update, discussion 
of the agency’s new structure, new 
budgets, panel and Coimcil procedures, 
guidelines for organizations, application 
review, and committee reports. 

If, in the course of application 
discussion review, it becomes necessary 
for the Council to discuss non-public 
commercial or financial information of 
intrinsic value, the Council will go into 
closed-session pursuant to subsection 
(c)(4) of the (kivemment in the 
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 
Additionally, discussion concerning 
purely personal information about 
individuals, submitted with grant 
applications, such as personal 
biographical and salary data or medical 
information, may be conducted by the 
Council in closed session in accordance 
with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

Any interested persons may attend, as 
observers. Council discussions and 
reviews which are open to the public. If 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54885 


you need special accommodations due 
to a disability, please contact the Office 
of AccessAbility, National Endowment 
for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20506, 202/682/ 
5532, TTY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least 
seven (7) days prior to the meeting. 

Fiurther information with reference to 
this meeting can be obtained horn the 
Office of Conmnmications, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, 
D.C. 20506, at 202/682/5570. 

Dated: October 23,1995. 

Yvonne M. Sabine, 

Director, Council and Panel Operations. 

(FR Doc 95-26560 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
MLUNQ CODE 7S37-01-M 


NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Documents Containing Reporting or 
Recordkeeping Requirements; Notice 
of Pending Submittai to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for 
Review 

AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to 
submit an information collection 
request to OMB and solicitation of 
public comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a 
submittal to OMB for review or 
continued approval of information 
collections under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

Information pertaining to the 
requirement to he submitted: 

1. The title of the information 
collection: Data Report on Spouse. 

2. Current OMB approval number: 
3150-0026. 

3. How often the collection is 
required: On Occasion. 

4. Who is required or asked to report: 
NRC employees, NRC contractors, and 
NRC licensee access authorization 
applicants who marry after completing 
NRC’s Personnel Security Forms; or 
marry after having been granted an NRC 
access authorization or employment 
clearance. 

5. The number of annual respondents: 
60. 

6. The number of hours needed 
annually to complete the requirement or 
request: 15 (.25 hours per response). 

7. Abstract: Completion of the NRC 
Form 354 is a mandatory requirement 
for NRC employees, contractors, 
licensee applicants, and employee ' ‘ 
applicants who marry after submission 
of the Personnel Security Forms, or after 


receiving an access authorization or 
employment clearance to permit the 
NRC to assure there is no increased risk 
to the common defense and security. 

Submit, by December 26,1995, 
comments that address the following 
questions: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 
information necessary for the NRC to 
properly perform its functions? Does the 
information have practical utility? 

2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity oflhe 
information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 
information collection be minimized, 
including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology? 

A copy of the draft supporting 
statement may be viewed free of charge 
firom the NRC Public Document Room, 
2120 L Street NW, (lower level), 
Washington, DC. Members of the public 
who are in the Washington, DC, area can 
access this document via modem within 
the first 30 days on the Public 
Document Room Bulletin Board (NRC’s 
Advanced Copy Document Library), 

NRC subsystem on FedWorld at 703- 
321-3339. Members of the public who 
are located outside of the Washington, 
DC, area can dial FedWorld, 800-303- 
9672, or use the FedWorld Internet 
address: fedworld.gov (Telnet). If 
assistance is need^ in accessing the 
document, please contact the FedWorld 
help desk at 703-487—4608. 

Comments and questions may be 
directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, T-6 F33, 
Washington DC, 20555-0001, or by 
telephone at (301) 415-7233, or by 
Internet electronic mail at 
BJS1@NRC.GOV. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 
of October, 1995. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Gerald F. Cranford, 

Designated Senior Official for Information 
Resources Management. 

(FR Doc. 95-26562 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ CODE 7S90-«1-P 


Documents Containing Reporting or 
Recordkeeping Requirements; Notice 
of Pending Submittai to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for 
Review 

AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to 
submit an information collection 


request to OMB and solicitation of 
public comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a 
submittal to OMB for review and 
continued approval of information 
collection requirements currently 
approved by OMB under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

Information pertaining to the 
requirement to be submitted: 

1. The title of the information 
collection: 10 CFR Part 75—Safeguards 
on Nuclear Material—Implementation of 
US/IAEA Agreement. 

2. Current OMB approval number: 
3150-0055. 

3. How often the collection is 
required: Installation information is 
submitted upon written notification 
firom the Commission. Changes are 
submitted as occurring. Nuclear 
Material accoimting and control 
information is submitted in accordance 
wdth specified instructions. 

4. Who is required or asked to report: 
All persons licensed or certified by the 
Commission or Agreement States to 
possess source or special nuclear 
material 9 t an installation specified on 
the U. S. eligible list as determined by 
the Secretary of State or his designee 
and filed with the Commission, as well 
as holders of construction permits and 
persons who intend to receive sotirce 
material. 

5. The number of aimual respondents: 
5 recordkeepers. There are no reporting 
respondents because the IAEA is 
currently not selecting NRC-licensed 
facilities for inspection. 

6. The number of hoiu^ needed 
annually to complete the requirement or 
request: 4,000 (800 hours each for 5 
recordkeepers). 

7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 75 establishes 
a system of nuclear material accoimting 
and control to implement the agreement 
between the United States and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA). Under that agreement, NRC is 
required to collect the information and 
m^e it available to the IAEA. This 
submittal will reflect a reduction in 
burden because the IAEA is currently 
not selecting NRC-licensed facilities for 
inspection. 

Submit comments that address the 
following by December 26,1995: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 
information necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the 
NRC, including whether the information 
will have practical utility? 

2. Is the estimate of biuden accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected? 





54886 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


4. How can the burden of the 
collection of information be minimized, 
including the use of automated 
collection techniques? 

A copy of the draft supporting 
statement may be viewed free of charge 
at the NRC Public Document Room, 

2120 L Street NW, (lower level), 
Washington, DC. Members of the public 
who are in the Washington, DC, area can 
access this dociunent via modem within 
30 days of the signature date of this 
notice on the Public Document Room 
Bulletin Board (NRC’s Advance Copy 
Document Library), NRC subsystem on 
FedWorld at 703-321-3339. Members of 
the public who are located outside of 
the Washington, DC, area can dial 
FedWorld, 800-303-9672, or use the 
FedWorld Internet address: 
fedworld.gov (Telnet). If assistance is 
needed in accessing the document, 
please contact the FedWorld help desk 
at 703-487-4608. 

Comments and questions may be 
directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, T-6 F33, 
Washington DC, 20555-0001, or by 
telephone at (301) 415-7233, or by 
Internet electronic mail at bjsl@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 
of October, 1995. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Gerald F. Cranford, 

Designated Senior Official for Information 
Resources Management. 

(FR Doc. 95-26563 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
aaxMQ coo€ tsm-oi-p 


Documents Containing Reporting or 
Recordkeeping Requirements; Notice 
of Pending Submittai to the Office of 
Management and Budget (0MB) for 
Review 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to 
submit an information collection 
request to 0MB and solicitation of 
public comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a 
submittal to 0MB for review or 
continued approval of information 
collections under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

Information pertaining to the 
requirement to be submitted: 

1. The title of the information 
collection: 10 CFR Part 52, “Early Site 
Permits; Standard Design Certifications; 
and Combined Licenses for Nuclear 
Power Plants.” 

2. Current OMB approval number: 
3150-0151. 


3. How often the collection is 
required: On occasion and every 10 to 
20 years for applications for renewal. 

4. Who is required or asked to report: 
Designers of commercial nuclear power 
plants, electric power utilities, and any 
person eligible under the Atomic Energy 
Act to apply for a construction permit 
for a nuclear power plant. 

5. The nuinber of annual respondents: 
Two applications for design certification 
will be imder review dvuing the next 
thre^ears. 

6. The number of hours needed 
annually to complete the requirement or 
request: Approximately 65,333 hours 
per year for both applications in 
addition to the burden associated with 
10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 73 and 100 
(approved by OMB under Clearance 
Nos. 3150-0014, 3150-0011, 3150- 
0002, and 3150-0093, respectively). 

7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 52 establishes 
requirements for the granting of early 
site permits, certifications of standard 
nuclear power plant designs, and 
licenses which combine in a single 
license a construction permit and an 
operating license with conditions 
(combined licenses). Part 52 also 
establishes requirements for renewal of 
these permits, certifications, and 
licenses; amendments to them; 
exemptions from certifications; and 
variances from early site permits. 

NRC uses the information collected to 
assess the adequacy and suitability of an 
applicant’s site, plant design, 
construction, training and experience, 
and plans and procedures for the 
protection of the public health and 
safety. The NRC review of such 
information and the findings derived 
from that information form the basis of 
NRC decisions and actions concerning 
the issuance, modification, or 
revocation of site permits, design 
certifications, and combined licenses for 
nuclear power plants. 

Submit by December 26,1995 
comments that address the following 
questions: 

. 1. Is the proposed collection of 
information necessary for the NRC to 
properly perform its functions? Does the 
information have practical utility? 

2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 
collection of information be minimized, 
including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology? 

A copy of the draft supporting 
statement may be viewed fi'ee of charge 
at the NRC Public Document Room, 
2120 L Street, NW (lower level). 


Washington, DC. Members of the public 
who are in the Washington, DC, area can 
access this document via modem on the 
Public Dociunent Room Bulletin Board 
(NRC’s Advanced Copy Dociunent 
Library), NRC subsystem at FedWorld, 
703-321-3339. Members of the public 
who are located outside of the 
Washington, DC, area can dial 
FedWorld, 1-800-303-9672, or use the 
FedWorld Internet address: 
fedworld.gov (Telnet). The document 
will be available on the bulletin board 
for 30 days after the signature date of 
this notice. If assistance is needed in 
accessing the document, please contact 
the FedWorld help desk at 703-487- 
4608. 

Comments and questions may be 
directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, T-6 F33, 
Washington, DC, 20555-0001, or by 
telephone at (301) 415-7233, or by 
Internet electronic mail at 
BJS1@NRC.GOV. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 
of October, 1995. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Gerald F. Cranford, 

Designated Senior Official for Information 
Resources Management 
[FR Doc. 95-26564 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNO CODE 7S«M)1-P 


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34-36400; File No. SR-Amex- 
95-14] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 
American Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order 
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule 
Change Relating to Permanent 
Approval of Its Pilot Program That 
Permits Specialists to Grant Stops in a 
Minimum Fractional Change Market 

October 20,1995. 

I. Introduction 

On March 23,1995, the American 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Amex” or 
“Exchange”) submitted to the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or 
“Commission”), pumuant to Section 
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 (“Act”) ^ and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,^ a proposed rule change to 
approve permanently amendments to 
Exchange Rule 109 that would permit 
specialists to stop stock in a minimum 
fractional change market. 

The proposea rule change was 
published for comment in Securities 


' 15 U.S.C. 788(b)(1). 
»17 CFR 240.19b-4. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54887 


Exchange Act Release No. 35909 (June 
28,1995), 60 FR 34562 (July 3,1995). 

No comments were received on the 
proposal.^ For the reasons discussed 
below, the Commission has^ecided to 
approve the Amex’s proposal. 

n. Description of Proposal 

The practice of stopping stock by 
specialists refers to a guarantee by a 
specialist that an order the specialist. 
receives will be executed at no worse a 
price than the contra side price in the 
market when the order was received, 
with the understanding that the order 
may obtain a better price. Prior to the 
proposed rule change. Exchange Rule 
109(c) permitted a specialist to stop 
stock only when the quota''m spread 
was at least tvdce the permuted 
minimum hactional change in the stock 
(i.e., for most stocks V* point), with the 
specialist then being required to narrow 
the quotation spread by making a bid or 
offer, as appropriate, on behalf of the 
order that is stopped. 

In April 1992, the Commission 
approved on a pilot basis * amendments 
to Exchange Rule 109 that permitted a 
specialist to stop stock in a minimum 
fractional change market.^ The 
Commission has subsequently extended 
the Exchange’s pilot program several 


3 The Commission has received three conunent 
letters opposing the New York Stock Exchange’s 
proposal for permanent approval of the NYSE’s 
procedures for stopping stock in minimum 
variation markets, two of which were from the same 
commenter (Junius Peake). See letter from Junius 
W. Peake, Monfort Professor of Finance, University 
of Northern Colorado, to Secretary, SEC, dated 
March 1,1995; letter from Junius W. Peake, Monfort 
Professor of Finance, University of Northern 
Colorado, to Secretary, SEC, dated July 21,1995; 
letter from Morris Mendelson, Professor Emeritus of 
Finance, The Wharton School of the University of 
Pennsylvania, to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, SEC, 
dated August 2,1995. Because the NYSE’s 
procedures are identical to those of the Amex, 
issues raised in the comment letters apply equally 
to both rule proposals. The comment letters and the 
NYSE’s response to Junius Peake’s first comment 
letter are summarized in the Commission’s order. In 
addition, the Commission’s discussion in the NYSE 
order is applicable to this order. See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 36399 (Oct. 20.1995] 
(permanently approving NYSE’s pilot program for 
stopping stock in minimum variation markets); see 
also letter from James Buck, Senior Vice President 
and Secretary, NYSE, to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, 
SEC, dated July 17,1995. 

* See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30603 
(Apr. 17,1992), 57 FR 15340 (Apr. 27,1992) (File 
No. SR-Amex-91-05) (“1992 Approval Order”). 

^ Amex Rule 127 sets forth the minimum 
fractional changes for securities traded on the 
Exchange. This Rule provides that the minimum 
fractional change for dealings in securities shall be 
as follows: securities selling under $5.00 and above 
Va of $1.00, Vis of $1.00 per share; under Vs of 
$1.00, 'hi of $1.00 per share; and at $5.00 and over, 
Vs of $1.00 per share. This Rule also provides that 
the Exchange may fix different minimum fractional 
changes for dealings in securities. 


times without any modifications.® The 
most recent extensio i of the pilot 
program is scheduled to expire on 
October 21.1995. 

The pilot program amends Rule 109 to 
permit a specialist, upon request, to stop 
individual orders of 2,000 shares or less, 
up to an aggregate total of 5,000 shares 
for all stopped orders (i.e., multiple 
orders) in minimum fractional change 
markets. A specialist may stop an order 
of a specified larger order size 
threshold, or a larger aggregate number 
of shares after obtaining Floor Official 
approval. For a specialist to stop an 
order in a minimmn fractional change 
market, there must be a significant 
disparity between the bid and ask size 
(on the opposite side of the market from 
\he order being stopped) that suggests 
the likelihood of price improvement.^ In 
the 1992 Approval.Order, first 
approving the pilot, the Commission 
noted that a large imbalance on the 
opposite side of the market would help 
ensme that stops in a minimum 
fractional change market occur only 
when the likelihood of the benefits to 
the customer’s order being stopped far 
exceeds the possibility of harm to 
customers’ orders on the limit order 
hook.® 

Under these limited circumstances, 
the pilot permitted a specialist to stop 
a buy (sell) order at the market upon 
request and guarantee that the order will 
receive no worse than the best then- 
prevailing offer (bid) price. The 
specialist would then increase the bid 
(offer) size to reflect the stopped order.® 
If the pre-existing voliune at the bid 
(offer) is exhausted and a seller (buyer) 
hits the bid (offer) made on behalf of the 
stopped order, the buyer’s (seller’s) 
stopped order would obtain price 
improvement. If, however, before that 


e See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 32185 
(Apr. 21,1993), 58 FR 25681 (Apr. 27,1993) (File 
No. SR-Amex-93-10) (“April 1993 Approval 
Order”); 32664 Quly 21,1993) 58 FR 40171 (July 
27,1993) (File No. SR-Amex-93-22) (“July 1993 
Approval Order”); 33791 (Mar. 21,1994), 59 FR 
14432 (Mar. 28,1994) (File No. SR-Amex-93-47) 
(“1994 Approval Order”); 35310 (Jan. 31,1995), 60 
FR 7236 (Feb. 7,1995) (File No. SR-Amex-95-01) 
(“January 1995 Approval Order”); 36010 (July 21, 
1995), 60 FR 38869 (July 28,1995) (“July 1995 
Approval OrderJ. 

^ See letter from Claire P. McGrath, Senior 
Counsel, Legal & Regulatory Policy Division, Amex, 
to Mary Revell, Branch Chief, Division of Market 
Regulation, SEC, dated January 6,1992; 1992 
Approval Order, supra note 4; Amex Information 
Circular Nos. 92-74 (Apr. 24.1992) and 93-333 
(Apr. 7,1993). 

® The 1992 Approval Order also noted Amox’s 
representation and the Commission’s understanding 
that specialists would not routinely use such 
procedures. 

®The stopped order would be placed behind the 
existing limit orders at the bid (offer) for priority 
purposes. 


event occurs another buyer’s (seller’s) 
order is executed at the offer (bid), then 
the specialist will execute the stopped 
order at the stopped price. 

In the orders approving the pilot 
procedures, the Commission requested 
that the Exchange study the effects of 
stopping stock in minimum fractional 
change markets and collect certain data 
to allow the Commission to evaluate 
fairly and comprehensively the pilot 
program.^® The Exchange has submitted 
to the Commission several monitoring 
reports regarding the amendments to 
Rule 109, with the latest report 
submitted on January 1995. The 
(Dommission then approved an 
extension of the pilot until October 21, 
1995, so that the dkimmission would 
have additional time to evaluate the 
information provided in the monitoring 
reports, especially in the latest report, 
and to ensure that Rule 109, as 
amended, provides a benefit to investors 
through the possibility of price 
improvement to customers whose orders 
are granted stops in minimiun fractional 
change markets while not imduly 
harming public customer limit orders on 
the specialist book. 

III. Discussion 

After careful consideration, the 
Commission has determined to approve 
permanently the proposed rule change. 
For the reasons discussed below, the 
Commission finds that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with the 
requirements of the Act and 1;he rules 
and regulations thereunder applicable to 
a national securities exchange, and, in 
particular, with Section 6(b)(5) and 
Section 11(b) of the Act. 

Historically, the Commission has had 
mixed reactions about the practice of 
stopping stock. The 1963 Report of the 
Special Study of the Securities Markets 
found that unexecuted customer limit 
orders on the specialist’s book might be 
by passed by the stopped orders.'® The 
Commission, nevertheless, has allowed 
the practice of stopping stock in markets 
where the spread is at least tvrice the 
permitted minimum fractional change 
in the stock because the possible harm 
to orders on the book is offset by the 


'"'See supra notes 4 and 6. 

” 15 U.S.C. 78f. 

'215U.S.C. 78k. 

See SEC, Report of the Special Study of 
Securities Markets of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, H.R. Doc. No. 95,88th Cong., 1st 
Sess., Pt. 2 (1963) (“Special Study”). 

When stock is stopped, limit book orders on the 
opposite side of the market do not receive an 
immediate execution. Consequently, if the stopped 
order then receives an improved price, limit orders 
at the stop price are bypassed and, if the market 
turns away from that limit, may never be executed. 





54888 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


reduced spread that residts and the 
possibility of price improvement. 

Althou^ the procedures for stopping 
stock in minimum fractional change 
markets do not reduce the spread 
between the quotes, the Commission has 
allowed, on a pilot basis, the practice in 
limited circumstances where there is a 
substantial imbalance on the opposite 
side of the market horn the order being 
stopped. This limitation is intended to 
assure that specialists would stop stock 
in minimum fractional change markets 
only in situations where the likelihood 
of price improvement outweighs the 
possibility that contra-side limit orders 
would be bypassed.'^ Moreover, the 
order size restrictions would act to 
ensure that most stops are granted to 
public customers with small orders, 
whose orders could most benefit fix)m 
the professional handling by specialists. 
In addition, limiting the total stops to 
5,000 shares is intended to ensure that 
the amount of stopped stock does not 
become so large that there would, in 
effect, cease, to be an imbalance on the 
opposite side of the market from the 
order being stopped, [i.e, less likelihood 
of price improvement for the stopped 
orders). Finally, although the spread 
cannot be reduced by stopping stock in 
minimum fractional change markets, 
specialists must change the quoted bid 
or offer size to reflect the size of the 
order being stopped. This should ensure 
that the stopped stock will be shown in 
the quote. 

To examine whether specialist have 
been usingjhe pilot program as 
intended, the Commission had asked 
the Exchange to provide data on the 
stopping stock program in a minimiun 
fractional change market. The 
Exchange has submitted to the 
Commission several monitoring reports 
regarding the amendments to Rule 109. 
The Commission believes that the 
monitoring reports, especially the latest 
monitoring report, provide useful 
information regarding the effectiveness 
of the program during the pilot period. 

Specifically, accoraing to the Amex’s 
latest report, approximately half of 
eligible orders (i.e., orders for 2,000 
shares or less) stopped in minimum 
fractional change markets received price 
improvement. Moreover, according to 
the Amex report, stops in minimum 


As for limit book orders on the same side of 
the market as the stopped stock, the Commission 
believes that Rule 109’s requirentents make it 
unlikely that these limit orders would not be 
execute. Under the Amex pilot program, an order 
can be stopped only if a substantial imbalance 
exists on the opposite side of the market. In those 
circumstances, Uie stock would probably trade 
away from the large imbalance, resulting in 
execution of orders on the limit order brolL 
See supra notes 4 and 6. 


fractional change markets generally 
have been granted when there was a 
significant disparity (in both absolute 
and relative terms) between the number 
of shares bid for and the number 
offered. In particular, the report notes 
that the ratio between the quotes (j.e., 
disparity between the bid and ask size 
on the opposite side of the market from 
the order being stopped) when orders 
were stopped was approximately 3 to 1. 
The Exchange also reports between 37% 
^d 65% of the limit orders on the 
opposite side of the market from all 
market orders stopped in a minimum 
fi^ctional change market were executed 
by the end of the day.^® Moreover, based 
on the one-day review of the ten stocks 
receiving the greatest number of stops, 
the Amex foimd that 92% of the shares 
on the opposite side of the market at the 
time the stop was granted was executed 
by the close of the day’s trading. Finally, 
with respect to Floor Official approval 
of waivers to the numerical limitations, 
the Exchange reports that a very high 
percentage of orders requiring Floor 
Official approval received such an 
approval. 

■iTie Commission, therefore, believes 
that the data on stopping stock in 
minimiim fi'actional change markets 
show that the pilot has operated as 
intended and should be approved 
permanently.'^ 

In addition to a determination that the 
Amex proposal is consistent with 
Section 6 of the Act, the Commission 
also believes that the proposal is 
consistent with the prohibition in 
Section 11(b) against providing 
discretion to a specialist in the handling 
of an order.'® Section 11(b) was 
designed, in part, to address potential 
conflicts of interest that may arise as a 
result of the specialist’s dual role as 
agent and principal in executing stock 
transactions. In particular. Congress 
intended to prevent specialists from 
unduly influencing market trends 
through their knowledge of market 
interest firom the specialist’s book and 
their handling of discretionary agency 


'^The percentages depended upon whether the 
stocks have been phased into the Exchange's 
electronic display book. For stocks in which the 
electronic display book had been implemented, the 
Exchange was able to monitor the limit orders on 
the opposite side of the market from the market 
orders stopped in minimum fractional change 
market. For other stocks, the Amex determined how 
often an equivalent volume [i.e., the same number 
of shares as the stopped order] was executed on the 
opposite side’s limit price by the close of the day’s 
trading. - 

Cf. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36399 
n.24 fOct. 20,1995) (permanently approving 
NYSE’s pilot procedures for stopping stock in 
minimum variation markets). 

'"‘Section 11(b) permits a specialist to accept only 
market or limit orders. 


orders.'® The Commission has stated 
that, pursuant to Section 11(b), all 
orders other than market or limit orders 
are discretionary and therefore cannot 
be accepted ^y specialists. 2 ° 

As previously noted in the 1992 
Approval Order, the Commission 
believes that it is appropriate to treat 
stopped orders, even those under the 
pilot procedures, as equivalent to limit 
orders. The Amex’s rules define a limit 
order as an order to buy or sell a stated 
amount of a security at a specified price, 
or at a better price if obtainable.^' The 
Commission believes that stopped 
orders are equivalent to limit orders, in 
this instance, because the orders would 
be automatically elected at the best bid 
or offer, or better if obtainable. Although 
' the proposed amendments permit the 
specialist to employ his judgment to 
some extent, the Commission believes 
that the requirements imposed on the 
specialist for granting stops in minimum 
fi'actional change markets provide 
sufficient stringent guidelines to ensure 
that the specialist will only implement 
these provisions in a manner consistent 
with his market making duties and 
Section ll(b).22 
In permanently approving the 
stopping stock procedures for minimum 
fi'actional change markets, the 
Commission is relying on three aspects 
of the program and expects the Amex to 
reiterate these requirements in an 
Information Circular to members. First 
the Commission continues to believe 
that the requirement of a sufficient 
market imbalance is important to the 
proper application of the program. This 
requirement should help the Amex 
ensure that stops are only granted in a 
minimum fractional change market 
when the benefit [i.e., price 
improvement) to orders being stopped 
far exceeds the potential for harm to 
orders on the specialist’s book. Second, 
the Commission expects the Amex to 
take appropriate action in response to 
any instance of specialist non- 
compliance with the stopping stock 
procedures in minimum fractional 
change markets. Third, the Commission 
emphasized that Floor Official approval 
of an increase in the size of the stopped 
order or stopping more than 5000 shares 
must not be routine. The Commission 


'^See H. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. 22, 
S. Rep. 792, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. 18 (1934). 

See Special Study, supra note 13. 

See Amex Rule 131(b). 

Moreover, stopped orders as “limit orders’’ 
would not bypass pre-existing limit orders on the 
same side of the market. Under the Amex’s 
procedures, specialists may not execute a stopped 
order before the limit order interest on the 
Exchange (at the same price as the stopped order) 
is exhausted. 





Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54889 


expects the Amex to monitor 
compliance with these aspects of the 
stopping stock program through its 
special surveillance procedures. 

IV. Conclusion 

It is tRerefore ordered, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,^^ that the 
proposed rule change (SR-Amex-95- 
14) is approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority.*^ 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26573 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M 


(Release No. 34-36390; International Series 
Release No. 872; File No. SR-CBOE-05- 
39] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule 
Change and Notice of Filing and Order 
Granting Accelerated Approval of 
Antendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule 
Change Relating to the Listing and 
Trading of Options and Long-Term 
Options on the CBOE Germany 25 
Index and Long-Term Options on a 
Reduced-Value CBOE Germany 25 
Index 

October 18,1995. 

I. Introducticm 

Chi August 4,1995, the Chicago Board 
Options ^change, Inc. (“CBOE” or 
“Exchange”) filed with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission 
(“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) * and Rule 
19b-4 thereunder,^ a proposal to list 
and trade on the Exchange cash-settled, 
European-style ^ stock index options on 
the Germany 25 Index. The Index is a 
capitalization-weighted index of 25 
German blue-chip equities listed on the 
Frankfurt Stock Exchange (“FSE”). The 
proposed rule change was published for 
comment and appeared in the Federal 
Register on August 28,1995.'* The 
CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to its 
proposal on October 13,1995.® No 


2315U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

17 CFR 200.30-3(aMl2). 

»15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l) (1988). 

»17 CFR 240.19b-4 (1994). 

^ European-style options may only be exercised 
during a specified period before the options expire. 

* See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36125 
(August 18.1995), 60 FR 44526. 

* Letter from Eileen Smith, Director, Product 
Development, Research Department, CBOE, to 
Michael Walinskas, Branch Chief, Office of Market 
Suptervision, Division of Market Regulation, 
Commission, dated October 13,1995 ("Amendment 


comments were received regarding the 
CBOE’s proposal. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

A. General 

The purpose of the proposed rule 
change is to permit the Exchange to list 
and trade cash-settled, European-style 
stock index options on the Germany 25 
Index. The Index is a capitalization- 
weighted index of 25 German blue-chip 
equities listed on the Frankfurt Stock 
Exchange (“FSE”). The Exchange 
represents that options on the Index will 
provide investors with a low-cost means 
of participating in the German economy 
and hedging against the risk of investing 
in that economy. 

B. Index Design 

The 25 stocks that comprise the 
Germany 25 Index were selected by the 
CBOE for their high market 
capitalization and high degree of 
liquidity. According to the Exchange, 
the Index stocks are drawn from a broad 
base of industries and are representative 
of the industrial composition of the 
German equity market. Specifically, the 
Index components are the top 25 
German stocks by market capitalization 
excluding: (1) Stocks with an average 
daily volume of less than 50,000 shares 
per day over the past six months; and 
(2) preferred stock of an issuer if that 
issuer also has publicly-traded common 
stock. The Index will be reviewed 
annually by that CBOE at the end of 
May each year and any composition 
changes resulting from that review will 
be implemented after the Jime 
expiration in that year. 

The Germany 25 Index is weighted by 
the capitalization (market value) of the 
component stocks. The capitalization of 
a particular stock in the Index is 
calculated by multiplying the listed 
shares (including common, preferred, 
and treasury shares) by the price of the 
stock.® 

On June -30,1995, the 25 stocks in the 
Index ranged in capitalization from DM 


No. 1”). In Amendment No. 1, the CBOE provides 
information regarding the industries represented in 
the Index, IBIS average daily trading volume, and 
dissemination. Amendment No. 1 also states that if 
the weight of any one industry group exceeds 50% 
of the total weight of the Index, the Exchange will 
immediately notify Commission staff; and diat the 
CBOE will not remove a comfxinent of the Index 
between annual reviews unless it becomes 
necessary (generally due to bankruptcy, delisting, 
takeover, or merger. Id. 

■The Commission notes that this varies from the 
method used to calculate the values of domestic 
capitalization-weighted indexes, such as the S&P 
100 Index. For such domestic indexes, values are 
determined based solely on the outstanding shares 
of common stock of each component in the indexes. 


3.656 billion (US$2,648 billion) ^ to DM 
51.642 billion (US$37,408 billion). The 
total capitalization of the stocks in the 
index on that date was DM 399.101 
billion (US$289,099 billion); the mean 
capitalization was DM 15.964 billion 
(US$11,564 billion) and the median 
capitalization was DM 11.144 billion 
(US$8,072 billion). The largest stock by 
capitalization (Allianz AG Holdings) 
accounted for 12.94% of the total » 
weighting of the Index, while the 
smallest (Kaufhof) accounted for 0.92%. 
The top five stocks accoimted for 
44.56% of the total weighting on that 
date. 

For the period from January 1,1995 
through June 30,1995, average daily 
volume in individual Germany 25 Index 
component stocks ranged firom a low of 
approximately 87,629 shares to a high of 
2.532 million shares traded per day, 
with a mean daily trading volume for all 
the stocks in the Index during that 
period of 523,501 shares traded per day. 

The Exchange represents that the 
Indr ’s composed of ten (10) broad 
indui,^ groupings, induing 
chemicals, automobile and insurance 
companies, among others, which reflect 
the industry composition of the German 
equity market. 

C. Calculation 

The CBOE states that the Germany 25 
Index will reflect changes in the 
capitalization of the component stocks 
relative to the capitdization on a base 
date. The base date for the Index is June 
30,1995, at which time the Index was 
given a value of 200 by the CBOE. The 
Index value of 200 was reached by 
multiplying the price of each stock by 
the number of listed shares (including 
common, preferred, and treasury),* 
obtaining the svun of these values of all 
component stocks, and then dividing by 
a divisor determined to give the Index 
a value of 200. The CBOE states that it 
will calculate and disseminate the 
Germany 25 Idex, based on the most 
recent closing prices of the component 
stocks as reported by the FSE, each day 
prior to the opening of trading in the 
United States.® It is anticipated that at 
least several information vendors will 
make this information available 
throughout the CBOE trading day. 

D. Maintenance 

The Index will be maintained and 
calculated by to Exchange. To maintain 
continuity of the Index, the Exchange 


^ The CBOE represents that the dollar values used 
herein are based on a German mark/U.S. dollar 
exchange rate of 1.3805 marks per U.S. dollar 
prevailing on |une 30,1995. 

■See supra note 6 and accompanying text. 

■ Amendment No. 1, supra note 5. 





54890 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


will adjust the Index to reflect certain 
events relating to the component stocks. 
For example, the Exchange will adjust 
the Index divisor to reflect cash 
dividends paid on the component 
securities.The Exchange will make this 
adjustment because German companies 
usually pay their dividends only once a 
year (generally in May or June). In not 
adjusted, the annual dividend payment 
jvould result in a significant drop in the 
Index value at the time when the 
dividends are paid. The divisor will be 
adjusted imm^iately prior to each ex- 
dividend date so that the Index level 
will not be affected by the dividend 
payment. A similar adjustment will be 
made when a company issues new 
shares for which the shareholders have 
preemptive rights, or when other intra¬ 
year events such as mergers and 
spinoffs, occur. 

Between annual reviews, CBOE will 
not remove a component of the Index 
\mless it becomes necessary as a result 
of significant and fundamental changes 
to such Index component. Generally, 
such a change would include 
bankruptcy, delisting from the FSE, 
takeover, or merger.^® In that case, the 
next eligible component will be added, 
f.e., the German security with the 
hipest market capitalization not then 
included in the Index that satisfies the 
criteria set forth above. 

