issue-1994-11-02•Federal Register notices — 1994-11-02
Federal Register notices — 1994-11-02
issue-1994-11-02Federal Register notices — 1994-11-02Notice
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 94-27333 United States Parole Commission
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27333]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
United States Parole Commission
Public Announcement
Pursuant To The Government In the Sunshine Act
(Public Law 94-409) [5 U.S.C. Section 552b]
DATE AND TIME: Friday, October 14, 1994, 10:00 a.m., by telephone
conference call.
PLACE: 5550 Friendship Boulevard, Chevy Chase, Maryland, 20815.
STATUS: Closed--Meeting.
MATTERS CONSIDERED: The following matter will be considered during the
closed meeting:
One appeal to the Commission from a decision by the National
Commissioners pursuant to a reference under 28 C.F.R. 2.27. This
case was originally heard by an examiner panel wherein the
individual applied for parole consideration.
AGENCY CONTACT: Tom Kowalski, Case Operations, United States Parole
Commission, (301) 492-5962.
Dated: October 5, 1994.
Michael A. Stover,
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-27333 Filed 10-31-94; 3:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27332 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27332]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Operations and Regulations Committee Meeting; Changes
``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 59 FR 53702.
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE: A meeting of the Legal Services
Corporation Board of Directors Operations and Regulations Committee
will be held on November 4, 1994. The meeting will commence at 8:30
a.m.
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED LOCATION OF MEETING: The Hilton Back Bay Hotel, 40
Dalton Street, The Washington Room, Boston, MA 02115, (617) 236-1100.
CHANGES IN THE MEETING:
TIME: The meeting has been canceled.
CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Patricia D. Batie, Executive Office,
(202) 336-8800.
Upon request, meeting notices will be made in alternate formats to
accommodate visual and hearing impairments.
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to
attend the meeting may notify Patricia Batie at (202) 336-8800.
Date Issued: October 31, 1994.
Patricia D. Batie,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27332 Filed 10-31-94; 2:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27279 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27279]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Notice of Meeting
time and date: 3:00 p.m., Monday, October 17, 1994.
place: Board Conference, Room, Eleventh Floor, 1099 Fourteenth St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20570.
status: Closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section
552b(c)(9)(B) disclosure would significantly frustrate implementation
of proposed agency action.
matters to be considered: FOIA request.
contact person for more information: John C. Truesdale, Executive
Secretary, Washington, DC 20570, Telephone: (202) 273-1940.
Dated, Washington, DC., October 28, 1994.
By direction of the Board:
John C. Truesdale,
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board.
[FR Doc. 94-27279 Filed 10-31-94; 12:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27234 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Meeting; International Scientific Conference on ``Prevention: FAS and Alcohol-Related Birth Defects
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27234]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of
Meeting; International Scientific Conference on ``Prevention: FAS and
Alcohol-Related Birth Defects
An international scientific conference on alcohol abuse among
pregnant women and women in childbearing years will be held on November
8 and 9, 1994 at the Hutzel Hospital Auditorium, Wayne State
University-Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A. This
conference is jointly sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism and the Fetal Alcohol Research Center (FARC),
Wayne State University School of Medicine.
Leading scientists from the United States, Canada, Germany and
England will present and discuss the latest research on prevention,
surveillance, epidemiology, intervention, and risk factors as well as
issues in diagnosis, barriers to treatment, and the effects of alcohol
on birth weight, growth, and behavior.
Expert panels will discuss the implications for research on the
prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol-related birth defects.
Federal, state and local public health officials as well as
representatives from other countries and the private sector will
participate.
Attendance by the public will be limited to space available.
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should
contact the Division of Continuing Medical Education, Wayne State
University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan at (313) 577-1180 or
fax (313) 577-7560.
Dated: October 28, 1994.
Enoch Gordis,
Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
[FR Doc. 94-27234 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27226 AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27226]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
Sunshine Act Meetings
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 1994 /
Sunshine Act Meetings
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
Board of Directors Meeting
TIME: 11:00 A.M.-1:00 P.M.
PLACE: ADF Headquarters.
DATE: Friday, November 4, 1994.
STATUS: Open.
Agenda
11:00 Chairman's Report
11:10 President's Report
11:30 New Business/Action Items:
Rwanda
Burundi
National Performance Review (NPR)
Advisory Council Nominees
Board Meeting Dates
12:00 Special Reports:
Report of ADF's 10th Anniversary Celebration
Preliminary Report on the Ten-Year Assessment
Report on the CLO Meeting in Nairobi
Report on the Persons with Disabilities Workshop in Entebbe
12:40 Executive Session (Closed)
1:00 Adjournment
If you have any questions or comments, please direct them to Ms.
Janis McCollim, Executive Assistant to the President, who can be
reached at (202) 673-3916.
Gregory Robeson Smith,
President.
[FR Doc. 94-27226 Filed 10-28-94; 4:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27194 Indian Education National Advisory Council; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27194]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Indian Education National Advisory Council; Meeting
AGENCY: National Advisory Council on Indian Education, Education.
ACTION: Notice of partially closed meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a
forthcoming meeting of the National Advisory Council on Indian
Education. This notice also describes the functions of the Council.
Notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
DATES AND TIME: November 14-17, 1994 from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
daily or until the conclusion of business.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Denver Marriott Southeast,
Interstate 25 at Hampden Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222, (303) 758-
7000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert K. Chiago, Executive Director, National Advisory Council on
Indian Education, 330 C Street SW., Room 4072, Switzer Building,
Washington, DC 20202-7556. Telephone: (202) 205-8353.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Advisory Council on Indian
Education is established under section 5342 of the Indian Education Act
of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2642). The council is established to, among other
things, assist the Secretary of Education in carrying out
responsibilities under the Indian Education Act of 1988 (Part C, Title
V, Pub. L. 100-297) and to advise Congress and the Secretary of
Education with regard to federal education programs in which Indian
children or adults participate or from which they can benefit and
submit a list on nominees for the position of Director, Office of
Indian Education.
The Chairman of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education,
Eddie L. Tullis, has called for a meeting of the full Council, November
14-17, 1994. On Monday morning from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. the agenda
will include a general business session and the following activities:
election of new officers for the 1995 fiscal year; committee
development; and an update of the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act which includes the Indian Education Act.
The closed portion of the meeting will be held on Monday afternoon
from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and will be devoted to discussing personnel
issues related to the search process for a director for the Office of
Indian Education and the internal staffing structure of the NACIE
office. All discussions held in conjunction with the selection of a
director for the Office of Indian Education and NACIE's internal
organization will involve matters which relate solely to the internal
personnel rules and practices of the Council and are likely to disclose
information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if conducted in open
session. Such matters are protected by exemptions (2) and (6) of
section 552b(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409;
5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
Tuesday's agenda is open and will include any unfinished business
from the previous day's morning session; work as previously delegated
by committee; and the development of a fiscal year 1995 workplan and
future goals of the Council. Wednesday and Thursday will be devoted to
work group discussions that will further outline the work of the
council for the current fiscal year and beyond based on the recently
reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994. Included
also will be an opportunity for public participation in Council
discussions. Interested individuals may contact the NACIE office for a
final agenda the week prior to the meeting date.
Records shall be kept of all Council proceedings and are available
for public inspection at the office of the National Advisory Council on
Indian Education located at 330 C Streets SW., room, 4072, Washington,
DC 20202-7556 from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except holidays.
Dated: October 21, 1994.
Robert K. Chiago,
Executive Director, National Advisory Council on Indian Education.
[FR Doc. 94-27194 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27193 BC Gas Utility Ltd.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To Import and Export Natural Gas, Including Liquefied Natural Gas, From and to Canada
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27193]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FE Docket No. 94-79-NG]
BC Gas Utility Ltd.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To
Import and Export Natural Gas, Including Liquefied Natural Gas, From
and to Canada
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives
notice that it has issued an order granting BC Gas Utility Ltd. (BC
Gas) authorization to import and export natural gas, including
liquefied natural gas, from and to Canada. Specifically, BC Gas is
authorized to import up to 25 Bcf of Canadian natural gas, including
LNG, and to export up to 25 Bcf of domestic natural gas, including LNG.
The term of this authorization is for two years beginning on the date
of the first import or export delivery.
BC Gas' order is available for inspection and copying in the Office
of Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The
docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued in Washington, DC, October 14, 1994.
Clifford P. Tomaszewski,
Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels Programs, Office of
Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-27193 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27192 Wisconsin Gas Co.; Order Granting Long-Term Authorization To Import Natural Gas From Canada
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27192]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FE Docket No. 94-82-NG]
Wisconsin Gas Co.; Order Granting Long-Term Authorization To
Import Natural Gas From Canada
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives
notice that it has issued an order granting Wisconsin Gas Company
authorization to import from Canada up to 1,924 Mcf per day of natural
gas. The gas would be purchased from Western Gas Marketing Limited over
a period of 10 years beginning November 1, 1994.
This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of
Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The
docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on October 17, 1994.
Clifford P. Tomaszewski,
Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels Programs, Office of
Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-27192 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27191 Application to Export Electricity Enron Power Marketing, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27191]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Fossil Energy
[FE Docket No. EA-102]
Application to Export Electricity Enron Power Marketing, Inc.
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Enron Power Marketing, Inc., (Enron) has requested
authorization to export electric energy to Mexico. Enron is a marketer
of electric energy. It does not own or control any electric generation
or transmission facilities.
DATES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted
on or before January 3, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be
addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Electricity (FE-52), Office of
Fuels Programs, Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-
586-9624 or Michael T. Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-6667.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of electricity from the United
States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization
under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
On October 4, 1994, Enron filed an application with the Office of
Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for authorization
to export electric energy to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the
Federal Power Act. Enron owns no generation or transmission facilities
but has been certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) as a power marketer. Enron expects the majority of its
transactions to be short-term sales of electricity for which contracts
have yet to be negotiated.
This is the first application for export that FE has accepted from
an individual entity that does not own or operate physical facilities.
The FE decision to accept an application from a power marketer, as
opposed to the ``traditional'' electric power entities which own and/or
operate physical facilities, is based on the marketer taking possession
of the electric energy inside the United States. This situation is
distinguished from the power broker which simply facilitates a sale of
electric energy without ever taking ownership of the commodity.
The electric energy Enron proposes to transmit to Mexico would be
purchased from electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies.
Enron asserts that such energy would be surplus to the requirements of
the entities from which it would be purchased. Enron would arrange for
the exported energy to be wheeled from the selling entities, over
existing domestic transmission facilities, and delivered to the foreign
purchaser over one or more of the following international transmission
lines: San Diego Gas and Electric Company's (SDG&E) 230-kilovolt (kV),
Miguel-Tijuana transmission line (PP-68); the SDG&E 69-kV line at San
Ysidro (PP-49); the SDG&E 230-kV, Imperial Valley-La Rosita line (PP-
79); El Paso Electric Company's 115-kV lines at Diablo, New Mexico (PP-
92) and Ascarate, Texas (PP-48-A); Central Power and Light Company's
138-kV and 69-kV transmission lines at Brownsville, Texas (PP-94); and
the 138-kV transmission lines permitted to Mexico's Comision Federal de
Electricidad at Eagle Pass (PP-50), Loredo (PP-57), and Falcon Dam (PP-
57) in Texas.
Enron has suggested that the initial FE authorization be sufficient
for all short-term exports of 90 days duration or less, at unspecified
rates of transmission, over any of the international transmission
facilities identified above.
For exports over 90 days duration, Enron has suggested that it
notify FE prior to commencing exports and that it provide the following
information: (1) The name of the purchaser(s); (2) the term of the
agreement; (3) the contract transmission route(s) and the name of the
companies providing transmission wheeling services; (4) the related
FERC Rate Schedule, if applicable; and (5) the point(s) of exportation.
Enron further suggests that FE publish a notice of the proposed
transaction in the Federal Register, stating that the transaction would
be deemed approved and allowed to commence unless, within 10 days of
publication of such notice, (1) a protest is filed, or (2) FE notifies
Enron that the transaction is not approved. Subject to the foregoing,
Enron could commence exportation at the end of a 10-day comment period.
In the case of either a protest or notification of disapproval by FE,
exports could not commence without specific authorization by FE.
Before FE takes any final action on applications to export, it
first must determine that the proposed action will not impair the
sufficiency of electric supply within the United States or will not
impede or tend to impede the coordination in the public interest of
facilities in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
For applications from ``traditional'' electric power systems, the
standard procedure is for the applicant to submit various technical
studies which demonstrate the operation of the regional electric power
supply system with the applicant exporting specified levels of power
over identified international transmission lines. The applicant also is
required to demonstrate that it would have sufficient generating
capacity to sustain the proposed export under the terms and conditions
of its export agreement, while still complying with any established
reserve criteria.
Since marketers generally could not be seen as having any ``native
load'' requirements, the latter criterion of maintaining sufficient
reserve margins appears inappropriate and unnecessary in this instance.
Conversely, FE feels that the issue of coordinated use of regional
transmission (i.e., parallel path flow) becomes more critical in the
case of marketers because of the unspecified nature of the
transactions, in terms of the magnitude and sources of the export, and
the export points.
FE recognizes the right of the marketer to compete in the electric
power arena, as well as the legitimate reliability/operating concerns
of the ``traditional'' electric power systems. Therefore, FE is
proposing an alternative means for determining the reliability impacts
in the case of exports by marketers. In lieu of the technical studies
(power flow, transient stability, etc.) usually submitted in support of
an export application, FE will consider accepting executed transmission
wheeling/access agreements between the marketer/applicant and the
owners of the transmission systems reasonably expected to be involved
in providing transmission service to the export point. FE is
considering requiring the submission of these transmission access
agreements prior to any exports (short- or long-term) occurring over
any particular export point. If an export order is granted, the
applicant could ``activate'' any or all export points by submitting
appropriate transmission agreements. After submission of the
agreement(s), the applicant would be permitted to engage in short-term
exports immediately, and long-term exports subject to the procedures
discussed above.
FE is soliciting comments particularly on the procedures it is
considering for addressing electric reliability concerns and the
authorizing of exports of longer than 90 day duration.
Procedural Matters
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this application
should file a petition to intervene or protest at the address provided
above in accordance with Secs. 385.211 or 385.214 of the Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).
Any such petitions and protests should be filed with the DOE on or
before the date listed above. Additional copies of such petitions to
intervene or protests also should be filed directly with: Steven J.
Kean, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Enron Power Marketing, Inc.,
PO Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-1188. (710) 853-1586. FAX (713) 646-
3490 and David B. Ward, Flood & Ward, 1000 Potomac Street, NW, Suite
402, Washington, DC 20007. (202) 298-6910. FAX (202) 298-6914.
Pursuant to 18 CFR 385.211, protests and comments will be
considered by the DOE in determining the appropriate action to be
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition
to intervene under 18 CFR 385.214. Section 385.214 requires that a
petition to intervene must state, to the extent known, the position
taken by the petitioner and the petitioner's interest in sufficient
factual detail to demonstrate either that the petitioner has a right to
participate because it is a State Commission; that it has or represents
an interest which may be directly affected by the outcome of the
proceeding, including any interest as a consumer, customer, competitor,
or a security holder of a party to the proceeding; or that the
petitioner's participation is in the public interest.
A final decision will be made on this application after a
determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not
impair the sufficiency of electric supply within the United States or
will not impede or tend to impede the coordination in the public
interest of facilities in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal
Power Act.
Before an export authorization may be issued, the environmental
impacts of the proposed DOE action (i.e., granting the export
authorization, with any conditions and limitations, or denying it) must
be evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request,
for public inspection and copying at the address provided above.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 1994.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Office of Coal & Electricity, Office of Fuels Programs,
Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-27191 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27190 LSP-Cottage Grove, L.P.; Notice of Filing of Coal Capability Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27190]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. FE C&E 94-9--Certification Notice--137]
LSP-Cottage Grove, L.P.; Notice of Filing of Coal Capability
Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of filing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 18, 1994, LSP-Cottage Grove, L.P. submitted a coal
capability self-certification pursuant to section 201 of the Powerplant
and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, as amended.
ADDRESSES: Copies of self-certification filings are available for
public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Fuels Programs,
Fossil Energy, Room 3F-056, FE-52, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Russell at (202) 586-9624.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of the Powerplant and Industrial
Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.),
provides that no new baseload electric powerplant may be constructed or
operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel
as a primary energy source. In order to meet the requirement of coal
capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use
natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify,
pursuant to FUA section 201(d), to the Secretary of Energy prior to
construction, or prior to operation as a baseload powerplant, that such
powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel.
Such certification establishes compliance with section 201(a) as of
October 18, 1994. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the
Federal Register that a certification has been filed. The following
owner/operator of a proposed new baseload powerplant has filed a self-
certification in accordance with section 201(d).
Owner: LSP-Cottage Grove, L.P., Bozeman, MT
Operator: LSP-Cottage Grove, Inc., Bozeman, MT
Location: Near the southern end of Washington County, Cottage Grove, MN
Plant Configuration: Topping cycle cogeneration
Capacity: 245 megawatts
Fuel: Natural gas
Purchasing Utilities: Northern States Power Company
In-Service Date: January 1, 1995
Issued in Washington, D.C., October 27, 1994.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Office of Coal and Electricity, Office of Fuels Programs,
Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-27190 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27189 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Plan Team Meetings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27189]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 102694C]
North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Plan Team Meetings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Gulf of Alaska
and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fishery management plan
teams will hold a meeting on November 14-18, 1994, at the Alaska
Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Room 2079, Building
4, Seattle, WA.
The meetings will begin at 1 p.m. on November 14. The agenda
includes the following:
1. Review available stock assessments and catch statistics and
prepare final stock assessment documents for the 1995 groundfish
fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands;
2. Review status of plan amendment analyses, and provide input as
necessary; and
3. Prioritize research needs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Witherell or Jane DiCosimo,
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, P.O. Box 103136, Anchorage,
AK 99510; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These meetings are physically accessible to
people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or
other auxiliary aids should be directed to Judy Willoughby, (907) 271-
2809, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: October 27, 1994.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 94-27189; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27187 Revocation of the Antidumping Findings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27187]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Revocation of the Antidumping Findings
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the
public of its revocation of the antidumping findings on titanium sponge
from Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan because it
is no longer of any interest to domestic interested parties.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Genovese or Michael Panfeld,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street &
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone (202) 482-
4697.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department may revoke an antidumping finding if the Secretary
concludes that the finding is no longer of any interest to domestic
interested parties. We conclude that there is no interest in an
antidumping finding when no interested party has requested an
administrative review for five consecutive review periods and when no
domestic interested party objects to revocation (19 CFR
353.25(d)(4)(iii)).
On August 1, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 38956) its notice of intent to revoke the antidumping findings
on titanium sponge from Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan (August 28, 1968).
Additionally, as required by 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(ii), the
Department served written notice of its intent to revoke these
antidumping findings on each domestic interested party on the service
list. Domestic interested parties who might object to the revocation
were provided the opportunity to submit their comments not later than
the last day of the anniversary month.
In this case, we received no requests for review for five
consecutive review periods. Furthermore, no domestic interested party,
as defined under Sec. 353.2 (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), or (k)(6) of the
Department's regulations, has expressed opposition to revocation. Based
on these facts, we have concluded that the antidumping findings on
titanium sponge from Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan,
Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
are no longer of any interest to interested parties. Accordingly, we
are revoking these antidumping findings in accordance with 19 CFR
353.25(d)(4)(iii).
Scope of the Findings
Imports covered by these revocations are shipments of titanium
sponge from Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. This
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedules
(HTS) item number 8108.10.5010. The HTS number is provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
These revocations apply to all unliquidated entries of titanium
sponge from Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 1,
1994. Entries made during the period August 1, 1993 through July 30,
1994, will be subject to automatic assessment in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(e). The Department will instruct the Customs Service to proceed
with liquidation of all unliquidated entries of this merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
August 1, 1994, without regard to antidumping duties, and to refund any
estimated antidumping duties collected with respect to those entries.
This notice is in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d).
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 94-27187 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27186 Cadmium From Japan, Revocation of the Antidumping Finding
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27186]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-035]
Cadmium From Japan, Revocation of the Antidumping Finding
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the
public of its revocation of the antidumping finding on cadmium from
Japan because it is no longer of any interest to domestic interested
parties.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy F. Unger Jr. or Michael Panfeld,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street &
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone (202) 482-
0651.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department may revoke an antidumping finding if the Secretary
concludes that the finding is no longer of any interest to domestic
interested parties. We conclude that there is no interest in an
antidumping finding when no interested party has requested an
administrative review for five consecutive review periods and when no
domestic interested party objects to revocation (19 CFR
353.25(d)(4)(iii)).
On August 1, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 38956) its notice of intent to revoke the antidumping finding on
cadmium from Japan (August 4, 1972).
Additionally, as required by 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(ii), the
Department served written notice of its intent to revoke this
antidumping finding on each domestic interested party on the service
list. Domestic interested parties who might object to the revocation
were provided the opportunity to submit their comments not later than
the last day of the anniversary month.
In this case, we received no requests for review for five
consecutive review periods. Furthermore, no domestic interested party,
as defined under Sec. 353.2 (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), or (k)(6) of the
Department's regulations, has expressed opposition to revocation. Based
on these facts, we have concluded that the antidumping finding on
cadmium from Japan is no longer of any interest to interested parties.
Accordingly, we are revoking this antidumping finding in accordance
with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(iii).
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the revocation are shipments of cadmium from
Japan. This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedules (HTS) item number 8107.10.00. The HTS number is
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.
This revocation applies to all unliquidated entries of cadmium from
Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
August 1, 1994. Entries made during the period August 1, 1993, through
July 30, 1994, will be subject to automatic assessment in accordance
with 19 CFR 353.22(e). The Department will instruct the Customs Service
to proceed with liquidation of all unliquidated entries of this
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after August 1, 1994, without regard to antidumping duties, and to
refund any estimated antidumping duties collected with respect to those
entries. This notice is in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d).
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 94-27186 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27185 Certain Textiles Mill Products From Argentina; Notice of Proposed Amended Conversion
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27185]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-357-404]
Certain Textiles Mill Products From Argentina; Notice of Proposed
Amended Conversion
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina: Notice of
Proposed Amendment to the Existing Conversion of the Scope of the Order
from the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 1, 1989, the United States fully converted to the
international harmonized system of tariff classification. On January
11, 1989, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
Conversion to Use of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of Classifications
for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings (54 FR 993; January
11, 1989) (1989 Conversion) for all antidumping and countervailing duty
orders in effect or investigations in progress as of January 1, 1989.
The Department now proposes to amend the 1989 Conversion governing the
countervailing duty order on certain textile mill products from
Argentina. Interested parties are invited to comment on this proposed
amended conversion.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Waters or Kelly Parkhill, Office
of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1985, the Department issued a countervailing duty order on
Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina (C-357-404) (50 FR 9846;
March 12, 1985). The scope of this order was originally defined solely
in terms of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA)
item numbers; no narrative product description was provided. On January
1, 1989, the United States fully converted from the TSUSA to the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Section 1211 of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 directed the Department to ``take whatever
actions are necessary to conform, to the fullest extent practicable,
with the tariff classification system of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
[for] all * * * orders * * *'' in effect at the time of the
implementation of the HTS.
Accordingly, on January 11, 1989, after reviewing comments received
from the public, the Department published the 1989 Conversion for all
antidumping and countervailing duty orders in effect or investigations
in progress as of January 1, 1989 (54 FR 993). The notice also included
the conversion of the scope of the referenced textile mill product
order from TSUSA to HTS item numbers. The 1989 Conversion was based on
a one-to-one correspondence of the TSUSA and HTS item numbers. In the
notice, the Department stated that the conversion could be amended, as
warranted, at any time during the applicable proceeding as a result of
the submission of comments or new factual information.
As a result of comments submitted to the Department by the
importing public and advice received from the U.S. Customs Service, the
Department determined that the 1989 Conversion did not accurately
reflect the scope of the countervailing duty order on Certain Textile
Mill Products from Argentina and, therefore, that the conversion should
be amended.
To rectify the problems in the 1989 Conversion, the Department,
with the assistance of the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S.
International Trade Commission, has once again compared the TSUSA-
defined scope and the HTS-defined scope provided by the 1989
Conversion, and identified those HTS numbers that more reasonably
correspond with the TSUSA-defined scope of the countervailing duty
order on Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina. A new proposed
amended conversion is found in the attached appendix.
Request for Public Comments
We invite interested parties to submit comments on the proposed
amended conversion within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
All comments must be in writing (10 copies), addressed to the attention
of the Director, Office of Countervailing Compliance, International
Trade Administration, Central Records Unit, Room B-099, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Dated: October 18, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix: Proposed Amended HTS List for Certain Textile Mill Products
From Argentina (C-357-404)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5111.1170........ \1\5111.1960 5111.2090 5111.3090
5112.1120........ \1\5112.1990 5112.2030 5112.3030
5250.1110........ 5205.1210 5205.1310 5112.1410
\2\5205.2400..... 5205.3100 5205.3200 5205.3300
5207.1000........ 5207.9000 5407.9105 5407.9205
5407.9305........ 5407.9405 5515.1305 5510.1310
5801.3600........ 6302.6000 6305.2000 6305.9000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\Coverage limited to fabric, valued not over $19.84/kg.
\2\Coverage limited to yarn, not exceeding 68 nm.
[FR Doc. 94-27185 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27184 Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 158; Vicksburg/Jackson, Mississippi Area
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27184]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 707]
Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 158; Vicksburg/Jackson,
Mississippi Area
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
Whereas, an application from the Vicksburg/Jackson Foreign-Trade
Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 158, for authority to
expand its general-purpose zone at sites in the Vicksburg/Jackson,
Mississippi, area, within the Vicksburg/Jackson Customs port of entry,
was filed by the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on August 18, 1993
(Docket 46-93, 58 FR 46628, 9/2/93) and amended on June 23, 1994;
Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act
and the Board's regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and
the regulations would be satisfied, and that the proposal would be in
the public interest provided approval is subject to a 2,000-acre
activation limit;
Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
The grantee is authorized to expand its zone as requested in the
application, as amended, subject to the Act and the Board's
regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject to a 2,000-acre
activation limit.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of October 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 94-27184 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27182 Regulatory Guides; Issuance, Availability
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27182]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Regulatory Guides; Issuance, Availability
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued revisions to three
guides in its Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed
to describe and make available to the public such information as
methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of
the Commission's regulations, techniques used by the staff in
evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed
by the staff in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 30 of Regulatory Guide 1.84, ``Design and Fabrication code
Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,'' and Revision 30 of Regulatory
Guide 1.85, ``materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,
Division 1,'' list those code cases that are generally acceptable to
the NRC staff for implementation in the licensing of light-water-cooled
nuclear power plants. Revision 11 of Regulatory Guide 1.147,
``Inservice Inspection code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI,
Division 1,'' lists those code cases that are generally acceptable to
the NRC staff for implementation in the inserve inspection of light-
water-cooled nuclear power plants. These three guides are periodically
revised to update the listings of acceptable code cases and to include
the results of public comment and additional staff review.
Comments and suggestions with items for inclusion in guides
currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are
encouraged at any time. Written comments may be submitted to the Rules
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC s0555.
Regulatory guides are available for inspection at the Commission's
Public document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC. Copies of
issued guides may be purchased from the Government Printing Office at
the current GPO price. Information on current GPO prices may be
obtained by contracting the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082,
telephone (202) 512-2249 or (202) 512-2171. Issued guides may also be
purchased from the National Technical Information Service on a standing
order basis. Details on this service may be obtained by writing NTIS,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)).
)Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of October, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric S. Beckjord,
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 94-27182 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27181 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Committee Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27181]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 102694A]
North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Committee Meeting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of committee meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has appointed an
industry committee to study the issue of insurance coverage for
fisheries observers, including ways to decrease costs and methods to
more evenly distribute the costs of observer coverage throughout the
North Pacific fishing fleet. The Committee will hold its first meeting
on November 4, 1994, at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand
Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA.
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m., in Room 1055 (Observer Training
Room) in Building 4.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Oliver, Deputy Director, North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, P.O. Box 103136, Anchorage, AK
99510; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These meetings are physically accessible to
people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or
other auxiliary aids should be directed to Judy Willoughby, (907) 271-
2809, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: October 27, 1994.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 94-27181 Filed 10-28-94; 1:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27179 Pesticide Tolerance Petitions; Corrections and Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27179]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[PF-612; FRL-4917-3]
Pesticide Tolerance Petitions; Corrections and Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces two corrections to filings for pesticide
petitions (PP) proposing the establishment of regulations for residues
of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various agricultural
commodities, and it announces two amendments to petitions.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (H7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this notice may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All
written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at
the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, contact the PM named
in each petition at the following office location/telephone number:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office location/
Product Manager telephpone number Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
George LaRocca (PM 13). Rm. 204, CM #2, 703-305- 1921 Jefferson Davis
6100. Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Leonard Cole (Acting PM Rm. 227, CM #2, 703-305- Do.
21). 6900.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has received amended/corrected pesticide
petitions (PP) and a feed additive petition (FAP) as follows, proposing
the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of
certain chemicals in or on various commodities.
Amended Filings
1. PP 4F4186. In the Federal Register of October 21, 1993 (58 FR
54354), EPA issued the notice of the petition filed by Valent U.S.A.
Corp., 1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596,
proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a regulation to
permit residues of fenpropathrin (alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3-
tetramethylcyclopropane-carboxylate) in or on strawberries at 2 parts
per million (ppm) and tomatoes (fresh market, Florida only) at 0.5 ppm.
Valent has submitted a revised petition that proposes establishing
tolerances for fenpropathrin in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities: strawberries (caps removed) at 2.0 ppm; tomatoes at 0.6
ppm; meat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep
at 0.1 ppm; fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 1.0 ppm;
milk fat (reflecting 0.11 ppm in whole milk) at 2.75 ppm; and poultry
meat, fat, and meat byproducts and eggs at 0.02 ppm. (PM 13)
2. FAP 3H5661. In the Federal Register of October 21, 1993 (58 FR
54354), EPA issued the notice of the petition filed by Valent U.S.A.
Corp., 1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 600, P.O. Box 8025, proposing
amend 40 CFR part 186 by establishing a regulation to permit residues
of fenpropathrin (alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3-
tetramethylcyclopropane- carboxylate) in or on tomato cannery waste at
5 ppm. Valent has submitted a revised petition that proposes
estblishing tolerances for fenpropathrin in or on the following feed
commodities: tomato pomace, wet at 6 ppm and tomato pomace, dried at 30
ppm. (PM 13)
Corrected Petitions
3. PP 4F4351. In the Federal Register of September 28, 1994 (59 FR
49397), EPA issued the notice of the petition from Ecogen, Inc., 2005
Cabot Blvd. West, Langhorne, PA 19047, proposing to amend 40 CFR
180.1001(c) and (d) by establishing an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for the insecticide Candida oleophila isolate I-182 in
or on all raw agricultural commodities. The petition is corrected to
specify that Candida oleophila isolate I-182 is a biological
fungicide, not an insecticide, and that the petition proposes amendment
to 40 CFR part 180, not 40 CFR 180.1001(c) and (d). (PM 21)
4. PP 4F4354. In the Federal Register of September 28, 1994 (59 FR
49397), EPA issued the notice of the petition from Merck & Co., Inc.,
P.O. Box 450, Three Bridges, NJ 0887-0450, proposing to amend 40 CFR
part 180 by establishing a tolerance regulation to permit residues of
the herbicide abamectin and its 8,9 isomer in or on cucurbits (melons,
cucumber, and squashes). The petition is corrected to specify that
abamectin and its 8,9 isomer is an insecticide, not a herbicide, and
that a tolerance of 0.005 ppm in or on cucurbits is proposed. (PM 13).
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a.
Dated: October 20, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-27179; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27178 State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG); Working Committees on Registration/Classification and Certification/ Enforcement; Open Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27178]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-00395; FRL-4918-9]
State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG);
Working Committees on Registration/Classification and Certification/
Enforcement; Open Meeting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG)
Working Committees on Registration/Classification and Certification/
Enforcement will hold a 3-day meeting, beginning on Monday, November
14, 1994, and ending on Wednesday, November 16, 1994. This notice
announces the location and times for the meetings and sets forth
tentative agenda topics. The meetings are open to the public.
DATES: The SFIREG Working Committee on Registration/Classification
meets alone on Monday, November 14, 1994, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., the
two Working Committees will meet together on Tuesday, November 15,
1994, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Working Committee on Certification/
Enforcement will meet alone on Wednesday, November 16, 1994, from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: Double Tree Hotel, Horton
Plaza-910 Broadway Circle, San Diego, CA 92101, Telephone: (619) 239-
3216.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
By mail: Shirley M. Howard, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Room 1100, Crystal Mall #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA (703) 305-5306.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The tentative agenda of the SFIREG Working
Committee on Registration Classification includes the following:.
1. Draft guidance for 24(c) update.
2. Status of reduced risk strategies.
3. EPA-USDA Memorandum of Understanding On Pesticide
Alternatives.
4. Discussion of minor uses and reregistration impacts.
5. Status of aluminum sulfate as a pesticide.
6. Other topics as appropriate.
The agenda for the joint session of the SFIREG Working Committees
on Registration/Classification and Certification/Enforcement includes
the following:
1. Update on endangered species.
2. Status of drift reduction labeling.
3. Draft guidance on outdoor residential and commercial
pesticide application.
4. Status of proposed FIFRA 25(b) exemptions.
5. Discussion of ``split'' labels.
6. Update on the worker protection standard implementation.
7. Spray drift control slide presentation.
8. Use of 2,4-D for preplant burndown on cotton.
9. Other topics as appropriate.
The agenda for the SFIREG Working Committee on Certification/
Enforcement includes the following:
1. Discussion of bee labeling for enforcement.
2. Discussion of penalty assessments.
3. Status of cross contamination of bulk pesticides issues
paper.
4. Update on the Field Operations Division's Certification/
Training and Occupational Safety reorganization.
5. Other topics as appropriate.
Dated: October 27, 1994.
