issue-1994-01-05•Federal Register notices — 1994-01-05
Federal Register notices — 1994-01-05
issue-1994-01-05Federal Register notices — 1994-01-05Notice
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. X94-10105 Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 615-639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X94-10105]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular
biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued,
under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from December 13, 1993, through December 22,
1993. The last biweekly notice was published on December 22, 1993 (58
FR 67840).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public and State comments received
before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will
publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for
opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail 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 20555, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be
delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue,
Bethesda, 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, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555.
The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By February 4, 1994, the licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local
public document room for the particular facility involved. If a request
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,
designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the
Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy
the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services
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. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the
notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform
the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-
(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the
following message addressed to (Project Director): petitioner's name
and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A
copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and
to the attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will
not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the
presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document
room for the particular facility involved.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN
50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment requests: December 2, 1993
Description of amendment requests: The proposed changes would
modify TS 3/4.6.1.2 by removing the schedular requirements for a Type A
(overall integrated containment leakage rate) test to be performed
specifically at 40 1B 10 month intervals and replacing these
requirements with a requirement to perform Type A testing in accordance
with Appendix J to 10 CFR 50.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensees have
provided their analysis about the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
(1) The proposed changes would not involve an increase in the
probability or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change only allows flexibility in the scheduling of the
three required Type A tests in the 10-year service period. The
additional flexibility is needed for plants using 18-month fuel
cycles to allow refueling outages and testing intervals to coincide.
There is no change to the number of tests required, test
methodology, or acceptance criteria.
(2) The proposed changes would not create the possibility of a
new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change to the test schedule only provides
flexibility in meeting the same requirement for three tests in a 10-
year period. The testing type and bases have not changed. Therefore,
operation of the units with this more flexible test schedule will
not result in an accident previously not analyzed in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed changes do not
impact the design bases of the containment and do not modify the
response of the containment during a design basis accident.
(3) The proposed changes would not involve a reduction in the
margin of safety. The proposed changes to the schedule only provides
flexibility in meeting the same requirement for three tests in a 10-
year period. These proposed changes do not affect or change any
limiting conditions for operation (LCO), or any other surveillance
requirements in the TS, and the basis for the surveillance
requirement remains unchanged. The testing method, acceptance
criteria, and bases are not changed. The TS continue to require
testing that is consistent with the requirements of Appendix J to 10
CFR 50.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees' analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Phoenix Public Library, 12
East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Attorney for licensees: Nancy C. Loftin, Esq., Corporate Secretary
and Counsel, Arizona Public Service Company, P.O. Box 53999, Mail
Station 9068, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999
NRC Project Director: Theodore R. Quay
Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket No. 50-458, River Bend
Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 18, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
permit extending the time to perform leak rate testing of certain
containment isolation valves so that the testing can be performed
during the refueling outage scheduled to start April 16, 1994, rather
than requiring an earlier shutdown solely to perform the testing. The
proposed amendment would revise Surveillance Requirements 4.6.1.3d and
4.6.1.3f to allow a one-time extension of the surveillance intervals
for leak rate testing of containment isolation valves. In addition, the
proposed amendment would revise Surveillance Requirements 4.4.3.2.2a
and 4.4.3.2.2b, replacing the requirement to leak test the reactor
coolant pressure isolation valves every 18 months or prior to returning
a valve to service, with a requirement to leak test the valves in
accordance with the Inservice Testing Program. This would allow the
testing to be performed during the fifth refueling outage.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is
presented below:
1. The proposed changes would not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
One of the proposed technical specification (TS) changes requests a
one-time only extension of the surveillance intervals for the TS
Surveillance Requirements of TS 4.6.1.3f, leak rate testing of valves
sealed by the main steam positive leakage control system (MS-PLCS) and
the penetration valve leakage control system (PVLCS). The revision
would permit eleven containment isolation valves to be tested a maximum
of 46 days later than required by current technical specifications.
To permit the one-time extension of the surveillance interval for
leak rate tests of containment isolation valves, TS 4.6.1.3d must also
be revised to permit the interval for Type C leak rate tests to exceed
24 months. This change is consistent with an associated exemption
request. The exemption request and this revision would permit 20 valves
to be tested a maximum of 35 days later than required by the current
technical specifications.
The proposed amendment would also revise Surveillance Requirements
4.4.3.2.2a and 4.4.3.2.2b, replacing the requirement to leak test the
reactor coolant pressure isolation valves every 18 months or prior to
returning a valve to service, with a requirement to leak test the
valves in accordance with the Inservice Testing Program. This change
would require that the pressure isolation valves be tested in
accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
resulting in the valves being tested at least every refueling outage,
rather than specifying an 18 month cycle. The revision would permit
five valves to be tested a maximum of 65 days later than allowed under
the current technical specification.
Based on the short duration of the requested extensions, the
extensions will not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2. The proposed changes would not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed TS changes permit extension of the surveillance
intervals for leak rate testing of containment isolation valves and
reactor coolant system pressure isolation valves. In that the requested
extension durations are small as compared to the overall interval
allowed by TS, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
analyzed.
3. The proposed changes would not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The proposed TS changes permit extension of the surveillance
intervals for leak rate testing of containment isolation valves and
reactor coolant system pressure isolation valves. In that the requested
extension durations are small as compared to the overall interval
allowed by TS, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Documents
Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Attorney for licensee: Mark Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005
NRC Project Director: Suzanne C. Black
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-
324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick
County, North Carolina
Date of amendments request: December 8, 1993
Description of amendments request: The frequency for Channel
Calibration would be revised from Q (quarterly) to R (refuel) for
Technical Specification Table 4.3.2.1, Item 4.a.4, High Pressure Core
Injection Steam Line Tunnel Temperature-High.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change corrects Technical
Specification pages issued for Amendment 166 for Brunswick Unit 1
and Amendment 197 for Brunswick Unit 2, regarding NUMAC Steam Leak
Detection Equipment. Specifically, on page 3/4 3-29 for each unit,
the Channel Calibration frequency of Item 4.a.4, HPCI [High Pressure
Core Injection] Steam Line Tunnel Temperature - High, was
inadvertently left as quarterly (Q) rather than being revised to
refuel (R). The text of CP&L's September 14, 1992 license amendment
request and the NRC's safety evaluation for Amendments 166 and 197,
dated October 14, 1993, addressed the frequency change from
quarterly to refuel for this item. Therefore, the proposed change is
purely administrative in nature and can not involve a significant
increase in the probability of consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. As stated above, the NRC's safety evaluation for
Amendments 166 and 197, dated October 14, 1993, addressed the
frequency change from quarterly to refuel for Item 4.a.4 of Table
4.3.2-1, HPCI Steam Line Tunnel Temperature - High. Therefore, the
proposed change is purely administrative in nature and can not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed change corrects
Technical Specification pages issued for Amendment 166 for Brunswick
Unit 1 and Amendment 197 for Brunswick Unit 2, regarding NUMAC Steam
Leak Detection Equipment. The NRC's safety evaluation for Amendments
166 and 197, dated October 14, 1993, addressed the change of Channel
Calibration frequency of Item 4.a.4, HPCI Steam Line Tunnel
Temperature - High from quarterly (Q) to refuel (R). Therefore, the
proposed change is purely administrative and can not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: University of North Carolina
at Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.
Attorney for licensee: R. E. Jones, General Counsel, Carolina Power
& Light Company, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
NRC Project Director: S. Singh Bajwa
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket No. 50-409, La Crosse Boiling
Water Reactor (LACBWR), Vernon County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: November 5, 1993 (Reference LAC-
13320)
Brief description of amendment: This proposed change would modify
the Technical Specifications incorporated in Facility Operating License
No. DPR-45 in accordance with the requirements of the revised 10 CFR
Part 20 which becomes mandatory January 1, 1994 (56 FR 23360). In
addition, this proposed change would correct several editorial
oversights from previous amendments.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided
the results of its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by
the licensee and found that the licensee did not provide specific
information as to how it determined that the three standards of
50.92(c) were satisfied. The NRC staff performed its own evaluation of
the proposed change to determine if the three standards of 50.92(c)
were satisfied. The NRC staff's no significant hazards consideration
evaluation is presented below:
1. Will operation of the facility according to this proposed change
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change is to bring the LACBWR Technical Specifications
into conformance with the revised 10 CFR Part 20 and to correct several
editorial oversights previously evaluated. The proposed change has no
affect on any plant operating parameters. Consequently, the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Will operation of the facility according to this proposed change
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated?
The proposed change is to bring the LACBWR Technical Specifications
into conformance with the revised 10 CFR Part 20 and to correct several
editorial oversights previously evaluated. The proposed change is
administrative in nature. Further, the proposed change does not result
in any physical alteration to any plant system, and does not result in
any change in the method by which any safety-related system performs
its function. Consequently, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Will operation of the facility according to this proposed change
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The margin of safety is the difference between the value of a
critical design, operating, or post accident parameter, and the value
of the parameter which would produce unacceptable results. The proposed
change does not affect any hardware, has no effect on the current
operating methodologies or actions which govern plant performance, and
does not affect any accident analysis parameter. Consequently, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has determined based on its own no significant
hazards consideration evaluation that the three standards of 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: La Crosse Public Library, 800
Main Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
Attorney for licensee: Fritz Schubert, Esquire, Dairyland Power
Cooperative, 2615 East Avenue South, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
NRC Branch Chief: John H. Austin
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 11, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
consolidate the Quality Verification Department with the Nuclear
Generation Department and realign the Nuclear Safety Review Board such
that it reports to the Senior Vice-President of the Nuclear Generation
Department.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
[1. The amendments do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.]
The proposed revisions to consolidate the Quality Verification
Department with the Nuclear Generation Department and realign the
NSRB [Nuclear Safety Review Board] such that it reports to the
Senior Nuclear Officer, change the reference from Semiannual to
Annual, change the reference from group to division, delete titles
of persons designated to approve modifications, clarify the
responsibilities of the Safety Assurance Manager, and delete the
requirement to perform an annual independent Fire Protection Audit
will not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the changes
do not have any impact upon the design or operation of any plant
systems or components.
[2. The amendments do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.]
The proposed revisions will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because
the changes are administrative in nature and operation of Catawba,
McGuire, and Oconee Nuclear Stations in accordance with these TS
[technical specifications] will not create any failure modes not
bounded by previously evaluated accidents.
[3. The amendments do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Albert Carr, Duke Power Company, 422
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
NRC Project Director: Loren R. Plisco, Acting
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 11, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
consolidate the Quality Verification Department with the Nuclear
Generation Department and realign the Nuclear Safety Review Board such
that it reports to the Senior Vice-President of the Nuclear Generation
Department.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
[1. The amendments do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.]
The proposed revisions to consolidate the Quality Verification
Department with the Nuclear Generation Department and realign the
NSRB [Nuclear Safety Review Board] such that it reports to the
Senior Nuclear Officer, change the reference from Semiannual to
Annual, change the reference from group to division, delete titles
of persons designated to approve modifications, clarify the
responsibilities of the Safety Assurance Manager, and delete the
requirement to perform an annual independent Fire Protection Audit
will not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the changes
do not have any impact upon the design or operation of any plant
systems or components.
[2. The amendments do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.]
The proposed revisions will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because
the changes are administrative in nature and operation of Catawba,
McGuire, and Oconee Nuclear Stations in accordance with these TS
[technical specifications] will not create any failure modes not
bounded by previously evaluated accidents.
[3. The amendments do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.]
The proposed revisions will not involve a reduction in a margin
of safety because they are administrative in nature.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Albert Carr, Duke Power Company, 422
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
NRC Project Director: Loren R. Plisco, Acting
Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 11, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
consolidate the Quality Verification Department with the Nuclear
Generation Department and realign the Nuclear Safety Review Board such
that it reports to the Senior Vice-President of the Nuclear Generation
Department. In addition, the requirement to conduct an annual
independent Fire Protection Audit is deleted.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
[1. The amendments do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.]
The proposed revisions to consolidate the Quality Verification
Department with the Nuclear Generation Department and realign the
NSRB [Nuclear Safety Review Board] such that it reports to the
Senior Nuclear Officer, change the reference from Semiannual to
Annual, change the reference from group to division, delete titles
of persons designated to approve modifications, clarify the
responsibilities of the Safety Assurance Manager, and delete the
requirement to perform an annual independent Fire Protection Audit
will not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the changes
do not have any impact upon the design or operation of any plant
systems or components.
[2. The amendments do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.]
The proposed revisions will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because
the changes are administrative in nature and operation of Catawba,
McGuire, and Oconee Nuclear Stations in accordance with these TS
[technical specifications] will not create any failure modes not
bounded by previously evaluated accidents.
[3. The amendments do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.]
The proposed revisions will not involve a reduction in a margin
of safety because they are administrative in nature.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Oconee County Library, 501
West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691
Attorney for licensee: J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston and Strawn,
1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036
NRC Project Director: Loren R. Plisco, Acting
Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 16, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications to change the periodic test
schedule for containment Type A integrated leak rate tests (ILRTs) from
a set of three tests performed at approximately equal intervals during
each 10-year period, as specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J,
Section III.D, to one Type A test performed at 10-year intervals. The
change is being reviewed in conjunction with a proposed exemption to
Appendix J, as requested by the licensee in a letter dated November 16,
1993.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
The Waterford 3 Type A test history provides substantial
justification for the proposed test schedule. Three type A tests
have been performed over an eight (8) year period with successful
results. The tests indicate that Waterford 3 has a low leakage
containment and that the leakage has never exceeded 24.6% of
La. [La is the maximum allowed leakage rate of air from
containment where containment is pressurized to Pa; for
Waterford 3 Pa is 44 psig. La for Waterford is 0.50
percent by weight of the containment air per 24 hours at Pa.]
There are no structural mechanisms which would adversely affect
the structural capability of the containment and that would be a
factor in extending the Type A test schedule to ten years. A risk
impact assessment was performed, and a determination was made that
there is no risk impact as a result of changing the Type A test
schedule. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
There are no design changes being made that would create a new
type of accident or malfunction. The proposed change will not alter
the plant or the manner in which it is operated. The change proposes
a change to the schedule for performing the periodic Type A test.
The purpose of the test is to provide periodic verification by test
of the leaktight integrity of the primary reactor containment, and
systems and components which penetrate containment. The tests assure
that leakage through containment and systems and components
penetrating containment will not exceed the allowable leakage rate
values associated with conditions resulting from an accident. The
change in schedule for performing the Type A test will not adversely
affect the containment integrity in the event of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a
new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change is a change to the schedule for performing
the periodic Type A tests and does not reduce the margin of safety
assumed in accident analysis for release of radioactive materials
from the containment atmosphere into the environment or any margin
of safety preserved by the Technical Specifications. The
methodology, acceptance criteria, and the technical specification
leakage limits for the performance of the Type A tests will not
change, and the Type A tests will be performed in accordance with
10CFR 50, Appendix J, and the Waterford 3 licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: University of New Orleans
Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122
Attorney for licensee: N.S. Reynolds, Esq., Winston & Strawn 1400 L
Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
NRC Project Director: William D. Beckner
Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 16, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to provide acceptable
conditions for operation when (1) the core operating limits supervisory
system (COLSS) is in service and neither control element assembly
calculator (CEAC) is operable and (2) the COLSS is out of service and
either or both CEACs are operable.
This proposed TS change modifies the departure from nucleate
boiling ratio (DNBR) margin, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.2.4b and c, which limits the core power distribution to the initial
value assumed in the accident analyses. Operation within this LCO
either limits or prevents potential fuel cladding failures in the event
of a postulated accident and limits damage to the fuel cladding during
an accident by ensuring that the plant is operating within acceptable
conditions at the onset of a transient. The limiting safety system
settings and this LCO are based on the accident analysis, so that
specified acceptable fuel design limits (SAFDLs) are not exceeded as a
result of anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs) and the limits of
acceptable consequences are not exceeded for other postulated
accidents.
The COLSS and core protection calculators (CPCs) monitor the core
power distribution on line and are capable of verifying that the linear
heat rate (LHR) and DNBR do not exceed their limits. The COLSS performs
this function by continuously monitoring the core power distribution
and calculating core power operating limits corresponding to the
allowable peak LHR and DNBR. The CPCs perform this function by
continuously calculating an actual value of DNBR and LHR for comparison
with the respective trip setpoints. CEACs monitor CEA position. Should
a CEA deviate from its subgroup position, the CEACs will transmit an
appropriate ``penalty'' factor to the CPCs.
The COLSS is normally used to monitor DNBR margin. When at least
one CEAC is operable, TS 3.2.4a provides enough margin to DNB to
accommodate the limiting AOO without failing the fuel. When neither
CEAC is operable, the CPCs lack the CEA position information necessary
to ensure a reactor trip when necessary. In this case TS 3.2.4b
requires the COLSS calculated core power to be reduced to ensure that
the limiting AOO will not result in fuel failure. Currently, TS 3.2.4b
requires that the COLSS calculated power be maintained at 13% below the
COLSS calculated power operating limit to compensate for the potential
error in the CPC DNBR calculation. The proposed revision would increase
this required adjustment to 16%, which is more restrictive than the
present value.
In instances when the COLSS is out of service, but either or both
CEACs are operable, TS 3.2.4c states that the DNBR operating margin
shall be maintained by comparing the DNBR indicated on any operable CPC
channel with the allowable value from TS Figure 3.2-2. Whenever the
COLSS is out of service, the CPCs are used to perform the same
monitoring function. However, the extra conservatisms built into the
CPCs for transient protection are not all required when the CPCs are
being used for monitoring. In order not to affect the CPC transient
protection, these conservatisms are not taken from the CPC, but are
credited in the COLSS out-of-service limits in Figure 3.2-2. A
reevaluation of the limiting AOOs has verified that, by maintaining the
margin in the proposed Figure 3.2-2, sufficient margin exists to ensure
that the limiting Cycle 7 AOO will not result in fuel failure.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
For the case when neither CEAC is operable but COLSS is in
service, the CPCs assume a preset CEA configuration and can not
obtain the required CEA position information to ensure the SAFDL on
DNBR will not be violated during an AOO. Thus, as a result of
limiting AOOs for Cycle 7, Specification 3.2.4b requires that core
power be reduced to a value 16% less than the current COLSS
calculated power operating limit. This ensures the limiting AOO will
not result in a violation of SAFDLs. The proposed revision to Figure
3.2-2 accounts for the situation when COLSS is out of service but at
least one CEAC is operable. In this case, the Cycle 7 safety
analysis has shown that by maintaining the CPC calculated DNBR above
the value shown in the figure, the limiting AOO will not result in a
violation of the SAFDLs. Therefore, the proposed change will not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are primarily a result of changes in Cycle
7 core parameters. These changes do not involve any change to any
equipment or manner in which the plant will be operated. These
changes further restrict the plant operation when either COLSS or
both CEACs are out of service. Therefore, the proposed change will
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
The intent of this Specification is to ensure that there is
always sufficient margin to DNB such that the CPCs can mitigate the
consequences of the most limiting AOO prior to a violation of the
SAFDLs. Generally, this margin is continuously monitored by COLSS;
however, if COLSS is out of service, but at least one CEAC is
operable, the limitation on CPC calculated DNBR (as a function of
ASI [axial shape index]) shown in Figure 3.2-2 represents a
conservative envelope of operating conditions consistent with the
Cycle 7 safety analysis assumptions. This band of operating
conditions has been analytically demonstrated to maintain an
acceptable minimum DNBR through all AOOs. On the other hand, for the
case when COLSS is in service, but neither CEAC is operable, the
proposed change will ensure that the limiting AOO will not result in
a violation of SAFDLs. Therefore, the proposed changes will not
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: University of New Orleans
Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122
Attorney for licensee: N.S. Reynolds, Esq., Winston & Strawn 1400 L
Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
NRC Project Director: William D. Beckner
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 2, 1993
Description of amendment request: The purpose of the request is to
change the plant Technical Specifications (TS) to remove the limiting
conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the chlorine
detection system. TMI-1 removed the gases Chlorination System for the
Circulating Water and River Water Systems. This modification eliminated
the need for a Chlorine Dectection System (CDS).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The TS requirements assured the operability of
the CDS in the event of an on-site chlorine release from a one ton
cylinder. These TS requirements reduced the probability and the
consequences of a radiological accident which may result from an
incapacitation of control room operatorsafter entry of chlorine into
the control room. With the removal and the restriction on delivery
of one ton chlorine cylinders, this postulated event is no longer
credible, and there is a decrease in the probability of a
radiological accident.
2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The TS
requirements associated with the CDS were for the on-site release of
chlorine from a one ton cylinder. These cylinders are removed and
prohibited from the TMI-1 site. These actions preclude a significant
on-site release of chlorine which could affect the control room
operators.
3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The purpose of the TS requirements was to maintain
operability of the CDS in the event of on-site release from a one
ton chlorine cylinder. Since chlorine cylinders greater than 150
pounds are prohibited on-site, the TS requirements for chlorine
detection are no longer required, and their removal will not reduce
the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth
Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz
Houston Lighting & Power Company, City Public Service Board of San
Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas,
Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,
Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: November 23, 1993
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to modify
the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 3/
4.8.1.1, ``A.C. Sources,'' to modify the action statements and
surveillance requirements for testing of the standby diesel generator.
This amendment would incorporate the recommendations of NRC Generic
Letter (GL) 93-05, ``Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements To
Reduce Surveillance Requirements For Testing During Power Operation,''
dated September 27, 1993.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change seeks to eliminate the unnecessary testing
of an operable Standby Diesel Generator (SDG). Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1.1 Actions a. and e. require all operable
SDGs be started as a demonstration of operability whenever one or
more of the offsite AC [alternating current] power sources is
declared inoperable. The inoperability of an offsite AC power source
has no effect on the reliability of a SDG. Deleting this requirement
does not affect the design or performance characteristics of the
SDGs. Therefore, the SDGs maintain their ability to perform their
design function.