E. Index Option Trading 

In addition to regular Index options, 
the Exchange may provide for the listing 
of long-term index option series 
(“LEAPS”) and reduced-value LEAPS 
on the Index (“Index LEAPS”). For 
reduced-value Index LEAPS, the 
underlying value will be computed at 
one-tenth of the Index level. The current 
and closing index value of reduced- 
value Index LEAPS will, after such 
initial computation, be rounded to the 
nearest one-hundredth. 

The trading hours for, options on the 
Index will be from 8:00 a.m. to 3:15 
p.m., Chicago time. Currently, the 
trading hours of the Exchange and the 
FSE do not overlap.*^ The Exchange, 
therefore, will calculate and disseminate 
the value of the Index based on the most 
recent closing prices of the component 
stocks as reported by the FSE. After the 
close of the FSE, however, trading 
continues in the 25 stocks comprising 
the Index on the FSE’s Integrated Stock 
Exchange Trading and Information 
System (“IBIS”).^^ -rhe trading hours of 


■*“ Amendment No. 1, supra note 5. 

"The FSE’s trading hours are from 10:30 a.m. to 
1:30 pjm., Frankfurt time (3:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., 
Chicago time). 

According to the Exchange, the Deutsche Borse 
AG, the holding company for the FSE, states that 


IBIS and the Exchange currently overlap 
for the two hour period between 8 a.m. 
and 10 a.m., Chicago time. During this 
two hour period, the Exchange will 
continuously calculate and disseminate 
every 15 seconds an “indicative” 
Germany 25 Index level based on the 
most recent prices of the component 
stocks as reported by BBIS.^® When 
Trading on IBIS has concluded (10 a.m. 
Chicago time), the Exchange will 
disseminate the last “indicative” Index 
level. To avoid any confusion, the 
“indicative” Index level will have a 
diflerent ticker symbol from the actual 
Index level. 

The option premium values will be 
quoted in U.S. dollars and trading 
accounts vtdll be denominated in U.S. 
dollars. For strike prices under $200, the 
Exchange reserves the right to list series 
in 2 V 2 point intervals. 

F. Surveillance 

The Exchange expects to apply its 
existing index options surveillance 
procedures to Index options. In 
addition, the CBOE states that the 
German legislature recently adopted 
new laws regarding insider trading that 
also provide for the creation of an 
independent regulatory authority. The 
Exchmge imderstands that these 
developments will facilitate the 
effective coordination between the 
Commission and the appropriate 
German regulatory authority of option 
trading on the (^rmany 25 Index 
because they will enhance the 
surveillance of trading in the stocks 
comprising the Index. In addition, the 
Exchange will continue to pursue its 
own independent agreement with the 
Deutsche Borse AG (the holding 
company that owns the FSE) and/or the 
FSE.« 

G. Exercise and Settlement 

The proposed options on the Index 
will expire on the Saturday following 
the third Friday of the expiration 


IBIS is a screen-based trading and information 
system that is available for trading from 8:30 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m., Frankfurt time (1:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 
Chicago time). The CBOE represents that IBIS, as 
part of the FSE, is subject to the same rules and 
regulations as floor trading on the FSE. According 
to the Exchange, IBIS began operating in April, 

1991. 

’^Amendment No. 1, supra note 5. The Exchange 
intends to calculate the “indicative” Index with the 
same method of calculation as described above for 
the actual Index. 

'*The Commission notes that this new regulatory 
body, the Bundesaufsichtsamt fur den 
Wertpapierhandel, was established in January 1995. 

IS Telephone conversation between Eileen Smith, 
Director, Product Development, Research 
Department, CBOE, and Brad Ritter, Senior 
Counsel, OfHce of Market Supervision, Division, 
Con^ssion, on August 8,1995. 


month. The Exchange intends to list up 
to three near-term calendar months' and 
three additional months at three month 
intervals.^® Trading in the expiring 
contract month will normally cease at 
3:15 p.m. (Chicago time) on the . 
immediately preceding Thursday, 
unless a holiday occurs. The exercise 
settlement value of the Index at option 
expiration will be calculated by the 
Exchange on the day following the last 
day of trading in the expiring contracts. 
The exercise settlement value of Index 
options at expiration will be determined 
at the close of the regular Friday trading 
sessions at the FSE in Germany, 
ordinarily at 1:30 p.m., Frankfurt time 
(6:30 a.m., Chicago time), i.e., values of 
component stocl^ disseminated through 
IBIS will not be used in calculating the 
settlement values for Index options or 
Index LEAPS.^^ If an Index stock does 
not open for trading at the FSE, the last 
available price on ^e FSE of the stock 
will be used in the calculation of the 
value of the Index. When expirations are 
moved in accordance with Exchange 
holidays, such as when the CBOE is 
closed on the Friday before expiration, 
the last trading day for expiring options 
will be Wednesday and the exercise 
settlement value of Index options at 
expiration will be determined at the 
close of the regular Thursday trading 
sessions at the FSE in C^rmany even if 
the FSE is open on Friday. If the FSE 
will be closed on the Friday before 
expiration but the CBOE will not, the 
last trading day for expiring Index 
options and Index LEAPS will be 
Wednesday.^® 

H. Position Umits 

The Exchange proposes to establish 
position limits for options on the Index 
of 50,000 contracts on either side of the 
market, with no more than 30,000 
contracts in the series with the nearest • 
expiration month. The Exchange 
represents that these limits are roughly 
equivalent, in dollar terms, to the limits 
applicable to options on other approved 
broad-based indexes. For purposes of 
determining whether given position in 
full-value and reduced-value Index 
LEAPS comply with applicable position 
and exercise limits, positions in full- 
value and reduced-value Index LEAPS 


'^Telephone Conversation between Scott Lyden, 
Senior Research Analyst, CBOE, and Francois 
Mazur, Attorney, Office of market Supervision, 
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on 
October 17,1995 (“October 17 Telephone 
Conversation”). 

"Jd. 

'^In this circumstance, the CBOE will issue a 
notice to members informing them that the last 
trading day for Index options and Index LEAPS will 
be on Wednesday even though the CBOE will be 
open on expiration Friday. Id. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. i07 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54891 


will be aggregated with positions in the 
regular Index options. For these 
purposes, ten reduced-value contracts 
will equal one full-value contract. 

/. Exchange Rules Applicable 

Except as modified herein, the rules 
in Chapter XXIV of the CBOE’s rules 
applicable to other broad-based index 
options will be applicable to Germany 
25 Index options, including Index 
LEAPS for purposes of trading rotations, 
halts and suspensions, and margin 
treatment. 

The Exchange states that it has the 
necessary systems capacity to support 
new series that would result from the 
introduction of Germany 25 Index 
options. The CBOE also states that it has 
been informed that the Options Price 
Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) has the 
capacity to support such new series.^® 

m. Discussion 

The Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change is consistent with 
the requirements of the Act and the 
rules and regulations thereunder 
applicable to a national securities 
exchange, and, in particular, the 
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the 
Act. The Commission finds that the 
trading of options on the Index will 
permit investors to participate in the 
price movements of the 25 Germem 
equity securities on which the Index is 
based. The Commission also believes 
that the trading of options on the Index 
will allow investors holding positions in 
some or all of the securities underlying 
the Index to hedge the risks associated 
with their portfolios. Accordingly, the 
Commission believes that Germany 25 
Index options will provide investors 
with an important trading and hedging 
mechanism that should reflect 
accurately the overall movement of 
German equity securities. By broadening 
the hedging and investment 
opportunities of investors, the 
Commission believes that the trading of 
Index options will serve to protect 
investors, promote the public interest, 
and contribute to the maintenance of 
fair and orderly markets.^i 


'■See Letter from Joe Corrigan, Executive 
Director, OPRA, to Eileen Smith, Director, Product 
Development, Research Department, CBOE, dated 
November 21,1994 (“OPRA Letter”). 

“15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) (1988). 

Pursuant to Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, the 
Commission must predicate approval of any new 
option or warrant proposal upon a finding that the 
introduction of such new derivative instrument is 
in the public interest. Such a finding would be 
difiicult for a derivative instrument that served no 
hedging or other economic function, because any 
benefits that might be derived by market 
participants likely would-be outweighed by the 
potential for manipulation, diminished public 
confidence in the integrity of the markets, and other 


The trading of Germany 25 Index 
options, however, raises several issues, 
including issues related to index design, 
customer protection, surveillance, and 
market impact. For the reasons 
discussed below, the Commission 
believes that the CBOE has adequately 
addressed these issues. 

A. Index Design and Structure 

The Commission finds that it is 
appropriate and consistent with the Act 
to classify the Index as broad-based, and 
therefore to permit Exchange rules 
applicable to the trading of broad-based 
index options to apply to Index 
options.22 First, the Index consists of 25 
actively traded German securities. 
Second, the total capitalization of the 
Index, as of June 30,1995, was 
US$399,101 billion, with the market 
values of the individual stocks in the 
Index ranging from a high of US$37,408 
billion to a low of US$2,648 billion, 
with a median value of US$8,072 
billion. Third, the Index reflects the 
various sectors of the Carman equities 
market, and includes stocks of 
companies from a broad range of 
industries, and no industry segment 
comprises more than 20% of the Index’s 
total value.23 Fourth, as of June 30, 

1995, no single stock comprised more 
than 12.94% of the Index’s total value, 
and the percentage weighting of the five 
largest issues in the Index accounted for 
oYily 44.56% of the Index. Fifth, the 
Index selection and maintenance 
criteria will serve to ensure that the 
Index continues to reflect the 25 most 
highly capitalized German stocks. 
Accordingly, the Commission believes it 
is appropriate to classify the Index as 
broad-based. 

The Commission believes that the 
general broad diversification of the 
Index component stocks, as well as their 
high capitalizations and liquid markets, 
significantly minimize the potential for 
manipulation of the Index. First, as 
discussed above, the Index represents a 


valid regulatory concerns. In this regard, the trading 
of listed options or warrants on the Index will 
provide investors with a hedging vehicle that 
should reflect the overall movement of the German 
equity market. The Commission also believes that 
these options will provide investors with a means 
by which to mqk^ investment decisions in the 
German equity market, allowing them to establish 
positions or increase existing positions in German 
stocks in a cost effective manner. 

■■In addition, the basic character of the reduced- 
value Germany 25 Index, which is comprised of the 
same component securities as the Germany 25 
Index, and calculated by dividing the Germany 25 
Index by ten, is essentially identical to the Germany 
25 Index. 

■■See supra Section II.B. The Exchange has stated 
that if at any time the weight of any one industry 
group exceeds 50% of the total weight of the Index, 
it will notify Commission stafi immediately. 
Amendment No. 1, supra note 5. 


broad cross-section of highly capitalized 
(German stocks, with no single industry 
group or stock dominating the Index. 
Second, the stocks that comprise the 
Index are actively traded,*^ Third, the 
Commission believes that the Index 
selection and maintenance criteria will 
serve to enstire that the Index continues 
to represent stocks with high 
capitalizations and trading volumes. 
Fourth, the Exchange has proposed 
position and exercise limits for the 
Index options that are consistent with 
other broad-based index options. 
Accordingly, the Commission believes it 
is unlikely that attempted 
manipulations of the prices of the Index 
components would affect significantly 
the Index’s value. 

In addition, because only one of the 
Index component stocks is traded in the 
United States as a National Market 
System security,25 and the primary 
market for component stocks is closed 
throughout the CBOE’s trading day, the 
Commission believes it is reasonable 
and appropriate for the Exchange to 
begin trading Index options at 8 a.m. 
(Chicago Time). 

B. Customer Protection 

The Commission believes that a 
regulatory system designed to protect 
public customers must be in place 
before the trading of sophisticated 
financial instruments, such as Index 
options (including full-value and 
reduced value Index LEAPS), can 
commence on a national securities 
exchange. The Commission notes that 
the trading of standardized exchange- 
traded options occurs in an 
environment that is designed to ensure, 
among other things, that: (1) the special 
risks of options are disclosed to public 
customers; (2) only investors capable of 
evaluating and bearing the risk of 
options trading are engaged in such 
trading; and (3) special compliance 
procedures are applicable to options 
accounts. Accordingly, because the 
Index options and Index LEAPS will be 
subject to the same regulatory regime as 
the other standardized options traded 
on the dBOE, the Commission believes 
that adequate safeguards are in place to 
ensure the protection of investors in 
Index options and Index LEAPS. 

C. Surveillance 

As a general matter, the Commission 
believes that comprehensive 
surveillance sharing agreements 
between the relevant foreign and 


■'* See supra Section II.B. 

■■Currently, Daimler-Benz AG is traded in the 
United States as an American Depositary Receipt. 
October 17 Telephone Conversation, supra note 16. 




54892 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


domestic exchanges are important 
where an index derivative product 
comprised of foreign securities is to be 
traded in the United States. 2 ® In most 
cases, in the absence of such a 
comprehensive surveillance sharing 
agreement, the Commission believes 
that it would not be possible to 
conclude that a derivative product, such 
as a Germany 25 Index option, was not 
readily susceptible to manipulation. 

With regard to the CBOE proposal, the 
Commission imderstands that the CBOE 
has been attempting to secure such a 
siuveillance sharing agreement with the 
relevant German market.^^ The 
Commission would prefer that a 
comprehensive surveillance agreement 
be in place, and believes that such 
agreements play a particularly 
important role in ensuring the integrity 
of global securities markets. Even in the 
absence of an agreement, however, the 
Commission does not believe that the 
Exchange’s prop>osal should continue to 
be detained pending the conclusion of 
negotiations when an alternative with 
respect to obtaining surveillance 
information exists for the Germany 25 
Index products. Specifically, the U.S. 
Department of State and the German 
Foreign Office have exchanged 
Diplomatic Notes that provide a 
framework for mutual assistance in 
investigatory and regulatory matters 
(“Diplomatic Notes”).^® The Diplomatic 
Notes confirm that the Commission is 
qualified to obtain assistance through 
the German Ministry of Justice imder 
German law. Based on the existence of 
the Diplomatic Notes, the Commission 
believes that the German govenunental 
authorities are committed to assistance 
in addressing cross-border fraud. In 
addition, the Commission could obtain 
from the German Ministry of Justice 
(and vice versa) information similar to 
that which would be available in the 
event that a comprehensive surveillance 
sharing agreement were executed 
between the FSE and the CBOE with 
respect to transactions in FSE-traded 
sto^s related to Germany 25 Index 
options transactions on the CBOE.^® 
While this arrangement would certainly 


A comprehensive surveillance sharing 
agreement would allow the parties to the agreement 
to obtain relevant surveillance information, 
including, among other things, the identity of the 
purchasers and sellers of securities underlying the 
derivative product. 

27 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36070 
(August 9,1995), 60 FR 42205. 

^ See International Series Release No. 691,1994 
SEC LEXIS 2324 duly 22,1994). 

2* It is the Conunission’s expectation that this 
information would include transaction, clearing, 
and customer information necessary to conduct an 
investigation relating to trading of Index options or 
components of the Index. 


be enhanced by the existence of 
comprehensive surveillance sharing 
agreements, it is nonetheless consistent 
with other instances where the 
Commission has explored alternatives to 
direct exchange-to-exchange 
surveillance sharing agreements where 
the relevant foreign exchange was 
unwilling or unable to enter into a 
comprehensive surveillance sharing 
agreement. 30 

In addition, the Ckimmission notes 
that there are factors relating to the 
computation of the Germany 25 Index 
that further support reliance on 
arrangements other than direct 
exchange-to-exchange surveillance 
agreements. Specifically, the size of the 
market for the securities underlying the 
Germany 25 Index makes it less likely 
that the proposed Index warrants are 
readily susceptible to manipulation.^! 
For example, as of June 30.1995, the 
market capitaliz^ation of the securities in 
the Index ranged from a low of 
approximately U.S. $2,648 billion to a 
high of approximately U.S. $37,408 
billion, and the average trading voliune 
for individual Index component 
securities during the period from 
January 1995 to June 1995 ranged from 
a low of 87,629 shares per day to a high 
of over 2.5 million shares per day. 

The Commission continues to oelieve 
strongly that the existence of 
comprehensive surveillance sharing 
agreements between the appropriate 
Carman entity(ies) and the Exchange 
would be important measures to deter 
and detect potential manipulations or 
other improper or illegal trading 
involving Index options. Accordingly, 
the Commission urges the Exchange and 
the appropriate Carman entity(ies) to 
seek formal comprehensive surveillance 


!®See, e.g.. Letter to David R. Merrill, Deputy 
General Counsel, CFTC, firom Brandon Becker, 
Director, Division, Conunission, dated April 20, 

1994 (Conunission comment letter to the CFTC 
regarding the offer by the Osaka Securities 
Exchange of futures contracts based on the Nikkei 
300 Index to U.S. persons), and letter to Joanne T. 
Medero, General Counsel, CFTC, from William H. 
Heyman, Director, Division, Commission, dated 
January 16,1992 (Commission comment letter to 
the CFTC regarding the offers by the Osaka Stock 
Exchange and the Tokyo Stock Exchange of futures 
contracts based on the Nikkei 225 and TOPIX 
Indexes to U.S. persons). 

2’ In evaluating the manipulative potential of a 
prop>osed index derivative product, as H relates to 
the securities that comprise the index and the index 
product itself, the Commission has considered 
several factors, including, among others, (1) the 
number of securities contained in the index or 
group, (2) the capitalizations of those securities, (3) 
the depth and liquidity of the group or index. (4) 
the diversification of the group or index, (5) the 
manner in which the index or group is weighted, 
and (6) the ability to conduct surveillance on the 
product. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
31016 (August 11.1992), 57 FR 37012 (August 17, 
1992). 


sharing agreements as soon as 
practicable. 

D. Market Impact 

The Commission believes that the 
listing and trading of Germany 25 Index 
options on the CBOE will not adversely 
affect the underlying securities 
markets.32 First, as described above, the 
Index is broad-based and comprised of 
25 stocks with no one stock or industry 
group dominating the Index. Second, as 
noted above, the stocks contained in the 
Index all have large capitalizations and 
are actively traded. Third, existing 
CBOE sto<i index options rules and 
surveillance procedures will apply to 
C^rmany 25 Index options. Fourth, the 
position limits of 50,000 contracts on 
either side of the market, with no more 
than 30,000 of such contracts in a series 
in the nearest month expiration month, 
will serve to minimize potential 
manipulation and market impact 
concerns. Fifth, the risk to investors of 
contra-party non-performance will be 
minimized because the Index options 
will be issued cmd guaranteed by The 
Options Clearing Corporation just like 
any other standardized option traded in 
the United States. 

The Commission finds good cause for 
approving Amendment No. 1 prior to 
the thirtieth day after the date of 
publication of notice of filing thereof in 
the Federal Register. Specifically, 
Amendment No. 1 states that the CBOE 
will notify Commission staff if the 
weight of one industry group exceeds 
50% of the total weight of the Index. 
Amendment No. 1 also provides 
additional information regarding the 
composition, calculation, and 
dissemination of the Index. Finally, 
Amendment No. 1 clarifies when an 
Index component may be removed 
between annual reviews. The 
Commission believes that Amendment 
No. 1 serves to strengthen and clarify 
the Exchange’s original proposal, but 
does not represent a material change 
that raises regulatory concerns not 
already addressed by the original 
proposal. Accordingly, the Commission 
believes it is consistent with Sections 
6(b)(5) and 19(b)(2) of the Act tp 
approve Amendment No. 1 to the 
proposal on an accelerated basis. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 
submit written data, views, and 


22 The CBOE has stated that it has the necessary 
systems capacity to support new series that would 
result from the introduction of Germany 25 Index 
options. In addition, OPRA has represented that 
additional traffrc generated by options and LEAPS 
on theTndex is within OPRA’s capacity. OPRA 
Letter, supra note 19. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54893 


arguments concerning Amendment No. 

1. Persons making written submissions 
should file six copies thereof with the 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the 
submission, all subsequent 
amendments, all written statements 
with respect to the proposed rule 
change that are filed with the 
Commission, and all written 
communications relating to the 
proposed rule change between the 
Commission and any person, other than 
those that may be wit^eld ^m the 
public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 
available for inspection and copying in 
the Commission’s Public Reference 
Section, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of such 
filing will also be available for 
inspection and copying at the principal 
office of the CBOE. All submissions 
should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-95- 
39 and should be submitted by 
November 16,1995. 

V. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, the 
Commission finds that the proposal is 
consistent with the Act, and, in 
particular. Section 6 of the Act. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.^s that the 
proposed rule change (File No. SR- 
CBOE-95-39), as amended, is approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority.3^ 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26548 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 

BILLMO COOK a01»-01-« 

[Release No. 34-36401; File No. SR-CHX- 
05-10] 

Self'Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Stock Exchange, 

Incorporated; Order Granting Approval 
to Proposed Rule Change Relating to 
Permanent Approval of the Pilot 
Program for Stopped Orders in 
Minimum Variation Markets 

October 20,1995. 

I. Introduction 

On March 23,1995, the Chicago Stock 
Exchange, Incorporated (“CHX” or 
“Exchange”) submitted to the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or 
“Commission”), piusuant to Section 
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

”15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988). 

”17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1994). 


of 1934 (“Act”) * and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,2 a propKised rule change to 
approve permanmitly its stopping stock 
program in minimum variation markets. 

Ine proposed rule change was 
published for comment in Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 35910 (June 
28,1995), 60 FR 34563 (July 3,1995). 

No comments were received on the 
proposal.^ For the reasons discussed 
below, the Commission has decided to 
approve the CHX’s proposal. 

n. Description of Proposal 
Prior to 1992, CHX Rule 37, Article 
XX, required specialists, upon request, 
to grant a stop for Dual Trading System 
issues if an out of range ^ execution 
would result, regardless of the spread. 
Under this stopping stock policy, the 
specialists were required to execute 
stopped stock based on the next primary 
market sale. The Exchange’s purpose for 
stopping stock generally was to prevent 
orders ^m being executed outside the 
primary market range for the day (i.e., 
fit>m establishing a new high or new 
low).® 

»15 U.S.C 788(b)(1). 

»17CFR240.19b-4. 

>The Commission has received three comment 
letten opposing the New YoA Stock Exchange’s 
proposal for permanent approval of the NYSE’s 
proradures for stopping stock in minimum 
variation markets, tvro of which were from the same 
commenter Qunius Peake). See letter from ]unius 
W. Peake, Monfort Professor of Finance. University 
of Northern Colorado, to Secretary, SEC, dated 
March 1,1995; letter from funius W. Peake, Monfort 
Professor of Finance. University of Northern 
Colorado, to Secretary, SEC, dated )uly 21,1995; 
letter from Morris Mendelson, Professor Emeritus of 
Finance, the Wharton School of the University of 
Pennsylvania to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, SEC, 
dated August 2,1995. Although the NYSE’s 
procedures differ from those of CHX, certain issues 
raised in the comment letters apply equally to the 
CHX proposal. The comment letters and the NYSE’s 
response thereto are summarized in the 
Commission’s order. In addition, the Copunission’s 
discussion in the NYSE order is applicable to this 
order. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
36399 (Oct. 20,1995) (permanently approving 
NYSE’s pilot program for stopping stock in 
minimum variation markets); see also letter from 
James Buck, Senior Vice President and Secretary, 
NYSE, to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated July 
17,1995. 

*The Dual Trading System of the Exchange 
allows the execution of both round-lot and odd-lot 
orders in certain issues assigned to specialists on 
the Exchange and listed on either the New York 
Stock Exchange or the American Stock Exchange. 

’ “Out of range’’ means either higher or lower 
than the range in which the security traded on the 
primary market during a particular trading day. 

oPor example, assume the market in ABC stock 
is 20-20''A; 50x50 and that a buy order at Vb would 
be higher than the range in which the security 
traded on the primary market during the trading 
day. A customer places an order with the Exchange 
specialist to buy 100 shares of ABC at the market 
and a stop is effected. The order is stopped at 20'A 
and the ^change sptecialist includes the order in 
his quote by bidding the 100 shares at 20. If the next 
sale on the primary market is for 100 shares at 20, 
the Exchange’s existing general policy regarding 


This general stopping stock policy, 
however, produced an anomalous result 
in minimum variation markets.^ In a 
minimum variation market because the 
stopped market order did not have time 
or price priority, its execution triggered 
the requirement for the Exchange 
specialist to execute all pre-existing 
orders based on the Exchange’s rules of 
priority and precedence.® liaerefore, the 
specialists were required to execute the 
preexisting orders even if such orders 
were not otherwise entitled to be filled.® 

In January 1992, the Commission 
approved on a pilot basis the Exchange’s 
revised procedures for stopping orders 
in minimum variation markets that 
would prevent the anomalous 
consequence of requiring the execution 
of pre-existi^ orders that are not yet 
due a fill.'® Tne Commission 
subsequently extended the Exchange’s 
pilot program without modification." 
The most recent extension of the pilot 
program is scheduled to expire on 
October 21,1995. 

The pilot program adds interpretation 
and policy .03 to Rule 37, Article XX, 
to permit a specialist to delay execution 
of stopped stock in minimum variation 
markets until a volume equal to the pre- 

stopping stock MTOuld require the specialist to 
execute the stopped market order at 16. 

^ CF X Rule 22, Article XX sets forth the 
minln.am variations for stocks traded on the 
Exchange. The rule provides that bids or offers in 
stocks ^)ove $1.00 per share shall not be made at 
a less variation than Vb of $1.00 per share; in stocks 
below $1.00 but above $.50 per share, at a less 
fraction than /1/16 of $1.00 per share; in stocks 
below $.50 per share, at a less variation than 'Aa 
of $1.00 per share; provided that the Committee on 
•Floor Procedure may ffx variations of less than the 
above for bids and offers in specific securities or 
classes of securities. 

■ See CHX Rule 16. Article XX (Precedence of 
Bids at Same Price). 

•Under CHX Rule 37(a)(3), Article XX, the 
Exchange specialists are required to All orders at 
the limit price only if: (1) The bid or offering at the 
limit price has been exhausted in the primary 
market; (2) there has been a price penetration of the 
limit in the primary market; or (3) the issue is 
trading at the limit price on the primary market 
unless it can be demonstrated that such order 
would not have been executed if it had been 
transmitted to the primary market or the broker and 
specialist agree to a specifrc volume related or other 
criteria for requiring a All. 

'•See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30189 
Oan. 14.1992), 57 FR 2621 Oan. 22.1992) (File No. 
SR-MSE-91-10) (order approving MSE pilot 
program for stopped orders in minimum variation 
markets) (“1992 Approval Order”). 

'' See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 
31975, (Mar. 10.1993), 58 FR 14230 (Mar. 16,1993) 
(File No. SR-MSE-93-04) (“March 1993 Approval 
Order”); 32457 (June 11,1993), 58 FR 33681 (June 
18.1993) (File No. SR-MSE-93-14) (“June 1993 
Approval Order”); 33790 (Mar. 21,1994), 59 FR 
14434 (Mar. 28,1994) (File No. SR-MSE-93-30) 
(“1994 Approval Order”); 35431 (Mar. 1,1995), 60 
FR 12796 (Mar. 8.1995) (File No. SR-CHX-95-04) 
(“March 1995 Approval Order”); 36011 (July 21, 
1995), 60 FR 38874 (July 28,1995) (“July 1995 
Approval Order”). 





54894 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


existing volume ahead of the stopped 
order prints in the primary market. ^2 
Specifically, the specialist would be 
required to execute stopped market 
orders in minimum variation markets 
after (1) a transaction takes place on the 
primary market at the bid price (offering 
price) or lower (higher) for a stopped 
sell order (a stopped buy order) or (2) 
the displayed CHX share volume at the 
offering (or bid) has been exhausted. In 
no event would a stopped order be 
executed at a price inferior to the 
stopped price. All stopped orders 
must be executed by the end of the 
trading day. 

In the orders approving the pilot 
procedures, the Commission requested 
that the Exchange study the effects of 
stopping stock in minimum variation 
markets and collect certain data to allow 
the Commission to evaluate fairly and 
comprehensively the pilot program.i^ In 
the Commission’s 1994 Approval Order 
extending the pilot program until March 
21,1995, the Commission requested that 
the Exchange submit an additional 
monitoring report on the stopping stock 
pilot.i* CItt sub^uently submitted 
the monitoring report and the 
Conunission then approved an 
extension of the pilot until October 21, 
1995, so that the Commission would 
have additional time to evaluate the 
information provided by the Exchange 
and the CHX’s use of its pilot 
procedures. 

1 

m. Discussion 

After careful consideration, the 
Commission has determined to approve 
permanently the proposed rule change. 
For the reasons discussed below, the 
Conunission finds that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with the 
requirements of the Act and the rules 
and regulations thereunder applicable to 
a national securities exchange, £md, in 
particular, with Section 6(b)(5) and 
Section 11(b) of the Act. 

Historically, the Commission has had 
mixed reactions about the practice of 
stopping stock. The 1963 Report of the 


A stopped buy (sell) order would be placed 
behind the existing limit orders at the bid (offer) for 
priority purposes. 

'^Exchange Rule 28 (Article XX) states: 

An agreement by a member or menlber 
organization to “stop" securities at a specified price 
shall constitute a guarantee of the purchase or sale 
by him or it of the securities at the price or its 
equivalent in the amount specified. 

If an order is executed at a less favorable price 
than that agreed upon, the member or member 
organization which agreed to stop the securities 
shall be liable for an adjustment of the difference 
between the two prices. 

See supra notes 10-11. 

See 1994 approval Order, supra note 11. 

’“15U.S.C. 78f. 

"15U.S.C. 78k. 


Special Study of the Securities Markets 
foimd that unexecuted customer limit 
orders on the specialist's book might be 
bypassed by the stopped orders.'® The 
Commission, never^eless, has allowed 
the practice of stopping stock in markets 
where the spread is at least twice the 
minimum variation because the possible 
harm to orders on the book is offset by 
the reduced spread that results and the 
possibility of price improvement. 

Although the procedures for stopping 
stock in minimum variation markets do 
not reduce the spread between the 
quotes, the Commission has allowed, on 
a pilot basis, the practice on the 
Exchange in limited circumstances. The 
Exchange’s procedures for stopping 
stock in minimum variation markets 
were intended to assist specialists in 
providing an opportunity for primary 
market price protection to the customer 
whose order is stopped, without 
requiring that specialists execute all pre¬ 
existing bids or offers when such 
executions otherwise would not be 
required imder Exchange rules. The 
CHX pilot procedures allow specialists 
to delay execution of the stopped stock 
until a volume equal to the pre-existing 
volume ahead of the stopped order 
prints in the primary market. 
Specifically, the specialist would be 
required to execute stopped market 
orders in minimum variation markets 
either (1) at the stopped price after a 
transaction takes place on the primary 
market at the bid price or lower (or the 
offering price of higher) on the primary 
market or (2) at an improved price after 
the displayed CHX share volume has 
been exhausted. 

To examine whether specialists have 
been using the pilot program as 
intended, the Commission had asked 
the Exchwge to provide data on the 
stopping stock program in minimum 
variation markets. The Exchange has 
submitted to the Commission several 
monitoring reports regarding the 
stopping stock pilot program. The 
Commission believes that the * 
monitoring reports, especially, the latest 
monitoring report, provide useful 
information regarding the effectiveness 
of the program during the pilot period. 

Specifically, the Exchange reports that 
only approximately 2%-6% of the 
stopped orders received an out-of-range 


’“See SEC, Report of the Special Study of 
Securities Markets of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, H.R. Doc. No. 95,88th Congress., 1st 
Sess., Pt. 2 (1963). 

When stock is stopped, limit book orders on the 
opposite side of the market do not receive an 
immediate execution. Consequently, if the stopped 
order then receives an improved price, limit orders 
at the top price are bypassed and, if the market 
turns away fi'om that limit, may never be executed. 


execution despite having been stopped 
and, thus, did not benefit from the CHX 
proposal.'® With respect to the limit 
orders on the opposite side of the 
market from all market orders stopped 
in minimum variation markets, the 
Exchange reports that approximately 
52% were executed before the close.^® 
Moreover, almost all of the stopped 
orders were orders for 2000 shares or 
less.2' Finally, CMX reports that there 
has been no compliance problems with 
reject to the pilot prouam. 

The Commission believes that the 
data on the stopping stock in minimum 
variation markets show that the pilot 
program has continued to help reduce 
the potential that an order may receive 
an out-of-range execution. Moreover, the 
procedures enable specialists to offer 
the opportunity for price improvement 
to small size orders. The Commission 
believes that the reduction in out-of- 
range executions, coupled with price 
improvement opportunities, sufficiently 
offset the possible harm to the opposite 
side limit orders on the book. The 
Commission recognizes the unintended 
consequence that can arise fi’om the 
interplay between a regional exchange’s 
price protection rules and its procedures 
for stopping stock. In the Commission’s 
opinion, the CHX data suggests that 
stopped stock generally has been 
executed in accordance with traditional 
auction market principles .22 The 
Commission, therefore, believes that the 
data on stopping stock in minimum 


’“The Commission notes that this pilot program 
is intended to prevent orders from being executed 
outside the primary market range for the day (i.e., 
from establishing a new high or new low). 