Judy K. Heckman,
Acting Director, Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-27178 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27177 Pesticide Tolerance Petitions; Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27177]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[PF-611; FRL-4915-8]
Pesticide Tolerance Petitions; Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces two initial filings for pesticide
petitions (PP) proposing the establishment of regulations for residues
of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various agricultural
commodities, and it announces an initial filing of a food additive
petition (FAP) and its subsequent withdrawal.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this notice may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All
written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at
the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, contact the PM named
in each petition at the following office location/telephone number:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office location/
Product Manager telephone number Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip O. Hutton (PM Rm. 213, CM #2, 703-305- 1921 Jefferson Davis
18). 7690. Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Dennis Edwards (PM 19). Rm. 207, CM #2, 703-305- Do.
6386.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has received initial filings of
pesticide petitions and a food additive petition (FAP) and one
subsequent withdrawal as follows proposing the establishment and/or
amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in
or on various agricultural commodities.
Initial Filings
1. PP 4F4402. Biosys, 1057 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, CA 94303,
has submitted the petition for exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the microbial pest control agent Anagrapha
facifera MNPV (celery looper) in or on all raw agricultural
commodities. (PM 18)
2. PP 4F4372. W.R. Grace & Co., 7379 Route 32, Columbia, MD 21044,
has submitted the petition for exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the microbial pest control agent Paecilomyces
fumosoroseus Apopka Strain 97 when used on greenhouse and terrestrial
food crops. (PM 18)
Initial Filing (With Subsequent Withdrawal)
3. FAP 4H5702. General Mills, P.O. Box 1113, Minneapolis, MN 55440,
proposed to amend 40 CFR 185.1000 to establish a time-limited tolerance
for residues of chlorpyrifos (O,O-diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl)
phosphorothioate at 0.4 ppm in or on finished oat-containing cereal
products produced on or before June 15, 1994, from oats that received
post-harvest treatment with chlorpyrifos. This tolerance would have
expired on June 15, 1995. In a letter dated September 27, 1994, General
Mills withdrew the petition. (PM 19).
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a.
Dated: October 6, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-27177; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27175 Issuance of Experimental Use Permits
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27175]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-50801; FRL-4914-2]
Issuance of Experimental Use Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA has granted experimental use permits (EUPs) to the
following applicants. These permits are in accordance with, and subject
to, the provisions of 40 CFR part l72, which defines EPA procedures
with respect to the use of pesticides for experimental use purposes.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Phillip O. Hutton, Product
Manager (PM) 18, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 213, Crystal Mall
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7690.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has issued the following experimental
use permits:
66736-EUP-1. Extension. Ciba-Geigy Corporation, P.O. Box 12257,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2257. In the Federal Register of March
11, 1994 (59 FR 11600), EPA announced receipt of an application for an
extension EUP for a transgenic plant pesticide from Ciba-Geigy
Corporation. Interested parties were invited to submit written comment
by April 11, 1994. Three comments were received during the comment
period with two comments from grower groups and one comment from a seed
trade association. All comments were supportive of the EUP. One comment
was received, after the comment period closed, from Senators J. Robert
Kerrey and Jim Exon also supporting the EUP. The approved experimental
use permit allows the use of 197.1 grams of the Bacillus thuringiensis
-endotoxin (produced by a bacterially derived CryIA(b) gene in
corn plants) in seeds planted on 190 acres of corn to evaluate the
control of the European corn borer and other lepidopteran pests. The
program is authorized only in the States of California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The experimental use permit is effective
for plantings from April 12, 1994 to March 31, 1995, and associated
activities such as collection of field data and harvesting and
processing of seed after last planting. Corn grown under this permit
will not be permitted to enter commerce.
524-EUP-82. Issuance. Monsanto Company, 700 Chesterfield Parkway
North, St. Louis, MO 63198. In the Federal Register of February 23,
1994 (59 FR 8616), EPA announced receipt of an application for an EUP
for a transgenic plant pesticide from Monsanto Company. Interested
parties were invited to submit written comments by March 25, 1994; no
comments were received. The approved experimental use permit allows the
use of 205.43 grams of the Bacillus thuringiensis cryIA(b)-
endotoxin (produced by a bacterially derived CryIA(b) gene in corn
plants) in seeds planted on 604.6 acres of corn to evaluate the control
of the European corn borer, the fall armyworm, and the corn earworm.
The program is authorized only in the States of Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The experimental use
permit is effective for plantings from April 18, 1994 to February 28,
1995, and associated activities such as collection of field data and
harvesting and processing of seed after last planting. This permit is
issued with the limitation that all crops are destroyed or used for
research purposes only.
67979-EUP-1. Issuance. Northrup King Company, 7500 Olson Memorial
Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427. In the Federal Register of April 13,
1994 (59 FR 17535), EPA announced receipt of an application for an EUP
for a transgenic plant pesticide from Northrup King Company. Interested
parties were invited to submit written comments by May 13, 1994. No
comments were received. The approved experimental use permit allows the
use of 0.013 grams of a Bacillus thuringiensis cryIA(b)-
endotoxin (produced by a bacterially derived CryIA(b) gene in corn
plants) in seeds planted on 44.90 acres of corn to evaluate the control
of the European corn borer. The experimental use permit is effective
for plantings from May 19, 1994 to May 1, 1995, and associated
activities such as collection of field data and harvesting and
processing of seed after last planting. The program is authorized only
in the States of Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. This permit is issued with the limitation that all
crops are destroyed or used for research purposes only.
Persons wishing to review these experimental use permits are
referred to the designated product manager. Inquires concerning these
permits should be directed to the person cited above. It is suggested
that interested persons call before visiting the EPA office, so that
the appropriate file may be made available for inspection purposes from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.
Dated: September 28, 1994.
Lois Rossi,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-27175 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27173 National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology; Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee; Public Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27173]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5100-9]
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology; Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee; Public Meeting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
EPA gives notice of a two-day meeting of the Ecosystems Implementation
Tools Committee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice and
recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on a broad range of
environmental policy issues, and this meeting is being held to discuss
the Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee agenda for the coming
year. The Administrator has asked NACEPT to concentrate on ecosystem
management and how long-term ecological, economic, and social needs can
be integrated to achieve a place-based approach to environmental
management.
The Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee will evaluate
opportunities to re-orient the Agency's use of its existing authorities
to integrate ecosystem management into its decision-making processes;
identify incentives and barriers to promoting an ecosystems orientation
or place-based approach to environmental protection; and identify
opportunities for partnership-building with other federal agencies as
well as co-regulators at the state, local, tribal levels.
The Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee and NACEPT include a
representative cross-section of EPA's partners and constituents.
However, in order to gain additional insights and perspectives from all
interested parties as this Committee begins its work, time has been
allotted during the meeting for oral comments from the public. Any
member of the public wishing to present oral comments on any of these
issues can schedule an appointment by contacting Gwendolyn Whitt or
Debra Miller at the address and telephone numbers below. Due to time
constraints, oral presentations will be strictly held to five minutes,
and slots are limited. Available time slots will be allocated on a
first-come, first serve basis to those scheduling a presentation in
advance. Written comments will be accepted at any time prior to, or at,
the meeting.
DATES: The two-day public meeting will be held on Monday, December 5,
1994, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Tuesday, December 6, 1994 from 8:30
a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on both days at the Quality Hotel
Capitol Hill, 415 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Written
Comments should be sent to: Gwendolyn C. L. Whitt or Debra A. Miller
DFO, Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee/NACEPT, Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management, U.S. EPA (1601F), 401 M Street
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gwendolyn C. L. Whitt or Debra A. Miller, Designated Federal Official,
Direct lines (202) 260-9484, or 260-9937, respectively Secretary's line
(202) 260-6891.
Dated: October 24, 1994.
Gwendolyn C. L. Whitt,
Designated Federal Official.
Debra A. Miller,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 94-27173 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27172 Proposed Administrative Settlement
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27172]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5100-8]
Proposed Administrative Settlement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; Request for Public Comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
notice is hereby given of the proposed de minimis administrative cost
recovery settlement entered into by EPA Region IX and the Respondents
listed in Appendix A, set forth below. The proposed settlement was
entered into under the authority granted EPA in section 122(h) of
CERCLA, and provides that each respondent will reimburse the EPA its
proportional share of the costs incurred at, or in connection with, an
emergency removal conducted at the King Neptune Site in Bell Gardens,
Calfironia in May-June, 1992.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such
comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed
settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. The Agency's
response to any comments received will be available for inspection at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (RC-1), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA. 94105, Attention: Steve Armsey,
Regional Hearing Clerk.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Steve
Armsey, U.S. EPA Region IX Hearing Clerk (RC-1), 75 Hawthorne St., San
Francisco, CA. 94105. Comments should reference the King Neptune
Superfund Site and EPA Docket No. 94-13.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Rabbino, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA.
94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1336.
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Jeff Zelikson, Director,
Hazardous Waste Management Division
King Neptune Lead Site; PRPs Settled
1 Alexian Brothers Hospital.
2 Alta Bates Community Hospital.
3 Alvarado Community Hospital.
4 Anaheim Medical.
5 Auburn Faith Hospital.
6 Bay General Hospital.
7 Bay Harbor Hospital.
8 Beverly Hospital.
9 Boswell Memorial Hospital.
10 Broadway Hospital.
11 Burbank Community Hospital Foundation.
12 California Hospital.
13 Cancer Foundation of Santa Barbara.
14 Cedars of Lebanon Hospital.
15 Center City Hospital.
16 Chico Community Hospital.
17 Children's Hospital.
18 Chula Vista Community.
19 City of Hope Medical Center.
20 Colusa County Hospital.
21 Community Hospital.
22 Community Hospital.
23 Community Hospital of Fresno.
24 Community Hospital of Los Angeles.
25 Community Hospital of North Hollywood.
26 Community Hospital of San Buena-venture.
27 Corona Community Hospital.
28 Costa Mesa Memorial Hospital.
29 Cottage Hospital.
30 Dameron Hospital.
31 Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital.
32 Desert Hospital.
33 Desert Springs Hospital.
34 Doctors Hospital.
35 Doctors Hospital.
36 Dominican Hospital.
37 Downey Community Hospital.
38 Dr. David M. Brotman Memorial Hospital.
39 El Camino Hospital.
40 El Centro Community Hospital.
41 Enloe Memorial Hospital.
42 Feather River Hospital.
43 Foothill Presbyterian Hospital.
44 Fountain Valley Hospital.
45 Franklin Hospital.
46 Fremont Medical Center.
47 Garfield Hospital.
48 Glendale Memorial.
49 Glendora Community Hospital.
50 Good Samaritan Hospital.
51 Good Samaritan Hospital.
52 Granda Hills Community.
53 Grossmont Hospital.
54 Harbor General Hospital.
55 Harold D. Chope Community Hospital.
56 Hawthorne Community Hospital.
57 Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital.
58 Holy Cross Hospital.
59 Huntington Inter-Community Hospital.
60 Huntington Memorial Hospital.
61 Inter Community Hospital.
62 John Muir Memorial Hospital.
63 John Wesley Hospital.
64 Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
65 Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
66 Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
67 Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
68 Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
69 Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
70 Kaiser Hospital.
71 Kaiser Hospital.
72 Kaiser Hospital.
73 Kaiser Hospital.
74 Kaiser Hospital.
75 Kaiser Hospital.
76 Kaiser Permanente Hospital.
77 Kaiser Permanente Medical Center.
78 Kaiser Permanente Medical Center.
79 Kaweah Delta District Hospital.
80 La Habra Hospital.
81 Lodi Community Hospital.
82 Long Beach Community Hospital.
83 Los Angeles County-USC Hospital.
84 Los Medanos Community Hospital.
85 Los Roble Hospital.
86 Marian Hospital.
87 Marin General Hospital.
88 Martin Luther Hospital.
89 Martin Luther King Hospital.
90 Marys Help Hospital.
91 Maryvale Samaritan Hospital.
92 Memorial Hospital of Gardena.
93 Memorial Hospital of Panorama City.
94 Mercy General Hospital.
95 Mercy Hospital.
96 Mercy Hospital.
97 Mercy San Juan Hospital.
97 Merritt Hospital.
99 Metodist Hospital.
100 Methodist Hospital of Southern California.
101 Midway Hospital.
102 Mission Bay Hospital.
103 Mission Community Hospital.
104 Naval Regional Medical Center.
105 Navy Hospital.
106 Northridge Hospital.
107 Ontario Community Hospital.
108 Orange County General Hospital.
109 O'Connor Hospital.
110 Pacific Hospital Long Beach.
111 Palmdale General.
112 Palo Alto Medical Clinic.
113 Palomar Memorial Hospital.
114 Paramount General.
115 Peninsula Hospital.
116 Peninsula Hospital & Medical Center.
117 Pioneer Hospital.
118 Placentia Linda Community.
119 Pomona Valley Community Hospital.
120 Presbyterian Hospital.
121 Providence Hospital.
122 Queen of the Valley Hospital.
123 Radiology Medical Group (N.M.).
124 Redlands Community Hospital.
125 Rees-Stealy Medical Clinic.
126 Ridgecrest Community Hospital.
127 Riverside General Hospital.
128 Riverside Hospital.
129 Riverview Hospital.
130 Roseville Community Hospital.
131 Ross General Hospital.
132 Salinas Valley Medical Center.
133 San Antonio Community County Hospital.
134 San Clemente General Hospital.
135 San Dimas Community Hospital.
136 San Francisco General Hospital.
137 San Gabriel Community.
138 San Joaquin General Hospital.
139 San Joaquin Hospital.
140 San Jose Hospital.
141 Santa Ana Community.
142 Santa Monica Hospital.
143 Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital.
144 Santa Teresita Hospital.
145 Scripps Memorial Hospital.
146 Serra Memorial Hospital.
147 Sharp New Community.
148 Sherman Oaks Community Hospital.
149 Sierra Hospital.
150 Simi Valley Hospital.
151 Sonoma Valley Hospital.
152 South Bay Hospital.
153 South Coast Community.
154 Southern Nevada Memorial.
155 St. Bernardines Hospital.
156 St. Francis Hospital.
157 St. Johns Hospital.
158 St. Johns Hospital.
159 St. Joseph Hospital.
160 St. Joseph Hospital.
161 St. Josephs Hospital.
162 St. Josephs Hospital.
163 St. Luke Hospital of Pasadena.
164 St. Lukes Hospital.
165 St. Mary Desert Hospital.
166 St. Marys Hospital.
167 St. Marys Long Beach.
168 St. Rose Hospital.
169 Sunrise Hospital.
170 Sutter General Hospital.
171 S.C.P.M.G./Kaiser Hospital.
172 Temple Hospital.
173 Torrance Memorial Hospital.
174 Tri-City Hospital.
175 Tucson General Hospital.
176 UCLA Medical Center Hospital.
177 University Hospital.
178 University of California.
179 Vallejo General Hospital.
180 Valley Hospital Ltd.
181 Valley Memorial Hospital.
182 Valley Presbyterian Hospital.
183 Verdugo Hills Hospital.
184 Vesper Memorial Hospital.
185 Veterans Administration Hospital.
186 Washington Hospital.
187 West Adams Community Hospital.
188 West Anaheim Community.
189 Westlake Community Hospital.
190 Westminster Hospital.
191 White Memorial Medical Center.
[FR Doc. 94-27172 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27168 Proposed Administrative Settlement Under 122(h)(1), Triangle Petroleum Site, Fruita, Mesa County, CO
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27168]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5100-1]
Proposed Administrative Settlement Under 122(h)(1), Triangle
Petroleum Site, Fruita, Mesa County, CO
agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
action: Notice of proposed Administrative Settlement; request for
public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.
9622(i), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and reauthorization Act
(``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative
settlement concerning the Triangle Petroleum Site in Fruita, Mesa
County, Colorado. The proposed administrative settlement resolves an
EPA claim under section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, against Big and
Little Tractor Repair; Cyprus Orchard Valley Coal Mine; City of Delta;
Clymer's Ranch and Livestock; EIMCO Coal Machinery, Inc.; Fruita
Consumers Cooperative; Groendyke Transport Inc.; Holsum Bakery
Interstate Brands Corporation; Town of Hotchkiss; J.W. Brewer Tire
Company; J.C. Thompson; Lucas Industrial Repair, Inc.; Master Petroleum
Co.; Mountain West; Paul's Truck and Wash Service; Pepsi Cola West; Red
Hat Produce, Inc.; Riggle Oil Company; Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.; San
Juan County; United Companies of Mesa County; Valley Farms, Inc.; Van
Waters & Rogers Inc.; Wagner Equipment Co.; Western Implement Company;
Browning-Ferris Industries of Colorado, Inc.; Estate of Russell T.
Lund, Jr., and Russell T. Lund III, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Russell T. Lund, Jr. (hereafter referred to as the ``Settling
Parties''). The settlement requires the Settling Parties to pay
$138,941.01 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the
settlement. The Agency's response to any comments received will be
available for public inspection at EPA Region VIII's Superfund Records
Center, which is located on the 8th floor of the North Tower, at 999
18th Street, Denver, Colorado.
dates: Comments must be submitted by December 2, 1994.
addresses: An original and two copies of comments must be sent to James
R. Rhodes, Enforcement Specialist, Triangle Petroleum Site Team, EPA
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405.
for further information contact: Wendy Silver, Office of Regional
Counsel, (303) 294-7568.
supplementary information: EPA alleges that the Settling Parties are
responsible parties pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9607(a), and are jointly and severally liable for response costs
incurred at or in connection with the Site.
By the terms of the proposed settlement, the Settling Parties will
pay $138,941.01 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund within 30 days of
the effective date of this Agreement. In return, EPA agrees that the
Settling Parties shall have resolved any and all civil liability to EPA
under section 107(a) 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for reimbursement of response
costs incurred at or in connection with the Site up through the date
upon which EPA signs this Agreement.
Dated: October 7, 1994.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-27168 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27167 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Midwest Clearing Corporation and Midwest Securities Trust Company; Notices of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes That Modify Certain MST Communications System Fees
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27167]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-34895; File Nos. SR-MCC-94-10 and SR-MSTC-94-11]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Midwest Clearing Corporation and
Midwest Securities Trust Company; Notices of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes That Modify Certain MST
Communications System Fees
October 25, 1994.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on September 16, 1994, the
Midwest Clearing Corporation (``MCC'') and Midwest Securities Trust
Company (``MSTC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR-MCC-94-10 and
SR-MSTC-94-11) as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared mainly by MCC and MSTC, self-regulatory
organizations. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule changes from interested persons.
\1\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
I. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Changes
MCC and MSTC propose to amend the portions of their services and
schedules of charges relating to the MST Communications System\2\ by:
(1) changing the name of the system from the ``MST Communications
System'' to the ``MST Link''; (2) merging and repricing the services
previously available and priced under the MSTC Link Service into the
general list of services and fees under the MST Link Service;\3\ and
(3) imposing a charge for terminal IDs of $25 per terminal ID for all
terminal IDs after the initial ID.\4\ Refer to Exhibit A for the text
of the proposed fee changes.
\2\The MST Communications System is a combined computer system
used by MCC and MSTC and is their primary computer system. Telephone
conversation between David T. Rusoff, Attorney, Foley & Lardner, and
Thomas C. Etter, Jr., Senior Counsel, Division of Market Regulation,
Commission (September 19, 1994).
\3\The MSTC Link Service, part of an existing telecommunications
system, will be consolidated into the new MST Link. id.
\4\The abbreviation ``ID'' in this context refers to computer
identification numbers. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes
In their filings with the Commission, MCC and MSTC included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
changes and discussed any comments they received on the proposed rule
changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. MCC and MSTC have prepared summaries, set
forth in sections (A), (B) and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
(A) Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes
MCC and MSTC state that the purpose of the proposed changes is to
change the pricing structure of portions of the MST Communications
System Service. MCC and MSTC further state that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act because
they provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other
charges among participants using their facilities.\5\
\5\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78q-1(b)(3)(D) (1988).
(B) Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on Burden on Competition
MCC and MSTC believe that the proposed rule changes will not have
any impact on competition and that they will not impose any burden on
competition.
(C) Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statment on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change From Members, Participants or Others
MCC and MSTC have not solicited or received any comments on the
proposed rule changes.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Changes and Timing
for Commission Action
The foregoing rule changes have become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act\6\ and Rule 19b-4(e)(2)
thereunder\7\ because the proposals establish or change dues, fees, or
other changes imposed by the self-regulatory organizations. At any time
within sixty days of the filing of such rule changes, the Commission
may summarily abrogate such rule changes 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.
\6\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii) (1988).
\7\17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)()4) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Persons making written submission
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commisison, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 120549.
Copies of the submissions, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that are filed
with the commission, and all written communications relating to the
proposed rule changes 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. Sec. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal offices of MCC and MSTC. All submissions
should refer to File Nos. SR-MCC-94-10 and SR-MSTC-94-11 and should be
submitted by November 23, 1994.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
\8\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
Exhibit A
The text of the proposed rule changes are as follows:
(Additions italicized; deletions [bracketed])
MST [COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM] LINK
Participants may use the MST [Communications System] Link to
obtain information regarding current MCC/MSTC positions (Inquiry);
retrieve MST System reports in house (Report Retrieval); and input
instructions to MCC/MSTC. Participants may use the MST
[Communications System] Link either via a Leased Line or a Dial Up
interface.
Services:
[Full Access Service:] Leased Line Dial Up
* * * * * *
*
Dedicated Line Charge........................... $440.00/month................... [$86.00/mo.]
* * * * * *
*
Dial Up [Additional Port Charge[s].............. ................................ $86.00/mo.
Dial Up [Back Up] Connect Time [Charge]......... ................................ $5.25/hr.
* * * * * *
*
Terminal ID (first ID free--included with $25.00/term ID.................. $25.00/term ID
access).
[MSTC Link
Access Fee (Dial Back Up incl.)......... $494.00
Line Charge............................. $440.00
Long Distance Line Charge............... $0.43/road mile
Terminal Charge......................... $200.00/terminal]
* * * *
* * *
All Printer IDs are included in the price of the access fee.
Multiple User IDs may be associated with Terminal ID. However,
simultaneous access is restricted to the number of Terminal IDs.
[FR Doc. 94-27167 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27166 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Relating to Storage of Customer Account Records
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27166]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-34899; File No. SR-CBOE-94-30]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Relating to Storage
of Customer Account Records
October 26, 1994.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ on September 7, 1994, the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'')
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') a proposal to amend paragraph (c) of CBOE Rule 9.8,
``Supervision of Accounts,'' and Interpretation and Policy .03\3\ to
CBOE Rule 9.8 to enable members' supervisory offices to maintain
certain customer account information at off-site locations as long as
the records are readily accessible and promptly retrievable.\4\
\1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
\2\17 CFR 240.19b-4 (1993).
\3\Interpretation and Policy .03 requires members to maintain,
at the principal supervisory office with jurisdiction over the
office servicing a customer's account, information to permit review
of each customer's account to determine (1) the compatibility of
options transactions with investment objectives and with the types
of transactions for which the account was approved; (2) the size and
frequency of options transactions; (3) commission activity in the
account; (4) profit or loss in the account; (5) undue concentration
in any options class or classes and (6) compliance with the
provisions of Regulation T of the Federal Reserve Board.
\4\On October 25, 1994, the CBOE submitted a letter indicating
that the Exchange generally expects to receive a hard copy of any
document maintained at an off-site location on the business day
following the request. See Letter from Lawrence J. Breshahan,
Assistant Vice President, Department of Compliance, CBOE, to Yvonne
Fraticelli, Attorney, Options Branch, Division of Market Regulation,
Commission, dated October 24, 1994 (``October 24 Letter'').
The proposal was published for comment in Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 34711 (September 23, 1994), 59 FR 50304 (October 3, 1994).
No comments were received on the proposal.
Currently, CBOE Rule 9.8(c) provides that background and financial
information of customers who have been approved for options
transactions must be maintained at both the branch office servicing the
customer's account and at the principal supervisory office with
jurisdiction over the branch office. In addition, copies of options
customer account statements over the most recent six months must be
maintained at both the branch office supervising the accounts and at
the principal supervisory office with jurisdiction over that branch.
The CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 9.8(c) and Interpretation and
Policy .03 to enable members' supervisory offices to maintain certain
customer account information at off-site locations as long as the
records are readily accessible and promptly retrievable.
The CBOE states that the substance of CBOE Rule 9.8(c) appears
uniformly in the rules of the other options exchanges and in the
options account rules of the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''). According to the CBOE, on-site storage in
major financial centers is expensive, and, in today's market
environment, automated and secure facilities for data storage and
retrieval make it unnecessary to require on-site storage. The CBOE
states that, given those realities, the Options Self-Regulatory Council
(``OSRC'')\5\ has recommended that record retention requirements be
relaxed and that the exchanges and the NASD amend their rules to permit
supervisory offices to store customer records off-premises as a matter
of routine practice.\6\ The CBOE concurs with the OSRC's recommendation
and believes that its proposal will provide the CBOE's members with the
opportunity to discharge their supervisory responsibilities more
efficiently and more cost-effectively.
\5\The OSRC, which was created pursuant to a plan submitted by
the options exchanges under Rule 17d-2 (``17d-2 plan'') under the
Act, includes representatives from each of the registered options
exchanges and the NASD. The 17d-2 plan was developed by the
exchanges and approved by the Commission to reduce regulatory
duplication and to coordinate solutions to options-related sales
practice issues common to firms which are members of two or more
self-regulatory organizations.
\6\In connection with the OSRC's recommendation, the designated
options examining authorities, including the CBOE, have committed to
periodic examinations of the document retention and supervisory
practices of firms using off-site storage arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBOE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5), in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public
interest.
The Commission believes 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) in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
facilitate transactions in securities, and to protect investors and the
public interest.\7\
\7\15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, by allowing off-site storage of customer account
information maintained at supervisory offices, the Commission believes
that the proposal should provide the CBOE's members with a cost-
effective means to utilize computers, facsimile machines, optical
disks, and other technology to store the required customer account
information off-site while ensuring that member firms will continue to
have easy access to all of the customer account information necessary
to discharge their supervisory responsibilities. In this regard, the
proposal provides that options customer account information stored off-
site must be ``readily accessible and promptly retrievable,''\8\
thereby preserving the Exchange's ability to access and investigate
customer account records. The Commission notes that the designated
options examining authorities, including the CBOE, have agreed to make
periodic examinations of the document retention and supervisory
practices of firms using off-site storage arrangements. Thus, the
Commission believes that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance
between the CBOE's interest in allowing member organizations to reduce
the cost of storing customer account information and ensuring that the
information continues to be available for supervisory purposes.
\8\See October 24 Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Commission believes that it is reasonable for the
CBOE to allow off-site storage of customer account information
maintained at supervisory offices, but not of account information
stored at branch offices, because branch offices are responsible for
the day-to-day administration of customer accounts and require
immediate access to account information. For example, by continuing to
require branch offices to store customer account information on-site,
the proposal facilitates broker compliance with the suitability
requirements applicable to options customers.
It is therefore ordered, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-94-30) is
approved.
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1982).
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
\10\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27166 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27164 Equity Securities Trust (Series 1, Signature Series, Gabelli Communications Income Trust and Subsequent Series), et al.; Notice of Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27164]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Rel. No. IC-20664; 812-8166]
Equity Securities Trust (Series 1, Signature Series, Gabelli
Communications Income Trust and Subsequent Series), et al.; Notice of
Application
October 27, 1994.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'').
ACTION: Notice of application for exemption under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``ACT'').
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANTS: Equity Securities Trust (Series 1, Signature Series,
Gabelli Communications Income Trust and Subsequent Series), Mortgage
Securities Trust (CMO Series 1 and Subsequent Series), Municipal
Securities Trust (Series 1 and Subsequent Series) (including Insured
Municipal Securities Trust, Series 1 and Subsequent Series, and 5th
Discount Series and Subsequent Series), New York Municipal Trust
(Series 1 and Subsequent Series), A Corporate Trust (Series 1 and
Subsequent Series) (collectively, the ``Trusts''); Bear, Stearns & Co.
Inc. (``Bear Stearns''); and Gruntal & Co., Incorporated (``Gruntal'').
RELEVANT ACT SECTIONS: Sections 11(a) and 11(c).
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants request an order to permit
unitholders of the Trusts of exchange their units for units in other
Trusts at a reduced sales charge. The order would supersede a prior
order and include the Equity Securities Trust in the exchange program.
FILING DATES: The application was filed on November 12, 1992, and
amended on January 26, 1994 and October 19, 1994.
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
applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing
requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November 21,
1994, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants,
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
reasons 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, D.C.
20549; Bear, Sterns & Co. Inc. and the Trusts, 245 Park Avenue, New
York, New York 10167; Gruntal & Co. Incorporated, 14 Wall Street, New
York, New York 10005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kay Frech, Senior Attorney, at
(202) 942-0579, or Robert A. Robertson, 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.
Applicant's Representations
1. The Trusts are registered under the Act as unit investment
trust, and their units of interest are registered under the Securities
Act of 1933. Bear Stearns, one of the cosponsors of the Equity
Securities Trust, sponsors the Trusts and numerous other unit
investment trusts. Gruntal, also a cosponsor of the Equity Securities
Trust, sponsors various other unit investment trusts with Bear Stearns
(Bear Stearns and Gruntal are collectively referred to as the
``Sponsors''). Each Trust is organized under a Trust Indenture and
Agreement between the Trust, the Sponsors, and United States Trust
Company of New York or Bank of New York, as trustee, which varies from
Trust to Trust.
2. On August 28, 1991, the SEC issued an order (the ``Prior
Order'')\1\ permitting unitholders of the Trusts, except the Equity
Securities Trust, to exchange their units for units in another
available Trust or Trusts, except the Equity Securities Trust, upon
payment of a reduced sales charge. The Prior order also permits a
conversion offer in which the unitholders of any registered unit
investment trust for which there is no active secondary market may
redeem their units with their respective trustees and apply the
proceeds to the purchase of units of one or more of the Trusts, except
the Equity Securities Trust, upon payment of the same reduced sales
charge.
\1\Investment Company Act Release Nos. 18254 (Aug. 1, 1991)
(notice) and 18290 (Aug. 28, 1991) (order). The Prior Order amended
two previous orders: Investment Company Act Release Nos. 11143 (Apr.
29, 1980) (notice) and 11184 (May 23, 1980) (order); and Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 11715 (Apr. 1, 1981) (notice) and 11754
(Apr. 29, 1981) (order).
3. The Equity Securities Trust is a newly formed unit investment
trust consisting of a portfolio of common stock, convertible
securities, American Depository Receipts, and contracts and funds for
the purchase of such securities. The Equity Securities Trust deposits
its securities with the trustee, in exchange for certificates
representing undivided interests or units in the principal and net
income of the Equity Securities Trust in the ratio of one hundred units
for the indicated initial aggregate value of securities of the Equity
Securities Trust.
4. During the initial public offering period, units of the Trust
are sold at a sales charge ranging from 3.5% to 5.5%, depending on the
Trust, subject to certain specified volume discounts for purchases
exceeding a certain number of units.
5. The Sponsors, although not obligated to do so, maintain a
secondary market for the units of all the existing Trusts after the
initial public offering has been completed. The Sponsors also intend to
maintain a secondary market for any new Trusts after the initial public
offering has been completed. The secondary market repurchase and
reoffer price, both during and after the initial public offering
period, will be based on the bid prices of the Trust's portfolio
securities. Any units repurchased by the Sponsors in the secondary
market may be redeemed by the Sponsors if the Sponsors deem such
redemption to be in their best interest. If a market for the units is
not maintained, unitholders will be able to redeem their units with the
trustee at a price based on the aggregate bid side evaluation of the
Trust's portfolio securities.
6. Applicants propose to offer unitholders of the Trusts the
ability to exchange any or all of their units for units in one or more
available series of the Trusts at a reduced sales charge (the
``Exchange Privilege''). Pursuant to the Exchange Privilege, the
Sponsors' repurchase price during the initial offering period of the
units being surrendered will be based on the aggregate offer price of
the Trust's portfolio securities, and, if the initial offering period
has been completed, will be based on the aggregate bid price of the
Trust's portfolio securities. Units in a Trust then will be sold to the
unitholder at a price based on the aggregate offer price of the
securities in the Trust portfolio during the initial public offering
period of the Trust (or based on the aggregate bid price of the
securities in the Trust portfolio if the initial public offering period
has been completed) plus accrued interest and a reduced sales charge.
7. The Sponsors reserve the right to suspend, modify, or terminate
the Exchange Privilege. The Sponsors will provide unitholders with 60
days prior written notice of any termination or material amended to the
Exchange Privilege, except as provided in condition 3 below.
8. Applicants also propose to offer a conversion offer (the
``Conversion Offer'') to all unitholders of any registered unit
investment trust in which there is no active secondary market (a
``Redemption Trust''). Pursuant to the Conversion Offer, unitholders
may elect to redeem units of a Redemption Trust at the redemption drive
determined as set forth in the relevant Redemption Trust's prospectus
and apply the proceeds of the redemption to the purchase of available
units of one or more series of the Trust. The purchase price for units
of a series of a Trust will be based on the aggregate offer of the
Trust's portfolio securities during its initial offering period, or at
a price based on the aggregate bid price of the Trust's portfolio
securities if the initial public offering period of the Trust has been
completed, and will include accrued interest and a reduced sales
charge.
9. The Sponsors reserve the right to modify, suspend, or terminate
the Conversion Offer at any time without prior notice to unitholders of
a Redemption Trust.
10. The Exchange Privilege and Conversion Offer are substantially
similar in all respects to the exchange privilege and conversion offer
already approved by the SEC in the Prior Order, except the Equity
Securities Trust, as a newly formed Trust, was not in existence at the
time that order was issued. The requested relief is necessary to enable
the Equity Securities Trust to offer the same exchange privilege to its
unitholders as is already permitted to unitholders of the other Trusts
pursuant to the Prior Order, and to revise the reduced sales charge
under the Exchange Privilege and Conversion Offer to be an amount equal
to a percentage of the public offering price for each unit (or per
1,000 units for Mortgage Securities Trust or per 100 units for Equity
Securities Trust). The requested relief will supersede the Prior Order
in its entirety.
Applicants' Legal Analysis
1. Section 11(a) of the Act requires SEC approval of an offer to
exchange securities between open-end investment companies of the
exchange occurs on any basis other than the relative net asset values
of the Securities to be exchanged. Section 11(c) of the Act makes
section 11(a) applicable to any type of exchange offer of securities of
registered unit investment trusts for the securities of any other
investment company, irrespective of the basis of exchange.