TS 3.8.1.1 Actions b. and c. require all remaining operable SDGs
be started as a demonstration of operability whenever one of the SDG
is declared inoperable except for preplanned preventive maintenance
or testing. The proposed amendment would expand the testing
exclusion to include an inoperable support system and an
independently testable component in addition to preplanned
preventive maintenance and testing. The proposed amendment would
also eliminate the testing requirement of the remaining operable
SDGs, when a SDG is declared inoperable, unless there is cause to
believe a potential common mode failure exists for the remaining
SDGs. The normal TS surveillance testing schedule assures that
operable SDG(s) are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. A failure of one SDG does not reduce the reliability of
another, otherwise operable SDG. Deleting this requirement does not
affect the design or performance characteristics of the SDGs, once a
common mode failure has been dismissed. Therefore, the SDGs maintain
their ability to perform their design function.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The elimination of these unnecessary tests does not affect the
design bases of the SDGs, or any of the accident evaluations
involving the SDGs. The SDGs are designed to provide electrical
power to the equipment important for safety during all modes and
plant conditions following a loss of offsite power. The test
schedule established in accordance with GL 84-15 [``Proposed Staff
Actions To Improve and Maintain Diesel Generator Reliability'']
assures that operable SDGs are capable of performing their intended
safety function. Therefore, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Since the proposed change does not affect the design bases,
accident analysis, reliability or capability of the SDGs to perform
their intended safety function, this change does not involve any
reduction in a margin to safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Wharton County Junior College,
J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton Texas 77488
Attorney for licensee: Jack R. Newman, Esq., Newman & Holtzinger,
P.C., 1615 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
NRC Project Director: Suzanne C. Black
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-315, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 15, 1993. This submittal
supersedes a previous submittal dated March 10, 1993.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
implement interim tube plugging criteria for the tube support plate
elevation outer diameter stress corrosion cracking for cycle 14.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Operation of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 in
accordance with the proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Testing of model boiler specimens for free span tubing (no TSP
restraint) at room temperature conditions shows burst pressures in
excess of 5000 psi for indications of ODSCC with voltage
measurements as high as 19 volts. Burst testing performed on pulled
tubes from Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 with up to a 2.02 volt
indication shows measured burst in excess of 10,000 psi at room
temperature. Correcting for the effects of temperature on material
properties and minimum strength levels (as the burst testing was
done at room temperature), tube burst capability significantly
exceeds the RG 1.121 criterion requiring the maintenance of a margin
of 3 times normal operating pressure differential on tube burst. The
3 times normal operating pressure differential for the Cook Nuclear
Plant Unit 1 steam generators corresponds to 4275 psi. Based on the
existing data base, this criterion is satisfied with 7/8'' diameter
tubing with bobbin coil indications with signal amplitudes less than
4.9 volts, regardless of the indicated depth measurement. A 1.0 volt
plugging criteria compares favorably with the structural limit
considering the previously calculated growth rates for ODSCC within
the Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 steam generators. Considering a
voltage increase of 0.4 volts, and adding a 20% NDE uncertainty of
0.20 volts (90% Cumulative Probability) to the IPC of 1.0 volts
results in an EOC voltage of approximately 1.6 volts for Cycle 14
operation. A 3.3 volt safety margins implied (4.9 structural limit -
1.6 volt EOC - 3.3 volt margin). This EOC voltage compares favorably
with the Structural Limit of 4.9 volts.
For the voltage/burst correlation, the EOC structural limit is
supported by a voltage of 4.9 volts. A 3.1 volt BOC repair limit
confirms the structural limit when 40% growth and 20% uncertainty
are applied to the repair limit. This repair limit will be applied
for Cycle 14 IPC implementation to repair bobbin indication greater
than 3.1 volts independent of RPC confirmation of the indication.
The conservatism of this repair limit is shown by the EOC 12
(Summer 1992) eddy current data. The overall average voltage growth
was determined to be only 2.2%, with a 12% average voltage growth
for indications less than 0.75 volt BOC and a 1% average voltage
growth for indication >0.75 volt at the BOC. In addition, the Cycle
12 maximum observed voltage increase was found to be 0.49 volts, and
occurred in a tube initially <1.0 BOC. In accordance with the
technical specification requirements, the applicability of Cycle 13
growth rates for Cycle 14 operation will be confirmed prior to
return to power of Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Similar large
structural margins are anticipated.
As stated previously, TSP proximity to the tubes will prevent
tube burst during all plant conditions. Test data indicates that
tube burst cannot occur within the TSP, even for tubes which have
100% through-wall EDM notches, 0.75 inch long, provided that the TSP
is adjacent to the notched area. Therefore, a more realistic
assessment of tube operability should be performed against the RG
1.121 loading requirements during accidents SLB conditions, since
the TSP has the potential to deflect during blowdown following a
main SLB, thereby uncovering the intersection. At the ASME Code
recommended faulted condition loading of 3657 psi (2560 psi/0.7)
structural integrity is provided for bobbin voltage indications of a
minimum of 9.6 volts. The repair limit based on the structural
limited conservative SLB conditions would be 6.0 volts (compared to
a 3.1 volt repair limit for a structural limit based on the
3[delta]P burst capability voltage).
Only three indications of ODSCC have been reported to have
operating leakage, and all three have been in European plants. No
field leakage has been reported at other plants from tubes with
indications of a voltage level of under 7.7 volts (from 3/4''
tubing). Relative to the expected leakage during accident condition
loadings, it has been previously established that a postulated main
SLB outside of containment but upstream of the MSIV represents the
most limiting radiological condition relative to the IPC. In support
of implementation of the IPC, it will be determined whether the
distribution of cracking indications at the TSP intersections at the
EOC 14 are projected to be such that primary to secondary leakage
would result in site boundary doses within a small fraction of the
10 CFR 100 guidelines. The SLB leakage rate calculation methodology
prescribed in Section 3.3 of draft NUREG-1477 will be used to
calculate EOC 14 leakage. Due to the relatively low voltage growth
rates at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and the relatively small number
of indications affected by the IPC, SLB leakage prediction per draft
NUREG-1477 is expected to be less than the acceptance limit of 1.0
gpm in the faulted loop and far below the conservatively calculated
SRP based allowable value of 120 gpm in the faulted loop. The NRC
leakage rate calculation methodology applies a 98% confidence limit
on leakage that is independent of voltage. This method for
calculating SLB leakage is conservative as it assumes no
correlations exists between SLB leakage and bobbin probe voltage.
Tube pull results from Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 indicate that tube
wall degradation of greater than 40% through-wall was detectable
either by the bobbin or RPC probe. The tube with maximum through-
wall penetration of 56% (42% average) had a voltage of 2.02 volts.
This indication also was the largest recorded bobbin voltage from
the EOC 12 eddy current data. All burst tested tube intersections
had degradation depths of 40% to 56 % (actual) deep and all were
detected by both probes, with all bobbin voltage grater than or
equal to 1.0. Since the criteria requires the plugging of >1.0 volt
bobbin indications with confirmed RPC calls, using the Cook Nuclear
Plant Unit 1 pulled tube destructive examination results, it is
reasonable that no indications of degradation greater than 40% to
56% deep with an ability to influence tube burst capability were
left in service. Since the majority of the EOC 14 indications at
Cook Nuclear Unit 1 are expected to be below this level, the
inclusion of all IPC intersections into the leakage calculation is
exceptionally conservative.
Therefore, as re-implementation of the 1.0 volt IPC during Cycle
14 does not adversely affect steam generator tube integrity and
results in acceptable dose consequences, the proposed amendment does
not result in any increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated within the Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1
FSAR.
2. The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Implementation of the proposed steam generator tube IPC does not
introduce any significant changes to the plant design basis. Use of
the criteria does not provide a mechanism which could result in a
tube rupture outside of the region of the TSP elevations; no ODSCC
is occurring outside the thickness of the TSPs. Neither a single or
multiple tube rupture event would be expected in a steam generator
in which the plugging criteria has been applied (during all plant
conditions).
Specifically, Cook Nuclear Plant will continue to implement a
maximum leakage rate limit of 150 gpd (0.1 gpm) per steam generator
to help preclude the potential for excessive leakage during all
plant conditions. The Cycle 14 Technical Specification limits on
primary to secondary leakage at operating conditions is a maximum of
0.4 gpm (600 gpd) for all steam generators, or, a maximum of 150 gpd
for any one steam generator. The RG 1.121 criterion for establishing
operational leakage rate limits that require plant shutdown are
based upon leaks-before-break consideration to detect a free span
crack before potential tube rupture. The 150 gpd limit should
provide for leakage detection and plant shutdown in the event of the
occurrence of an unexpected single crack resulting in leakage that
is associated with the longest permissible crack length. RG 1.121
acceptance criteria for establishing operating leakage limits are
based on leak-before-break considerations such that plant shutdown
is initiated if the leakage associated with the longest permissible
crack is exceeded. The longest permissible crack is the length that
provides a safety factor of 3 against bursting at normal operating
pressure differential. A voltage amplitude of 4.9 volts for typical
ODSCC corresponds to meeting this tube burst requirement at a lower
95% prediction limit on the burst correlation coupled with 95/95 LTL
material properties. Alternate crack morphologies can correspond to
4.9 volts so that a unique crack length is not defied by the burst
pressure versus voltage correlation. Consequently, typical burst
pressure versus through-wall crack length correlations are used
below to define the ``longest permissible crack'' for evaluating
operating leakage limits.
At current plant conditions, the single through-wall crack
lengths that result in tube burst at 3 times normal operating
pressure differential and SLB conditions are 0.44 inch and 0.84
inch, respectively. A leak rate of 150 gpd will provide for
detection of 0.42 inch long cracks at nominal leak rates and 0.61
inch long cracks at the lower 95% confidence level leak rates. Since
tube burst is precluded during normal operation due to the proximity
of the TSP to the tube and the potential for the crevice to become
uncovered during SLB conditions, the leakage from the maximum
permissible crack must preclude tube burst at SLB conditions. Thus,
the 150 gpd limit provides for plant shutdown prior to reaching
critical crack lengths for SLB conditions.
3. The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in margin of safety.
The use of the voltage based bobbin probe interim TSP elevation
plugging criteria at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 is demonstrated to
maintain steam generator tube integrity commensurate with the
criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.121. RG 1.121 describes a method
acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting GDCs 14, 15, 31, and 32 by
reducing the probability or the consequences of steam generator tube
rupture. This is accomplished by determining the limiting conditions
of degradation of steam generator tubing, as established by
inservice inspection, for which tubes with unacceptable cracking
should be removed from service. Upon implementation of the criteria,
even under the worst case conditions, the occurrence of ODSCC at the
TSP elevations is not expected to lead to a steam generator tube
rupture event during normal or faulted plant conditions. The EOC 14
distribution of crack indications at the TSP elevations will be
confirmed to result in acceptable primary to secondary leakage
during all plant conditions and that radiological consequences are
not adversely impacted.
In addressing the combined effects of LOCA + SSE on the steam
generator component (as required by GDC 2), it has been determined
that tube collapse may occur in the steam generators at some plants.
This is the case as the TSPs may become deformed as a result of
lateral loads at the wedge supports at the periphery of the plant
due to the combined effects of the LOCA rarefaction wave and SSE
loadings. Then, the resulting pressure differential on the deformed
tubes may cause some of the tubes to collapse.
There are two issues associated with steam generator tube
collapse. First, the collapse of steam generator tubing reduces the
RCS flow area through the tubes. The reduction in flow are increases
the resistance to flow of steam from the core during a LOCA which,
in turn, may potentially increase peak clad temperature (PCT).
Second, there is a potential that partial through-wall cracks in
tubes could progress to through-wall cracks during tube deformation
or collapse.
Consequently, since the leak-before-break methodology is
applicable to the Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 reactor coolant loop
piping, the probability of breaks in the primary loop piping is
sufficiently low that they need not be considered in the structural
design of the plant. The limiting LOCA event becomes either the
accumulator line brake or the pressurizer surge line break. LOCA
loads for the primary pipe breaks were used to bound the Cook
Nuclear Plant Unit 1 smaller breaks. The results of the analysis
using the larger break inputs show that the LOCA loads were found to
be of insufficient magnitude to result in steam generator tube
collapse or significant deformation.
Addressing RG 1.83 consideration, implementation of the bobbin
probe voltage based interim tube plugging criteria of 1.0 volt is
supplemented by the following: enhanced eddy current inspection
guidelines to proved consistency in voltage normalization, a 100%
eddy current inspection sample size at the TSP elevations, and RPC
inspection requirements as outlined in the technical specifications
and Appendix A ``NDE Data Acquisition and Analysis Guidelines''
(Attachment 6).
As noted previously, implementation of the TSP elevation
plugging criteria will decrease the number of tubes which must be
repaired. The installation of steam generator tube plugs reduce the
RCS flow margin. Thus, implementation of the alternate plugging
criteria will maintain the margin of flow that would otherwise be
reduced in the event of increased tube plugging.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed license
amendment request does not result in a significant reduction in
margin with respect to plant safety as defined in the Final Safety
Analysis Report or any of the plant Technical Specifications.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Leaks Preston Palenske
Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts
and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
NRC Project Director: A Randolph Blough, Acting
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment requests: November 15, 1993
Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments delete
certain Limiting Conditions for Operation, Actions, and Surveillance
Requirements for Reactor Coolant System Pressure Isolation Valves in
the Technical Specifications. The Technical Specifications for these
Reactor Coolant System Pressure Isolation Valves were added by Order
dated April 20, 1981. This Order was prompted by concerns for an
interfacing system loss-of-coolant accident as identified in the
Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400). The proposed Technical Specification
change, by inference, also requests rescission of the April 20, 1981
Order.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Per 10 CFR 50.92, a proposed amendment to an operating license
will not involve a significant hazards consideration if the proposed
amendment satisfies the following three criteria:
1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously analyzed,
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from an accident previously analyzed or evaluated, or
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Criterion 1
The ISLOCA is not one of the accidents previously analyzed in
Chapter 14, Safety Analysis, of the Cook Nuclear Plant Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report. Chapter 14 analyzes the large break LOCA in
Section 14.3.1, and ``loss of reactor coolant from small ruptured
pipes or from cracks in large pipes which actuates the ECCS'', or
small break LOCA in Section 14.3.2. Therefore, deleting from the
Technical Specifications the Reactor Coolant System pressure
isolation valves in Table 3.4-0, will not increase the probability
or the consequences of the large break or the small break LOCAs
previously analyzed for the Cook Nuclear Plant.
Criterion 2
The Reactor Coolant System pressure isolation valves in Table
3.4-0 of the Technical Specifications were added because WASH-1400
identified the ISLOCA as a significant contributor to core damage
frequency. Deletion of the subject valves from the Technical
Specifications and reliance on the testing requirements mandated by
the In-Service Testing Program of ASME XI does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from the large
break or the small break LOCAs previously analyzed for the Cook
Nuclear Plant.
Criterion 3
Deleting the Reactor Coolant System pressure isolation valves
from the testing requirements in Table 3.4-0 of the Technical
Specifications will result in these valves only being tested on a
refueling outage frequency as part of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI
IST Program. This somewhat reduced testing frequency will result in
a slight increase in the ISLOCA contribution to core damage
frequency of 5.4%, from lower 5.00E-08/reactor year to mid 5.00E-08/
reactor year. This insignificant increase will not affect the
overall core damage frequency of 6.26E-05/reactor year. Therefore,
it is concluded that the proposed deletion of the Reactor Coolant
System pressure isolation valves in Table 3.4-0 of the Technical
Specifications, as well as the proposed deletion of the portions of
the Technical Specifications that are affected by Table 3.4-0, will
not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety that
exists at Cook Nuclear Plant to prevent an ISLOCA or to mitigate the
consequences of an ISLOCA.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Maud Preston Palenske Memorial
Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts
and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
NRC Project Director: A. Randolph Blough, Acting
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay
Power Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, California
Date of application for amendment: October 8, 1993 (Reference LAR
93-02)
Brief description of amendment: This Licensee Amendment Request
(LAR) proposes to revise the Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP), Unit 3,
Technical Specifications (TS) by deleting Figure II-2 in Section II,
``Site,'' by deleting the Restricted Area boundary line in Figure V-3,
Section V, ``Monitoring Systems,'' by incorporating a title change into
Section VII, ``Administrative Controls,'' and by revising Figure VII-2,
``Plant Staff Organization.'' The proposed changes are in response to
the revised 10 CFR Part 20 which becomes mandatory on January 1, 1994
(56 FR 23360). The specific TS changes proposed are as follows:
(1) Page v, Figures - delete reference to Figure II-2.
(2) Page II-1, Section II.B, Plant Areas - change ``is shown in
Figure II-2'' to ``shall be defined in plant procedures.''
(3) Page II-3, Section II - delete Figure II-2.
(4) Page V-14, Section V - delete the Restricted Area boundary line
from Figure V-3, ``HBPP Groundwater Monitoring Systems Wells,'' to be
consistent with item 3 above.
(5) Page VII-5, Section VII.C.2.e, Supervisor of Maintenance -
change the title from ``Supervisor of Maintenance'' to ``Maintenance
Planner.''
(6) Page VII-10, Section VII.D.1.b., Membership, List of minimum
membership - replace ``Supervisor of Maintenance'' with ``Maintenance
Plan
FR Doc. X94-10105 Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
ner.''
(7) Page VII-31, Section VII, Figure VII-2, Plant Staff
Organization - replace ``Maintenance Supervisor'' with ``Maintenance
Planner.''
(8) Page VII-31, Section VII, Figure VII-2, Plant Staff
Organization - both the Mechanical Foreman and the Instrument/
Electrical Foreman report directly to the Plant Manager, not to the
``Maintenance Planner,'' as previously shown.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
a. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
A change to the defined restricted area has no affect on any
plant operating parameters. Consequently, a change to the defined
restricted area will not affect the probability or consequences of
an accident occurring.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
b. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed revisions to the HBPP TS are administrative in
nature. Further, the proposed changes would not result in any
physical alteration to any plant system, and there would not be a
change in the method by which any safety-related system performs its
function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
c. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed revisions to the HBPP TS do not affect the margin
of safety of any accident analysis since they do not affect the
parameters for any accident analysis, and have no effect on the
current operating methodologies or actions which govern plant
performance.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Humboldt County Library, 636 F
Street, Eureka, California 95501
Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas &
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120
NRC Branch Chief: John H. Austin
Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October 29, 1993
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications to
eliminate the Main Steam Line Radiation Monitoring System high
radiation trip function for initiating 1) an automatic reactor scram
and automatic closure of the Main Steam Line Isolation Valves, and 2)
automatic closure of the Main Steam Line drain valves, and Main Steam
and Reactor Water Sample line valves.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes do not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve eliminating the Main Steam Line
Radiation Monitoring (MSLRM) system high radiation trip function for
initiating an automatic reactor scram and automatic closure of the
Main Steam Line Isolation Valves (MSIVs), Main Steam line drain
valves, and Main Steam and Reactor Water sample line valves. The
proposed TS changes support installation of a plant modification to
defeat portions of MSLRM system high radiation trip function logic
circuitry in the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Primary
Containment and Reactor Vessel Isolation Control System (PCRVICS).
Installation of this modification will not adversely impact the
operation of the RPS or PCRVICS with respect to performing its other
intended safety functions. The proposed TS changes will not affect
the operation of other plant systems or equipment important to
safety. The MSLRM system high radiation trip function for the
Mechanical Vacuum Pump (MVP) will be retained. The safety assessment
and justification for eliminating the MSLRM system high radiation
trip function for initiating an automatic reactor scram and
automatic closure of the MSIVs [are] based on General Electric's
(GE's) Topical Report NEDO-31400A, ``Safety Evaluation for
Eliminating the Boiling Water Reactor Main Steam Line Isolation
Valve Closure Function and Scram Function of the Main Steam Line
Radiation Monitor,'' and the applicability of this report to
Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. By letter dated
May 15, 1991, the NRC approved this topical report and indicated
that it was acceptable for licensees to reference this report as the
basis for requesting a TS change to eliminate the MSLRM system high
radiation trip functions as documented in the report and associated
NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
The safety assessment provided in NEDO-31400A can also be
applied to eliminate the MSLRM system high radiation trip function
for initiating the automatic closure of the Main Steam line drain
valves although this aspect was not explicitly evaluated in NEDO-
31400A. The flow from these valves ultimately discharges to the main
condenser as do the MSIVs and therefore, any radioactive material
passing through these valves would be processed in the same fashion
as that passing through the MSIVs. The effects of eliminating the
MSLRM system high radiation trip function for initiating the closure
of the Main Steam and Reactor Water sample line valves is [are]
negligible. The sample lines are routed to a sample sink where inlet
valves installed on the sample lines are normally closed.
Additionally, downstream of the inlet valves are needle valves
designed to control and limit sample line flow. The sample sink is
enclosed, and air vented from its exhaust hood is passed through
filters prior to release to the environment. There is the potential
that a minimal amount of radioactive material could be released to
the environment if the sample sink inlet and needle valves failed to
properly function. This potential release has been evaluated and
determined to a small fraction of the dose limit requirements
specified in 10 CFR 100.
The MSLRM system high radiation trip was intended to function in
response to a Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA), a Design Basis
Accident previously evaluated. Although the CRDA assumes MSIV
closure, no credit was taken for this in the CRDA analysis since it
postulates that the radioactive material calculated to be released
from the fuel is transported to the main condenser prior to the
MSIVs completely closing. Furthermore, the probability of a fuel
failure is independent of the operation of the MSLRM system.
The Steam Jet Air Ejectors (SJAEs) will continue to operate to
remove non-condensable gases from the main condenser for processing
by the Offgas Treatment system. The Offgas Treatment system will
continue to function as designed to reduce offgas radioactivity
levels prior to release to the environment. Eliminating the MSLRM
system high radiation isolation functions will improve operational
flexibility in that the main condenser will be available to aid in
decay heat removal. Elimination of the MSLRM system high radiation
trip functions in conjunction with proper operation of the Offgas
Treatment system will ensure that any radioactive material released
to the environment is a small fraction of 10 CFR 100 limits.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes associated with eliminating
the MSLRM system high radiation trip function for initiating an
automatic reactor scram and automatic closure of the MSIVs, Main
Steam line drain valves, and Main Steam and Reactor Water sample
line valves do not involve an increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve eliminating the MSLRM system
high radiation trip function for initiating an automatic reactor
scram and automatic closure of the MSIVs, Main Steam Line drain
valves, and Main Steam and Reactor Water sample line valves. The
proposed TS changes will not affect the operation of other plant
systems or equipment important to safety. The associated plant
modification simply defeats the MSLRM system high radiation trip
function logic circuitry in the RPS and PCRVICS. The RPS and PCRVICS
will continue to respond in performing its other design intended
safety functions. The MSLRM system high radiation trip function for
the MVP will be retained. The proposed TS changes do not involve any
plant hardware changes that could introduce any new failure modes or
effects. The MSLRM system radiation monitors will remain active to
initiate Main Control Room (MCR) annunciation alarms. Plant
procedures will be in place to implement the appropriate mitigative
measures in response to a MSLRM system high radiation alarm signal.
The SJAEs will continue to operate to remove non-condensable
gases from the main condenser for processing by the Offgas Treatment
system. The Offgas Treatment system will continue to function as
designed to reduce offgas radioactivity levels prior to release to
the environment.