Consistent with that policy, the CHX requires the 
specialist to execute stopped stock based on the 
next primary market sale. Specifically, if the next 
sale is at a better price, the stopped stock may, 
depending on the depth of the specialist’s limit 
order book at that price, receive price improvement. 
However, if the next primary market sale is at the 
stop price (or worse), the order would receive the 
stop price. 

Conversely, an order may not benefit from the 
CHX proposal if, despite having been stopped, it 
ultimately receives an out-of-range execution. In a 
minimum variation market, this can occur if, by the 
close, (1) the primary market has not traded at the 
stop price and (2) all pre-existing limit orders on 
the C^X specialist’s l^k at the better price have 
not been executed. 

““The Exchange reports that approximately 48% 
of the limit orders on the opposite side of the 
market from all market orders stopped in minimum 
variation markets were not executed by the end of 
the day. This percentage, however, overstates the 
niunber of limit orders that were not executed as 
a result of the stopped orders because it includes 
all limit orders on the opposite side of the market 
at the time of the stop rather than being limited to 
the size of the stopped order. Therefore, some of 
these limit orders that were not executed by the end 
of the trading day would not have been executed 
regardless of the stopped orders. 

“’ This data indicates the pilot program is 
benefiting small public customer orders. 

““ See infra note 27. 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54895 


variation markets show that the pilot 
has operated as intended and should be 
approved permanently. 

For all of the above reasons, the 
Commission believes that the CHX 
proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b)(5) of the Act. Moreover, the 
Commission also believes that the 
proposal is consistent with the Rule 
llb-l(a)(2)(ii) of the Act.^^ Rule 11b- 
l(a)(2)(ii) requires that a specialist 
engage in a course of dealings for his 
own account that assist in the 
maintenance, so far as practicable, of a 
fair and orderly market. As previously 
noted in the 1992 Approval Order, the 
Commission believes that the proposal 
is consistent with the objectives of this 
Rule because the implementation of the 
proposal should help the specialist to 
provide an opportimity for price 
improvement to the customer whose 
stop order is granted, without placing a 
burden on specialists by requiring that 
specialists execute other pre-existing 
bids or offers when such executions 
would not be otherwise required under 
Exchange rules. 

The Commission also believes that the 
proposal is consistent with the 
prohibition in Section 11(b) against 
providing discretion to a specialist in 
the handling of an order.Section 11(b) 
was design^, in part, to address 
potential conflicts of interest that may 
arise as a result of the specialist’s dual 
role as agent and principal in executing 
stock transactions. In particular. 

Congress intended to prevent specialists 
from unduly influencing market trends 
through their knowledge of market 
interest from the specialist’s book and 
their handling of discretionary agency 
orders.^^ The Commission has stated 
that, pursuant to Section 11(b), all 
orders other than market or limit orders 
are discretionary and therefore cannot 
be accepted by specialists. 

As previously noted in the 1992 
Approval Order, the Commission 
belieyes that it is appropriate to treat 
stopped orders, even those under the 
pilot procedures, as equivalent to limit 
orders. A limit order is an order to buy 
or sell a stated amoimt of security at a 
specified price, or better if obtainable. 
T^e Commission believes that stopped 
orders are equivalent to limit orders, in 
this instance, because the orders would 
be automatically elected after a 
transaction takes place on the primary 
market at the stopped price. The 

«17 CFR 240.11b-l(a)(2)(ii). 

Section 11(b) permits a specialist to accept only 
market or limit orders. 

zs See H. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. 22. 

Rep. 792,73d Cong. 2d Sess. 18 (1934). 

See Special Study, supra note 18. 


(Dommission, therefore, believes that the 
requirements imposed on the specialist 
for granting stops in minimum variation 
markets provide sufficiently stringent 
guidelines to ensure that the specialist 
will implement the proposed rule 
change in a manner consistent with his 
market making duties and Section 
ll(b).27 

In permanently approving the 
Exchange’s proposal, the Commission 
expects the Exchange to continue 
monitoring the practice of stopping 
stock in minimum variation markets 
and to take appropriate action in the 
event CHX identifies any instances of 
specialist non-compliance with the 
program’s procedures. 

IV. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,^® that the 
proposed rule change (SR-CHX-95-10) 
is approved. 

For the Commission, bythe Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority.** 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26574 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BIUJNQ CODE 8010-01-M 


[Release 34-36398; File No. 600-23] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 
Government Securities Clearing 
Corporation; Notice of Fiiing of an 
Application for Full Clearing Agency 
Registration and an Application for 
Extension of Temporary Registration 
as a Clearing Agency 

October 20,1995. 

Notice is hereby given that on 
February 3,1995, the Government 
Securities Clearing Corporation 
(“GSCC”) filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission ("Commission”) 
an application, pursuant to sections 17A 
and 19(a) of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 (“Act”),^ requesting that the 
Commission grant GSCC full registration 
as a clearing agency or in the alternative 
extend GSCC’s temporary registration as 
a clearing agency until such time as the 
Commission grants GSCC permanent 
registration.2 The Commission is 


Moreover, stopped orders as “limit orders” 
would not bypass pre-existing limit orders on the 
same side of the market. Under CHX’s procedures, 
specialists may not execute a stopped order before 
the limit order interest on the Exchange (at the same 
price as the stopped order) is exhausted. 

“15U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

*®17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). 

' 15 U.S.C. 78q-l, 78s(a) (1988). 

* Letter from Charles A. Moran, President, GSCC, 
to Brandon Becker, Director, Division of Market 
Regulation (“Division”), Commission (February 3, 


publishing this notice to solicit 
comments from interested persons on 
GSCC’s application. 

On May 24,1988, the Commission 
approved, pursuant to Sections 17A and 
19(a) of the Act and Rule 17Ab2-l(c) 
thereunder,® the application of GSCC for 
registration as a clearing agency for a 
period of three years.'* The Commission 
subsequently has extended GSCC’s 
registration until November 30,1995.® 

GSCC provides clearance and 
settlement services for its members’ 
transactions in government securities. 
GSCC offers its members services for 
next-day settling trades, forward settling 
trades, auction takedown activity, the 
multilateral netting of trades, the 
novation of netted trades, and daily 
markfng-to-the-market. In connection 
with GSCC’s clearance and settlement 
services, GSCC provides a centralized 
loss allocation procedure and maintains 
margin to offset netting and settlement 
risks. 

At the time of GSCC’s initial 
temporary registration, the Commission 
granted GSCC exemptions from 
compliance with the participation 
standards in Sections 17A(b)(3)(B) and 
17A(b)(4)(B) and with the fair 
representation requirements in Section 
17A(b)(3)(C).® GSCC has requested that 
the Commission remove GSCC’s 
exemption from the participation 
standards in Sections 17A(b)(3)(B) and 
17A(b)(4)(B). As more fully set forth in 
the February Registration Letter, GSCC 
believes that it has adequately 
addressed the Commission’s concerns 
regarding GSCC’s membership 
eligibility standards by establishing new 
categories of membership.^ In the May 


1995) (“February Registration Letter”). GSCC 
supplemented the February Registration letter in its 
lener from Charles A. Moran, President, GSCC, to 
Brandon Becker, Director, Division, Commission 
(September 15,1995) (“September Registration 
Letter”). 

* 17 CFR 240.17Ab2-l (1994). 

* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25740 (May 
24.1988), 53 FR 19639. 

* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 29067 
(April 11,1991), 56 FR 15652; 32385 (June 3.1993), 
58 FR 32405; and 35787 (May 31.1995), 60 FR 
30324. 

* The Commission determined that GSCC's rules 
did not enumerate the statutory categories of 
membership as required by Se^ion 17A(b)(3)(B) or 
the financial standards for applicants and members 
as contemplated by Section 17A(b)(4)(B). 15 U.S.C. 
78q-l (b)(3)(B), 78^1(b)(4)(B) (1988). In addition, 
the Commission determined that while the 
composition of GSCC’s Board of Directors 
reasonably reflected GSCC’s anticipated initial 
membership, it would be appropriate to reevaluate 
whether GSCC’s process for selecting its Board of 
Directors complied with the fair representation 
requirements in Section 17A(b)(3)(C) before 
granting full registration as a clearing agency. 15 
U.S.G 78q-l(b)(3)(C) (1988). 

^ Since the Commission’s original order granting 
GSCC temporary registration, the Commission has 

Continued 




54896 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


31,1995, order extending GSCXZ’s 
temporary registration as a clearing 
agencythe Commission noted that 
GSCC’s new categories of membership 
had not been extensively used. As 
discussed below, GSCC is in the process 
of introducing services for trades in 
repurchase agreements involving 
govermnent securities (“repos”). 

Because institutional entities are more 
significant participants in the repo 
mailcet than in the cash market, GSCC 
expects much greater utilization of these 
and other nontraditional membership 
categories (e.g., those membership 
categories for entities other than dealers 
and banks) in the coming years. In the 
February Registration Letter, GSCC 
stated t^t it believes its current method 
of selecting its board of directors assures 
members fair representation.® The 
Commission is reviewing GSCC’s 
request to remove the exemptions. 

m addition to the accomplishments 
cited by GSCC in the February 
Registration Letter, GSCC asserts that it 
has made s^nificant progress towards 
oaring a comprehensive set of services 
to the ^vemment securities 
mari^etplace through the 
implementation of its comparison 
service for repos and through its 
proposed rule change that would grant 
GSCC the authority to implement 
netting, settlement, and guarantee 
services for the non-same-day-settling 
aspects of overnight and term repos.'^ 


approved two prt^xMed rule changes that increased 
the categories of those eligible for membership in 
GSCXTs netting system. Securities Exchange Act 
Release Nos. 34935 (November 3,1994), 59 FR 
56100 (OTder approving establishment of new 
categories of netting system membership for futures 
commission merchwts) and 32722 (August 5, 

1993), 58 FR 42993 (order approving establishment 
of new categories of netting system membership for 
dealer and interdealer brokers, issuers of 
government securities, insurance companies, 
registered clearing agencies, and registered 
insurance companies). 

* Supra note 5. 

■GSCC’s current selection process for its board of 
directors pomits any GSCC member to nominate 
candidates for election to the Board and to vote for 
candidates so nominated. In the February 
Registration Letter, GSCC stated that it recognizes 
future membership growth may require GSCC to 
adjust the selection process to ensure fair member 
representation on the Board. 

’■In the September Registration Letter, GSCC 
represents that since May 12,1995, the repo 
comparison service has grown to include 43 
participants with an average daily volume of 2,330 
repos compared with an average value of $74.1 
billion. The average daily comparison rate for these 
repos is 93 percent. For a complete description of 
GSGCs comparison service for repos, refer to 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35557 (March 
31,1995), 60 FR 17596 (order approving the GSCC 
comparison service for repos). 

” For a description of GSCCs proposal regarding 
the implementation of netting, settlement, and 
guarantee services for the non-same-day-settling 
aspects of overnight and term repos, refer to 
Securities Excha^e Act Release No. 36252 


Furthermore, GSCC represents that it 
and the Board of Trade Clearing 
Corporation have made progress toward 
establishing a cross-margining 
arrangement for the benefit of market 
participants that are active in both the 
cash and futures Government securities 
markets. 

Interested persons are invited to 
submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing 
application by November 16,1995. Such 
written data, views, and arguments will 
be considered by the Commission in 
granting registration or instituting 
proceed^gs to determine whether 
registration should be denied in 
accordance with Section 19(a)(1) of the 
Act. ^2 Persons making written 
submissions should file six copies 
thereof with the Secretary, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth 
Street, NW., Washington, IDC 20549. 
Reference should be made to File No. 
600-23. Copies of the amended 
application for registration and all 
written comments will be available for 
inspection at the Commission’s Public 
Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20549. 

For the Ck}nuni88ion, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority.’® 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26547 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
bujjnq code aoie-oi-M 


[Release No. 34-36396; File No. 8R-NASD- 
95-47] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 
of Filing and Imntediate Effectiveness 
of Proposed Rule Change by National 
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. 
Relating to Member Subscriber 
Deposits for Nasdaq Level % Service 
and Equipment 

October 20,1995. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 < 

(“Act”), 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(l), notice is 
hereby given that on C)ctober 11,1995, 
the National Association of Securities 
Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”) 
filed with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) 
the proposed rule change as described 
in Items I, n, and m below, which Items 
have been prepared by the NASD. The 
NASD has designated this proposal as 
establishing or changing a due, fee, or 


(September 19.1995), 60 FR 49649 (File No. SR- 
GSCG-95-02] (notice of Hling of proposed rule 
change). 

«15 U.S.C. 788(a)(1) (1988). 

” 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(16) (1994). 


Other charge under Section 19(b)(3)(A) 
of the Act, which renders the rule 
effective upon the Commission’s receipt 
of this filing. The Commission is 
publishing this notice to solicit 
comments on the proposed rule change 
firom interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement of the Terms Substance of 
the Proposed Rule Change 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 
19(b)(1) imder the Act, the NASD is 
proposing to revise the subscriber 
deposit requirements contained in Part 
Vin, Paragraph G.l. and 2. of Schedule 
D to the NASD By-Laws. The text of the 
proposed rule change is as follows. 
(Additions are italicized; deletions are 
bracketed.) 

SchednleD 

Partvm 

Schedule of NASD Charges for Services and 
Equipment 

***** 

G. Subscriber Deposits 

New and existing subscribers to Level % or 
Nasdaq Workstation service shall be 
subject to the following deposit charges per 
unit: 

1. New subscriber 

a. estimated telecommunciations provider 
(installation] charges [including cable, 
freight and telephone company charge;] * 
for network inpostructure, connection 
and testing; 

b. two (2) months circuit [service and 
equipment] charges; and 

c. estimated telecorrununciations provider 
disconnect charges [including Harris 
disconnect and freight charges]. 

2. Existing subscribers subject to subscriber 

deposits include those that have been 
placed on the termination list two or 
more times within a two year period; 
those that have paid for services with 
one or more NSF checks; and those that 
have had service disconnected for non¬ 
payment but have not had equipment 
removed: 

a. two (2) months circuit [service and 
equipment] charges; and 

b. estimated telecommunciations provider 
disconnect charges [including Harris 
disconnect and firei^t charges]. 

n. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement of the Purpose of and 
Statutory Basis For die Proposed Rule 
Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 
NASD included statements concerning 
the purpose of and basis for the 
proposed rule change and discussed any 
comments it received on the proposed 
rule change. The text of these statements 
may be examined at the placesRpecified 
in Item FV below. The NASD has 
prepared summaries, set forth in 
Sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54897 


most significant aspects of such 
statements. 

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's 
Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 
Change 

The proposed rule change reflects 
increased charges for the provision of 
telecommunications services underlying 
Nasdaq Workstation II Service, and 
clarifies the various component 
functions encompassed within the 
circuit installation fee so that the true 
nature of the charge is made clear to 
new subscribers. These requirements 
would pertain only to new subscribers 
or existing subscribers that have 
defaulted on the payment of their 
charges. 

Note that the proposed rule change 
has become effective immediately upon 
filing with respect to NASD members as 
indicated in S^tion ni below. A 
companion filing, which applies the 
proposed rule change to non-member 
subscribers, is being filed separately 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. 

The NASD believes that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with the 
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the 
Act, which requires that the rules of the 
Association provide for the equitable 
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and 
other charges among members and 
issuers and other persons using any 
facility or system which the association 
operates or controls. 

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement of Burden on Competition 

The NASD does not believe that the 
proposed rule change will result in any 
burden on competition that is not 
necessary or appropriate in furtherance 
of the purposes of die Act, as amended. 

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's 
Statement on Comments on the 
Proposed Rule Change Received From 
Members, Participants, or Others 

Written comments were neither 
solicited nor received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action 

With respect to NASD niembers, the 
foregoing rule change has become 
effective immediately pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 
subparagraph (e) of Rule 19b—4 
thereunder because it establishes or 
changes a due, fee or other charge 
imposed by the NASD. At any time 
within 60 days of the filing of such rule 
change, the Comihission may summarily 
abrogate the rule change if it appears to 
the Commission that such action is 


necessary or appropriate in the public 
interest, for the protection of investors, 
or otherwise in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 
submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing. 
Persons making written submissions 
should file six copies thereof with the 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the 
submission, all subsequent 
amendments, all written statements 
with respect to the proposed rule 
change that are filed with the 
Commission, and all written 
communications relating to the 
proposed rule change between the 
Commission and any person, other than 
those that may be withheld fixtm the 
public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 
available for inspection and copying in 
the Commission’s Public Reference 
Room. Copies of such filing will also be 
available for inspection and copying at 
the principal office of the NASD. All 
submissions should refer to the file 
number in the caption above and should 
be submitted by November 16,1995. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, piusuant to delegated 
authority, 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26546 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 8010-01-M 


[Release No. 34-36397; File No. SR-NASD- 
95-48] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by 
National Association of Securities 
Dealers, Inc. Relating to Non-Member 
Subscriber Deposits for Nasdaq Level 
2/3 Service and Equipment 

October 20,1995. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(“Act”), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l), notice is 
hereby given that on October 11,1995, 
the National Association of Securities 
Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”) 
filed with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) 
the proposed rule change as described 
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items 
have been prepared by the NASD. The 
Commission is publishing this notice to 
solicit comments on the proposed rule 
change from interested persons. 


I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement of the Terms of Substance of 
the Proposed Rule Change 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 
19(b)(1) under the Act, the NASD is 
proposing to revise the subscriber 
deposit requirements contained in Part 
Vin, Paragraph G.l. and 2. of Schedule 
D to the NASD By-Laws. The text of the 
proposed rule change is as follows. 
(Additions are italicized; deletions are 
bracketed.) 

Schedule D 
Part Vin 

Schedule of NASD Charges for Services and 
Equipment 

G. Subscriber Deposits 
New and existing subscribers to Level 2/3 
or Nasdaq Workstation™ servicer shall be 
subject to the following deposit charges per 
unit: 

1. New subscriber 

a. estimated telecommunications provider 
[installation] charges (including cable, 
freight and telephone company charges;] • 
for network in^structure, connection 
and testing; 

b. two (2) months circuit [service and 
equipment] charges; and 

c. estimated telecommunications provider 
disconnect charges [including Harris 
disconnect and freight charges]. 

2. Existing subscribers subject to subscriber 

deposits include those that have been 
placed on the termination list two or 
more times within a two year period; 
those that have paid for services with 
one or more NSF checks; and those that 
have had service disconnected for non¬ 
payment but have not had equipment 
removed: 

a. two (2) circuit [service and equipment] 
charges; and 

b. estimated telecommunciations provider 
disconnect charges [including Harris 
disconnect and freight charges], 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, ^e Proposed Rule 
Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 
NADS included statements concerning 
the purpose of and basis for the 
propos^ rule chemge and discussed any 
comments it received on the proposed 
rule change. The text of these statements 
may be examined at the places specified 
in Item IV below. The NASD has 
prepared summaries, set forth in 
Sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the 
most significant aspects of such 
statements. 

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's 
Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 
Change 

The .proposed rule change reflects 
increased charges for the provision of 




54898 


Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


telecommunications services underlying 
Nasdaq Workstation n service, and 
clarifies the various component 
functions encompassed within the 
circuit installation fee so that the true 
nature of the charge is made clear to 
new subscribers. These requirements 
would pertain only to new subscribers 
or existing subscribers that have 
defaulted on the payment of their 
charges. 

Note that the instant filing apfilies 
only to non-member subscribers. A 
companion filing, which applies the 
proposed rule change to member 
subscribers, is being filed separately for 
immediate effectiveness. 

The NASD believes that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with the 
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the 
Act, which requires that the rule of the 
Association provide for the equitable 
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and 
other charges among members and 
issuers and other persons using any 
facility or system while the association 
operates or controls. 

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement on Burden on Competition 

The NASD does not believe that the 
proposed rule change will result in any 
burden on competition that is not 
necessary or appropriate in furtherance 
of the purposes of die Act, as amended. 

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement on Comments on the 
Proposed Rule Change Received from 
Members. Participants, or Others 

Written comments were neither 
solicited nor received. 

m. Date of Efifectiveness of the 
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action 

Within 35 days of the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register or within such longer period (i) 
as &e Commission may designate up to 
90 days of such date if it finds such 
longer period to be appropriate and 
publishes its reasons for so finding or 
(ii) as to which the self-regulatory 
organization consents, the Commission 
will: 

(A) By order approve such proposed 
rule change, or 

(B) Institute proceedings to determine 
whether the proposed rule change 
should be disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 
submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing. 
Persons making written submissions 
should file six copies thereof with the 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange 


Conimiss. on, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the 
submission, all subsequent 
amendments, all written statements 
with respect to the proposed rule 
change that are filed with the 
Commission, and ail written 
commimications relating to the 
proposed rule change between the 
Commission and any person, other than 
those that may be wit^eld finm the 
public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 
available for inspection and copying in 
the Commission’s Public Reference 
Room. Copies of such filing will also be 
available for inspection and copying at 
the principal office of the NASD. All 
submissions should refer to the file 
number in the caption above and should 
be submitted by November 16,1995. 

For the Conunission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority, 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26545 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M 


[Release No. 34-36403; File No. SR-NASD- 
95-15] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order 
Approving Proposed Rule Change by 
National Association of Securities 
Dealers, Inc. Relating to a Statement of 
Policy to Establish Internal NASD 
Procedures Delegating to the NASD 
Staff and the Fixed Income Committee 
Authority to Review Requests by 
Members for Exemptions from Rule G- 
37(b) of the Municipal Securities 
Rulemaking Board 

October 20,1995. 

On April 15,1995,^ the National 
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. 
(“NASD” or “Association”) filed with 
the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) 
a proposed rule change pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(1) of the S^urities 


' The NASD submitted two amendments to the 
proposed rule change prior to publication of notice 
in the Federal Register, and one amendment 
subsequent to publication of notice in the Federal 
Register. Amendment No. 1, submitted on August 
15,1995, deleted all portions of the proposed rule 
change addressing the ability of NASD members to 
apply to the Commission for review of any denial 
by the NASD of a member’s request for exemption 
from Municipal Securities Board Rule G-37. 
Amendment No. 2, submitted on August 23 revised 
the proposed rule change to clarify the types of 
violations of Rule G-37 for which a member could 
request exemptions. Amendment No. 3, submitted 
on October 20,1995, amends the NASD Code of 
Procedure by adding a footnote to the title 
referencing the procedures established in the 
proposed rule change. 


Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),2 and 
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.® The proposed 
rule change adopts a statement of policy 
to establish internal NASD procedures ■* 
delegating to the NASD staff and the 
Fixed Income Committee the authority 
to review requests by members for 
exemptions from Rule G-37 of the 
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 
(“MSRB”).5 

Notice of the proposed rule change, 
together with the substance of the 
proposal, was provided by issuance of a 
Commission release (Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 36151, 

August 24,1995) and by publication in 
the Federal Register (60 FR 45202, 
August 30,1995). No comment letters 
were received. This order approves the 
proposed rule change. 

Ine Commission approved MSRB 
Rule G-37 on April 7,1994.® MSRB 
Rule G-37(b) prohibits any broker, 
dealer, or municipal securities dealer 
from engaging in municipal securities 
business with any issuer within two 
years after any contribution to an 
official of that issuer made by that 
broker, dealer, or municipal securities 
dealer, any municipal finance 
professional associated with that broker, 
dealer, or municipal securities dealer, or 
any political action committee 
controlled by that broker, dealer, or 
municipal securities dealer. The two 
year prohibition, however, is not 
triggered by contributions by a 
mimicipal finance professional to issuer 
officials for whom that municipal 
finance professional was entitled to vote 
if such contribution, in total, did not 
exceed $250 per official per election. 
Subsequently, on June 3,1994, the 
Commission granted accelerated 
approval to an amendment to MSRB 
Rule G-37 ” to provide a procedure for 
a broker, dealer, or municipal securities 
dealer to seek exemptive relief horn 
MSRB Rule G-37(b) if that broker, 
dealer, or municipal securities dealer 
discovers that a prohibited political 
contribution was made. Pursuant to 
Release 34-34160, subsection (i) to 
MSRB Rule G-37 permits the NASD to 


*15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). 

* 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 

* The internal NASD procedures established 
pursuant to the statement of policy will not amend 
existing rules contained in the NASD Code of 
Procedure or other existing NASD rules. 

* MSRB Manual, General Rules, Rule G-37 (CCH) 
f 3681. MSRB Rule G-37 prohibits members from 
engaging in municipal securities business if certain 
political contributions have been made to 
municipal issuers. 

B Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33868 
(April 7,1994). 59 FR 17621 (April 13.1994). 

* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34160 
(June 3,1994), 59 FR 30376 (June 13,1994) 
(“Release 34-34160"). 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54899 


exempt, conditionally or 
unconditionally, an NASD member who 
is prohibited from engaging in 
municipal securities business with an 
issuer pursuant to subsection (b) of 
MSRB Rule G-37 firom that prohibition. 
MSRB Rule G-37(i)(i) provides that the 
NASD shall consider among other 
factors, whether such exemption is 
consistent with the public interest, the 
protection of investors and the purposes 
of this rule. MSRB Rule G-37(i)(ii) sets 
forth further criteria for the granting of 
the exemption by requiring that the 
MSRB member have in place procedures 
designed to ensure compliance with the 
rule,B had no actual knowledge of the 
contributions, has taken appropriate 
steps to obtain retirni of the 
contribution(s), and has taken other 
remedial measures as may be 
appropriate. 

Release 34-34160 states that the 
MSRB believes that exemptions firom 
MSRB Rule G-37 should be granted 
only if a disgruntled employee 
contributes to an issuer official for the 
purpose of injuring the member or if an 
employee makes a number of small 
contributions during an election cycle 
(e.g., four years) which, when 
consolidated, amoimt to slightly over 
the $250 de minimus exemption (such 
as contributions totalling $255). It also 
states that the MSRB would expect that 
the exemption not be routinely 
requested by dealers and that 
exemptions would be granted by the 
NASD only in limited circumstances.® 

In order to implement a procedvim for 
reviewing requests for NASD member 
exemptions anticipated under MSRB 
Rule G-37, the rule change adopts a 
statement of policy that establishes an 
NASD internal procedure to grant 


■The MSRB clariHes its view regarding effective 
compliance procedures for Rule G-37 in a letter 
dated March 14,1995 firom Christopher A. Taylor. 
Executive Director, MSRB, to John E. Pinto Jr., 
Executive Vice President—Regulation, NASD. That 
letter states that the MSRB believes that Rule G-37 
requires a dealer to have information regarding .each 
contribution made by the dealer, dealer-controlled 
political action committees and municipal finance 
professionals so that it can determine where and 
with whom it may or may not engage in municipal 
securities business. In addition, the dealer must 
have information on executive officer contributions 
and political party payments and consultant hiring 
practices for disclosure purposes. Moreover, the 
dealer must ensure that those persons and entities 
. subject to MSRB Rule G-37 are not causing the 
' dealer to violate MSRB Rule G-37. Furthermore, the 
dealer must ensure that other people and entities 
hired to assist in municipal securities activities 
(e.g., consultants) are not being directed to make 
contributions, or otherwise being used as conduits, 
in violation of MSRB Rule G-37. 

"Release 34-34160 also states that the MSRB will 
seek information from the NASD regarding the 
gremting of any exemptions in order to monitor the 
implementation of this provision, and to determine 
if any changes are necessary. 


exemptions firom MSRB Rule G-37. As 
noted above, the statement of policy is 
an internal procedure and does not 
amend existing rules contained in the 
NASD Code of Procedure or other 
existing NASD rules. 

The statement of policy provides that 
the staff of the Regulation Business 
Line, as assigned by the Executive Vice 
President of Regulation initially will 
issue a written decision concerning 
whether to nant a member’s request for 
exemption from MSRB Rule G-37. If the 
staff determines to deny the member’s 
request for exemption, the written 
decision must include a statement 
advising the member that it has 15 days 
in whidb to appeal the initial staff 
determination to the Fixed Income 
Committee of the NASD. 

The statement of policy provides that 
the Board will delegate authority to the 
Fixed Income Committee, or a 
subcommittee thereof, to review the 
appeal of a member regarding an NASD 
staff denial of an exemption from MSRB 
Rule G-37. 

The Board may review a decision of 
the Fixed Income Ccmimittee, or a 
subcommittee thereof, solely upon the 
request of one or more Governors. Such 
a review would be imdertaken solely at 
the discretion of the Board and will be 
in accordance with resolutions of the 
Board. In revievtdng any decision of the 
Fixed Income Committee, the Board 
may affirm, modify or reverse a decision 
of the Fixed Income Committee, or the 
relevant subcommittee, or remand the 
matter to the Fixed Income Committee 
with appropriate instructions. 

The statement of policy reflects the 
NASD’s belief that the Fixed Income 
Committee is the appropriate reviewing 
body because the meml^rs of the Fixed 
Income Committee should have the 
requisite knowledge regarding the 
municipal business necessary to weigh 
the member’s argument that the 
requested exemption would comply 
with the provisions and intent of MSRB 
Rule G-37. In addition, the NASD stated 
that it believes that vesting authority 
with the Fixed Income Committee 
should ensure that imiform standards 
are applied throughout the covmtry to 
requests for exemptions from Rule (3- 
37, and that these standards should 
effectuate the intent of the MSRB that 
the NASD grant such exemptions under 
very limited circumstances, as noted 
above. 

The Commission finds that the rule 
change is consistent with the provisions 
of Section 15A(b](2) of the Act because 
it establishes a procedure to enforce 
compliance wiffi MSRB Rule G-37 that 
is intended to effectuate the intent of the 
MSRB that the NASD grant exemptions 


only imder the limited circumstances 
contemplated by the MSRB. The 
Commission also finds that, for the 
reasons set forth above, the rule change 
is consistent with the provisions of 
Section 19(g)(1)(B) of ffie Act, which 
requires that the NASD, absent 
reasonable justification or excuse, 
enforce compliance with MSRB rules. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the 
proposed rule change SR-NASD-95-15 
be, and hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority, 17 CFR 200.3(>-3(a)(12). 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26572 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILLING cooe 8010-01-M 


[Release No. 34-36392; File No. SR-NSCC- 
95-11] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

National Securities Clearing 
Corporation; Order Granting 
Temporary Approval of a Proposed 
Rule Change Concerning Book-Entry 
Money Settlements With Members 

October 18,1995. 

On August 8,1995, the National 
Securities Clearing Corporation 
(“NSCC”) filed a proposed rule change 
(File No. SR-NSCC-95-11) with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
(“Commission”) pursuant to Section 
19(b)(l).of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 (“Act”).' Notice of the proposal 
was published in the Federal Register 
on August 24,1995.* No comments 
were received by the Commission. This 
order approves the proposal on a 
temporary basis. 

1. Description of the Proposal 

On October 5,1990, NSCC filed a 
proposed rule change with the 
Commission that was noticed in the 
Federal Register ® and was subsequently 
amended three times.^ On September 4, 
1992, the proposal as amended was 
approved on a temporary basis through 


’ 15 U.S.C 788(b)(1) (1988). 

" Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36112 
(August 17,1995), 60 FR 44093. 

■ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28715 
(December 12.1990), 55 FR 715 [File No. SR- 
NSCC-90-211. 

Letters from: (1) Jeffrey F. Ingber, Associate 
General Counsel, NSCC, to Jonathan Kallman, 
Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation 
("Division”), Commission (August 14,1991); (2) 
Peter J. Axilrod, Associate General Council, NSCC, 
to Jerry Carpenter, Branch Chief, Division, 
Commission (March 23,1992); and (3) Peter J. 
Axilrod, Associate General Counsel, NSCC, to 
Thomas C. Etter, Jr., Attorney, Division, 
Commission (July 22,1992). 





54900 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


August 31,1993.® The temporary 
approval subsequently was extended 
through August 31,1995.® The current 
filing requests an extension of the 
temporary approval order until such 
time as NSCC implements its same-day 
funds settlement system.^ 

As discussed in detail in the approval 
order of September 4,1992, the rule 
change permits NSCC members to 
satisfy their settlement obligations to 
NSCC and permits NSCC to satisfy its 
settlement obligations to its mem^rs by 
means of electronic intrabank funds 
transfers between members’ accounts 
and NSCC’s accounts at various 
settlement banks. Under the proposal, 
two types of intrabank funds transfers 
are available: (1) Electronic transfers 
whereby on settlement day NSCC pays 
a member by check for next-day value 
and the member pays NSCC by NSCC 
directing the settlement bank to make ah 
irrevocable transfer from the member’s 
account to NSCC’s account for next-day 
availability or whereby a member pays 
NSCC by ^eck and NSCC effects 
payment by electronic transfer (“one¬ 
way electronic transfers’’) and (2) 
electronic transfers whereby on 
settlement day both NSCC and a 
member pay % NSCC directing the 
settlement banks to make irrevocable 
transfers for next-day value without any 
netting (“two-way electronic transfers’’). 