2. Applicants believe that the Exchange Privilege provides
investors with a convenient means of transferring their interests at a
reduced sales charge, as their individual investment objectives change,
into series of the Trust that are better suited to meet these changing
investment objectives. Applicants also state that the Conversion Offer
provides investors with a means by which unitholders of a unit
investment trust in which there is no active secondary market can
redeem those units and invest the proceeds therefrom, at a reduced
sales charge, into units of the trusts.
Applicants' Conditions
The Applicants agree to the following conditions in any order
granting the requested relief:
1. Participants in the Exchange Privilege and Conversion Offer for
the Trusts will, in the purchase and sale of units of the Trusts, be
subject to the same portfolio pricing terms as are set forth in the
prospectus for each Trust and will purchase and sell units of the
Trusts based on the same portfolio pricing terms as all other investors
who purchase and sell units of the Trusts through the Sponsors or the
underwriters in regular transactions.
2. The prospectus for each Trust and any sales literature or
advertisement that mentions the existence of the Exchange Privilege
will disclose that the Exchange Privilege is subject to termination and
that its terms are subject to change.
3. Whenever the Exchange Privilege is to be terminated or its terms
are to be amended materially, any holder of a security subject to that
privilege will be given prominent notice of the impending termination
or amendment at last 60 days prior to the date of termination or the
effective date of the amendment, provided that:
(a) No such notice need be given if the only material effect of an
amendment is to reduce or eliminate the sales charge payable at the
time of an exchange, to add one or more new series eligible for the
Exchange Privilege, or to delete a series which has terminated, and
(b) No notice need be given if, under extraordinary circumstances,
either--
(i) There is a suspension of the redemption of units of a Trust
under section 22(e) of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder, or
(ii) A Trust temporarily delays or ceases the sale of its units
because it is unable to invest amounts effectively in accordance with
applicable investment objectives, policies and restrictions.
4. During the 60 day period described in condition 3 above, the
Sponsors will maintain a secondary market in units that could be
acquired by affected unitholders.
5. The applicable sales charge for the purchase of units of a Trust
for Trust unitholders who wish to exercise the Exchange Privilege
within the first five months from the date of their purchase of units
of a Trust, where the applicable public offering price for the Trust
units being purchased includes higher sales charges than the sales
charges applicable to the units being exchanged, will be the greater of
the reduced sales charge (up to 1.5% of the public offering price of
each unit (or per 1,000 units for Mortgage Securities Trust or per 100
units for the Equity Securities Trust)), or an amount which, when
coupled with the sales charge actually paid on purchase of the units
being exchanged, would equal the sales charge applicable to direct
purchases of the quantity of Trust units being acquired, determined as
of the date of the exchange.
6. The applicable sales charge for the purchase of units of a Trust
for Redemption Trust unitholders who wish to exercise the Conversion
Offer within the first five months from the date of their purchase of
units of a Redemption Trust, where the applicable public offering price
for the Trust units being purchased includes higher sales charges than
the sales charges applicable to the units being converted, will be the
greater of the reduced sales charge (up to 1.5% of the price of each
unit (or per 1,000 units for Mortgage Securities Trust or per 100 units
for the Equity Securities Trust)), or an amount which, when coupled
with the sales charge actually paid on purchase of the units being
converted, would equal the sales charge applicable to direct purchases
of the quantity of Trusts units being acquired, determined as of the
date of the conversion.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27164 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27163 Dean Witter Variable Investment Series, et al.
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27163]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Rel. No. IC-20665; File No. 812-9128]
Dean Witter Variable Investment Series, et al.
October 27, 1994.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'').
ACTION: Notice of application for exemption under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``1940 Act'' or ``Applicants'').
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANTS: Dean Witter Variable Investment Series (the ``Fund'') and
Dean Witter Intercapital Inc. (together, ``Applicants'').
RELEVANT 1940 ACT SECTIONS: Order requested under Section 6(c) for
exemptions from Sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a), and 15(b) and Rules 6e-
2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder.
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants seek an order of exemption to the
extent necessary to permit shares of the Fund to be sold to and held by
variable annuity and variable life insurance separate accounts of both
affiliated and unaffiliated life insurance companies.
FILING DATE: The application was filed on July 28, 1994 and amended on
October 18, 1994.
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
Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing
requests must be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November 21, 1994,
and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants, in the
form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing
requests should state, the nature of writer's interest, the reason for
the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification
of the date of the hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D.C.
20549. Applicants, c/o Sheldon Curtis, Esq., Dean Witter Variable
Investment Series, Two World Trade Center, New York, New York 10048.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce M. Pickholz, Senior Counsel, on
(202) 942-0683 or C. Gladwyn Goins, Associate Director on (202) 942-
0665, Division of Investment Management.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a summary of the application.
The complete application is available for a fee from the Public
Reference Branch of the SEC.
Applicants' Representations
1. The Fund is a Massachusetts business trust registered under the
Act as an open-end diversified management investment company. The Fund
is composed of eleven separate portfolios. Currently, shares of the
Fund are sold only to Northbrook Life Insurance Company and Allstate
Life Insurance Company of New York (the ``Companies'') to fund flexible
premium variable annuity contracts issued through certain of their
separate accounts. Dean Witter InterCapital Inc. (``InterCapital''), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Dean Witter, Discover & Co., is the
investment manager for the Fund. InterCapital and the Companies were
previously under common control (ultimately owned by Sears, Roebuck and
Co.).
2. The Fund intends to offer its shares to separate accounts of
various insurance companies to fund variable annuity contracts and
variable life insurance contracts (collectively, ``variable
contracts''). Insurance companies whose separate accounts do or will
own shares of the Fund are referred to herein as ``participating
insurance companies.'' It is anticipated that participating insurance
companies will rely on rules 6e-2 or 6e-3(T) under the Act, although
some may rely on individual exemptive orders as well, in connection
with variable life insurance contracts.
3. The use of a common management investment company as the
underlying investment medium for variable annuity and variable life
insurance separate accounts is referred to as ``mixed funding.'' The
use of a common management investment company as the underlying
investment medium for separate accounts of unaffiliated insurance
companies is referred to as ``shared funding.'' ``Mixed and shared
funding'' denotes the use of a common management company to fund a
variable annuity separate account of one insurance company and the
variable annuity separate accounts of other affiliated and unaffiliated
insurance companies. Rule 6e-2(b)(15) precludes mixed and shared
funding while Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) permits mixed funding but precludes
shared funding. Applicants request an order of the Commission exempting
variable life insurance separate accounts (and, to the extent
necessary, any principal underwriter and depositor of such an account)
from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act, and Rules 6e-
2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder, to the extent necessary to
permit mixed and shared funding.
Applicants' Legal Analysis
1. In connection with scheduled premium variable life insurance
contracts issued through a separate account registered under the Act as
a unit investment trust, Rule 6e-2(b)(15) provides partial exemption
from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act. The exemptions
granted to a separate account (and any investment adviser, principal
underwriter and depositor thereof) by Rule 6e-2(b)(15), however, are
not available with respect to a scheduled premium variable life
insurance separate account that owns shares of an investment company
that also offers its shares to a variable annuity separate account of
the same or of any affiliated or unaffiliated insurance company
(``mixed funding''). In addition, the relief granted by Rule 6e-
2(b)(15) is not available if shares of the underlying investment
company are offered to variable annuity or variable life insurance
separate accounts of unaffiliated insurance companies (``shared
funding''). Accordingly, Applicants seek an order exempting scheduled
premium variable life insurance separate accounts (and, to the extent
necessary, any investment adviser, principal underwriter and depositor
of such an account) from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the
Act, and Rule 6e-2(b)(15) thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit
shares of the Fund to be offered and sold in connection with both mixed
funding and shared funding.
2. In connection with flexible premium variable life insurance
contracts issued through a separate account registered under the Act as
a unit investment trust, Rule 6e-3(T)(6)(15) provides partial
exemptions from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act. The
exemptions granted to a separate account (and to any investment
adviser, principal underwriter and depositor thereof) by Rule 6e-
3(T)(b)(15) permit mixed funding of flexible premium variable life
insurance but preclude shared funding. Accordingly, Applicants seek an
order exempting flexible premium variable life insurance separate
accounts (and, to the extent necessary, any investment adviser,
principal underwriter and depositor of such an account from sections
9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act, and Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15)
thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit shares of the Fund to be
offered and sold to separate accounts in connection with shared
funding.
3. Section 9(a) provides that it is unlawful for any company to
serve as investment adviser or principal underwriter of any registered
open-end investment company if an affiliated person of that company is
subject to a disqualification enumerated in sections 9(a) (1) or (2).
Rules 6e-2(b)(15) (i) and (ii), and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) (i) and (ii),
provide exemptions from section 9(a) under certain circumstances,
subject to the limitations on mixed and shared funding. These
exemptions limit the application of the eligibility restrictions to
affiliated individuals or companies that directly participate in the
management or administration of the underlying management company.
4. The application states that the partial relief granted in Rules
6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) from the requirements of section 9 of
the Act limits the amount of monitoring necessary to ensure compliance
with section 9 of that which is appropriate in light of the policy and
purposes of section 9. The Applicants state that those Rules recognize
that it is not necessary for the protection of investors or the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act to
apply the provisions of section 9(a) to individuals in a large
insurance company complex, most of whom will have no involvement in
matters pertaining to investment companies in (or invested in by) that
organization. Applicants state that it is also unnecessary to apply
section 9(a) to individuals in various unaffiliated insurance companies
(or affiliated companies of participating insurance companies) that may
utilize the Fund as the funding medium for variable contracts.
Applicants argue that applying the requirements of section 9(a) because
of investment by other insurers' separate accounts would be unjustified
and would not serve any regulatory purpose. The application states that
the participating insurers are not expected to play any role in the
management or administration of the Fund and that those individuals who
participate in the management or administration of the Fund will remain
the same regardless of which separate accounts or insurance companies
use the Fund. Furthermore, the increased monitoring costs would reduce
the net rates of return realized by contract owners.
5. Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii) and 6e-3(T)(b)(iii) assume the existence
of a pass-through voting requirement with respect to management
investment company shares held by a separate account. Applicants state
that pass-through privileges will be provided with respect to all
variable contract owners so long as the Commission interprets the Act
to require pass-through voting privileges for variable contract owners.
However, Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii) provide
exemptions from the pass-through voting requirement with respect to
several significant matters, assuming the limitations on mixed and
shared funding are observed.
6. Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii) provide that the
insurance company may disregard the voting instructions of its contract
owners with respect to the investments of an underlying fund or any
contract between a fund and its investment adviser, when required to do
so by an insurance regulatory authority. Voting instructions may also
be disregarded by the insurance company if the contract owners initiate
any change in the investment company's investment policies, principal
underwriter or any investment adviser provided that disregarding such
voting instructions is reasonable and based on a specific good faith
determination as required under the Rules. Applicants assert that the
rights of an insurance company or of a state insurance regulator to
disregard contract owners' voting instructions are not inconsistent
with mixed or shared funding. According to the Applicants, there is no
reason why the investment policies of any portfolio of the Fund would
or should be materially different from what it would or should be if it
funded only annuity contracts or only scheduled or flexible premium
life contracts and that there is no reason to believe that different
features of various types of contracts will lead to different
investment policies for different types of variable contracts.
Applicants represent that the Fund will not be managed to favor or
disfavor any particular insurer or type of insurance product.
7. The Application states that mixed and shared funding should
provide several benefits to variable contract holders. It would permit
a greater amount of assets available for investment, thereby promoting
economies of scale, permitting a greater diversification, and making
the addition of new portfolios more feasible. The Applicants believe
that making the Fund available for mixed and shared funding will
encourage more insurance companies to offer variable contracts, and
this should result in increased competition with respect to both
variable contract design and pricing, which can be expected to result
in more product variation and lower charges.
8. The Applicants see no significant legal impediment to permitting
mixed and shared funding. Separate accounts organized as unit
investment trusts have historically been employed to accumulate shares
of mutual funds which have not been affiliated with the depositor or
sponsor of the separate account. The Fund does not believe that mixed
and shared funding will have any adverse federal income tax
consequences.
Applicants' Conditions
If the requested order is granted, Applicants consent to the
following conditions:
1. A majority of the board of trustees of the Fund (the ``Board'')
shall consist of persons who are not ``interested persons'' of the
Fund, as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act, and the rules
thereunder, and as modified by any applicable orders of the Commission,
except that if this condition is not met by reason of the death,
disqualification, or bona-fide resignation of any trustee or trustees,
then the operation of this condition shall be suspended: (a) for a
period of 45 days if the vacancy or vacancies may be filled by the
Board; (b) for a period of 60 days if a vote of shareholders is
required to fill a vacancy or vacancies; or (c) for such longer period
as the Commission may prescribe by order upon Application.
2. The Board will monitor the Fund for the existence of any
material irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the life
owners and annuity owners and any future owners in the Fund. An
irreconcilable material conflict may arise for a variety of reasons,
including: (1) An action by any state insurance regulatory authority;
(2) a change in applicable federal or state insurance, tax, or
securities laws or regulations, or a public ruling, private letter
ruling, no-action or interpretative letter, or any similar action by
insurance, tax, or securities regulatory authorities; (3) an
administrative or judicial decision in any relevant proceeding; (4) the
manner in which the investments of any portfolio are being managed; (5)
a difference in voting instructions given by variable annuity contract
owners and variable life insurance contract owners.
3. Participating insurance companies and InterCapital will report
any potential or existing conflicts to the Board. Participating
insurance companies and InterCapital will be responsible for assisting
the Board in carrying out its responsibilities under these conditions
by providing the Board with all information reasonably necessary for
the Board to consider any issues raised. This includes, but is not
limited to, an obligation by each participating insurance company to
inform the Board whenever contract owner voting instructions are
disregarded. The responsibility to report such information and
conflicts and to assist the Board will be a contractual obligation of
all insurers investing in the Fund under their agreements governing
participation in the Fund and these responsibilities will be carried
out with the view only to interests of the contract owners.
4. If it is determined by a majority of the Board, or a majority of
its disinterested Trustee, that a material irreconcilable conflict
exists, the relevant insurance companies shall, at their expense and to
the extent reasonably practicable (as determined by a majority of the
disinterested trustees), take whatever steps are necessary to remedy or
eliminate the irreconcilable material conflict, up to and including:
(1) Withdrawing the assets allocable to some or all of the separate
accounts from the Fund or any portfolio and reinvesting such assets in
a different investment medium, including another portfolio of the Fund,
or submitting the question whether such segregation should be
implemented to a vote of all affected contract owners and as
appropriate, segregating the assets of any appropriate group (i.e.,
annuity contract owners, life insurance contract owners, or variable
contract owners of one or more participating insurance companies) that
votes in favor of such segregation, or offering to the affected
contract owners the option of making such a change; and (2)
establishing a new registered management investment company or managed
separate account. If a material irreconcilable conflict arises because
of an insurer's decision to disregard contract owner voting
instructions and that decision represents a minority position or would
preclude a majority vote, the insurer may be required, at the Fund's
election, to withdraw its separate account's investment in the fund and
no charge or penalty will be imposed as a result of such withdrawal.
The responsibility to take remedial action in the event of a Board
determination of an irreconcilable material conflict and to bear the
cost of such remedial action shall be a contractual obligation of all
participating insurance companies under their agreements governing
participation in the Fund.
For purposes of this condition 4, a majority of the disinterested
members of the Board shall determine whether or not any proposed action
adequately remedies any irreconcilable material conflicts, but in no
event will the Fund or InterCapital be required to establish a new
funding medium for any variable contract. No participating insurance
company shall be required by this condition 4 to establish a new
funding medium for any variable contract if an offer to do so has been
declined by vote of a majority of contract owners materially adversely
affected by the irreconcilable material conflict.
5. The Board's determination of the existence of an irreconcilable
material conflict and its implications shall be made known promptly to
all participating insurance companies.
6. Participating insurance companies will pass through voting
privileges to all variable contract owners so long as the Commission
continues to interpret the Act as requiring pass-through voting
privileges for variable contract owners. Accordingly, participating
insurance companies will vote shares of the Fund held in their separate
accounts in a manner consistent with timely voting instructions
received from contract owners. Each participating insurance company
will vote shares of the Fund held in its separate accounts for which no
timely voting instructions from contract holders are received, as well
as shares it owns, in the same proportion as those shares for which
voting instructions are received. Participating insurance companies
shall be responsible for assuring that each of their separate accounts
participating in the Fund calculates voting privileges in a manner
consistent with other participating insurance companies. The obligation
to calculate voting privileges in a manner consistent with all other
separate accounts investing in the Fund shall be a contractual
obligation of all participating insurance companies under their
agreements governing participation in the Fund.
7. The Fund will comply with all provisions of the Act requiring
voting by Shareholders, and in particular the Fund will either provide
for annual meetings (except insofar as the Commission may interpret
Section 16 not to require such meetings), or comply with section 16(c)
of the Act (although the Fund is not one of the trusts described in the
section 16(c) of the Act) as well as with section 16(a) and, if and
when applicable, 16(b). Further, the Fund will act in accordance with
the Commission's interpretation of the requirements of section 16(a)
with respect to periodic elections of trustees and with whatever rules
the Commission may promulgate with respect thereto.
8. The Fund shall disclose in its prospectus that (1) the Fund is
intended to be a funding vehicle for all types of variable annuity and
variable life insurance contracts offered by various insurance
companies, (2) material irreconcilable conflicts may possibly arise,
and (3) the Board will monitor events in order to identify the
existence of any material irreconcilable conflicts and determine what
action, if any, should be taken in response to such conflict. The Fund
will notify all participating insurance companies that separate account
prospectus disclosure regarding potential risks of mixed and shared
funding may be appropriate.
9. If and to the extent that Rule 6e-2 and Rule 6e-3(T) are
amended, or Rule 6e-3 is adopted, to provide exemptive relief from any
provision of the Act or the rules promulgated thereunder with respect
to mixed or shared funding on terms and conditions materially different
from any exemptions granted in the order requested in this application,
then the Fund and/or participating insurance companies, as appropriate,
shall take such steps as may be necessary to comply with Rules 6e-2 and
6e-3(T), or Rule 6e-3, as such rules are applicable.
10. The participating insurance companies shall at least annually
submit to the Board such reports, materials or data as the Board may
reasonably request so that the Board or the Fund may fully carry out
the obligations imposed upon them by the conditions contained in the
application and said reports, materials and data shall be submitted
more frequently if deemed appropriate by the Board. The obligation of
the participating insurance companies to provide these reports,
materials and data to the Board when it so reasonably requests, shall
be a contractual obligation of all participating insurance companies
under their agreements governing participation in the Fund.
11. All reports received by the Board of potential or existing
conflicts, and all Board action with regard to determining the
existence of a conflict, notifying participating insurance companies of
a conflict, and determining whether any proposed action adequately
remedies a conflict, will be properly recorded in the minutes of the
Board or other appropriate records, and such minutes or other records
shall be made available to the Commission upon request.
Applicants' Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Applicants believe that the requested
exemptions, in accordance with the standards of section 6(c) of the
1940 Act, are appropriate in the pubic interest and are consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and the provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27163 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27162 Banque Paribas and Ottoman Bank, A.S.; Notice of Application October 27, 1994.
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27162]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Rel. No. IC-20663; International Series Release No. 737; File No. 812-
9080]
Banque Paribas and Ottoman Bank, A.S.; Notice of Application
October 27, 1994.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'').
ACTION: Notice of application for exemption under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANTS: Banque Paribas and Ottoman Bank, A.S.
RELEVANT ACT SECTIONS: Order requested under section 6(c) of the Act
that would exempt applicants from section 17(f) of the Act.
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants request an order permitting Ottoman
Bank to act as custodian in the Republic of Turkey for registered
investment companies.
FILING DATE: The application was filed on June 30, 1994, and amended on
September 16, 1994.
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
applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing
requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November 21,
1994, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, 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 may request
notification of a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20549. Applicants, Ottoman Bank, A.S., Bankalar Cad. No.: 35-37, 80000
Karakoy--Istanbul/Turkey; Banque Paribas, 3, rue d'Antin, 75002 Paris,
France; c/o Anthony F. Essaye, Rogers & Wells, 607 14th Street NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bradley W. Paulson, Staff Attorney, at (202) 942-0147 or Robert A.
Robertson, 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 is available for a fee from the
SEC's Public Reference Branch.
Applicants' Representations
1. Banque Paribas is a French banking institution that provides a
complete range of banking services. It is regulated by the Comite de la
Reglementation Bancaire (the Bank Regulation Committee), the Comite des
Etablissments de Credit (the Credit Establishment Committee), and the
Commission Bancaire (the Banking Commission), all of which are agencies
of the French Government. As of December 31, 1993, Banque Paribas had
consolidated shareholders' equity of U.S. $2.7 billion (excluding
minority interests).
2. Ottoman Bank is a Turkish banking organization. It is regulated
by the Turkish Treasury and Turkish Central Bank, both of which are
agencies of the Turkish Government.\1\ As of December 31, 1993, Ottoman
Bank had shareholders' equity of approximately U.S. $45 million. Banque
Paribas owns a 49.9% interest in Compagnie Financiere Ottomane, S.A., a
Luxembourg holding company, which, in turn, owns a 99.9% interest in
Ottoman Bank.
\1\Under a prior SEC order, Ottoman Bank has been acting as a
subcustodian of investment company assets for which Bankers Trust
Company, N.A. acts as custodian. In the Matter of Bankers Trust
Company, N.A., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 18046 (April 9,
1991) (notice) and 18085 (April 9, 1991) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Applicants request on order to permit Ottoman Bank to maintain
custody of assets (``Assets'') of investment companies registered under
the Act other than those registered under section 7(b) of the Act
(``Investment Companies''). As used herein, the term ``Assets'' does
not include securities issued by the United States Government, any
state or political subdivision thereof, or any agency thereof, and does
not include securities issued by any entity organized under the laws of
the United States or any state thereof (other than certificates of
deposit, evidence of indebtedness, or other securities issued or
guaranteed by such an entity that have been issued and sold outside the
United States).
4. Ottoman Bank would accept deposits of Assets in Turkey pursuant
to a written, three-party agreement (the ``Agreement''). The Agreement
would be entered into by (a) Ottoman Bank, (b) Banque Paribas, and (c)
an Investment Company or its custodian. The Agreement would provide
that Ottoman Bank would act as custodian or subcustodian, and Banque
Paribas would be liable for any loss to the same extent as if Banque
Paribas had been required to provide custody services under such
agreement. Banque Paribas would not be liable for losses resulting from
political risk (e.g., exchange control restrictions, confiscation,
expropriation, nationalization, insurrection, civil strife, or armed
hostilities) and other risks of loss (excluding bankruptcy or
insolvency of Ottoman Bank) for which neither Banque Paribas nor
Ottoman Bank would be liable (e.g., loss despite the exercise of
reasonable care, due to an act of God, or resulting from a nuclear
incident).
Applicants' Legal Analysis
1. Section 17(f) of the Act provides that a registered investment
company may maintain securities and similar assets in the custody of a
bank meeting the requirements of section 26(a) of the Act, a member
firm of a national securities exchange, the investment company itself,
or a system for the central handling of securities established by a
national securities exchange. Section 2(a)(5) of the Act defines
``bank'' to include banking institutions organized under the laws of
the United States, member banks of the Federal Reserve System, and
certain banking institutions or trust companies doing business under
the laws of any state or of the United States. Ottoman Bank does not
fall within the definition of ``bank'' as defined in the Act and, under
section 17(f), may not act as custodian for registered investment
companies.
2. Rule 17f-5 under the Act permits certain entities located
outside the United States to serve as custodian for investment company
assets. One such entity is a banking institution or trust company that
is incoroprated or organized under the laws of a country other than the
United States, that is regulated as such by the country's government or
an agency thereof, and that has shareholders' equity in excess of
U.S.$200 million. Banque Paribas qualifies as an eligible foreign
custodian under rule 17f-5. Ottoman Bank, however, does not qualify as
an eligible foreign custodian because it does not meet the minimum
shareholders' equity requirement.
3. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act that
would exempt them from the provisions of section 17(f) to the extent
necessary for Ottoman Bank to maintain custody of Investment Company
Assets. Applicants believe that the exemption should be granted because
it is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and is
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe
that the Agreement provides Investment Companies with the safety and
security of an eligible foreign custodian under section 17(f) and rule
17f-5.
Applicants' Conditions
1. The foreign custody arrangements with Ottoman Bank will comply
with the provisions of rule 17f-5 in all respects, except those
provisions relating to the minimum shareholders' equity requirement for
eligible foreign custodians.
2. Banque Paribas currently satisfies and will continue to satisfy
the minimum shareholders' equity requirement set forth in rule 17f-
5(c)(2)(i).
3. An Investment Company or a custodian for an Investment Company
will deposit Securities with Ottoman Bank only in accordance with a
three-party contractual agreement that will remain in effect at all
times during which Ottoman Bank fails to meet the requirement of rule
17f-5 relating to minimum shareholders' equity. Each agreement will be
a three-party agreement among (a) Banque Paribas, (b) Ottoman Bank, and
(c) the Investment Company or custodian of the Securities of the
Investment Company. Under the agreement, Ottoman Bank will undertake to
provide specified custodial or sub-custodial services. The agreement
will further provide that Banque Paribas will be liable for any loss,
damage, cost, expense, liability, or claim arising out of or in
connection with the performance by Ottoman Bank of its responsibilities
under the agreement to the same extent as if Banque Paribas had been
required to provide custody services under such agreement.
For the SEC, by the Division of Investment Management, under
delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27162 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27160 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes by the New York Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change by the American Stock Exchange Relating to an Extension of Certain Market-Wide Circuit Breaker Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27160]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-34900; File Nos. SR-Amex-94-40, SR-NYSE-94-33, and SR-
Phlx-94-44]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Changes by the New York Stock Exchange and
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change by the American Stock
Exchange Relating to an Extension of Certain Market-Wide Circuit
Breaker Provisions
October 26, 1994.
I. Introduction
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ on October 5, 1994, the
American Stock Exchange, Inc., on September 22, 1994, the New York
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), and on September 12, 1994, the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''), respectively (each
individually referred to herein as an ``Exchange'' and two or more
collectively referred to as ``Exchanges''), submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes relating
to extending certain market-wide circuit breaker provisions. On
September 30, 1994, the NYSE and the Phlx each filed an Amendment No. 1
to their respective proposals.\3\ The NYSE proposal was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 14, 1994,\4\ and the Phlx
proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on October
14, 1994.\5\ No comments were received on either of these proposed rule
changes. This order approves the Exchanges' proposals and the
Exchanges' Amendments.
\1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
\2\17 CFR 240.19b-4 (1993).
\3\NYSE Amndment No. 1 requests that the Commission approve the
NYSE's proposal on an accelerated basis pursuant to section 19(b)(2)
of the Act to allow its circuit breaker provision to continue
uninterrupted. In addition, NYSE Amendment No. 1 corrects a
typographical error appearing in Section I of Exhibit 1 to its
filing by replacing 1994 with 1995. See letter from Brian M.
McNamara, Vice President, Market Surveillance, NYSE, to Sharon
Lawson, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation
(``Division''), Commission, dated September 29, 1994 (``NYSE
Amendment No. 1''). In Phlx Amendment No. 1, the Phlx also requests
accelerated approval of its proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act. See letter from Gerald D. O'Connell, First Vice President,
Regulation and Trading Operations, Phlx, to Michael Walinskas,
Branch Chief, Division, Commission, dated September 30, 1994 (``Phlx
Amendment No. 1'').
\4\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34799 (October 6,
1994), 59 FR 52204.
\5\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34800 (October 6,
1994), 59 FR 52205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of Proposals
In 1988, the Commission approved circuit breaker proposals by the
Exchanges.\6\ In general, the Exchanges' circuit breaker rules provide
that trading would halt for one hour if the Dow Jones Industrial
Average (DJIA'') were to decline 250 points from its previous day's
closing level and, thereafter, trading would halt for an additional two
hours if the DJIA were to decline 400 points from its previous day's
close.\7\ These circuit breaker mechanisms are an important part of the
measures adopted by the Exchanges to address market volatility concerns
in the wake of the October 1987 Market Break.
\6\See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 26386
(December 22, 1988), 53 FR 52904 (Phlx); and 26198 (October 19,
1988), 53 FR 41637 (Amex and NYSE).
\7\If the 250-point trigger were reached within one hour of the
scheduled close of trading for a day, or if the 400-point trigger
were reached within two hours of the scheduled close of the trading
day, trading would halt for the remainder of the day. If, however,
the 250-point trigger were reached between one hour and one-half
hour before the scheduled closing, or if the 400-point trigger were
reached between two hours and one hour before the scheduled closing,
the Exchanges would have the authority to use abbreviated reopening
procedures either to permit trading to reopen before the scheduled
closing or to establish closing prices.
The Commission approved the Amex, Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``BSE''), Midwest Stock Exchange, Inc. (``MSE''), NYSE, Phlx and
National Association of Securities Dealers' (``NASD'')\8\ circuit
breaker proposals on a pilot program basis. Circuit breaker proposals
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''),\9\ the Pacific
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PSE'')\10\ and the Cincinnati Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``CSE'')\11\ were approved by the Commission on a permanent basis
rather than as a pilot program. In 1989, the Exchanges and the NASD
filed, and the Commission approved, proposals to extend their
respective pilot programs.\12\ Subsequently, in 1990, 1991, 1992, and
1993, the Amex, NYSE, and Phlx filed, and the Commission approved,
proposals to extend their respective pilot programs.\13\ In 1993, the
BSE and Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'') (formerly MSE) filed,
and the Commission approved, proposals to extend their respective pilot
programs.\14\ In 1990, 1992, and 1993, the NASD filed, and the
Commission approved, proposals to extend its pilot program.\15\ The
proposals for the Exchanges are nearing their expiration dates and the
Amex, NYSE, and Phlx have filed with the Commission proposals to extend
further their respective pilot program until October 31, 1995.
\8\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26198 (October 19,
1988), 53 FR 41673 (order granting temporary approval to Amex, NASD,
and NYSE circuit breaker rules); 26357 (December 14, 1988), 53 FR
51182 (order granting temporary approval to BSE circuit breaker
rule); 26218 (October 26, 1988), 53 FR 44137 (order granting
temporary approval to MSE circuit breaker rule); and 26386 (December
22, 1988), 53 FR 52904 (order granting temporary approval to Phlx
circuit breaker rule).
\9\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26198, supra note 7.
\10\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26368 (December 16,
1988), 53 FR 51942.
\11\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26440 (January 10,
1989), 54 FR 1830.
\12\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27370 (October 23,
1989), 54 FR 43881 (order approving extension of Amex, BSE, MSE,
NASD, NYSE and Phlx circuit breaker rules).
\13\See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 25580 (October 25,
1990), 55 FR 45895; 29868 (October 28, 1991), 56 FR 56535; 31387
(October 30, 1992), 57 FR 53157; and 33120 (October 29, 1993), 58 FR
59503 (orders approving extensions of Amex, NYSE, and Phlx circuit
breaker rules).
\14\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33120 supra note 13
(extending the BSE's and CHX's respective circuit breaker pilot
programs until October 31, 1995).
\15\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28694 (December 12,
1990), 55 FR 52119; 30304 (January 29, 1992), 57 FR 4658; and 33292
(December 6, 1993), 58 FR 65214 (orders approving extension of NASD
circuit breaker rules, the most recent order approving the pilot
through December 31, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The circuit breaker mechanisms were enacted in the wake of the
October 1987 Market Break. Both the Report of the Presidential Task
Force on Market Mechanisms (``Brady Report'') and the Working Group's
Interim Report\16\ recommended that coordinated trading halts and
reopening procedures be developed that would be implemented in all U.S.
markets for equity and equity related products during large, rapid
market declines.\17\ In response, the SROs submitted proposals to
implement circuit breaker procedures that are designed to substitute
planned trading halts for unplanned and destabilizing market closings.
In addition, the stock index futures exchanges have implemented
parallel circuit breakersthat were approved by the CFTC on a permanent
basis.
\16\The Working Group in Financial Markets was established by
the President in March 1988 to provide a coordinating framework for
consideration, resolution, recommendation, and action on the complex
issues raised by the market break in October 1987. The Working Group
consists of the Chairmen of the Commission, Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC''), and the Under Secretary for Finance of the
Department of the Treasury.
\17\In particular, the Working Group recommended a one-hour
trading halt if the DJIA declined 250 points from its previous day's
closing level, and a subsequent two-hour trading halt if the DJIA
declined 400 points below its previous day's closing level. The
Working Group also recommended that the NYSE use reopening
procedures, similar to those used on Expiration Fridays, that are
designed to enhance the information made public about market
conditions.
III. Discussion
The Commission believes that the Exchanges' proposed rule changes
are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges.
Specifically, the Commission believes the Exchanges' proposals are
consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act\18\ in
that they are designed to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market, and to protect investors and the
public interest.
\18\15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Commission approved these proposals in October 1988, the
DJIA has not experienced a one day, 250-point decline that would
trigger a market halt. Nevertheless, the Commission continues to
believe that circuit breaker procedures are desirable to deal with
potential strains that may develop during periods of extreme market
volatility, and, accordingly, the Commission believes that the pilot
programs should be extended. The Commission also believes that circuit
breakers represent a reasonable means to retard a rapid, one day market
decline that can have a destabilizing effect on the nation's financial
markets and participants in these markets.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
filed by the Exchanges, including NYSE Amendment No. 1 and Phlx
Amendment No. 1, are 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
and the rules and regulations thereunder.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
changes prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register because there are no
changes being made to the current provisions, which originally were
subject to the full notice and comment procedures, and accelerated
approval would enable the pilots to continue on an uninterrupted basis.
Due to the importance of these circuit breakers for market confidence,
soundness, and integrity, it is necessary and appropriate that these
procedures continue on an uninterrupted basis. Therefore, the
Commission believes that granting accelerated approval of the proposed
rule changes is appropriate and consistent with sections 6 and 19(b)(2)
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 rules changes that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
proposed rule changes 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 in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the above-mentioned exchanges. All submissions
should refer to File Nos. SR-AMEX-94-40, SR-NYSE-94-33, or SR-Phlx-94-
44, and should be submitted by November 23, 1994.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the Amex, NYSE, and Phlx proposed rule changes (SR-Amex-
94-40, SR-NYSE-94-33 and SR-Phlx-94-44), including NYSE Amendment No. 1
and Phlx Amendment No. 1, are approved until October 31, 1994.