Since the Design Basis Accident analysis (i.e., CRDA) does not
credit the MSLRM system high radiation trip function for reducing
the radiological consequences of the postulated accident, the
proposed TS changes have effectively been evaluated and are included
in the existing analysis. That is, the CRDA analysis already assumes
that the radioactive material released from the failed fuel is
immediately transported to the main condenser prior to the MSIVs
completely closing.
The safety assessment and assumptions documents in GE Topical
Report NEDO-31400A provide the basis for eliminating the MSLRM
system high radiation trip function for initiating an automatic
reactor scram and automatic closure of the MSIVs. The safety
assessment provided in NEDO-31400A can also be applied to eliminate
the MSLRM system high radiation trip function for initiating the
closure of the Main Steam Line drain valves, since any radioactive
material passing through these valves would be processed in the same
fashion as that passing through the MSIVs. Eliminating the MSLRM
system high radiation trip function for initiating the closure of
the Main Steam and Reactor Water sample line valves will have a
negligible impact. The sample lines are routed to a sample sink
where inlet valves installed on the sample lines are normally
closed. Downstream of the inlet valves are needle valves designed to
control and limit sample line flow. The sample sink is located in
the Reactor Enclosure and is enclosed, and air vented from its
exhaust hood is passed through filters prior to release to the
environment. The Reactor Enclosure ventilation duct radiation
monitor samples air from the sample sink hood exhaust, and will
isolate the Reactor Enclosure ventilation system if the radiation
levels exceed the monitor's setpoint. There is the potential that a
minimal amount of radioactive material could be released to the
environment through this flowpath if the sample sink inlet and
needle valves failed to properly function. This potential release
has been evaluated and determined to a small fraction of the dose
limit requirements specified in 10CFR100.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed TS changes to eliminate the MSLRM system high
radiation trip function for initiating an automatic reactor scram
and automatic closure of the MSIVs, Main Steam line drains valves,
and Main Steam and Reactor Water sample line valves do not change
the conclusion reached in the LGS Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) that the calculated radiological consequences of the
bounding Design Basis Accident (i.e., CRDA) will not exceed the dose
limit requirements established by 10 CFR 100. The proposed TS
changes will improve the overall reliability of the plant when
compared to the existing system lineup configuration, since it will
reduce the potential of an unnecessary plant transient occurring as
a result of an inadvertent MSIV closure.
A reliability assessment analysis was performed to evaluate the
effects of eliminating the MSLRM system high radiation reactor scram
function on reactivity control failure frequency and core damage
frequency in GE Topical Report NEDO-31400A. This analysis indicated
that there is a negligible increase in reactivity control frequency
with the elimination of the MSLRM trip function. However, this
increase is compensated for by the reduction in transient initiating
events (i.e., inadvertent reactor scrams). This reduction in
transient initiating events represents a reduction in core damage
frequency and thus, results in a net improvement in safety.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a reduction in
a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Pottstown Public Library, 500
High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
Attorney for licensee: J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr. V. P. and
General Counsel, Philadelphia Electric Company, 2301 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
NRC Project Director: Larry E. Nicholson, Acting
Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: November 30, 1993
Description of amendment request: The amendment would extend the
surveillance interval of the primary containment drywell-to-suppression
chamber bypass leak test from the current 18-month interval as required
by Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d to a
40 +/- 10-month interval. This change would allow the drywell-to-
suppression chamber bypass test to coincide with the 10 CFR 50,
Appendix J, Type A test (i.e., Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test
(CILRT)) interval.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed Technical Specifications (TS) changes do not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
The failure effects that are potentially created by the proposed
Technical Specifications (TS) changes have been considered. The
accident which is potentially negatively impacted by the proposed TS
changes are any Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) inside primary
containment with or without offsite power available.
The proposed TS changes increase the surveillance interval of
the drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leak test required by TS
Section 4.6.2.1.d, and will require that an additional test be
performed on the downcomer vacuum breakers assemblies. The primary
containment structure and associated equipment are not considered to
be accident initiators, they act to mitigate the consequences of an
accident. There are no physical or operational changes being made as
a result of these proposed changes. Therefore, the probability of
occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not increased.
There is a potential increased risk that an increase in the
bypass leakage may go undetected for the duration of the proposed
extension of the interval between the performance of the drywell-to-
suppression chamber bypass leak test. However, as discussed below,
the increased risk is considered to be negligible due to the design
of the diaphragm structure and past test data. Therefore, we have
concluded that the probability of bypass leakage exceeding the
allowed value is not increased as a result of the proposed TS
changes.
The proposed TS changes will extend the surveillance interval
for the drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leak test from 18
months to 40 +/- 10 months. These proposed changes would allow this
test to be performed at the same interval as the 10CFR50, Appendix
J, Type A test (i.e., Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test
(CILRT)). In addition, the proposed changes will add an additional
surveillance requirement to be performed on the vacuum breaker
assemblies during refueling outages when the drywell-to-suppression
chamber bypass leak test is not required to be performed. The
proposed TS changes do not increase the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. This is based on the evaluation summarized
below that demonstrates that the overall impact, if any, on the
plant containment integrity is negligible. Furthermore, the
performance history for the previous LGS bypass leak tests does not
indicate any time based failures. The proposed TS changes also
include a change to the frequency of testing, if two consecutive
tests fail, from once every nine (9) months to once every 24 months
in order to coincide with the 24 month refueling cycle. This change
has no impact on the consequences of an accident based on
maintaining the original requirement to increase the frequency of
testing if two consecutive bypass leak tests fail, and maintaining a
TS requirement for the NRC to review the schedule for subsequent
tests.
During a LOCA inside containment, potential leak paths between
the drywell and suppression chamber airspace could result in
excessive containment pressures, since the steam flow into the
airspace would bypass the heat sink capabilities of the suppression
pool. The containment pressure response to the postulated bypass
leakage can be mitigated by manually actuating the suppression
chamber sprays. Accordingly, since the sprays are manually actuated,
an analysis was performed to show that the operator has sufficient
time to initiate the sprays prior to exceeding the containment
design pressure. This analysis is described in section 6.2.1.1.5 of
the LGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The analysis
is based on a small break LOCA inside containment with a
differential pressure between the drywell-to-suppression chamber
equal to the static pressure due to downcomer submergence. The
analysis concludes that the containment design pressure of 55 psig
will be reached in over 30 minutes from the onset of a small break
LOCA assuming a drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass flow area
(i.e., A/square root of k) equal to 7.20 in2 without operator
intervention.
TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.6.2.1.b conservatively
specifies a maximum allowable bypass area of 10 % of the design
value of 7.20 in2. This TS limit provides an additional safety
factor of 10 above the conservatism taken in the steam bypass
analysis (i.e., 0.720 in2). The drywell-to-suppression chamber
bypass leak test required by TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d
verifies that the actual bypass flow area is less than or equal to
the TS limit of 0.720 in2. The bypass leakage test ensures that
degradation in the measured bypass area is identified and corrected
to ensure containment integrity during LOCA events.
The potential bypass leakage paths can be divided into two
categories as described below.
1) Leakage pathways other than those associated with the
drywell-to-suppression chamber vacuum breaker assemblies such as
diaphragm floor penetrations (i.e., downcomer and Safety/Relief
Valve (SRV) discharge line penetrations), cracks in the diaphragm
floor and/or liner plate, and cracks in the downcomers and SRV
discharge lines that pass through the suppression chamber airspace.
2) The four sets of drywell-to-suppression chamber vacuum
breaker assemblies.
All other potential bypass leakage pathways have at least two
isolation valves in the potential leakage path. These valves are
high quality leak-tight containment isolation valves that are
normally closed and receive an isolation signal to close. All Air
Operated Valves (AOVs) in these paths fail closed.
Several plant design features and the bypass leak test data
measured to date confirm that the leakage from other than the vacuum
breaker assemblies is negligible and indicates that this leakage
will continue to be negligible for the proposed increased duration
between tests. All pressure boundary penetrations between the
drywell and the suppression chamber are welded except the vacuum
breaker valves and the blind flanges closing 10 spare nozzles in the
downcomers. All pressure boundary penetrations between the drywell-
to-suppression chamber have been fabricated, erected, and inspected
in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code, Section III, Subsection NC, 1971 Edition, with the
exception of the tees supporting the vacuum breakers.
The downcomer and SRV discharge lines penetrate through the
diaphragm slab and terminate in the suppression pool. A steel ring
plate is welded to the outside of the downcomers. The downcomer/ring
plate assemblies are embedded in the diaphragm slab with the top
surface of the ring plate flush with the drywell side of the
diaphragm slab. All connections are welded to form a continuous
steel membrane between the liner plate and downcomer penetrations.
The SRV discharge lines are routed through welded flued heads at the
diaphragm floor. The flued head design and construction are similar
to the downcomer penetrations and also provide a continuous steel
barrier. The downcomer and SRV discharge lines are designed and
constructed to safety-related requirements. In addition, they are
designed for all postulated loading conditions, including seismic,
hydrodynamic, pressure, and temperature loads. The conservative
design requirements ensure that the SRV discharge and the downcomer
lines will not contribute to bypass leakage.
The diaphragm floor is a reinforced concrete slab approximately
3.5 feet thick. The drywell side surface of the diaphragm slab is
capped with a 1/4 inch thick carbon steel liner plate. The liner
plate and diaphragm slab provide a barrier against the potential for
bypass leakage through the diaphragm floor. The structural integrity
of the diaphragm floor and penetrations was demonstrated during the
pre-operational test program. The drywell was pressurized to a
drywell-to-suppression chamber differential pressure of above 30
psid, which envelopes the maximum drywell-to-suppression chamber
differential pressure postulated to occur during LOCA conditions.
There have been six Unit 1 and three Unit 2 bypass leak tests
performed in accordance with TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d.
These tests were conducted at a drywell-to-suppression chamber
differential pressure of at least 4.0 psid. The measured leakage
area includes leakage from both the vacuum breakers and sources
other than vacuum breakers.
In all cases, the measured leakage is significantly less than
the TS and design values. The maximum measured leakage areas are
0.0400 in2 and 0.0111 in2 for Unit 1 and Unit 2,
respectively; or 5.56% and 1.55 %, respectively, of the TS limit.
The average values are 0.0180 in2 for Unit 1 and 0.0107
in2 for Unit 2; or 2.5% and 1.49%, respectively, of the TS
limit of 0.720 in2. The minimum measured leakage areas are 0.0
in2 and 0.0100 in2 for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively, or
0% and 1.3 %, respectively, of the TS limit. Clearly, the test data
confirm that the bypass leakage measured to date at LGS has been
negligible.
In addition, we have obtained bypass leakage data from the
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, which also has Mark II containments
with the Anderson Greenwood vacuum breakers (i.e., the same
manufacturer as the vacuum breakers installed in the LGS, Unit 1 and
Unit 2 containments) and therefore the data is applicable to LGS.
The maximum bypass leakage area for the SSES Unit 1 containment was
0.037 in2, and 0.009 in2 for the SSES Unit 2 containment,
or 4.81% and 1.17%, respectively, of the SSES TS limit. Approval for
a similar TS change for SSES, Units 1 and 2 was issued by the NRC by
letter dated August 11, 1993.
The remaining and most likely source of potential bypass leakage
is the four sets of drywell-to-suppression chamber vacuum breakers.
Each set consists of two vacuum breakers in series, flange mounted
to a tee off the downcomers in the suppression chamber airspace. The
drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leak test is currently
required by TS Surveillance requirement 4.6.2.1.d to be completed
during each refueling outage and the results are used to verify that
the total bypass area, including that due to the vacuum breakers,
meets the TS limit. If maintenance has been performed on the vacuum
breakers, this test also serves as a post-maintenance vacuum
breakers leakage area test.
The proposed TS changes decrease the frequency of the drywell-
to-suppression chamber bypass leak test. The drywell-to-suppression
chamber bypass leak test data obtained following vacuum breakers
maintenance cannot be utilized to determine vacuum breakers leakage
reliability over the duration of the proposed test interval
extension. To address this concern and collect additional vacuum
breakers leakage data, the proposed TS changes include an additional
requirement to perform a vacuum breaker leakage test as described
below.
The leakage test will be conducted on each set of vacuum
breakers (i.e., four vacuum breakers sets per unit) during each
refueling outage when the drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leak
test would not be required to be performed. If maintenance is
performed on the vacuum breaker assemblies, this additional test
will be performed post-maintenance to verify that the leakage is
acceptable. This test will be conducted at a drywell-to-suppression
chamber differential pressure of 4.0 psid (i.e., the same as
differential pressure required for the drywell-to-suppression
chamber bypass leak test) by either pressurizing the drywell side of
the vacuum breakers or inducing a vacuum on the suppression chamber
side of the vacuum breakers. The acceptance criteria for the vacuum
breaker leakage tests will be as follows. The total vacuum breaker
leakage areas for all four sets of vacuum breakers will be less than
or equal to 24% of the TS limit (i.e., 0.24 x 0.720 in2 = 0.173
in2). This proposed acceptable vacuum breaker leakage area
provides a 76% margin to the TS limit to account for the leakage
paths other than the vacuum breakers. As described above, previous
bypass leakage testing measured a maximum bypass leakage area of
5.56% of the TS limit. The 76% margin is sufficiently large to
accommodate the other expected leakage sources. In addition, each
set of vacuum breakers will be limited to a leakage area twice the
assumed leakage from a single vacuum breaker set, assuming the
leakage area is evenly distributed among the four sets of vacuum
breakers (i.e., four sets equate to 24% of the TS Limit where each
set is 6% and twice this total is 12% of the TS Limit). This allows
a leakage of less than or equal to 0.0865 in2 (i.e., (0.173
in2 divided by 4 sets of vacuum breakers) x (a factor of 2
times the acceptable total) = 0.0865 in2) for an individual set
of vacuum breakers. This criterion is stipulated to identify
individual sets of vacuum breakers with higher leakage area.
The drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leak test data
obtained during previous testing at LGS demonstrates conformance by
a large margin compared to the TS and design leakage requirements.
The test data indicates that there is negligible risk that the
bypass leakage will change adversely in future years. Furthermore,
the proposed test frequency is judged to be acceptable based on the
risk of the leakage sources other than the vacuum breakers being
essentially equivalent to that of the rest of the primary
containment structure, which is leak tested (i.e., CILRT) every 40
+/- 10 months as required by TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.a.
A bypass leak test will be developed and conducted to verify
acceptable vacuum breaker bypass leakage areas for those outages
when the bypass leak test will not be required to be performed. The
proposed vacuum breaker leakage test with stringent acceptance
criteria, combined with other negligible leakage areas, provide an
acceptable level of assurance that the bypass leakage can be
measured and an adverse condition can be detected and corrected such
that the existing level of confidence that the primary containment
will function as required during a LOCA is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes will not involve an increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve the drywell-to-suppression
chamber bypass leak test frequency. There are no physical or
operational changes as a result of these proposed changes. These
proposed changes include the requirement to perform an additional
surveillance test on the vacuum breaker assemblies, applying a
differential pressure of 4.0 psid which is the same differential
pressure as currently required by TS for the drywell-to-suppression
chamber bypass leak test. This required test will ensure that
acceptable vacuum breaker leakage is maintained during those
intervals when the drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leak test
is not required to be performed. Furthermore, the affected structure
(i.e., primary containment) acts as an accident mitigator and not as
an accident initiator. Accordingly, the possibility of a different
type of malfunction of equipment or the possibility of an accident
of a different type is not introduced.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leak test data
obtained during previous testing at LGS demonstrates conformance by
a large margin to the TS and design leakage requirements. The test
data indicate that there is negligible risk that the bypass leakage
will change adversely in future years. Furthermore, the proposed
test frequency is judged to be acceptable based on the risk of
sources of leakage other than the vacuum breakers being essentially
equivalent to that of the rest of the primary containment structure,
which is tested every 40 +/- 10 months. A bypass leak test will be
developed and conducted to verify acceptable vacuum breaker bypass
leakage areas for those outages when the bypass leak test will not
be required to be performed. The proposed vacuum breaker leakage
test with stringent acceptance criteria, combined with the other
negligible potential leakage areas, provide an acceptable level of
assurance that the bypass leakage can be measured and an adverse
condition can be detected and corrected such that the existing
levels of confidence that the primary containment will function as
required during a LOCA is maintained.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident are not impacted by
this change and containment integrity during a LOCA will be
maintained.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a reduction in
a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Pottstown Public Library, 500
High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
Attorney for licensee: J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr. V. P. and
General Counsel, Philadelphia Electric Company, 2301 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
NRC Project Director: Larry E. Nicholson, Acting
Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Electric and Gas
Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and Atlantic City
Electric Company, Dockets Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units Nos. 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: November 17, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed Technical
Specification (TS) changes to Surveillance Requirements would eliminate
unnecessary emergency diesel generator (EDG) testing when a diesel
generator or an offsite power source becomes inoperable. The proposed
change would reduce the stresses on the diesel generators caused by
unnecessary testing.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated because implementation of the proposed TS change, which
would delete the requirement to demonstrate the operability of an
otherwise operable EDG once the potential for a common cause failure
has been dismissed, does not affect the design or performance
characteristics of an EDG. Similarly, deleting the requirement to
demonstrate the operability of EDGs when an offsite power source is
inoperable does not affect the design or performance characteristics
of an EDG. Therefore, the EDGs will maintain their ability to
perform their design function. The EDGs are not assumed to be an
initiator of any analyzed event. The role of the EDGs is the
mitigation of accident consequences. Therefore, this proposed TS
change does not increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The consequences of an accident previously evaluated could be
affected by the proposed TS change. As described above,
implementation of the proposed change will result in the EDGs
maintaining their ability to perform their design function.
Excessive testing of EDGs can cause reduced reliability. Precluding
unnecessary testing of operable EDGs will improve EDG reliability
and thereby have an overall positive affect on plant safety.
Therefore, this proposed TS change does not increase the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated
because implementation of the proposed TS change will not involve
physical changes to plant systems, structures, or components (SSC).
The design or performance characteristics of the EDG will not be
affected by the proposed change. The proposed change does not
introduce any new modes of plant operation or make any changes to
system setpoints which would initiate a new or different kind of
accident. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety because the proposed TS change does not affect
the design or performance of any EDG. The change will increase EDG
reliability by reducing the stresses on the EDG from unnecessary
testing. This will result in an overall increase in plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Education
Building, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
Attorney for licensee: J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr. V. P. and
General Counsel, Philadelphia Electric Company, 2301 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
NRC Project Director: Charles L. Miller
Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Electric and Gas
Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and Atlantic City
Electric Company, Dockets Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units Nos. 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: November 19, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would
eliminate the listing of specific position titles for the Plant
Operations Review Committee (PORC) composition in favor of allowing the
Plant Manager to appoint PORC members. This would eliminate the need to
change the Technical Specifications (TSs) in the future whenever a
position title is changed.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated because the proposed TS change is administrative in
nature. The PORC member titles will be removed from the TS to
facilitate not requiring that a TS change be submitted for NRC
approval when position titles change. PORC member qualifications
will continue to be consistent with those required for the Facility
Staff and meet or exceed Sections 4.2, 4.4, or 4.6 of ANSI N18.1-
1971. The proposed change ensures that PORC will continue to be
comprised of personnel involved in daily plant activities who are
experienced individuals with varied expertise. By maintaining the
qualification requirements for members of PORC who represent various
areas of expertise, PORC will continue to fulfill its requirements
specified in TS Section 6.5.1.6. The proposed change does not
involve any physical changes to plant systems, structures, or
components (SSC), or the manner in which these SSC are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Therefore, the proposed
TS change does not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated
because implementation of the proposed TS change will not involve
physical changes to plant SSC or the manner in which these SSC are
operated, maintained, modified, tested or inspected. The proposed
change does not introduce any new modes of plant operation or make
any changes to system setpoints which would initiate a new or
different kind of accident. Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is
not created.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety because the proposed TS change is
administrative in nature by providing internal flexibility in
changing organizational titles and does not reduce the PORC function
or responsibilities. PORC will continue to be filled by
appropriately qualified personnel who have a variety of expertise.
The change does not affect the plant material condition, operation,
or accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Education
Building, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
Attorney for licensee: J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr. V. P. and
General Counsel, Philadelphia Electric Company, 2301 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
NRC Project Director: Charles L. Miller
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and
50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston
County, Alabama
Date of amendments request: November 24, 1993
Description of amendments request: The proposed changes to the
Technical Specification will relocate the reactor trip system and
engineered safety feature actuation system response time limits from
the TS to the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not involve
any change to the configuration or method of operation of any plant
equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an accident. Also,
the proposed changes do not alter the conditions or assumptions in
any of the FSAR accident analyses. Since the FSAR accident analyses
remain bounding, the radiological consequences previously evaluated
are not adversely affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do
not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation
of any plant equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an
accident.Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for any
plant system or component important to safety nor has any new
limiting failure been identified as a result of the proposed
changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. The proposed changes are administrative in
nature and will continue to ensure that the response times for the
RTS and ESFAS instrumentation do not exceed the limits assumed in
the accident analyses. As a result of the proposed changes, response
time limits for the RTS and ESFAS will be administratively
controlled in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, thus
eliminating an unnecessary burden of governmental regulation without
reducing protection for public health and safety. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Houston-Love Memorial Library,
212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama 36302
Attorney for licensee: James H. Miller, III, Esq., Balch and
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama 35201
NRC Project Director: S. Singh Bajwa
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and
50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3,
Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: September 30, 1993 (TS 337)
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments provide
an administrative vehicle for modifying a condition of the facility
operating license for each of the BFN units. The condition requires the
licensee to implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the
``Fire Protection Program (FPP)'' and lists the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff safety evaluations (SE) approving the FPP. If
the staff approves of a revision currently under review to an element
of the FPP, the ``Appendix R Safe Shutdown Program (SSP)'', the
proposed amendments would add the staff SE documenting approval of the
revised SSP to the above listing of SEs in each facility operating
license. The current SSP is directed toward the safe shutdown of only
one operating plant (Unit 2). The revised SSP would be directed toward
the safe shutdown of two operating plants (Units 2 and 3).
Additionally, the proposed amendments add the definition of the SSP
to Section 1.0 of the Unit 3 Technical Specifications (TS).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
This proposed change is administrative in nature. The proposed
change is being made to revise the license condition to reflect a
combined Unit 2 and 3 Appendix R Safe Shutdown Program following NRC
approval. Compliance with the applicable Appendix R requirements is
ensured through implementation of the Fire Protection Program and
the Appendix R Safe Shutdown Program. The change does not affect any
design bases accident or the ability of any safe shutdown equipment
to perform its function. Also, there are no physical modifications
required to implement this TS change. Therefore, these proposed
administrative changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change is administrative in nature. The proposed
change is being made to revise the license condition to reflect a
combined Unit 2 and 3 Safe Shutdown Program following NRC approval.