As a prerequisite to either NSCC or 
any of its members making a settlement 
payment by an electronic funds transfer, 
the rule change imposes three 
requirements. First, any such payment 
must be effected on a next-day funds 
availability basis.® Second, any such 
payment must be in conformity with an 
agreement, which must be executed by 
NSCC and any bank that acts as a 
payment intermediary, which stipulates 
that any such funds transfer must be 
effected on an irrevocable and final - 
basis.® Third, any bank that acts as an 


* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31157 
(Septen^T 4.1992), 57 FR 42602 [File No. SR- 
NSCC-90-2li. 

* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32836 
(September 2.1993), 58 FR 47483 [File No. SR- 
NS(X>-93-08l; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
34573 (August 22.1994), 59 FR 44443 [File No. SR- 
NSCC-94-171. 

^ It is anticiptied that same-day funds settlement 
will be instituted in early 1996. 

"The term “next-day funds” refers to funds paid 
today that will be available tomorrow. By contrast, 
“same-day funds” refers to funds that are 
immediately available. 

"The September 4,1992, order noted that on 
March 24,1992, NSCC Tiled with the Commission 
a letter representing that NSCC: (1) Will submit for 
Division approval the current form of any 
agreement pursuant to which intrabank ^nds 
transfers are to be made and (2) will notify the 
Division of the identity of each bank that enters into 
any such contract. Letter from Peter). Axilrod, 
Associate General Counsel, NSCC, to Jerry 


intermediary'for such funds transfers 
must meet NSCC’s standards for letter of 
credit issuers.'® 

n. Discussion 

The Commission believes that the 
proposal is consistent with the Act and 
particularly with Section 17A of the 
Act." Section 17A(a)(l) of the Act'^ 
encourages the use of efficient, effective, 
and safe procedures for securities 
clearance and settlement. Moreover, 
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act'® 
requires that the rules of clearing 
agencies be designed to promote the 
prompt and accurate clearance and 
settlement of securities transactions and 
to assure the safeguarding of funds in 
the custody or control of clearing 
agencies or for which they are 
responsible. As set forth in its original 
approval order of September 4,1992, 
the Commission agrees with NSCC that 
substantial marketplace efficiencies 
should be achieved by authorizing 
NSCC and its members to effect 
electronic intrabank funds transfers to 
satisfy their settlement obligations. 'The 
Commission recognizes that the 
exchange of checks is labor-intensive 
and that physical movement of checks 
can involve loss or delay. Intrabank 
funds transfers should, therefore, 
enhance the proficiency of the 
transferring and the safeguarding of 
funds. Moreover, earlier finality of 
settlement provides certainty to the 
marketplace and serves to increase 
investor confidence in the markets. 

The Commission is temporarily 
approving this proposed rule change in 
order that NSCC may continue the 
program until such time as NS(X 
implements its same-day funds 
settlement system. Furthermore, the 
Commission notes that this order relates 
only to intrabank transfers of funds 
available on a next-day basis. If and 
when NSCC desires to implement an 
interbank funds transfer program « 
whereby same-day funds are transferred, 
NSCC will be required to submit for 


CaipentM, Branch Chief, Division, Commission 
(March 23,1992). 

’°For a bank or trust company to be approved by 
NSCC to issue letters of credit on behalf of members 
for purposes of clearing fund requirements, the 
bank or trust company must meet specific standards 
in terms oh (1) Minimum levels of stockholders’ 
equity and (2) certain credit ratings for its short 
term obligations as determined by Standard and 
Poor's Corporation or Moody's Investor Service, Inc. 
NSCC Rule 4, Section 1; Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 29444 (July 16,1991), 56 FR 34081 [File 
No. SR-NSCC-91-031 (order approving NSCC’s 
revised standards for approved issuers of letters of 
credit for clearing fund purposes). 

i'15U.S.C. 78q-l (1988). 

’*15 U.S.C. 78q-l(a)(l) (1988). 

”15 U.S.C 78q-l(b)(3)(F) (1988). 


Commission approval a separate and 
comprehensive Rule 19b—4 filing. 

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act'* that the 
above-mentioned proposed rule change 
(File No. SR-NSCO-95-11) be, and 
hereby is, approved until such time as 
NSCC implements its same-day funds 
settlement system. 

For the Commission by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority.’* ’ 

[FR Doc. 95-26544 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BU.LmO CODE 801IM)1-M 


[Release No. 34-36399; File No. SR-NYSE- 
95-141 

Se|f-.Regulatory Organizations; New 
York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order 
Granting Approvai to Proposed Rule 
Change Rel^ng to the Permanent 
Approval of Its Pilot Program for 
Stopping Stock under Amendments to 
Rule 116.30 

October 20,1995. 

I. Introduction 

On March 31,1995, the New York 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or 
“Exchange”) submittedlo the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or 
“Commission”), pursuant to Section 
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 (“Act”)' and Rule 19b—4 
thereunder,® a proposed rule change to 
approve permanently amendments to 
Exchange Rule 116.30 that would 
permit specialists to stop stock in 
minimum variation markets. 

The proposed rule change was 
published for comment in Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 35908 (Jime 
28,1995), 60 FR 34564 (July 3,1995). 
The Commission received a total of 
three comment letters opposing the 
proposal, two of which were from the 
same commenter.® The NYSE submitted 
one letter supporting its proposal and 
responding to the Peake March 1,1995 


’«15 U.S.C. 788(o)i2) (1988). 

’»17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1991). 

’ 15 U.S.C. 788(b)(1). 

*17CFR240.19b-4. 

* See letter from Junius W. Peake, Monfort 
Professor of Finance, University of Northern 
Colorado, to Secretary, SEC, dated March 1,1995 
(“Peake March 1,1995 Letter”); letter from Junius 
W Peake, Monfort Professor of Finance, University 
of Northern Colorado, to Secretary, SEC, dated July 
21,1995 (“Peake July 21,1995 Letter”); letter from 
Morris Mendelson, ^ofessor Emeritus of Finance, 
The Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania, 
to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated August 2, 
1995 (“Mendelson Letter”). Two of the letters were 
submitted by one commenter, with the later letter 
responding to NYSE’s response to the commenter’s 
first letter. See infra note 4. See also infra notes 13- 
15 and accompanying discussion. 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54901 


Letter.'* For the reasons discussed 
below, the Commission has decided to 
approve the NYSE’s proposal. 

n. Description of Proposal 

The practice of stopping stock refers 
to a guarantee by a specialist that an 
order the specialist receives will be 
executed at no worse a price than the 
contra side price in the market when the 
order was received, with the 
understanding that the order may obtain 
a better price. Prior to the proposed rule 
change. Exchange Rule 116.30 permitted 
a specialist to stop stock only when the 
quotation spread was at least twice the 
minimmn variation (i.e., for most stocks 
V4 point), with the specialist then being 
required to narrow the quotation spread 
by making a bid or offer, as appropriate, 
on behalf of the order that is stopped. 

In March 1991, the Commission 
approved on a pilot basis ^ amendments 
to Exchange Rule 116.30 that permitted 
a specialist to stop stock in a minimum 
variation market (i.e., an Va-point 
market currently).® The Commission 
subsequently has extended the 
Exchange’s pilot program several times 
without any modifications.^ The most 
recent extension of the pilot program is 
scheduled to expire on October 21, 
1995. 

The pilot program amends Rule 
116.30 to permit a specialist, upon 
request, to stop individual orders of 
2,000 shares or less, up to an aggregate 
total of 5,000 shares for all stopped 
orders (i.e., multiple orders) in Vs point 
markets. A specialist may stop an order 
of a specified larger order size 
threshold, or a larger aggregate number 
of shares after obtaining Floor Official 


'* See letter from James Buck, Senior Vice 
President and Secretary, NYSE, to Jonathan Katz, 
Secretary, SEC, dated July 17,1995 (“NYSE Letter 

a See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28999 
(Mar. 21,1991), 56 FR 12964 (Mar. 28,1991) (File 
No. SR-NYSE-90-48) (“1991 Approval Order”). 

a NYSE Rule 62 sets forth the minimum variations 
for stocks traded on the Exchange. This Rule 
provides that bids or offers in stocks above one 
dollar per share shall not be made at a less variation 
under Va of one dollar per share; in stocks below 
one dollar but above '■A of one dollar per share, at 
a less variation than Vie of one dollar per share; and 
in stocks below 'A of one dollar per share, at a less 
variation than ’Az of a dollar per share. This Rule 
also provides that the Exchange may fix variations 
of less than the above for bids and offers in specific 
issues of securities or classes of securities. 

r See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 30482 
(Mar. 16,1992), 57 FR 10198 (Mar. 24,1992) (File 
No. SR-NYSE-92-02) (“1992 Approval Order"); 
32031 (Mar. 22,1993), 58 FR 16563 (Mar. 29,1993) 
(File No. SR-NYSE-93-18) (“1993 Approval 
Order"); 33792 (Mar. 21,1994), 59 FR 14437 (Mar. 
28,1994) (File No. SR-NYSE-94-06) (“1994 
Approval Order”); 35309 (Jan. 31,1995), 60 FR 
7247 (Feb. 7,1995) (File No. SR-NYSE-95-02) 
(“January 1995 Approval Order”); 36009 Ouly 21, 
1995), 60 FR 38878 (July 28,1995) (“July 1995 
Approval Order”). 


approval. For a specialist to stop an 
order in a minimum variation market, 
there must be a significant disparity 
between the bid and ask size (on the 
opposite side of the market from the 
order being stopped) that suggests the 
likelihood of price improvement.® In the 
1991 Approval Order, first approving 
the pilot, the Commission noted that a 
large imbalance on the opposite side of 
the market would help ensure that stops 
in a minimum variation market occur 
only when the likelihood of the benefits 
to the customer’s order being stopped 
far exceeds the possibility of harm to 
customers’ orders on the limit order 
book,® 

Under these limited circumstances, 
the pilot permitted a specialist to stop 
a buy (sell) order at the market upon 
request and guarantee that the older will 
receive no worse than the best then- 
prevailing offer (bid) price. The 
specialist would then increase the bid 
(offer) size to reflect the stopped order.*® 
If the pre-existing volume at the bid 
(offer) is exhausted and a seller (buyer) 
hits the bid (offer) made on behalf of the 
stopped order, the buyer’s (seller’s) 
stopped order would obtain price 
improvement. If, however, before that 
event occurs another buyer’s (seller’s) 
order is executed at the ofier (bid), then 
the specialist would execute the 
stopped order at the stopped price. 

In the order approving the pilot 
procedures, the (Commission requested 
that the Exchange study the effects of 
stopping stock in minimum variation 
markets and collect certain data to allow 
the Commission to evaluate fairly and 
comprehensively the pilot program.** In 
the Commission’s 1994 Approval Order 
extending the pilot program until March 
21,1995, the Commission requested that 
the Exchange submit a fourth 
monitoring report on the stopping stock 
pilot.*2 The NYSE subsequently 
submitted its fourth monitoring report. 
The Commission then approved an 
extension of the pilot until October 21, 
1995, so that the Commission would 
have additional time to evaluate the 
information provided in the fourth 


* See letter from James E. Buck, Senior Vice 
President and Secretary, NYSE, to Mary N. Revell, 
Branch Chief, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, 
dated December 27,1990; 1991 Approval Order, 
supra note 5; NYSE information memo #1809, dated 
September 12,1991. 

"The 1991 Approval Order also noted NYSE’s 
representation and the Commission’s understanding 
that spiecialists would not routinely use such 
procedures or that Floor OfHcials would not 
routinely authorize the specialists to exceed the 
parameters of the proposal. 

'"The stopped order would be placed behind the 
existing limit orders at the bid (offer) for priority 
purposes. 

*' See supra notes 5 and 7. < 

See 1994 Approval Order, supra note 7. 


monitoring repiort and to ensure that 
Rule 116.30, as amended, provides a 
benefit to investors throu^ the 
possibility of price improvement to 
customers whose orders are granted 
stops in minimum variation markets 
while unduly harming public customer 
limit orders on the specialist book. 

ni. Summary of Comments 

The Commission received three 
negative comment letters regarding the 
permanent approval of the Exchange’s 
procedures for stopping stock in 
minimum variation markets.*® Two of 
the letters were submitted by the same 
commenter, Junius Peake. The NYSE 
Letter was in support of its proposal and 
in response to the Peake March 1,1995 
Letter.** The third negative comment 
letter was submitted in support of the 
position in the Peake letters.*® The 
issues raised therein are discussed 
below. 

Professor Peake states that the NYSE’s 
proposal should not be approved and 
that all rules allowing specialists to stop 
stock should be repealed. In his initial 
letter. Professor Peake states that a 
specialist has inherent conflicts of 
interest as auctioneer, fiduciary (or 
agent for investors on each side of the 
market), and provider of immediate 
liquidity. Professor Peake argues that 
the practice of stopping stock aggravates 
a specialist’s conflict of interest by 
pitting the specialist’s obligation as 
agent to the investors who have 
entrusted him with limit orders against 
his obligation to a market order that 
normally would be filled against such 
limit orders. 

Moreover, Professor Peake states that 
when the specialist is the only source of 
the quotation against which the stop is 
given, the specialist is improving his 
chance of avoiding an unwanted trade 
because the specialist is hoping that 
another customer order will arrive at a 
better price than at which the specialist 
is willing to trade. Professor Peake also 
asserts that a specialist as a competitor 
in the stocks in which he makes a 
market should not be given such 
latitude in setting execution prices. 

Professor Peake believes that the 
conflicts inherent in the specialist’s role 
could be avoided and the need for the 
stopping stock rules obviated if the 


See Peake March 1,1995 Letter, supra note 3; 
Peake July 21,1995 Letter, supra note 3: Mendelson 
Letter, supra note 3. Although the comment letters 
referred to File No. SR-NYSE-95-02, the 
Commission will treat them as comments to this 
rule proposal because the comments relate to the 
permanent approval of amendments to NYSE Rule 
116.30. 

'■* See NYSE Letter, supra note 4. 

See Mendelson Letter, supra note 3. 






54902 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


competitiveness of the exchanges and 
the over-the-counter markets was 
increased. Professor Peake believes that 
the easiest method to accomplish this 
would be to reduce the minimum price 
variation between trades to one cent. 
Professor Peake also believes that the 
entire limit order book should be 
displayed and accessible to all market 
participants. 

In response to Professor Peake, the 
Exchange characterizes his letter as a 
broad attack on the concept of stopping 
stock that fails to analyze the specific 
aspects of the Exchange’s proposal.^® 

The Exchange argues that, 
notwithstanding Professor Peake’s 
assertions of a theoretical conflict of 
interest in a specialist’s role in 
representing both buyer and seller, the 
procedures utilized in the pilot have 
proven effective in providing 
opportimities for price improvement. 

The Exchange states that its studies 
show that more than half of eligible 
orders (i.e., orders for 2,000 shares or 
less) stopped in minimum variation 
markets received price improvement, 
resulting in savings of millions of 
dollars to public investors. The 
Exchange reiterates that the proposal 
enables specialists to better serve 
investors through the ability to offer 
price improvement to stopped orders 
while having relatively little impact on 
the other orders on the book. 

In response to the NYSE Letter, 
Professor Peake states that contrary to 
the NYSE’s position, a specialist 
stopping stock faces conflicts of interest. 
Moreover, Professor Peake argues that 
for every investor for whom price is 
improv^ when stock is stopped, there 
is always another investor who will 
receive a worse price or be unable to 
complete the trade at all. Professor 
Peake suggests that the Commission 
might be able to remedy the situation by 
conditioning approval of the NYSE’s 
proposal on requiring neutral exchange 
employees, rather than specialists, to 
take the responsibility for stopping 
stock against other investors’ orders. 
Professor Peake admits, however, that 
this alternative might be awkward and 
overly expensive. 

. Finally, in his letter, Professor 
Mendelson agrees with Professor Peake 
and believes that the proposed rule 
change permits the specialist to violate 
his fiduciary responsibility. Moreover, 
he believes that the proposed rule 
change hampers price discovery because 
a stop delays the execution of an order. 


’• See NYSE Letter, supra note 4. 


rv. Discussion 

After careful consideration of the 
comments, the NYSE response thereto, 
and the data submitted by the NYSE 
over the course of the pilot, the 
Commission has determined to approve 
permanently the proposed rule change. 
For the reasons discussed below, the 
Commission finds that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with the 
requirements of the Act and the rules 
and regulations thereunder applicable to 
a national securities exchange, and, in 
particular, virith Section 6(b)(5) and 
Section 11(b) i® of the Act. 

Historically, the Commission has had 
mixed reactions about the practice of 
stopping stock. The 1963 Report of the 
Special Study of the Securities Markets 
found that imexecuted customer limit 
orders on the specialist’s book might be 
bypassed by the stopped orders.*® The 
Commission, never^eless, has allowed 
the practice of stopping stock in markets 
where the spread is at least tvYice the 
minimum variation because the possible 
harm to orders on the book is offset by 
the reduced spread that results and the 
possibility of price improvement. 

Although the procedures for stopping 
stock in minimum variation markets do 
not reduce the spread between the 
quotes the Commission has allowed, on 
a pilot basis, the practice in limited 
circumstances where there is a 
substantial imbalance on the opposite 
side of the market from the order being 
stopped. This limitation is intended to 
assure that specialists would stop stock 
in minimum variation markets only in 
situations where the likelihood of price 
improvement outweighs the possibility 
that contra-side limit orders would be 
bypassed.^® Moreover, the order size 
restrictions would act to ensure that 
most stops are granted to public 
customers with small orders, whose 
orders could most benefit firom the 


’M5 U.S.C. 78f. 

'"15U.S.C 78k. 

'*See SEC, Report of the Special Study of 
Securities Markets of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, H.R. Doc. No. 95, 88th Cong., Ist 
Sess., Pt. 2 (1963) (“Special Study”). 

When stock is stopped, limit book orders on the 
opposite side of the market do not receive an 
immediate execution. Consequently, if the stopped 
order then receives an improved price, limit orders 
at the stop price are bypassed and, if the market 
turns away horn that limit, may never be executed. 

^ As for limit book orders on the same side of 
the market as the stopped stock, the Commission 
believes that Rule 116.30's requirements make it 
unlikely that these limit orders would not be 
executed. Under the NYSE pilot program, an order 
can be stopped only if a substantial imbalance exits 
on the opposite side of the market. In those 
circumstances, the stock would probably trade 
away from the large imbalance, resulting in 
execution of orders on the limit order b^k. 


professional handling by specialists.^* 

In addition, limiting the total stops to 
5,000 shares is intended to ensure that 
the amount of stopped stock does not 
become so large that there would, in 
effect, cease to be an imbalance on the 
opposite side of the market from the 
order being stopped (i.e., less likelihood 
of price improvement for the stopped 
orders). Finally, although the spread 
cannot be reuuced by stopping stock in 
minimum variation markets, specialists 
must change the quote bid or offer size 
to reflect the size of the order being 
stopped. This should ensure that the 
stopped stock will be shovm in the 
quote. 

To examine whether specialists have 
been using the pilot program as 
intended, the Commission had asked 
the Exchange to provide data on the 
stopping stock program in a minimmn 
variation market .22 The Exchange has 
submitted to the Commission four 
monitoring reports regarding the 
amendments to Rule 116.30. The 
commission believes that the 
monitoring reports, especially, the 
fourth (and latest) monitoring report, 
provide useful information regarding 
the effectiveness of the program during 
the pilot period. 

Specifically, according to the NYSE’s 
fourth report, approximately half of 
eligible orders [i.e., orders for 2,000 
shares or less) stopped in minimum 
variation markets received price 
improvement. Moreover, according to 
the NYSE report, stops in minimum 
variation markets generally have been 
granted when there was a significant 
disparity (in both absolute and relative 
terms) between the number of shares bid 
for and the number offered. In 
particular, the Exchange reports that for 
a substantial majority of stops granted, 
the size of the stopped order was less 
than, or equal to, 25% of the size of the 
opposite side quote. The Exchange also 
reports that only approximately a third 
of the limit orders on the opposite side 
of the market from all market orders 
stopped in eighth point markets were 


As part of its initial proposed rule change, the 
NYSE provided the following example illustrating 
the relationship between quote size imbalance and 
the likelihood of price improvement: Assume that 
the market for a given stock is quoted 30 to 30’/i>. 
with 1,000 shares bid for and 20,000 shares offered. 
The large imbalance on the offer side of the market 
suggests that subsequent transactions will be on the 
bid side. Accordingly, the NYSE states that it might 
be appropriate to stop a market order to buy, since 
the delay might allow the specialist to execute the 
buyer’s order at a lower price. After granting such 
a stop, under NYSE rules the specialist would be 
required to increase his quote by the size of the 
stopped buy order, thereby adding depth to the bid 
side of the market. 

*2 See supra notes 5 and 7. 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54903 


not executed by the end of the day.^a 
Finally, with respect to Floor Official 
approval of waivers to the numerical 
limitations, the Exchange reports that, 
after some problems in the earlier 
phases of the pilot, a very high 
percentage of orders requiring Floor 
Official approval received such an 
approval. 

The Commission, therefore, believes 
that the data on stopping stock in 
minimum variation markets show that 
the pilot has operated as Intended and 
should be approved permanently. 
Moreover, for the reasons discussed 
below, the Commission believes that the 
commenters’ criticisms of the proposals 
have been adequately addressed. 

First, although the Commission 
recognizes that a specialist potentially 
may have multiple responsibilities with 
respect to limit orders on the book and 
to market orders, the stopping stock 
program in minimum variation markets 
is a reasonable approach to the 
balancing of interests.^-* The program 
attempts to maximize the possibility of 
price improvement for market order 
^ customers while minimizing the 
possibility that limit orders may be 
bypassed. This is accomplished by 
permitting the use of the stopping stock 
procedures in minimum variation 
markets in limited circumstances: 

Where the disparity between the bid 
and-offer size appears to be significant 
enough that there is likelihood of price 
improvement. Moreover, as discussed 
above the data indicates that the pilot 
has fulfilled its expectations in that 
customers, for the most part, have been 
stopped only in markets with 
substantial disparities and have 
received price improvement in many of 
these situations. 

Second, the Commission disagrees 
with Professor Peake that the specialist 
is using the stopping stock procedures 
to avoid making an unwanted trade with 
his own quote. The requirement that 
there be a large imbalance on the 
opposite side of the stopped order for a 
specialist to stop stock makes it unlikely 
that the specialist would be the only 
source of a quote. 

Third, Professor Peake states that the 
specialist should not be given latitude 
in setting execution prices through 
stopping stock. Given that there must be 


*®The NYSE report finds that approximately 40% 
of the limit orders on the opposite side of the 
market from the stopped orders were canceled and 
approximately 30% were executed by the end of the 
day. 

Cf. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36310 
(Sept. 29,1995), 60 FR 52792, 52807 (Oct. 10, 

1995), where the Conunission requests comment on 
order exposure'procedures in minimum variation 
markets and how price improvement procedures 
would operate in such situations. 


a significant imbalance between the bid 
and offer that strongly suggests the 
likelihood of price improvement, the 
Commission does not believe that a 
specialist stopping stock and providing 
price improvement is provided with 
imfettered discretion in setting prices or 
unduly influencing market trends.^s 

Fourth, Professor Peake suggests that 
the decimalization of quotes and full 
disclosure of the limit order book would 
make the practice of stopping stock 
unnecessary.26 Such a possibility, 
however, should not preclude the NYSE 
fi'om developing price improvement 
procedures based upon existing spread 
parameters. Moreover, in regard to 
market structure concerns over order 
handling and transparency, the 
Commission recently proposed rules 
designed, among other things, to 
improve the display of limit orders.^^ 
The Commission does not believe that 
the proposed stopping stock procedures 
for minimum variation markets should 
be disapproved pending further action 
on the o^er proposals. 

Fifth, Professor Mendelson states that 
the practice of stopping stock hampers 
price discovery because a stop delays 
the execution of an order. The 
Commission believes that although 
stopping stock might delay the 
execution of an order somewhat, the 
opportunity for price improvement for 
the order that is stopped outweighs 
concerns regarding the delay of an order 
execution. Moreover, the Commission 
believes that the practice of stopping 
stock may further the price discovery 
process of a stock because the stopped 
stock may receive an improved price, 
which might be a more accurate 
reflection of the interests in the market. 

For all of the above reasons, the 
Commission believes that the NYSE 
proposal is consistent with Section 
6(b)(5) of the Act. In addition to a 
determination that the NYSE proposal is 
consistent with Section 6 of the Act and 


The Conunission notes that to the extent there 
is a large price discrepancy between sequential 
orders, the NYSE surveillance procedures would 
review whether orders were executed consistent 
with price parameters for continuity and depth. 

ZB See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33026 
(Oct. 6,1993), 58 FR 36262 (Oct. 13,1993) (seeking 
comment regarding decimal pricing in the 
Commission’s proposal to require disclosure of 
payment for order flow). 

zz See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36310 
(Sept. 29.1995), 60 FR 52792 (Oct. 10.1995) 
(proposing a minimum standard for all markets that 
would require the display of customer limit orders 
under certain circumstances). In addition, as noted 
above the stopping stock pilot provides, to a certain 
extent, market transparency by requiring that the 
stopped orders be reflected in the quote. See also 
Division of Market Regulation, SEC, "Market 2000, 
An Examination of Current Equity Market 
Developments" (Jan. 1994) (“Moricet 2000") Study 
rv at 5-6. 


adequately addresses the commenters’ 
concerns, the Commission also believes 
that the proposal is consistent with the 
prohibition in Section 11(b) against 
providing discretion to a specialist in 
the handling of an order, Section 11(b) 
was designed, in part, to address 
potential conflicts of interest that may 
arise as a result of the specialist’s dual 
role as agent and principal in executing 
stock transactions. In p^cular. 

Congress intended to prevent specialists 
firom imduly influencing market trends 
through their knowledge of market 
interest firom the specialist’s book and 
their handling of discretionary agency 
orders. 29 The Commission has stated 
that, pursuant to Section llCo), all 
orders other than market or limit orders 
are discretionary and therefore cannot 
be accepted by specialists. 

As previously noted in the 1991 
Approval Order, the Commission 
believes that it is appropriate to treat 
stopped orders, even those under the 
pilot procedures, as equivalent to limit 
orders. The NYSE’s rules define a limit 
order as an order to buy or sell a stated 
amount of a security at a specified price, 
or at a better price if obtainable.^^ The 
Commission believes that stopped 
orders are equivalent to limit orders, in 
this instance, because the orders would 
be automatically elected at the best bid 
or offer, or better if obtainable. Although 
the proposed amendments permit the 
specialist to employ his judgment to 
some extent, the Commission believes 
that the requirements imposed on the 
specialist for granting stops in minimum 
variation markets provide sufficiently 
stringent guidelines to ensure that the 
specialist will only implement these 
provisions in a manner consistent with 
his market making duties and Section 
ll(b).« 

In permanently approving the 
stopping stock procedures for minimum 
variation markets, the Commission is 
relying on three aspects of the program 
and expects the NYSE to reiterate these 
requirements in an Information Memo 
to members. First, the Commission 
continues to believe that the 
requirement of a sufficient market 
imbalance is important to the proper 
application of the program. This 


Section 11(b) permits a specialist to accept only 
market or limit orders. 

2»SeeH. Rep. No. 1383,73d Cong. 2d Sess. 22. 

S. Rep. 792, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. 18 (1934). 

See Special Study, supra note 19. 

z’SeeNYSERulel3. 

*z Moreover, stopped orders as “limit orders” 
would not bypass pre-existing limit orders on the 
same side of the market. Under the NYSE’s 
procedures, specialists may not execute a stopped 
order before the limit order interest on the 
Exchange (at the same price as the stopped order) 
is exhausted. See supra note 20. 




54904 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


requirement should help the NYSE 
ensure that stops are only granted in a 
minimum variation market when the 
benefit (i.e., price improvement) to 
orders being stopped far exceeds the 
potential for hann to orders on the 
specialist’s book. Second, the 
Commission expects the NYSE to take 
appropriate action in response to any 
instance of specialist non-compliance 
with the stopping stock procedures in 
minimmn variation markets. Third, the 
Commissi<m emphasizes that Floor 
Official approval of an increase in the 
size of the stopped order or stopping 
more than 5000 shares must not be 
routine. The Commission expects the 
NYSE to continue to monitor 
compliance with these aspects of the 
stopping stock program t^ugh its 
special surveillance procedures. 

V. Omclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,^^ that the 
proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-95- 
14) is approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority.®^ 

Margaret H. McFaiiaad, 

Deputy Secretary. 

(FR Doc 95-26575 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
aaiMo coot aaio-oi-M 

(nalaaaa No. 34-38395; File No. SR-PHLX- 
96-<q 

S«lf-Reguiatory Organizations; Notice 
of RHng of Propos^ Ruie Change by 
the Phiiadeiphia Stock Exchange, Inc. 
Relating to Trader Registration and the 
Use of the Series 7A Examination 

October 20,1995. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(“Act”), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l), notice is 
hereby given that on September 22, 
1995, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, 
Inc. (“Phlx” of “Exchange”) filed wiA 
the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (“Commission”) the 
proposed rule change as described in 
Items I, n, and in below, which Items 
have been prepared by the self- 
regulatory organization. On October 6, 
1995 the Exchange submitted 
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule 
change.^ The Commission is publishing 

"15U.S.C 788(b0(2). 

"17 OTt 200.30-3(80(12). 

’ See letter from Gerald O'Connell, First Vice 
President Market Regulation and Trading 
Operations, Phlx, to Glen Barrentine, Senior 
Counsel, SEC, dated October 3,1995. In 
Amendment No. 1 the Exchange explained the 
purpose of its proposed amendment to Rule 
604(c)(ii). 


this notice to solicit comments on the 
proposed rule chemge firom interested 
persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement of the Terms of Substance of 
the Proposed Rule Change 

The Phlx, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 of 
the Act, proposes to adopt paragraph (d) 
to Rule 604, Registration and 
Termination of Registered 
Representatives, to require registration 
of persons who solicit or handle 
business in securities and are 
compensated by a member or 
participant organization for which the 
Phbc is the Designated Examining 
Authority (“DEA”). Only persons not 
otherwise required to register with the 
Exchange would be subject to Rule 
604(d). Registration pursuant to the 
proposed rule would require filing Form 
U-4, Uniform Application for Securities 
Industry Registration or Transfer, with 
the Exchange. The Phlx also proposes to 
amend paragraph (c)(ii) of Rule 604, 
which names the Series 7 A as the 
examination appropriate for Limited 
Registration/Floor Members,^ to clarify 
that this is the appropriate examination 
for such members only, not all members 
who conduct a public business from the 
equity trading floor. 

The text of the proposed rule change 
is as follows [new text is italicized]: 

Rule 604 Registration and Termination 
of Registered Representatives 

(c) Limited Registration/Floor Members 

« * * 

(ii) The appropriate examination for a floor 
member to conduct a public business from 
the equity trading floor is the Series 7A 
examination. 

(d) Every person who is compensated 
directly or indirectly by a member or 
participant organization for which the 
Exchange is the Designated Examining 
Authority (“DEA”) for the solicitation or 
handling of business in securities, including 
trading securities for the account of the 
member or participant organization, whether 
such securities are those dealt in on the 
Exchange or those dealt in over-the-counter, 
who is not otherwise required to register with 
the Exchange by paragraph (a) of this rule or 
another rule shall file Form U-4, Uniform 
Application for Securities Industry 
Registration or Transfer, with the Exchange. 

2 A Limited Registration/Floor Member is a 
member who conducts a public business that is 
limited to accepting orders from professional 
customers for execution on the trading floor. The 
Series 7A examination is a module of the Series 7 
(the General Securities Registered Representative 
Examination) developed to test the knowledge of 
relevant securities laws and Exchange rules 
required of such members. See Securities Exchange 
Act Release No. 32698 (July 29,1993), 58 FR 41539 
(August 4,1993) (File No. SR-NYSE-93-10). 


n. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement of the ^rpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 
Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 
self-regulatnry organization included 
statements concerning the purpose of 
and basis for the proposed rule change 
and discussed any comments it received 
on the proposed rule change. The text 
of these statements may be examined at 
the places specified in Item IV below. 
The self-regulatory organization has 
prepared summaries, set forth in 
Sections A, B, €md C below, of the most 
significant aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regtilatory Organization's 
Statement of the Purpose of. and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 
Change 

1. Purpose 

Currently, the 600 series of rules 
generally govern registration of 
members.^ Rule 604(a) requires Series 7 
Registered Representatives to register 
with the Exchange on Form U-4. In 
addition, the Ex^ange requires Limited 
Registration/Floor Members to register 
pursuant to Rule 604(c). HoweVer, there 
is no requirement for proprietary 
“upstaires” traders (i.e., those who trade 
for the firm’s own account) to register 
with the Exchange. This proposal 
adopts such a requirement as Rule 
604(d). 