\19\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
\20\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27160 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27157 Georgia; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27157]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1042-DR]
Georgia; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Georgia (FEMA-1042-DR), dated October 19, 1994, and related
determinations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State
of Georgia dated October 19, 1994, is hereby amended to include the
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President
in his declaration of October 19, 1994:
Effingham County for Individual Assistance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster
Assistance.)
Richard W. Krimm,
Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 94-27157 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27156 Summit Financial Corporation; Acquisition of Company Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27156]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Summit Financial Corporation; Acquisition of Company Engaged in
Permissible Nonbanking Activities
The organization listed in this notice has applied under Sec.
225.23(a)(2) or (f) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(2) or
(f)) for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec. 225.21(a) of Regulation Y
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or control voting securities or assets of
a company engaged in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities
will be conducted throughout the United States.
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 on the question whether consummation of the proposal can
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency,
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than
November 16, 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
1. Summit Financial Corporation, Greenville, South Carolina; to
acquire Academy Finance, Inc., Kingstree, South Carolina, and thereby
indirectly acquire E-Z Loans, Inc., Lake City, South Carolina, and
engage in making and servicing consumer finance loans; acting as agent
for insurance to borrowers that is directly related to the extension of
credit by the finance company, including credit life and accident and
health insurance; and acting as agent for insurance related to ensuring
repayment of the outstanding balance on an extension of credit in the
event of loss or damage to any property used as collateral for the
extension of credit, pursuant to Sec. 225.25(b)(1)(i); (8)(i), and
(8)(ii) of the Board's Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 27,
1994.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-27156; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27155 Mid Am of Michigan, Inc., et al; Formations of; Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27155]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Mid Am of Michigan, Inc., et al; Formations of; Acquisitions by;
and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1842) and Sec. 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)).
Each application is available for immediate inspection at the
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views
in writing to the Reserve Bank 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 specifically any questions of fact that
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at
a hearing.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these
applications must be received not later than November 25, 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101:
1. Mid Am of Michigan, Inc., Bowling Green, Ohio; to become a bank
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of ASB
Bankcorp, Inc., Adrian, Michigan, and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Adrian State Bank, Adrian, Michigan. Mid Am of Michigan, Inc., will be
a subsidiary of Mid Am, Inc., Bowling Green, Ohio. Comments regarding
this application must be received not later than November 21, 1994.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
1. Norwest Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; to acquire 100
percent of the voting shares of Babbscha Company, Fridley, Minnesota,
and thereby indirectly acquire Fridley State Bank, Fridley, Minnesota.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 27,
1994.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-27155; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27154 Acquisition of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27154]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Richard J. Irving; Change in Bank Control Notice
Acquisition of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies
The notificant listed below has applied under the Change in Bank
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.
The factors that are considered in acting on notices are set forth in
paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notice is available for immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notice has been accepted for
processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in
writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for the notice or to the offices
of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than
November 16, 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
1. Richard J. Irving, Eaton, Indiana; to acquire an additional .02
percent, for a total of 10.015 percent, of the voting shares of
Community Bancshares, Inc., Noblesville, Indiana, and thereby
indirectly acquire Community Bank, Noblesville, Indiana.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 27,
1994.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-27154; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27150 Notice of Public Scoping Meeting for the Relocation of Navy Reservists From Naval Reserve Readiness Center at Lake Union and the Replacement of the Army Reserve Center at Fort Lawton, Seattle, WA
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27150]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Public Scoping Meeting for the Relocation of Navy
Reservists From Naval Reserve Readiness Center at Lake Union and the
Replacement of the Army Reserve Center at Fort Lawton, Seattle, WA
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy and
Department of Army announce their intention to conduct a scoping
meeting for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the proposed relocation of Navy reservists from the Naval
Reserve Readiness Center at Lake Union and the replacement of the Army
Reserve training facilities currently located in the 500 Area at Fort
Lawton.
This notice augments the Notice of Intent to prepare a DEIS for
this proposed action that was published in the October 12, 1994 Federal
Register.
The Chief of Naval Reserve and U.S. Army Reserve Command's
preferred alternative is to construct and operate a 120,000 square foot
Joint Use Reserve Center in the southwest corner of Fort Lawton, near
the existing 124th Army Reserve Command Headquarters. The DEIS will
consider other sites on Fort Lawton, as well as other Federally-owned
sites in the Seattle area. The DEIS will also evaluate taking no
action, and constructing separate as well as joint facilities.
A public scoping meeting has been scheduled to solicit comments
about the issues that need to be addressed in the DEIS. The meeting
will be held at 7:00 PM on November 17, 1994 at the Blaine Elementary
School auditorium, 2550 34th Ave. West, Seattle, WA. A brief
presentation identifying the proposed action and the EIS process will
precede a request for public comments. It is important that federal,
state, and local agencies, and interested individuals take the
opportunity to identify environmental concerns that should be addressed
in the DEIS.
Agencies and the public are also invited and encouraged to provide
written comments on the scoping issues in addition to, or in lieu of,
oral comments at the coping meeting. Each speaker will be limited to
five minutes at the meeting. Written comments must be received by
December 15, 1994. Comments should be sent to Engineering Field
Activity Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Attn: Mr. Don
Morris, Code 232DM, 3505 NW Anderson Hill Road, Silver Dale, WA 98383-
7929. Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Mr. Morris
at (206) 396-5976.
Dated: October 28, 1994.
Saundra K. Melancon,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-27150 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-AE-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27149 Importation of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27149]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Importation of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application
Pursuant to section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the Attorney General shall, prior to
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a
controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a
regulation under Section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a
substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk
manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 1311.42 of Title 21, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that on July 18,
1994, Radian Corporation, 8501 Mopac Blvd., P.O. Box 201088, Austin,
Texas, 78720, made written request to the Drug Enforcement
Administration to be registered as an importer of Heroin (9200) a basic
class of controlled substance in Schedule I.
The firm plans to import a small quantity of this compound to make
DEA exempt deuterated and non-deuterated drug reference standards which
will be sold to analytical and forensic laboratories for use in drug
testing programs.
Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk
manufacturer of this basic class of controlled substance may file
written comments on or objections to the application described above
and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such
application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.54 in such form as
prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments, objections, or requests for a hearing may be
addressed to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion
Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register
Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than December 2, 1994.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and
independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1311.42 (b), (c),
(d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-46
(September 23, 1975), all applicants for registration to import a basic
class of any controlled substance in Schedule I or II are and will
continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to
21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1311.402 (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-27149 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27147 Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1993 BMW 840Ci Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27147]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 94-85; Notice 1]
Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1993 BMW
840Ci Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
1993 BMW 840Ci passenger cars are eligible for importation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that a 1993
BMW 840Ci that was not originally manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is eligible for
importation into the United States because (1) it is substantially
similar to a vehicle that was originally manufactured for importation
into and sale in the United States and that was certified by its
manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) it is
capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 2,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington,
DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ted Bayler, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I)
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act)), a
motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally
manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States,
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act), and
of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be
compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale, Pennsylvania (Registered
Importer No. R-90-009) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 1993 BMW
840Ci passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United
States. The vehicle which Champagne believes is substantially similar
is the 1993 BMW 850Ci. Champagne has submitted information indicating
that Bayerische-Motoren Werke A.G., the company that manufactured the
1993 BMW 850Ci, certified that vehicle as conforming to all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards and offered it for sale in the
United States.
The petitioner contends that it carefully compared the 840Ci to the
850Ci, and found the two models to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
Champagne submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that the 1993 model 840Ci, as originally manufactured,
conforms to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same
manner as the 1993 model 850Ci that was offered for sale in the United
States, or is capable of being readily altered to conform to those
standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that the 1993 model 840Ci is
identical to the certified 1993 model 850Ci with respect to compliance
with Standards Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence * * *, 103
Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 107 Reflecting
Surfaces, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 112 Headlamp Concealment Devices,
113 Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head
Restraints, 203 Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering
Control System, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating
Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,
211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hubcaps, 212 Windsheld Retention, 214
Side Door Strength, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone
Intrusion, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
Additionally, the petitioner states that the 1993 BMW 840Ci
complies with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581.
Petitioner also contends that the vehicle is capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens
marked ``Brake'' for a lens with an ECE symbol on the brake failure
indicator lamp; (b) installation of a seat belt warning lamp; (c)
recalibration of the speedometer/odometer from kilometers to miles per
hour.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model headlamp assemblies which
incorporate sealed beam headlamps; (b) installation of U.S.-model front
and rear sidemarker/reflector assemblies; (c) installation of U.S.-
model taillamp assemblies; (d) installation of a high mounted stop
lamp.
Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: Installation of a tire
information placard.
Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Replacement of the passenger
side rear view mirror, which is convex, but lacks the required warning
statement.
Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a buzzer
microswitch in the steering lock assembly, and a warning buzzer.
Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number: Installation of a
VIN plate that can be read from outside the left windshield pillar, and
a VIN reference label on the edge of the door or latch post nearest the
driver.
Standard No. 118 Power Window Systems: Rewiring of the power window
system so that the window transport is inoperative when the ignition is
switched off.
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) Installation of a
U.S.-model seat belt in the driver's position, or a belt webbing-
actuated microswitch inside the driver's seat belt retractor; (b)
installation of an ignition switch-actuated seat belt warning lamp and
buzzer; (c) installation of factory-supplied driver's and passenger's
side knee bolsters to augment the vehicle's passive restraint system.
The petitioner states that the remaining components of the vehicle's
passive restraint system, consisting of driver's and passenger's side
air bags, control unit, and impact sensor, have part numbers identical
to those found on the U.S. certified 1993 model 850Ci.
Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Installation of a rollover
valve in the fuel tank vent line between the fuel tank and the
evaporative emissions collection canister.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition
described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be
submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will 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. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: October 24, 1994.
William A. Boehly,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-27147 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27146 Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE Convertible Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27146]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-84; Notice 1]
Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1993
Mercedes-Benz 300CE Convertible Passenger Cars Are Eligible for
Importation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE convertible passenger cars are eligible for
importation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that a 1993
Mercedes-Benz 300CE convertible that was not originally manufactured to
comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is
eligible for importation into the United States because (1) it is
substantially similar to a vehicle that was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States and that was certified
by its manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) it
is capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 2,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington,
DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Bayler, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(i)(I) of
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act)), a motor
vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally
manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States,
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act), and
of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be
compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale, Pennsylvania (``Champagne'')
(Registered Importer 90-009) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE convertible passenger cars (Model ID 124.061)
are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicle which
Champagne believes is substantially similar is the 1993 Mercedes-Benz
300CE convertible that was manufactured for importation into, and sale
in, the United States and certified by its manufacturer, Daimler Benz
A.G., as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared the non-U.S.
certified 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE convertible to its U.S. certified
counterpart, and found the two vehicle to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Champagne submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE
convertible, as originally manufactured, conforms to many Federal motor
vehicle safety standards in the same manner as its U.S. certified
counterpart, or is capable of being readily altered to conform to those
standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non-U.S. certified
1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE convertible is identical to its U.S. certified
counterpart with respect to compliance with Standards Nos. 102
Transmission Shift Lever Sequence * * *., 103 Defrosting and Defogging
Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake
Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 107 Reflecting Surfaces, 109 New Pneumatic
Tires, 113 Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head
Restraints, 203 Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering
Control System, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating
Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,
211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hubcaps, 212 Windshield Retention, 216
Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302
Flammability of Interior Materials.
Additionally, the petitioner states that the non-U.S. certified
1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE convertible complies with the Bumper Standard
found in 49 CFR Part 581.
Petitioner also contends that the vehicle is capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens
marked ``Brake'' for a lens with an ECE symbol on the brake failure
indicator lamp; (b) installation of a seat belt warning lamp that
displays the seat belt warning symbol; (c) recalibration of the
speedometer/odometer from kilometers to miles per hour.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model headlamp assemblies which
incorporate sealed beam headlamps; (b) installation of U.S.-model front
and rear sidemarkers; (c) installation of U.S.-model taillamp
assemblies; (d) installation of a high mounted stop lamp.
Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: Installation of a tire
information placard.
Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror: Replacement of the passenger side
rearview mirror, which is convex but lacks the required warning
statement.
Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a warning buzzer
microswitch and a warning buzzer in the steering lock assembly.
Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number: Installation of a
VIN plate that can be read from outside the left windshield pillar, and
a VIN reference label on the edge of the door or latch post nearest the
driver.
Standard No. 118 Power Window Systems: Rewiring of the power window
system so that the window transport is inoperative when the ignition is
switched off.
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) Installation of a
U.S.-model seat belt in the driver's position, or a belt webbing
actuated microswitch inside the driver's seat belt retractor; (b)
Installation of an ignition switch actuated seat belt warning lamp and
buzzer; (c) replacement of the driver's side air bag with a U.S.-model
component; (d) installation of a U.S.-model driver's side knee bolster,
passenger side air bag, passenger side knee pad, dual air bag control/
sensor unit, and dual air bag wiring harness. The petitioner stated
that each of the passive restraint system components that are to be
added to the vehicle will have part numbers that are identical to those
found on the U.S. certified 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300CE convertible.
Standard No. 214 Side Door Strength: Installation of reinforcing
beams.
Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Installation of a rollover
valve in the fuel tank vent line between the fuel tank and the
evaporative emissions collection canister.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition
described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be
submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will 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. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: October 24, 1994.
William A. Boehly,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-27146 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27145 Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1972 MG-B GT Coupe Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27145]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-87; Notice 1]
Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1972 MG-B GT
Coupe Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
1972 MG-B GT Coupe passenger cars are eligible for importation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that a 1972
MG-B GT Coupe that was not originally manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is eligible for
importation into the United States because (1) it is substantially
similar to a vehicle that was originally manufactured for importation
into and sale in the United States and that was certified by its
manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) it is
capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 2,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington,
DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ted Bayler, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I)
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act)), a
motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally
manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States,
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act), and
of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be
compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale, Pennsylvania (``Champagne'')
(Registered Importer 90-009) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
1972 MG-B GT Coupe passenger cars are eligible for importation into the
United States. The vehicle which Champagne believes is substantially
similar is the 1972 MG-B GT Coupe that was manufactured for importation
into, and sale in, the United States and certified by its manufacturer,
British Leyland Motor Corp., Ltd., as conforming to all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared the non-U.S.
certified 1972 MG-B GT Coupe to its U.S. certified counterpart, and
found the two vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to
compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Champagne submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified 1972 MG-B GT Coupe, as
originally manufactured, conforms to many Federal motor vehicle safety
standards in the same manner as its U.S. certified counterpart, or is
capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non-U.S. certified
1972 MG-B GT Coupe is identical to its U.S. certified counterpart with
respect to compliance with Standards Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever
Sequence * * *., 103 Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield
Wiping and Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 106 Brake
Hoses, 107 Reflecting Surfaces, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch
Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,
202 Head Restraints, 203 Impact Protection for the Driver From the
Steering Control System, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement,
205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components,
207 Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages, 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hubcaps, 212 Windshield
Retention, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and
302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
Petitioner also contends that the vehicle is capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens
marked ``Brake'' for a lens with an ECE symbol on the brake failure
indicator lamp; (b) installation of a seat belt warning lamp.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model headlamp assemblies which
incorporate sealed beam headlamps; (b) installation of U.S.-model front
and rear sidemarkers; (c) installation of U.S.-model taillamp
assemblies.
Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: Installation of a tire
information placard.
Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Replacement of the convex
passenger side rearview mirror.
Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a buzzer
microswitch and warning buzzer in the steering lock assembly.
Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number: Installation of a
VIN plate that can be read from outside the left windshield pillar, and
a VIN reference label on the edge of the door or latch post nearest the
driver.
Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems: Rewiring of the
power window system so that the window transport is inoperative when
the ignition is switched off.
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) Installation of a
U.S.-model seat belt in the driver's position, or a belt webbing
actuated microswitch in the driver's seat belt retractor; (b)
installation of an ignition switch actuated seat belt warning lamp and
buzzer.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition
described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be
submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will 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. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: October 24, 1994.
William A. Boehly,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-27145 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27144 Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1991 BMW 325i 4-Door Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27144]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-88; Notice 1]
Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1991 BMW 325i
4-Door Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
1991 BMW 325i 4-Door passenger cars are eligible for importation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that a 1991
BMW 325i 4-Door passenger car that was not originally manufactured to
comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is
eligible for importation into the United States because (1) it is
substantially similar to a vehicle that was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States and that was certified
by its manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) it
is capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 2,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington,
DC 20590 [Docket hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ted Bayler, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I)
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act)), a
motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally
manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States,
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act), and
of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be
compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. of Santa Ana, California (``G&K'')
(Registered Importer 90-007) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
1991 BMW 325i 4-Door passenger cars are eligible for importation into
the United States. The vehicle which G&K believes is substantially
similar is the 1991 BMW 325i 4-Door passenger car that was manufactured
for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by
its manufacturer, Bayerische Motoren-Werke A.G., as conforming to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared the non-U.S.
certified 1991 BMW 325i 4-Door passenger car to its U.S. certified
counterpart, and found the two vehicles to be substantially similar
with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
G&K submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that the non-U.S. certified 1991 BMW 325i 4-Door passenger car, as
originally manufactured, conforms to many Federal motor vehicle safety
standards in the same manner as its U.S. certified counterpart, or is
capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non-U.S. certified
1991 BMW 325i 4-Door passenger car is identical to its U.S. certified
counterpart with respect to compliance with Standards Nos. 102
Transmission Shift Lever Sequence * * *., 103 Defrosting and Defogging
Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake
Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 107 Reflecting Surfaces, 109 New Pneumatic
Tires, 113 Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head
Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating
Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,
211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hubcaps, 212 Windshield Retention, 216
Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302
Flammability of Interior Materials.
Petitioner also contends that the vehicle is capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens
marked ``Brake'' for a lens with an ECE symbol on the brake failure
indicator lamp; (b) placement of a seat belt symbol on the seat belt
warning lamp lens; (c) recalibration of the speedometer/odometer from
kilometers to miles per hour.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model headlamp assemblies and front
sidemarkers; (b) installation of U.S.-model taillamp lenses which
incorporate rear sidemarkers; (c) installation of a high mounted stop
lamp.
Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: Installation of a tire
information placard.
Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror: Replacement of the convex
passenger side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component.
Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a warning buzzer
microswitch and a warning buzzer in the steering lock assembly.
Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number: Installation of a
VIN plate that can be read from outside the left windshield pillar, and
a VIN reference label on the edge of the door or latch post nearest the
driver.
Standard No. 118 Power Window Systems: Rewiring of the power window
system so that the window transport is inoperative when the ignition is
switched off.
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) Installation of a
seat belt warning buzzer; (b) installation of a Type 1 seat belt in the
rear center designated seating position; (c) installation of a passive
restraint system consisting of a driver's side air bag and knee
bolster, as used in the U.S. certified 1991 BMW 325i 4-Door passenger
car.
Standard No. 214 Side Door Strength: Installation of reinforcing
beams.
Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Installation of a rollover
valve in the fuel tank vent line between the fuel tank and the
evaporative emissions collection canister.
Additionally, the petitioner states that the bumpers on the non-
U.S. certified 1991 BMW 325i must be reinforced to comply with the
Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581. The petitioner also states
that because the 1991 BMW 325i is part of a line that is subject to the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards found in 49 CFR Part
541, a theft prevention certification label must be installed on the
vehicle, and its VIN must be inscribed on fourteen major car parts.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition
described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be
submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will 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. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: October 24, 1994.
William A. Boehly,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-27144 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27143 Hadson Electric, Inc.; Notice of Filing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27143]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER94-1613-000]
Hadson Electric, Inc.; Notice of Filing
October 27, 1994.
Take notice that on September 28, 1994, Hadson Electric, Inc.
submitted for filing additional information requested by staff in the
above-referenced docket.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such
motions or protests should be filed on or before November 7, 1994.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27143 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27142 Yankee Atomic Electric Company, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation Filings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27142]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER92-592-004, et al.]
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, et al.; Electric Rate and
Corporate Regulation Filings
October 26, 1994.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Yankee Atomic Electric Company
[Docket No. ER92-592-004]
Take notice that on October 20, 1994, Yankee Atomic Electric
Company (Yankee), tendered for filing its compliance refund report
pursuant to the Commission's order issued June 15, 1994.
Copies of the tendered filing have been served by Yankee upon the
other parties to the above-captioned proceeding.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
2. Northwest Regional Transmission Association
[Docket No. ER95-19-000]
Take notice that on October 20, 1994, Portland General Electric
Company (PGE) tendered for filing on behalf of itself, Puget Sound
Power & Light Company, City of Tacoma Department of Public Utilities,
Western Montana Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc., Pacific
Northwest Generating Cooperative, and Tenaska Power Services (together,
the Filing Parties) a letter of support for the Northwest Regional
Transmission Association from PacifiCorp.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
3. New England Power Company
[Docket No. ER95-35-000]
Take notice that on October 13, 1994, New England Power Company,
tendered for filing its Interconnection System Study Agreement with
Altresco Lynn Limited Partnership.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
4. The Potomac Edison Company
[Docket No. ER95-39-000]
Take notice that on October 14, 1994, The Potomac Edison Company,
tendered for filing proposed changes in its FERC Electric Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 3. The proposed changes would increase revenues from
jurisdictional sales and service by $3.81 million based on the twelve
month period ending December 31, 1995. The proposed effective date for
the increased rates is January 1, 1995.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the
Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service
Commission, and all parties of record.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
5. Illinois Power Company
[Docket No. ER95-42-000]
Take notice that on October 18, 1994, Illinois Power Company
(Illinois) tendered for filing an Interchange Agreement between
Illinois and Electric Clearinghouse, Inc. (ECI). Illinois states that
the purpose of this agreement is to provide for the buying and selling
of capacity and energy between Illinois and ECI.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
6. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
[Docket Nos. ER95-44-000 and EC95-2-000]
Take notice that on October 18, 1994, New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation (NYSEG), tendered for filing the following: (1) A request
for authorization to sell facilities used for transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce, pursuant to Sec. 203(a) of the Federal
Power Act, and (2) an amendment to its Agreement with Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation (NMPC), designated NYSEG Rate Schedule FERC No. 90,
pursuant to Sec. 203(b) of the Federal Power Act.
The filings concern the sale (the ``Transaction'') of 10.04 miles
of 69 kV electric transmission line and certain related facilities and
property rights to NMPC; and an amendment to a facilities charge
agreement. To the extent necessary, NYSEG requests waiver of the notice
requirements so that the Transaction may take place and the amendment
may become effective in accordance with the terms of the amendment.
Copies of the filing were served upon the Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation and on the Public Service Commission of the State of New
York.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
7. Montaup Electric Company
[Docket No. ER95-45-000]
Take notice that on October 18, 1994, Montaup Electric Company
tendered for filing its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. III,
Unit Sale Tariff and its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. IV,
System Sales and Exchange Tariff. Tariff III provides for sales for
resale of unit capacity and associated energy and Tariff IV provides
for sales for resale of system capacity and associated energy. Tariff
IV also allows a buyer to provide capacity from one of its units.
Montaup requests that the tariffs be allowed to become effective 60
days from to date of filing, on December 18, 1994.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
8. Puget Sound Power & Light Company
[Docket No. ER95-47-000]
Take notice that on October 19, 1994, Puget Sound Power & Light
Company (Puget) tendered for filing, as an initial rate schedule, the
PNW AC Intertie Capacity Ownership Agreement by and between the United
States of America Department of Energy acting by and through the
Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and Puget, together with
exhibits thereto (the Agreement). A copy of the filing was served upon
Bonneville.
Puget states that the Agreement relates to the purchase by Puget of
a certain amount of the transfer capability of Bonneville's PNW AC
Intertie and also provides for Puget to (a) return to Bonneville an
amount of electric energy to compensate Bonneville for transmission
losses and (b) under certain conditions, to permit Bonneville to use
Puget's unused share of the transfer capability of Bonneville's PNW AC
Intertie.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
9. San Diego Gas & Electric Company
[Docket No. ER95-51-000]
Take notice that on October 20, 1994, San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (SDG&E), tendered for filing and acceptance, pursuant to 18 CFR
Sec. 35.12, an Interchange Agreement (Agreement) between SDG&E and the
City of Burbank (Burbank).
SDG&E requests that the Commission allow the Agreement to become
effective on the 2nd day of January, 1995, or at the earliest possible
date.
Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California and Burbank.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
10. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation
[Docket No. ER95-53-000]
Take notice that on October 20, 1994, Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation (CHG&E), tendered for filing, pursuant to 18 CFR
Sec. 35.13, proposed changes in its FERC Rate Schedule No. 3 for
borderline sales to New York State Electric & Gas Corporation. CHG&E is
requesting an effective date of December 21, 1993, for this tariff rate
change. Accordingly, CHG&E has also requested a waiver of Commission's
notice requirements for good cause shown.
CHG&E has sent a copy of this filing to New York State Electric &
Gas Corporation, P.O. Box 3287, Ithaca, NY 14852-3287.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
11. Duke Power Company
[Docket No. ER95-54-000]
Take notice that on October 20, 1994, Duke Power Company (Duke),
filed contract amendments to Rate Schedules contained in Duke's
interchange agreements with South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
(SCE&G) (Duke Rate Schedule FERC No. 293). The purpose of this filing
is to amend the existing Spinning Reserve Service Schedules to lessen
the amount of time one company can obtain emergency capacity from the
other without a demand charge and eliminate those references to
Spinning Reserve which are not consistent with the operating guidelines
of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC).
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
12. Indianapolis Power & Light Company
[Docket No. ER95-55-000]
Take notice that on October 21, 1994, Indianapolis Power & Light
Company (IPL), tendered for filing an initial rate schedule consisting
of the Interconnection Agreement between IPL and the Indiana Municipal
Power Agency.
Copies of this filing were sent to the Indiana Municipal Power
Agency and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
13. Portland General Electric Company
[Docket No. ER95-56-000]
Take notice that on October 21, 1994, Portland General Electric
Company (PGE), tendered for filing a Short-Term Utility Replacement
Energy Agreement between Puget Sound Power & Light Company, Portland
General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, the Washington Water Power
Company, Colockum Transmission Company, Inc., and the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), BPA Contract No. DE-MS79-94BP94427. Copies of
this filing have been served on the parties included in the service
list attached to the filing letter.
The Agreement provides for BPA to sell flow augmentation
replacement energy to PGE. PGE asks that the Commission find that the
Agreement does not need to be filed with the Commission; and in the
alternative, that the Agreement be effective sixty (60) days after the
date of the instant filing, or on the date of acceptance by the
Commission, whichever is sooner.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
14. Southern Company Services, Inc.
[Docket No. ER95-59-000]
Take notice that on October 21, 1994, Southern Company Services,
Inc., acting as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric
and Power Company (the ``Southern Companies''), submitted for filing
Amendment No. 5 to the Intercompany Interchange Contracted dated
October 31, 1988. In addition, Southern Companies have filed amendments
to certain unit power and interchange agreements between Southern
Companies and Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Power Corporation,
Jacksonville Electric Authority, the City of Tallahassee, Florida,
South Carolina Public Service Authority, Duke Power Company, Cajun
Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., and Gulf States Utilities Company,
respectively. Southern Companies also have informed the Commission of a
proposed change in practice under Southern Companies' interchange
contracts with Tennessee Valley Authority, Mississippi Power & Light
Company, and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. The purpose of this
filing is to declare changes in practice and to amend energy rates
contained in the foregoing agreements to reflect the energy-related
costs incurred by Southern Companies to ensure compliance with the
Phase I sulfur dioxide emissions limitations of the Clean Air Act
Amendment of 1990.
Comment date: November 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
15. Goal Line, L.P.
[Docket Nos. QF92-179-002 and EL95-6-000]
Take notice that on October 18, 1994, Goal Line, L.P. (Goal Line),
tendered for filing a request for limited waiver of the Commission's
Regulations under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA). Goal Line requests the Commission to temporarily waive the
operating and efficiency standards for qualifying cogeneration
facilities as set forth in Sec. 292.205 of the Commission's
Regulations, implementing Section 201 of PURPA, as amended, 18 CFR
292.205, with respect to its 49.8 MW cogeneration facility located in
Escondido, California. Specifically, Goal Line requests waiver of the
operating and efficiency standards for the calendar year 1994.
Comment date: Thirty days from the date of publication in the
Federal Register, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of
this notice.
16. Tenaska IV Texas Partners, Ltd.,
[Docket No. QF94-84-002]
On October 20, 1994, Tenaska IV Texas Partners, Ltd., (Applicant),
of 1044 North 115 Street, Suite 400, Omaha, Nebraska 68154, submitted
for filing an application for certification of a facility as a
qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to Sec. 292.207(b) of the
Commission's Regulations. No determination has been made that the
submittal constitutes a complete filing.
According to the applicant, the topping-cycle cogeneration facility
will be located in Cleburne, Texas, and will consist of a combustion
turbine generator, a heat recovery boiler equipped with duct burning,
and an extraction/condensing steam turbine generator. Steam recovered
from the facility will be used by the applicant for the manufacturing
of distill water for sale to a third party. The primary energy source
will be natural gas. The maximum net electric power production capacity
of the facility will be 284 MW. Construction of the facility is
scheduled to begin in April, 1995.
Comment date: Thirty days from the date published in the Federal
Register, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this
notice.
17. The Wisconsin Public Power Incorporated System
[Docket No. TX95-2-000]
Take notice that on October 17, 1994, The Wisconsin Public Power
Incorporated System (WPPI) tendered for filing an application
requesting that the Commission order Wisconsin Electric Power Company
(WEPCO), Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WP&L), and Wisconsin Public
Service Corporation (WPS) jointly, joint network tariff to provide
network transmission services on a joint, single-system basis to WPPI.
The application was filed pursuant to Section 211 of the Federal Power
Act, as amended by Energy Policy Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 824j).
In its application, WPPI requests that network service be provided
commencing on May 1, 1995, and continuing on a long-term basis
thereafter. The total transmission capacity requested would be
sufficient for WPPI to integrate its load in eastern Wisconsin (now
approximately 482 MW) with WPPI's resources. The service requested is
network service over the integrated transmission grid of the EWU. The
service requested includes both long and short-term firm and non-firm
use, comparable in all respects to the EWU's use of the EWU grid. WPPI
seeks services that will allow it, subject to existing power purchase
contracts, (i) to schedule power and energy from a variety of sources
within and outside of the EWU grid to WPPI's loads within the control
areas of WP&L, WEPCO and WPS on an economic dispatch basis and in
response to planned and unplanned outages and (ii) to engage in
coordination purchases and sales using the EWU grid in the same manner
as the owners of that grid schedule their power and energy
transactions. The service would be costed on single-system basis for
the EWU, with one joint rate for use of the integrated transmission
system of three utilities. Revenues would be shared by the EWU. WPPI
also requested that the EWU unbundle their transmission services from
power sales services.
Copies of the application have been served upon the affected
parties, WEPCO, WP&L, WPS, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,
and upon Madison Gas & Electric Company.
Comment date: November 9, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
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 become a party must
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27142 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27141 Concerning Issuance of Powers of Attorney
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27141]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Concerning Issuance of Powers of Attorney
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
ACTION: Public notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In order to facilitate the discharge of its responsibilities
as a conservator and liquidator of insured depository institutions, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) publishes the following
notice. The publication of this notice is intended to comply with Title
16, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Statutes (16 O.S. 20) which, in part,
declares Federal agencies that publish notices in the Federal Register
concerning their promulgation of powers of attorney, to be exempt from
the statutory requirement of having to record such powers of attorney
in every county in which the agencies wish to effect the conveyance or
release of interests in land.
Notice
Purusant to Section 11 of the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act
(12 U.S.C. 1821), as amended by Section 212 of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA),
the FDIC is empowered to act as conservator or receiver of any state or
federally chartered depository institution which it insures.
Furthermore, under Section 11A of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1821a), as
enacted under Section 215 of FIRREA, the FDIC is also appointed to
manage the FSLIC Resolution Fund.
Upon appointment as a conservator or receiver, the FDIC by
operation of law becomes successor in title to the assets of the
depository institutions on behalf of which it is appointed. As a
Manager of the FSLIC Resolution Fund, the FDIC became successor in
title to both the corporate assets formerly owned by the now defunct
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), as well as to
the assets of the depository institutions for which the FSLIC was
appointed receiver prior to January 1, 1989. In addition, pursuant to
Section 13(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1823(c)), the FDIC also
acquires legal title in its corporate capacity to assets acquired in
furtherance of providing monetary assistance to prevent the closing of
insured depository institutions or to expedite the acquisition by
assuming depository institutions of assets and liabilities from closed
depository institutions of which the FDIC is receiver.
In order to facilitate the conservation and liquidation of assets
held by the FDIC in its aforementioned capacities, the FDIC has
provided powers of attorney to selected employees of its Southwest
Service Center Office. These employees include: Jeffrey C. Conwell,
Lawrence O. Greer, John Sears, Tommy K. Sears and John Vernon.
Each employee to whom a power of attorney has been issued is
authorized and empowered to: Sign, seal and deliver as the act and deed
of the FDIC any instrument in writing, and to do every other thing
necessary and proper for the collection and recovery of any and all
monies and properties of every kind and nature whatsoever for and on
behalf of the FDIC and to give proper receipts and acquittances
therefor in the name and on behalf of the FDIC; release, discharge or
assign any and all judgments, mortgages on real estate or personal
property (including the release and discharge of the same of record in
the office of any Prothonotary or Register of Deeds wherever located
where payments on account of the same in redemption or otherwise may
have been made by the debtor(s)), and to endorse receipt of such
payment upon the records in any appropriate public office; receipt,
collect and give all proper acquittances for any other sums of money
owing to the FDIC for any acquired asset which the attorney-in-fact may
sell or dispose of; execute any and all transfers and assignments as
may be necessary to assign any securities or other choses in action;
sign, seal, acknowledge and deliver any and all agreements as shall be
deemed necessary or proper by the attorney-in-fact in the care and
management of acquired assets; sign, seal, acknowledge and delivery
indemnity agreements and surety bonds in the name of and on behalf of
the FDIC; sign receipts for the payment of all rents and profits due or
to become due on acquired assets; execute, acknowledge and deliver
deeds of real property in the name of the FDIC; extend, postpone,
release and satisfy or take such other action regarding any mortgage
lien held in the name of the FDIC; execute, acknowledge and deliver in
the name of the FDIC a power or attorney wherever necessary or required
by law to any attorney employed by the FDIC; foreclosed any mortgage or
other lien on either real or personal property, wherever located; do
and perform every act necessary for the use, liquidation or collection
of acquired assets held in the name of the FDIC; and sign, seal,
acknowledge and deliver any and all documents as may be necessary to
settle any action(s) or claim(s) asserted against the FDIC, either in
its Receivership or Corporate capacity, or as Manager of the FSLIC
Resolution Fund.