Compliance with the applicable Appendix R requirements is ensured
through implementation of the Fire Protection Program and Appendix R
Safe Shutdown Program. This change does not affect any design basis
accident or the ability of any safe shutdown equipment to perform
its function. Also, there are no physical modifications required to
implement this TS change. Therefore, these proposed administrative
changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. This change does not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. Compliance
with the applicable Appendix R requirements is ensured through the
implementation of the Fire Protection Program and Appendix R Safe
Shutdown Program. The proposed change does not affect any design
basis accident and does not reduce or adversely affect the
capability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a
fire. Furthermore, no reductions to the requirements for equipment
operability, surveillance requirements or setpoints are being made
which could result in reduction in the margin of safety. Therefore,
these proposed administrative changes will not result in a reduction
in the margin of safety.
The NRC has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Athens Public Library, South
Street, Athens, Alabama 35611
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
NRC Project Director: Mr. Frederick J. Hebdon
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and
50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3,
Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: October 12, 1993 (TS 320)
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete reference in the BFN Unit 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to the
Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) system floor drain high temperature
switches and the RWCU system space high temperature switches. The
piping configuration for the Unit 3 RWCU system has been modified, and
the licensee contends that its revised High Energy Line Break (HELB)
analysis has demonstrated that these switches are no longer required.
Instead, to initiate RWCU system isolation, the HELB analysis has
indicated the need for temperature switches in the main steam vault,
the heat exchanger room, and the RWCU pipe trench. The proposed
amendment therefore would add temperature switches to the Unit 3 TS for
these areas and modify the TS Bases section accordingly. The proposed
amendment also adds clarifying remarks to Tables 3.2.A and 3.2.B of the
TS for each of the BFN units. The proposed remarks list the actuation
signals for the various primary containment valve group isolations.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
An analysis of HELBs in the Unit 3 reactor building identified
certain RWCU pipe breaks which could not be automatically detected
and isolated in a reasonable time frame. To resolve this issue, a
design change is being performed to remove from service the existing
non-environmentally qualified temperature switches used to detect
RWCU line breaks and replace them with environmentally qualified
RTDs [resistance temperature detectors] and IEEE [Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers] Class 1E qualified ATUs
[analog trip units] located to detect and isolate the critical RWCU
pipe breaks. This TS amendment adds the new ATUs [sic] function to
Tables 3.2.A and 4.2.A. Note 14 is deleted from Table 3.2.A since it
only applies to the temperature switches being removed from the
table.
The safety function of the RTD/ATU temperature loops is to
provide an isolation signal to close the RWCU suction line isolation
valves (FCV-69-001 and FCV-69-002) and RWCU return line valve (FCV-
69-012) on a high area temperature. This ensures RWCU pipe breaks
are isolated. No other RWCU safety functions are affected by the
change.
The new RTD/ATU temperature loops were chosen to decrease the
time required to initiate closure of the RWCU valves. This improves
the detection/isolation of RWCU breaks and helps to limit the
reactor coolant lost, helps ensure core cooling, and helps ensure
that environmental conditions inside the reactor building are
maintained within the required limits.
Components added by this change are qualified for the
environment in which they will operate. This ensures that the system
will perform its function in a post accident environment. No
additional paths for the release of radiation or contamination are
created. The failure modes of the RTDs and ATUs are such that any
single failure will result in a gross failure alarm and/or a channel
trip. Because of the redundancy, separations, and logic designed
into the system, a single failure of any part of the system will not
prevent isolation of the primary containment isolation valves and
spurious operation is minimized. The RTDs will be located and the
instrument setpoints will be set to preclude spurious trips due to
ambient temperatures including localized hot areas while assuring a
timely trip due to a pipe break. Therefore, the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
This change is being made to improve the RWCU leak detection/
isolation function of the RWCU Primary Containment Isolation System
(PCIS). The PCIS will perform its intended safety function in the
same manner as the previous installation. There is no affect [sic]
on the function or operation of any other plant system.
Failure of the RTD/ATU temperature loops would be no different
than failure of existing temperature switches. Since environmental
qualification requirements, divisional separation, single failure
requirements and one-out-of-two taken twice logic requirements are
maintained, the possibility of a RWCU isolation failure on a RWCU
line break or of a spurious isolation is no more likely after the
change than before.
In the existing design, logic relays are powered from RPS Bus A
or B. The new design also uses RPS Bus A or B to feed the ATUs.
Therefore, the consequence of a power failure is unchanged from the
present design. The seismic qualification and proper circuit
coordination of the installation is maintained. The system functions
and operates in the same manner as previously evaluated in the
Safety Analysis Report. No new system interactions other than
additional RTDs located in the main steam valve vault to input into
the PCIS logic for isolation of the RWCU have been introduced by
this activity. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The margin of safety will be enhanced by installing instruments
that provide quicker response to a temperature rise indicative of a
pipe break. Calculations have been performed to determine the
analytical limits for the RTD/ATU temperature loops in each of the
monitored areas and to determine the setpoints for the ATUs in each
area. The setpoints are set above the maximum expected room
temperatures to avoid spurious actuations due to ambient conditions
and below the analytical limits to ensure timely detection of a pipe
break. This type of design utilizing ATUs has been analyzed by the
NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff] (NEDO-21617, Analog
Transmitter/Trip Unit System for Engineered Safeguard Sensor Trip
Input) and has been found to be generically acceptable at BWR
facilities. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in any margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Athens Public Library, South
Street, Athens, Alabama 35611
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
NRC Project Director: Mr. Frederick J. Hebdon
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County,
Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 10, 1993
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would change
the Technical Specifications (TS) for the North Anna Power Station,
Units No. 1 and No. 2 (NA-1&2).
Specifically, the proposed changes would modify the surveillance
frequency of the Auxiliary Feedwater System pumps from monthly to
quarterly in accordance with the guidance provided in Generic Letter
93-05, ``Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce
Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation,'' dated
September 27, 1993.
The NRC has completed a comprehensive examination of surveillance
requirements in TS that require testing at power. The evaluation is
documented in NUREG-1366, ``Improvements to Technical Specification
Surveillance Requirements,'' dated December 1992. The NRC staff found,
that while the majority of testing at power is important, safety can be
improved, equipment degradation decreased, and an unnecessary burden on
personnel resources eliminated by reducing the amount of testing at
power that is required by TS. Based on the results of the evaluations
documented in NUREG 1366, the NRC issued Generic Letter 93-05.
The Auxiliary Feedwater System supplies water to the steam
generators to remove decay heat from the Reactor Coolant System. To
ensure operability of the Auxiliary Feedwater System, the pumps are
currently tested on a monthly basis as required by the TS. Consistent
with Generic Letter 93-05, Item 9.1 and NUREG-1366, the licensee is
requesting a change to the surveillance testing frequency for the
Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps from monthly to quarterly on a staggered test
basis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Specifically, operation of North Anna Power Station in
accordance with the proposed Technical Specifications changes will
not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability of
occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Changing the surveillance test frequencies of the Auxiliary
Feedwater System pumps does not significantly affect the probability
of occurrence or consequences of any previously evaluated accidents.
Quarterly testing of the pumps on a staggered basis will continue to
assure that the Auxiliary Feedwater System will be capable of
performing its intended functions. Therefore, the change in
frequency of testing the Auxiliary Feedwater System pumps does not
affect the probability or consequences of any previously analyzed
accident.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
Changing the surveillance test frequency of the Auxiliary
Feedwater System pumps does not involve any physical modification of
the plant or result in a change in a method of operation. Quarterly
testing of the Auxiliary Feedwater System pumps on a staggered basis
will continue to assure that the Auxiliary Feedwater System will be
capable of performing its intended function. Therefore, a new or
different type of accident is not made possible.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Changing the surveillance test frequency of the Auxiliary
Feedwater System pumps does not affect any safety limits or limiting
safety system settings. System operating parameters are unaffected.
The availability of equipment required to mitigate or assess the
consequence of an accident is not reduced. Quarterly testing of the
Auxiliary Feedwater System pumps on a staggered basis will continue
to assure that the Auxiliary Feedwater System will be capable of
performing its intended functions. Safety margins are, therefore,
not decreased.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: The Alderman Library, Special
Collections Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22903-2498.
Attorney for licensee: Michael W. Maupin, Esq., Hunton and
Williams, Riverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 E. Byrd Street, Richmond,
Virginia 23219.
NRC Project Director: Herbert N. Berkow
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items 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 local public document
rooms for the particular facilities involved.
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties,
North Carolina
Date of application for amendment: October 5, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The proposed change to the
Technical Specifications would revise the wording of liquid release
rate limit and its associated bases, and relocate the old 10 CFR 20.106
requirements to the new 10 CFR 20.1302 to be consistent with the
revised terminology of 10 CFR Part 20. The new wording will retain the
same overall level of effluent control required to meet the design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Date of issuance: December 14, 1993
Effective date: December 14, 1993
Amendment No.: 40
Facility Operating License No. NPF-63. Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 1993 (58
FR 59746) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 14, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Cameron Village Regional
Library, 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: August 5, 1992
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS)
regarding Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS)
instrumentation. The ESFAS, Functional Units, Analog Channel
Operational Test interval is changed from monthly to quarterly.
Eighteen changes to the Reactor Trip System (RTS) are also included in
this TS change.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 16, 1993
Amendment Nos.: 44 and 44
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77. The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 28, 1992 (57 FR
48816) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Wilmington Township Public
Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois 60481.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: October 29, 1993
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Table 3.6.3-
1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves,'' of the LaSalle Technical
Specifications for Units 1 and 2 by adding a new category of valves to
these tables. There are a total of eight new valves added in each
table, consisting of two check valves in each of four backfill lines.
The backfill lines were added in response to NRC Bulletin 93-03,
``Resolution of Issues Related to Reactor Vessel Water Level
Instrumentation in BWRs,'' dated May 28, 1993.
Date of issuance: December 10, 1993
Effective date: December 10, 1993
Amendment Nos.: 92 and 76
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18. The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 9, 1993 (58 FR
59493). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Public Library of Illinois
Valley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Docket No. 50-247, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: November 25, 1992, as
supplemented by letter dated February 5, 1993.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises surveillance
intervals for Process Radiation Monitors, Area Radiation Monitors, the
Main Steam Line Radiation Monitors, the Auxiliary Feedwater System
Initiating Logic, the Main Steam Safety Valves Setpoints, and the Toxic
Gas Detection System Monitors to accommodate a 24-month refueling
cycle. These revisions are being made in accordance with the guidance
provided by Generic Letter 91-04, ``Changes in Technical Specification
Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle.''
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 166
Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 1993 (58 FR
16219) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: White Plains Public Library,
100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10610.
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 5, 1993, as
supplemented November 15 and 22, 1993
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications to reflect the appropriate operability
requirements for cold leg accumulator water volume and surveillance
requirements values for the centrifugal changing pumps, safety
injection pumps, and residual heat removal pumps to prevent possible
runout conditions during a loss of coolant accident event.
Date of issuance: December 15, 1993
Effective date: December 15, 1993
Amendment Nos.: 110 and 104
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 1993 (58 FR
57848) The November 15 and 22, 1993, letters provided clarifying
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 1993. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 5 and 14, 1993, as
supplemented November 15 and December 14, 1993
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications to allow the implementation of interim steam
generator tube plugging criteria for the tube support plate elevations.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 16, 1993
Amendment Nos.: 111 and 105
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 1993 (58 FR
57849) The November 15 and December 14, 1993, letters provided
clarifying information and revisions to the coolant specific activity
that did not change the scope of the original application and did not
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 1993. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: September 7, 1993
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specification to (a) reduce the slope of the axial power
imbalance penalty in the overtemperature-delta temperature reactor
protection system trip setpoint equation, and (b) increase the boron
concentration limits in the cold leg accumulators, the refueling water
storage tank, the reactor coolant system, and refueling canal during
MODE 6 conditions. These changes reflect the reloading of Unit 1 with
Mark BW fuel for Cycle 8 including an increase in cycle length from 350
effective full power days (EFPD) to 390 EFPD.
Date of issuance: December 17, 1993
Effective date: December 17, 1993
Amendment Nos.: 112 and 106
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 1993 (58 FR
57847) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 25, 1993, as
supplemented December 3 and 6, 1993
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) Figure 2.1-1, certain TS Table 2.2-1
factors in the equation for the OVERTEMPERATURE delta T and OVERPOWER
delta T setpoints, and Figure 3.2-1 to reflect a reduction in the
required minimum measured reactor coolant system (RCS) flow rate from
385,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to 382,000 gpm for Unit 1. Catawba
Unit 2 values are unchanged and, accordingly, certain TS pages were
modified to retain the current TS values in effect for Unit 2.
The need for these changes is attributed to the effects of steam
generator tube plugging and to a hot leg temperature streaming
phenomenon. The application also proposed to revise the text of TS
2.1.1 and the definition for TS Figure 2.1-1. These changes are not
related to the changes in RCS flow rate. The staff is continuing to
review these proposed changes and, accordingly, they are not dealt with
in this amendment.
Date of issuance: December 17, 1993
Effective date: Effective within 30 days of its date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 113 and 107
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 1993 (58
FR 59747) The December 3 and 6, 1993, letters provided clarifying
information that did not change the scope of the October 25, 1993,
application and the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 1993. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library
FR Doc. X94-10105 Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Mississippi Power &
Light Company, Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit
1, Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment: May 20, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removed unnecessary
operability requirements for the Intermediate Range Monitors (IRMs) and
the Average Power Range Monitors (APRMs) during plant shutdown
operations.
Date of issuance: December 13, 1993
Effective date: December 13, 1993
Amendment No: 109
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29. Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 1993 (58 FR
34077) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Judge George W. Armstrong
Library, Post Office Box 1406, S. Commerce at Washington, Natchez,
Mississippi 39120.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-
389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: July 23, 1993
Brief description of amendments: The amendments are necessary to
implement new Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10 CFR Part
20).
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 16, 1993
Amendment Nos.: 125, 63
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 1993 (58
FR 46234) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Indian River Junior College
Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-9003
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: October 8, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deletes portions of
the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Radiological Effluent
Technical Specifications and relocates them to controlled programs in
accordance with the guidance contained in NRC Generic Letter 89-01,
dated January 31, 1989.
Date of issuance: December 13, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 166
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 1993 (58
FR 59749) The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Ocean County Library,
Reference Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey
08753.
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: October 18, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications to delete requirements to demonstrate by testing, that a
redundant system/component is operable when a system/component is
declared inoperable. In lieu of testing the redundant system/component
to demonstrate its operability the Technical Specifications are being
revised to require an administrative check of plant records to verify
operability of the redundant system/component. Confirming changes are
made to Definition 1.1 ``Operable-Operability.''
Date of issuance: December 21, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 167
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 1993 (58
FR 59749) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. Comments were
provided by letter dated December 10, 1993, from the State of New
Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of
Environmental Safety, Health and Analytical Programs. The comments and
the NRC staff's response are addressed in the Commission's Safety
Evaluation dated December 21, 1993.
Local Public Document Room location: Ocean County Library,
Reference Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey
08753
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: September 20, 1993, as
supplemented on October 1, 1993.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the plant
Technical Specifications to reflect a partial GPU Nuclear
reorganization to become effective when Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-
2), enters the Post-Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS) mode. This
reorganization includes deleting TMI-2 as a Division and incorporating
those functions and responsibilities required to maintain the PDMS
condition and requirements into the current TMI-1 Division. The TMI-1
Division will be renamed the TMI Division.
Date of issuance: December 13, 1993
Effective date: No specific date has been specified by the staff
for the effectiveness of this amendment. The amendment will become
fully effective at such time as the Vice President - TMI has been
delegated the full responsibility of the overall safe operation of both
TMI-1 and TMI-2.
Amendment No.: 179
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 1993 (58 FR
52987). The October 1, 1993, submittal provided clarifying and
corrected TS pages which did not change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's
related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated December 13, 1993. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth
Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: August 9, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the plant
Technical Specifications to be consistent with a major revision to 10
CFR Part 20 that is to be implemented by January 1, 1994.
Date of issuance: December 21, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented on
January 1, 1994.
Amendment No.: 180
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 1993 (58
FR 59751). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth
Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: August 24, 1993.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the plant
Technical Specifications to adopt the Standard Technical Specification
(STS) provision that allows a period up to 24 hours to complete a
surveillance requirement upon the discovery that the surveillance has
been missed.
Date of issuance: December 22, 1993
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, to be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 181
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 1993 (58
FR 59751). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth
Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Gulf States Utilities Company and Cajun Electric Power Cooperative,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana
Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: January 13, 1993, as supplemented by
letter dated October 18, 1993.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the River
Bend, Unit 1 operating license to reflect a change in ownership of Gulf
States Utilities (GSU). GSU, which owns a 70 percent undivided interest
in the River Bend Station, will become a wholly-owned subsidiary
company of Entergy Corporation.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 6, 1993, to be implemented within 180 days
of issuance.
Amendment No.: Amendment No. 69
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 1993 (58 FR
36435) The October 18, 1993, supplemental letter provided additional
clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant
hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 16, 1993. No significant hazards consideration comments
received: Yes. Comments and a request for hearing were received from
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Documents
Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Gulf States Utilities Company, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative,
and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-458, River Bend
Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: January 13, 1993, as supplemented by
letter dated June 29, 1993.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the River
Bend Station, Unit 1 operating license to include as a licensee,
Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI), and to authorize EOI to use and operate
River Bend and to possess and use related licensed nuclear materials.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 16, 1993 to be implemented within 180 days
of issuance.
Amendment No.: 70
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 1993 (58 FR
36436) The June 29, 1993, supplemental letter provided additional
clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant
hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 16, 1993. No significant hazards consideration comments
received: Yes. Comments and a request for hearing were received from
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Documents
Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Illinois Power Company and Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., Docket
No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County,
Illinois
Date of application for amendment: June 18, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The proposed changes to Technical
Specifications 6.2.3.1, ``Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG)
Function;'' 6.2.3.4, ``ISEG Records;'' 6.4.1, ``Training;'' and
6.5.2.2, ``Nuclear Review and Audit Group (NRAG) Composition'' are
editorial changes reflecting recent administrative/organizational
changes which occurred at Clinton Power Station.
Date of issuance: November 29, 1993
Effective date: Immediately, to be implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 86
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62. The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 18, 1993 (58 FR
43927) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: The Vespasian Warner Public
Library District, 310 N. Quincy Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: April 16, 1993, as supplemented
September 28 and December 3, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specifications to allow certain tests normally designated as 18-month
surveillances to be delayed until the next refueling outage scheduled
to begin August 6, 1994.
Date of issuance: December 22, 1993
Effective date: December 22, 1993
Amendment No.: 158
Facility Operating License No. DPR-74. Amendments revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 1993 (58 FR
41505) The supplemental letters provided clarifying information which
did not change the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 1993.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Maud Preston Palenske Memorial
Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: June 7, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.8.1, ``AC Sources-Operating,'' and associated
Bases to eliminate unnecessary diesel generator testing when a diesel
generator or an offsite power source becomes inoperable. The amendment
is intended to increase diesel generator reliability and the overall
level of plant safety by reducing the stresses on the diesel generators
caused by unnecessary testing. The amendment also makes additional
changes to TS 3/4.8.1 to further enhance diesel generator reliability
and incorporate certain administrative changes.
Date of issuance: December 15, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 54
Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 1993 (58 FR
36440) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Reference and Documents
Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New
York 13126.
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Docket No. 50-443,
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: November 11, 1992, as supplemented by
letters dated July 2, 1993, and November 24, 1993.
Description of amendment request: The amendment modifies the
Seabrook Station Technical Specifications to allow the use of either
the fixed incore detector system or the movable incore detector system
to perform technical specification surveillances. Specifically, the
amendment modifies Technical Specification sections 3.1.3, 4.2.2,
4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 3.3.3.
Date of issuance: December 22, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 27
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 1993 (58 FR
7002). The licensee's letters dated July 2, 1993, and November 24,
1993, provide additional information and clarification to the
application but do not change the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination and do not provide information
outside the scope of the original Federal Register notice. The
licensee's November 24, 1993, letter provides a commitment to acquire,
through the end of Cycle 4, a limited number of flux maps using the
movable incore detector system for comparison to flux maps obtained
using the fixed incore detector system. Additionally, the licensee
committed to provide a report to the NRC at the end of Cycle 4
regarding comparison of the data obtained from both systems. The NRC's
approval of the requested TS changes is conditioned upon the licensee's
implementing the commitment. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 1993.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Exeter Public Library, 47
Front Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., Docket No. 50-423,
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: March 19, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TS) to reflect staff positions and improvements to the
TS in response to Generic Letter 90-06, ``Resolution of Generic Issue
70, `Power-Operated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability, and
Generic Issue 94, `Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection
for Light Water Reactors.''' Generic Issue 94 was closed out by
Amendment 80 dated July 12, 1993. With the issuance of this TS
amendment, we consider the licensee's response to Generic Letter 90-06
and Generic Issue 70 (TAC No. M77362) complete for the Millstone
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 88
Facility Operating License No. NPF-49. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 1993 (58 FR
32388) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Learning Resource Center,
Three Rivers Community Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New
London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360.
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-387,
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: July 21, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to modify the requirement for acquisition of baseline
data on single-loop operation from during startup testing following
each refueling outage to at least once per 18 months.
Date of issuance: December 10, 1993
Effective date: December 10, 1993
Amendment No.: 131
Facility Operating License No. NPF-14: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 1993 (58 FR
41509) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library,
Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania 18701.
Portland General Electric Company, et al., Docket No. 50-344,
Trojan Nuclear Plant, Columbia County, Oregon
Date of application for amendment: April 1, 1993 as supplemented
June 9 and August 5, 1993.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment relocates the
Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) to the Offsite
Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and Process Control Program (PCP) in
accordance with NRC staff Generic Letter 89-01, and changes the
required frequency for submittal of the radioactive Effluent Release
Report from semiannual to annual in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36(a).
Date of issuance: December 6, 1993
Effective date: 30 days from date of issuance
Amendment No.: 193
Facility Operating License No. NPF-1: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 1993 (58 FR
36442) The supplements proposed additional changes and clarification to
the TS regarding the frequency of effluent reporting. The changes were
within the scope of the action described in the notice and did not
change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 6, 1993. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Branford Price Millar Library,
Portland State University, 934 S.W. Harrison Street, P.O. Box 1151,
Portland, Oregon 97207
Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. 50-333, James
A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: September 25, 1992
Brief description of amendment: The amendment to the Technical
Specifications (TSs) deletes the surveillance requirements for the
iodine analyzer portion of the drywell atmosphere Continuous Atmosphere
Monitoring system from TS Table 4.6-2 and makes accompanying changes to
TS Bases Section 3.6/4.6.D. These changes are consistent with the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.45, ``Reactor Coolant Boundary Leakage
Detection Systems.''