The Commission recently noted the 
absence of such a requirement during a 
Commission oversight examination of a 
Phlx participant organization. The 
Exchange has thus determined to 
require a firm’s proprietary traders to 
register with the Exchange and believes 
that this requirement will enhance the 
Exchange’s examination program. 
Specifically, Exchange files would 
contain a complete record of those 
trading for a member of participant 
organization, not just persons handling 
customer accoimts. The Form U—4 
would provide backgroimd information 
on such traders as well as a basis for 
further Exchange research if needed. 

Similar to Rmes 604(a) and (c), the 
proposal would require registration on 
Form U—4. This form is currently used 
in the Exchange’s membership 
application process for prospective 
members or participants, as well as the 
officers, shareholders and directors of 
such organizations. In order to prevent 
duplicative registration, the proposal 
would not apply to persons who are 
otherwise registered with the Exchange. 

The proposal also seeks to amend 
paragraph (c)(ii) of Rule 604. The 

^ See, e.g.. Rule 600, Addresses of Members. 





Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54905 


piirpose of the amendment is to add 
limiting language to Rule 604(c)(ii) to 
clarify that &e Series 7A is the 
appropriate examination for Limited. 
Registration/Floor Members, not all 
members conducting a public business 
from the equity trading floor. Although 
the organization and intent behind the 
adoption of Rule 604 indicate that 
paragraph (c) and sub-paragraph (ii) 
thereunder apply only to Limited 
Registration/Floor Members,* on its face 
the text of 604(c)(ii) can be construed to 
apply to all members conducting a 
public business. The amendment would 
remove this ambiguity from Rule 
604(c)(ii) by naming floor members 
specifically as the parties for whom the 
Series 7A is the appropriate 
examination. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The proposed rule change is 
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the 
Act 3 in that it is designed to promote 
just and equitable principles of trade, 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative 
acts and practices, as well as to protect 
investors and the public interest by 
enhancing the Exchange’s examination 
process. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement on Burden on Competition « 

The Phlx does not believe that the 
proposed rule change will impose any 
inappropriate burden on competition. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 
Statement on Comments on the 
Proposed Rule Change Received from 
Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 
solicited or received. 

m. Date of Efiectiveness of the 
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action 

Within 35 days of the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register or 
within such longer period (i) as the 
Commission may designate up to 90 
days of such date if it finds such longer 
period to be appropriate and publishes 
its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to 
which the self-regulatory organization 
consents, the Commission will: 

(A) By order approve the proposed 
rule change, or 

(B) Institute proceedings to determine 
whether the proposed rule change 
should be disapproved. 


'* See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35258 
Oanuary 20,1995), 60 FR 5449 (January 27,1995) 
(File No. SR-Phlx-94-15) (order approving the 
Phlx’s adoption of the Limited Registration/Floor 
Member status and its use of the Series 7A for such 
members). 

»15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 


IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 
submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing. 
Persons making written submissions 
should file six copies thereof with the 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the 
submission, all subsequent 
amendments, all written statements 
with respect to the proposed rule 
change that are filed with the 
Commission, and all written 
communications relating to the 
proposed rule change between the 
Commission and any person, other than 
those that may be withheld from the 
public in accordance with the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 
available for inspection and copying at 
the Commission’s Public Reference 
Section, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of such 
filing will also be available for 
inspection and copying at the principal 
office of the Exchange. All submissions 
should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-95-58 
and should be submitted by November 
16,1995. 

For the (Dommission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority. 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Depu ty Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26543 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNO COOC 801(M)1-M 


[Release No. 34-36402; File No. SR-OPRA- 
95-4] 

Options Price Reporting Authority; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of Amendment to Extend 
the ^ope and Duration of OPRA’s 
Current Usage-Based Fee Pilot 

October 20,1995. 

Pursuant to Rule llAa3-2 under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(“Exchange Act’!), notice is hereby given 
that on October 5,1995, the Options 
Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) * 
submitted to the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (“SEC” or 


' OPRA is a National Market System Plan 
approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 
llA of the Exchange Act and Rule llAa3-2 
thereunder. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
17638 (Mar. 18,1981). 

The Plan provides for the collection and 
dissemination of last sale and quotation information 
on options that are traded on the Hve member 
exchanges. The five exchanges which agree to the 
OPRA Plan are the American Stock Exchange 
(“AMEX"); the Chicago Board Options Exchange 
(“CBOE”): the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”); 
the PaciRc Stock Exchange (“PSE”); and the 
Philadelphia Stock Exchange (“PHLX”). 


“Commission”) an amendment to the 
Plan for Reporting of Consolidated 
Options Last Sale Reports and 
(Rotations Information (“Plan”). The 
amendment extends both the scope and 
duration of OPRA’s current usage-based 
fee pilot. OPRA has designated this 
proposal as establishing or changing a 
fee or other charge collected on behalf 
of all of the OPRA participants in 
connection with access to or use of 
OPRA facilities, permitting the proposal 
to become effective upon filing pursuant 
to Rule llAa3-2(c)(3)(i) imder Ae 
Exchange Act. The Commission is 
publishing this notice to solicit 
comments from interested persons on 
the amendment. > 

I. Description and Purpose of the 
Amendment 

The purpose of the amendment is to 
extend bo^ the scope and duration of 
OPRA’s current usage-based fee pilot 
that provides for a usage-based fee as an 
alternative to OPRA’s port-based Dial¬ 
up Market Data Service Utilization Fee. 
The pilot became elective in September 
1994, for a period of one year 
commencing with the time that the first 
dial-up vendor elected to pay the usage- 
based fee.2 

OPRA is proposing to extend the 
usage-based fee concept by providing a 
usage-based fee as an alternative to 
OPRA’s port-based Voice Synthesized 
Market Data Service Fee and OPRA’s 
device-based Radio Paging Service Fee. 
In each case, the usage-based fee would 
be set at the same level that currently 
applies to the Dial-up Market Data 
Service.* The purpose of extending the 
usage-based alternative to providers of 
voice synthesized and radio paging 
service is to accommodate those service 
providers that have the capability of 
monitoring usage for all three services 
and that have indicated to OPRA that 
they would enjoy certain efficiencies if 
they could be charged for all three 
services on the same basis.* 

OPRA does not expect the availability 
of these usage-based fees to have any 


2 The first dial-up vendor elected to pay this fee 
in June 1995. Based on the terms of the pilot, 
therefore, it will expire on June 30,1996, unless 
extended. 

^ The usage-based fee has been established at 
$0.02 for each “quote packet" consisting of any one 
or more of the following values: last sale, bid/ask, 
and related market data for a single series of options 
or a related index accessed via the service. All 
inquiries, except those for historical information, 
would be included for purposes of calculating the 
fee. For this purpose, options market information 
becomes “historical” upon the opening of trading 
on the next succeeding trading day of that market. 

'* As with the current usage-based Dial-up Market 
Data Service Utilization Fee. persons that elect to 
pay the usage-based Voice Synthesized Market Data 

Continued 






54906 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


significant impact on the total revenues 
realized by OPRA from fees imposed on 
these categories of service providers. 
However, because the actual impact of 
these alternative fees cannot be 
.^predicted with certainty, OPRA is 
proposing to ofier them for a 15-month 
pilot period beginning on October 1, 

1995, to December 31,1996, during 
which time the overall impact of usage- 
based fees will be evaluated. In order to 
be able to continue to evaluate the 
usage-based Dial-up Market Data 
Service Utilization Fee in conjimction 
with the other usage-based fee, OPRA is 
proposing to extend the current pilot 
until December 31,1996. 

n. Solicitation of Comments 

Pursuant to Rule llAa3-2(c)(3), the 
amendment is effective upon filing with 
the Commission. The Commission may 
siunmarily abrogate the amendment 
within 60 days of its filing and require 
refiling and approval of the amendment 
by Commission order pursuant to Rule 
llAa3-2(c)(2), if it appears to the 
Commission that such action is 
necessary or appropriate in the public 
interest; for the protection of investors 
and the maintenance of fair and orderly 
markets; to remove impediments to, and 
perfect the mechanisms of, a National 
Market System; or otherwise in 
furtherance of the purposes of the 
Exchange Act. 

Interested persons are invited to 
. submit written data, views, and 
argmnents concerning the foregoing. 
Persons making written submissions 
should file six copies thereof vdth the 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Coimnission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the 
submission, all subsequent 
amendments, and all written statements 
with respect to the proposed rule 
change that are filed with the 
Commission, and all written 
commimications relating to the 
proposed rule change between the 
Commission and any person, other than 
those withheld from the public in 
accordance with the provisions of 5 
U.S.C. 552, will be available for 
inspection and copying in the 
Commission’s Public Reference Room. 
Copies of the filing also will be available 
at die principal offices of OPRA. All 
submissions should refer to file number 
SR-OPRA-95-3 and should be 
submitted by November 17,1995. 

Service Fee or the usage-based Radio Paging Service 
Fee will be required to give at least 90 days written 
notice to OPRA before they may convert back to the 
port-based or device-based fees for such services. 


For the Commission, by the Division of 
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 
authority.® 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

IFR Doc, 95-26571 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE a010-01-M 

pnvestment Company Act Rei. No. 21427; 
811-3949] 

Portfolios for Diversified Investment; 
Application for Deregulation 

October 19,1995. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 
Commission (“SEC”). 

ACTION: Notice of Application for 
Deregulation under the Investment 
Company Act of 1940 (“Act”). 

APPLICANT: Portfolios for Diversified 
Investment. 

RELEVANT ACT SECTION: Section 8(f). 
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant 
seeks an order declaring that it has 
ceased to be an investment company. 
FILING DATES: The application was filed 
on Jrme 21,1995, and amended on 
August 22 and October 11,1995. 

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An 
order granting the application will be 
issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. 
Interested persons may request a 
hearing by writing to the SEC’s 
Secretary and serving applicant with a 
copy of the request, personally or by 
mail. Hearing requests should be 
received by die SEC by 5:30 p.m. oh 
November 13,1995, and should be 
accompanied by proof of service on 
applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, 
for lawyers, a certificate of service. 
Hearing requests should state the nature 
of the writer’s interest, the reason for the 
request, and the issues contested. ^ 
Persons who wish to be notified of a 
hearing may request such notification 
by writing to the SEC’s Secretary. 
ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. 
Applicant, Bellevue Park Corporate 
Center, 400 Belleuve Parkway, Suite 
100, Wilmington, DE 19809. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Attorney, 
at (202) 942-0583, or C. David 
Messman, Branch Chief, at (202) 942- 
0564 (Division of Investment 
Management, Office of Investment 
Company Regulation). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
following is a summary of the 
application. The complete application 
may be obtained for a fee from the SEC’s 
Public Reference Branch. 

»17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29). 


Applicant’s Representations 

1. Applicant, which was originally 
incorporated in Maryland on January 
18,1984 as Diversified Investment Fund 
for Institutions, Inc., is an open-end 
diversified management investment 
company organized as a Massachusetts 
business trust.^ On January 26,1984, 
applicant filed a notification of 
registration under section 8(a) of the Act 
and a registration statement relating to 
its shares on Form N-1 under the 
Securities Act of 1933 and section 8(b) 
of the Act. This registration statement 
became effective on June 26,1994. 
Applicant’s initial public offering 
commenced on July 12,1984. Applicant 
offered shares in four series: Diversified 
Equity Appreciation Fimd, Diversified 
Fixed Income Fund and Long Fixed 
Income Fimd (“Fixed Income Fund”), 
Short Fixed Income Fund, and 
Intermediated Fixed Income Fimd. 
Applicant is seeking to deregister as an 
investment company because the last of 
these series, the Fixed Income Fund, 
terminated in June 1995. 

2. At a meeting held on January 27, 
1995, applicant’s Board of Trustees 
approved an Agreement and Plan of 
Reorganization (“Plan”), between 
applicant and the PNC Fund, a 
registered, open-end management 
investment company. The Plan 
provided for the transfer of all assets 
and known liabilities of applicant’s 
Fixed Income Fund in exchange for 
shares of the Institutional Class of the 
Intermediate-Term Bond Portfolio (the 
“Bond Portfolio”) of the PNC Fund. The 
Board determined that the Plan would 
be likely to reduce the overall expense 
ratios for applicant’s shareholders, and 
would provide potentially greater 
portfolio diversification. 

3. Applicant and The PNC Fund are 
both advised by PNC Institutional 
Management Corporation, and share 
common directors and a majority of 
officers. Applicant therefore relied on 
the exemption provided by rule 17a-8 
under the Act to effect the transaction.^ 
Consequently, the Board determined, in 
accordance with rule 17a-8, that the 
proposed transaction was advisable and 
in the best interest of the shareholders 

' Applicant subsequently changed its nante to 
Diversified Investment Fund, Inc. (April 12,1984), 
DiversiHed Securities Fund, Inc. (June 15,1984), 
and Portfolios for Diversihed Investment, Inc. 
(September 28,1984). Finally, on June 11,1985, 
applicant filed a declaration of trust with the State 
of Massachusetts under the name Portfolios for 
Diversified Investment. 

2 Rule 17a-8 provides relief from the affiliated 
transaction prohibition of section 17(a) of the Act 
for a merger of investment companies that may be 
affiliated persons of each other solely by reason of 
having a common investment adviser, common 
directors, and/or common officers. 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54907 


of the Fixed Income Fimd, and that the 
interests of applicant’s existing 
shareholders would not be diluted as a 
result of the transaction. 

4. Definitive proxy materials relating 
to the Plan were filed with the SEC on 
May 19,1995, and proxy materials were 
mailed to applicant’s shareholders 
during the week of May 15,1995. 
Applicant’s shareholders voted to 
approve the Plan at a special meeting of 
shareholders on J\me 12,1995. 

5. As of June 12,1995, tha Fixed 
Income Fund had 1,059,353.225 shares 
outstanding with a net asset value per 
share of $9.76. A dividend in the 
amount of $.023212454 per share was 
declared and paid on June 16,1995 to 
shareholders of the Fixed Income Frmd. 
At the same time, pursuant to the Plan, 
the assets and known liabilities of the 
Fixed Income Fund were transferred to 
the Bond Portfolio in exchange for 
shares of the Bond Portfolio. Applicant 
then distributed the shares of the Bond 
Portfolio it received pro rata to its 
shareholders in complete liquidation of 
their interests in applicant. 

6. The expenses incurred in 
connection with the Plan consisted of 
legal fees, filing fees, and printing 
expenses in the amount of 
approximately $51,000. Of this amoimt, 
approximately $22,000 has been or will 
be paid by applicant, and approximately 
$29,000 has been or will be paid by the 
Bond Portfolio. 

7. At the time of the application, 
applicant had no shareholders, assets or 
liabilities, nor was applicant a party to. 
any litigation or administrative 
proceeding. Applicant is not engaged in, 
nor does it propose to engage in, any 
business activities other &an those 
necessary for the winding-up of its 
affairs. 

8. Applicant intends to file a 
Certificate of Termination with the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

For the SEC, by the Division of Investment 
Management, under delegated authority. 
Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

IFR Doc. 95-26549 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 ami 
HLUNQ CODE 801(M)1-M 


[Release No. 36-36395] 

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act of 1935, as Amended 
C'Act”) 

October 20,1995. 

Notice is hereby given that the 
following filing(s) has/have been made 
with the Commission pursuant to 
provisions of the Act and rules 
promulgated thereimder. All interested 


persons are referred to the application(s) 
and/or declaration(s) for complete 
statements of the proposed 
transaction(s) summarized below. The 
application(s) and/or declaration(s) and 
any amendments thereto is/are available 
for public inspection through the 
Commission’s Office of Public 
Reference. 

Interested persons wishing to 
comment or request a hearing on the 
application(s) and/or declaration(s) 
should submit their views in writing by 
November 13,1995, to the Secretary, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Washington, DC 20549, and serve a 
copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or 
declarant(s) at the address(es) specified 
below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, 
in case of an attorney at law, by 
certificate) should be filed with the 
request. Any request for hearing shall 
identify specifically the issues of fact or 
law that are disputed. A person who so 
requests will be notified of any hearing, 
if ordered, and will receive a copy of 
any notice or order issued in the matter. 
After said date, the application(s) and/ 
or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, 
may be granted and/or permitted to 
become effective. 

Northeast Utilities Service Company, 
Inc. et al. (70-8699) 

Northeast Utilities Service Company 
(“NUSCO”), Northeast Nuclear Energy 
Company (“Northeast Nuclear’’) and 
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power 
Company (“Connecticut Yankee’’), each 
of 107 Selden Street, Berlin, 

Connecticut 06037, North Atlantic 
Energy Service Corporation (“North 
Atlantic’’), Route 1, Lafayette Road, 
Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874,- and 
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 
(“Yankee Atomic’’), 580 Main Street, 
Bolton, Massachusetts 01740, 
subsidiaries of Northeast Utilities, 
(“Northeast”), a registered holding 
company, have filed a declaration under 
sections 13(b) and 13(f) of the Act and 
rules 86, 90, 89, 90 and 91 thereunder. 

NUSCO is a wholly owned service 
company subsidiary of Northeast that 
provides legal, accounting, and other 
administrative services to companies in 
the Northeast system. Northeast Nuclear 
and North Atlantic are wholly owned 
electric utility and service company 
subsidiaries of Northeast that operate 
the Millstone Nuclear Power Station 
and the Seabrook nuclear plant, 
respectively. Connecticut Yankee and 
Yankee Atomic are electric utility 
subsidiaries of Northeast ^ that own and 


’ Connecticut Yankee and Yankee Atomic are also 
subsidiaries of New England Electric System, also 
a registered holding company under the Act. 


operate the Connecticut Yankee Atomic 
Power Plant and the Yankee Nuclear 
Power Station, respectively. 

The applicants seek authorization ^ to 
enter into a Reciprocal Support 
Agreement (“Agreement”), under which 
Northeast Nuclear, North Atlantic, 
Connecticut Yankee, and Yankee 
Atomic may temporarily provide 
technical resources, personnel and 
equipment to each other. NUSCO would 
provide billing, accounting and other 
similar services to facilitate the 
transactions among these companies 
and would be compensated for its 
services by the companies who receive 
equipment or services. Compensation 
for transactions under the Agreement 
would be at “cost.” as determined in 
accordance with the Act and related 
rules thereimder. 

The applicants state that temporary 
sharing of resources and personnel 
between nuclear units is similar to the 
emergency provision of resources that 
occurs routinely on an informal basis in 
the nuclear industry, and that the 
Agreement is a logical extension and 
formalization of this practice. 

Cinergy Corporation (70-8705) 

CINergy Corporation (“Cinergy”), a 
registered holding company, 139 East 
Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, 
has filed a declaration under sections 
6(a) and 7 of the Act and rule 54 
thereunder. 

By order dated October 21,1994 
(HCAR No. 26146) (“Merger Order”), 
the Commission authorized Cinergy, 
among other things, to issue (and/or 
acquire in open market transactions) 
and sell up to ten million shares of 
Cinergy common stock, $.01 par value 
per share, to the Cinergy Reinvestment 
emd Stock Purchase Plan, certain 
Cinergy stock-based employee benefit 
plans, and the 401(k) savings plans of 
Cinergy’s subsidiaries. The Cincinnati 
Gas & Electric Company and PSI Energy, 
Inc., through December 31,1995, 
(collectively, “Plans”). As of September 
1,1995, Cinergy issued for, in the case 
of open market transactions, acquired 
on l^half of plan participants) and sold 
the Plans a total of 2,613,304 shares of 
common stock pursuant to the Merger 
Order. 

Cinergy now seeks Commission 
authorization to issue (or. in the case of 


2 Pursuant to prior orders of the Conunission, 
Northeast Nuclear and North Atlantic Service have 
agreed to seek Commission approval prior to 
providing services to entities other than the joint 
owners of the respective nuclear units that they 
operate. Northeast Utilities et al.. Holding Co. Act 
Release No. 25565 Oune 29,1992), and Northeast 
Nuclear Energy Company, Holding Co. Act Release 
No. 25950 (Dec. 16,1993). 





54908 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


shares purchased on the open market, to 
acquire on behalf of plan participants] 
and well under the Plans, from time to 
time through December 31,2000: (1) 

The remaining shares of common stock 
covered under the Merger Order, 

' consisting of 7,386,696 shares at 
September 1,1995; and (2) up to an 
additional 15 million shares of Cinergy 
common stock. 

Cinergy proposes to use the proceeds 
from sales of the Cinergy common stock 
for general corporate purposes, 
including repayment of short-term 
indebtediness and investments in 
subsidiary companies. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 
Investment Management, pursuant to 
delegated authority. 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 95-26577 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
NLUNQ CODE 801(M>1-M 


[Release No. 35-26396] 

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act of 1935, as amended 
fAct”) 

October 20,1995. 

Notice is hereby given that the 
following filing(s) ^s/have been made 
with the Commission pursuant to 
provisions of the Act and rules 
promulgated theretmder. All interested 
persons are referred to the application(s) 
and/or declaration(s) for complete 
statements of the proposed 
transaction(s) summarized below. The 
application(s) and/or declaration(s) and 
any amendments thereto is/are available 
for public inspection through the 
Commission’s Office of Public 
Reference. 

Interested persons wishing to 
comment or request a hearing on the 
applicationfs) and/or declaration(s) 
should submit their views in writing by 
November 13,1995, to the Secretary, 
Secvuities and Exchange Commission, 
Washington, D.C. 20549, and serve a 
copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or 
declarant(s) at the address(es) specified 
below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, 
in case of an attorney at law, by 
certificate) should be filed with the 
request. Any request for hearing shall 
identify specifically the issues of fact or 
law that are disputed. A person who so 
requests will be notified of any hearing, 
if ordered, and will receive a copy of 
any notice or order issued in the matter. 
After said date, the application(s) and/ 
or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, 
may be granted and/or permitted to 
become effective. 


Transok, Inc., et al. (70-8519) 

Transok, Inc. (“Transok”), a wholly- 
owned non-utility subsidiary of Central 
and South West Corporation (“CSW”), a 
registered holding company, Transok . 
Acquisition Company (“TAC”), a 
wholly-owned non-utility subsidiary of 
Transok, and Transok Gas Transmission 
Company (“Transmission”) and Transok 
Gas Gathering Company (“Gathering”), 
wholly-ovmtKl non-utility subsidiaries 
of TAC,i all located at P.O. Box 3008, 
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, have filed an 
application-declaration imder sections 
9(a), 10,12(c) and 12(f) of the Act and 
rules 42, 43, 45(a) and 54 thereimder. 

Applicants request authorization to 
merge TAC, Transmission and 
Gathering into Transok, with Transok 
being the svirviving corporation. ^ The 
mergers would simplify Transok’s 
corporate structure by eliminating one 
of its first-tier subsidiaries (TAC) and 
two of its second-tier subsidiaries 
(Transmission and Gathering).^ As a 
result'of the mergers, Transok will 
acqviire all of the assets and assume all 
of die liabilities of TAC, Transmission 
and Gathering. Each outstanding share 
of capital sto^ Transok will remain 
imchanged with the same rights, 
privileges and preferences as before the 
mergers. Each outstanding share of 
capital stock of TAG, Transmission and 
Gathering will be cancelled and 
extinguished. Applicants state that they 
expect the mergers to produce several 
benefits and efficiencies, including (i) 
aimual tax savings of approximately 
$500,000; (ii) simplified and less costly 
internal and external accounting 
operations; (iii) reduced and less costly 
regulatory reporting and compliance 
requirements; (iv) i^uced 
administrative costs; and (v) simplified 
and less costly contracting procedvires 
for Transok and its customers. 

Applicants also request {luthorization 
for Transok to transfer certain natural 
gas compression assets, as a capital 
contribution, to Transok Gas Processing 


' In addition to Gathering and Transmission, TAC 
currently has two other wholly-owned non-utility 
subsidiaries: Transok Gas Company (“Marketing”) 
and Transok Gas Processing Company 
(“Processing”). 

* The mergers would be accomplished in two 
stages: (1) the merger of TAC into Transok, with 
Transok being the surviving corporation, and (2) the 
subsequent mergers of Transmission and Gathering 
into Transok, with Transok being the surviving 
corporation. 

3 Transok currently has two Grst-tier subsidiaries, 
Transok Properties, Inc. (“Properties”) and TAC, 
and, through its sole ownership of TAC, four 
second-tier subsidiaries: Gathering, Transmission, 
Processing and Marketing. After the proposed 
mergers are consummated, Transok will have no 
second-tier subsidiaries and three first-tier 
subsidiaries: Properties, Processing and Marketing. 


Company, another of its wholly-owned 
subsidiaries. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 
Investment Management, pursuant to 
delegated authority. 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26578 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Change to Advisory Circular 27-1, 
Certification of Normal Category 
Rotorcraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance and 
availability. 

SUMMARY: Change 4, Advisory Circular 
(AC) 27-1, Certification of Normal 
Category Rotorcraft, was issued to bring 
the AC up-to-date with various rule 
changes to 14 CFR Part 27. As part of 
the FAA effort to achieve national 
standardization in rotorcraft 
certification, the AC serves as a ready 
reference for manufacturers, modifiers, 
FAA design evaluation engineers, flight 
test engineers, and engineering flight 
test pilots and has been harmonized 
with the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) 
to establish common guidance for the 
U.S. and for JAA member nations. The 
AC material has no legally binding 
status and must be treated as advisory 
only. 

DATES: Change 4, AC 27-1, was issued 
by the Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, on August 18, 

1995. 

How to Order: A copy of Change 4, 

AC 27-1, may be pun^ased from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, 
Washington, DC 20402, or from any of 
the Government Printing Offices located 
in major cities throughout the United 
States. Identify the publication as 
Change 4, AC 27-1, Certification of 
Normal Category Rotorcraft, Stock 
Number 050-007-01103-2. The cost is 
$12.00 per copy. Sends check or money 
order, made payable to Superintendent 
of Dociunents, with your request. 
Requests may also be made by calling 
the Government Printing Office at 202- 
512-1800. Orders for mailing to foreign 
countries should include an additional 
$3.00 to cover handling. No c.o.d. orders 
are accepted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Maria Garcia, Editorial Assistant, 
FAA, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54909 


Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 
Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 
222-5112, fax (817) 222-5961. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 11, 
1995. 

Eric Bries, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service. 

(FR Doc. 95-26621 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 

BILUNG cooe 4eiO-1S-M 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Change to Advisory Circular 29-2A, 
Certification of Transport Category 
Rotorcraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance and 
availability. 

SUMMARY: Change 3, Advisory Circular 
(AC) 29-2A, Certification of Transport 
Category Rotorcraft, was issued to bring 
the AC up-to-date with various rule 
changes to 14 CFR Part 29. As part of 
the FAA effort to achieve national 
standardization in rotorcraft 
certification, the AC serves as a ready 
reference for manufacturers, modifiers, 
FAA design evaluation engineers, flight 
test engineers, and engineering flight 
test pilots and has been harmonized 
with the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) 
to establish common guidance for the 
U.S. and for JAA member nations. The 
AC material has no legally binding 
status and must be treated as advisory 
only. 

DATeS: Change 3, AC 29-2A, was issued 
by the Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, on June 1,1995. 

How to Order: A copy of Change 3, 

AC 29-2A, may be purchased ftnm the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402, or from any of 
the Government Printing Offices located 
in major cities throughout the United 
States. Identify the publication as 
Change 3, AC 29-2A, Certification of 
Transport Category Rotorcraft, Stock 
Number 050-007-01104-2. The cost is 
$16.00 per copy. Send a check or money 
order, made payable to Superintendent 
of Documents, with your request. 
Requests may also be made by calling 
the Government Printing Office at 202- 
512-1800. Orders for mailing to foreign 
countries should include an additional 
$4.00 to Cover handling. No c.o.d. orders 
are accepted.. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 


Ms. Maria Garcia. Editorial Assistant, 
FAA, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 
Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 
222-5112, fax (817) 222-5961. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 11, 
1995. 

Eric Bries, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 
Aircaft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 95-26620 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ COOE 4910-1S-M 


Noise Exposure Map Notice; McGhee- 
Tyson Airport, Knoxville, TN 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 
Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) announces its 
determination that the noise exposure 
maps submitted by Metropolitan 
Knoxville Airport Authority for 
McGhee-Tyson Airport under the 
provisions of Title I of the Aviation 
Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 
(Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR Part 150 
are in compliance with applicable 
requirements. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the 
FAA’s determination on the noise 
exposure maps is October 12,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerry O. Bowers, Airport District Office, 
2851 Directors Cove, Suite #3, Memphis, 
TN 38131-0301,901-544-3495. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 
notice announces that the FAA finds 
that the noise exposure maps submitted 
for McGhee-Tyson Airport are in 
compliance with applicable 
requirements of Part 150, effective 
October 12,1995. 

Under section 103 of Title I of the 
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement 
Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 
“the Act”), an airport operator may 
submit to the FAA noise exposure maps 
which meet applicable regulations and 
which depict noncompatible land uses 
as of the date of submission of such 
maps, a description of projected aircraft 
operations, and the ways in which such 
operations will affect such maps. The 
Act requires such maps to be developed 
in consultation with interested and 
affected parties in the local community, 
government agencies, and persons using 
the airport. 

An airport operator who has 
submitted noise maps that are found by 
FAA to be in compliance with the 
requirements of Federal Aviation 
Regulations (FAR) Part 150, 


promulgated pursuant to Title I of the 
Act, may submit a noise compatibility 
program for FAA approval which sets 
forth the measures the operator has 
taken or proposed for the reduction of 
existing noncompatible uses and for the 
prevention of the introduction of 
additional noncompatible uses. 

The FAA has completed its review of 
the noise exposiue maps and related 
descriptions submitted by Metropolitan 
Knoxville Airport Authority. The 
specific maps under consideration are 
McGhee-Tyson Airport Existing (1995) 
Noise Exposure Map and Future (2000) 
Noise Exposure Maps submission. The 
FAA has determined that these maps for 
McGhee-Tyson Airport are in 
compliance with applicable 
requirements. This determination is 
effective on October 12,1995. FAA's 
determination on an airport operator’s 
noise exposure maps is limited to a 
finding ^at the maps were developed in 
accordance with the procedures 
contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 
150. Such determination does not 
constitute approval of the applicant’s 
data, information or plans, or a 
commitment to approve a noise 
compatibility program or to fund the 
implementation of that program. 

If questions arise concerning the 
precise relationship of specific priorities 
to noise exposure contours depicted on 
a noise exposure map submitted imder 
section 103 of the Act, it should be 
noted that the FAA is not involved in 
any way in determining the relative 
locations of specific properties with 
regard to the depicted noise contours, or 
in interpreting the noise exposure maps 
to resolve questions concerning, for 
example, which properties should be 
covered by the provisions of section 107 
of the Act. These functions are 
inseparable from the ultimate land use 
control and planning responsibilities of 
local government. These local 
responsibilities are not changed in any 
way under Part 150 or through FAA’s 
review of noise exposure maps. 
Therefore, the responsibility for the 
detailed overlaying of noise exposure 
contours onto the map depicting 
properties on the surface rests 
exclusively with the airport operator 
which submitted those maps, or with 
those public agencies and planning 
agencies with which consultation is 
required under section 103 of the Act. 
The FAA has relied on the certification 
by the airport operator, under section 
150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the 
statutorily required consultation has 
been accomplished. 

Copies of the noise exposure maps 
and of the FAA’s evaluation of the maps 




54910 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


are available for examination at the 
following locations: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 
617, Washington, D.C. 20591. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Airports District Office, 3851 
Directors Cove, Suite #3, Memphis, 

TN 38131-0301. 

Mr. William F. Marrison, Director of 
Airport Operations, McGhee-Tyson 
Airport, P.O. Box 15600, Knoxville, 
Tennessee 37901. 

Questions may be directed to the 
individual named above under the 
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. 

Issued in Memphis Airports District Office, 
October 12,1995. 

LaVeme F. Reid, 

Manager. 

[FR Dbc. 95-26622 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BHJJNQ cooe 4910-13-M 

Notice of Intent to Rule on Application 
to impose and use the revenue from a 
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at 
Sacramento Metropolitan Airport, 
Sacramento, CA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on 
application. 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and 
invites public comment on the 
application to impose and use the 
revenue fi'om a PFC at Sacramento 
Metropolitan Airport under the 
provisions of the Aviation Safety and 
Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title 
IX of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 
101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). 
DATES: Comments must be received on 
or before November 27,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this 
application may be mailed or delivered 
in triplicate to the FAA at the following 
address: Federal Aviation 
Administration, Airports Division, 

15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, GA 
90261, or San Francisco Airports 
District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 
210, Burlingame, CA 94010-1303. In 
addition, one copy of any comments 
submitted to the FAA must be mailed or 
delivered to Mr. Thomas P. Engel, 
Director, Department of Airports, 

County of Sacramento, at the following 
address: 6900 Airport Boulevard, 
Sacramento, California 95837. Air 
carriers and foreign air carriers may 
submit copies of written comments 


previously provided to the County of 
Sacramento under § 158.23 of Part 158. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Joseph R. Rodriguez, Supervisor, 
Planning and Programming Section, 
Airports District Office, 831 Mitten 
Road, Room 210, Burlingame, CA 
94010-1303, Telephone: (415) 876- 
2805. The application may be reviewed 
in person at this same location. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 
proposes to rule and invites public 
comment on the application to impose 
and use the revenue from Sacramento 
Metropolitan Airport under the 
provisions of the Aviation Safety and 
Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title 
IX of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L, 
101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). 