Dated: October 28, 1994.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27141 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27138 Public Information Collection Approved by Office of Management and Budget
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27138]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Public Information Collection Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
October 26, 1994.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public
information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
Pub. L. 96-511. For further information contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal
Communications Commission, (202) 418-1379.
Federal Communications Commission
OMB Control No.: 3060-0621
Title: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act,
Competitive Bidding, Fifth Report and Order, PP Docket No. 93-253.
Expiration Date: 10/31/97.
Estimated Annual Burden: 56,922 total hours; .50-20 hours per
response; 10-12,000 respondents.
Description: In the Fifth Report and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253,
the Commission has amended 47 CFR Part 24 to add new Subparts H and I.
Subpart H contains the general rules and requirements governing the
competitive bidding process for broadband PCS initial licenses. Subpart
I contains the general rules and requirements for processing
applications. Applicants are required to file certain information so
that the Commission can determine whether the applicants are legally,
technically and financially qualified to be licensed and to determine
whether applicants claiming designated entity status are entitled to
certain benefits. Affected public are any member of the public who
wants to become or remain a licensee.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27138 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27130 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27130]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 69th
meeting on November 10, 1994, in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the
exception of a portion that may be closed to discuss information the
release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows;
Thursday, November 10, 1994--8:30 A.M. until 6:00 P.M.
During this meeting the Committee plans to consider the following:
A. Meet with the Commission--The Committee will talk with the
Commission about ACNW reports on:
The Department of Energy's Proposed Program Approach in
the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program.
The NRC staff's Research Program in the Area of High-Level
Radioactive Waste.
The NRC staff's Capability in Nuclear Waste Disposal
Facility Performance Assessment,
and will discuss other items raised by Commissioners during the
meeting.
B. Meet with the Director, Division of Waste Management, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards--The Director will provide
information to the Committee on current waste management issues.
C. Low-Level Waste Research--Representatives of the NRC
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) will provide information on
NRC staff user needs in the area of low-level radioactive waste (LLW)
research. Topics may include the status of the LLW RES Program Plan
(NUREG-1380) and the status of the current user need statement. Other
LLW research issues may be considered.
D. Preparation of ACNW Reports--The Committee will consider
preparation of ACNW reports on:
The Uses and Limitations of Groundwater Dating Methods,
NRC Research in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Area,
Substantially Complete Containment and the Feasibility for
Trade Offs,
LLW Disposal Site Ownership,
among other issues raised during this and previous meetings.
E. Committee Activities/Future Agenda--The Committee will consider
topics proposed for future consideration by the full Committee and
working groups. The Committee will also discuss organizational and
personnel matters related to ACNW members and ACNW staff. A portion of
this session may be closed to public attendance to discuss information
the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
F. Miscellaneous--Discuss miscellaneous matters related to the
conduct of Committee activities and organizational activities and
complete discussion of matters and specific issues that were not
completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of
information permit.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings
were published in the Federal Register on October 7, 1994 (59 FR
51219). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements
may be presented by members of the public, electronic recordings will
be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to
the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the
Committee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral
statements should notify the ACNW Executive Director, Dr. John T.
Larkins, as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate
arrangements can be made to allow the necessary time during the meeting
for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television
cameras during this meeting may be limited to selected portions of the
meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the
time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the
ACNW Executive Director prior to the meeting. In view of the
possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the
Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons
planning to attend should check with the ACNW Executive Director if
such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the
meeting has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the ACNW Executive
Director, Dr. John T. Larkins (telephone 301/415-7360), between 7:30
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST.
Dated: October 27, 1994.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-27130 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27129 Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point Unit Nos. 3 and 4; Notice of Partial Denial of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27129]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251]
Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point Unit Nos. 3 and 4;
Notice of Partial Denial of Amendment to Facility Operating License and
Opportunity for Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a portion
of an amendment request by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or
the licensee) for an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-
31 and DPR-41, issued to the licensee for operation of the Turkey Point
Plant, Units 3 and 4, located in Dade County, Florida. Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of this amendment was published in the
Federal Register on March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14889).
The purpose of the licensee's amendment request was to revise the
Technical Specification (TS) to delete the frequencies from the audits
performed under the cognizance of the Company Nuclear Review Board
(CNRB) and remove the audit of the emergency and security plans and
implementing procedures from TS. The audits would be performed at the
frequency specified in the FPL Topical Quality Assurance Report (TQAR).
Some audits would be performed less frequently (biennial rather than
annual in most cases).
The NRC staff has concluded that the portion of the licensee's
request regarding audits of the Fire Protection Program cannot be
granted for the reasons stated in letter dated October 26, 1994. The
licensee was notified of the Commission's denial of the proposed change
by letter dated October 26, 1994.
By December 2, 1994, the licensee may demand a hearing with respect
to the denial described above. Any person affected by this proceeding
may file a written petition for leave to intervene.
A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be
filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the
above date. A copy of any petitions should also be sent to the office
of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, and to Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman and Holtzinger, P.C.,
1615 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the
application for amendments dated February 18, 1994, as supplemented by
letter dated August 5, 1994, and (2) the Commission's letter to the
licensee dated October 26, 1994. These documents are available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the Florida
International University, University Park, Miami, Florida 33199. A copy
of Item (2) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Document
Control Desk.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of October, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mohan C. Thadani,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27129 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27127 Proposed Generic Letter Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for an Internal Threat
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27127]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Proposed Generic Letter Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant
Security Requirements for an Internal Threat
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity of public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue
a generic letter to notify all holders of operating licenses or
construction permits for nuclear power reactors that NRC is
reconsidering its positions about certain security measures to protect
against an internal threat at nuclear power plants. NRC expects
recipients to review the information for applicability to their
facilities and consider actions, as appropriate. However, suggestions
contained in this draft generic letter are not NRC requirements;
therefore, recipients are not required to take specific action or make
a written response to the NRC. NRC is seeking comment from interested
parties regarding both the technical and regulatory aspects of the
proposed generic letter presented herein.
NRC will consider comments received from interested parties in the
final evaluation of the proposed generic letter and will review the
technical position and, when appropriate, analyze the value/impact on
licensees. If NRC issues this generic letter, it will become available
for public inspection in the Public Document Rooms.
The comment period expires December 2, 1994. Comments submitted
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be given except for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules Review and
Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Written comments may also be delivered to 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Federal
workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the
NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington,
DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert F. Skelton, (301) 504-3208.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
NRC Generic Letter XXXX: Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant
Requirements Associated With an Internal Threat.
Addressees
All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for
nuclear power reactors.
Purpose
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this
generic letter to notify you that it is reconsidering its positions
concerning certain security measures to protect against an internal
threat at nuclear power plants. It is expected that recipients will
review the information for applicability to their facilities and
consider actions, as appropriate. However, suggestions contained in
this generic letter are not NRC requirements; therefore, no specific
action or written response is required.
Background
The fitness-for-duty rule (10 CFR Part 26) published on June 7,
1989, required power reactor licensees to implement fitness-for-duty
programs. The access authorization rule (10 CFR 73.56) published on
April 25, 1991, required power reactor licensees to implement access
authorization programs. One objective of these regulations was to
ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of persons granted
unescorted access to protected areas at power reactor facilities. In
light of these regulations, the NRC evaluated security requirements for
protection against the insider threat at nuclear power plants to verify
that they remain appropriate. The staff discussed the initial results
of this review in SECY 92-272, ``Re-examination of Nuclear Power Plant
Security Requirements Associated With the Internal Threat,'' of August
4, 1992. The staff then recommended reducing or eliminating certain
security requirements that gave marginal protection against the insider
threat.
The Commission reviewed SECY 92-292 and asked the staff to re-visit
the subject and explore alternatives for allowing reductions in
unnecessary or marginally effective security measures. The staff
discussed the results of this re-evaluation in SECY 93-326,
``Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements
Associated with an Internal Threat,'' December 2, 1993.
Description of Circumstances
In a staff requirements memorandum of February 18, 1994, the
Commission endorsed staff recommendations to (1) issue generic
correspondence informing licensees of the opportunity to revise certain
commitments in their security plan and (2) proceed with rulemaking
regarding specific changes to reduce or eliminate certain security
requirements. This generic letter discusses those areas in which
licensees may choose to revise their plans.
Discussion
NRC may accept changes to a licensee security plan in the following
four areas:
(I) Vital Area Access Control Measures
NRC may accept the changes to vital area (VA) access control
measures in security plans discussed below upon confirmation that (1)
certain other site-specific measures are in place or will be
implemented to demonstrate (e.g., through contingency drills) a
capability, including a protective strategy, to protect against an
external adversary after making any of the changes and (2) measures are
in place to examine hand-carried packages for explosives using
equipment specifically designed for that purpose.
A. Compensatory Measures
1. Eliminate compensatory measures for failure of vital area
mechanical lock hardware if the access control hardware and alarms are
operable.
2. Extend the timeliness requirements for implementing compensatory
measures for any malfunctioning element of the vital area access
control system from 10 minutes to a period similar to that which
technical specifications permit for safety equipment to be out of
service while the plant is in Mode 1 until required to be in Mode 3.
The licensee could extend the time to implement compensatory
measures only if either the VA door lock or alarms are operable. The
most restrictive limiting condition for the timeliness of the
compensatory measure(s) would be the most restrictive safety equipment
in the vital areas accessed by the VA door needing compensatory
measures.
B. Maintenance of Discrete Vital Area Access Lists
Eliminate separate access authorization lists for each vital area
of the facility. As an alternative, maintain a single list of persons
who have access to any vital area. This list would have to be revised
as status of persons changes in order to maintain its accuracy,
especially for removing vital area access authorization from
individuals.
C. Alarm Response
Modify the response to vital area access control alarms (doors).
Response would only be needed to vital area access control alarms that
coincide with an unresolved alarm at the protected area perimeter, a
known intrusion, or a constant alarm, such as that caused by an open
door.
D. Locked Condition of Door
Although locking mechanisms and access control systems, including
door alarms, would be retained, doors to vital areas could be left
unlocked. A licensee choosing this option would be expected to have the
capability to remotely lock the door(s) from both alarm stations, as
necessary, in response to an external threat. Licensees choosing this
option would be expected to demonstrate, as part of the demonstration
of their capability to protect against an external adversary, the
ability to remotely lock doors in time to delay the adversary where
delay was essential in the protective strategy. Access control systems
retained on vital area doors would continue to maintain a record of
personnel access and generate alarms if the door was open without a
proper access.
The process for licensees to revise their security plans to
implement the changes to security measures in vital areas will depend
on the content of their present security plans. Since these changes
would reduce slightly the effectiveness of the security program, most
changes would need to be processed in accordance with the provisions of
10 CFR 50.90. Some of the changes may be processed by an exemption
request or in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p). If appropriate, changes
in security plans should include commitments to the measures described
in paragraph (I) above. To ensure unrestricted emergency access, the
NRC staff notes the advantages of (1) having the ability to remotely
unlock doors to vital areas from each alarm station, (2) ensuring that
malfunctions result in doors failing unlocked rather than locked, and
(3) allowing all operators and auxiliary operators to carry metal keys
that can override keycard-operated lock mechanisms.
(II) Access Search of On-duty Armed Security Guards
NRC may accept changes to allow armed security officers who (1) are
on duty and carry a weapon in accordance with assigned duties, (2) have
already been searched during their current shift, and (3) have left the
protected area on official business, to reenter the protected area
without being subject to the metal detector searches (but still be
subjected to explosive searches). If search equipment is a single unit
containing both metal and explosive detection equipment, alarms from
the metal detector may be disregarded. This change could be made to
security plans in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p).
(III) Containment Access Control Measures
NRC may accept changes to allow persons other than security
personnel, provided they are appropriately trained in access control
procedures in accordance with the security plan, to control access for
personnel and materials entering the containment any time frequent
access is permitted to the containment. This change could be made to
security plans in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p).
(IV) Alternative Measures for Control of Security Badges
NRC may accept changes to allow for alternative approaches for
accountability of picture badges used for unescorted access so that
certain types of badges may be taken outside the protected area.
Alternative approaches need to include the ability to ensure positive
identification of individuals upon entry to the protected area and to
ensure the badge is disabled of its access function when taken out of
the protected area. For employees, such changes can be made under 10
CFR 50.54(p) because the regulations currently allow licensee employees
to take badges off site. Changes to security plans to allow contractors
to take security picture badges off site would require a request for
exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5). Coincident with
receiving approval of the exemption request, the licensee would be able
to implement the change in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p).
This generic letter requires no specific action or written
response.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian K. Grimes,
Director, Division of Project Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 94-27127 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27125 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Implementation Plan Workshop
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27125]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Implementation Plan Workshop
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will conduct a public
workshop on December 2, 1994, to discuss the Commission's Probabilistic
Risk Assessment (PRA) Implementation Plan. The PRA Implementation Plan
was developed to ensure that the increased use of PRA methods and
technology in nuclear regulatory activities would be implemented in a
consistent and predictable manner that promotes regulatory stability
and efficiency. The purpose of the workshop is to inform the public of
NRC activities related to increasing the use of PRA methods and
techniques in regulatory applications and receive public comments on
these activities. The principal focus of this workshop will be PRA
applications for commercial power reactors and while the NRC
presentations will be broad in nature, NRC staff representatives will
be present to address specific areas of concern or specific line items
in the PRA Implementation Plan.
DATES: November 28, 1994--Advance notification of intent to attend the
workshop, desire to comment or make a presentation during the workshop,
or both, is requested by the NRC. Participants are encouraged to submit
written comments, presentation summaries, or both to the staff by this
date.
December 2, 1994--The workshop will be held at the NRC Auditorium
from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
January 20, 1995--All written comments on matters covered by the
workshop received by this date will be considered by the staff. Written
comments received after January 20, 1995, will be considered to the
extent practical.
Written comments on the PRA Implementation Plan will be accepted
before, during, and after the workshop. Advance comments, which could
serve to enhance the effectiveness of the workshop are particularly
solicited.
ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held in the NRC Auditorium. The NRC
Auditorium is located on an underground level between the One White
Flint North Building and the Two White Flint North Building at 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC buildings are
located across from the entrance to the White Flint Metro Station.
Notification of intent to attend, desire to make a statement or
presentation should be sent to Thomas G. Hiltz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-11-F-23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. These notifications can also be
transmitted via facsimile or telephone. The facsimile number is (301)
504-2279 and the telephone number is (301) 504-1105. The facsimile
cover sheet should contain the address information listed above.\1\
\1\Letter or facsimile notifications should contain, and people
giving notification via telephone should be prepared to provide, the
following pre-registration information: full name of participants/
attendees, name of organization or business, mailing address,
daytime telephone, facsimile number, a statement concerning whether
the person or organization will provide comments or a presentation
during the workshop, a statement concerning whether the person or
organization intents to provide written comments before or after the
workshop, and any specific questions or comments that the
participant or organization would like to be considered and/or
addressed at the workshop.
Copies of documents cited in the supplementary Information section
are available for inspection and/or for reproduction for a fee in the
NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington,
DC 20037. Copies of NUREGs cited in this document may be purchased from
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O.
Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available for
purchase from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
In addition, copies of the following documents can be obtained
electronically by accessing the NRC electronic bulletin board system
(BBS) Tech Specs Plus:
(1) SECY-94-218, ``Proposed Policy Statement on the Use of
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory
Activities'';
(2) SECY-94-219, ``Proposed Agency-Wide Implementation Plan for
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)'';
(3) the Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of
September 13, 1994 concerning the August 30, 1994 Commission meeting;
and
(4) the Commission's SRM of October 4, 1994 on SECY-94-218.
These four WordPerfect 5.1 documents are located in the BBS MISC
library directory under the single filename ``PRAPLAN.ZIP''. The BBS
operates 24 hours a day and can be accessed through a toll-free number,
1-800-679-5784, at modem speeds up to 9600 baud with communication
parameters set at 8 data bits, no parity, 1 stop bit, full duplex, and
using ANSI terminal emulation.
Written comments may be sent to the Chief, Rules Review and
Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
Hand-deliver comments to Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal
workdays.
Copies of comments received and relevant reference documents may be
examined at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower
Level), Washington, DC, between the hours of 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on
Federal workdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas G. Hiltz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop OWFN 11-F-23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 504-1105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
II. Tentative Agenda.
III. Workshop Content and Structure.
I. Background
The Proposed PRA Policy Statement
To establish top-level guidance on the use of PRA in nuclear
regulatory activities and aid in development of a detailed PRA
Implementation Plan, the NRC staff proposed a policy statement
regarding the use of PRA in regulatory activities. The policy statement
would articulate the Commission's position on the role of PRA in
various regulatory programs and would communicate that position to the
NRC staff, the public, licensees, and applicants for licenses.
The NRC staff discussed its recommendations for a PRA policy
statement in SECY-94-218, ``Proposed Policy Statement on the Use of
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory
Activities.'' In SECY-94-218, the staff stated that an overall policy
on the use of PRA in nuclear regulatory activities should be
established so that the many potential applications of PRA can be
implemented in a consistent and predictable manner that promotes
regulatory stability and efficiency. In addition, the staff stated that
the use of PRA technology in NRC regulatory activities should be
increased. The increased use of PRA methods and technology is intended
to complement and enhance deterministic-based regulations by using PRA
technology in activities where methods and data are well understood.
The staff believes the increased use of PRA technology would lead to
improved risk-effective safety decisions and more focused and efficient
use of NRC staff and industry resources.
The Commission concludes that increased use of PRA techniques as an
integral part of the regulatory decision-making process is now
justified. Consequently, the Commission has proposed a policy to
encourage the use of PRA and to expand the scope of PRA applications in
nuclear regulatory matters to the extent supported by the state-of-the-
art methods and data. An important aspect of the expanded use of PRA
technology would be a strengthening of NRC's defense-in-depth
philosophy by helping to identify and address weaknesses or overly
conservative regulatory requirements for the physical and functional
barriers. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum of October 4, 1994, the
Commission directed the staff to revise the proposed policy statement
and publish the proposed policy statement for public comment. The
proposed PRA Policy Statement is scheduled to be published in the
Federal Register in November 1994 for a 60-day public comment period.
The PRA Implementation Plan
The PRA Implementation Plan was developed in parallel with the
Proposed PRA Policy Statement to ensure that the increased use of PRA
methods and technology in nuclear regulatory activities would be
implemented in a consistent and predictable manner that promotes
regulatory stability and efficiency. This PRA Implementation Plan is a
``living'' document that provides the framework for NRC management
oversight of the use of PRA methods and technology in regulatory
activities.
As previously discussed, PRA methods have been applied successfully
in numerous nuclear regulatory activities and have proven to be a
valuable complement to deterministic engineering approaches. However,
the increased use of PRA in nuclear regulatory activities has broad
implications and could result in changes in many areas associated with
our current regulatory framework. These areas, considered by the staff
in developing the draft PRA Implementation Plan, may include: Changes
to regulations, guidance documents and inspection programs, a
substantial shift in staff resources including recruiting and training
programs to provide the necessary PRA expertise, an increased emphasis
on continued development of PRA methods and decision-making tools, and
enhanced reliability data collection. As discussed in SECY-94-218, the
expanded use of PRA in nuclear regulatory activities may raise
additional policy, technical, and legal issues that will be considered
in subsequent modifications to the PRA Implementation Plan.
Principal Issues Related to Increasing Use of Risk Assessment
Four principal issues associated with applying risk assessment
methods and techniques to regulatory applications are highlighted in
the PRA Implementation Plan. These issues included development of
regulatory decision-making criteria, collection and analysis of
equipment and human performance data, development and use of consistent
PRA models and methods, and development of a systemic PRA training
program.
To ensure consistent and appropriate decision-making that
incorporates PRA methods and results, it is crucial that coherent and
clear criteria are applied. As part of this plan, decision criteria
will be established that address the interdependence of probabilistic
risk and deterministic engineering principles. The process of
developing these criteria will involve communications among the NRC,
the nuclear industry, and the public to ensure an understanding by all
parties of the role of PRA methods and results in NRC's risk management
efforts.
The NRC staff uses equipment performance data in the conduct of
PRAs, reliability analyses, component failure studies, plant aging
studies, identification and resolution of generic issues, preparation
for inspections, and reviews of technical specifications change
requests. For these purposes, the staff uses generic data supplemented
with a limited amount of plant-specific data. The use of the generic
data can be problematic because the data have not been verified or
updated and do not differentiate between plant-to-plant variations in
performance or changes in performance as reactor plants age. The ad hoc
collection of plant-specific data is costly and inefficient.
The availability of human performance data is even more
problematic. One reason is the lack of established and accepted human
performance analysis methods and models upon which to base the
collection of human performance data. This is particularly important in
the analysis of operator performance in response to events during which
both acts of omission and commission may occur. Human reliability
methods and data are currently the focus of research and limited
evaluations of human performance issues raised by analysis of operating
reactor events.
As the NRC and the nuclear reactor industry move toward greater use
of PRA, the need for better data on human performance, plant-specific
safety system availability data (at the system train level), and
equipment reliability data will be required to continue to increase the
role of PRA in the regulatory decision-making process. Increased
availability of data on equipment and human performance is very
important to implementing many risk-based regulation initiatives. For
example, this information is essential for implementing the maintenance
rule and in supporting the development of risk-based technical
specifications.
The NRC staff recognizes the need to collect equipment and human
performance data. This information, derived largely from operating
experience, will continue to provide a source of credible performance
data for NRC use in the regulatory process.
The NRC PRA Working Group identified the need for the development
and use of consistent PRA models and methods. Several tasks that are
now being undertaken include the development of more user-friendly
computer interfaces; the development of low-power and shutdown models,
external events models, and Level 2/3 PRA models compatible with the
needs of NRC events assessment staff; and the development of methods
for consistently identifying the appropriate detailed PRA model for use
in the analysis of individual events or issues.
It is important to note that not all of the NRC's risk management
activities lend themselves to a risk analysis approach that uses a
probabilistic, fault free methodology. The NRC recognizes that a single
approach to risk management is not appropriate. As part of the PRA
Implementation Plan the NRC will develop and validate risk assessment
models and methods.
Another issue is the training of the staff who will not be directly
working with PRA methods. As the NRC shifts to grater use of, and
reliance on, PRA methods and risk-based regulation, all technical staff
members, including inspectors, will need to develop an understanding of
the strengths and weaknesses of PRA methods and their use. The PRA
Implementation Plan includes an extensive training program. This
training program is based on the systems approach to training, which
includes completing job task analyses, developing learning objectives,
developing and delivering courses, evaluating trainee mastery of
objectives, and modifying the PRA training program as necessary.
Because the number of NRC staff members who will need training is
large, a large resource commitment over the next several years will be
required.
The PRA Implementation Plan will require users and developers of
the new methods to have significant experience in PRA methods and
statistics. It will take time for these staff members to gain the
necessary experience. Some of the knowledge and skills needed to do
this work can be obtained though traditional training. However, on-the-
job training, classroom instruction, and industrial experience will be
needed in order to acquire some of the required knowledge and
experience. Recruiting of outside experts and intensified development
of current staff members will likely be necessary to gain this staff
experience. This process will take several years to accomplish and will
be a major factor in the success of the PRA Implementation Plan and in
establishing the pace of its implementation.
II. Tentative Agenda
December 2, 1994
7:30 am Registration
8:30 am Introduction
8:45 am PRA Policy Statement Overview (NRC)
9:15 am Implementation Plan Overview (NRC)
10:00 am Break
10:15 am Industry Interactions (NRC/Industry)
11:45 am Lunch
1:00 pm Participant Presentations/Panel Discussion in Response to
Participant Comments
2:45 pm Break
3:00 pm Participant Presentations/Panel Discussion in Response to
Participant Comments (cont'd)
4:00 pm Summary and Conclusions
4:30 pm Adjourn
III. Workshop Content and Structure
The workshop is structured to include NRC staff presentations
during the morning and to allow interested parties to make
presentations during the afternoon. An opportunity for questions and
comments following presentations is planned.
In the afternoon session, participants will be allowed to express
their views and make presentations. Participants who will be making
presentations will be scheduled in the order in which they notified the
staff of their intention to make a presentation. Comments will be taken
from parties in the order in which they notified the staff of their
intent to comment. The order of comment will be:
(1) Parties who notified the staff by November 28, 1994;
(2) Parties registering to comment before 8:30 a.m. the day of the
workshop; and
(3) Parties who have not given prior notice.
Organizations that notify the staff by November 28, 1994, of their
intent to give a presentation will be limited to 20 minutes. Otherwise
organization and individual presentations and comments will be limited
to 5 minutes. These time limits may be adjusted depending on the number
of presentations and comments. The workshop will be transcribed, and
the transcript will be available in the NRC Public Document Room.
To foster meaningful discussions during this session and to aid
participants in preparing their presentations and comments,
participants should consider the following set of questions:
What additional areas should be considered regarding the
increased use of PRA in regulatory applications?
What areas currently in the PRA Implementation Plan
require additional emphasis? What areas are emphasized too much?
Is the overall impact of the PRA Policy Statement on
regulatory activities clearly evident by the activities in the PRA
Implementation Plan?
What impact will the PRA Policy Statement and the PRA
Implementation Plan have on those organizations that the NRC regulates?
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of October 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Edward J. Butcher,
Chief, Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27125 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27123 Privacy Act of 1974 DOT/ALL 10 Debt Collection File
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27123]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Privacy Act of 1974 DOT/ALL 10 Debt Collection File
The Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to add a new record
system to its inventory of systems of records notices.
Any person or agency may submit written comments on the proposed
system to the Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, B-
30, Attn: Steve Swanson, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments to be considered must be received by December 6, 1994.
If no comments are received, the proposed system will become
effective on the above mentioned date. If comments are received, the
comments will be considered and where adopted, the document will be
republished with the change.
Issued in Washington, DC, October 24, 1994.
Jon H. Seymour,
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Narrative Statement for the Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation proposes to add the
record system, DOT/ALL-10, Debt Collection File. The purpose of the
system is the administrative management and collection of delinquent
debts. The debts include past due loan payments, overpayments, fines,
penalties, fees, damages, interest, leases, sales of real or personal
property, etc., due to the Department of Transportation and debts due
to other Federal departments and agencies that may be referred to the
Department of Transportation for collection to the extent the
Department of Transportation controls funds due the debtor.
The authority for the maintenance of this system is the Federal
Claims Collection Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-508; Debt Collection Act of
1982, Pub. L. 97-365; and Executive Orders 9397 and 11222.
Individuals receiving benefits in the form of salary and/or other
forms of compensation already have disclosed the subject information to
a federal agency; therefore this system presents no undue threat to
privacy rights of individuals.
A description of the steps taken to safeguard these records is
given under the appropriate heading of the Federal Register system of
records notice.
No changes to existing procedural or exemption rules are required
for this proposed new system.
The purpose of this report is to comply with the Office of
Management and Budget Circular, A-130, Appendix I, dated June 25, 1993.
DOT/ALL-10
Debt Collection File
Federal Aviation Administration, General Ledger Branch, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City,
OK 73125.
Persons currently or formerly associated with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) who are financially indebted to the U.S.
Government under some particular service or program of the DOT other
than under a contract. Individuals may include current, retired, or
formerly employed DOT personnel or personnel from other Federal
agencies.
Information varies depending on the individual debtor, and includes
the history of debt collection activity on the individual. Normally,
the name, Social Security Number (SSN), address, amount of debt or
delinquent amount, basis of the debt, date debt arose, office referring
debt, collection efforts, credit reports, debt collection letters and
correspondence to or from the debtor relating to the debt.
Correspondence with employing agencies of debtors or Office of
Personnel Management or Department of Defense, as appropriate,
requesting that action begin to collect the delinquent debt through
voluntary or involuntary offset procedures against the employee's
salary or compensation due a retiree.
Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (Pub.L. 89-508), 31 U.S.C.
Chapter 37, Subchapter I (General), and Subchapter II (Claims of the
United States Government); Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-365);
5 U.S.C. 5514, Installment Deduction for Indebtedness (salary offset);
section 206 of Executive Order 11222; Executive Order 9397; and 49 CFR
part 92, Salary Offset (DOT).
For the administrative management and collection of all delinquent
debts, including past due loan payments, overpayments, fines,
penalties, fees, damages, interest, leases, sales of real or personal
property, etc., due to the DOT and debts due to other Federal
departments and agencies that may be referred to the DOT for collection
to the extent DOT controls funds due the debtor.
This system provides for the implementation of the salary offset
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5514, the administrative offset provisions of 31
U.S.C. 3716 and the provisions of the Federal Claims Collection
Standards (FCCS). It applies to personal rather than contract debts.
Guidance regarding contract debts is contained in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation. Records in this record system are subject to
use in authorized and approved computer matching programs regulated
under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, for debt
collection purposes.
a. To the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Department of
Justice, United States Attorney, or other Federal agencies for further
collection action on any delinquent account when circumstances warrant.
b. To a debt collection agency for the purpose of collection
services to recover monies owed to the U.S. Government under certain
programs or services administered by the DOT.
c. Debtor's name, Social Security Number, the amount of debt, and
the history of the debt may be disclosed to any Federal agency where
the individual debtor is employed or receiving some form of
remuneration for the purpose of enabling that agency to collect a debt
owed the U.S. Government on DOT's behalf by counseling the debtor for
voluntary repayment or by initiating administrative or salary offset
procedures under the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982
(Pub.L. 97-365).
d. To the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by computer matching to
obtain the mailing address of a taxpayer for the purpose of locating
such taxpayer to collect or to compromise a Federal claim by DOT
against the taxpayer pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6103(m)(2) and in accordance
with 31 U.S.C. 3711, 3217, and 3718.
Note: Redisclosure of a mailing address from the IRS may be made
only for the purpose of debt collection, including to a debt
collection agency in order to facilitate the collection or
compromise of a Federal claim under the Debt Collection Act of 1982,
except that a mailing address to a consumer reporting agency is for
the limited purpose of obtaining a commercial credit report on the
particular taxpayer. Any such address information obtained from the
IRS will not be used or shared for any other DOT purpose or
disclosed to another Federal, state, or local agency which seeks to
locate the same individual for its own debt collection purpose.
e. Data base information consisting of debtor's name, Social
Security Number, and amount owed may be disclosed to the Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Department of Defense, the U.S. Postal
Service or to any other Federal, state, or local agency for the purpose
of conducting an authorized computer matching program in compliance
with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, so as to
identify and locate delinquent debtors in order to start a recoupment
process on an individual basis of any debt owed DOT by the debtor
arising out of any administrative or program activities or services
administered by DOT.
f. Disclosure of personal and financial information from this
system on current, retired, or former employees of DOT or U.S. Coast
Guard members may be made to any creditor Federal agency seeking
assistance for the purpose of that agency requesting voluntary
repayment or implementing administrative or salary offset procedures in
the collection of unpaid financial obligations owed the U.S. Government
from an individual affiliated with the DOT. An exception to this
routine use is an individual's mailing address obtained from the IRS
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6103(m)(2).
Disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this
record system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims
Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). The disclosure, once
determined to be valid and overdue, is limited to information necessary
to establish the identity of the individual, including name, address,
and taxpayer identification number (Social Security Number); the
amount, status, and history of the claim; and the agency or program
under which the claim arose for the sole purpose of allowing the
consumer reporting agency to prepare a commercial credit report.
The storage for records on personal computers is kept on floppy
disks. Storage on microcomputers is first downloaded onto a floppy disk
and then locked in a file cabinet. Data kept in paper file folders are
locked in file cabinets.
Records are retrieved by name or Social Security Number.
Computers provide privacy and access limitation by requiring a user
name and password match. These records are available only to those
persons whose official duties require such access. Records are kept in
limited access areas during duty hours and in locked cabinets at all
other times.
Records are disposed of when ten years old except documents needed
for an ongoing investigation in which case the record will be retained
until no longer needed for the investigation. Data tracks on floppy
disks are overwritten a minimum of three times.
Department of Transportation, Director, Office of Financial
Management (B-30), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about
themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries
to the particular DOT operating administration or component in care of
the ``system location'' above. Individual should furnish full name,
Social Security Number, current address and telephone number.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Information in this system of records is obtained from the
individual, creditor agencies, Federal employing agency of debtor,
collection agencies, Federal, state or local agencies furnishing
identifying information and/or address of debtor, as well as other
internal DOT records such as payroll information.
None.
[FR Doc. 94-27123 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27122 Policy Statement on Payment System Risk
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27122]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
[Docket No. R-0806]
Policy Statement on Payment System Risk
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board)
has approved a modification to its Policy Statement on Payment System
Risk regarding net debit caps. Specifically, the Board has approved
that the multiple associated with the de minimis net debit cap be
doubled from 20 to 40 percent of risk-based capital. In addition, the
Board approved administrative counseling flexibility for institutions
that continue to exceed their net debit caps due to the posting of non-
Fedwire transactions. Under this flexibility, the Reserve Banks will
work with affected institutions on means of avoiding daylight
overdrafts, but will not subject these institutions to routine
counseling for daylight overdrafts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 13, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey C. Marquardt, Assistant
Director (202/452-2360), Paul Bettge, Manager (202/452-3174), Division
of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System. For the hearing impaired only,
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), Dorothea Thompson (202/
452-3544).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board has established a Payment System
Risk Policy Statement pursuant to its authority under the Federal
Reserve Act. 12 U.S.C. 221 et seq. In October 1993, the Federal Reserve
implemented a set of intraday posting rules for debits and credits
affecting depository institution accounts with Reserve Banks. The
posting rules provide for the posting of non-Fedwire transactions at
specific times during the day, in addition to the posting of Fedwire
funds and securities transfers as they occur throughout the day. In
contrast, according to the posting rules that were in effect prior to
last October, non-Fedwire payments for each depository institution were
netted and, if a net credit resulted, the amount was posted to the
institution's Federal Reserve account as of the opening of business
and, if a net debit, as of the close of business.