Date of issuance: December 9, 1993
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 200
Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 1993 (58 FR
16229) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 9, 1993. No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Reference and Documents
Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New
York 13126.
Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-
311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendments: May 26, 1992
Brief description of amendments: These amendments increase the
shutdown margin requirements for the current operating cycle at both
units; reduce the containment pressure high-high setpoint and allowable
value; and change the containment spray system, containment fan cooler
and service water system response times. These changes were
necessitated by the discovery of containment fan cooler unit and
containment spray system response times greater than originally assumed
for Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) or Main Steam Line Break (MSLB)
analysis, and auxiliary feedwater system flow greater than assumed for
the MSLB analysis.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 16, 1993
Amendment Nos. 149 and 127
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75. These amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 1992 (57 FR
37571) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Salem Free Public Library, 112
West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Centerior Service
Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania
Power Company, Toledo Edison Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: June 28, 1991
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.5.1 to add a required action to periodically monitor
alternative indication if one or both automatic depressurization system
(ADS) safety related instrument air header(s) low pressure alarm system
instrumentation channels become inoperable.
Date of issuance: December 13, 1993
Effective date: December 13, 1993
Amendment No.: 52
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58. This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 1991 (56 FR
37590) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Perry Public Library, 3753
Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Centerior Service
Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania
Power Company, Toledo Edison Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: March 19, 1991
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Table 3.3.3-1 to make the required actions for the
automatic depressurization system (ADS) consistent with the as-built
configuration of the system. An editorial change to Action statement 32
was added to this amendment to make Action statement 32 consistent with
Action statements 30 and 33.
Date of issuance: December 17, 1993
Effective date: December 17, 1993
Amendment No.: 53
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58. This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 15, 1991 (56 FR
22480) Additional clarifying information was provided verbally by the
utility on November 5, 1993, that did not change the initial proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's
related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation
dated December 17, 1993. No significant hazards consideration comments
received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Perry Public Library, 3753
Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081.
Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: November 9, 1992 as supplemented
on November 22, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications to allow the de-energization of the borated water
storage tank outlet isolation valves in the open position during
operational Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 16, 1993
Amendment No. 182
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 1993 (58 FR
28061) The supplemental letter provided additional information that did
not change the proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a safety evaluation dated December 16, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: University of Toledo Library,
Documents Department, 2801 Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: August 1, 1991
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specification Sections 3.3.3.6, 3.6.4.1, 4.11.2.5, 6.2.2, and Tables
3.3-4 and 3.3-10 to correct typographical errors and make editorial
changes.
Date of issuance: December 21, 1993
Effective date: December 21, 1993
Amendment No.: 86
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 18, 1991 (56
FR 47244) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 1993. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Callaway County Public
Library, 710 Court Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity For a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items 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 local public document room for the particular facility
involved.
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. By February 4, 1994, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room for the
particular facility involved. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by
the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule
on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the
Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy
the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses. Since the Commission has made a final determination
that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a
hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the
amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in
effect.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services
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. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the
notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform
the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-
(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the
following message addressed to (Project Director): petitioner's name
and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A
copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and
to the attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will
not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the
presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. STN 50-456, Braidwood
Station, Unit 1, Will County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: November 12, 1993, as
supplemented by letters dated November 18 and December 6, 1993
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the existing
technical specifications (TS) by adding a footnote to TS 4.4.5.0 to
address steam generator (SG) operability requirements. The change
references an unscheduled inspection of the 1C SG which occurred due to
a tube leak in that SG. The amendment was required because the
circumstances of the inspection were not covered by the existing TS 3/
4.4.5. It will allow SG operability requirements to be satisfied until
the next SG inservice inspection, scheduled to begin no later than
March 5, 1993.
Date of issuance: December 16, 1993
Effective date: December 16, 1993
Amendment No.: 43
Facility Operating License No. NPF-72. The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications. Public comments requested as to proposed no
significant hazards consideration: No. The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, and
final determination of no significant hazards consideration are
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 1993.
Attorney for licensee: Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley and
Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60690
Local Public Document Room location: Wilmington Township Public
Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois 60481.
NRC Project Director: James E. Dyer
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elinor G. Adensam,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation
[Doc. 94-53 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-99 Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-99]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Meeting
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law
92-463 that a subcommittee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Women
Veterans will be held on January 11, 1994, in the 2nd floor conference
room, 1785 Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The purpose of the
subcommittee meeting is to review the research efforts to date for the
Study of Reproductive Health Outcomes Among Women Vietnam Veterans.
The subcommittee will convene on January 11 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
and all sessions will be open to the public up to the seating capacity
of the room. Because this capacity is limited, it will be necessary for
those wishing to attend to contact Antoinette Workeman, Committee
Coordinator, Department of Veterans Affairs (phone 202/606-5420) prior
to January 11, 1994.
Dated: December 21, 1993.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-99 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-64 McMurdo Station, Antarctica; Environmental Assessment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-64]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
McMurdo Station, Antarctica; Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Notice of environmental assessment and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has prepared an
Environmental Assessment of the United States Antarctic Program's
Management of Food Wastes at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, from 1993-
1996. NSF is inviting public comments on the Environmental Assessment.
In order to be assured consideration, comments must be received no
later than February 4, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment may be obtained from
and comments addressed to Thomas F. Forhan, Head, Antarctic Staff,
Polar Coordination and Information Section, Office of Polar Programs,
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, room 755,
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas F. Forhan, 703-306-1031.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Lawrence Rudolph,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 94-64 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-60 PPG Industries, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive Petition
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-60]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 93F090428]
PPG Industries, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive Petition
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that PPG
Industries, Inc., has filed a petition proposing that the food additive
regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of alpha-
(dinonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxy-poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) containing 7 to
24 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of dinonylphenol, as a defoaming
agent used in the production of paper and paperboard coatings and paper
and paperboard intended to contact food.
DATES: Written comments on the petitioner's environmental assessment by
February 4, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA09305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 10923, 12420 Parklawn
Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Zajac, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS09216), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 20209254099500.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food
additive petition (FAP 3B4363) has been filed by PPG Industries, Inc.,
440 College Park Dr., Monroeville, PA 15146. The petition proposes to
amend the food additive regulations in Sec. 1A176.200 Defoaming agents
used in coatings (21 CFR 176.200) and Sec. 1A176.210 Defoaming agents
used in the manufacture of paper and paperboard (21 CFR 176.210) to
provide for the safe use of alpha-(dinonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxy-
poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) containing 7 to 24 moles of ethylene oxide per
mole of dinonylphenol, as a defoaming agent used in the production of
paper and paperboard coatings and paper and paperboard intended to
contact food.
The potential environmental impact of this action is being
reviewed. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations
promulgated under the National Environmental Policy Act, (40 CFR
1501.4(b)), the agency is placing the environmental assessment
submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on
public display at the Dockets Management Branch (address above) for
public review and comment. Interested persons may, on or before
February 4, 1994, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address
above) written comments. Two copies of any comments are to be
submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to
be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading
of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA will also place
on public display any amendments to, or comments on, the petitioner's
environmental assessment without further announcement in the Federal
Register. If, based on its review, the agency finds that an
environmental impact statement is not required and this petition
results in a regulation, the notice of availability of the agency's
finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that
finding will be published with the final regulation in the Federal
Register in accordance with 21 CFR 25.40(c).
Dated: December 21, 1993.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 94-60 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-236 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-236]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
Sunshine Act Meetings
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of
January 3, 1994.
A closed meeting will be held on Friday, January 7, 1994, at 10:00
a.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9) (A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4),
(8), (9) (i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at
a closed meeting.
Commissioner Roberts, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Friday,
January 7, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., will be:
Institution of injunctive actions.
Institution of administrative proceedings of an enforcement
nature.
Settlement of injunctive actions.
Settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement
nature.
Regulatory matter regarding financial institution.
Opinion.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact: Brian Lane at (202) 272-2400.
Dated: December 30, 1993.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-236 Filed 3-3-94; 11:59 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-208 Financial Assistance To Support Tourism Trade Development in Midwest States Affected by the Widespread Flooding of 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 571-574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-208]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Travel and Tourism Administration
[Docket No. 931219-3319]
Financial Assistance To Support Tourism Trade Development in
Midwest States Affected by the Widespread Flooding of 1993
AGENCY: United States Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Financial assistance funding in the amount of $3 million is
available from the USTTA to the nine States of the midwest affected by
the major, widespread flooding of 1993, to assist in promoting tourism
within the United States and from the contiguous Canadian market. These
funds are intended to defray the costs of increased tourism promotion
needs resulting from the flooding. This notice invites applications for
an award of such funds and sets forth application and award procedures,
award criteria, and certain limitations.
DATES: Applications for an award of these funds will be accepted from
January 5, 1994 until February 4, 1994. Applications postmarked after
February 4, 1994, will not be considered. Awards are anticipated by
April 15, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Application kits including application forms (Standard Forms
424, 424A, and 424B) are available from, and completed applications
should be submitted to, the Office of Tourism Trade Development, United
States Travel and Tourism Administration, room 1860, Herbert C. Hoover
Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230. Applicants must submit an original of their application and two
copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen M. Cardran, Director,
Marketing Programs (202) 482-1904.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given to the States of
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin, their political subdivisions and
combinations thereof, and to private or public nonprofit organizations
and associations that, pursuant to Title III of Pub. L. No. 103-75,
sections 202 (a)(5) and (c) of the International Travel Act of 1961, as
amended, and 42 U.S.C. 3151, a total of $3 million is available from
the USTTA to the States affected by the major, widespread flooding of
1993, to assist projects to promote tourism within the United States
and from the contiguous Canadian market. As used in this notice,
``private or public non-profit organization or association'' means an
institution, organization, or association, either private or public,
which has tax exempt status as defined in section 501(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code.
These funds are intended to defray the costs of increased tourism
promotion needs resulting from the flooding. An applicant may receive
no more than one award for this disaster.
Only eligible applicants from the nine eligible States whose
applications receive a final evaluation score of 80 or greater will be
considered for an award. No applicant will be awarded funds unless the
application includes a project or projects from at least two of the six
project areas set forth in section IV.C., below. No applicant will be
awarded funds unless the application includes: (1) Documentation
demonstrating that all programs set forth in the application are or
will be effectively coordinated with other affected entities in the
State; and (2) a marketing plan that contains clearly stated objectives
for a time period of one year and procedures for credible evaluation
and tracking, and that is integrated (in terms of multiple activities)
with a generally cohesive approach. Further, no applicant will be
awarded funds unless the projects for which funding is sought are aimed
at market(s) which have potential for mitigating the tourism-related
negative effects of the disaster. The application must include credible
market research to support this potential.
The maximum amount an applicant from the States of Missouri, Iowa
and Illinois, whose tourism industries have been most severely affected
by the floods, shall be awarded is $400,000 and cannot exceed an
aggregate of $400,000 annually for such projects for each State.
Applicants from the States of Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Kansas and Wisconsin shall be eligible to receive up to
$300,000 and cannot exceed an aggregate of $300,000 annually for such
projects for each State. The minimum amount for which an applicant may
apply is $200,000.
Based on individual State funding limitations, applicants will be
awarded assistance in descending order starting with the applicant
whose proposal has the highest final evaluation score. Subject to the
availability of funds, grants will be awarded on a state-by-state basis
according to final evaluation scores, State funding limitations, and
broad geographic distribution.
The funding instrument will be a grant unless it is anticipated
that the USTTA will be substantially involved in the implementation of
the project for which an award is to be made, in which case the funding
instrument will be a cooperative agreement.
In the event that all funds have not been obligated after the first
competition, a second competition will be announced. Applicants from
the eligible States that have not reached their maximum limitation, as
noted above, will be invited to apply.
To support the tourism promotional effort financed by this program,
a comprehensive national public relations campaign will be developed to
encourage recovery of visitation to the affected region. Components of
the campaign may include, but are not limited to, public service
announcements (broadcast or print), development of a ``1-800'' number
for tourist information, and endorsements by celebrity spokespersons.
Applicants are encouraged to utilize the umbrella campaign in their
overall effort.
I. Selection Procedures
All applications will be reviewed and judged individually,
independent from all other applications, by each of four qualified
evaluators acting without consultation among themselves. Each evaluator
will score each application by awarding points for each of the three
(3) evaluation criteria set forth in IV, below. Scores awarded for each
evaluation criterion will be multiplied by the weight assigned to that
criterion. A maximum score of 100 points may be awarded to an
application. Once scores have been determined individually by each
evaluator, a final score for each application will be determined by
averaging the scores provided by each of the four evaluators.
II. Matching Requirements
The recipient is required to provide 25 per cent matching funds for
the total project cost.
In determining the amount of the non-Federal share, due
consideration will be given to all contributions both in cash and in-
kind. In-kind contributions shall be made in accordance with OMB
Circular A-110 (non- or for-profits) or 15 CFR part 24 (state and local
governments).
A waiver of the match may be requested if the non-Federal share is
not reasonably available and the applicant provides documentation
clearly demonstrating the lack of resources due to the disaster.
III. Award Period
Financial assistance shall be awarded on a one-year basis.
IV. Evaluation Criteria
The three evaluation criteria and the weight assigned each
criterion are:
A. Needs and Effect Criterion (assigned weight--0.4)
Application demonstrates the need of affected area and the ability
of the project to counteract directly the negative impact of the 1993
floods on tourism.
(1) Application clearly reflects the ability of project to offset
negative impacts of the disaster which have not been substantially
mitigated by other aid. (40 points)
(2) Application includes documentation from Federal, State, or
local sources demonstrating the current degree of need. This must
include documentation showing the: (a) Current loss of and tourism-
related employment; (b) level of tourism prior to the disaster; (c)
current level of tourism; (d) impact in terms of employment and income
of tourism on the area economy versus other industries; and (e) extent
to which the negative impact of the disaster on tourism has been
mitigated. (60 points)
B. General Criterion (assigned weight--0.2)
Application clearly states objectives that respond directly to the
specialized tourism promotion needs of the affected area.
(1) Application states clear and achievable objectives to be
carried out over an appropriate length of time. (25 points)
(2) Application demonstrates that project is aimed at markets that
have been identified using credible market research. (25 points)
(3) Application demonstrates that project is fully integrated (in
terms of multiple activities) with a generally cohesive approach. (25
points)
(4) Application demonstrates that applicant has the organizational
quality and competence to effectively carry out the project. The
application must include an organizational chart and a biographical
sketch of the program director with the following information: name,
address, phone number, background and other qualifying experience for
the project; and a list of other key personnel, consultants, etc.
engaged in the project, which includes names, training and background.
Applications by non-profit organizations must include a copy of the
articles of incorporation, charter, trust statement, or other similar
documentation which sets forth the authorizing powers and purposes of
the organization, together with bylaws or other code of regulations; a
brief description of organizational arrangements for fiscal and
managerial control, including the extent to which these overlap or are
integrated with other organizations; a copy of a current financial
statement of the organization; and a copy of the current Internal
Revenue Service tax exemption letter which certifies the organization's
not-for-profit status. (25 points)
C. Project Criterion (assigned weight--0.4)
Each application must include a project or projects from at least
two of the six project areas set forth below. The project evaluation
component score will be determined by adding the points awarded for the
applicable project areas divided by the number of project areas
prepared by the applicant.
1. Media Product Information
Media product information projects are those that include the
development of media familiarization tours and dissemination of product
information on the destination.
The applicable criteria are:
a. Correlation of media programs with applicant's overall tourism
marketing strategy. (20 points)
b. Correlation with USTTA national public relations program. (20
points)
c. Program timing and content, and potential acceptance by the
target media. (15 points)
d. Project cost versus media space/time return (a minimum 10 to 1
return on investment is suggested). (20 points)
e. Measurement plan to assess program effectiveness, i.e.,
methodology to track readership or viewer response. (25 points)
2. Market Development
Market development projects are those designed to generate
increased travel to the impacted area from primary markets of
opportunity. Criteria are set forth for the following three types of
such projects:
a. Operator/Agent Familiarization Tours.
1. Preliminary planning (i.e., proposed itinerary) of the
familiarization tour(s) to cities, State(s) or regions for operators/
agents to introduce the tourism product to support tour development or
marketing. (30 points)
2. Plans for subsequent follow-up with participants to ensure
continued awareness and potential sale of product. (45 points)
3. Measurement plan to assess project return versus outlay. (25
points)
b. Tour Package Development.
1. Preliminary planning for and packaging of tour programs, i.e.,
selection of receptive/wholesale operators and program components. (30
points)
2. Plans for subsequent implementation and promotion of the program
in conjunction with tour wholesalers, retailers, etc. (45 points)
3. Measurement to assess program effectiveness. (25 points)
c. Consumer Travel Shows/Workshops.
1. Preliminary planning and packaging of product for information
delivery to consumer. (30 points)
2. Plans for subsequent follow-up with trade contacts or potential
consumers. (45 points)
3. Measurement of project effectiveness. (25 points)
An applicant may choose to implement only one of the three
designated types of market development programs to be considered as
having satisfied the Market Development project criterion.
3. Advertising
Applications for advertising projects should include a planned
campaign outline, including the message to be conveyed (visually and
written), and an outline of proposed media plans. If layouts, copy and
media schedules are available at the time application is made, they
should be submitted with application. If they are not, specific
campaign details must be submitted to the Office of Tourism Trade
Development prior to the actual placement of the advertising in the
media.
The applicable criteria are:
a. Basic approach and objectives. (20 points)
b. Correlation with USTTA national public relations program. (20
points)
c. Evidence that customer demographic, psychographic and
statistical data necessary to develop marketing and advertising
strategy is available. (10 points)
d. Creative interpretation of the proposed strategy. (20 points)
e. Expected reach of the advertising campaign in relation to its
cost and short-term impact on the market. (15 points)
f. Measurement plan to assess program cost/return effectiveness.
(15 points)
4. Trade Development
Trade development projects are those which complement ongoing
programs directed toward the members of the travel trade. For
application purposes, trade development projects are not concerned with
either the development or promotion of tour packages (which are covered
in the ``Tour Package Development'' criterion).
Such projects may include: Trade-oriented product workshops or
seminars, trade advertising, familiarization tours for retail travel
agents, and participation in travel trade shows.
The applicable criteria are:
a. Techniques used to create awareness and encourage selling of the
destination by the travel trade. (25 points)
b. Implementation time and anticipated project benefits derived
after grant expiration. (25 points)
c. Goals of project and methods used to measure program results.
(50 points)
5. Consumer and Trade Literature
Consumer and trade literature must be designed specifically for use
in the United States. Special attention should be devoted to designing
literature to meet the needs of the target market. An applicant may
choose to implement only one of the two designated types of consumer
and trade literature project criterion set forth below:
a. Consumer and trade literature development and production.
1. Preliminary planning for design and content of brochures. (15
points)
2. Evidence that market planning research has been utilized to
identify visitor preferences and information needs. (15 points)
3. Correlation between literature program and overall marketing
plan. (15 points)
4. Correlation with USTTA national public relations program. (15
points)
5. Information adequately covers flood affected area. (20 points)
6. Measurement plan to assess program effectiveness. (20 points)
b. Consumer and Trade Literature Distribution.
1. Soundness of strategy for distribution of literature. (25
points)
2. Timeliness of proposed response mechanism. (25 points)
3. Adequacy of response mechanism to meet anticipated demand. (20
points)
4. Evidence of strategy to allow follow-up after initial response.
(15 points)
5. Measurement plan to assess program effectiveness. (15 points)
6. Special Events/Festivals
This category includes the development, promotion and
implementation of participatory events that draw visitation and
attention to the area.
a. Preliminary plan for development of event. (20 points)
b. Appropriate program timing and content, and potential acceptance
by the target media. (20 points)
c. Proposed promotion plan adequately reaches potential trade and
consumer audiences. (15 points)
d. Event plan includes adequate service facilities, i.e., parking,
security, traffic flows, restrooms, food service, to accommodate
projected audience. (20 points)
e. Correlation to USTTA national public relations program, i.e.,
use of logo or theme, etc. (15 points)
f. Measurement plan to determine effectiveness. (10 points)
V. Other Requirements
1. Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and
Federal and Department of Commerce policies, regulations, and
procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.
2. Indirect costs are allowable; however, ``the total dollar amount
of the indirect costs proposed in an application under this program
must not exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a
cognizant Federal agency prior to the proposed effective date of the
award or 100 percent of the total proposed direct costs dollar amount
in the application, whichever is less.''
3. No Federal funds will be awarded to an applicant who has an
outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either: (a) The delinquent
account is paid in full; (b) a negotiated repayment schedule is
established and at least one payment is received; or (c) other
arrangements satisfactory to the Department of Commerce are made.
4. Awards of financial assistance are subject to the requirements
of Executive Order No. 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs.''
5. A false statement on an application is grounds for denial or
termination of funds and for possible punishment by a fine or
imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
6. All primary applicants must submit a completed CD-511,
``Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and
Lobbying.'' 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 CD-511 applies. Grantees
(as defined at 15 CFR part 26, section 605) are subject to 15 CFR part
26, subpart F, ``Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace
(Grants)'' and the related section of CD-511 applies. 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 CD-511 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. 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.
7. Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants,
contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at
any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed CD-512,
``Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and
Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying'' and
a completed SF-LLL, ``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.'' CD-512's are
intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to the
Department of Commerce. SF-LLL's submitted by any tier recipients or
subrecipient should be submitted to the Department of Commerce in
accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.
8. Unsatisfactory performance of an applicant under prior Federal
awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.
9. Costs incurred by an applicant prior to an award being made are
incurred solely at the applicant's own risk. Applicants are advised
that notwithstanding any verbal assurance that they may receive, there
is no obligation on the part of the Department of Commerce to reimburse
pre-award costs.
10. If an applicant is selected for an award, the Department of
Commerce has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in
connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or
extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of the
Department of Commerce.
11. All applicants who are private or public non-profit
organizations or associations are subject to a name check review
process. Name checks are intended to reveal whether any key individuals
associated with the applicant have been convicted of, or are presently
facing, criminal charges such as fraud, theft, or perjury, or are
involved in other matters which significantly reflect on the
applicant's management honesty or financial integrity.
Classification
This notice of availability of financial assistance is issued under
the authority of title I of Public Law No. 103-75, section 202(a)(5)
and (c) of the International Travel Act of 1961, as amended, and 42
U.S.C. 3151.