On October 13,1995, the FAA 
determined that the application to 
impose and use the revenue from a PFC 
submitted by the County of Sacramento 
was substantially complete within the 
requirements of section 158.25 of Part 
158. The FAA will approve or 
disapprove the application, in whole or 
in part, no later than December 20, 

1995. The following is a brief overview 
of the use application number AWP-95- 
02-C-00-SMF. 

Level of proposed PFC: $3.00. 

Charge effective date: March 1,1996. 

Estimated charge expiration date: 
October 31,1997. 

Brief description of the impose and 
use projects: Terminals and Concourses 
1 & 2 Rehabilitation Phase 2, Terminals 
1, 2 & 3 and Administration Building 
Electrical system Reconstruction/ 
Upgrade, Taxiway Y Completion, 
Taxiway Guidance Signs, Runway 
Pavement Evaluation, Construction of 
Taxi way C5, Airfield Lighting 
Computerized Control System 
Replacement, Airfield Jet Rodder Vector 
Replacement, Airfield Pavement 
Sweeper Replacement, ARFF Fire Truck 
Replacement, Construct New Rimway 
34L Holding Apron, Cargo Apron 
Expansion, Expansion of Existing 
Commuter Terminal, Reconstruct 
Electrical Vault, AR^ Station Building 
Seismic Upgrade, 800 MHz Radio 
System Phase 2, West Electrical Seismic 
Upgrade, Refueler Parking Rsunp, and 
ARFF Station Building Expansion. 

Total estimated net PFC revenue to be 
used on this use project: $10,445,000.00. 

Class or classes of air carriers which 
the public agency has requested not be 
required to collect PFCs: None. 

Any person may inspect the 
application in person at the FAA office 
listed above imder FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA 


Regional Airports Division located at: 
Federal Aviation Administration, 

Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd., 
Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any 
person may, upon request, inspect the 
application, notice and other documents 
germane to the application in person at 
the Coimty of Sacramento. 

Issued in Hawthorne, California, on 
October 16,1995. 

Robert C. Bloom,' 

Acting Manager, Airports Division, Western 
Pacific Region. 

[FR Doc. 95-26623 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNQ COOE 4910-1S-M 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 
Winnebago Coun^, Illinois; Rock 
County, Wisconsin 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 
notice to advise the public that an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
will be prepared for a proposed project 
in Winnebago County, Illinois, and Rock 
Coimty, Wisconsin. The proposed 
project corridor will extend from the 
intersection of Wisconsin Route 213 and 
Nye School Road northwest of Beloit, 
Wisconsin, to the interchange of 
Rockton Road and 1-90 sou&east of 
South Beloit, Illinois. The proposed 
project is designated FAP 354. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Walter Waidelich, Design Engineer, 
Federal Highway Administration, 3250 
Executive Park Drive, Springfield, 

Illinois 62703, Telephone: (217) 492- 
4622; Mr. William D. Ost, District 
Engineer, Illinois Department of 
Transportation, 819 Depot Avenue, 
Dixon, Illinois, Telephone: (815) 284- 
2271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
FHWA, in cooperation with the Illinois 
Department of Transportation, will 
prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement on a proposal to construct a 
highway on new alignment over a 
distance of approximately 13 kilometers 
(8 miles). The area being studied begins 
near the intersection of Wisconsin Route 
213 and Nye School Road and extends 
to the interchange of 1-90 and Rockton 
Road southeast of South Beloit, Illinois. 

Alternatives imder consideration 
include a no-build alternative and a 
new, partially-access-controlled facility 
on new alignment. Although the 
Environmental Impact Statement will 
assess the impacts of a new four-lane 
roadway between the aforementioned 




54911 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 


termini, the proposed project may be 
stage-constructed to include interim 
improvements over a portion of the 
entire project, including initial two-way 
traffic operations. 

The proposed project is intended to 
increase safety by providing a modem 
facility with improved horizontal and 
vertical sight distances, wider roadway 
and shoulders, and other improved 
geometric elements to remove through 
traffic from the street systems of the 
aforementioned cities; to provide 
additional capacity for increasing traffic 
volumes; to reduce congestion in Beloit 
and South Beloit, with the resulting 
expected decreases in vehicular¬ 
generated air pollution, noise pollution 
and travel time delay; to better serve the 
transportation needs of the Beloit- 
Janesville (South Beloit) Urbanized 
Area; and to support the economic 
development of the region. 

The scoping process undertaken as a 
part of this proposed project will 
include distribution a scoping 
information packet, coordination with 
appropriate Federal, State and local 
agencies and review sessions as needed. 
A formal scoping meeting will be held 
November 14,1995, at the South Beloit 
City Hall in South Beloit, Illinois, 
beginning at 10 a.m. Immediately upon 
completion of the scoping meeting, 
another meeting will be convened at the 
same, location to discuss with relevant 
agencies listed in 23 CFR 450.318 the 
alternatives necessary for the Major 
Metropolitan Transportation Investment 
proposed for this project. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 
related to the proposed project are 
addressed and all significant issues 
identified, a comprehensive public 
involvement program will be 
undertaken. Public meetings will be 
held in the study area prior to the public 
hearing. Public notice will be given of 
the time and place of the meetings and 
hearing. The draft EIS will be available 
for public agency review and comment 
prior to the public hearing. In addition, 
comments and suggestions are invited 
horn all interested parties. Comments or 
questions concerning this proposed 
action and the EIS should be directed to 
the FHWA or IDOT contact persons. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 
and Construction.) 

The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation of 
Federal programs and activities apply to 
this program. 


Issued on: October 18,1995. 

Walter WaideUch, 

Design Engineer, Federal Highway 
Administration, Illinois Division, Springfield, 
Illinois. 

[FR Doc. 95-26603 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 4910-22-M 


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
Fiscal Service 

Treasury Current Value of Funds Rate 

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, 
Fiscal Service, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of rate for use in Federal 
debt collection and discoimt evaluation. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 11 of the 
Debt Collection Act of 1982 (31 U.S.C. 
3717), the Secretary of the Treasury is 
responsible for computing and 
publishing the percentage rate to be 
used in assessing interest charges for 
outstanding debts on claims owned the 
Government. Treasury’s Cash 
Management Regulations (I TFM 6- 
8000) also prescribe use of this rate by 
agencies as a comparison point in 
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a 
cash discount. Notice is hereby given 
that the applirable rate is 5 percent for 
calendar year 1996. 

DATES: The rate will be in efiect for the 
period beginning on January 1,1996 and 
ending on December 31,1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Inquiries should be directed to the 
Program Compliance & Evaluation 
Division, Financial Management 
Service, Department of the Treasury, 

401 14th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20227 (Telephone: (202) 874-6630). 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rate 
reflects the current value of funds to the 
Treasury for use in connection with 
Federal Cash Management systems and 
is based on investment rates set for 
purposes of Pub. L. 95-147, 91 Stat. 
1227. Computed each year by averaging 
investment rates for the 12-month 
period ending every September 30 for 
applicability effective January 1, the rate 
is subject to quarterly revisions if the 
annual average, on the moving basis, 
changes by 2 per centum. The rate in 
effect for calendar year 1996 reflects the 
average investment rates for the 12- 
month period ended September 30, 
1995. 

Dated: October 20,1995. 

Larry D. Stout, 

Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance. 

(FR Doc. 95-26618 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILUNQ CODE 4S10-3S-M 


26, 1995 / Notices 


INFORMATION AGENCY 

International Creative Arts Exchanges 
for Public and Private Non*Profit 
Organizations 

NOTICE: New structure for proposal 
solicitation. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Arts America 
Creative Arts Exchanges Division of the 
U.S. Information Agency’s [USlAj 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural 
Afiairs announces a new structure for 
the solicitation of proposals in its 
discretionary grant program. Under the 
new structure the Creative Arts 
Exchanges program will operate in two 
program categories: [A] Traditional and 
special projects program; [B] 
discretionary program. The 
discretionary program will operate in 
partnership with the six regional arts 
organizations encompassing the 50 
states of the United States. 

Traditional and Special Projects 
Program 

This program will consist of a limited 
number of world multi-regional projects 
which now operate throu^ recognized 
professional organizations in major 
museum and arts disciplines. It also will 
include from time-to-time major world 
multi-regional special projects. Because 
of their intrinsic complexity and the 
specialized knowledge needed to effect 
them, these projects will continue to be 
funded through sole-source solicitation 
of proposals. 

Discretionary Program 

The discretionary program will 
operate in partnership with the six 
regional arts organizations 
encompassing the 50 states of the 
United States. The Creative Arts 
Exchanges Division will request from 
the regional arts organizations lists of 
potential cooperating organizations 
within their regions to which it will 
address letters soliciting project 
concepts. Reorganizations of the Bureau 
of Educational and Cultural Afiairs and 
funding realities will determine the 
number of solicitation letters to be sent. 
These projects will consist of 
residencies and/or exchange programs 
in which artists from the United States 
and other coimtries work and learn 
together. USIA concept review panels 
will choose a limited number of 
organizations from among those 
submitting concepts to receive from the 
Creative Arts Exchanges Division 
invitations to submit full proposals. 
These proposals then would be 
reviewed through the award 
competition process of the Bureau of 
Educational and Cultural Affairs. A6 in 






54912 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


the past the competition for assistance 
awards will be conducted among public 
and private non-profit orgemizations that 
demonstrate disciplinary expertise in 
the arts and meet the provisions 
described in IRS regulation 26 CFR 
1.501(c)(3)-l. 

Overall grant making and funding 
authority for this program is contained 
in the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87- 
256, as amended, also known as the 
Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the 
Act is “to enable the Government of the 
United States to increase mutual 
imderstanding between the people of 
the United States and the people of 
other countries * * *, to strengthen the 
ties which unite us with other nations 
by demonstrating the educational and 
cultural interests, developments, and 
achievements of the people 6f the 
United States and other nations * * * 
and thus to assist in the development of 
friendly, sympathetic and peaceful 
relations l^tween the United States and 
the other coimtries of the world.” 

USIA’s ability to award grants under 
this program is contingent upon the 
availability of funds. 

The regional arts organizations 
cooperating with the Creative Arts 
Exchanges Division in its Discretionary 
Program follow. 

Regional Arts Organizations 
Arts Midwest 

Operates in states of Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota. North 
Dakota, Ohio. South Dakota and 
Wisconsin. 

Mid-America Arts Alliance 

Operates in states of Arkansas. 

Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma 
and Texas. t 

Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation 

Operates in states of E)elaware, 
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia as 
well as the District of Columbia. 

New England Foimdation for the Arts 

Operates in states of Connecticut, 
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island, Vermont. 

Southern Arts Federation 

Operates in states of Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Tennessee. 

Western States Arts Federation 

Operates in states of Alaska, Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, 
Utah, Washington, Wyoming. 


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please 
contact the Office of Arts America, 
Creative Arts Exchanges Division, Room 
568, U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547 
(Phone: 202-619-5338, Fax 202-619- 
6315, Internet: ARTS@USIA.gov. 

Dated: October 19,1995. 

John P. Loiello, 

Associate Director, Bureau of Educational 
and Cultural Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 95-26617 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am) 
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M 


UNITED STATES INFORMATION 
AGENCY 

Publication of a Quarterly Reference 
Journal and Provision of a Research 
Service for Overseas Educational 
Advisers 

ACTION: Notice—^Request for proposals. 

SUMMARY: The Advising and Student 
Services Branch of the United States 
Information Agency’s Bureau of 
Educational and Cultural Affairs 
announces an open competition for an 
assistance award. Public or private non¬ 
profit organizations meeting the 
provisions described in IRS regulation 
26 CFR 1.501(c) (3)-l may, apply. In 
collaboration with the United States 
Information Agency (USIA), the 
organization will research, write, edit, 
and publish a quarterly reference 
journal to bring timely and in-depth 
information on issues and topics of 
importance to overseas educational 
advisers. Four issues of the publication 
are to be prepared diuing the period of 
the agreement, April 1,1996 to March 
31,1997. Significant portions of the 
journal must also be made available on 
the internet. The organization will also 
answer reference inquiries fi'om USIA- 
designated educational advising offices 
overseas, and compile a bibliography of 
recommended publications for overseas 
educational advisers. USIA anticipated 
awarding up to $102,500 to one 
organization for these activities. 
OVERVIEW: An ideal proposal shquld 
illustrate how the organization will 
produce a professional journal for 
overseas educational advisers who are 
responsible for providing accurate, 
unbiased information and advising 
foreign nationals about opportunities for 
studying in the United States. Each 
issue will be centered on an overall 
theme related to trends and 
developments in international student 
mobility, the practice of educational 
advising, or U.S. higher education 
which will enhance the gmdance given 
by overseas educational advisers to 


international students and others who 
inquire about opportunities for studying 
in the United States. In addition, each 
issue will contain current information 
on one or more of the following: 
academic news, university programs, 
new resources, short-term training 
opportunities, current testing 
announcements, academic 
accreditation, new degree programs, 
news briefs, and financial information 
considered useful to overseas 
educational advisers in the conduct of 
their duties. 

To help expand the worldwide 
availability of information of interest to 
educational advisers and others 
involved in international education, the 
organization must provide electronic 
access to the major articles in each 
issue. 

GUIDELINES: The organization will 
produce four issues of the journal: 
Summer 1996, Fall 1996, Winter 1996, 
and Spring 1997. Each issue will be at 
least 32 pages long. The first of the four 
issues shoudd be published and 
available for distribution within 90 days 
of grant receipt, with subsequent issues 
scheduled to be released each ninety 
days. In-house desktop publishing 
facilities are required so that the journal 
issues will be produced quickly and 
efficiently in an attractive typeset 
quality format. In addition, hinds will 
be awarded to enable the recipient to 
perform supplemental resear^ to 
provide in-depth responses to inquiries 
firom USIA-affiliated educational 
advisers overseas. The organization 
should track requests for information to 
gauge interest in the field and should 
use this information to determine 
themes of future journals. In addition, 
the research service must be designed to 
also respond to advisers who have 
questions that are too narrow or too 
geographically specific for publication 
in the aforementioned journal. 

The Advising Branch supplies 
reference materials to overseas advising 
centers; the organization will be charged 
with monitoring new print resources 
related to educational advising and by 
December 1,1996 should provide 550 
copies of an annotated bibliography of 
recommended pubUcations for advisers 
to the Advising Branch. 

PROPOSED BUDGET: A compehensive line 
item budget should be submitted 
together with the proposal. The budget 
should not exceed $87,500 for 
publication of four issues of the 
advising journal and electronic access; 
$10,000 for responding directly to 
research inquiries for USLA-affiliated 
overseas educational advisers; and no 
more than $5,000 of production of the 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


54913 


bibliography. The ability of an 
organization to sell joiunal 
subscriptions and advertising to offset 
production costs in excess of the grant 
will be a priority criterion for selection. 
Grants awarded to eligible organizations 
with less than four years of experience 
in conducting international educational 
programs will be limited to $60,000 for 
publication of the journal and conduct 
of the research service. 

The applicant is required to sulnnit a 
comprehensive line item budget, based 
on the specific guidance in the 
Solicitation Parage. There must be a 
summary budget as well as a break¬ 
down of the administrative budget. 
USIA’s grant assistance will not exceed 
$102,500. Of this amount, not more than 
$32,000 mi^ be attributed to overhead 
expenses. 'Ilie $102,500 is expected to 
constitute only a portion of the total 
project funding. Cost sharing is required 
and the proposal should list other 
anticipated sources of support. Grant 
applications should demonstrate 
financial and in-kind support. 

Allowable costs for the program 
include the following: 

(1) Salaries and hinge benefits 

(2) Other direct costs, printing, utilities, 
etc. 

(3) Indirect expenses, auditing costs 
Applicants should refer to the 

Solicitation package for complete 
budget guidelines and formatting 
instructions. 

REVIEW PROCESS: USIA will 
acknowledge receipt of all proposals 
and will review them for technical 
eligibility. Proposals will be deemed 
ineligible if they do not fully adhere to 
the guidelines stated herein and in the 
Solicitation Package. Eligible proposals 
will be forwarded to panels of USIA 
officers for advisory review. All eligible 
proposals will be reviewed by the 
Agency contrdcts office, as well as the 
USIA Area Offices and the USIS posts 
overseas, where appropriate. Proposals 
may also be reviewed by the Office of 
the General Counsel or by other Agency 
elements. Fimding decisions are at the 
discretion of the USIA Associate 
Director for Educational and Cultural 
Afiairs. Final technical authority for 
grant awards resides with USIA’s 
contracting officer. 

REVIEW criteria: Technically eligible 
applications will be competitively 
reviewed according to the criteria stated 
below. These criteria are not rank 
ordered and all carry equal weight in 
the proposal evaluation: 

1. Program Planning: Proposals 
should exhibit originality, substance, 
precision, and relevance to produce an 
attractive quarterly jomnal which will 


successfully address the need for timely 
information and in-depth and balanced 
exploration of issues and topics 
important to overseas educational 
advisers. In addition, the proposal 
should illustrate that the resources and 
professional contacts necessary to 
respond in a timely manner to inquiries 
by overseas educational advisers are 
available. 

2. Institution’s Track Record/Ability: 
Proposals should demonstrate an 
institutional record of successful 
programs, including responsible fiscal 
management and full compliance with 
all reporting requirements for past 
Agency grants as determined by USLA’s 
Office of Contracts. Proposed personnel 
and institutional resources should be 
adequate and appropriate to achieve the 
program goals. 

3. Demonstrated Ability: Proposals 
should clearly demonstrate how the 
institution will meet the program’s 
objectives and plan. The proposal 
should describe editorial and 
publication capabilities for producing 
four issues of the advising journal and 
demonstrate the ability of ^e 
organization’s staff to provide accurate 
and timely supplemental research and 
reference services for responding 
directly to inquiries from USIA- 
affiliated educational advisers. 

4. Project Evaluation: Proposal should 
provide a plan for evaluation by the 
grantee institution, including periodic 
progress reports. Proposal should 
include, a plan to evaluate the journal’s 
success, both as the issues are printed 
and at the end of the grant cycle. The 
recipient organization will be expected 
to submit intermediate reports after each 
project component is concluded or 
quarterly, whichever is less frequent. 

5. Cost-Effectiveness: The overhead 
and administrative components of the 
proposal, including salaries, should be 
kept as low as possible. All other items 
should be necessary and appropriate. 

6. Cost-Sharing: ftoposms should 
maximize cost-sharing through other 
private sector support as well as 
institutional direct funding 
contributions. Proposals should 
demonstrate the ability to sell 
subscriptions and advertising to offset 
some of the costs of publishing the 
journal. All income derived fi-om 
subscription or advertising sales of the 
journal must be applied to the 
production costs. 

7. Support of diversity: Proposals 
should demonstrate the recipient’s 
commitment to promoting the 
awareness and understanding of 
diversity, and should expose readers to 
the widest possible range of views and 
approaches to U.S. higher education. 


Attention should be given to printing 
articles relating to difierent kinds of 
schools and universities from various 
regions of the U.S. 

AUTHORIZATION: Overall grant making 
authority for this program is contained 
in the Mutual Educational tmd Cultural 
Exchange Act of 1961, Pub. L. 87-256, 
as amended, also known as the 
Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the 
Act is “to enable the Government of the 
United States to increase mutual 
understanding between the people of 
the United States and the people of 
other countries * * *; to strengthen the 
ties which imite us with other nations 
by demonstrating the educational and 
cutural interests, developments, and 
achievements of the people of the 
United States and other nations * * * 
and thus to assist in the development of 
friendly, sympathetic and peaceful 
relations between the United States and 
the other coimtries of the world.’’ 

Programs and projects must conform 
with Agency requirements and 
guidelines outlined in the Solicitation 
Package. USIA projects emd programs 
are subject to the availability of funds. 
ANNOUNCEMENT NAME AND NUMBER: All 
communications with USIA concerning 
this annoimcement should refer to the 
above title and reference number E/ 
ASA-96-08. 

DEADLINE FOR PROPOSAL: All copies must 
be received at the U.S. Information 
Agency for 5 p.m. Washington, D.C. 
time on December 26,1995. Faxed 
documents will not be accepted, nor 
will documents postmarked on 
December 26.1995 but received at a 
later date. It is the responsibility of each 
applicant to ensure that proposals are 
received by the above deadline. Grant 
should begin April 1,1996 and run 
through March 31,1997. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Advising and Student Services, E/ASA, 
Room 349, U.S. Information Agency, 

301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20547, Tel: (202) 619-5434, Fax: (202) 
401-1433, E-mail: althompsusia.gov. 
Potential applicants are encouraged to 
contact the program office to request an 
Application Package, which includes 
more detailed award criteria; all 
application forms, and guidelines for 
preparing proposals, including specific 
criteria for preparation of the proposal 
budget. Please specify the USIA 
Program Officer. Ann Thompson, on all 
inquiries and correspondences. 
Interested applicants should read the 
complete F^eral Register 
annoimcement before addressing 
inquiries to E/ASA or submitting their 
proposals to the United States 
Information Agency. Once the RFP 






54014 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Notices 


deadline has passed, the Bureau of 
Educational and Cultural Affairs may 
not discuss this competition in any way 
with applicants until after the Bureau 
proposal review process has been 
completed. 

SUBMISSIONS: Applicants must follow all 
instructions given in the Solicitation 
Package. The original and ten copies of 
the complete application, plus one extra 
copy of the cover sheet, should be sent 
to: U.S. Information Agency. Ref.: E/ 
ASA-96-08, Office of Grants 
Management. E/XE, Room 326,301 4th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. 

DIVERSITY QUIDEUNES: Pursuant to the 
Bureau’s authorizing legislation, 
programs must maintain a non-political 
character and should be balanc^ and 


representative of the diversity of 
American political, social, and cultural 
life. “Diversity” should be interpreted 
in the broadest sense and encompass 
differences including, but not limited to 
race, gender, religion, geographic 
location, socio-economic status, and 
physical challenges. Applicants are 
strongly encouraged to adhere to the 
advancement of this principle, both in 
program administration and in jovumal 
content. 

NOTICE: The terms and conditions 
published in this RFP are binding and 
may not be modified by any USIA 
representative. Explanatory information 
provided by the Agency tlmt contradicts 
published language will not be binding. 
Issuance of the RFP does not constitute 
an award commitment on the part of the 


Government. The Agency reserves the 
right to reduce, revise, or increase 
proposal budget in accordance with the 
needs of the program and availability of 
funding. Final awards cannot be made 
until funds have been appropriated by 
Congress, allocated and committed 
through internal USIA procediues. 

NOTIFICATION: All applicants will be 
notified of the results of the review 
process on or about March 22,1996. 
Awards will be subject to periodic 
reporting and evaluation requirements.^ 
Dated: October 20,1995. 

Dell Pendergrast, 

Associate Director, Educational and Cultural 
Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 95-26519 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNO CODE 8230-01-M 




Sunshine Act Meetings 


Federal Registrar 
Vol. 60. No. 207 
Thursday, October 26, 1995 


54915 


This section of-the FEDERAL REGISTER 
contains notices of meetings published under 
the “Government in the Sunshine AcT (Pub. 
L 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3). 


FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, October 31. 
1995 at 10:00 a.m. 

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Closed to 
the 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 arbitration. 

Internal personnel rules and procedures or 
matters affecting a particular employee. 

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, November 2, 
1995 at 10:00 a.m. 

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. (Ninth Floor). 

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open to 
the Public. 

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 

Correction and Approval of Minutes 
Advisory Opinion 1995-36: Grant S. Cowan 
on behalf of AK Steel Corporation 
Regulations: 

Announcement of Effective Date: Repeal of 
Obsolete Rules (Parts 104,110, and 114) 


Notice of Disposition of Petition for 
Rulemaking Filed by Anthony F. Essaye 
and William Josephson 
Administrative Matters 

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: 
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155. 

Delores Hardy, 

Administrative Assistant. 

[FRJJoc. 95-26746 Filed 10-24-95; 2:43 pm) 
BILLMG CODE STIS-OI-M 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF 
GOVERNORS 

Notice of a Meeting 

The Board of Governors of the United 
States Postal Service, pursuant to its 
Bylaws (39 C.F.R. Section 7.5) and the 
C^vemment in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. Section 552b), hereby gives 
notice that it intends to hold a meeting 
at 1:00 p.m. on Monday, November 6, 
1995, and al8:30 a.m. on Tuesday. 
November 7,1995, in Washington, D.C. 

The November 6 meeting is closed to 
the public. (See 60 FR 52730, October 
10,1995) The November 7 meeting is 
open to the public and will be held at 
U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., in the Benjamin 
Franklin Room. The Board expects to 
discuss the matters stated in the agenda 
which is set forth below. Requests for 
information about the meeting should 
be addressed to the Secretary for the 


Board, David F. Harris, at (202) 268- 
4800. 

Agenda 

Monday Session 

November 6 — ld)0 p.m. (Closed) 

1. Consideration of a funding request for 
redesign of the Priority Mail service program. 
(Loren E. Smith, Chief Marketing Officer and 
Senior Vice President, and Diane M. Regan, 
Vice President, Operations Redesign.) 

Tuesday Session 
November 7 — 8:30 a.m. (Open) 

1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, 

October 2-3,1995. 

2. Remarks of the Postmaster General/Chief 
Executive Officer. (Marvin Runyon.) 

• 3. Quarterly Report on Service 
Performance. (Yvonne D. Maguire, Vice 
President, Consumer Advocate.) 

4. Consideration of Contract for Outside 
Audit Services. (Vice Chairman del Junco.) 

5. Capital Investments. 

a. Seattle, Washington, P&DC/DDC & 
Everett, WA, Ca^er Annex and 
Modification to Seattle, WA, Area Plan 
(final consideration] (Qeig G. Wade, 

Vice President, Western Area 
Operations) 

b. Issaquah, Washington, Main Post Office 
[informational briefing]. (Craig G. Wade, 
Vice President, Western Area 
Operations) 

6. Tentative Agenda for the December 4- 
5,1995, meeting in Washington, D.C. 

David F. Harris, 

Secretary. 

(FR Doc. 95-26750 Filed 10-24-95; 3:16 pm] 
BILUNQ CODE 7710-12-M 













Thursday 
October 26, 1995 


Part II 

Department of Defense 

General Services 
Administration 

National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration 


48 CFR Part 31 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, Legal 
Proceedings Costs; Proposed Rule 





54918 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 
ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 
SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48CFRPart31 
[FAR Case 93-iq 
RIN 9000-AQ65 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Legal 
Proceedings Costs 

AQENCKS: Department of Defense (DOD), 
General Services Administration (GSA), 
and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Qvilian Agency 
Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Coimcil are 
proposing changes to amend the Federal 
Acquisition Relation (FAR) 
concerning costs related to legal and 
other proceedings to make the costs of 
pre- or post-award protests (except for 
costs incurred by an intervenor on the 
side of the Government) an unallowable 
cost. This regulatory action was not 
subject to Office of Management and 
Budget review under Executive Order 
12866, dated September 30,1993. 

DATES: Conunents should be submitted 
on or before December 26,1995 to be 
considered in the formulation of a final 
rule. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should 
submit written comments to: General 
Services Administration, FAR 
Secretariat (VRS), 18th and F Streets, 
NW, Room 4037, Washington, DC 
20405. 

Please cite FAR case 93-10 in all 
correspondence related to this case. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 
Jeremy Olson at (202) 501-3221 in 


reference to this FAR case. For general 
infmmation, contact the FAR 
Secretariat, Room 4037, GS B uilding , 
Washington, DC 20405 (202) 501-4755. 
Please cite FAR case 93-10. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This proposed rule would add 
another category of imallowable costs to 
the list at 31.205-47(f) (except for costs 
incurred by an intervenor on the side of 
the Government) which should disallow 
most cost of pre- or post-award protests. 
This change is being proposed tffier the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency raised a 
concern that rulings by the Armed 
Services Board of Contract Appeals 
(ASBCA) would encourage contractors 
to protest Government awards (the 
appeal of Bos’n Towing and Salvage 
Company (ASBCA 1992) No. 41357, 92- 
2 BCA Paragraph 24,864 and the appeal 
of J.W. Cook & Sons, Inc., (ASBCA 1992) 
No. 39691, 92-3 BCA Paragraph 25,053). 
The ASBCA had ruled that FAR 31.205— 
47(f)(1) only applied to claims under the 
Contract Disputes Act and not to 
protests under the Competition in 
Contracting Act and that, therefore, 
protest costs were allowable as either a 
direct or indirect cost on Government 
contracts. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities 
within the meaning of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

- because most contracts awmded to 
small entities are awarded on a 
competitive, fixed-price basis and the 
cost principles do not apply. The cost 
principles apply only to contracts for 
which cost or pricing data has been 
submitted. An Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not 
been performed. Comments from small 
entities concerning the affected FAR 


subpart will be considered in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610 of the Act. 
Such conunents must be submitted 
separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq. (FAR case 93-10), in 
correspondence. 

C Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 
not apply because the proposed changes 
to the FAR do not impose recordkeeping 
or information collection requirements, 
or collections of information finm 
ofierors, contractors, or members of the 
publig which require the approval of the 
Office of Management and Budget imder 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31 
Govermnent procvnement. 

Dated: October 18,1995. 

Edward C Loeb, 

Acting Director, Officer of Federal Acquisition 
Policy. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR 
Part 31 be amended as set forth below: 

PART 31—CONTRACT COST 
PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 
Part 31 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. 
chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

2. Section 31.205—47 is amended by 
adding p€nagraph (f)(8) to read as 
follows: 

31.205-47 Coats relatad to legal and other 
proceedings. 

* ' * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(8) Protests of Federal Govermnent 
solicitations or contract awards, unless 
the costs are incurred by interested 
parties to defend against such protests. 

***** 

[FR Doc. 95-26487 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BIUJNQ COOE 6820.eP-M 



Thursday 
October 26, 1995 


Part III 

Department of Defense 

General Services 
Administration 

National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration 

48 CFR Part 31 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, 
Contingent Fees; Proposed Rule 











































54920 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 
ADMINISTRATION 


NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 
SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48CFRPart31 
[FAR Case 93-191 
RIN 9000-AG64 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 
Contingent Fees 

AQENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), 
General Services Administration (GSA), 
and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Qvilian Agency 
Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council are 
proposing changes to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to limit 
the allowability of contingent fees. This 
regulatory action was not subject to 
Office of Management and Budget 
review imder Executive Order 12866, 
dated September 30,1993. 

OATES: Comments should be submitted 
on or before December 26,1995 to be 
considered in the formulation of a final 
rule. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should 
submit written comments to: General 
Services Administration, FAR 
Secretariat (VRS), 18th & F Streets, NW, 
Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405. 

Please cite FAR case 93-19 in all 
correspondence related to this case. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Olson at (202) 501-3221 in 
reference to this FAR case. For general 
information, contact the FAR 
Secretariat, Room 4037, GS Building, 
Washington, DC 20405 (202) 501-4755. 
Please cite FAR case 93-19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Coimcils are proposing to revise 
the FAR guidance concerning 


contingent fees because the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy SWAT 
Team on Civilian Agency Contracting in 
its report of December 3,1992, entitled 
“Improving Federal Contracts”, 
expressed concern that contingent fee 
arrangements based on percentage of 
sales, revenue, cost incurred or 
reimbursed, are similar to a cost-plus- 
percentage-of-cost type of contracting. 
There is a blank check effect in that tide 
agent’s fee is iinknown at the time of 
contract award and will grow through 
the life of the contract. Cost-plus- 
percentage-of-cost contracts are 
prohibited by statute (10 JJ.S.C. 2306(a) 
and 41 U.S.C. 254(b)). The SWAT Team 
report had recommended several 
changes to the FAR which were viewed 
to have Govemmentwide benefit and 
which would make the FAR less general 
with respect to the allowability of 
certain costs. 

The proposed FAR rule would revise 
the cost principle at FAR 31.205-38, 
Selling costs, to clarify that the costs of 
contingent fees are allowable only when 
stated as a siun certain or not-to-exceed 
amoimt agreed upon between the 
company and its agent (i.e., employee or 
commercial/selling agency) in advance 
of the services being rendered. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial niunber of small entities 
within the meaning of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
because most contracts awarded to 
small entities are awarded on a 
competitive, fixed-price basis and the 
cost principles do not apply. This rule 
clarifies a condition of cost allowability 
for contractors who wish to be 
reimbursed under Government contracts 
subject to FAR Subpart 31.2. An Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, 
therefore, not been performed. 
Comments firom small entities 
concerning the affected FAR subpart 
will be considered in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 610 of the Act. Such comments 
must be submitted separately and 


should cite 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (FAR 
case 93-19), in correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 
not apply because the proposed changes 
to the FAR do not impose recordkeeping 
or information collection requirements, 
or collections of information firom 
offerors, contractors, or members of the 
public which require the approval of the 
Office of Management and Budget imder 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31 
Government procurement. 

Dated: October 19,1995. 