Prior to implementation of the new posting rules, about 200
institutions, on average, exceeded their daylight overdraft caps during
any given two-week reserve maintenance period. Immediately following
implementation of the new posting rules, this number increased to
between 1200 and 1500 institutions per period. In anticipation of this
increase, the Board adopted a ``transition period'' for routine
administrative counseling in order to provide institutions with a
period of time to implement changes to their Federal Reserve account
management procedures in order to reduce the incidence of daylight
overdrafts in excess of daylight overdraft caps. Following nearly one
year of ``transition,'' about 750 to 800 institutions per period still
typically exceed their caps.
The new posting rules were intended, in large part, to support the
assessment of daylight overdraft fees, which began on April 14, 1994.
The posting rules were developed by the Board over a three-year period
and included two separate requests for public comment.
In developing the new posting rules, four general principles were
established. First, the intraday posting rules were designed not to
generate intraday float. The old posting rules typically created
approximately $30 billion in intraday float. Second, the new posting
rules were to permit depository institutions to anticipate precisely
when transactions would be posted to their account. Under the old
posting rules, an institution would not know until after the close of
business whether the net of all non-Fedwire activity was a credit or a
debit and, accordingly, whether the netted amount would be posted as of
the opening or closing of business. Third, the posting rules were
designed to be consistent with the legal rights and responsibilities of
depository institutions. Under this principle, check debits would not
be posted to an institution's account prior to presentment of the
checks. Finally, the new posting rules were intended to be
competitively neutral. That is, neither the Reserve Banks nor private
sector providers of correspondent banking services should be
artificially advantaged by the new posting rules.
Under these principles, the debit to an institution for any payment
is posted at the same time as the credit is posted to the account of
the counterparty to the transaction. The exception to this guideline is
for check transactions where, by virtue of the nature of check
processing, it is not possible to match debits and credits on a
transaction-by-transaction basis throughout the day. In addition,
because checks should not be debited prior to presentment, a single
time for all check debits and credits would necessarily be later in the
day than many depository institutions believed appropriate. Therefore,
debits for checks presented to depository institutions are posted on
the next clock hour at least one hour following presentment, beginning
at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time. Credits for check deposits are either
posted (1) at a single, float-weighted posting time or (2) at multiple
times throughout the day, beginning at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time, using
a set of fractions that are based upon Reserve Bank check collection
experience. For check credits, depository institutions are permitted to
select either option, based upon which alternative best meets their
needs. Currently, the earliest float-weighted posting time (Option 1),
which enables an institution to have full use of check deposit credits,
is 11:45 a.m. Eastern Time.
On average over a day, these check posting rules result in a
minimal amount of intraday check float. At specific points in time
during the day, however, the check posting rules appear to be giving
rise to as much as $20 billion in ``credit float,'' whereby the Reserve
Banks have posted debits to depository institution accounts prior to
providing corresponding credits on check transactions to other
institutions. The impact of this float, and the measured daylight
overdrafts it creates, appears to be falling primarily on smaller
depository institutions.
Under the old posting rules, smaller institutions seldom incurred
significant daylight overdrafts and, thus, were able to make use of the
``exempt from filing'' or ``de minimis'' daylight overdraft caps
without incurring a significant number of cap breaches. Under the new
posting rules, however, on average over four recent reserve maintenance
periods, 600 of the 775 total institutions with daylight overdrafts in
excess of their caps were institutions that had ``exempt from filing''
or ``de minimis'' daylight overdraft caps. An additional 159
institutions with a zero net debit cap had cap breaches.
The ``exempt from filing'' cap permits an institution to incur
daylight overdrafts up to the lesser of $10 million or 20 percent of
risk-based capital. The exempt cap does not require any action by the
board of directors of the depository institution or the filing of any
documentation with its Reserve Bank. As additional flexibility, an
exempt-from-filing institution may incur up to two daylight overdrafts
in two consecutive two-week reserve maintenance periods before it is in
violation of the Board's payments system risk (PSR) policy.1 In
order to incur higher daylight overdrafts, an institution may file a
resolution of its board of directors requesting a de minimis cap, which
permits daylight overdrafts up to 20 percent of risk-based capital. To
be permitted even larger amounts of intraday credit, up to 2.25 times
risk-based capital on a single day, the institution must undertake a
self-assessment of creditworthiness, intraday funds management and
control, and customer credit policies and controls to support a higher
daylight overdraft cap.
\1\For institutions with other net debit cap categories, any
daylight overdraft that exceeds the net debit cap would be subject
to administrative counseling by the Reserve Banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An institution that regularly exceeds its cap is subject to
progressively higher levels of administrative counseling by its Reserve
Bank. Under current guidelines, a depository institution that continues
to exceed its daylight overdraft cap ultimately may be assigned a zero
cap and be placed on the real-time monitor. In this situation, a
depository institution will be prevented from originating Fedwire funds
transfers that would cause, or increase, a daylight overdraft.
The Board's policy on daylight overdraft caps is intended to
address intraday risk to the Federal Reserve arising from daylight
overdrafts. However, most non-Fedwire activity poses primarily
interday, rather than intraday, risk. Escalated counseling, including
real-time monitoring, for non-Fedwire-caused daylight overdrafts may be
of limited usefulness in reducing these overdrafts. In addition, most
of the daylight overdrafts caused by implementation of the new posting
rules would not result in the assessment of daylight overdraft charges,
owing to the deductible permitted in computing such charges.
Current alternatives available to a depository institution to
address the situation where it routinely exceeds its daylight overdraft
cap include: (1) filing for a ``self-assessment'' cap, (2) shifting
funding patterns or delaying the origination of funds transfers, (3)
selecting the ``fractional'' check posting option in order to begin
receiving some check credits earlier than the single, float-weighted
posting time, (4) having check debits posted to the account of a
correspondent bank, or (5) transferring payment processing business to
a private correspondent bank. It should be noted that filing for a
self-assessment cap is an alternative available only to financially
healthy institutions and presents an increased administrative burden to
these institutions. In addition, many of the small institutions
adversely affected by the posting rules have a limited amount of
Fedwire funds transfer activity. Thus adjustments to such Fedwire
activity may have a minimal impact on such institutions' level of
daylight overdrafts. Similarly, a correspondent bank may be unable to
provide funding to respondents earlier in the day without adversely
affecting its own daylight overdraft position.
Alternatives
The Board considered three alternatives to address cap breaches
attributable to the changes in the intraday posting rules for non-
Fedwire activity: (1) increasing the size of the multiples associated
with daylight overdraft net debit caps, (2) adopting, on a permanent
basis, counseling flexibility for daylight overdrafts caused by non-
Fedwire activity, or (3) changing the posting rules. Each of these
alternatives is discussed below.
Caps
The Board analyzed various scenarios to determine whether the level
of exempt-from-filing or de minimis cap categories could be increased
without materially increasing risk to Reserve Banks. An increase in the
exempt-from-filing daylight overdraft cap category would require no
action on the part of a depository institution, with a potentially
substantial percentage increase in intraday credit to be granted to
that depository institution by the Federal Reserve. The Board believes
that any increase in the size of caps, without a self-assessment,
should be made in the de minimis cap, which requires the filing of a
board of directors' resolution. This approach will ensure that senior
bank management and directors are aware of the potential amount of
credit that may be obtained by the depository institution from the
Federal Reserve during the day.
In studying increases in cap levels, the Board was mindful of the
existing structure of cap categories that require a self-assessment.
For example, an ``average'' cap permits daylight overdrafts, on average
over a reserve maintenance period, up to 75 percent of an institution's
risk-based capital. In order not to diminish the relevance of an
``average'' cap, which can be obtained by an institution only after
conducting a full self-assessment, the Board believes the cap multiple
for the de minimis cap should not approach 75 percent.
At a level of 40 percent of risk-based capital, however, between 85
and 90 percent of cap breaches by institutions that currently have
exempt or de minimis caps would be eliminated, assuming certain exempt-
from-filing institutions file a board of directors' resolution adopting
a de minimis cap. Diminishing reductions in cap breaches by
institutions with exempt and de minimis caps are achieved with cap
levels beyond 40 percent, with an associated lessening of the relative
benefits of a self-assessed cap. Cap levels below 40 percent do not
yield a sufficient reduction in cap breaches to warrant any increase at
all in the level of the de minimis cap.
It should be noted that any increase in the size of net debit caps,
in addition to providing capacity to cover current cap breaches caused
by the posting rules, would also increase the intraday capacity for
daylight overdrafts resulting from irrevocable Fedwire funds and book-
entry securities transfers. The Board believes that, for the most part,
institutions with a de minimis net debit cap have a relatively limited
amount of Fedwire activity and an increase in daylight overdraft
capacity will likely not increase significantly the risk exposure of
the Reserve Banks. Moreover, Reserve Banks have special procedures in
place for dealing with risks posed by depository institutions in poor
or deteriorating financial condition. The Board has, therefore,
approved an increase in the multiple associated with the de minimis net
debit cap from 20 percent to 40 percent of risk-based capital.
Counseling
As noted above, the Reserve Banks administratively counsel
depository institutions that exceed their caps. For cap categories
other than the exempt-from-filing category, any daylight overdrafts in
excess of a depository institution's cap are subject to counseling by
the Reserve Banks. For institutions with an exempt cap, however, only
when an institution incurs three or more daylight overdrafts in excess
of its cap within a four-week period would it be subject to counseling.
The Board reviewed this frequency measure to determine whether an
increase may be feasible.
By increasing the number of permissible daylight overdrafts in
excess of the exempt cap from two in two consecutive two-week reserve
maintenance periods to four in two consecutive two-week reserve
maintenance periods, 79 percent of the institutions with exempt-from-
filing caps that had cap breaches would not be subject to counseling by
their Reserve Banks. A significant concern with increasing the
permissible occurrences of cap breaches, however, is that there is
currently no size limitation on the size of those cap breaches. The
Board also believes that increases in the number of non-counselable
daylight overdrafts effectively increases the amount of intraday credit
that may be used by an institution. Should the Federal Reserve decide
to increase the amount of intraday credit to be extended to depository
institutions, the Board believes it would be preferable to identify
such an increase clearly through an increase in the size of a cap,
rather than an increase in the number of permissible excess daylight
overdrafts.
Another approach to minimize the administrative burden of
counseling on both depository institutions and the Reserve Banks is to
exempt daylight overdrafts caused either by check transactions or all
non-Fedwire transactions from counseling. The Board believes, however,
that separate treatment under the PSR policy of different types of
payment transactions is not desirable. For example, daylight overdrafts
caused by book-entry securities transfers and ACH transactions were
initially excluded from counseling under the PSR policy. The Board
decided in 1992 that all transactions should be treated alike for
daylight overdraft measurement purposes. In addition, counseling
institutions for some daylight overdrafts and not for others may lead
to confusion, both within the Reserve Banks and at depository
institutions.
Nonetheless, some degree of counseling flexibility may be
appropriate. As noted above, the Reserve Banks have had in place since
October 1993 a policy of administering daylight overdraft counseling on
a flexible basis, depending upon whether cap breaches were attributable
to the new posting rules. Continued counseling flexibility appears to
be desirable largely in dealing with institutions that have a zero
daylight overdraft net debit cap as well as relatively small
institutions that, by the nature of their business, will continue to
exceed a positive net debit cap even after appropriate adjustments have
been made. These institutions may have few alternatives for eliminating
non-Fedwire daylight overdrafts. The institutions that have zero caps
for reasons related to their financial condition are typically already
on the real-time monitor in reject or pend mode. In addition, in some
cases, zero cap institutions are also required by the Reserve Banks to
prefund certain payments or collateralize any daylight overdrafts.
Routinely counseling such institutions for overdrafts caused by non-
Fedwire transactions lessens the credibility of the daylight overdraft
counseling program and appears to do little to lessen the actual risk
to Reserve Banks. The Board has approved such administrative counseling
flexibility on an on-going basis.
Posting Procedures
Modifications to the intraday posting procedures would be another
way to address the frequency of cap breaches by small depository
institutions. The Board believes any such modifications should be
carefully weighed. The check posting rules were adopted by the Board
following a lengthy process involving two requests for public comment
and many discussions with the banking industry, as noted above. For
example, the principle of the elimination of intraday float for checks
was specifically addressed through public comment in 1989. The new
posting rules have now been in place about one year and it is possible
that institutions may still be adapting to those rules. In addition,
changes to these rules after such a short period of time may impose
unanticipated costs associated with changing computer programs on a
large number of depository institutions.
Further changes to the check posting rules may also lead to the
creation of intraday float. As an example, a scheme whereby check
credits are posted at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time and check debits continue
to be posted on the clock hour at least one hour following presentment
would generate as much as $23 billion in debit float at 11:00 a.m., and
an average of $6 billion in float over the course of the day. However,
even this radical a change to the posting rules would not eliminate a
significant fraction of cap breaches caused by the implementation of
the new posting rules. Many non-Fedwire-caused cap breaches would
continue due to the posting of ACH debit transactions, at 11:00 a.m.
Eastern Time, and net settlement entries from private clearing houses,
as determined by the individual settlement arrangements. Many small
depository institutions may continue to encounter difficulties in
funding these transactions on a timely basis during the day.
Another possible change to the check posting rules would be to
shift the first check debiting time from 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time to
11:00 a.m., Local Time. It was initially believed that such an approach
might make the fractional check crediting option more feasible for many
institutions in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones. Upon
further analysis, however, the Board determined that because of the
later debiting times in western time zones, the corresponding crediting
times would shift later in the day as well, thereby lessening any
positive benefit of the delayed check debits.
A final alternative is to establish a new set of posting rules for
cap administration different from the posting rules for the assessment
of daylight overdraft fees. The Board does not believe such an approach
would be desirable, as it would likely lead to more, rather than less,
of an administrative burden on small institutions and could create a
significant amount of confusion in the banking industry about the focus
of the PSR initiative.
The Board has, therefore, not elected to make any changes to the
established intraday posting procedures at this time.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
October 27, 1994.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-27122 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27120 Center for Mental Health Services; Notice of Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27120]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Center for Mental Health Services; Notice of Meeting
Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting
of the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) National Advisory
Council in December 1994.
The meeting of the CMHS National Advisory Council will focus on
minorities in supervisory positions; information on personnel with
disabilities; children's mental health services sites; prevention;
criminal justice and mental health. In addition there will be an
overview of the Center's programs, and a discussion of administrative
announcements and program developments.
A summary of the meeting and/or a roster of council members may be
obtained from: Gloria Yockelson, Committee Management Officer, CMHS,
Room 18C-07, Parklawn Building, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone
number (301) 443-7919.
Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact
whose name and telephone number is listed below.
Committee Name: Center for Mental Health Services, National
Advisory Council.
Meeting Dates: December 8-9, 1994.
Place: Chevy Chase Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy
Chase, Maryland 20815.
Open: December 8-9, 9:00 a.m.--5:00 p.m.
Contact: Anne Mathews-Younes, Ed.D., Room 11C-26, Parklawn
Building, Telephone (301) 443-3606.
Dated: October 27, 1994.
Peggy W. Cockrill,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-27120 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27116 Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Closed Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27116]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 1994 /
Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Export Administration
Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee;
Notice of Closed Meeting
A meeting of the Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory
Committee will be held December 14, 1994, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C.
Hoover Building, Room 1617M(2), 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. The Committee advises the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical
questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to
materials processing and related technology.
The Committee will meet only in Executive Session to discuss
matters properly classified under Executive Order 12356, dealing with
the U.S. export control program and strategic criteria related thereto.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with concurrence of the
General Counsel, formally determined on January 6, 1994, pursuant to
section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that
the series of meetings of the Committee and of any Subcommittees
thereof, dealing with the classified materials listed in 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(1) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public
meetings found in section 10 (a)(1) and (a)(3), of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The remaining series of meetings or portions thereof
will be open to the public.
A copy of the Notice of Determination to close meetings or portions
of meetings of the Committee is available for public inspection and
copying in the Central Reference and Records Inspection Facility, Room
6020, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. For further
information, contact Lee Ann Carpenter on (202) 482-2583.
Dated: October 27, 1994.
Lee Ann Carpenter,
Director, Technical Advisory Committee Unit.
[FR Doc. 94-27116 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27115 Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Thailand
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27115]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS
Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton, Man-Made Fiber,
Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textile Products Produced or
Manufactured in Thailand
October 27, 1994.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting
limits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1994.
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) 927-6717. 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, for swing and carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel 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 58 FR 62645, published on November 29, 1993). Also see
59 FR 21962, published on April 28, 1994.
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 bilateral agreement, but are designed to assist only in the
implementation of certain of its provisions.
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
October 27, 1994.
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 April 21, 1994, by the Chairman,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That
directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber,
silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products,
produced or manufactured in Thailand and exported during the twelve-
month period which began on January 1, 1994 and extends through
December 31, 1994.
Effective on October 27, 1994, you are directed to amend the
directive dated April 21, 1994 to adjust the limits for the
following categories, as provided under the terms of the current
bilateral agreement between the Governments of the United States and
Thailand:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Adjusted twelve-month limit\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levels in Group I
219................................ 4,768,413 square meters.
313................................ 16,299,054 square meters.
369-D\2\........................... 182,238 kilograms.
369-S\3\........................... 252,483 kilograms.
604................................ 596,327 kilograms of which not more
than 382,316 kilograms shall be in
Category 604-A\4\.
619................................ 5,734,742 square meters.
Sublevels in Group II
334/634............................ 524,881 dozen.
335/635/835........................ 417,213 dozen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported
after December 31, 1993.
\2\Category 369-D: only HTS numbers 6302.60.0010, 6302.91.0005 and
6302.91.0045.
\3\Category 369-S: only HTS number 6307.10.2005.
\4\Category 604-A: only HTS number 5509.32.0000.
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.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 94-27115 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27114 Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Mauritius
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27114]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS
Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber
Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Mauritius
October 27, 1994.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting
limits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Aldrich, 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 limit for Categories 340/640 is being increased for
swing and carryforward. The limit for Categories 341/641 is being
reducing to account for the swing being applied.
A description of the textile and apparel 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 58 FR 62645, published on November 29, 1993). Also see
59 FR 1935, published on January 13, 1994.
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 bilateral agreement, but are designed to assist only in the
implementation of certain of its provisions.
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
October 27, 1994.
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 7, 1994, by the Chairman,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That
directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber,
silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products,
produced or manufactured in Mauritius and exported during the
twelve-month period which began on January 1, 1994 and extends
through December 31, 1994.
Effective on November 3, 1994, you are directed to amend further
the directive dated January 7, 1994 to adjust the limits for the
following categories, as provided under the terms of the current
bilateral agreement between the Governments of the United States and
Mauritius:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Adjusted twelve-month limit\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levels not in a group
340/640............................ 588,000 dozen of which not more
than 319,580 dozen shall be in
Categories 340-Y/640-Y\2\.
341/641............................ 302,631 dozen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported
after December 31, 1993.
\2\Category 340-Y: only HTS numbers 6205.20.2015, 6205.20.2020,
6205.20.2046, 6205.20.2050 and 6205.20.2060; Category 640-Y: only HTS
numbers 6205.30.2010, 6205.30.2020, 6205.30.2050 and 6205.30.2060.
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.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 94-27114 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27113 Business Development Center Applications: Columbia, SC
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27113]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Minority Business Development Agency
Business Development Center Applications: Columbia, SC
AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive Order 11625 and 15 U.S.C. 1512,
the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) is soliciting
competitive applications for its Columbia, South Carolina Minority
Business Development Center (MBDC).
The purpose of the MBDC Program is to provide business development
services to the minority business community to help establish and
maintain viable minority businesses. To this end, MBDA funds
organizations to identify and coordinate public and private sector
resources on behalf of minority individuals and firms; to offer a full
range of client services to minority entrepreneurs; and to serve as a
conduit of information and assistance regarding minority business. the
MBDC will provide service in the Columbia, South Carolina Metropolitan
Area. The award number of the MBDC will be 04-10-95003-01.
DATES: The closing date for applications is December 16, 1994.
Applications must be received in the Atlanta Regional Office on or
before December 16, 1994. A pre-application conference will be held on
November 29, 1994, at 9 a.m., at the Atlanta Regional Office.
ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development
Agency, Atlanta Regional Office, 401 West Peachtree Street, NW., Suite
1715, Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3516.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Henderson at (404) 730-3300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contingent upon the availability of Federal
funds, the cost of performance for the first budget period (12 months)
from April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996, is estimated at $198,971. The
total Federal amount is $169,125 and is composed of $165,000 plus the
Audit Fee amount of $4,125. The application must include a minimum cost
share of 15% $29,846 in non-federal (cost-sharing) contributions for a
total project cost of $198,971. Cost-sharing contributions may be in
the form of cash, client fees, third party in-kind contributions, non-
cash applicant contributions or combinations thereof.
The funding instrument for this project will be a cooperative
agreement. Competition is open to individuals, non-profit and for-
profit organizations, state and local governments, American Indian
tribes and educational institutions.
Applications will be evaluated on the following criteria: the
knowledge, background and/or capabilities of the firm and its staff in
addressing the needs of the business community in general and,
specifically, the special needs of minority businesses, individuals and
organizations (45 points), the resources available to the firm in
providing business development services (10 points); the firm's
approach (techniques and methodologies) to performing the work
requirements included in the application (25 points); and the firm's
estimated cost for providing such assistance (20 points). An
application must receive at least 70% of the points assigned to each
evaluation criteria category to be considered programmatically
acceptable and responsive. Those applications determined to be
acceptable and responsive will then be evaluated by the Director of
MBDA. Final award selections shall be based on the number of points
received, the demonstrated responsibility of the applicant, and the
determination of those most likely to further the purpose of the MBDA
program. Negative audit findings and recommendations and unsatisfactory
performance under prior Federal awards may result in an application not
being considered for award. The applicant with the highest point score
will not necessarily receive the award. Periodic reviews culminating in
year-to-date evaluations will be conducted to determine if funding for
the project should continue. Continued funding will be at the total
discretion of MBDA based on such factors as the MBDC's performance, the
availability of funds and Agency priorities.
The MBDC shall be required to contribute at least 15% of the total
project cost through non-Federal contributions. To assist in this
effort, the MBDC may charge client fees for services rendered. Fees may
range from $10 to $60 per hour based on the gross receipts of the
client's business.
Anticipated processing time of this award is 120 days. Executive
order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,'' is not
applicable to this program. Federal funds for this project include
audit funds for non-CPA recipients. In event that a CPA firm wins the
competition, the funds allocated for audits are not applicable.
Questions concerning the preceding information can be answered by the
contact person indicated above, and copies of application kits and
applicable regulations can be obtained at the above address. The
collection of information requirements for this project have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB
control number 0640-0006.
Awards under this program shall be subject to all Federal laws, and
Federal and Departmental regulations, policies, and procedures
applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.
Pre-Award Costs
Applicants are hereby notified that if they incur any costs prior
to an award being made, they do so solely at their own risk of not
being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal
assurance that an applicant may have received, there is no obligation
on the part of the Department of Commerce to cover pre-award costs.
Outstanding Account Receivable
No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant who has an
outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either the delinquent account
is paid in full, repayment schedule is established and at least one
payment is received, or other arrangements satisfactory to the
Department of Commerce are made.
Name Check Policy
All non-profit and for-profit applicants are subject to a name
check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any key
individuals associated with the applicant have been convicted of or are
presently facing criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury or
other matters which significantly reflect on the applicant's management
honesty or financial integrity.
Award Termination
The Departmental Grants Officer may terminate any grant/cooperative
agreement in whole or in part at any time before the date of completion
whenever it is determined that the award recipient has failed to comply
with the conditions of the grant/cooperative agreement. Examples of
some of the conditions which can cause termination are failure to meet
cost-sharing requirements; unsatisfactory performance of the MBDC work
requirements; and reporting inaccurate or inflated claims of client
assistance. Such inaccurate or inflated claims may be deemed illegal
and punishable by law.
False Statements
A false statement on an application for Federal financial
assistance is grounds for denial or termination of funds, and grounds
for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18
U.S.C. 1001.
Primary Applicant Certifications
All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511,
``Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and
Lobbying.''
Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension
Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section
105) are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, ``Nonprocurement Debarment and
Suspension'' and the related section of the certification form
prescribed above applies.
Drug Free Workplace
Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section 605) are subject to
15 CFR Part 26, Subpart F, ``Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free
Workplace (Grants)'' and the related section of the certification form
prescribed above applies.
Anti-Lobbying
Persons (as defined at 15 CFR Part 28, Section 105) are subject to
the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352, ``Limitation on use of
appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and
financial transactions,'' and the lobbying section of the certification
form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans
and loan guarantees for more than $150,000 or the single family maximum
mortgage limit for affected programs, whichever is greater.
Anti-Lobbying Disclosures
Any applicant that has paid or will pay for lobbying using any
funds must submit an SF-LLL, ``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,'' as
required under 15 CFR Part 28, Appendix B.
Lower Tier Certifications
Recipients shall require applications/bidders for subgrants,
contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at
any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD-
512, ``Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility
and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying''
and disclosure form, SF-LLL, ``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.''
Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be
transmitted to DOC. SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or
subrecipient should be submitted to DOC in accordance with the
instructions contained in the award document.
Buy American-Made Equipment or Products
Applicants are hereby notified that they are encouraged, to the
extent feasible, to purchase American-made equipment and products with
funding provided under this program in accordance with Congressional
intent as set forth in the resolution contained in Public Law 103-121,
Sections 606 (a) and (b).
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance)
11.800 Minority Business Development Center.
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Donald L. Powers,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Minority Business Development Agency.
[FR Doc. 94-27113 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-21-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27107 Fund Alabama, Inc.; Notice of Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27107]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No. 20661; 811-5592]
Fund Alabama, Inc.; Notice of Application
October 26, 1994.
agency: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'').
action: Notice of application for deregistration under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``the Act'').
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
applicant: Fund Alabama, Inc.
relevant act section: Order requested under section 8(f).
summary of application: Applicant requests an order declaring it has
ceased to be an investment company under the Act.
filing dates: The application for deregistration was filed on December
18, 1991, amended on March 31, 1992 and October 7, 1994.
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 the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November 21,
1994 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the 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 may request
notification of a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary.
addresses: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Applicant, Fund Alabama, Inc., 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2100,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203.
for further information contact: Fran Pollack-Matz, Senior Attorney at
(202) 942-0570, or Robert A. Robertson, 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 is available for a fee at the
SEC's Public Reference Branch.
Applicant's Representations
1. Applicant is registered as a closed-end management investment
company that was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
On May 27, 1988, applicant filed a Notification of Registration on Form
N-8A, pursuant to section 8(a) of the Act. On June 8, 1988, applicant
filed a registration statement on Form N-2 pursuant to both the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 8(b) of the Act. On August 11, 1988,
this registration statement became effective registering 700,000 shares
of common stock, $.01 par value per share, and applicant commenced the
initial public offering of the stock as soon as practicable thereafter.
2. On March 29, 1991, the applicant's board of directors adopted a
resolution recommending liquidation and dissolution of applicant. On or
about April 26, 1991, a proxy statement describing the proposed Plan of
Complete Liquidation and Dissolution (``the Plan'') and relating to the
annual meeting of shareholders to be held on May 20, 1991, was mailed
to all shareholders of record. Applicant's shareholders approved the
Plan at the annual meeting of shareholders.
3. On May 21, 1991, applicant commenced the sale of its portfolio
securities, and sold all of its securities by June 30, 1991.
Applicant's common stock ceased trading on the NASDAQ National Market
System as of the close of business on May 20, 1991, the date its
shareholders approved the Plan.
4. As of May 20, 1991, applicant's 700,100 shares of common stock
outstanding were held by 405 record shareholders. As of May 17, 1991,
applicant's common stock had a net asset value per share of $10.0365
($7,026,553.65 in the aggregate).
5. On July 23, 1991, in accordance with the Plan, applicant's board
of directors authorized, and applicant deposited with AmSouth Bank
N.A., of Birmingham, Alabama (``the Liquidating Agent''), the amount of
$6,825,975.00 for payment, at $9.75 per share, of the first liquidating
distribution to all shareholders of record as of May 20, 1991. The
Liquidating Agent paid this first liquidating distribution to
applicant's shareholders upon receipt of their respective stock
certificates or satisfactory lost share affidavits and indemnity
agreements.
6. On November 4, 1991, applicant's board of directors authorized a
final liquidating distribution in the amount of $88,842.69,
representing $.1269 per share, for payment to those shareholders
entitled to receive the first distribution. On November 8, 1991, the
Liquidating Agent made this final distribution. Six shareholders,
owning a total of 440.4062 shares delivered their stock certificates
and properly executed letters of transmittal after November 8, 1991 and
received their distributions ($4,349.85 in the aggregate, $9.8769 per
share) at various times after November 8, 1991.
7. Pursuant to a resolution of the board of directors, the Fund
created a liquidating trust to pay off its creditors. $67,340.55 was
transferred to the trust shortly after its creation. All expenses of
liquidation have been paid, however, and no funds remain in the
liquidating trust.
8. Applicant's expenses for liquidating were approximately $24,549
in legal fees and costs, $11,608 in accounting fees and costs, $4,125
in printing fees and costs, and $4,000 in directors' fees, all of which
expenses were allocated to applicant.
9. Applicant paid $12,143.92 in brokerage commissions following
approval of the Plan. Of that amount, $11,743.92 was paid to Sterne,
Agee & Leach, Inc. of Birmingham, Alabama. Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc.
is an ``affiliated person'' as that term is defined in section 2(a)(3)
of the Act, of applicant and of Sterne, Agee & Leach Investment
Advisors, Inc., applicant's investment adviser. $400.00 in brokerage
commissions was paid to Porter, White & Yardley, Inc. which is not an
``affiliated person'' of applicant or Sterne, Agee & Leach Investment
Advisors, Inc. Applicant represents that the commissions charged by
Sterne, Agee & Leach Investment Advisors, Inc. and by Porter, White and
Yardley, Inc. were competitive with the brokerage commissions and fees
charged by other brokers for similar transactions and were consistent
with section 17(e) of the Act.
10. Applicant has no shareholders, assets or liabilities. Applicant
is not a party to any litigation or administrative proceeding.
Applicant is not engaged, nor does it propose to engage, in any
business activities other than those necessary to wind up its affairs.
For the SEC, by the Division of Investment Management, under
delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27107 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27106 SES Performance Review Board
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27106]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
SES Performance Review Board
AGENCY: Office of personnel Management.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the
OPM Performance Review Board.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mark D. Reinhold, Office of Personnel,
Administration Group, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2420.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of Title 5,
U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or
more SES performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate
the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the
supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority
relative to the performance of the senior executive.
Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
Director.
The following have been designated as regular members of the
Performance Review Board of the Office of Personnel Management:
Lorraine A. Green, Deputy Director.
Michael C. Cushing, Chief of Staff.
William E. Flynn, III, Associate Director, Retirement and Insurance
Group.
Mary Lou Lindholm, Associate Director, Administration Group.
Leonard R. Klein, Associate Director, Career Entry Group.
Steven R. Cohen, Regional Director, Chicago Region.
Barbara L. Fiss, Associate Director, Personnel Systems and Oversight
Group.
Patricia W. Lattimore, Associate Director, Investigations Group.
Carol J. Okin, Director, Human Resources Development Group.
[FR Doc. 94-27106 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27105 Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)] [Notices] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-27105] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: November 2, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Cunningham or Peter Karasik, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 9, 1994, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit applications received. Permits were issued on October 24, 1994 for the following applications: Ms. Anne Kershaw, Permit Number: 95WM2-ANI Adventure Network International Effective Date: October 24, 1994 Expiration Date: October 24, 1995 Michael K. Egan, Permit Number: 95WM3-POL Captain, PolarFliteTM James M. Conn Pilot, PolarFliteTM Effective Date: November 10, 1994 Expiration Date: December 15, 1994 Robert S. Cunningham, Permit Office. [FR Doc. 94-27105 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27104 Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)] [Notices] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-27104] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: November 2, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 23, 1994, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit applications received. Permits were issued on October 21, 1994 for the following applicants: William R. Fraser, Permit #95-019 William R. Fraser, Permit #95-020 William R. Fraser, Permit #95-021 Arthur L. DeVries, Permit #95-022 Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office. [FR Doc. 94-27104 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27101 Notice of Agreement(s) Filed
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27101]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Notice of Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice of the filing
of the following agreement(s) pursuant to section 5 of the Shipping Act
of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and obtain a copy of each agreement
at the Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal Maritime Commission, 800
North Capitol Street, N.W., 9th Floor. Interested parties may submit
comments on each agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20573, within 10 days after the date of
the Federal Register in which this notice appears. The requirements for
comments are found in Sec. 572.603 of Title 46 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Interested persons should consult this section before
communicating with the Commission regarding a pending agreement.
Agreement No.: 202-008900-053.
Title: The ``8900'' Lines Rate Agreement.
Parties: American President Lines, Ltd.; A.P. Moller-Maersk Line;
Croatia Line; DSR Senator Joint Service; The National Shipping Company
of Saudi Arabia; P&O Containers, Ltd.; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; United
Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.); and Waterman Steamship Corporation.
Synopsis: The proposed amendment modifies the authority of the
Agreement, the Organization and Administration of the Agreement, the
Meeting and Voting provisions, Independent Action, and Service Contract
provisions. It also makes non-substantive changes to the alternate port
service provisions of the Agreement.
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Dated: October 27, 1994.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27101 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27100 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27100]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-394-001]
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff
October 27, 1994.
Take notice that on October 21, 1994, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets:
Substitute Original Sheet No. 321R
Substitute Original Sheet No. 321S
The proposed effective date of the revised tariff sheets is October
1, 1994.
Panhandle states that this filing is in compliance with the
Commission's October 6, 1994, Order Accepting And Suspending Tariff
Sheets Subject to Refund and Conditions, And Establishing a Technical
Conference (October 6, 1994) in the above referenced proceeding.
Panhandle states that in the October 6, 1994 Order, the Commission
approved the method of recovery of the miscellaneous stranded costs,
but it required Panhandle to eliminate a portion of the proposed tariff
language contained in Sec. 18.14(b) and remove the definition of
Miscellaneous Stranded Costs contained in Sec. 18.14(c)(1). Panhandle
has revised the language in Section 18.14 in compliance with Ordering
Paragraph (B) of the October 6, 1994 Order.