Because this notice relates to grants, benefits, or contracts,
section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553)
does not require that notice and an opportunity for comment be given
for this rule or that its effective date be delayed for 30 days. Since
notice and an opportunity to comment is not required by the APA or by
any other law, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and none was prepared.
The Department of Commerce has determined that the Federal
assistance covered by this notice will not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. Therefore, no draft or final
Environmental Impact Statement has been or will be prepared.
This notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612.
All information collection requirements under this notice are
consistent with those covered in Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-110.
Leslie R. Doggett,
Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel and Tourism.
[FR Doc. 94-208 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-11-1
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-190 Current List of Laboratories Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies and Laboratories That Have Withdrawn From the Program
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 591-592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-190]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Current List of Laboratories Which Meet Minimum Standards To
Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies and Laboratories That
Have Withdrawn From the Program
AGENCY: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS
(Formerly: National Institute on Drug Abuse, ADAMHA, HHS).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services notifies Federal
agencies of the laboratories currently certified to meet standards of
Subpart C of Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing
Programs (53 FR 11979, 11986). A similar notice listing all currently
certified laboratories will be published during the first week of each
month, and updated to include laboratories which subsequently apply for
and complete the certification process. If any listed laboratory's
certification is totally suspended or revoked, the laboratory will be
omitted from updated lists until such time as it is restored to full
certification under the Guidelines.
If any laboratory has withdrawn from the National Laboratory
Certification Program during the past month, it will be identified as
such at the end of the current list of certified laboratories, and will
be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise L. Goss, Program Assistant,
Division of Workplace Programs, room 9-A-54, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, Maryland 20857; Tel.: (301) 443-6014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace
Drug Testing were developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564
and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. Subpart C of the Guidelines,
``Certification of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for
Federal Agencies,'' sets strict standards which laboratories must meet
in order to conduct urine drug testing for Federal agencies. To become
certified an applicant laboratory must undergo three rounds of
performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that
certification a laboratory must participate in an every-other-month
performance testing program plus periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories which claim to be in the applicant stage of
certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum
requirements expressed in the HHS Guidelines. A laboratory must have
its letter of certification from SAMHSA, HHS (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which
attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with Subpart C of the Guidelines, the following
laboratories meet the minimum standards set forth in the Guidelines:
Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., 624 Grassmere Park Road, Suite
21, Nashville, TN 37211, 615-331-5300
Alabama Reference Laboratories, Inc., 543 South Hull Street,
Montgomery, AL 36103, 800-541-4931/205-263-5745
Allied Clinical Laboratories, 201 Plaza Boulevard, Hurst, TX 76053,
817-282-2257
American Medical Laboratories, Inc., 14225 Newbrook Drive,
Chantilly, VA 22021, 703-802-6900
Associated Pathologists Laboratories, Inc., 4230 South Burnham
Avenue, Suite 250, Las Vegas, NV 89119-5412, 702-733-7866
Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc. (ARUP), 500
Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, 801-583-2787
Baptist Medical Center--Toxicology Laboratory, 9601 I-630, Exit 7,
Little Rock, AR 72205-7299, 501-227-2783, (formerly: Forensic
Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center)
Bayshore Clinical Laboratory, 4555 W. Schroeder Drive, Brown Deer,
WI 53223, 414-355-4444/800-877-7016
Bioran Medical Laboratory, 415 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA
02139, 617-547-8900
Cedars Medical Center, Department of Pathology, 1400 Northwest 12th
Avenue, Miami, FL 33136, 305-325-5810
Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory, 9601 S. Sepulveda
Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045, 310-215-6020
Clinical Pathology Facility, Inc., 711 Bingham Street, Pittsburgh,
PA 15203, 412-488-7500
Clinical Reference Lab, 11850 West 85th Street, Lenexa, KS 66214,
800-445-6917
CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical
Laboratory, 3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Hwy., Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, 919-549-8263/800-833-3984
CompuChem Laboratories, Special Division, 3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson
Hwy., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-549-8263
Cox Medical Centers, Department of Toxicology, 1423 North Jefferson
Avenue, Springfield, MO 65802, 800-876-3652/417-836-3093
CPF MetPath Laboratories, 21007 Southgate Park Boulevard, Cleveland,
OH 44137-3054, (Outside OH) 800-338-0166/(Inside OH) 800-362-8913,
(formerly Southgate Medical Laboratory; Southgate Medical Services,
Inc.)
Damon/MetPath, 140 East Ryan Road, Oak Creek, WI 53154, 800-638-
1100, (formerly: Damon Clinical Laboratories; Chem-Bio Corporation;
CBC Clinilab)
Damon/MetPath, 8300 Esters Blvd., Suite 900, Irving, TX 75063, 214-
929-0535, (formerly: Damon Clinical Laboratories)
Dept. of the Navy, Navy Drug Screening Laboratory, Great Lakes, IL,
Building 38-H, Great Lakes, IL 60088-5223, 708-688-2045/708-688-4171
Dept. of the Navy, Navy Drug Screening Laboratory, Norfolk, VA, 1321
Gilbert Street, Norfolk, VA 23511-2597, 804-444-8089 ext. 317
Doctors Laboratory, Inc., P.O. Box 2658, 2906 Julia Drive, Valdosta,
GA 31604, 912-244-4468
Doctors & Physicians Laboratory, 801 East Dixie Avenue, Leesburg, FL
32748, 904-787-9006
Drug Labs of Texas, 15201 I-10 East, Suite 125, Channelview, TX
77530, 713-457-3784
DrugScan, Inc., P.O. Box 2969, 1119 Mearns Road, Warminster, PA
18974, 215-674-9310
ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS
38655, 601-236-2609, (moved 6/16/93)
Employee Health Assurance Group, 405 Alderson Street, Schofield, WI
54476, 800-627-8200, (formerly: Alpha Medical Laboratory, Inc.)
General Medical Laboratories, 36 South Brooks Street, Madison, WI
53715, 608-267-6267
Harrison Laboratories, Inc., 606 N. Weatherford, P.O. Box 2788,
Midland, TX 79702, 800-725-3784/915-687-6877, (formerly: Harrison &
Associates Forensic Laboratories)
HealthCare/MetPath, 24451 Telegraph Road, Southfield, MI 48034,
Inside MI: 800-328-4142/Outside MI: 800-225-9414, (formerly:
HealthCare/Preferred Laboratories)
Hermann Hospital Toxicology Laboratory, Hermann Professional
Building, 6410 Fannin, Suite 354, Houston, TX 77030, 713-793-6080
Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati, Inc., 3200 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati,
OH 45229, 513-569-2051
Laboratory of Pathology of Seattle, Inc., 1229 Madison St., Suite
500, Nordstrom Medical Tower, Seattle, WA 98104, 206-386-2672
Laboratory Specialists, Inc., 113 Jarrell Drive, Belle Chasse, LA
70037, 504-392-7961
Marshfield Laboratories, 1000 North Oak Avenue, Marshfield, WI
54449, 715-389-3734/800-222-5835
Mayo Medical Laboratories, 200 S.W. First Street, Rochester, MN
55905, 507-284-3631
Med-Chek/Damon, 4900 Perry Highway, Pittsburgh, PA 15229, 412-931-
7200, (formerly: Med-Chek Laboratories, Inc.)
MedExpress/National Laboratory Center, 4022 Willow Lake Boulevard,
Memphis, TN 38175, 901-795-1515
Medical Science Laboratories, 11020 W. Plank Court, Wauwatosa, WI
53226, 414-476-3400
MEDTOX Bio-Analytical, 8600 West Catalpa Avenue, Chicago, IL 60656,
800-872-5221/312-714-9191, (formerly: MedTox Bio-Analytical, a
Division of MedTox Laboratories, Inc.; Bio-Analytical Technologies)
MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112,
800-832-3244/612-636-7466
Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Inc., Department of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine, 1701 N. Senate Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN
46202, 317-929-3587
Methodist Medical Center Toxicology Laboratory, 221 N.E. Glen Oak
Avenue, Peoria, IL 61636, 800-752-1835/309-671-5199
MetPath, Inc., 1355 Mittel Boulevard, Wood Dale, IL 60191, 708-595-
3888
MetPath, Inc., One Malcolm Avenue, Teterboro, NJ 07608, 201-393-5000
Metropolitan Reference Laboratories, Inc., 2320 Schuetz Road, St.
Louis, MO 63146, 800-288-7293
National Center for Forensic Science, 1901 Sulphur Spring Road,
Baltimore, MD 21227, 410-536-1485, (formerly: Maryland Medical
Laboratory, Inc.)
National Drug Assessment Corporation, 5419 South Western, Oklahoma
City, OK 73109, 800-749-3784, (formerly: Med Arts Lab)
National Health Laboratories Incorporated, 5601 Oberlin Drive, Suite
100, San Diego, CA 92121, 619-455-1221
National Health Laboratories Incorporated, 2540 Empire Drive,
Winston-Salem, NC 27103-6710, Outside NC: 919-760-4620/800-334-8627/
Inside NC: 800-642-0894
National Health Laboratories Incorporated, 75 Rod Smith Place,
Cranford, NJ 07016-2843, 908-272-2511
National Health Laboratories Incorporated, d.b.a. National Reference
Laboratory, Substance Abuse Division, 1400 Donelson Pike, Suite A-
15, Nashville, TN 37217, 615-360-3992/800-800-4522
National Health Laboratories Incorporated, 13900 Park Center Road,
Herndon, VA 22071, 703-742-3100
National Psychopharmacology Laboratory, Inc., 9320 Park W.
Boulevard, Knoxville, TN 37923, 800-251-9492
National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Avenue,
Bakersfield, CA 93304, 805-322-4250
Nichols Institute Substance Abuse Testing (NISAT), 7470-A Mission
Valley Road, San Diego, CA 92108-4406, 800-446-4728/619-686-3200,
(formerly: Nichols Institute)
Northwest Toxicology, Inc., 1141 E. 3900 South, Salt Lake City, UT
84124, 800-322-3361
Occupational Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 2002 20th Street, Suite
204A, Kenner, LA 70062, 504-465-0751
Oregon Medical Laboratories, P.O. Box 972, 722 East 11th Avenue,
Eugene, OR 97440-0972, 503-687-2134
Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, East 11604 Indiana,
Spokane, WA 99206, 509-926-2400
PDLA, Inc. (Princeton), 100 Corporate Court, So. Plainfield, NJ
07080, 908-769-8500/800-237-7352
PharmChem Laboratories, Inc., 1505-A O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, CA
94025, 415-328-6200/800-446-5177
PharmChem Laboratories, Inc., Texas Division, 7606 Pebble Drive,
Fort Worth, TX 76118, 817-595-0294, (formerly: Harris Medical
Laboratory)
Physicians Reference Laboratory, 7800 West 110th Street, Overland
Park, KS 66210, 913-338-4070/800-821-3627, (formerly: Physicians
Reference Laboratory Toxicology Laboratory)
Poisonlab, Inc., 7272 Clairemont Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111,
619-279-2600/800-882-7272
Precision Analytical Laboratories, Inc., 13300 Blanco Road, Suite
#150, San Antonio, TX 78216, 210-493-3211
Puckett Laboratory, 4200 Mamie Street, Hattiesburgh, MS 39402, 601-
264-3856/800-844-8378
Regional Toxicology Services, 15305 NE. 40th Street, Redmond, WA
98052, 206-882-3400
Resource One, Inc., Seven Pointe Circle, Greenville, SC 29615, 803-
233-5639
Roche Biomedical Laboratories, 1957 Lakeside Parkway, Suite 542,
Tucker, GA 30084, 404-939-4811
Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., 1120 Stateline Road, Southaven,
MS 38671, 601-342-1286
Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., 69 First Avenue, Raritan, NJ
08869, 800-437-4986
Saint Joseph Hospital Toxicology Laboratory, 601 N. 30th Street,
Omaha, NE 68131-2197, 402-449-4940
Scott & White Drug Testing Laboratory, 600 S. 25th Street, Temple,
TX 76504, 800-749-3788
S.E.D. Medical Laboratories, 500 Walter NE, Suite 500, Albuquerque,
NM 87102, 505-848-8800
Sierra Nevada Laboratories, Inc., 888 Willow Street, Reno, NV 89502,
800-648-5472
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 7600 Tyrone Avenue, Van
Nuys, CA 91045, 818-376-2520
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 3175 Presidential Drive,
Atlanta, GA 30340, 404-934-9205 (formerly: SmithKline Bio-Science
Laboratories)
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 506 E. State Parkway,
Schaumburg, IL 60173, 708-885-2010, (formerly: International
Toxicology Laboratories)
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 11636 Administration
Drive, St. Louis, MO 63146, 314-567-3905
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 400 Egypt Road,
Norristown, PA 19403, 800-523-5447, (formerly: SmithKline Bio-
Science Laboratories)
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 8000 Sovereign Row,
Dallas, TX 75247, 214-638-1301, (formerly: SmithKline Bio-Science
Laboratories)
South Bend Medical Foundation, Inc., 530 N. Lafayette Boulevard,
South Bend, IN 46601, 219-234-4176
Southwest Laboratories, 2727 W. Baseline Road, Suite 6, Tempe, AZ
85283, 602-438-8507
St. Anthony Hospital (Toxicology Laboratory), P.O. Box 205, 1000 N.
Lee Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, 405-272-7052
St. Louis University Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1205 Carr Lane,
St. Louis, MO 63104, 314-577-8628
Toxicology & Drug Monitoring Laboratory, University of Missouri
Hospital & Clinics, 301 Business Loop 70 West, Suite 208, Columbia,
MO 65203, 314-882-1273
Toxicology Testing Service, Inc., 5426 NW. 79th Avenue, Miami, FL
33166, 305-593-2260
TOXWORX Laboratories, Inc., 6160 Variel Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA
91367, 818-226-4373, (formerly: Laboratory Specialists, Inc.; Abused
Drug Laboratories; MedTox Bio-Analytical, a Division of MedTox
Laboratories, Inc.; moved 12/21/92)
UNILAB, 18408 Oxnard Street, Tarzana, CA 91356, 800-492-0800/818-
343-8191, (formerly: MetWest-BPL Toxicology Laboratory).
The following laboratory withdrew from the National Laboratory
Certification Program on November 19, 1993:
Roche Biomedical Laboratories, 1801 First Avenue South, Birmingham,
AL 35233, 205-581-4170.
The following laboratory withdrew from the National Laboratory
Certification Program, on December 31, 1993:
IHC Laboratory Services Forensic Toxicology, 930 North 500 West,
Suite E, Provo, UT 84604, 800-967-9766.
Richard Kopanda,
Acting Executive Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-190 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-20-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-188 Production Sharing: U.S. Imports Under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Provisions 9802.00.60 and 9802.00.80, 1989-92
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-188]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[332-237]
Production Sharing: U.S. Imports Under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Provisions 9802.00.60 and 9802.00.80, 1989-92
AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Opportunity to supply written comment on continuing
investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission annually conducts a study on production
sharing. The Commission's 1993 report on ``Production Sharing: U.S.
Imports Under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Provisions 9802.00.60 and
9802.00.80,'' covering imports for the period 1989-92, will be
published in January 1994. Last year's report, covering the period
1988-91, was published in February 1993 (USITC Publication 2592). The
1994 annual report (published in January 1995) will cover imports
during the period 1990-93.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richardo L. Witherspoon (202-205-
3489), Minerals, Metals and Miscellaneous Manufactures Division, Office
of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) provision
9802.00.60 involves tariff treatment for metal of U.S. origin processed
in a foreign location and returned to the United States for further
processing; provision 9802.00.80 involves tariff treatment for imported
goods that contain U.S.-made components. The initial notice of
institution of this investigation in 1986 was published in the Federal
Register of September 4, 1986 (51 FR 31729).
Written Submission
No public hearing is planned. Written statements concerning the
investigation are welcome at any time, however, since monitoring
imports under production sharing HTS provisions 9802.00.60 and
9802.00.80 is a continuing endeavor of the Commission. Commercial or
financial information which a submitter desires the Commission to treat
as confidential must be submitted on separate sheets of paper, each
clearly marked ``Confidential Business Information'' at the top. All
submissions requesting confidential treatment must conform with the
requirements of Sec. 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). All written submissions, except for
confidential business information, will be made available for
inspection by interested persons. All submissions should be addressed
to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting our TDD terminal on (202) 205-
3810.
Dated: December 30, 1993.
By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-188 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-175 Priority Dates for Employment-Based Petitions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 501-502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-175]
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 1994 /
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 3
Wednesday, January 5, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Part 204
[INS No. 1647-93]
RIN 1115-AD61
Priority Dates for Employment-Based Petitions
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule amends the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (Service) regulations by providing that an application for
labor certification filed with a state employment office before October
1, 1991, must be filed with the Service in connection with a petition
filed under section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act)
before October 1, 1993, in order to maintain a pre-October 1, 1991
priority date. This rule implements section 302(e)(2) of the
Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments
of 1991 (MTINA), which amended section 161(c)(1) of the Immigration Act
of 1990 (IMMACT). This rule is necessary to ensure full public
awareness of the October 1, 1993 deadline.
DATES: This interim rule is effective January 5, 1994. Written comments
must be submitted on or before February 4, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments, in triplicate, to the
Records Systems Division, Director, Policy Directives and Instructions
Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street NW., room
5307, Washington, DC 20536. To ensure proper handling please reference
INS No. 1647-93 on your correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael W. Straus, Senior Immigration
Examiner, Adjudications Division, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, 425 I Street NW., room 7122, Washington, DC 20536, telephone
(202) 514-5014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 29, 1991, the Service published
a final rule in the Federal Register at 56 FR 60897-60913, revising 8
CFR 204.5(d), which provides that the priority date for an employment-
based petition that is accompanied by a labor certification shall be
the date the request for labor certification was accepted for
processing by any office within the employment service system of the
Department of Labor. A priority date cannot be established unless the
Service approves a petition under section 203(b) of the Act based on a
labor certification approved by the Department of Labor. Subsequent to
the promulgation of this regulation, the President signed into law the
Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments
of 1991, (MTINA) Public Law 102-232, dated December 12, 1991. Section
302(e)(2) of the MTINA, which amended section 161(c)(1) of the
Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), Public Law 102-649, dated November
29, 1990, was enacted in order to address the transition of labor
certifications filed before October 1, 1991 into the new employment-
based immigrant visa categories created by IMMACT. Section 302(e)(2) of
MTINA provides that, in order to maintain the priority date of a labor
certification filed in connection with an employment-based petition
which was submitted to a state employment office before October 1,
1991, the employer must file a petition under section 203(b) of the Act
before October 1, 1993. Section 302(e)(2) of MTINA further provides
that if the Department of Labor approves a pre-October 1, 1991 labor
certification application subsequent to October 1, 1993, the employer
must file a petition under section 203(b) of the Act within 60 days of
the date of certification. Although not specifically provided for in
section 302(e)(2) of MTINA, the Service has interpreted that section to
require that, in the case of labor certifications which have been
certified by the Department of Labor between August 2, 1993 and October
1, 1993, a petition under section 203(b) must be filed within 60 days
after the date of certification to preserve the earlier priority date.
This reading of section 302(e)(2) of MTINA furthers congressional
intent by allowing at least 60 days from the date of certification to
file the petition under section 203(b) of the Act.
In light of the above, 8 CFR 204.5(d) will be amended to reflect
these MTINA amendments. The regulation will be further amended to
provide that if the petitioner fails to maintain the priority date by
filing a timely petition, the new priority date shall be the date a new
petition is properly filed with the Service.
The Service's implementation of this rule as an interim rule, with
provision for post-promulgation public comment, is based on the ``good
cause'' exception found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). The reasons
and necessity for immediate implementation of this interim rule are as
follows: Immediate promulgation of this interim rule is necessary to
insure full public awareness of the October 1, 1993 deadline mandated
by MTINA. Specifically, petitioning employers who submitted labor
certification applications with a state employment office before
October 1, 1991 and who have not submitted a petition with the Service
under section 203(b) of the Act, must be made clearly aware that the
provisions of 8 CFR 204.5(d), regarding assignment of priority dates,
have been superseded by the MTINA amendments. Moreover, immediate
promulgation of these regulations will inform the petitioning employer
that, in cases where the request for labor certification was filed with
a state employment office before October 1, 1991, it should file a
petition under section 203(b) of the Act with the Service as soon as
possible after the Department of Labor has issued the labor
certification in order to obtain an earlier priority date.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service certifies that this rule does
not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. It is anticipated that this rule affects only a very
limited number of petitioners and aliens who filed requests for labor
certifications prior to October 1, 1991, but have not yet filed
petitions under section 203(b) of the Act. This rule is not significant
within the meaning of section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, nor does this rule
have Federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment in accordance with E.O. 12612.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 204
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment,
Immigration, Petitions.
Accordingly, part 204 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 204--IMMIGRANT PETITIONS
1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1186a,
1255; 8 CFR part 2.
2. In Sec. 204.5, paragraph (d) is amended by adding a new sentence
immediately following the first sentence of the paragraph to read as
follows:
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
* * * * *
(d) Priority date. * * * In the case of labor certifications
accepted for processing by any office within the employment service
system of the Department of Labor before October 1, 1991, if a petition
filed under section 203(b) of the Act is not filed before October 1,
1993, or within 60 days after the date of certification by the
Department of Labor, whichever is later, the priority date shall be the
date the petition is properly filed with the Service. * * *
* * * * *
Dated: December 30, 1993.
Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
[FR Doc. 94-175 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-173 General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Clatsop National Memorial, OR
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-173]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Fort
Clatsop National Memorial, OR
ACTION: Notice of extension of public review period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The November 3, 1993 issue of the Federal Register contained a
notice by the National Park Service that announced the availability of
the draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/
EIS) for Fort Clatsop National Memorial, Oregon, and called for written
comments to be submitted by January 7, 1994. This present notice
announces a 31-day extension of the period available for public review
of the draft GMP/EIS.
DATES: Comments on the draft GMP/EIS should be received no later than
February 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the draft GMP/EIS should be submitted to
the Superintendent, Fort Clatsop National Memorial, Route 3, Box 604-
FC, Astoria, Oregon 97103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Superintendent, Fort Clatsop National
Memorial, at the above address or at telephone number (503) 861-2471.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
William C. Walters,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region, National Park
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-173 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-172 Boston and Maine CorporationAbandonment ExemptionNew Haven County, CT; Springfield Terminal Railway CompanyDiscontinuance of Service ExemptionNew Haven County, CT
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-172]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. AB-32 and AB-355 (Sub-Nos. 61X and 13X)]
Boston and Maine Corporation--Abandonment Exemption--New Haven
County, CT; Springfield Terminal Railway Company--Discontinuance of
Service Exemption--New Haven County, CT
Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) and Springfield Terminal Railway
Company (ST) filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F--
Exempt Abandonments and Discontinuances to abandon and discontinue
service over a segment of B&M's Dublin Street Track line of railroad
between milepost 17.29 and milepost 19.86, a distance of approximately
2.57 miles, in Waterbury, New Haven County, CT. B&M seeks authority to
abandon the line, and ST, which leases the line from B&M, seeks
authority to discontinue service over the line.