Edward C. Loeb, 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Acquisition 
Policy. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR 
Part 31 be amended as set forth below: 

PART 31—CONTRACT COST 
PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 
Part 31 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. 
chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

2. Section 31.205-38 is amended by 
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

31.205-38 Selling costs. 
***** 

(f) Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this subsection, sellers’ or 
agents’ compensation, fees, . 
commissions, percentages, retainer or 
brokerage fees, whether or not 
contingent upon the award of contracts, 
are allowable only when— 

(1) Paid to bona fide employees or 
established commercial or selling 
agencies maintained by the contractor 
for the pmrpose of securing business (see 
3.408-2); and 

(2) Such costs are stated as a sum 
certain or a not-to-exceed amoimt 
determined in advance of services 
rendered. 

(FR Doc. 95-26489 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 

BILUNQ CODE 8820-EfMll 




Thursday 
October 26, 1995 


Part IV 

Department of 
Justice 

Bureau of Prisons 


28 CFR Part 541 

inmate Discipline and Good Conduct 
Time; Proposed Rule 


























54922 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
Bureau of Prisons 

28CFR Part 541 

[BOP-1040-P] 

RIN 1120-AA34 

Inmate Discipline and Good Conduct 
Time 

AGENCY: Biireau of Prisons, Justice. 
ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, th^Biyreau 
of Prisons is propo»ng to implment 
provisions of the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
which make the earning of good 
conduct time by violent offenders 
contingent upon exemplary compliance 
with institution regulations. The list of 
sanctions which may be imposed by the 
Discipline Hearing Officer in instances 
where an inmate has been determined to 
be not in compliance with institution 
regulations is accordingly being 
modified to achieve this purpose. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 
December 26,1995. 

ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, 
Bureau of Prisons. HOLC Room 754, 320 
First Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20534. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy 
Nanovic, Office of General Counsel, 
Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514— 
6655. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bureau of 
Prisons regulations on inmate discipline 
were previously published in the 
Federal Register January 5,1988 (53 FR 
197) and were amended October 17, 
1988 (53 FR 40686), September 22,1989 
(54 FR 38987 and 39095), February 1, 
1991 (56 FR 4159), July 10,1991 (56 FR 
31530), June 2,1992 (57 FR 23260), and 
July 21,1993 (58 FR 39095). 

Section 20405 of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 provides that a prisoner who is 
serving a term of imprisonment of more 
than one year for a crime of violence, 
other than a term of imprisonment for 
the duration of the prisoner’s life, may 
receive credit toward the service of the 
prisoner’s sentence, beyond the time 
served, of up to 54 days at the end of 
each year of the prisoner’s term of 
imprisonment, beginning at the end of 
the first year of the term, subject to the 
determination by the Bureau of Prisons 
that, during that year, the prisoner has 
displayed exemplary compliance with 
such institutional disciplinary 
regulations. 

To that purpose, the Bureau is 
proposing the following amendments. 


28 CFR 541.13(a)(1) is amended to 
ensure that when a VCCLEA inmate 
rated as violent (i.e., an inmate who, as 
specified in the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 
committed a crime of violence after 
September 13,1994) is found to have 
committed a greatest category offense, 
the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) 
must, as a minimum, impose a sanction 
disallowing all Good Conduct Time 
(GCT) for the evaluation period. This 
means a loss of 54 days GCT. Section 
541.13(a)(2) is similarly amended to 
require the DHO to impose, as a 
minimum, a sanction disallowing all 
GCT when a VCCLEA inmate rated as 
violent is found to have committed a 
high category offense. As revised, 
paragraph (a)(2) also requires that all 
high category offense charges for a 
VCCLEA inmate rated as violent be 
referred to the DHO for disposition. 

Section 541.13(a)(3) is amended to 
require the DHO to impose, as a 
minimum, a sanction disallowing up to 
14 days GCT when the DHO finds that 
a VCCLEA inmate rated as violent has 
committed a moderate offense category. 
As revised, paragraph (a)(3) allows, but 
does not require, the Unit Discipline 
Committee to refer to the DHO a 
moderate category charge for a VCCLEA 
inmate rated as violent. 

Section 541.13(a)(4) is amended to 
require the DHO to impose, as a 
minimum, a sanction disallowing up to 
7 days GCT when the DHO finds that a 
VCCLEA inmate rated as violent has 
committed a low moderate category 
offense. As revised, paragraph (a)(3) 
allows, but does not require, the Unit 
Discipline Committee to refer to the 
DHO a low moderate category chzirge for 
a VCCLEA inmate. 

Section 541.13(f) is amended in 
conformance with changes to Table 6 as 
discussed below. 

Table 3 for § 541.13 is amended by 
specifying the applicable loss of GCT in 
Section B.l for the various categories 
of offenses, by specifying in Sanction 
B.l that disallowance sanction may not 
be suspended, and by including 
reference to non-vested GCT in Sanction 
B. Previously, GCT became vested when 
awarded. Because Section 20412 of the 
Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 requires that, 
for VCCLEA inmates (whether rated - 
violent or not), GCT is vested upon 
obtaining or upon making satisfactory 
progress toward obtaining a GED, it is 
possible for a VCCLEA inmate to have 
been awarded GCT which is not vested. 

Table 4 for § 541.13 is amended to 
include conforming changes to the 
explanations of Sanctions B and B.l. 
With respect to Moderate Category and 


Low Moderate Category Prohibited Acts, 
Sanction B.l provides that the amount 
of disallowed GCT for VCCLEA inmates 
rated as violent ordinarily shall be a 
minimum of 14 days or 7 days GCT 
respectively, but that the DHO may 
impose less upon careful examination of 
mitigating factors. 

Ttmle 5 for § 541.13 is amended to 
include reference to non-vested GCT. 

Section 541.14(a) is amended to 
specify that only the DHO may make a 
^al disposition on a prohibited act in 
the Greatest Severity or on a High 
Category prohibited act (when the High 
Category prohibited act has been 
committed by a VCCLEA inmate rated 
as violent. 

As noted above, these proposed 
sanctions are applicable to VCCLEA 
inmates rated as violent (i.e., inmates 
who, as specified in the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994, committed a crime of violence 
after September 13,1994). Inmates who 
are eligible for good conduct time 
because they were sentenced xmder the 
provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act 
of 1984, but who were sentenced for a 
crime of violence committed on or 
before September 13,1994 are not 
defined as “VCCLEA inmates rated as 
violent” and consequently would be 
unaffected by the proposed new 
sanctions for those inmates. 

Interested persons may participate in 
this proposed rulemaking by submitting 
data, views, or argvunents in writing to 
the previously cited address. Comments 
received diiring the comment period 
will be considered before final action is 
taken. All comments received remain on 
file for public inspection at the 
previously cited address. The proposed 
rule may be changed in light of the 
comments received. No oral hearings are 
contemplated. 

The Bureau of Prisons has determined 
that this rule is not a significant 
regulatory action for the purpose of E.O. 
12866, and accordingly this rule was not 
reviewed by the Office of Management 
and Budget. After review of the law and 
regulations, the Director, Bureau of 
Prisons has certified that this rule, for 
the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (Pub. L. 96-354), does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 541 

Prisoners. 

Kathleen M. Hawk, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 
rulemaking authority vested in the 
Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
delegated to the Director, Bureau of 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


54923 


Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), part 541 in 
subchapter C of 28 CFR, chapter V is 
proposed to be amended as set forth 
below. 

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL 
MANAGEMENT 

PART 541—INMATE DISCIPLINE AND 
SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS 

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 
part 541 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 
3622, 3624,4001,4042,4081,4082(Repealed 
in part as to offenses committed on or after 
November 1,1987), 4161-4166 (Repealed as 
to offenses committed on or after November 
1,1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 
1984 as to offenses committed after that 
date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95- 
0.99. 

2. In § 541.13, paragraphs (a) (1)' 
through (4), (f), and Tables 3, 4, and 5 
are revised to read as follows: 

§ 541.13 Prohibited acts and disciplinary 
severity scale. 

(a)* • * 

(1) Greatest category offenses. The 
Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) shall 
impose and execute one or more of 
sanctions A through E. Sanction B.l 
must be imposed for a VCCLEA inmate 
rated as violent (i.e., an inmate who, as 
specified in the Violent Crime Control 


and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 
committed a crime of violence after 
September 13,1994). The DHO may 
impose and execute sanction F and/or G 
only in addition to execution of one or 
more of sanctions A through E. Except 
as noted in the sanction, the DHO m.iy 
also suspend one or more additional 
sanctions A through G. 

(2) High category offenses. The 
Discipline Hearing Officer shall impose 
and execute one or more of sanctions A 
through M, and, except as noted in the 
sanction, may also suspend one or more 
additional sanctions A through M. 

^ Sanction B.l must be imposed for a 
VCCLEA inmate rated as violent. The 
Unit Discipline Committee shall impose 
and execute one or more of sanctions G 
through M, and may suspend one or 
more additional sanctions G through M, 
except for a VCCLEA inmate rated as 
violent. All high category offense 
charges for a VCCLEA inmate rated as 
violent must be referred to the DHO. 

(3) Moderate category offenses. The 
Discipline Hearing Officer shall impose 
at least one sanction A through N, but, 
except as noted in the sanction, may 
suspend any sanction or sanctions 
imposed. Sanction B.l must be imposed 
for a VCCLEA inmate rated as violent. 
Except for charges referred to the DHO, 
the Unit Discipline Committee shall 


impose at least one sanction G through 
N, but may suspend any sanction or 
sanctions imposed. The UDC ordinarily 
shall refer to the DHO a moderate 
category charge for a VCCLEA inmate 
rated as violent. The UDC must 
thoroughly document in writing the 
reasons why the charge for such inmate 
was not referred to the DHO. 

(4) Low moderate category offenses. 

The Discipline Hearing Officer shall 
impose at least one sanction B.l, or E 
through P. The Discipline Hearing 
Officer may suspend any E throu^ P 
sanction or sanctions imposed (a B.l 
sanction may not be suspended). Except 
for charges referred to the DHO, the Unit 
Discipline Committee (UDC) shall 
impose at least one sanction G through 
P, but may suspend any sanction or 
sanctions imposed. The UDC ordinarily 
shall refer to the DHO a low moderate 
category charge for a VCCLEA inmate 
rated as violent. The UDC must 
thoroughly document in writing the 
reasons why the charge for such inmate 
was not referred to the DHO. 
***** 

(f) Sanctions by severity of prohibited ' 
. act, with eligibility for restoration of 
forfeited emd withheld statutory good 
time and forfeited good conduct time 
are presented in Table 6. 
***** 


Table 3.—Prohibited Acts and Disciplinary Severity Scale Greatest Category 

[The UDC shall refer all Greatest Severity Prohibited Acts to the DHO with recommendations as to an appropriate disposition] 


Code/Prohibited acts 

1(X) Killing 

101 Assaulting any person (irx^ludes sexual assault) or an armed as¬ 
sault on the institution’s secure perimeter (a cfutrge tor assaulting 
any person at this level is to be used only when serious physical irv 
jury has been attempted or carried out by an inmate) 

1CK2 Escape from escort: escape from a secure institution (low, me¬ 
dium, high and administrative type institutions); or escape from a 
minimum security level institution with violence 

103 Setting a fire (charged with this act in this category only when 
found to pose a threat to life or a threat of serious bodily harm or in 
furtherance prohibited act of Greatest Severity, e.g., in furtherance of 
a riot or escape; otherwise the charge is property classified Code 
218 or 329) 

104 Possession, manufacture, or introduction of a gun, firearm, weap¬ 
on, sharpened instrument, knife, dangerous chemical, explosive or 
any ammunition 

105 Rioting 

106 Encouraging others to riot 

107 Taking hostage(s) , 

108 Possession, manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool 
(Tools most likely to be used in an escape or escape attempt or to 
serve as weapons capable of doing serious bodily harm to others; or 
those hazardous to institutional security or personal safety; e.g., 
hack-saw blade) 

109 Possession, introduction, or use of any narcotics, marijuana, 
drugs, or related paraphem^ia not prescribed for the irtoividual by 
the medical staff 

110 Refusing to provide a urine sample or to take part in other drug-^ 
abuse testing 


Sarxrtions 

A. Recommend parole date rescission or retardation. 

B. Forfeit earned statutory good time or non-vested good conduct time 
credit (up to 100%) an^or termiruite or disallow extra good time (an 
extra good time sanction may not be suspended). 

B1. Disallow ordinarily between 50 arto 75% (27-41 days) of good con¬ 
duct time (GCT) credit available tor year (a disallowance sanction 
may not be suspended) VCCLEA inmates rated as violent will be 
disallowed all GCT for that evaluation period. 

C. Disciplinary Transfer (recommend). 

D. Disciplinary Segregation (up to 60 days). 

E. Make monetary restitution. 

F. Withhold statutory good time (Note—can be in addition to A through 
E—cannot be the only sanction executed). 

G. Loss of privileges (Note—can be in addition to A though E—cannot 
be the only sanction executed). 






54924 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


Table 3.—Prohibited Acts and Disciplinary Severity Scale Greatest Category— Continued 

[The UDC shall refer all Greatest Severity Prohibited Acts to the DHO with recomiDendations as to an appropriate disposition] 


Code/Prohibited acts 


198 Interfering with a staff member in the performance of duties. • 
{Conduct must be of the Greatest Severity nature.) This charge is to 
be used only when another charge of greatest severity is not appli¬ 
cable 

199 Con(Ax:t which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly 
running of the institution or the Bureau of Prisons. {Conduct must be 
of the Greatest Severity nature.) This charge is to be used only 
when another charge of greettest severity is not applicable 

200 Escape from unescorted Community Programs and activities and 
Open Institutions (minimum security level) and from outside secure 
iristitutions—wfthouf violence 

201 Fighting with another person 

202 (Not to be used) 

203 Threatening another with bodily harm or any other offense 

204 Extortion, blackmail, protection; DemarKling or receiving money 
or anything of value in return for protection against others, to avoid 
bodily harm, or urKler threat of informing 

205 Engaging in sexual acts 

206 Making sexual proposals or threats to arxjther 

207 Wearing a disguise or a mask 

208 Possession of any unauthorized locking device, or lock pick, or 
tampering with or blocking any lock device (includes keys), or de¬ 
stroying, altering, interfering with, improperly using, or damaging any 
security device, mechanism, or procedure 

209 Adulteration of any food or drink 

210 (Not to be used) 

211 Possessir>g any officer's or staff clothing 

212 Engaging in, or encouraging a group demonstration 

213 ErxxHiragmg others to refuse to work, or to participate in a work 
stoppage 

214 (ftot to be used) 

215 Introduction of alcohol into BOP facility 

216 Giving or offering an official or staff member a bride, or anything 
of value 

217 Givirtg money to, or receiving money from, any person for pur¬ 
poses of introducing contraband or for any other illegal or prohibited 
purposes 

218 Destroying, altering, or damaging government property, or the 
property of another person, having a value in excess of $100.00 or 
destroyirtg, altering, or damaging life-safety devices (e.g., fire alarm) 
regardtess of financial value 

219 Stealing (theft; this includes data obtained through the unauthor¬ 
ized use of a communications facility, or through the unauthorized 
access to disks, tapes, or computer printouts or other automated 
equipment on which data is stor^.) 

220 Demonstrating, practicing, or using martial arts, boxing (except 
for use of a punching bag), wrestling, or other forms of physical en¬ 
counter, or military exercise or drill 

221 Being in an unauthorized area with a person of the opposite sex 
without staff permission 

'222 Making, possessing, or using intoxicants 

223 Refusing to breathe into a breathalyzer or take part in other test¬ 
ing for use of alcohol 

224 Assaulting any person (charged with this act only when a less 
serious physical injury or contact has been attempted or carried out 
by an inmate) 

298 Interfering with a staff member in the performance of duties. 
{Conduct must be of the High Severity nature.) This charge is to be 
used only when another charge of high severity is not applicable 

299 Conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly 
running of the institution or the Bureau of Prisons. {Crmrkict must be 
of the High Severity nature.) This charge is to be used only when 
another charge of high severity is not applicable 


Sanctions 


A. Recommend parole date rescission or retardation. 

B. Forfeit earned statutory good time or non-vested good conduct time 
credit up to 50% or up to 60 days, whichever is less, anchor termi¬ 
nate or disallow extr^ good time (an extra good time sanction may 
not be suspended). 

B1. Disallow ordinarily between 25 and 50% (14-27 days) of good con¬ 
duct time credit (GOT) available for year (a disallowance sanction 
may not be suspended). VCCLEA inmates rated as violerTt will be 
dis^lowed all GCT for that evaluation period. 

C. Disciplinary Transfer (recommend). 

D. Disciplinary segregation (up to 30 days). 

E. Make monetary restitution. 

F. Withhold statutory good tinte. 

G. Loss of privileges: commissary, movies, reaeation, etc. 

H. Change housing (quarters). 

I. Remove from program and/or group activity. . 

J. Loss of job. 

K. Impound inmate’s personal property. 

L. Confiscate contrabaixl. 

M. Restrict to quarters. 






Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


54925 


Table 3.—Prohibited Acts and Disciplinary Severity Scale Greatest Category— Continued 

[The UDC shall refer all Greatest Severity Prohibited Acts to the DHO with recommendations as to an appropriate disposition] 


Code/Prohibited acts 


Sanctions 


300 Indecent exposure 

301 (Not to be used) 

302 Misuse of authorized medication 

303 Possession of money or currency, unless specificeUly authorized, 
or in excess of the amount authorized 

304 Loaning of property or anything of value for profit or increased 
return 

305 Possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by 
the inmate, and not issued to him through regular channels 

306 Refusing to work, or to accept a program assignment 

307 Refusing to obey an order of any staff member (May be cat¬ 
egorized and charg^ in terms of greater severity, according to the 
nature of the order being disobeyed; e.g., failure to obey an order 
which furthers a riot would be charged as 105, Rioting; refusing to 
obey an order which furthers a fight would be charged as 201, Fight¬ 
ing; refusing to provide a urine S£imple when ordered would be 
charged as Code 110) 

308 Violating a corxStion of a furlough 

309 Violating a corxlition of a community program 


A. Recommerxi parole date rescission or retardation. 

B. Forfeit earned statutory good time or non-vested good conduct time 
up to 25% or up to 30 days whichever is less, and/or terminate or 
disallow extra good time (an extra good time sanction may rrat be 
suspended). 

B. 1 Disallow ordinarily up to 25% (1-14 days) of good conduct time 
credit available for year (a disallowarK^e sanction may not be sus¬ 
pended). 

C. Disciplinary transfer (recommend). 

D. Disci^inary segregation (up to 15 days). 

E. Make monetary restitutkm. 

F. Withhold statutory good time. 

G. Loss of privileges: commissary, movies, recreation, etc. 

H. Change housing (quarters). 

I. Remove from program and/or group activity. 

J. Loss of job. 

K. Impound inmate’s personal property. 

L Confiscate contraband. 

M. Restrict to quarters. 

N. Extra duty. 


310 Unexcused absence fronrv work or any assignment 

311 Failing to perform work as instructed by the supervisor 

312 Insolence towards a staff member 

313 Lying or providing a false statement to a staff member 

314 Counterfeiting, forging or unauthorized reprorkjction of any docu¬ 
ment, article of identification, money, security, or official paper (May 
be categorized in terms of greater severity according to the riature of 
the item being reproduced; e.g., counterfeiting release papers to ef¬ 
fect escape. Code 102 or Code 200) 

315 Participating in an unauthorized meeting or gathering 

316 Being in an unauthorized area 

317 Failure to follow safety or sanitation regulations 

318 Using any equipment or machinery which is not specifically au¬ 
thorized 

319 Using any equipment or machinery contrary to instructions or 
posted safety starxJards 

320 Failing to stand count 

321 Interfering with the taking of count 

322 (Not to be used) 

323 (Not to be used) 

324 Gambling 

325 Preparing or conducting a gambling pool 

326 Possession of gambling paraphernalia 

327 Unauthorized contacts with the public 

328 Giving money or anything of value to, or accepting money or 
anything of value from: another inmate, or any other person without 
staff authorization 

329 Destroying, altering or damaging government property, or the 
property of another person, having a value of $100.00 or less 

330 Being unsanitary or untidy; failing to keep one’s person and 
one’s quarters in accordance with posted standards 

331 Possession, manufacture, or introduction of a norvhazardous tool 
or other non-hazardous contraband (Tool not likely to be used in an 
escape or escape attempt, or to seive as a weapon capable of doing 
serious bodily harm to others, or not hazardous to institutional secu¬ 
rity or personal safety; Other norvhazardous contraband includes 
such items as food or cosmetics) 

398 Interfering with a staff member in the performance of duties. 
(Conduct must be of the Moderate Severity nature.) This charge is to 
be used only when arxTther charge of moderate severity is rK>t appli¬ 
cable 

399 Conduct which disrupts ot, interferes with the security or orderly 
running of the institution or the Bureau of Prisons. (Conduct must be 
of the Moderate Severity nature). This charge is to be used only 
when another charge of moderate severity is not applicable 









54926 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 



Table 3.—Prohibited Acts and Disciplinary Severity Scale Greatest Category— Continued 

[The UDC shall refer all Greatest Severity Prohibited Acts to the DHO with recommendations as to an appropriate disposition] 


B.1 Disallow ordinarily up to 12.5% (1-7 days) of good conduct time 
credn available for year (to be used only where inmate found to have 
conwnitted a second violation of the same prohibited act within 6 
months); Disallow ordinarily up to 25% (1-14 days) of good conduct 
time credit available for year (to be used only where inmate found to 
have committed a third violation of the same prohibited act within 6 
months) (a disallowance sanction may not be suspended). 

E. Make monetary restitution. 

F. Withhold statutory good time. 

G. Loss of privileges: commissary, movies, recreation, etc. 

H. Change housing (quarters). 

I. Renfx>ve from program and/or group activity. 

J. Loss of job. 

K. Impound inmate’s personal property. 

L Confiscate contrabcmd. 

M. Restrict to quarters. 

N. Extra duty. 

O. ReprimEmd. 

P. Warning. 


Note: Aiding another person to commit any of these offenses, attempting to commit any of these offenses, and making plans to commit Einy of 

these offenses, in all categories of severity, shall be considered the same as a commission of the offenses itself. 

Table 4.—Sanctions 

1 . Sanction of the Discipline Hearing Officer, (upon finding the inmate committed the proNbited act) 

A. Recommend parole date rescission or retardation. The DHO may meike recommendations to the U.S. Parole Commission for retardation or 
rescission of parole grants. This may require holding fact-findings hearings upon request of or for the use of the Commission. 

B. Forfeit earned statutory good time, non-vested good conduct time, and/or terminate or disallow extra good time. The statutory good time 
available for forfeiture is limited to an arrxHjnt computed by multiplying the number of noonths served at the time of the offense for which for¬ 
feiture action is taken, by the applicable monthly rate specified in 18 U.S.C. 4161 (less any previous forfeiture or withholding outstanding). 
The amount of good conduct time (GCT) available for forfeiture is limited to the total number of days in the “norvvested” status at the time of 
the disciplinary hearing (less any previous forfeiture). Disallowance of extra good time is limited to the extra good time for the calendar month 
in which the violation occurs. It may rx>t be withheld or restored. The sanction of termination or disallowance of extra good time may not be 
suspended. Authority to restore forfeited good time is delegated to the Warden. This decision may not be delegated lower than the Associate 
Warden level. Forfeited good conduct time will not be restored until the inmate has earned a high school diploma, equivalent degree (GED), 
or has been given an exemption to ttie GED requirement Limitations on this sarx^tion and eligibility for restoration are based on the severity 
scale. (See Table 6) 

B.1 Disallowance of good conduct time. An inmate sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act provisions of the 1984 Comprehensive Crime 
Control Act (irrcludes the inmate who committed his or her crime on or after November 1, 1987) may not receive statutory good time, but is 
eligible to receive 54 days good conduct time credit each year (18 U.S.C. 3624(b)). Once awarded, ^ credit is vested, and nrray not be dis¬ 
allowed. However, for crimes committed on or after September 13, 1994, credit toward an irvnate’s service of sentence shall not be vested 
unless the inmate has earned or is making satisfactory (xogress toward a high school diploma or an equivalent degree, or has been exempt¬ 
ed from participation because of a learning disability. Orx:e disallowed, the credit may not be restored, except by immediate review or appeal 
action as indicated below. Prior to tNs award being made, the credit may be disallowed for an inmate found to have committed a prohibited 
act. A sarx:tion of disaHowarx^e of good corxjuct time may not be susperxied. Only the DHO can take action to disallow good conduct time. 
The DHO shaU consider the severity of the prohibited act and the suggested disallowance guidelines in making a determination to disallow 
good conduct time. A decision to go above the guideline range is warranted for a greatly aggravated offense or where there is a repetitive 
violation of the same prohibited act that occurs within a relatively short time frame (e.g., v^in 18 months for the same greatest severity pro¬ 
Nbited act within 12 months for the same Ngh severity prohtoited act, and within 6 months for the same moderate severity prohibited act). A 
decision to go below the guidelines is warranted for sfrong mitigatirrg factors. Any decision outside the suggested disallowafKe guidelines is 
to be documented and justified in the DHO report. 

VCCLEA inmates rated as violent will ordinarily be disallowed 14 days good corxfuct time for each rrxxferate level prohibited act they are found 
to have committed at a DHO hearirrg; VCCLEA inmates rated as violent will ordinarily be disallowed 7 days good corxfuct time for each low 
moderate level prohibited act they are fourxf to have committed at a DHO hearing. However, the DHO may, after careful consideration of miti¬ 
gating factors (seriousness of the offense, the inmate's past disciplinary record, the lack of available good conduct time, etc.) choose to im¬ 
pose a lesser sarx^tion, or even disallow rx> GCT for moderate level and low moderate level prohibited acts by VCCLEA inmates rated as vio¬ 
lent The DHO must thoroughly detail the rationale for choosing to disallow less than 14 days or 7 days respectively. This will be documented 
in Section VII of the DHO report. Disallowances of anx)unts greater than 14 days or 7 days respectively will occur v/ith repetitive offenses 
consistent with Table 5. 


Sanctions * 


Code/Prohibited acts 

400 Possession of property belonging to another person 

401 Possessing unauthorized anfx>unt of otherwise authorized cloth¬ 
ing 

402 Malingering, feigNng illness 

403 Smoking where prohkxted 

404 Using abusive or obscene language 

405 Tattooing or self-mutilation 

406 Unauthorized use of mail or telephone (Restriction, or loss for a 
specific period of time, of these privileges may often be an appro- 
piiate sarx:tion G) (May be categorized and charged in terms of 
greater severity, according to the nature of the unauthorized use; 
e.g., the telepixxie is used for planning, facilitating, committirrg an 
armed assaiit on the irrstitution’s secure perimeter, would be 
charged as Code 101, Assault) 

407 Corxfuct with a visitor in violation of Bureau regulations (Restric¬ 
tion, or loss for a specific period of time, of these privile^s may 
often be an appropriate sarx:tion G) 

408 Corxfucting a business 

409 Unauthorized physical contact (e.g., kissing, embracing) 

498 Interfering with a staff member in the performarx^e of duties. 
Conduct must be of tite Low Moderate Severity nature.) This charge 
is to be used only when arK)ther charge of low rrxxjerate severity is 
not applicable 

499 Conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly 
running of the institution or the Bureau of Prisons. (Conduct must be 
of the Low Moderate Severity nature.) TNs charge is to be used only 
when another charge of low nxxferate severity is not applicaUe 







Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 19.95 / Proposed Rules 


54927 


Table 4.— Sanctions— Continued 


The decision of the DHO is final and is street only to review by the Warden to ensure conformity with the provisions of the disciplinary policy 
emd by inmate appeal through the administrative remedy procedures. The DHO is to ensure that the inmate is notified that any appeal of a 
disallowance of good corxjuct time must be made within the time frames established in the Bureau’s rule on administrative remedy proce¬ 
dures. 

Except for VCCLEA inmates rated as violent. Sfinction B.1 may be imposed on the Low Moderate category only where the inmate has commit¬ 
ted the same low moderate prohibited act more than one time within a six-month period. 

C. Recommend disciplinary transfer. The DHO reconmnend tljiat an inmate be transferred to another institution for disciplinary reasons. 
Where a present or impending emergency requires immediate action, the Warden may recommend for approval of the Regional Director the 
transfer of an inrruite prior to either a UDC or DHO Hearing. Transfers for disciplinary reasons prior to a hearing before the UDC or DHO may 
be used in emergency situations and only with approval of the Regional Director. When an inmate is transferred urxler these circumstances, 
the sendirtg institution shall forward copies of incident reports and other relevant materials with completed investigation to the receiving insti¬ 
tution’s Discipline Hearing Officer. The inmate shall receive a hearing at the receiving institution as soon as practicable under the cir¬ 
cumstances to consider the factual basis of the charge of misconduct and the reasons for the emergency transfer. All procedural require¬ 
ments applicable to UDC or DHO. hearings contained in this rule are appropriate, except that written statements of unavailable witnesses are 
liberally accepted instead of live testimony. 

D. Disci^nary segregation. The DHO may direct that an inmate be placed or retained in disciplinary segregation pursuant to guidelines corv 
tained in this rule. Consecutive disciplinary segregation sanctions can be imposed and executed for inmates charged with and found to have 
committed offenses that are part of different acts only. Specific limits on time in disciplinary segregation are based on the severity scale. (See 
Table 6) 

E. Make monetary restitution. The DHO may drect that an inmate reimburse the U.S. Treasury for any damages to U.S. Government property 
that the individi^ is determined to have caused or contributed to. 

F. Withholding statutory good time. The DHO may direct that an inmate’s good time be withheld. Withholding of good time should not be ap¬ 
plied as a universal punishment to all persons in disciplinary segregation status. Withholding is limited to the total amount of good time cred¬ 
itable for the single nK>nth during which the violation occurs. Some offenses, such as refusal to work at an assignment, may be recurring, 
thereby permitting, when ordered by the DHO, consecutive withholding actions. When this is the intent the DHO shaH specify at the time of 
the initial DHO hearing that good time may be withheld until the inmate elects to return to work. During the running of such a withholding 
order, the DHO shall review the offense with the inmate on a monthly beisis. For an orvgoing offense, staff need not prepare a new Incident 
Report or conduct an investigation or initial hearing (UDC). The DHO shall provide the inmate an opportunity to appear in person arxl to 
present a statement orally or in writing. The DHO shall document its action on. or by an attachment to, the initial Institution Discipline report 
If further withholding is order^, the DHO shall advise the inmate of the inmate’s right to appeal through the Administrative Remedy proce¬ 
dures (Part 542). Only the Warden may restore withheld statutory good time. This deciskxi may not be delegated lower than the Associate 
Warden level. Restoration eligibility is based on the severity scale. (See Table 6) 

2. Sarx:tions of the Discipline Hearing Officer/Unit Discipline Committeer. (upon finding the inmate committed the prohibited act) 

G. Loss of privileges: commissary, movies, recreation, etc. The DHO or UDC may direct that an inmate forego specific privilege for a specified 
period of time. Ordinarily, loss of privile^s is used as a sanction in response to an £ibuse of that privilege. However, the DHO or UDC may 
impose a loss of F>rivilege sarretion not directly related to the offense when there is a lack of other appropriate sanctions or when imposition of 
an appropriate sanction previously has been ineffective. 

H. Change hrxjsing (quarters). The DHO or UDC may direct that an inmate be removed from current housing and placed in other housing. 

I. Remove from program arxi/or group activity. The DHO or UDC may direct that an inmate forego participating in any program or group activity 
for a specified period of time. 

J. Loss of job. The DHO or UDC may direct that an inmate be removed from present job and/or be assigned to another job. 

K. lir^xHjrid Inmate’s personal property. The DHO or UDC may direct that an inmate’s personal property be stored in the institution (when rel¬ 
evant to offense) for a specified perM of time. 

L. Confiscate contraband. The DHO or UDC may direct that any contrabarKf in the possession of an inmate be confiscated and disposed of ap¬ 
propriately. 

M. Restrict quarters. The DHO or UDC may direct that an inmate be confined to quarters or in its immediate area for a specified period of time. 

N. Extra Duty. The DHO or UDC may direct that an inmate perform tasks other than those performed during regiristrly assigned institutional job. 

O. Reprimand. The DHO or UDC may reprimand an inmate either verbally or in writing. 

P. Warning. The DHO or UDC may verbally warn an inmate regarding committing prohibited act(s). 


Table 5.—Sanctions for Repetition of Prohibited Acts Within Same Category^ 

• 


Prior offense 




Category 

(same code) 
within time 

Frequency of repeated of¬ 
fense 

Sanction permitted 


— 

period 





Low Moderate (4(X) series). 6 months 2d offense. Low Moderate Sanctions, plus; 

1. Disciplinary segregation, up to 7 days. 

2. Forfeit earned SGT or norvvested GCT up to 10% or up to 
15 days, whichever is less, and/or terminate or disallow extra 
good time (EGT) (an EQT sanction may not be suspended). 