Panhandle states that copies of its filing have been served on all
affected customers, all parties to this proceeding and applicable state
regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to protest the said filing should file a
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North
Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with
Sec. 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such
protests should be filed on or before November 3, 1994. Protests will
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action
to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27100 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27099 National Power Exchange, Corp.; Notice of Issuance of Order
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27099]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER94-1593-000]
National Power Exchange, Corp.; Notice of Issuance of Order
October 27, 1994.
On August 18, 1994 and August 29, 1994, National Power Exchange,
Corp. (NPEC) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which NPEC will
engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a
marketer. NPEC also requested waiver of various Commission regulations.
In particular, NPEC requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by NPEC.
On October 7, 1994, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities
or assumptions of liability by NPEC 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 385.214).
Absent a request for hearing within this period, NPEC is authorized
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a
guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of
another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and
compatible with the public interests, and is reasonably necessary or
appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of NPEC's issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 7, 1994.
Copies of the full text of the order are available from the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 3308, 941 North Capitol
Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27099 Filed 11-01-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27098 Black Hills Power and Light Co.; Notice of Filing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27098]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER94-1542-000]
Black Hills Power and Light Co.; Notice of Filing
October 27, 1994.
Take notice that on September 12, 1994, Black Hills Power and Light
Company tendered for filing an executed copy of the service agreement
to purchase non-firm power and energy under proposed Rate Schedule EP-1
currently pending before the Commission in the above-referenced docket.
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 November 7, 1994.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27098 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27095 New England Power Co. Western Massachusetts Electric Co.; Notice of Intention To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Public Scoping Meetings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27095]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project Nos. 2323-012; 2334-001; Deerfield River, VT, MA]
New England Power Co. Western Massachusetts Electric Co.; Notice
of Intention To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct
Public Scoping Meetings
October 27, 1994.
The Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC) has received applications
for two new licenses for the continued operation of the Deerfield River
Project No. 2323, and the Gardners Falls Project No. 2334. The projects
are located on the Deerfield River, in Windham and Bennington Counties,
Vermont, and Franklin and Berkshire Counties, Massachusetts.
The FERC staff has determined that licensing these projects would
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. Therefore, the staff intends to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) on the hydroelectric projects in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The staff's EIS
will objectively consider both site specific and cumulative
environmental effects of the projects and reasonable alternatives, and
will include an economic, financial and engineering analysis.
A draft EIS will be issued and circulated for review by all
interested parties. All comments filed on the draft EIS will be
analyzed by the staff and considered in a final EIS. The staff's
conclusions and recommendations will then be presented for the
consideration of the Commission in reaching its final licensing
decisions.
Scoping Meetings
FERC staff will conduct three scoping meetings. The two evening
scoping meetings, one each in Massachusetts and Vermont, are primarily
for public input while the day-time meeting will focus on resource
agency and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns. All interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend and
assist the staff in identifying the scope of environmental issues that
should be analyzed in the EIS.
To help focus discussions, a preliminary scoping document outlining
subject areas to be addressed at the meeting will be distributed by
mail to interested parties on the FERC mailing list. Copies of the
preliminary scoping document will also be available at the scoping
meetings.
The times and locations of the scoping meetings are as follows:
Massachusetts Public Scoping Meeting
Tuesday, November 15, 1994, 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Mohawk Trail
Regional High School, Buckland, Massachusetts
Vermont Public Scoping Meeting
Wednesday, November 16, 1994, 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Wilmington High
School, Wilmington, Vermont
Agency Scoping Meeting
Thursday, November 17, 1994, 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon, New England Power
Company, Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts
Objectives
At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the planned
EIS; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available
information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue,
(3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that
should be analyzed in the EIS, including viewpoints in opposition to,
or in support of, the staff's preliminary views, (4) determine the
relative depth of analysis for issues to be addressed in the EIS, and
(5) identify resource issues that are not important and do not require
detailed analysis.
Procedures
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the Deerfield
River projects under consideration. Individuals presenting statements
at the meetings will be asked to sign in before the meeting starts and
to clearly identify themselves for the record.
Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EIS.
Participants wishing to make oral comments in the public meeting
are asked to keep them to five minutes to allow everyone the
opportunity to speak.
Persons choosing not to speak at the meetings, but who have views
on the issues, may submit written statements for inclusion in the
public record at the meeting. In addition, written scoping comments may
be filed with the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825
North Capitol Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426. All correspondence
should clearly show one or more of the following captions on the first
page: Deerfield River Project No. 2323-012; and, Gardners Falls Project
No. 2334-001.
All those that are formally recognized by the Commission as
intervenors in the Deerfield and Gardners Falls projects' proceedings
are asked to refrain from engaging the staff in discussions of the
merits of the projects outside of any announced meetings.
Further, parties are reminded of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure, which require parties filing documents with the
Commission, to serve a copy of the document on each person whose name
is on the official service list, including agents of the applicants.
For further information, please contact Michael Dees at (202) 219-
2807.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27095 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27089 Notice of Environmental Compliance Training Course
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27089]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Environmental Compliance Training Course
October 27, 1994.
The Office of Pipeline Regulation (OPR) staff will convene another
session of its environmental compliance training course. This is a
result of the positive response to our first sessions held in 1992 and
1993. We are holding this course so that additional members of the
regulated pipeline industry and interested individuals and
organizations can gain an understanding of the requirements and
objectives of the Commission in ensuring compliance with all
environmental certificate conditions and meeting its responsibilities
under the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws and
regulations.
We encourage interested organizations and the public to take
advantage of this course.
This session will include clarification based on questions and
comments on the previous course and will contain updated material based
on our experience in checking compliance in the field. It will include
the following topics:
Postcertificate clearance filings;
Environmental inspection as it relates to:
Right-of-way preparation;
Temporary erosion control;
Cultural resources/Paleontology;
Waterbody crossings;
Wetland construction;
Residential area construction;
Right-of-way restoration; and
Techniques for environmental compliance.
The two-day training course will be held December 14 and 15, 1994,
at the Red Lion Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, Colorado, 80207.
Attendees must call (303) 321-3333 by November 30, 1994 and identify
themselves as FERC Seminar attendees to receive the discounted group
rate.
The OPR staff and Enserch Environmental Corporation, the
Commission's environmental support contractor for natural gas projects,
will conduct the training. There is no fee for the course, but you must
pre-register because space is limited.
If you would like to attend the December 14, 1994 session, please
call the telephone number listed below to obtain a registration
form.\1\ Because space is limited, please mail or fax the registration
form within 15 days of publication of this notice to: Ms. Donna Connor,
Enserch Environmental Corporation, 211 Congress Street, 7th Floor,
Boston, MA 02110, Telephone: (617) 542-8805, Fax: (617) 695-1587.
\1\The registration form referenced in this notice is not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of the form were sent to
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will receive confirmation of pre-registration and additional
information before the training course.
Additional training may be offered in 1995 based on the level of
interest. Please indicate on the registration form whether you would
like this course to be offered again, or if you are interested in any
other courses with different topics or audiences. Please indicate your
preferences for location and time of year. Suggestions on format are
welcome. If other sessions or courses are planned, information will be
published in the Federal Register and sent to you announcing the dates
and locations.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27089 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27088 Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Commission; Notice of Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27088]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Commission; Notice of Meeting
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (PL 92-463) that the Maine Acadian Culture Preservation
Commission will meet on Thursday, November 17, 1994. The meeting will
convene at 7 p.m. at the Madawaska High School, Madawaska, Aroostook
County, Maine. The school is located at 80 7th Avenue in Madawaska.
The eleven-member Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Commission was
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Maine
Acadian Culture Preservation Act (PL 101-543). The purpose of the
Commission is to advise the National Park Service with respect to:
The development and implementation of an interpretive
program of Acadian culture in the state of Maine; and
The selection of sites for interpretation and
preservation by means of cooperative agreements.
The Agenda for this meeting is as follows:
1. Review and approval of the summary report of the meeting held
September 22, 1994.
2. Reports of Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Commission
working groups.
3. Report of the National Park Service planning team.
4. Opportunity for public comment.
5. Proposed agenda, place, and date of the next Commission
meeting.
The meeting is open to the public. Further information concerning
Commission meetings may be obtained from the Superintendent, Acadia
National Park. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations
to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be
made at least seven days prior to the meeting to: Superintendent,
Acadia National Park, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, ME 04609-0177;
telephone (207) 288-5472.
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Chrysandra L. Walter,
Deputy Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 94-27088 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27085 Marine Mammals
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27085]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 072894C]
Marine Mammals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Extension of comment period on draft stock assessments and
Potential Biological Removal (PBR) workshop reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is extending the comment period on its stock assessments
and PBR workshop report in consideration of the complexity of the
issues surrounding both the stock assessments and the PBR workshop
report.
DATES: Comments on the draft stock assessment reports and the report of
the PBR workshop must be received by December 1, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226; Fax: (301) 713-0376.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Eagle with the Office of
Protected Resources at (301) 713-2319.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 1994, NMFS published a Federal
Register notice announcing the availability of draft stock assessment
reports and PBR workshop reports (59 FR 40527). The stock assessment
reports are required under the new section 117 of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-238). A summary of
the stock assessment reports, specifying geographical range, regional
designation, minimum abundance estimate, PBR, and estimated human-
caused mortality for each stock, was followed by a designation of
strategic or nonstrategic. The PBR workshop, consisting of NMFS and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists, was convened to develop an
initial approach for promoting consistent national interpretation of
parameters to be used in draft stock assessment reports, including the
calculation of PBR.
The initial comment period for NMFS draft stock assessment and PBR
workshop reports was scheduled to end on November 7, 1994. In response
to concern that the public comment period was inadequate, given the
scope of the issues surrounding the assessments and the workshop
reports, NMFS extends the comment period and welcomes comments received
by December 1, 1994. Comments must be received in the Office of
Protected Resources by December 1 to be fully considered. Therefore,
those submitting comments close to that date should fax their comments
or call to ensure their comments arrived via mail.
Dated: October 26, 1994.
William W. Fox, Jr.,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-27085 Filed 11-01-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27081 Notice of Receipt of Applications for Permit
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27081]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Receipt of Applications for Permit
The following applicants have applied for a permit to conduct
certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.):
PRT-795993
Applicant: David Roberts, Madison, Wisconsin.
The applicant requests a permit to purchase in interstate commerce
2 pair of captive-bred Cabot's tragopans (Tragopan caboti) from Jack
Donaldson of Findlay, Ohio, for the purpose of enhancement of the
survival of the species through breeding.
PRT-795533
Applicant: Robert Landis, Fountain City, Indiana.
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy
of one male bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas dorcas) culled from the captive
herd maintained by Mr. Gerhard Rabe, ``Wydgelegen'', Wakkerstroom,
Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the
survival of the species.
PRT-795769
Applicant: Clifford Senter, Plaistow, New Hampshire.
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy
of one male bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas dorcas) culled from the captive
herd maintained by the Ciskei government at Tsolwana Reserve,
Queenstown, Ciskei, Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of
enhancement of the survival of the species.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Director, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive, Room 432, Arlington, Virginia 22203 and must be received
by the Director within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications
are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy
Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written
request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room
420(c), Arlington, Virginia 22203. Phone: (703/358-2104); FAX: (703/
358-2281).
Dated: October 27, 1994.
Caroline Anderson,
Acting Chief, Branch of Permits, Office of Management Authority.
[FR Doc. 94-27081 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27079 Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains From Blossvale, NY, in the Possession of the Rome Historical Society, Rome, NY
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27079]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains
From Blossvale, NY, in the Possession of the Rome Historical Society,
Rome, NY
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d), of
completion of the inventory of human remains from a site near
Blossvale, NY, that are presently in the possession of the Rome
Historical Society, Rome, NY.
A detailed inventory and assessment of these human remains has been
made by Historical Society curatorial staff, a contracted specialist in
physical anthropology, and representatives of the Oneida Indian Nation
(of New York) and the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.
In 1958, Mr. Willard Teelin discovered the human remains along with
some associated funerary objects following a flash flood in Fish Creek
near Blossvale, NY. The director of the Fort Stanwix Museum, operated
by the Rome Historical Society, identified the human remains and
associated funerary objects as belonging to the Owasco culture. Mr.
Teelin donated the human remains to the Rome Historical Society and
retained possession of the associated funerary objects. Mr. Teelin's
descendants are not aware of the whereabouts of the associated funerary
objects. Osteological examination by Dr. Richard G. Wilkinson,
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York-Albany,
revealed that two individuals are represented by the human remains. The
first individual was approximately 35-40 years old at the time of
death. The second individual was approximately 16-20 years old at the
time of death. Both are Native American males from the prehistoric
period.
Inventory of the human remains and review of the accompanying
documentation indicates that no known individuals were identifiable.
The Owasco culture is generally recognized in the archeological
literature as being ancestral to the five historically known Indian
tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy: Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga,
and Seneca. The Blossvale, NY, area in which the human remains were
discovered is well within the historical boundaries of lands claimed as
Oneida territory. The Oneida Indian Nation (of New York) considers
itself to be the descendant of Native Americans who occupied central
New York since time immemorial. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
has declined to submit a claim for repatriation of these human remains.
Based on the above mentioned information, officials of the Rome
Historical Society have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001
(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be
reasonably traced between these human remains and associated funerary
objects and the Oneida Indian Nation (of New York).
This notice has been sent to officials of the Oneida Indian Nation
(of New York) and the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe which believes itself to be
culturally affiliated with these human remains should contact Jon
Austin, Executive Director, Rome Historical Society, 200 Church Street,
Rome, NY 13440, telephone: (315) 336-5870, before December 2, 1994.
Repatriation of these human remains to the Oneida Indian Nation (of New
York) may begin after that date if no additional claimants come
forward.
Dated: October 11, 1994.
Francis P. MacManamon,
Departmental Consulting Archeologist, Chief, Archeological Assistance
Division.
[FR Doc. 94-27079; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27078 Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items in the Possession of the USDA Forest Service
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27078]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items in the Possession
of the USDA Forest Service
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given under provisions of the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of the intent to repatriate
cultural items in the possession of the Cibola National Forest, USDA
Forest Service, that meet the definition of ``sacred object'' under
Section 2 of the Act.
The items consist of 30 essentially complete prayer sticks of aspen
and willow, 5 fragments of prayer sticks, one red flicker feather, one
cornhusk, and a small amount of deteriorating organic matter. The items
were reportedly gathered in 1977 or 1978 by an anonymous collector from
a cairn/shrine on Mt. Taylor, NM. The items were returned to the
possession of the USDA Forest Service in 1991 or 1992. The precise
location of the cairn/shrine is not known.
The objects in this collection resemble the prayer sticks described
and illustrated in Leslie A. White's The Acoma Indians (Smithsonian
Institution, 1932: 126-129). Representatives of the Pueblo of Acoma
have inspected the items and confirm their identification as prayer
sticks. The representatives of the Pueblo of Acoma indicate that prayer
sticks are left as offerings at a cairn/shrine located on Mt. Taylor as
part of their traditional religious practice. Once left as an offering,
the Acoma religion requires that such prayer sticks not be disturbed.
Reginald T. Pasqual, governor of the Pueblo of Acoma, has claimed
the prayer sticks and associated materials as sacred objects and
requested their repatriation to the Pueblo of Acoma. The Hopi Tribe and
the Navajo Nation have been consulted and both support the claim of the
Pueblo of Acoma to this particular collection of prayer sticks from Mt.
Taylor.
Based on the above mentioned information, officials of the USDA
Forest Service have determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(C), that
these items are specific ceremonial objects needed by the traditional
religious leaders of the Pueblo of Acoma for the practice of their
traditional religion by its present day adherents. Officials of the
USDA Forest Service have further determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001
(2), that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be
reasonably traced between these items and the Pueblo of Acoma.
This notice has been sent to officials of the Pueblo of Acoma.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe which believes itself to be
culturally affiliated with these cultural items should contact Dr.
Frank E. Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest
Service, 517 Gold Avenue, SW., Albuquerque, NM 87102, telephone: (505)
842-3238, before December 2, 1994. Repatriation of these sacred objects
to the Pueblo of Acoma may begin after that date if no additional
claimants come forward.
Dated: October 12, 1994.
Veletta Canouts,
Acting Departmental Consulting Archeologist,
Acting Chief, Archeological Assistance Division.
[FR Doc. 94-27078 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27077 John Thomas Morrison, D.P.M.; Revocation of Registration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27077]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
John Thomas Morrison, D.P.M.; Revocation of Registration
On March 2, 1994, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order on Show Cause to John Thomas Morrison, D.P.M., of Port Orchard,
Washington, proposing to revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration,
AM2446006, and to deny any pending applications for registration as a
practitioner. 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (1992). The basis for the Order to Show
Cause was that Dr. Morrison lacked authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of Washington. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).
The Order to Show Cause was personally served on Dr. Morrison by
DEA investigators on March 2, 1994. More than thirty days have passed
since the Order to Show Cause was served on Dr. Morrison. The Drug
Enforcement Administration has received no response from Dr. Morrison
or anyone purporting to represent him. Therefore, pursuant to 21 CFR
1301.54(d), the Deputy Administrator finds that Dr. Morrison has waived
his opportunity for a hearing on the issues raised by the Order to Show
Cause. The Deputy Administrator has carefully considered the
investigative file in this matter and enters his final order based on
the provisions of 21 CFR 1301.54(e) and 1301.57.
The Deputy Administrator finds that on May 7, 1993, the State of
Washington Department of Health Podiatric Medical Board (Podiatric
Board) found that Dr. Morrison had engaged in unprofessional conduct.
As a result the Podiatric Board revoked Dr. Morrison's privilege to
practice podiatric medicine and surgery in the State of Washington and
revoked his privilege to prescribe controlled substances. Accordingly,
Dr. Morrison is not authorized to administer, dispense, prescribe, or
otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Washington
wherein he is registered with the DEA.
The Deputy Administrator has consistently held that DEA cannot
maintain the registration of a practitioner who is without State
authority to handle controlled substances. Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D.,
59 FR 44780 (1994) and Franz A. Arakaky, M.D., 59 FR 42074 (1994); see
also Elliot Monroe, M.D., 57 FR 23246 (1992) and Bobby Watts, M.D., 53
FR 11920 (1987).
Based on the foregoing, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration concludes that Dr. Morrison's DEA
registration must be revoked. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Accordingly, the
Deputy Administrator, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21
U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104 (59 FR 23637), hereby
orders that DEA Certificate of Registration, AM2446006, previously
issued to John Thomas Morrison, D.P.M., be, and it hereby is, revoked,
and that any pending applications for renewal of such registration, be,
and they hereby are, denied.
This order is effective November 2, 1994.
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-27077 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27063 Notice of Scope Rulings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27063]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration, Commerce
Notice of Scope Rulings
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of scope rulings and anticircumvention inquiries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) hereby publishes a
list of scope rulings and anticircumvention inquiries completed between
April 1, 1994, and June 30, 1994. In conjunction with this list, the
Department is also publishing a list of pending requests for scope
clarifications and anticircumvention inquiries. The Department intends
to publish future lists within 30 days of the end of each quarter.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason R. Field or Wendy J. Frankel, Office of Antidumping Compliance,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5222/5253.
Background
The Department's regulations (19 CFR 352.29(d)(8) and 355.29(d)(8))
provide that on a quarterly basis the Secretary will publish in the
Federal Register a list of scope rulings completed within the last
three months.
This notice lists scope rulings and anticircumvention inquiries
completed between April 1, 1994, and June 30, 1994, and pending scope
clarification and anticircumvention inquiry requests. The Department
intends to publish in October 1994 a notice of scope rulings and
anticircumvention inquiries completed between July 1, 1994, and
September 30, 1994, as well as pending scope clarification and
anticircumvention inquiry requests.
The following lists provide the country, case reference number,
requester(s), and a brief description of either the ruling or product
subject to the request.
I. Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1994, and June 30, 1994
Country: People's Republic of China
A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles
A.J. Cohen--Set 155 holiday taper wax candles are within the scope
of the order, and Set 154 holiday taper wax candles are outside the
scope of the order. Signed 6/6/94.
Kole Imports--Certain holiday taper wax candles are outside the
scope of the order. Signed 6/6/94.
Country: Brazil
A-351-603: Brass Sheet and Strip
Eluma International Inc.--Certain brass circles are outside the
scope of the order. Signed 6/6/94.
Country: Japan
A-588-405: Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies
Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc.,
Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics America, Inc.--Electronic Models MT109
and MT119 Portable Cellular Telephones are outside the scope of the
order. Signed 6/6/94.
Antel Communications Corporation and Tottori Sanyo Electric Co.,
Ltd.--Sanyo Model CMP 351 portable cellular telephone and Antel Model
STR 1600 portable cellular telephone are outside the scope of the
order. Signed 5/4/94.
Toyocom U.S.A. Inc.--Temperature compensated crystal oscillators
(TCXOs) and High Frequency Crystal Mechanical filters (HCM filters) are
outside the scope of the order. Signed 5/27/94.
A-588-823: Professional Electric Cutting Tools
Makita Inc., Makita, U.S.A.--Router models 3621 and 3621A are
outside the scope of the order. Signed 4/12/94.
Makita Inc., Makita, U.S.A.--Planner model 1912B is outside the
scope of the order. Signed 6/6/94.
Country: Germany
A-428-801: Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof
SKF--Certain textile machinery components are outside the scope of
the order. Signed 6/6/94.
Country: Taiwan
A-570-808: Lug Nuts
Consolidated International--Certain hex size lug nuts are within
the scope of the order. Signed 4/19/94.
II. Anticircumvention Rulings Completed Between April 1, 1994, and June
30, 1994
None.
III. Scope Inquiries Terminated Between April 1, 1994, and June 30,
1994
Country: People's Republic of China
A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles
E & G Company--Clarification to determine whether certain musical
holiday wax candles are within the scope of the order. Terminated 4/29/
94.
Country: Japan
A-588-823: Professional Electric Cutting Tools
Makita Inc., Makita, U.S.A.--Clarification to determine whether a
bench top tile saw is within the scope of the order. Terminated 4/19/
94.
IV. Anticircumvention Inquiries Terminated Between April 1, 1994, and
June 30, 1994
Country: Japan
A-588-807: Industrial Belts and Components
BRECOFLEX Corp.--Anticircumvention inquiry to determine whether the
order is being circumvented by the processing of Japanese belting into
belts in Mexico before importation into the United States. Terminated
5/6/94.
V. Pending Scope Clarification Requests as of June 30, 1994
Country: Mexico
A-201-805: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., American Tube Co., Century Tube Corp.,
CSI Tubular Productions, Inc., Laclede Steel Co., LTV Tubular
Productions Co., Sawhill Tubular Division, Sharon Tube Co., Tex-Tube
Division, Western Tube & Conduit Corp., Wheatland Tube Co.--
Clarification to determine whether pipe produced to API 5L line pipe
specifications or to both ASTM A-53 standard pipe specification and the
API 5L line pipe specification (dual-certified pipe), when intended for
use as standard pipe or when actually used as standard pipe, is within
the scope of the order. Affirmative preliminary scope ruling issued on
1/13/94.
Country: Brazil
A-351-809: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., American Tube Co., Century Tube Corp.,
CSI Tubular Productions, Inc., Laclede Steel Co., LTV Tubular
Productions Co., Sawhill Tubular Division, Sharon Tube Co., Tex-Tube
Division, Western Tube & Conduit Corp., Wheatland Tube Co.--
Clarification to determine whether pipe produced to API 5L line pipe
specifications or to both ASTM A-53 standard pipe specification and the
API 5L line pipe specification (dual-certified pipe), when intended for
use as standard pipe or when actually used as standard pipe, is within
the scope of the order. Affirmative preliminary scope ruling issued on
1/13/94.
A-351-503: Iron Construction Castings
Southland Marketing--Clarification to determine whether certain
cast iron grates and frames are within the scope of the order.
Country: People's Republic of China
A-570-001: Potassium Permanganate
Aerostat Inc.--Clarification to determine whether certain plastic
ignitor spheres are within the scope of the order.
A-570-504: Candles
Two's Company--Clarification to determine whether certain decorated
pillar candles and red and gold angel taper candles are within the
scope of the order.
West Coast Liquidators--Clarification to determine whether certain
holiday object candles and certain holiday figurine tapers are within
the scope of the order.
Star Merchandise--Clarification to determine whether certain wax-
filled containers are within the scope of the order.
Scentex, Inc.--Clarification to determine whether Earth Scents
brand potpourri candle is within the scope of the order.
Success Sales--Clarification to determine whether certain holiday
pillar candles are within the scope of the order.
A-570-502: Iron Construction Castings
Jack's International--Clarification to determine whether certain
cast iron area drains are within the scope of the order.
Country: Korea
A-580-809: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., American Tube Co., Century Tube Corp.,
CSI Tubular Productions, Inc., Laclede Steel Co., LTV Tubular
Productions Co., Sawhill Tubular Division, Sharon Tube Co., Tex-Tube
Division, Western Tube & Conduit Corp., Wheatland Tube Co.--
Clarification to determine whether pipe produced to API 5L line pipe
specifications or to both ASTM A-53 standard pipe specification and the
API 5L line pipe specification (dual-certified pipe), when intended for
use as standard pipe or when actually used as standard pipe, is within
the scope of the order. Affirmative preliminary scope ruling issued on
1/13/94.
Country: Venezuela
A-307-805: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
Self-initiation. Clarification to determine wither pipe produced to
API 5L line pipe specifications or to both ASTM A-53 standard pipe
specification and the API 5L line pipe specification (dual-certified
pipe), when intended for use as standard pipe or when actually used as
standard pipe, is within the scope of the order. Affirmative
preliminary scope ruling issued on 1/13/94.
Country: Japan
A-588-802: 3\1/2\'' Microdisks
TDK Inc., TDK Electronics Co.--Clarification to determine whether
certain web roll media are within the scope of the order.
A-5588-014: Tuners
Alpine Electronics--Clarification to determine whether certain car
radio/stereo and/or replacement parts, comprised of four subassemblies
and their components, are within the scope of the finding.
Fujitsu Ten Corporation of America--Clarification to determine
whether certain ``front end'' components of car tuners are within the
scope of the finding.
A-588-405: Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies
Matsushita Communication Industrial Co., Ltd., and its related
entities--Clarification to determine whether certain portable
telephones, subassemblies, and components thereof are within the scope
of the order (five products).
Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc.,
Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics America, Inc.--Clarification to
determine whether model 2000 cellular mobile telephone is within the
scope of the order.
TDK Corporation of America--Clarification to determine whether
Duplexers, Voltage Control Oscillators, and Isolators are within the
scope of the order.
JRC International--Clarification to determine whether model PTR-830
portable cellular telephone is within the scope of the order.
A-588-823: Professional Electric Cutting Tools
Makita Inc., Makita U.S.A.--Clarification to determine whether Wood
Surfacer model LP1812C is within the scope of the order.
A-588-604: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof
Koyo Seiko--Clarification to determine whether certain forgings are
within the scope of the order. Affirmative preliminary ruling issued on
2/28/94.
A-588-814: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Filim
Kimoto U.S.A. Inc.--Clarification to determine whether certain
Anti-Static Clear Film is within the scope of the order.
Tektronix Inc., Tektronix Asia--Clarification to determine whether
overhead projection film model 4681 and model 4684 are within the scope
of the order.
A-588-055: Acrylic Sheet
Sumitomo Chemical America, Inc.--Clarification to determine whether
acrylic sheet with light scattering properties is within the scope of
the order.
Country: Argentina
C-357-803: Leather
Petitioners--Clarification to determine whether upper bovine
leather without hair on, not whole, prepared after tanning its within
the scope of the countervailing duty order.
County: Sweden
A-401-040: Stainless Steel Plate
Armco, Inc., G.O. Carlson, Allegheny Ludlum Corp., and Washington
Steel Corp.--Clarification to determine whether Stavax, Ramax, and 904L
are within the scope of the finding.
Avesta Sheffield--Clarification to determine whether stainless
steel ``hot bands'' are within the scope of the finding.
Country: Germany
A-428-801: Antifriction Bearings (other than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof
Rotek--Clarification to determine whether certain ``slewing rings''
are within the scope of the order.
Kaydon--Clarification to determine whether certain ``slewing
rings'' are within the scope of the order.
Consolidated Saw Mill International (CSMI) Inc.--Clarification to
determine whether certain Cambio bearings contained in its sawmill
debarker are within the scope of the order.
VI. Pending Anticircumvention Inquiry Requests as of June 30, 1994
Country: Mexico
A-201-806: Steel Wire Rope
Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable
Manufacturers--Anticircumvention inquiry to determine whether a
producer of steel wire rope in Mexico is circumventing the antidumping
order by importing steel wire strand into the United States where it is
wound into steel wire rope.
VII. Correction to Scope Rulings Completed Between January 1, 1994, and
March 31, 1994
Country: Japan
A-588-405: Cellular Mobile Telephone and Subassemblies
Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc.--Model CM-H333 and
subassemblies thereof are outside the scope of the order. Signed 1/28/
94.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the accuracy of the
list of pending scope clarification requests. Any comments should be
submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Room B-099, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230.
Dated: October 17, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 94-27063 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27062 Leather Wearing Apparel From Uruguay; Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27062]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-355-001]
Leather Wearing Apparel From Uruguay; Revocation of
Countervailing Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is revoking the
countervailing duty order on leather wearing apparel from Uruguay
because it is no longer of interest to interested parties.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Mercedes Fitchett,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 5, 1994, the Department of Commerce published in the
Federal Register (59 FR 34410) its intent to revoke the countervailing
duty order on leather wearing apparel from Uruguay (47 FR 31032; July
17, 1982). Additionally, as required by 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(ii), the
Department served certified written notice of its intent to revoke this
countervailing duty order on each party listed on its most current
service list. Domestic interested parties who might object to the
revocation were provided 30 days to submit their comments.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this order are shipments of Uruguayan leather
wearing apparel and parts and pieces thereof. This product is currently
classified under item numbers 4203.10.4030, 4203.10.4060, 4203.10.4085,
and 4203.10.4095 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States.
Determination To Revoke
The Department may revoke a countervailing duty order if the
Secretary of Commerce concludes that the order is no longer of interest
to interested parties. We conclude that there is no interest in a
countervailing duty order when no interested party has requested an
administrative review for at least five consecutive review periods and
when no domestic interested party objects to the revocation (19 CFR
355.25(d)(4)(iii)).
In this case, we received no request for review for five
consecutive review periods. Furthermore, no domestic interested party
as defined under Sec. 355.2 (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), or (i)(6) of the
Department's regulations, has expressed opposition to revocation.
Therefore, we have concluded that the countervailing duty order
covering leather wearing apparel from Uruguay is no longer of interest
to interested parties, and we are revoking this countervailing duty
order in accordance with 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(iii).
This revocation applies to all shipments of leather wearing apparel
from Uruguay exported on or after January 1, 1993. Shipments of this
merchandise exported during the period January 1, 1993 through December
31, 1993, will be subject to automatic assessment in accordance with 19
CFR 355.22(g)(1). Further, as required by 19 CFR 355.25(d)(5), the
Department is terminating the suspension of liquidation on the subject
merchandise as of the effective date of this notice and will instruct
the Customs Service to liquidate, without regard to countervailing
duties, all unliquidated entries of this merchandise exported on or
after January 1, 1994.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR
355.25(d)(4)(iii).
Dated: October 26, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 94-27062 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26930 Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26930]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period
Under the Premerger Notification Rules
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18a, as added by
Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976,
requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give
the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance
notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such
plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual
cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and
requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal
Register.
The following transactions were granted early termination of the
waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules.
The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant
Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to
these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Transactions Granted Early Termination, Between: 100394 and 101494
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of acquiring person, Name of acquired Date
person, Name of acquired entity PMN No. terminated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company, Thomas R. Roos,
Island Development Corporation, Inc.......... 94-2247 10/03/94
Sterling Software, Inc., KnowledgeWare, Inc.,
KnowledgeWare, Inc........................... 94-2143 10/04/94
ONEOK Inc., Nelson Bunker Hunt Trust Estate,
Creston Partners, L.P........................ 94-2195 10/04/94
TransCanada PipeLines Limited, Northridge
Canada Inc., Northridge U.S. Inc............. 94-2160 10/05/94
Corning Incorporated, J. Richard Fennell,
Bioran Medical Laboratory.................... 94-2174 10/05/94
Harvest States Cooperatives, H.J. Heinz
Company, Portion Pac, Inc.................... 94-2204 10/05/94
Neil M. Chur, Beverly Enterprises, Inc.,
Beverly Enterprises-Texas, Inc./Beverly
California Corp.............................. 94-2209 10/05/94
Klaus J. Jacobs, Brock Candy Company, Brock
Candy Company................................ 94-2220 10/05/94
Amoco Corporation, John M. Fox, MarkWest
Energy Partners, Ltd......................... 94-2226 10/05/94
Beverly Enterprises, Inc., Eckerd Corporation,
Insta-Care Holdings, Inc..................... 94-2229 10/05/94
Arrow Electronics, Inc., Anthem Electronics,
Inc., Anthem Electronics, Inc................ 94-2235 10/05/94
Philip F. Anschutz, Trammell Crow Equity
Partners, The Tabor Group Ltd./Tabor
Acquisition #31, Inc......................... 94-2244 10/05/94
Adam Young, Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, WATE-TV, WBAY-TV, and WRIC-TV....... 94-2133 10/06/94
Donald H. Gales, Griffith Consumers Company
Voting Trust, Griffith Consumer Company...... 94-2127 10/07/94
Dawson Holdings, PLC, The Faxon Company, Inc.,
The Faxon Company, Inc....................... 94-2246 10/07/94
Motorola, Inc., John Moussouris, MicroUnity
Systems Engineering, Inc..................... 94-2155 10/09/94
RBX Investors Inc., Halstead Industries, Inc.,
Halstead Corporation......................... 94-2163 10/09/94
Mr. Robert Alpert, Aviall, Inc., Aviall
Services, Inc................................ 94-2173 10/09/94
Mobil Corporation, Mr. Irwin B. Singer, The
Atlas Oil Company............................ 94-2159 10/12/94
The Clayton & Dubilier Private Equity Fund IV
L.P., The Travelers Inc., American Capital
Management & Research, Inc................... 94-2182 10/12/94
Liberty Brokerage Investment Corp., Liberty
Brokerage Investment Corp., Patriot
Securities, L.P.............................. 94-2196 10/12/94
ANTEC Corporation, Keptel, Inc., Keptel, Inc.. 94-2214 10/12/94
Airgas, Inc., Post Welding Supply Company,
Post Welding Supply Company.................. 94-2239 10/12/94
Jerry Zucker, W.R. Grace & Co., W.R. Grace &
Co.-Conn..................................... 94-2240 10/12/94
David J. McGrath, Jr., c/o TAD Resources
Int'l., Inc., Thomas L. Kirk, Kirk-Mayer,
Inc. (KMI)................................... 94-2248 10/12/94
Charles Schusterman, Oryx Energy Company, Sun
Operating Limited Partnership................ 94-2249 10/12/94
David H. Jacobs Trust (The), Jacobs
Properties, Inc., Jacobs Properties, Inc..... 94-2253 10/12/94
Jacobs Realty Limited Partnership, Jacobs
Properties, Inc., Jacobs Properties, Inc..... 94-2254 10/12/94
Jacobs Realty Limited Partnership, Richard E.