B&M and ST certify that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the
line for at least 2 years; (2) overhead traffic, if any, has been
rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of
rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity
acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the
line either is pending with the Commission or with any U.S. District
Court or has been decided in favor of the complainant within the 2-year
period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental
reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal
letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR
1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to use of this exemption, any employee adversely
affected by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under
Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To
address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees,
a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) must be
filed.
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of
financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be
effective on February 4, 1994, unless stayed pending reconsideration.
Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,1
formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR
1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR
1152.293 must be filed by January 18, 1994. Petitions to reopen or
requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed
by January 25, 1994, with: Office of the Secretary, Case Control
Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A stay will be issued routinely by the Commission in those
proceedings where an informed decision on environmental issues
(whether raised by a party or by the Commission's Section of Energy
and Environment in its independent investigation) cannot be made
prior to the effective date of the notice of exemption. See
Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any
entity seeking a stay involving environmental concerns is encouraged
to file its request as soon as possible in order to permit this
Commission to review and act on the request before the effective
date of this exemption.
\2\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).
\3\The Commission will accept a late-filed trail use request as
long as it retains jurisdiction to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of any pleading filed with the Commission should be sent to
applicants' representative: Kevin J. O'Connell, Esq., Law Department,
Iron Horse Park, North Billerica, MA 01862.
If the notice of exemption contains false or misleading
information, the exemption is void ab initio.
B&M and ST have filed an environmental report which addresses the
effect, if any, of the abandonment and the discontinuance on the
environmental and historic resources. The Section of Energy and
Environment (SEE) will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by
January 10, 1994. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by
writing to SEE (room 3219, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington,
DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser, Chief of SEE, at (202) 927-6248.
Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be
filed within 15 days after the EA is available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail
banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent
decision.
Decided: December 27, 1993.
By the Commission, Julia M. Farr, Acting Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-172 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-171 Boston and Maine CorporationAbandonment ExemptionNew Haven County, CT; Springfield Terminal Railway CompanyDiscontinuance of Service ExemptionNew Haven County, CT
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 596-597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-171]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. AB-32 and AB-355 (Sub-Nos. 58X and 10X)]
Boston and Maine Corporation--Abandonment Exemption--New Haven
County, CT; Springfield Terminal Railway Company--Discontinuance of
Service Exemption--New Haven County, CT
Boston and Maine Corporation (BM), and Springfield Terminal Railway
Company (ST) filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 Subpart
F--Exempt Abandonments and Discontinuances for BM to abandon and ST to
discontinue service over a 0.88 mile segment of BM's rail known as the
Waterbury Industrial Track, between milepost 0.98 and milepost 1.86, in
Waterbury, New Haven County, CT.
BM and ST have certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over
the line for at least 2 years; (2) overhead traffic has been rerouted
over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail
service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on
behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line
either is pending with the Commission or with any U.S. District Court
or has been decided in favor of the complainant within the 2-year
period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental
reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal
letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR
1152.50(d)(1) (notice to government agencies) have been met.
As a condition to the use of this exemption, any employee affected
by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under Oregon
Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To
address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees,
a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) must be
filed.
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of
financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be
effective on February 4, 1994, unless stayed pending reconsideration.
Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,1
formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR
1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR
1152.293 must be filed by January 18, 1994. Petitions to reopen or
request for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by
January 25, 1994, with: Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch,
Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A stay will be issued routinely by the Commission in those
proceedings where an informed decision on environmental issues
(whether raised by a party or by the Commission's Section of Energy
and Environment in its independent investigation) cannot be made
prior to the effective date of the notice of exemption. See
Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any
entity seeking a stay on environmental concerns is encouraged to
file its request as soon as possible in order to permit the
Commission to review and act on the request before the effective
date of this exemption.
\2\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).
\3\The Commission will accept a late-filed trail use request as
long as it retains jurisdiction to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of any petition filed with the Commission should be sent to
applicants' representative: Kevin J. O'Connell, Iron Horse Park, North
Billerica, MA 01862.
If the notice of exemption contains false or misleading
information, the exemption is void ab initio.
BM and SP have filed an environmental report which addresses the
effects, if any, of the abandonment and discontinuance on the
environment and historic resources. The Section of Energy and
Environment (SEE) will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by
January 10, 1994. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by
writing to SEE (room 3219, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington,
DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser, Chief of SEE, at (202) 927-6248.
Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be
filed within 15 days after the EA is available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail
banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent
decision.
Decided: December 23, 1993.
By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-171 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-170 Austin Railroad Co., Inc., Discontinuance of Service Exemption in Burnet and Llano Counties, TX
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-170]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket No. AB-410 (Sub-No. 1X)]
Austin Railroad Co., Inc., Discontinuance of Service Exemption--
in Burnet and Llano Counties, TX
Austin Railroad Co., Inc., d/b/a Austin & Northwestern Railroad
(AUNW) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F--
Exempt Abandonments and Discontinuances to discontinue service over
26.4 miles of railroad from milepost 127.7 at Scobee to milepost 154.1
at the end of the track at Llano, in Burnet and Llano Counties, TX.
AUNW has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the
line for more than 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted
over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail
service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on
behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line
either is pending with the Commission or with any U.S. District Court
or has been decided in favor of the complainant within the 2-year
period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (service of
environmental report on agencies), 49 CFR 1105.8 (service of historic
report on State Historic Preservation Officer), 49 CFR 1105.12
(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice of
governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee affected by the
discontinuance shall be protected under Oregon Short Line R. Co.--
Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this
condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for
partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) must be filed.
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of
financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be
effective on February 4, 1994, unless stayed pending reconsideration.
Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues1 and
formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR
1152.27(c)(2)2 must be filed by January 18, 1994. Petitions to
reopen must be filed by January 25, 1994, with: Office of the
Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington, DC 20423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A stay will be issued routinely by the Commission in those
proceedings where an informed decision on environmental issues
(whether raised by a party or by the Commission's Section of Energy
and Environment in its independent investigation) cannot be made
prior to the effective date of the notice of exemption. See
Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any
entity seeking a stay on environmental concerns is encouraged to
file its request as soon as possible in order to permit this
Commission to review and act on the request before the effective
date of this exemption.
\2\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of any petition filed with the Commission should be sent to
applicant's representative: Michael W. Blaszak, 211 South Leitch
Avenue, LaGrange, IL 60525-2162.
If the notice of exemption contains false or misleading
information, the exemption is void ab initio.
AUNW has filed an environmental report which addresses the
discontinuance's effects, if any, on the environmental and historic
resources. The Section of Energy and Environment (SEE) will issue an
environmental assessment (EA) by January 10, 1994. Interested persons
may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEE (room 3219, Interstate
Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser,
Chief of SEE, at (202) 927-6248. Comments on environmental and historic
preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA is
available to the public.
Environmental and historic preservation conditions will be imposed,
where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Decided: December 29, 1993.
By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-170 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-169 Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co.Abandonment Exemptionin Harper County, KS
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-169]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket No. AB-52 (Sub-No. 76X)]
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co.--Abandonment
Exemption--in Harper County, KS
The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (SF) has filed a
notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 Subpart F--Exempt
Abandonments to abandon a 1.84-mile line of railroad on its H&S
Subdivision from milepost 258+2,120 feet to milepost 256+2,993 feet at
or near Harper, in Harper County, KS.
SF has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line
for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over
other lines; and (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail
service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on
behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line
either is pending with the Commission or with any U.S. District Court
or has been decided in favor of the complainant within the 2-year
period; and (4) the requirement at 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to
government agencies), 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR
1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), and 49
CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication) have been met.
As a condition to use of this exemption, any employee adversely
affected by the abandonment shall be protected under Oregon Short Line
R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether
this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for
partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) must be filed.
Provided no formal expressions of intent to file an offer of
financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be
effective on February 4, 1994, unless stayed pending reconsideration.
Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,1
formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49
1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking statements under 49 CFR
1152.293 must be filed by January 18, 1994. Petitions to reopen or
requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed
by January 25, 1994, with: Office of the Secretary Case Control Branch,
Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A stay will be routinely issued by the Commission in those
proceedings where an informed decision on environmental issues
(whether raised by a party or by the Commission's Section of Energy
and Environment in its independent investigation) cannot be made
prior to the effective date of the notice of exemption. See
Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any
entity seeking a stay involving environmental concerns is encouraged
to file its request as soon as possible in order to permit the
Commission to review and act on the request before the effective
date of this exemption.
\2\ See Exempt, of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).
\3\ The Commission will accept a late-filed trail use request as
long as it retains jurisdiction to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of any pleading filed with the Commission should be sent to
applicant's representative: Peter M. Olson, 1700 E. Golf Road,
Schaumburg, IL 60173.
If the notice of exemption contains false or misleading
information, the exemption is void ab initio.
SF has filed an environmental report which addresses the
abandonment's effect, if any, on the environment or historic resources.
The Section of Energy and Environment (SEE) will issue an environmental
assessment (EA) by January 10, 1994. Interested persons may obtain a
copy of the EA from SEE by writing to it (Room 3219, Interstate
Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser,
Chief of SEE, at (202) 927-6248. Comments on environmental and historic
preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes
available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail
banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent
decision.
Decided: December 28, 1993.
By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-169 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-168 Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)] [Notices] [Page 605] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-168] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: January 5, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review AGENCY: National Endowment for the Humanities, NFAH. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) has sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following proposals for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Comments on this information collection must be submitted on or before February 4, 1994. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Ms. Susan Daisey, Assistant Director, Grants Office, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., room 310, Washington, DC 20506 (202-606-8494) and Mr. Steve Semenuk, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 726 Jackson Place, NW., room 3002, Washington, DC 20503 (202- 395-6880). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Susan Daisey, Assistant Director, Grants Office, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., room 310, Washington, DC 20506 (202) 606-8494 from whom copies of forms and supporting documents are available. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All of the entries are grouped into new forms, revisions, extensions, or reinstatements. Each entry is issued by NEH and contains the following information: (1) The title of the form; (2) the agency form number, if applicable; (3) how often the form must be filled out; (4) who will be required or asked to report; (5) what the form will be used for; (6) an estimate of the number of responses; (7) the frequency of response; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to fill out the form; (9) an estimate of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden. None of these entries are subject to 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). Category: Revisions Title: Process of Application, Evaluation, Award, and Report of NEH Fellowships Form Number: OMB No. 3136-0083 Frequency of Collection: Annual Respondents: Scholars, writers, and teachers in the humanities Use: Application for funding, evaluation, award-making, and reporting for NEH Fellowships Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,586 Frequency of Response: Once Estimated Hours for Respondents to Provide Information: 2.7 per respondent Estimated Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden: 20,067 hours Donald Gibson, Acting Deputy Chairman. [FR Doc. 94-168 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-166 PPG Industries, Inc., Ford City, Pennsylvania; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 598-599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-166]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-29,008]
PPG Industries, Inc., Ford City, Pennsylvania; Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By an application dated December 13, 1993, the Aluminum Brick and
Glass Workers Union requested administrative reconsideration of the
Department's denial of trade adjustment assistance (TAA) benefits for
workers of the subject firm. The Department's notice of negative
determination was issued on November 29, 1993 and will be published in
the Federal Register soon.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under
the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The union claims that a French Canadian firm is selling glass at
prices lower than domestic producers' costs. The union also states that
the Department's survey of customers did not take into account the
lowered demand for glass in the industry and PPG plans for expansion in
Mexico.
The Department's denial was based on the fact that the
``contributed importantly'' test of the Group Eligibility Requirements
of the Trade Act was not met. The Department's survey of PPG's major
customers shows that most respondents did not import and those that did
had very minor import purchases in the period relevant to the petition.
The investigation file shows that the workers at Ford City purchase
glass and fabricate it into commercial windows unlike the French
Canadian firm cited by the union which is a primary glass producer.
With respect to the union's example of sheet glass and fabricated
commercial glass windows, the Department does not see any relevance.
One is a raw material used in making a different product while the
other is a finished article. Sheet glass and fabricated commercial
glass windows are not interchangeable, nor are they like or directly
competitive within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act.
Further, company officials indicated that there is a downswing in
the production of commercial glass windows because the commercial
market currently is overbuilt. The construction boom during the 1980s
resulted in record vacancy rates for office buildings, stores and
hotels--all users of fabricated glass windows.
Other findings show that the PPG does not import commercial glass
windows.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of December, 1993.
Mary Ann Wyrsch,
Director, Unemployment Insurance Service.
[FR Doc. 94-166 Filed 1-4-94 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-165 Plains Petroleum Operating Co. Midland, TX; Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-165]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-28,968]
Plains Petroleum Operating Co. Midland, TX; Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
On November 19, 1993, after being granted a filing extension, one
of the former workers requested administrative reconsideration of the
Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance for workers at
the subject firm. The Department's Negative Determination was issued on
September 27, 1993 and was published in the Federal Register on October
21, 1993 (58 FR 54736).
The former worker submitted additional information showing that the
Midland facility had decreased sales and production in 1993.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of December, 1993.
Mary Ann Wyrsch,
Director, Unemployment Insurance Service.
[FR Doc. 94-165 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-164 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 564-565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-164]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity to request administrative review of
antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended
investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: Each year during the anniversary month of the publication
of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension
of investigation, an interested party as defined in section 771(9) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, may request, in accordance with
Sec. 353.22 or 355.22 of the Commerce Regulations, that the Department
of Commerce (``the Department'') conduct an administrative review of
that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended
investigation.
OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A REVIEW: Not later than January 31, 1994,
interested parties may request administrative review of the following
orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates
in January for the following periods:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antidumping duty proceedings:
Brazil: Brass Sheet & Strip (A-351-603)....... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Canada: Brass Sheet & Strip (A-122-601)....... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Canada: Color Picture Tubes (A-122-605)....... 01/01/93-12/31/93
France: Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate (A-427-
098)......................................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Japan: Color Picture Tubes (A-588-609)........ 01/01/93-12/31/93
Singapore: Color Picture Tubes (A-559-601).... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Spain: Potassium Permanganate (A-469-007)..... 01/01/93-12/31/93
South Africa: Low-Fuming Brazing Copper Wire
and Rod (A-791-502).......................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Taiwan: Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
(A-583-603).................................. 01/01/93-12/31/93
The People's Republic of China: Potassium
Permanganate (A-570-001)..................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
The Republic of Korea: Brass Sheet & Strip (A-
580-603)..................................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
The Republic of Korea: Color Picture Tubes (A-
580-605)..................................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
The Republic of Korea: Stainless Steel Cooking
Ware (A-580-601)............................. 01/01/93-12/31/93
Suspension agreements:
Canada: Potassium Chloride (A-122-701)........ 01/01/93-12/31/93
Colombia: Miniature Carnations (C-301-601).... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Colombia: Roses and Other Fresh Cut Flowers (C-
301-003)..................................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Costa Rica: Fresh Cut Flowers (C-223-601)..... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Hungary: Truck Trailer Axle and Brake
Assemblies (A-437-001)....................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Countervailing duty proceedings:
Argentina: Non-Rubber Footwear (C-357-052).... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Brazil: Brass Sheet & Strip (C-351-604)....... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Ecuador: Fresh Cut Flowers (C-331-601)........ 01/01/93-12/31/93
The Republic of Korea: Stainless Steel
Cookware (C-580-602)......................... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Spain: Stainless Steel Wire Rod (C-469-004)... 01/01/93-12/31/93
Taiwan: Stainless Steel Cookware (C-583-604).. 01/01/93-12/31/93
Thailand: Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings (C-549-804). 01/01/93-12/31/93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Secs. 353.22(a) and 355.22(a) of the Commerce
regulations, an interested party may request in writing that the
Secretary conduct an administrative review. For antidumping reviews,
the interested party must specify for which individual producers or
resellers covered by an antidumping finding or order it is requesting a
review, and the requesting party must state why the person desires the
Secretary to review those particular producers or resellers. If the
interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of
merchandise by a reseller (or a producer if that producer also resells
merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one
country of origin, and each country of origin is subject to a separate
order, then the interested party must state specifically which
reseller(s) and which countries of origin for each reseller the request
is intended to cover.
Seven copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their
requests to the Office of Antidumping Compliance, Attention: Pamela
Woods, in room 3069-A of the main Commerce Building. Further, in
accordance with Sec. 353.31(g) or 355.31(g) of the Commerce
Regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on
the Department's service list. The Department will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping
(Countervailing) Duty Administrative Review'', for requests received by
January 31, 1994.
If the Department does not receive, by January 31, 1994, a request
for review of entries covered by an order or finding listed in this
notice and for the period identified above, the Department will
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping or countervailing
duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond
for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those
entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously
ordered.
This notice is not required by statute, but is published as a
service to the international trading community.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Roland L. MacDonald,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 94-164 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-163 Dril-Quip, Inc., Houston, Texas; Grant of Authority for Subzone Status
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 563-564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-163]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 673]
Dril-Quip, Inc., Houston, Texas; Grant of Authority for Subzone
Status
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: Grant of authority for subzone
status, Dril-Quip, Inc. (Oil Field Equipment), Houston, Texas
Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce,
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities
cannot serve the specific use involved;
Whereas, an application from the Port of Houston Authority, grantee
of Foreign-Trade Zone 84, for authority to establish a special-purpose
subzone for export activity at the oil field equipment manufacturing
facilities of Dril-Quip, Inc., in Houston, Texas, was filed by the
Board on May 10, 1993, and notice inviting public comment was given in
the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 17-93, 58 FR 28952, 03-18-93); and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the FTZ Act
and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the
application for export manufacturing activity is in the public
interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
subzone (Subzone 84K) at the Dril-Quip, Inc., facilities in Houston,
Texas, at the locations described in the application, subject to the
FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and subject
to a restriction requiring that privileged foreign status (19 CFR
146.41) shall be elected on all foreign merchandise admitted to the
subzone.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration,
Chairman, Committee of Alternates, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-163 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-162 Wisconsin Dairies Cooperatives, Preston, Minnesota; Grant of Authority for Subzone Status
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-162]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 672]
Wisconsin Dairies Cooperatives, Preston, Minnesota; Grant of
Authority for Subzone Status
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: Grant of authority for subzone
status: Wisconsin Dairies Cooperative (Infant Formula/Dairy Products),
Preston, Minnesota.
Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce,
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities
cannot serve the specific use involved;
Whereas, an application from the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign
Trade Zone Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 119,
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, area, for authority to establish a
special-purpose subzone for export activity at the infant formula/dairy
products manufacturing plant of Wisconsin Dairies Cooperative in
Preston, Minnesota, was filed by the Board on February 17, 1993, and
notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ
Docket 6-93, 58 FR 11834, 3-1-93); and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the FTZ Act
and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the
application for export processing is in the public interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
subzone (Subzone 119D) at the Wisconsin Dairies Cooperative plant in
Preston, Minnesota, at the location described in the application,
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including
Sec. 400.28, and subject to the further requirement that all foreign-
origin dairy products admitted to the subzone shall be reexported.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration,
Chairman, Committee of Alternates, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-162 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-161 Postponement of Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Correction of Ministerial Errors: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 570-571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-161]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-824]
Postponement of Final Antidumping Duty Determination and
Correction of Ministerial Errors: Silicon Carbide From the People's
Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or Steve Alley, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1777 or (202) 482-5288, respectively.
Postponement of Final Determination
Hainan Feitian Electrontech Co., Ltd. (Hainan), Shaanxi Minmetals
(Shaanxi), Xiamen Abrasive Co. (Xiamen), 7th Grinding Wheel Factory
Import and Export Corp., Qinghai Metals and Minerals Import & Export
Corp., and The Import and Export Corporation of Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region, responding exporters in this proceeding, account for
a significant proportion of exports of merchandise covered by this
investigation. On December 1 and 3, 1993, these exporters requested
that the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') postpone its final
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary determination.
Our November 29, 1993, preliminary determination (58 FR 64549,
December 8, 1993) in this proceeding was affirmative. In accordance
with section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)
and 19 CFR 353.20(b), when, subsequent to an affirmative preliminary
determination, we receive a request for postponement of the final
determination from exporters who account for a significant proportion
of the merchandise under investigation, we are required, absent
compelling reasons for denial, to grant the request. Accordingly, we
are postponing our final determination as to whether sales of silicon
carbide from the PRC have been made at less than fair value until not
later than April 22, 1994.
Amended Preliminary Determination
On December 2, 1993, we disclosed our calculations for the
preliminary determination to counsel for Hainan, Shaanxi, and Xiamen.
On December 7, 1993, we received timely submissions from each of these
three exporters alleging ministerial errors in the Department's
preliminary determination calculations. (For specific details of these
allegations and our analysis of them, see Memorandum from Richard W.
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford of December 20, 1993).
One of these exporters, Hainan, alleged that the Department made
certain errors with respect to the valuation of freight rates and
packing materials. We agree, and in accordance with procedures set
forth in the proposed regulations, we are amending Hainan's preliminary
dumping margin because the corrections represent a change of more than
five absolute percentage points and more than 25 percent of the dumping
margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary
determination. See Sec. 353.15(g)(4)(ii) of the Department's proposed
regulations, 57 FR 1131 (January 10, 1992). The corrected dumping
margin for Hainan is 50.42 percent.
The rest of the alleged ministerial errors were either not
ministerial in nature or could not be considered a ``significant
ministerial error.'' See Sec. 353.15(g)(4) of the Department's proposed
regulations.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must now be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than March 30, 1994, and
rebuttal briefs, no later than April 4, 1994. In accordance with 19 CFR
353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will now be held on
April 6, 1994, at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, room
3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
This notice is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, 19
CFR 353.20(b)(2) and in accordance with procedures set forth in the
Department's proposed regulations, Sec. 353.15(g)(3), 57 FR 1131
(January 10, 1992).
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-161 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-160 Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 565-570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-160]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-825]
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Sebacic Acid From the People's
Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith, Office of Antidumping
Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766.
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that sebacic acid from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins are
shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation (58 FR 43339, August 16,
1993), the following events have occurred.
On August 16, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
sent the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation
(MOFTEC) a mini-Section A questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding
sales volume and value).