3d offense, or more. Any sarx:tions available in Moderate (300) and Low Moderate 

(400) series 

Moderate (300 series). 12 months ... 2d offense . Moderate Sanctions (A, C, E-N), plus: 

— 1. Disciplinary segregation, up to 21 days. 

2. Forfeit earned SGT or non-vested GCT up to 37’/fe% or up 
to 45 days, whichever is less, and/or terminate or disallow 
EGT (an EGT sanction may not be suspended). 

3d offense, or more. Any sanctions available in Moderate (300) and High (200) se¬ 

ries. 

High Sanction (A, C, E-M), plus: 


High (200 series) 


18 months ... I 2d offense 




















54928 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 


Table 5.—Sanctions for Repetition of Prohibited Acts Within Same Category^— Continued 


Category 

Prior offense 
(same code) 
within time 
period 

Frequency of repeated of¬ 
fense 

Sanction permitted 



3d offense, or more. 

1. Disciplinary segregation, up to 45 days. 

2. Forfeit earned SGT or non-vested GCT up to 75% or up to 
90 days, whichever is less, arxl/or terminate or disallow EGT 
(an EGT sanction may not be suspended). 

Any sanction available in High (200) and Greatest (100) series. 



' When the Unit Discipline Committee or DHO finds that an inmate has committed a prohibited act in the Low Moderate, Moderate, or High cat¬ 
egory. and when there has been a repetition of the same offense(s) within recent months (offenses for violation of the same code), increased 
sanctions are authorized to be imposed by the DHO according to the following chart 
(Note: An informal resolution may not be considered as a prior offense for purposes of this chart.) 

3. In § 541.14, paragraph (a) is § 541.14 Incident report and investigation, 

amended by revising the last sentence to (a) Incident report. * * * Only the 
read as follows: DHO may make a final disposition on a 

prohibited act in the Greatest Severity 
Category or on a prohibited act in the 
High Category (when the High Category 


prohibited act has been committed by a 
VCCLEA inmate rated as violent). 

* * * * * . 

(FR Doc. 95-26612 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am] 
BILUNO CODE 441(M>5-r> 












Thursday 
October 26, 1995 


Part V 


The President 


Proclamation 6843—National Consumers 
Week, 1995 

Proclamation 6844—United Nations Day, 
1995 

Proclamation 6845—Veterans Day, 1995 











































54931 


Federal Register Presidential Documents 

Vol. 60, No. 207 
Thursday, October 26, 1995 


Title 3— Proclamation 6843 of October 23, 1995 

The President National Consumers Week, 1995 


By the President of the United States of America 
A Proclamation 

Business and trade have always been central to the American experience. 
In the period since the Industrial Revolution, the extraordinary growth of 
our economy has created a marketplace that is the foundation of global 
commerce. Unparalleled natural and human resources have energized every 
part of our society—from the agricultural heartland that feeds an intemationd 
community: to the textile and steel mills that began the machine age in 
America; to the scientific, computer, and information companies that are 
leading the way into the fast-paced world of the 21st century. 

Consumer protections such as fair pricing and product safety rules are 
more necessary than ever to ensure that all of us are able to fully and 
fairly participate in a firee enterprise system that encourages competition, 
productivity, and innovation. These protections have evolved alongside the 
remarkable expansion of the world economy. In 1962, President John F. 
Kennedy clarified the importance of consumer protection in a Special Mes¬ 
sage to Congress that has become known as the Consumer Bill of Rights. 
This statement articulated each person’s rights to safety, information, and 
choice, and the right to be heard in the process of resolving consumer 
problems. In 1975 President Gerald R. Ford added the right to consumer 
education. 

As the driving force behind the richest, most prosperous country in the 
world, the United States’ free market is a model for others to emulate. 
We must ensure that our system continues to emphasize the centrality 
of the consumer even as it becomes increasingly technology-oriented. Accord¬ 
ingly, last year, I was proud to add the latest element to the Consumer 
Bill of Rights—the right to service—^which urges that convenience, courtesy, 
performance, and responsiveness remain hallmarks of the American market¬ 
place. So that Federal workers and agencies can take the lead in providing 
high-quality service, my Administration has also initiated the National Per¬ 
formance Review to improve efficiency and promote excellence in every 
sector of our Government. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States 
of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 
and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 22 through 
October 28 as National Consumers Week. I call upon Government officials, 
industry leaders, and the people of the United States to recognize the vital 
relationship between our economy and our citizenry and to support the 
right of all Americans to service excellence. 








1 




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Presidential Documents 54933 


Presidential Documents 


Proclamation 6844 of October 23, 1995 

United Nations Day, 1995 


By the President of the United States of America 
A Proclamation 

Fifty years ago, at the end of the most destructive war the world has 
ever ^own, delegates from fifty-one countries met in San Francisco to 
establish the United Nations. Inspired by a common determination “to save 
succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” the delegates recognized 
that their vision of a better world could not simply be defined by the 
absence of conflict, nor could peace be maintained without broad inter¬ 
national cooperation. Thus they resolved to “unite our strength to maintain 
international peace and security,” to “promote social progress and better 
standards of life,” and to reaffirm universal human rights. 

This year, the U.N., which now numbers 185 member countries, has contin¬ 
ued its tradition of promoting peace and security arouiid the globe. Its 
agencies are important instruments in the campaign to stop the proliferation 
of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction. It works to provide 
security for the conduct of free elections. And United Nations troops strive 
to keep the peace in places of great importance to the United States— 
on the Kuwait border, in the Mediterranean and in Europe. 

We can also be proud of the U.N. agencies and programs that work to 
support sustainable development, protect the environment, battle the spread 
of disease, and promote human rights. In fighting the deadly outbreak of 
the Ebola virus, inununizing millions of children, and securing relief for 
hundreds of thousands of re^gees, agencies like the World Health Organiza¬ 
tion, UNICEF, and the United Nations High Commissions for Human Rights 
and Refugees make important contributions to the international community. 

The U.N. enters its second half-century of service facing new opportunities 
and challenges. If the nations of the world are to fully embrace these opportu¬ 
nities and overcome these challenges, we must work more closely together 
to fully realize the principles of the original United Nations Charter and 
must commit to improving the organization’s efficiency and efiectiveness. 
During this momentous anniversary celebration, let us reaffirm the ideals, 
principles, and goals contained in the Charter and rededicate ourselves 
to working for the good of all humankind. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILUAM J. CUNTON, President of the United States 
of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 
and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, October 24, 
1995, as United Nations Day. .1 encourage all Americans to acquaint them¬ 
selves with the activities and accomplishments of the U.N. and to observe 
this day with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities furthering 
the goal of international cooperation. 






54934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Presidential Documents 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third 
day of October, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety- 
five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two 
hundred and twentieth. 

IFR Doc 95-26741 
Filed 10-24-95; 2:37 pm] 

Billing code 3195-Ol-P 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 1995 / Presidential Documents 54935 


Presidential Documents 


Proclamation 6845 of October 24, 1995 

Veterans Day, 1995 


By the President of the United States of America 
A Proclamation 

During both war and peace, America’s armed forces have helped to preserve 
the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Every 
day, our men and women in uniform maintain an around-the-clock vigil 
to ensure that our Nation remains safe from harm and our citizens ^e 
from fear. Their sacrifices, and the dedication to duty exemplified by Amer¬ 
ican troops throughout our history, have advance^ democracy and human 
dignity around the world. 

For generations, brave citizens from every walk of life have answered the 
call to service, fighting to defend the ideals we hold dear. Through long 
years of separation and hardship, the selfless contributions made by our 
veterans have preserved the blessings of freedom. As we honor their heroism, 
let us also remember the families whose support and prayers have added 
so much. We owe a heartfelt thanks to all those whose devoted efforts— 
both on the battlefreld and in communities across the country—have laid 
the strong foundation of peace and security we enjoy today. 

On this 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, we take special 
pride in recognizing those who served the United States during that terrible 
conflict—the 16,535,000 men and women who risked their lives to defeat 
oppression. The ensuing half-century has brought momentous changes in 
global affairs, and the generation of veterans who triumphed over tyranny 
continues to hold a sacred place in our national memory. 

Veterans of other wars throughout our Nation’s history merit no less distinc¬ 
tion. There are some 27 million veterans in America today whose service 
ranges from World War I, through the Cold War, to the Persian Gulf War 
and our other recent military missions around the globe. Thanks to their 
loyalty and courage, this country remains a symbol of hope for all those 
who seek democracy and peace. On Veterans Day and on every day through¬ 
out the year, let us remember and honor the sacrifices of our veterans 
and renew our conunitment to accounting for their comrades-in-arms who 
have fallen, unknown and unrecovered, in distant frelds of battle. 

In order that we may pay tribute to those who have served in our Armed 
Forces, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 
of each year shall be set aside as a day to recognize America’s veterans. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILUAM J. CUNTON, President of the United States 
of America, do hereby proclaim Saturday, November 11, 1995, as Veterans 
Day. I urge all Americans to honor the resolution and commitment of our 
veterans through appropriate public ceremonies and private prayers. I call 
upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United 
States and to encomage and participate in patriotic activities in their commu¬ 
nities. I invite civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, 
businesses, unions, and the media to support this national observance with 
suitable commemorative expressions and programs. 





54936 Federal Register / Vol. 60 , No. 207 / Thursday, October 25 , 1995 / Presidential Documents 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth 
day of October, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety- 
five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two 
hundred and twentieth. 

IFR Doc. 95-26827 
Filed 10-25-95; 11:29 am] 

Billing code 3195-01-P 




Reader Aids 


Federal Register 
Vol. 60, No. 207 
Thursday, October 26, 1995 


CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING OCTOBER 


Federal RegIster/Code of Federal Regulations 

General Information, indexes and other finding 202-62S-5227 
aids 

Public inspection announcement line 523-6215 

Laws 

Public Laws Update Services (niunbers, dates, etc.) 523-6641 
For additional information 523-6227 

Presidential Documents 

Executive orders and proclamations 523-6227 

The United States Government Manual 523-6227 

Other Services 

Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523-4534 

Privacy Act Compilation 523-3187 

TDD for the hearing unpaired 523-6229 

ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD 

Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law numbers. 
Federal Register finding aids, and list of documents on public 
inspection. 202-275-0920 

FAX-ON-DEMAND 

You may access our Fax-On-Demand service. You only need a fox 
machine and there is no charge for the service except for long 
distance telephone charges the user may incur. The list of 
documents on public inspection and the daily Federal Register’s 
table of contents are available using this service. The dociunent 
numbers are 7050-Public Inspection list and 7051-Table of 
Contents list. The public inspection list will be updated 
immediately for dociunents filed on an emergency basis. 

NOTE: YOU WILL ONLY GET A USTING OF DOCUMENTS ON 
FILE AND NOT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Documents on 
public inspection may be viewed and copied in our office located 
at 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700. The Fax-On-Demand 
telephone munlrar is: 301-713-6905 


FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, OCTOBER 

51321-61666. 2 

51667-51876.3 

51877-52062.4 

52063-52290.5 

52291-52608. 6 

52603-52830.10 

52831-53100.11 

53101-53246.12 

53247-53502.13 

53503-53690. 16 

53691-53846.17 

53847-64026.18 

54027-54150.19 

54151-54290..20 

54291-54410.23 

54411-54584.24 

54585-54798.25 

54799-54936.26 


At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register 
publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which 
lists parts and sections affected by documents published since 
the revision date of each title. 


3 CFR 


Proclamations: 

6828.. 

51877 

6829. 

.51879 

6830. 

.62291 

6831. 

..62827 

6832. 

' 53097 

68.^3 

63099 

6834. 

53101 

6835. 

.53103 

6836... 

. -63106 

6837. 

53107 

6838. 

.53247 

6839. 

53249 

6840. 

.53843 

6841... 

.64023 

6842. 

-64026 

6843.. 

.54931 

6844. 

54933 

6845. 

.54935 


12905 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12912 (See EO 

12974).51876 

12958 (See Order of 
October 13,1995).53845 

12973 .51665 

12974 .51875 

12975 .52063 

12976 .52829 

12977 .54411 

12978 .54579 

AdminMratlve Orders: 
Menxxandums: 

September 29,1995.52061 

October 2,1995.52821 

October 3, 1995.52289 

October 10,1995.53251 

Orders: 

October 13,1995..53845 


PresidetTtial Determinatior»: 


Executive Orders: 

4410 (Revoked in part 

by PLO 7165).52846 

11145 (Continued by 

EO 12974)..^...51875 

11183 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

11287 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

11776 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12131 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12196 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12216 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12345 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12367 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12382 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12844 (Revoked in 
part by EO 

12974).51876 

12869 (Superseded by 

EO 12974).51876 

11871 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

11876 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12878 (Revoked by 

EO 12974).51876 

12882 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12887 (See EO 
12974).51876 

12900 (Continued by 

EO 12974).51875 

12901 (Amended by 

EO 12973)...-.51665 


No. 95-45 of 
September 29, 


1996 ... 

.52823 

No. 95-46 of 


September 29, 
1996. 

-6-3087 

No. 95-47 of 


September 29, 
1996. 

.53089 

No. 95^ of 


September 29,. 
1995. 

.53091 

No. 95^9 of 


September 28, 
1995. 

.53677 

No. 95-60 Of 


September 30, 

1995 .53093 

5 CFR 


532. 

.51881 

831. 

.54585 

842 

.54585 

870. 

.51881 

871. 

.51881 

872. 

.51881 

874. 

.51881 

2608. 

.51667 

2612. 

.51667 

2635. 

.51667 

Proposed Rules: 


251. 

.51371 

531. 

.53545 

591. 

.53716 

7 CFR 


8. 

...;.52293 

301. 

..52831, 52833 

400. 

.51321 

810. 

.51667 

906. 

.54291 





































































































11 


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Reader Aids 


916. 

917. 


.52067 

..52067 


114. 


.52069 


937. 


.53890 


922 . 

9i>a. 

.54292 

.54992 

924. 

.54292 

979. 

.54294 

9K>. 

.51668 

1150 

.539.53 

1919 

___52835 

1443. 

. 51885 

1477. 

..52609,54409 

147R 

. 52609 

1949. 

...59838 

1980. 

..52838, 53254 

2610 . 

.52840 

2620 . 

. 52842 

Proposed Rules: 
54 . 

.53283 


300.51373 

318.51373 

985.52869 

1124.54315 

1135.54315 

1280. 51737 

1413.52634 

3015 . 53717 

3016 . 53717 

3017 .54103 

3050.53717 

8CFR 

204.54027 

208.52068 

212.52068, 52248 

214.52068, 52248 

236.52068 

242.52068 

245.52068, 52248 

248.52068 

274a.52068 

299.52068 

9CFR 

318.54295 


331. 

381. 

.54413 

..54296. 54413 

Proposed Rules: 

92. 

...54315 

94. 

.52635 

.308 

544.50, 54819 

310. 

.54450' 54819 


12CFR 

Ch. XVIII.;.54110 

229.51669 

701.51886 

722.51889 

1805 .54110 

1806 .54110 

1815.54110 

Proposed Rules: 


24. 

.54819 

Ch. II. 

.53546 

208... 

.53692 

339 

.5.3699 

563. 

.53692 

572. 

.....53692 

614. 

.53692 

701. 

.51936 

760. 

.53692 

13 CFR 



106. 


.54588 


16CFR 

429.54185 

436.51895 

1500.53266 

1700.53699 

Proposed Rules: 

24.54316 

260.54619 

17CFR 

I .54801 

3.54801 

9 .54801 

10 .54801 

II . 54801 

21. 54801 

36.51323 

200.52626 

231.....53458 

241.53458 

271.53458 

Proposed Rules: 


105.53480 

109. 53480 

137.53480 

161.53480 

163.53480 

172 . 54425 

173 .54035 

177 ...54188, 54425 

178 .54427, 54428 


184. 

186. 


.54190 

.53480 

197. 

200. 


.;...53480 

._...53480 

250. 

310. 


.53480 

....52474, 53480 

3.55. 


.52474 

369. 

500. 


.52474 

.53480 


505.53480 

507 .53480 

508 .53480 

510.53480, 54193 

522.51718, 53509 


110 . 

.54588 

230. 

232. 

.53468 

.53468 

570. 

......53480 

^7(Y> 

17 ft 

54588 

239. 

..53468 

601 

5.3A8n 

199 

.54588 

240. 

.52792, 53468, 53832, 

620. 

.53480 

144. 

.54588 

270. 

54823 

630.. 

...53480 



.53152, 53468 

840 


14 CFR 


18 CFR 


650. 

.53480 

23. 

.54297 


660. 

5.3480 

25. 

.53691 

2 . 

.53019 

680. 

...53480 


39 .51321,51703, 51705, 

51707, 51709, 51713. 52073. 
52618, 52620, 52622, 52843, 
52844, 53109, 53110, 53112, 
53265, 53507, 53847, 54849, 
53851, 53853, 53855, 53857, 
53859, 53860, 53862, 53864, 
53866, 53868, 53869, 54414, 
54415, 54417, 54419, 54421, 
54799,54800 

61.51850 

63..51850 

65.51850 

71 .52293, 52624, 52846, 

53870, 53871, 53872, 54423 
97 .51715, 51717,54299, 

107..51854, 53830 

108 .51850, 51854,53830 


157 .53019 

158 . 53019 

201.......53019 

250.53019 

260.53019 

284.53019 

357.53114 

381 .53019 

382 .53114 

385.53019 

Proposed Rules: 

35.52874, 54317 


19CFR 

10 . 

19... 

54. 

101 . 


.52294 

.52294 

.52294 

..52627 


123.54187 


010 . 

320 


125.. 

.52625 

125. 

.52294 

395 

5if^5n 5^819 

135. 

..51850,52625 

141. 

.52294 

326. 

.54450' 54819 

Proposed Rules: 


144. 

.52294 


327.54450, 54819 

381. 54450, 54819 

10CFR 

50.53505 

70.53505 

72 .53505 

73 .53507 

905.54151 

Proposed Rules: 

50.51936 

52.51936, 53883 


11 CFR 


100. 

..59069 

106____ 

52069 

109. 

.52069 

110... 

.52069 


39 .51375, 51376, 51942, 

51944, 52130, 52131, 52636, 
52870, 52872, 53148, 53150, 
53307, 53309, 53310, 53312, 
53314, 53548, 53550, 53552, 
53554, 53556, 53558, 53883, 
53888, 54202, 54203, 54820 

71 .51747, 52133, 52134, 

52637, 52638, 52639, 53724, 
54205, 54206, 54457, 54458 
77. 53680 

15CFR 

773.54030 

778.54030 

799.53698, 54030 

806.54590 

Proposed Rules: 

929.53890 


148.54187 

210.53117 

Proposed Rules: 

101.52347 

201.51748 

207.51748 

20CFR 

404.53267 

702 .51346 

703 ..51346 

21 CFR 

5.54424 

73.52628 

100 .53480 

101 .53480 

103 .53480 

104 .53480 


700.53480 

801.53480 

1310.53121,54409 

Proposed Rules: 

2.53725 

330.52058 

801.53560 

803 .53560 

804 .53560 

888.51946 

897. 53560 

22 CFR 

92..51719 

514.53122 

Proposed Rules: 

51 .51760, 54103 

181.54319 

24 CFR 

291.52296 

Proposed Rules: 

882.51658 

3500...54794 

25 CFR 

163. 52250 

164...51723 

165.51723 

26 CFR 

1.52077, 53126 

31.53509 

40. 54803 

52 .52848 

301.51724 

602 .52848, 53126, 53509 

Proposed Rules: 

31.53561 

27 CFR 

9. 


.51896 









































































































































































































































Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 / Reader Aids iii 


28CFR 

0. 

2.. 

501. 

549. 

..,...53267 

..51348, 51349, 51350 

.53490 

.52276 

Proposed Rules: 

16. 

.51962 

29. 

.54459 

541. 

.54922 

549. 

54266 

551. 

.54289 

29CFR 


4. 

.51725 

502. 

.54803 

503.. 

.-.54803 

517. 

. 54604 

526. 

.54804 

1602 

.. 51350 

1910. 

..526.56 

2610 

..5.3266 

2619. 

...5.3269 

2622 

..5.3266 

2644 

.53272 

2676 

.53269 

1910. 

.54462 

1915. 

.54462 

1926. 

.54462 

Proposed Rules: 

Ch. XIV. 

...54207 

1625. 

.51762 

1910. 

.54047 

2615 

.52135 

2615 

. 54619 

30CFR 


902. 

.54592 

906. 

.54592 

914. 

.53511, 54593 

944. 

.54592 

946. 

..51900 

Proposed Rules: 

6. 

.52640 

16. 

.52640, .5.3691 

19. 

...52640 

20. 

.52640 

21. 

.52640 

22. 

.52640 

23. 

.52640 

26. 

. 52640 

27. 

.52640 

29... 

.52640 

33. 

.52640 

35. 

.52640 

75. 

.53891 

206. 

.51963 

211.. 

.54321 

250. 

.54465 

906. 

.53562 

935. 

.54619 

934. 

.53564 

938...... 

.53565 

943. 

.53567, 53569, 54620 

31 CFR 

515. 

.54194 

Proposed Rules: 

103. 

.53316 

32 CFR 

67. 

.54301 

199. 

.52078 

311. 

.54197 

505. 

.51918 

706. 

.52860, 53272, 54198 


2001.53492 

Proposed Rules: 

321.51764 

723.53153 

33CFR 

100 .52296, 52297, 53273 

110.52103 

117 .51727, 51728, 51729, 

51730, 51732, 5^8, 53129, 

53274, 54430, 54431, 54432, 

54805 

164 .51733 

165 .52103,52861,54303, 

54434,54806 

Proposed Rules: 

84.53726 

110.53317 

117.54823 

162.53318 

187.53727 

36CFR 

223.53704 

251.54409 

261.54409 

1210.53514 

Proposed Rules: 

7. 54633 

38CFR 

1. 53275 

3 .51921,52862, 52863, 

53276 

20 .51922 

21 .54435 

Proposed Rules: 

4 .54825 

39CFR 

233.54304 

40CFR 

52 .51351,51354, 51923, 

52312, 54305, 54308, 54435, 
54439, 54595, 54597, 54599, 
54807, 54810, 54812 
58.52315 

60 .52329, 52331 

61 .52329, 52331 

70.52332, 53872 

81 .51354, 51360, 52336, 

54310 

125.53875 

136.53529 

180 .52248, 54604, 54605, 

54607 

185 .54610 

186 .54610 

258.52337 

261.54311 

271 .51925, 52629, 53704, 

53707, 53708 

282.52343 

300.51927 

403.54764 

503.54764 

Proposed Rules: 

50 .52874 

51 ..51378, 52734, 54321 

52 .51378, 51379, 51382, 

51964, 52348, 52351, 52352, 
54325, 54465, 54466, 54636, 

54637, 54832 
60.52889 


63.53728 


70. 

80. 

81. 

.52890 

.52135, 53157 

51362 , 5.3729 

82. 

.51383, 52357 

85. 

...51378, 52734 

86. 

. 52734 , 53157 

89.. 

...53157 

136. 

.. 5.3966 

180. 

.54637, 54641,54643 

261. 

.54207 

268. 

.54645 

271. 

.54207 

300. 

51390, 51395 

302. 

.51765^ 54207 

355. 

.51765 

403. 

.54771 

503. 

.54771 

42 CFR 

411. 

.53876 

414. 

.53877 

486. 

.53877 

489. 

.52731, 53456 

498. 

...52731 

43 CFR 

PubHc Land Orders: 

7155. 

.52731 

7161. 

.52631 

7162. 

.52631 

7163. 

.51734 

7164. 

.52864 

7165. 

. 62664 

7166. 

.53131 

7167. 

.53131 

7168. 

.53131 

7169. 

.54814 

44 CFR 

64. 

.51360, 54612 

6.5 . 

.54036, 54038 

67. 

...54039 

Proposed Rules: 

67. 

.54051 

45 CFR 

51-5. 

.54199 


Propos e d Rules: 

1305.54648 


46CFR 


1. 

.54106 

2. 

.-.54106 

5. 

.54106 

6. 

.54106 

10.. 

.54106 

12. 

.54106 

14. 

..54106 

16. 

.54106 

25. 

.54106 

26 . 

.. 64106 , .64441 

30. 

.54106 

31. 

.54106 

32. 

.54106 

33. 

.54106 

34. 

.54106 

35. 

.54106 

39. 

.54106 

50. 

.54106 

52. 

.54106 

53. 

.54106 

54. 

.54106 

56. 

.54106 

57. 

.54106 

58. 

.54106 


59.54106 

61 .54106 

62 .54106 

63 .54106 

69 .54106 

70 .54106 

71 .54106 

72 .54106 

75 .54106 

76 .54106 

77 .54106 

78 .54106 

90 .54106 

91 .54106 

92 .54106 

93 .54106 

94 .54106 

95 .54106 

96 . 54106 

97 .54106 

98 .54106 

107 .54106 

108 .54106 

110.54106 

147 .54106 

148 .54106 

150 .54106 

151 .54106 

153 .54106 

154 ......54106 

160 .52631,54106 

161 .54106 

162 .54106 

164 .54106 

167.54106 

169 .54106 

170 .54106 

171 .53710 

174 .54106 

175 .;.54106 

180 .54106 

181 .54106 

182 .54106 

183 .54106 

184 .54106 

188 .54106 

189 .54106 

190 .-...54106 

192 .54106 

193 .54106 

196 .54106 

197 .54106 

Proposed Rules: 

Ch. 1.52143 

10.54466 

25.52359 

552 .53572 

47CFR 

1.52865, 53277 

32. 53544 

36.53544 

43.51366, 52865 

61.52345, 52865 

63 .51366 

64 .52105,54449 

68.52105, 54814 

73 .52105,52106,53278, 

53877, 53878, 54313, 54616, 

54617 

76 .51927,52106, 54815 

97.53132, 54409 

Proposed Rules: 

21.53891 

25.53891 

36.52359 




















































































































































































































































IV 


Federal Register / VoL. 60, No. 207 / Thursday, October 26, 1995 7 Reader Aids 


61 . 52362 , 52364 , 53157 


73 . 52144 , 52641,53892 

90 .. 52894 , 53893 


48CFR 


11 .. 

.. 54817 

12 . 

. .54817 

15. 

..54045 

52 _ 

.54817 

915 . 

. ....52632 

916 _ 

..526.52 

970 ..„ . 

.526.52 

1415 . 

. 53278 

1426. 

..5.5278 

1428 ..,. 

. 53278 

1452 .. 

. 53278 

1815. 

.5.5878 

1816 . 

. 53878 

1819 . 

..5.5880 

1822 . 

. 52121 

1852 

53878 , 53880 

1870 . 

...». ..53878 

1871 . 

. 51368 

2209 . 

_54588 

Proposed Rules: 

31 . 

. 54918 , 54920 

32 . 

. 51766 

45 .. 

..5.^519 

52 . 

. 51766 , 53319 

204 . 

... 54326 

207 ... 

. 53573 

209 . 

. 53573 


215 . 53573 , 53574 , 54326 

216 . 54326 

225 . 53319 

231 . 53320 , 53321 

232 . 54326 

233 . 54326 

235 . 54326 

239 . 54326 

246 . 54326 

242 . 53573 , 53575 

252 . 53319 , 53575 , 54326 

253 . 54326 

1510 . 51964 

1532 . 51964 

1552 . 51964 

1553 . 51964 

1816 . 54208 

1845 . 54651 

1852 . 54208 , 54651 

49CFR 

178 . 54409 

209 . 53133 

240 . 53133 

571 . 53280 

572 . 53280 

Proposed Rules: 

107 . 53321,53729 

110 . 53321 

171 . 53321,54008 

172 . 53321 

173 . 53321,54008 


174 . 53321 

175 . 53321 

176 . 53321 

177 . 53321 

178 . 53321 

179 . 53321 

195 . 54328 

541 . 54658 

565 . _...54658 

567 . 54658 

571 . 53328 , 54467 , 54658 , 

54833 

1043 . 53894 

1160 . 53894 

50CFR 

23 . 52450 

32 . 52866 

227 . 51928 , 52121 

228 . 53139 

285 . 51932 

301 . 54818 

625 . 53281 

630 . 51933 

651 . 51370 

672 . 51934 , 51935 , 52128 , 

52632 , 53714 , 53881 , 54200 , 
54818 

675 . 52129 , 53147 , 53881 , 

54046 , 54617 
677 . 53715 


Proposed Rules: 


14 . 53329 

17 ... 51398 , 51417 , 51432 , 

51436 , 51443 

18 . 54210 

36 . 53576 

222 . 51968 

227 . 51968 

301 . 51735 

638 . 53730 

642 . 53576 

646 . 54329 

649 . 54210 

650 . 54210 

651 . 51978 , 54210 

652 . 54211,54330 

656 . 53577 , 53907 , 54663 

658 .:. 54663 

676 . 51452 , 53331 


UST OF PUBLIC LAWS 


Note: No public bills which 
have become law were 
received by the Office of the' 
Federal Register for irx:lusion 
in today’s List of Public 
Laws. 

Last List October 25, 1995 







































































































INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS’ SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE 


Know when to expect your renewal notice and keep a good diing coming. To keep our subscr4>^on 
prices down, Government Printing Office mails each subscriber only one renewal notice. You can 
learn when, you will get your renewal notice by checking the number that follows month/year code on 
the top line of your label as shown in this example'. 

A renewal notice wUl be A renewal notice will be 

sent approocimately 90 days ,cnt approximately 90 cbys 

before this date. before this date. 


AFR SMITH212J 


DEC95 R 1 


AFRDO SMITH212J 

DEC95 R 1 

JOHN SMITH 




JOHN SMITH 


212 MAIN STREET 




212 MAIN STREET 


PORESTVILLE MD 20747 




PORESTVILLE MD 20747 



To be sure that your service continues without interruption, please return your renewal notice promptly. 
If your subscripti(Hi service is discontinued, simply send your mailing label from any issue to the 
Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20402-9372 with the proper rraiittance. Your service 
will be reinstated. 

Tb change your address: Please SEND YOUR MAILING LABEL, along with your new address to the 
Superintendent of Documents, Attn: Chief, Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM, Washington, 

DC 20402-9373. 

To inquire about your subscription service: Please SEND YOUR MAILING LABEL, along with 
your correspondence, to the Superintendent of Documents, Atm: Chief, Mail list Branch, Mail 
Stop: SSOM, Washington, DC 20402-9375. 

Tb wder a new subscription: Please use the order form provided below. 


SuperintofKlerit of Documents Sid>8ci1ption Order Form 

♦ 546o 

□YES, please enter my subscriptions as folows: 


&targm your order. 

It^omyl 



To tax your orders (202) 512-2233 


_subscriptions to Federal Register (FR); including the daily Federal Register, monthly Index and LSA List 

of Code of Federal Regulations S^tions Affected, at $544 ($680 foreign) each per year. 


_subscriptions to Federal Register, daily only (FRDO), at $494 ($617.50 foreign) each per year. 


The total cost of my order is $_ . (Includes 

regular shipping and handlir)g.) Price subject to change. 


Company or personal name 

(Please type or print) 

Additional address/attention line 



street address 


For privacy, check box below: 

□ Do not make my name available to other mailers 
Check method of payment 

□ Check payable to Superintendent of Documents 

□ GPO Deposit Account | | | | | | | | —["1 

□ VISA □ MasterCard | | | |~~l (exptratlpn date) 


City. State, Zip code 


TharUcyou for yoisr order! 



Authorizing signature 

Mai To: Superintendent of Documents 

P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 


Purchase order number (optional) 









NEW EDITION 



Guide to 
Record 
Retention 
Requirements 

in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Revised January 1, 1994 

The GUIDE is a useful reference tool, 
compiled from agency regulations, designed to 
assist anyone with Feder^ recordlmeping 
ohligations. 

The various abstracts in the GUIDE tell the 
user (1) what records must be kept, (2) who must 
keep them, and (3) how long they must be kept. 

The GUIDE is formatted and numbered to 
parallel the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 
(CFR) for uniformity of citation and easy 
reference to the source document. 

Compiled by the Office of the Federal 
Register, National Archives and Records 
Administration. 


Superintendent of Documents Order Form 


Older Processing Code: 

*7296 


Charge your order. 

It's easy! 

To fax your orders (202) 512-2250 


□ YES, send me_ subscriptions to 1994 Guide to Record Retention Requirements in the CFR, 

S/N 069-000-00056-8, at $20.00 ($25.00 foreign) each. 


The total cost of my order is $_. (Includes regular shipping and handling.) Price subject to change. 


Company or personal name 

(Please type or print) 

Additional address/attention line 


Street address 


City. State, Zip code 



Check method of payment: 

□ Check payable to Superintendent of Documents 

□ GPO Deposit Account | | | j | | | | — Q 

□ VISA □ MasterCard | [ | | l lexplration date) 

I-1-1-!-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-T—I-1-1-1-1-1-1-1— 


Thank you for your order! 


Daytime phone including area code 


Purchase order number (optional) 


Authorizing signature ^ 

Mail to: Superintendent of Documents 

P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 








Printed on recycled pap)er 







■'K. 


t ■* .