Jacobs, Mall A Limited Partnership........... 94-2255 10/12/94
CGW Southeast Partners I, L.P., The BOC Group
plc, Ohmeda, Inc............................. 94-2258 10/12/94
Lincolnshire Equity Fund, L.P., TRW Inc., TRW
Inc.......................................... 94-2259 10/12/94
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Mario F.
Iacobelli, Heritage Broadcasting Company of
New York..................................... 94-2267 10/12/94
Creative Technology Ltd., Digicom Systems,
Inc., Digicom Systems, Inc,.................. 94-2270 10/12/94
The NWNL Companies, Inc., USLICO Corporation,
USLICO Corporation........................... 94-2281 10/12/94
AmeriQuest Technologies, Inc., Jonathan O.
Lee, Ross White Enterprises, Inc............. 94-2282 10/12/94
Ford Motor Company, Amoco Corporation, Amoco
Oil Company.................................. 94-2284 10/12/94
Citicorp, Ground Round Restaurants, Inc.,
Ground Round Restaurants, Inc,............... 94-2285 10/12/94
Foundation Health Corporation, Thomas-Davis
Medical Centers, P.C., Thomas-Davis Medical
Centers, P.C................................. 94-2184 10/13/94
K-III Communications Corporation, Irvin J.
Borowsky, North American Publishing Company.. 94-2286 10/13/94
The Methodist Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal
Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital...... 94-2289 10/13/94
St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, The Methodist
Hospital, The Methodist Hospital............. 94-2290 10/13/94
IBP, inc., Lakeside Farm Industries Ltd.,
Lakeside Farm Industries Ltd................. 94-2210 10/14/94
Loral Corporation, K & F Industries, Inc., K &
F Industries, Inc............................ 94-2236 10/14/94
American Premier Underwriters, Inc., Principal
Mutual Life Insurance Company, Principal
Casualty Insurance Company................... 94-2273 10/14/94
Japan Nuclear Fuel Company, Ltd., NEWCO, NEWCO 94-2279 10/14/94
Central Life Assurance Company, American
Mutual Life Insurance Company, American
Mutual Life Insurance Company................ 94-2288 10/14/94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandra M. Peay or Renee A. Horton, Contact Representatives, Federal
Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition,
Room 303, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326-3100.
By Director of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-26930 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26912 Certain Companies; Applications To Register Pesticide Products
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26912]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-30375; FRL-4917-5]
Certain Companies; Applications To Register Pesticide Products
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register
pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any
previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section
3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted by December 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: By mail submit comments identified by the document control
number [OPP-30375] and the registration/file number, attention Product
Manager (PM) named in each application at the following address: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, In person, bring comments to:
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA.
Information submitted in any comment concerning this notice may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice to
the submitter. All written comments will be available for public
inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Registration Division
(7505C), Attn: (Product Manager (PM) named in each registration),
Office of Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
In person: Contact the PM named in each registration at the
following office location/telephone number:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office location/
Product Manager telephone number Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM 18 Phil Hutton, Rm. 213, CM #2 (703-305- Environmental
7690). Protection Agency
1921 Jefferson Davis
Hwy
Arlington, VA 22202
PM 21 Leonard Cole Rm. 229, CM #2 (703-305- -Do-
(Acting), 6900).
PM 23 Joanne I. Miller, Rm. 237, CM #2 (703-305- -Do-
7830).
PM 31 Marshall Rm. 272, CM #2 (703-305- -Do-
Swindell, 6908).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA received applications as follows to
register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included
in any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of
section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does
not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.
Products Containing Active Ingredients Not Included In Any
Previously Registered Products
1. File Symbol: 67250-T. Applicant: Biosys, 1057 East Meadow
Circle, Palo Alto, CA 94303. Product name: Anagrapha falcifera MNPV
PIB's. Insecticide. Active ingredients: Anagrapha falcifera MNPV
polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB's) aqueous suspension at a
concentration of 1 X 109 AfMNPV, PIB's/ml 1 X 109 AfMNPF
PIB's at 100 percent. Proposed classification/Use: None. For use only
in the manufacture of finished products for control of certain
lepidopterous pest species on vegetable crops. (PM 18)
2. File Symbol: 11688-RL. Applicant: W. R. Grace and Company, 7379
Route 32, Columbia, MD 21044. Product name: PFR-MUP. Biological
Insecticide. Active ingredient: Paecilomyces fumosoroseus Apopka Strain
97 at 7 percent. Proposed classification/Use: None. For manufacturing
use only. (PM 18)
3. File Symbol: 11688-RA. Applicant: W. R. Grace and Co. Product
name: PFR-97 WDG. Biological Insecticide. Active
ingredient: Paecilomyces fumosoroseus Apopka Strain 97 at 12.5 percent.
Proposed classification/Use: None. For use against whiteflies, aphids,
thrips, and spider mites on ornamentals and food crops in greenhouses
and outdoors. (PM 18)
4. File Symbol: 275-OO. Applicant: Abbott Laboratories, Chemical
and Agricultural Products Division, 1401 Sheridan Road, North Chicago,
IL 60064-4000. Product name: ABG 9008 Biological Nematicide Technical
Powder. Nematicide. Active ingredient: Dried fermentation solids and
solubles of Myrothecium verrucaria at 98.0 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. For manufacturing use only. (PM 21)
5. File Symbol: 275-RNN. Applicant: Abbott Laboratories. Product
name: ABG 9008 Biological Nematicide Wettable Powder. Nematocide.
Active ingredient: Dried fermantation solids and solubles of
Myrothecium verrucaria at 100 percent. Proposed classification/Use:
None. For use as soil application on food, fiber, and ornamental crops
for control of nematodes. (PM 21)
6. File Symbol: 64296-RU. Applicant: EcoScience Corporation, One
Innovation Drive, Worcester, MA 01605. Product name: Bio-Save 11
Biofungicide 10 WP. Biological Fungicide. Active ingredient:
Pseudomonas syringae, (Strain ESC 11) at 10 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. For postharvest application on apples, pears,
and citrus. (PM 21)
7. File Symbol: 64296-RG. Applicant: EcoScience Corp. Product name:
ESC-11 Biofungicide Technical. Biological Fungicide. Active ingredient:
Pseudomonas syringae, (Strain ESC-11) at 96 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. For formulation use only. (PM 21)
8. File Symbol: 10772-E. Applicant: Church and Dwight Co., Inc, 469
North Harrison St., Princeton, NJ 08543-5297. Product name: Armicarb
Potassium Bicarbonate, F.C.C. Fungicide. Active ingredient: Potassium
bicarbonate at 99.9 percent. Proposed classification/Use: None.
Manufacturing use for formulation of end-use products; for disease
control on fruit, vegetables, ornamental crops, and turf. (PM 21)
9. File Symbol: 10772-G. Applicant: Church and Dwight Co., Inc.
Product name: Armicarb Sodium Bicarbonate, F.C.C. Fungicide. Active
ingredient: Sodium bicarbonate at 99.9 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. Manufacturing use for formulation of end-use
products; for disease control on fruit, vegetables, ornamental crops,
and turf. (PM 21)
10. File Symbol: 524-UAA. Applicant: Monsanto Agricultural Company,
800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. Product name: Battalion
Herbicide. Herbicide. Active ingredient: Halosulfuron methyl 5-[[(4,6-
dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-
methyl-1- H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate at 14.9 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. Preemergent control of weeds in field corn.
(PM 23)
11. File Symbol: 524-UAI. Applicant: Monsanto Co. Product name:
Manage Herbicide. Herbicide. Active ingredient: Halosulfuron methyl 5-
[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-
1-methyl-1- H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate at 48 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. For use to control weeds in turfgrass. (PM
23)
12. File Symbol: 524-UAL. Applicant: Monsanto Co. Product name:
Permit Herbicide. Herbicide. Active ingredient: Halosulfuron methyl 5-
[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-
1-methyl-1- H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate at 72.3 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. For postemergent control of weeds in field
corn, field corn grown for seed, and sorghum (milo). (PM 23)
13. File Symbol: 524-UAT. Monsanto Co. Product name: MON 12000
Herbicide. Herbicide. Active ingredient: Halosulfuron methyl 5-[[(4,6-
dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-
methyl-1- H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate at 99.4 percent. Proposed
classification/Use: None. For manufacturing and formulation into
herbicides only. (PM 23)
14. File Symbol: 57978-G. Applicant: Sutton Laboratories, Inc., 116
Summit Avenue, Chatum, NJ 07928. Product name: Suttoncide A.
Microbiocide. Active ingredient: Sodium hydroxymethylamino acetate at
95 percent. Proposed classification/Use: None. For use as an industrial
preservative for coatings, adhesives, printing inks, pastes, and
polishes. (PM 31)
15. File Symbol: 57978-L. Applicant: Sutton Laboratories. Product
name: Germall II. Microbiocide. Active ingredient: Urea, N-(1,3-
bis(hydroxymethyl)-2,5-dioxo-4-imidazolidinyl)-N,N'-bis(hydroxymethyl)-
at 97 percent. Proposed classification/Use: None. For use as an
industrial preservative for coatings, adhesives, printing inks, pastes,
and polishes. (PM 31)
Notice of approval or denial of an application to register a
pesticide product will be announced in the Federal Register. The
procedure for requesting data will be given in the Federal Register if
an application is approved.
Comments received within the specified time period will be
considered before a final decision is made; comments received after the
time specified will be considered only to the extent possible without
delaying processing of the application.
Written comments filed pursuant to this notice, will be available
in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operation
Division office at the address provided from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except legal holidays. It is suggested that persons
interested in reviewing the application file, telephone the FOD office
(703-305-5805), to ensure that the file is available on the date of
intended visit.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Product
registration.
Dated: October 21, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26912 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26813 Rohm and Haas Co.; Approval of Pesticide Product Registration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26813]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-30228B; FRL-4769-9]
Rohm and Haas Co.; Approval of Pesticide Product Registration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of an application
submitted by Rohm and Haas Company to conditionally register the
pesticide product Anti-Foulant C-9211M containing a new active
ingredient not included in any previously registered product pursuant
to the provisions of section 3(c)(7)(C) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Marshall Swindell, Acting
Product Manager (PM) 31, Registration Division (7505C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number: Rm. 272, CM #2, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202, (703-305-6908).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice published in the Federal
Register of November 16, 1983 (48 FR 52124), which announced that Rohm
and Haas Co., Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19105, had
submitted an application to register the pesticide product Anti-Foulant
C-9211M (EPA File Symbol 707-RTL) containing the active ingredients
4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone at 35.0 percent and 4-
chloro-2-n-octyl-3-(2H)-isothiazolone at 5.0 percent, active
ingredients not included in any previously registered product.
This application was approved on February 28, 1994, as Anti-Foulant
C-9211M, containing the active ingredient 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone at 30.0 percent, (EPA Registration Number 707-175) for
use in the formulation of marine antifoulant paints.
A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C)
of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking
because a period reasonably sufficient for generation of the data has
not elapsed since the Administrator first imposed the data
requirements, on condition that such data are received by the end of
the conditional registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk
criteria set forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during
the conditional registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment; and that use of the pesticide is in the
public interest.
The Agency has considered the available data on the risks
associated with the proposed use of 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone, and information on social, economic, and environmental
benefits to be derived from such use. Specifically, the Agency has
considered the nature of the chemical and its pattern of use,
application methods and rates, and level and extent of potential
exposure. Based on these reviews, the Agency was able to make basic
health and safety determinations which show that use of 4,5-dichloro-2-
n-octyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone during the period of conditional
registration is not expected to cause any unreasonable adverse effect
on the environment, and that use of the pesticide is in the public
interest.
This conditional registration has been issued even though at this
time, no additional ecological effects and environmental fate data will
be required for this manufacturing use product. However, additional
requirements for environmental fate and ecological effects data are
being held in reserve pending the review of leaching studies and will
be requested for this manufacturing use product. The leaching from the
matrix data will be required for end-use formulators. The data only
supports the formulation of marine antifloulant paints for boats and
vessels only. If these conditions are not complied with, the
registration will be subject to cancellation in accordance with FIFRA
section 6(e).
Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C), the Agency has determined that
this conditional registration is in the public interest. Use of the
pesticides are of significance to the user community, and appropriate
labeling, use directions, and other measures have been taken to ensure
that use of the pesticides will not result in unreasonable adverse
effects to man and the environment.
More detailed information on this conditional registration is
contained in an EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet on 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-
3(2H)-isothiazolone.
A copy of the fact sheet, which provides a summary description of
the chemical, use patterns and formulations, science findings, and the
Agency's regulatory position and rationale, may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved
label and the list of data references used to support registration are
available for public inspection in the office of the Product Manager
listed above. The data and other scientific information used to support
registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10
of FIFRA, are available for public inspection in the Public Response
and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 1132, CM
#2, Arlington, VA 22202 (703-305-5805). Requests for data must be made
in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and
must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Such requests should: (1) Identify the
product name and registration number and (2) specify the data or
information desired.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Product
registration.
Dated: September 28, 1994.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26813 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26812 Ciba-Geigy Corp.; Approval of a Pesticide Product Registration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26812]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-30351A; FRL-4913-6]
Ciba-Geigy Corp.; Approval of a Pesticide Product Registration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of an application
submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corporation, to conditionally register the
pesticide product Irgarol 1051, containing an active ingredient not
included in any previously registered product pursuant to the
provisions of section 3(c)(7)(C) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Marshall Swindell, Product
Manager (PM) 31, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: Rm. 270, CM #2, Environmental Protection Agency, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202, (703-305-6908).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the
Federal Register of June 10, 1993 (58 FR 32533), which announced that
Ciba-Geigy Corp., Additives Division, Three Skyline Drive, Hawthorne,
NY 10532, had submitted an application to conditionally register the
pesticide product Irgarol 1051, (EPA File Symbol 40810-RR), containing
the active ingredient N-cyclopropyl-N'-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-
(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine at 96 percent, an active
ingredient not included in any previously registered product.
The application was approved on September 9, 1994, as Irgarol 1051
for use in formulating antifoulant paints in boats and vessels only.
The product was assigned (EPA Registration Number 40810-11).
A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C)
of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking, on
condition that such data are received by the end of the conditional
registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk criteria set
forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during the conditional
registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment; and that use of the pesticide is in the public interest.
The Agency has considered the available data on the risks
associated with the proposed use of N-cyclopropyl-N'-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine, and
information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be
derived from such use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the
nature of the chemical and its pattern of use, application methods and
rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these
reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety
determinations which show that use of N-cyclopropyl-N'-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine during the
period of conditional registration is not expected to cause any
unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, and that use of the
pesticide is in the public interest.
This product is conditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA
section 3(c)(7)(A). Additional ecological effects data and
environmental fate data will be required from end-use formulators for
antifoulant boat bottom paints. All data, especially data which is
currently held in reserve may be required to be submitted for review.
If these conditions are not complied with the registration will be
subject to cancellation in accordance with FIFRA section 6(e).
Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C), the Agency has determined that
this conditional registration is in the public interest. Use of the
pesticides are of significance to the user community, and appropriate
labeling, use directions, and other measures have been taken to ensure
that use of the pesticides will not result in unreasonable adverse
effects to man and the environment.
More detailed information on this registration is contained in an
EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet on N-cyclopropyl-N'-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-
(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine.
A copy of this fact sheet, which provides a summary description of
the chemical, use patterns and formulations, science findings, and the
Agency's regulatory position and rationale, may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved
label and the list of data references used to support registration are
available for public inspection in the office of the Product Manager.
The data and other scientific information used to support registration,
except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are
available for public inspection in the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 1132, CM #2,
Arlington, VA 22202 (703-305-5805). Requests for data must be made in
accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and
must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 401 M
St., SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Such requests should: (1) Identify
the product name and registration number and (2) specify the data or
information desired.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Product
registration.
Dated: September 26, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26812 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26811 Yoshitomi Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Approval of a Pesticide Product Registration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26811]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-30374; FRL-4915-3]
Yoshitomi Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Approval of a
Pesticide Product Registration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of an application
submitted by Yoshitomi Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., to register the
pesticide product RYH-86NA, containing an active ingredient not
included in any previously registered product pursuant to the
provisions of section 3(c)(5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Ruth Douglas, Product Manager
(PM) 32, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone
number: Rm. 278, CM #2, Environmental Protection Agency, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202, (703-305-7964).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA received an application from Yoshitomi
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., 6-9, Hiranomachi 2-Chome Chou-ku,
Osaka 541, Japan to register the pesticide product RYH-86NA (EPA File
Symbol 63898-R), containing the active ingredient 4,5 dichloro-1,2-
dithiol-3-one at 48.20 percent, an active ingredient not included in
any previously registered product. However, since the notice of receipt
of application to register this product did not publish in the Federal
Register, as required by section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA, as amended,
interested parties may submit written comments within 30 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
The application was approved on August 11, 1994, as RYH-86NA for
formulation into end-use products only (EPA Registration Number 63898-
1).
The Agency has considered all required data on risks associated
with the proposed use of 4,5 dichloro-1,2-dithiol-3-one, and
information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be
derived from use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature of
the chemical and its pattern of use, application methods and rates, and
level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the
Agency was able to make basic health safety determinations which show
that use of 4,5 dichloro-1,2-dithiol-3-one when used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, will not generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects to the environment.
More detailed information on this registration is contained in an
EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet on 4,5 dichloro-1,2-dithiol-3-one.
A copy of this fact sheet, which provides a summary description of
the chemical, use patterns and formulations, science findings, and the
Agency's regulatory position and rationale, may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved
label and the list of data references used to support registration are
available for public inspection in the office of the Product Manager.
The data and other scientific information used to support registration,
except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are
available for public inspection in the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 1132, CM #2,
Arlington, VA 22202 (703-305-5805). Requests for data must be made in
accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and
must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 401 M
St., SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Such requests should: (1) Identify
the product name and registration number and (2) specify the data or
information desired.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Product
registration.
Dated: October 13, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26811 Filed 11-01-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26810 Pesticide Tolerance Petitions; Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26810]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[PF-610; FRL-4915-5]
Pesticide Tolerance Petitions; Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces two amendments to filings for pesticide
petitions (PP) proposing the establishment of regulations for residues
of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various agricultural
commodities.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (H7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., Sw.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this notice may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All
written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at
the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, contact the PM named
in each petition at the following office location/telephone number:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office location/
Product Manager telephone number Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Giles-Parker Rm. 229, CM #2, 703-305- 1921 Jefferson Davis
(PM 22). 5540.. Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Joanne Miller (PM 23).. Rm. 237, CM #2, 703-557- Do.
7830..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has received amended pesticide petitions
as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations
for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various
agricultural commodities.
Amended Filings
1. PP 2F4154. In the Federal Register of June 29, 1994 (59 FR
33504), EPA issued a notice of an amended petition filed by Rohm & Haas
Co., Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19105 (amendment to
petition filed in the Federal Register of December 30 1992 (57 FR
62334; Dec. 30, 1992)) proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a regulation to permit residues of fenbuconazole and its
metabolites in or on bananas (whole fruit) at 0.3 part per million
(ppm) of which not more than 0.05 ppm is contained in banana pulp. The
amended petition is further amended to specify that the residues of
fenbuconazole and its metabolites are combined and expressed parent
equivalent to determine the total raw agricultural commodity (RAC)
residue on bananas. The Rohm & Haas Co. requests that the following
permanent tolerances be established for the total fenbuconazole
residues: bananas (whole fruit) at 0.3 ppm of which not more than 0.05
ppm is contained in banana pulp. (PM 22)
2. PP 3F4193. In the Federal Register of October 21, 1993 (58 FR
54354), EPA issued a notice that Monsanto Co., 700 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005, proposed to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing
a regulation to permit residues of Permit Herbicide (methyl 5-[(4,6-
dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl-3-chloro-1-methyl-
1H-pyrazole-4- carboxylate, and its metabolites determined as 3-chloro-
1-methyl-5-sulfamoylpyrazole-4-carboxylic acid and expressed as parent
equivalents), in or on corn, field grain at 0.1 ppm, corn, field forage
at 0.3 ppm, corn, field fodder at 1.3 ppm, and grain sorghum (milo)
grain at 0.02 ppm (lower limit of method validation), grain sorghum
(milo) forage at 0.07 ppm, grain sorghum (milo) stover at 0.08 ppm,
grain sorghum (milo) silage at 0.14 ppm, grain sorghum (milo) hay, no
tolerance proposals. Monsanto Co. has submitted to EPA an amended
petition proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a
regulation to permit residues in or on corn, field grain at 0.1 ppm,
corn, field forage at 0.3 ppm, corn, field fodder at 1.5 ppm, grain
sorghum (milo) grain at 0.1 ppm, grain sorghum (milo) forage at 0.3
ppm, grain sorghum (milo) fodder/stover at 0.1 ppm, and meat and meat
byproducts (cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep) at 0.1 ppm. The
amended petition also proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing
a regulation to permit indirect or inadvertent residues when present as
a result of application to field corn and/or grain sorghum (milo) in or
on soybean seed at 0.5 ppm, soybean forage at 0.5 ppm, soybean hay at
0.5 ppm, and wheat grain at 0.1 ppm, wheat forage at 0.1 ppm, and wheat
straw at 0.2 ppm. (PM 23)
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a.
Dated: October 7, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26810; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26807 Pesticide Tolerance Petitions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26807]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[PF-607; FRL-4911-2]
Pesticide Tolerance Petitions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the filing of pesticide petitions (PP)
and food/feed additive petitions (FAP) proposing the establishment of
regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on
various agricultural commodities.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 246, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this notice may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All
written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 246 at
the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, contact the PM named
in each petition at the following office location/telephone number:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office location/
Product Manager telephone number Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Edwards (PM 19). Rm. 207, CM #2, 703-305- 1921 Jefferson Davis
6386. Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Steve Robbins (PM 21).. Rm. 227, CM #2, 703-305- Do.
6900.
Cynthia Giles-Parker Rm. 229, CM #2, 703-305- Do.
(PM 22). 5540.
Joanne Miller (PM 23).. Rm. 237, CM #2, 703-305- Do.
7830.
Rober Taylor (PM 25)... Rm. 241, CM #2, 703-557- Do.
6800.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has received pesticide petitions and
food/feed additive petitions as follows that propose establishment and/
or amendment of tolerances or regulations for residues of certain
pesticide chemicals in or on certain agricultural commodities.
Initial Filings
1. PP 4F4321. Ciba-Plant Protection, Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a tolerance to permit residues of the fungicide
propiconazole (1-[[1-(2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole) in or on the crop grouping stone fruits
at 1.0 part per million (ppm). (PM 21)
2. PP 4F4334. Vanson, 8840 152nd Ave., Northeast, Redmond, WA,
98052-3535, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues in or on
rice, grain to permit the use of poly-d-glucosamine (Chitosan) as a
seed treatment on rice. (PM 23)
3. PP 4F4336. Ciba Plant Protection, Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a regulation to permit residues of the new herbicide
prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-
trifluoropropyl)-1-phenylsufonyl] urea, in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities: corn, forage at 0.02 ppm; corn, fodder at
0.02 ppm; corn, grain at 0.02 ppm; corn, fresh (including sweet kernels
plus cobs with husks removed) at 0.02 ppm; milk at 0.02 ppm; meat, fat
and meat byproducts, kidney and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses,
and sheep at 0.10 ppm; poultry, fat, kidney, liver, meat and meat
byproducts at 0.10 ppm; eggs at 0.10 ppm. (PM 25)
4. PP 4F4337. Gustafson, Inc., P.O. Box 660065, Dallas, TX 75266-
0065, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a regulation to
permit residues of imidacloprid, 1-[(chloro-3-pyridinyl) methyl]-N-
nitro-2-imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites (calculated as
imidacloprid), in or on wheat, forage at 7.0 ppm, wheat, straw at 0.3
ppm, wheat, grain at 0.1 ppm, barley, forage at 1.2 ppm, barley, straw
at 0.2 ppm, barley, grain at 0.1 ppm, sorghum, forage at 0.1 ppm,
sorghum, straw at 0.1 ppm, sorghum, grain at 0.1 ppm, beets, sugar
(roots) at 0.1 ppm, and beets, sugar (tops) at 0.1 ppm (PM 19).
5. PP 4F4338. Monsanto Co., Suite 1100, 700 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005, proposes to amend 40 CFR 180.364(a) by
establishing a regulation to permit combined residues of glyphosate (N-
(phosphonomethyl) glycine) and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic
acid (AMPA) resulting from the application of the isopropylamine salt
of glyphosate and/or the monoammonium salt of glyphosate in or on
citrus fruits at 0.5 ppm. (PM 25)
6. PP 4F4340. Valent U.S.A. Corp., 1333 North California Blvd.,
Suite 600, P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025, proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a regulation to permit residues
of clethodim ((E)-()-2-[1-[[(3-chloro-2-
propenyl)oxy]imino]propyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propenyl]-3-hydroxy-2-
cyclohexen-1-one) and its metabolites containing the 2-cyclohexen-1-one
moiety in or on sugar beet, roots, at 0.2 ppm, sugar beet, tops, at 0.5
ppm, and onion (dry bulb) at 0.5 ppm. (PM 23).
7. FAP 4H5688. ISK Biotech Corp., 5966 Heisley Rd., P.O. Box 8000,
Mentor, OH 44061-8000, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 186 by
establishing a feed additive regulation to permit the residues of DCPA
(Dacthal W75) in or on bean cannery wastes, tomato pomace, and potato
peels. (PM 23)
8. FAP 4H5700. Gustafson, Inc., P.O. Box 660065, Dallas, TX 75266-
0065, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a feed additive
regulation to permit residues of imidacloprid, 1-[(-chloro-3-pyridinyl)
methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites (calculated as
imidacloprid), in or on the following processed commodities: Beets,
sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm. (PM 19)
9. FAP 4H5705. Monsanto Co., 700 14th St., NW., Suite 1100,
Washington, DC 20005, proposes to amend 40 CFR 185.3500 by establishing
a feed additive regulation to permit the residues of glyphosate, N-
(phosphonomethyl)glycine, and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid
in or on citrus, pulp, dried at 1.0 ppm. (PM 25)
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Food and feed additives, Pesticides and
pests.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a.
Dated: September 16, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26807; Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26806 Emergency Exemptions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26806]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-180951; FRL-4914-3]
Emergency Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA has granted specific exemptions for the control of various
pests to 12 States below. One crisis exemption was initiated by the
Montana Department of Agriculture. These exemptions, issued during the
months of May, June, and July 1994, are subject to application and
timing restrictions and reporting requirements designed to protect the
environment to the maximum extent possible. EPA has denied two specific
exemption requests. Information on these restrictions is available from
the contact persons in EPA listed below.
DATES: See each specific and crisis exemption for its effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption for the
name of the contact person. The following information applies to all
contact persons: By mail: Registration Division (7505W), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: 6th Floor,
CS #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703-308-8417).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has granted specific exemptions to the:
1. Arkansas State Plant Board for the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on
wheat to control the armyworms; May 9, 1994, to June 30, 1994. Arkansas
had initiated a crisis exemption for this use. (Andrea Beard)
2. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Pesticide Regulation, for the use of myclobutanil on strawberries to
control powdery mildew; July 28, 1994, to July 27, 1995. (Susan
Stanton)
3. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Pesticide Regulation, for the use of imidacloprid on tomatoes to
control the sweet potato or silverleaf whitefly; June 1, 1994, to June
1, 1995. A notice of receipt published in the Federal Register of April
15, 1994 (59 FR 18118). The situation was determined to be urgent and
nonroutine, since this is a newly introduced pest, and registered
materials were not providing adequate control. Significant economic
losses were expected. (Andrea Beard)
4. Colorado Department of Agriculture for the use of bifenthrin on
corn to control spider mites; July 1, 1994, to August 31, 1994. (Andrea
Beard)
5. Idaho Department of Agriculture for the use of imidacloprid on
apples to control aphids; May 31, 1994, to September 15, 1994. A notice
of receipt published in the Federal Register of April 20, 1994 (59 FR
18816). The situation was determined to be urgent and nonroutine due to
loss of effective alternative products. Significant economic losses
were expected as a result. (Andrea Beard)
6. Kansas Department of Agriculture for the use of bifenthrin on
corn to control spider mites; July 1, 1994, to August 31, 1994. (Andrea
Beard)
7. Maryland Department of Agriculture for the use of clomazone on
snap beans to control broadleaf weeds; July 19, 1994, to August 20,
1994. (Margarita Collantes)
8. Michigan Department of Agriculture for the use of chlorothalonil
on asparagus to control purple spot disease; July 12, 1994, to November
1, 1994. (Susan Stanton)
9. Michigan Department of Agriculture for the use of triadimefon on
asparagus to control asparagus rust; July 15, 1994, to November 1,
1994. (Susan Stanton)
10. New Mexico Department of Agriculture for the use of cyfluthrin
on chili peppers to control pepper weevils; July 8, 1994, to September
30, 1994. (Libby Pemberton)
11. Ohio Department of Agriculture for the use of cypermethrin on
green onions to control thrips; July 1, 1994, to September 30, 1994.
(Larry Fried)
12. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture for the use of bifenthrin on
corn to control spider mites; July 1, 1994, to August 25, 1994. (Andrea
Beard)
13. Oregon Department of Agriculture for the use of imidacloprid on
apples to control aphids; May 31, 1994, to September 15, 1994. A notice
of receipt published in the Federal Register of April 6, 1994 (59 FR
16204). The situation was determined to be urgent and nonroutine due to
loss of effective alternative products. Significant economic losses
were expected as a result. (Andrea Beard)
14. Utah Department of Agriculture for the use of imidacloprid on
apples to control aphids; May 31, 1994, to September 15, 1994. A notice
of receipt published in the Federal Register of April 6, 1994 (59 FR
16204). The situation was determined to be urgent and nonroutine due to
loss of effective alternative products. Significant economic losses
were expected as a result. (Andrea Beard)
15. Washington Department of Agriculture for the use of
esfenvalerate on cranberries to control black vine weevils; July 6,
1994, to August 31, 1994. (Libby Pemberton)
A crisis exemption was initiated by the Michigan Department of
Agriculture on July 13, 1994, for the use of avermectin on potatoes to
control the Colorado potato beetle. This program has ended. (Libby
Pemberton)
EPA has denied a specific exemption request from the:
1. Georgia Department of Agriculture for the use of Pirate
insecticide on cotton to control the sweet potato whitefly. A notice of
receipt published in the Federal Register of June 22, 1994 (59 FR
32207). The exemption was denied because the proposed use poses a risk
of unreasonable adverse effects on nontarget birds and aquatic
organisms, including endangered species. Although some growers may
incur significant economic losses, the expected Statewide losses do not
justify the use of this unregistered pesticide. (Susan Stanton)
2. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry for the use of
Pirate insecticide on cotton to control beet armyworms. A notice of
receipt published in the Federal Register of June 22, 1994 (59 FR
32205). The exemption was denied because the proposed use poses a risk
of unreasonable adverse effects on nontarget birds and aquatic
organisms, including endangered species. An emergency condition does
not exist. (Susan Stanton)
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Crisis
exemptions, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: October 13, 1994.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26806 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26797 Linuron; Establishment of Temporary Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26797]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[PP 4G4290/T667; FRL 4914-9]
Linuron; Establishment of Temporary Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA has established temporary tolerances for residues of the
herbicide linuron in or on certain raw agricultural commodities. These
temporary tolerances were requested by Resource Seeds, Inc.
DATES: These temporary tolerances expire September 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Robert Taylor, Product
Manager (PM) 25, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 245, CM#2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-6800.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interregional Research Project No. 4, State
Agricultural Experimental Station, Rutgers University, P.O. Box 231,
New Brunswick, NJ 8903-0231, has requested in pesticide petition (PP)
4G4290, the establishment of temporary tolerances for residues of the
herbicide linuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea] in or
on the raw agricultural commodities lupine grain, lupine forage, and
lupine hay at 1.0 part per million (ppm). These temporary tolerances
will permit the marketing of the above raw agricultural commodities
when treated in accordance with the provisions of the experimental use
permit 67651-EUP-1, which is being issued under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (Pub.
L. 95-396, 92 Stat. 819; 7 U.S.C. 136).
The scientific data reported and other relevant material were
evaluated, and it was determined that establishment of the temporary
tolerances will protect the public health. Therefore, the temporary
tolerances have been established on the condition that the pesticide be
used in accordance with the experimental use permit and with the
following provisions:
1. The total amount of the active ingredient to be used must not
exceed the quantity authorized by the experimental use permit.
2. Resource Seeds, Inc., must immediately notify the EPA of any
findings from the experimental use that have a bearing on safety. The
company must also keep records of production, distribution, and
performance and on request make the records available to any authorized
officer or employee of the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration.
These tolerances expire September 1, 1996. Residues not in excess
of these amounts remaining in or on the raw agricultural commodities
after this expiration date will not be considered actionable if the
pesticide is legally applied during the term of, and in accordance
with, the provisions of the experimental use permit and temporary
tolerances. These tolerances may be revoked if the experimental use
permit is revoked or if any experience with or scientific data on this
pesticide indicate that such revocation is necessary to protect the
public health.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this notice from
the requirement of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a(j).
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 13, 1994.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-26797 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.