On September 2, 1993, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
notified the Department of its preliminary determination that there is
a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports of sebacic acid from the PRC
that are allegedly sold at less than fair value.
On September 27, 1993, MOFTEC submitted its mini-Section A response
and on September 30, 1993, the Department sent MOFTEC the antidumping
questionnaire. (This antidumping questionnaire is divided into three
sections and two attachments: (1) Section A requests general
information on each company; (2) Section C requests information on, and
a listing of, U.S. sales made during the period of the investigation
(POI); (3) Section D requests information on the production process;
(4) Attachment I requests information for a market-oriented industry
(MOI) claim; and (5) Attachment II requests information for a separate
rates claim.) As a courtesy, we sent a copy of the questionnaire to
those companies identified as possible exporters of sebacic acid to the
United States.
On September 30, 1993, we requested that the petitioner, four
exporters (``respondents'') who had entered a notice of appearance
before the Department (Sinochem International Chemicals Company
(Sinochem International), Sinochem Jiangsu Import & Export Corporation,
Tianjin Chemicals Import & Export Corporation (Tianjin), and Guangdong
Chemicals Import & Export Corporation (Guangdong)), and MOFTEC submit
any publicly available published information that they wished the
Department to consider when valuing the factors of production in this
investigation.
On October 22, 1993, the same four exporters who had entered a
notice of appearance submitted responses to Section A of the
questionnaire. On October 29, 1993, we sent each company a Section A
deficiency questionnaire.
On November 1, 1993, the four exporters submitted responses to
Sections C and D and Attachments I and II of the questionnaire. On
November 9, 1993, we sent MOFTEC an Attachment I supplemental
questionnaire. Also on November 9, 1993, we sent the four exporters
deficiency questionnaires on Sections C and D and Attachment I.
On November 12, 1993, we received Section A deficiency responses
from the four exporters.
On November 16, 1993, the petitioner and the four exporters
submitted publicly available published information.
On November 16, 1993, we sent a letter to each of the 13 non-
responding PRC exporters to whom we had sent a copy of the
questionnaire. We again requested that they respond to the Department's
questionnaire or provide a certification that they did not export or
sell subject merchandise during the POI.
Also on November 16, 1993, we sent supplemental Attachment II
questionnaires to MOFTEC and the four responding exporters.
On November 19, 1993, the Department sent to the petitioner and the
four exporters a publicly available published information deficiency
questionnaire. On November 23, 1993, the petitioner provided comments
on the information submitted by the four exporters.
On November 26, 1993, we sent a letter to the Guangdong and Jiangsu
provincial governments and the Beijing municipal government requesting
information in order to more completely evaluate the issue of whether
the four exporters should receive separate antidumping duty rates.
On November 29, 1993, we received Sections C and D deficiency
responses from the four exporters.
From November 29, 1993, through December 3, 1993, we received
certifications from three Chinese exporters (Sinochem China National
Chemicals Import & Export Corporation, Yunnan Minmetals & Chemicals
Import & Export (Group) Corporation, and Shanghai Chemicals Import and
Export Corporation) which state that each entity did not ship sebacic
acid to the United States during the POI.
On December 3, 1993, the four exporters provided a response to the
Department's publicly available published information deficiency
questionnaire.
On December 13, 1993, we received a letter from MOFTEC objecting to
the November 26, 1993, questionnaires we sent to the provincial and
municipal governments. On December 17, 1993, we received a response to
our November 26, 1993, separate rates clarification questionnaire from
the Guangdong Commission of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade. On
December 20, 1993, we received a response from the Jiangsu provincial
government.
Also, on December 20, respondents requested that, in the event of
an affirmative determination in this investigation, the Department
postpone the final determination an additional 60 days from the date of
publication of the affirmative preliminary determination. See the
``Postponement of Final Determination'' section of this notice. On
December 23, 1993, we received a response from the Beijing municipal
government but we did not receive a response to our supplemental
Attachment II questionnaire from MOFTEC or from the four responding
exporters.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are all grades of
sebacic acid, a dicarboxylic acid with the formula
(CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are not limited to CP
Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA color), Purified Grade
(1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), and Nylon Grade (500ppm
maximum ash, 70 maximum APHA color). The principal difference between
the grades is the quantity of undesirable ash and color. Sebacic acid
contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of which the predominant
species is the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as
a free-flowing powder/flake.
Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production
of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles
and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants,
polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives,
lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.
Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading
2917.13.00.00, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The POI is January 1, 1993, through June 30, 1993.
Market-Oriented Industry
All of the respondents in this investigation have claimed that the
sebacic acid industry is an MOI. In their November 1, 1993, responses,
the respondents claim that all of the manufacturers' material and non-
material inputs used to produce sebacic acid were purchased at market-
driven prices during the POI and that none of the factories or the
factories' suppliers produced any of the inputs for sebacic acid for
in-plan production. Accordingly, these respondents state that it is
appropriate for the Department to use the PRC prices for material and
non-material inputs for valuing the inputs used to produce sebacic
acid.
In the Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China (57 FR 9409, 9411;
March 18, 1992) (Sulfanilic Acid), the Department set forth the
following criteria to be used in determining whether an MOI exists in
an economy which would otherwise be considered non-market:
For merchandise under investigation, there must be
virtually no government involvement in setting prices or amounts to be
produced. For example, state-required production of the merchandise,
whether for export or domestic consumption in the non-market economy
country would be an almost insuperable barrier to finding a market-
oriented industry.
The industry producing the merchandise under investigation
should be characterized by private or collective ownership. There may
be state-owned enterprises in the industry but substantial state
ownership would weigh heavily against finding a market-oriented
industry.
Market-determined prices must be paid for all significant
inputs, whether material or non-material, and for an all but
insignificant proportion of all the inputs accounting for the total
value of the merchandise under investigation. For example, an input
price will not be considered market-determined if the producers of the
merchandise under investigation pay a state-set price for the input or
if the input is supplied to the producers at government direction.
Moreover, if there is any state-required production in the industry
producing the input, the share of state-required production must be
insignificant.
If these conditions are not met, then, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.52,
the producers of the merchandise under investigation will be treated as
non-market economy (NME) producers, and the foreign market value will
be calculated by using prices and costs from a surrogate country, in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act.
On November 9, we issued an MOI deficiency questionnaire to the
respondents and sent a supplemental MOI questionnaire to MOFTEC. This
questionnaire contained questions concerning the identity of the entire
sebacic acid industry, the ownership of all entities which produce
sebacic acid or supply inputs used to produce sebacic acid, and whether
any inputs were subject to in-plan production. Since we did not receive
the responses to our questionnaire on December 23, 1993, we did not
have sufficient information on the record for our preliminary
determination to determine whether the sebacic acid industry during the
POI was an MOI. Therefore, we will address the respondents' MOI claim
in our final determination.
Separate Rates
To determine whether an NME exporter is eligible for a separate
antidumping duty rate, the Department first analyzes ownership. If an
exporter is owned by the central government, the Department will not
issue a separate rate for that exporter. Instead, the Department
assigns to all exporters owned by the central government a single,
weighted-average margin.
In the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings and Accessories
Thereof from the People's Republic of China (58 FR 37908; July 14,
1993), the Department determined that NME exporters owned by the
central government are not eligible for antidumping duty rates separate
from each other because ownership by the central government enables the
government to manipulate prices, whether or not it takes advantage of
its opportunity to do so during the POI. Accordingly, entities owned by
the central government cannot be eligible for rates different or
separate from each other. To calculate a rate for exporters owned by
the central government, the Department requires that all potential
respondents that are owned by the central government reply to the
antidumping questionnaire. Only complete responses from all the
entities owned by the central government could enable the Department to
calculate a weighted-average antidumping margin for the central
government-controlled entities.
In the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China
(58 FR 48833; September 20, 1993) (Lock Washers), the Department
determined that if an exporter is not owned by the central government
the Department will consider issuing a separate rate. This is because
the opportunity for the central government to manipulate the exporter's
prices is less than its opportunity to control the prices of
enterprises owned by the central government. However, as in the case of
exporters owned by the central government, it would still be possible
for enterprises under common ownership (e.g., provincial governments,
local governments, collectives, etc.) to have their prices manipulated
by the common owner. All firms under common ownership which produce or
sell subject merchandise during the POI must cooperate in the
investigation to enable the Department to calculate a weighted-average
dumping margin for them.
In this investigation, MOFTEC has informed the Department that the
central government does not own any of the responding exporters of
sebacic acid. Furthermore, the responding exporters stated for the
record that they do not share ownership with each other or with any
other exporter of sebacic acid. Because non-responding exporters of
sebacic acid are located in the same municipality as Sinochem
International and in the same province as Guangdong, we requested
separate rates information from the Beijing municipal government and
Guangdong provincial government. We also requested similar information
from the Jiangsu provincial government. Though we have received a
response from the Guangdong and Jiangsu provincial governments, we
received a response from the Beijing municipal government too late to
consider for the preliminary determination. After examining the
responses submitted by the Guangdong and Jiangsu provincial
governments, we are concerned that the PRC government agencies have not
provided information requested by the Department in an NME
investigation. Because the responding companies have stated on the
record that they are not owned by the central government or any other
jurisdiction or entity that owns other exporters of sebacic acid, the
lack of information in the two local government responses to our
questionnaire should not control our separate rates decision for the
preliminary determination. However, we encourage provincial and
municipal government entities to respond, with the assistance of MOFTEC
if appropriate, because this issue will be reconsidered before making
the final separate rates determination in this investigation.
Given that each of the four responding exporters states that it is
neither owned by the central government nor owned by another
jurisdiction or entity that also owns other exporters of the subject
merchandise, we have determined that these respondents are eligible to
be considered for separate rates. The criteria the Department relies
upon to establish whether or not separate rates are appropriate are
those put forward in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588; May
6, 1991) (Sparklers). Under the Sparklers criteria, the Department
issues separate rates where respondents can demonstrate both a de jure
and de facto absence of central government control over export
activities.
In this investigation, each of the four cooperative exporters has
documented that its business license provides that its ownership is
distinguished from central-government ownership. In addition, MOFTEC
has stated that it does not own or control the exporters or producers
of sebacic acid. This information indicates that there is a de jure
absence of central government control.
Each of the four cooperating respondents has asserted and provided
evidence such as sales contracts that it establishes its own export
prices and keeps the proceeds of its export sales and that its
management operates with complete autonomy. This information indicates
the de facto absence of central government control with respect to
exports. Consequently, we have determined that these four cooperating
exporters have met the criteria set forth in Sparklers and we have used
their information to calculate a separate rate for each of them.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c) of the Act requires the Department to value the
factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market
economy countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the non-market economy country, and that are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has
determined that India and Pakistan are the most comparable to the PRC
in terms of overall economic development, based on per capita gross
national product (GNP), the national distribution of labor, and growth
rate in per capita GNP. (See memorandum from the Office of Policy to
David L. Binder, dated September 29, 1993.) The Department has also
determined that India is a producer of the subject merchandise. Because
India fulfills both requirements outlined in the statute, India is the
preferred surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of
production used in producing the subject merchandise. In cases where we
were unable to obtain surrogate values from India, we have used values
obtained in Pakistan. Specifically, we have resorted to Pakistan for
two surrogate values, where publicly available published values in
India were either significantly outdated or not obtainable. We have
obtained and relied upon publicly available published information
wherever possible.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of sebacic from the PRC to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States
price (USP) to the foreign market value (FMV), as specified in the
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this
notice.
United States Price
We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b)
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated
purchasers in the United States prior to importation and because
exporter's sales price methodology was not otherwise indicated.
For those exporters that responded to the Department's
questionnaire, we calculated purchase price based on packed, CIF prices
to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine
insurance, and foreign brokerage.
We based the deduction for foreign inland freight on freight rates
in India, as the respondents reported the use of PRC transportation
services in incurring this charge. The respondents also reported the
use of PRC-based providers for ocean freight and marine insurance. We
based ocean freight on the current tariff rate in the Asia North
America Eastbound Rate Agreement.
For foreign brokerage and handling and marine insurance, we used
publicly summarized versions of these two expenses reported in the
antidumping duty investigation of sulfur dyes, including sulfur vat
dyes, from India (see memorandum to the file dated December 27, 1993).
Foreign Market Value
We calculated FMV based on factors of production reported by the
factories which produced the subject merchandise for these respondents.
The factors used to produce sebacic acid include materials, labor, and
energy. To calculate FMV, the reported factors of production were
multiplied by the appropriate surrogate values for the different
inputs. (For a complete analysis of the surrogate values used, see our
preliminary concurrence memorandum, dated December 27, 1993.)
In determining which surrogate value to use for valuing each factor
of production, we selected, where possible, the publicly available
published value which was: (1) An average non-export value; (2) within
the POI; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive.
We used surrogate transportation rates to value inland freight from
the factories to ports. In the case of material inputs, we also used
surrogate transportation rates to value the transportation of inputs to
the factories. In those cases where a respondent failed to provide
transportation distances, we applied the longest truck rate from our
surrogate data as best information available (BIA).
To value castor oil, we used publicly available published
information from The Times of India. This source provided a non-export
price during the POI.
To value caustic soda, sodium chloride, zinc oxide, phenal, and
glycerine, we used publicly available published information from
Chemical Business. This source provided a non-export price during the
POI which did not appear to include Indian excise or provincial sales
taxes.
To value sulfuric acid, cresol, and caproyl alcohol, we used
publicly available published information from Chemical Weekly. This
source provided a non-export price during the POI which was inclusive
of taxes. However, because we did not have the necessary information to
deduct taxes, we did not remove the taxes from these prices.
To value activated carbon and fatty acid, we used publicly
available published information from the Monthly Statistics of the
Foreign Trade of India. In addition, to value macropore resin we used a
comparable product's price from Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade
of India. This source was the only one we found which provided publicly
available published price information for these material inputs.
Because these prices were prior to the POI, we adjusted the factor
values to account for inflation between the time period in question and
the POI using wholesale price indices (WPIs) published in International
Financial Statistics (IFS) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
To value steam coal, we used publicly available published
information from the 1993 OECD IEA Statistics. This was the most
current publicly available published information we found that provided
a price for steam coal. Because the price quoted was prior to the POI,
we adjusted the factor values to account for inflation between the time
period in question and the POI using WPIs published in IFS by the IMF.
To value electricity, we used publicly available published
information from the Monthly Statistical Bulletin published by the
Pakistani Federal Bureau of Statistics. This source provided an
electricity rate for industrial use in the POI. We found that the
published information for Indian electricity rates was either outdated
or appeared to be non-specific.
To value water, we used a cable from the U.S. consulate in
Pakistan. We used this cable because we could not locate a value for
water in any Indian or Pakistani publication. Because the price
contained in the cable was for a period prior to the POI, we adjusted
the factor values to account for inflation between the time period in
question and the POI using WPIs published in IFS by the IMF.
To value labor costs, we used the International Labor Office's 1992
Yearbook of Labor Statistics. To determine the number of hours in an
Indian workday, we used the Country Reports: Human Rights Practices for
1990. Because the published labor rate was prior to the POI, we
adjusted the factor values to account for inflation between the time
period in question and the POI using the consumer price index published
in IFS by the IMF.
To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative
expenses, and profit, we calculated percentages based on elements of
industry group income statements from The Reserve Bank of India
Bulletin. We did not include an amount for energy in our factory
overhead calculation.
To calculate FMV for one ton of sebacic acid, we added each of the
costs derived above. We also added to FMV, where appropriate, an amount
for packing labor based on the appropriate Indian wage rate, and an
amount for packing materials based on Indian prices from the Monthly
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. We made no adjustments for
selling expenses. Finally, we added surrogate freight costs for the
delivery of inputs and packing materials to the factories producing
sebacic acid.
In this investigation, respondents stated that the factories
produce three valuable by-products (glycerine, fatty acid, and caproyl
alcohol) in the course of producing sebacic acid. Respondents maintain
that the Department should deduct the value of these three by-products
from the cost of manufacture. We disagree with the respondents that the
products are all by-products, and that the value of each should be
deducted from the cost of manufacture of sebacic acid. Rather, as
discussed below, we agree that fatty acid is a by-product but determine
that glycerine and caproyl alcohol should not be considered by-products
in this case.
The three products in question are all yielded during the
production of sebacic acid and the products are an unavoidable
consequence of the production of sebacic acid. These products are
produced from the same raw materials, by the same equipment, during the
same manufacturing operations, as those used for sebacic acid.
In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, by-
products are treated differently from other types of products (i.e.
joint or co-products) for purposes of determining a product's costs.
The distinction between by-products and these other products is based
on relative sales value. By-products are identified by their relatively
insignificant sales value, whereas these other products, regardless how
they are referred to, generally have significant sales value relative
to the product under investigation. In this case, we determined whether
the value of a product was significant or insignificant based on the
quantity yielded and the value assigned to each product.
To determine the relative values of all subsidiary products and the
subject merchandise, we took into account the fact that: (1) The
factories generally sell the subsidiary products in the domestic
market; (2) the factories sell sebacic acid in the domestic market; (3)
the PRC renminbi is a non-convertible currency; and (4) the factories'
costs and profits have not been considered because we have not yet
addressed respondents' MOI claim. In accordance with the hierarchy for
preferred input values as set forth in the Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
From the People's Republic of China, 57 FR 21058 (May 18, 1992)
(Comment 4) and the publicly available published information selection
methodology noted above, we used surrogate values from India for
sebacic acid, glycerine, caproyl alcohol, and fatty acid to determine
the relative value of each product based on the production of one
metric ton of sebacic acid, as well as to determine the total value of
one metric ton of sebacic acid.
In this case, we determine that fatty acid is a by-product because
the overall value of fatty acid is insignificant compared to the
relative value among all of the ``subsidiary'' products and the subject
merchandise. As a by-product, we subtracted the sales revenue of fatty
acid from the production costs of the other products.
For purposes of the preliminary determination, we determine that
glycerine and caproyl alcohol are not by-products. The value of
glycerine for two of the four factories and the value of caproyl
alcohol for all four factories is significant compared to the relative
value of all of the products manufactured as a result of or during, the
process of manufacturing sebacic acid. The reason why we find that
glycerine should not be considered as a by-product is because we
conclude that the quantity of production of this product appears
subject to manipulation by management based on the variation in the
quantity yield among the four factories.
Therefore, we allocated the factor inputs, e.g., materials, used to
produce glycerine and caproyl alcohol, by the relative quantity of
output of these two products and sebacic acid. We did not allocate the
amount of labor, energy usage or factory overhead among the products
because we did not have the information to allow us to make accurate
adjustments (See concurrence memorandum, dated December 27, 1993, for
further discussion).
Best Information Available
The Department's policy, as set forth in Lock Washers, is that all
potential exporters owned by a given entity must cooperate in our
investigation in order for the response to be considered complete.
MOFTEC did not submit a consolidated questionnaire response on
behalf of all PRC exporters of sebacic acid. As noted above, the list
of PRC exporters of sebacic acid submitted by MOFTEC contained the
names of firms which have not responded to the Department's antidumping
questionnaire. Since the Department must receive an adequate
questionnaire response from each entity to which a separate dumping
rate can be applied, all non-responding entities must receive a PRC
country-wide rate. In the absence of adequate questionnaire responses
from the other exporters of sebacic acid, we have based PRC country-
wide rate on BIA. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that whenever a
party refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a timely
manner and in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes an
investigation, the Department shall use BIA. We have done so in this
investigation.
In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology based on the degree of respondents' cooperation.
According to the Department's two-tiered BIA methodology, when a
company refuses to provide the information requested in the form
required, or otherwise significantly impedes the Department's
investigation, it is appropriate for the Department to assign to that
company the higher of (a) the highest margin alleged in the petition,
or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the
investigation. This methodology for assigning BIA has been upheld by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (See Allied-Signal
Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see
also Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT
1993).) Because some PRC exporters refused to answer the Department's
questionnaire, we find that they have been uncooperative in this
investigation. As BIA for these exporters, we are assigning the highest
margin provided in the petition (243.40) as the PRC country-wide rate,
in accordance with the two-tiered BIA methodology under which the
Department imposes the most adverse rate upon those respondents who
refuse to cooperate or otherwise significantly impede the proceeding.
No adjustments were made to petitioner's calculations.
No ``All Others'' rate will be established for the PRC. Instead, a
country-wide rate is applied to all imports of sebacic acid from the
PRC for those PRC exporters which were unable to demonstrate that they
were entitled to a separate rate. Because we are assigning a country-
wide rate in this situation, there is no need to assign an ``All
Others'' case deposit rate for PRC entities.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the
information used in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of sebacic
acid from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or
posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the FMV
exceeds the USP as shown below. These suspension of liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows. The PRC
country-wide rate applies only to PRC companies not specifically listed
below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinochem International Chemicals Company................... 28.04
Sinochem Jiangsu Import & Export Corporation............... 39.24
Tianjin Chemicals Import & Export Corporation.............. 20.01
Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation............ 40.25
PRC country-wide rate...................................... 243.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, the U.S. industry.
Postponement of Final Determination
As stated above, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), respondents,
which account for a significant portion of the merchandise covered in
this proceeding, have requested in writing that, in the event of an
affirmative determination, the Department postpone the final
determination an additional 60 days from the publication of the
preliminary determination. Accordingly, because we find no compelling
reason to deny the request, we are postponing the date of the final
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of
publication of this notice.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than April 8, 1994, and
rebuttal briefs, no later than April 13, 1994. In accordance with 19
CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on April
15, 1994, at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3708,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties
should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48
hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, room
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be
discussed. In addition, an executive summary of no more than two pages
on the major issues to be addressed should be submitted with case
briefs. Briefs should contain a table of authorities. Citations to the
Department's determinations and court decisions should include the page
number where the cited information appears. In preparing the briefs,
please begin each issue on a separate page. In accordance with 19 CFR
353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the
briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final
determination on or about May 23, 1994.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).
Dated: December 27, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-160 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-159 Electronics Technical Advisory Committee; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-159]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Export Administration
Electronics Technical Advisory Committee; Meeting
A meeting of the Electronics Technical Advisory Committee will be
held January 20, 1994, 9 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, room 1617-M-
2, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
Committee advises the Office of Technology and Policy Analysis with
respect to technical questions which affect the level of export
controls applicable to electronics equipment or technology.
Agenda
1. Opening Remarks and Introductions
2. Election of New Chair
3. Review of Calendar of Events
4. Discussion of New Issues
5. Presentations by the Public
6. Review of Export Control Policy Issues
The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of
seats will be available. To the extent time permits, members of the
public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements
may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to
facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the
Committee members, the Committee suggests that you forward your public
presentation materials or comments at least one week before the meeting
to the address listed below: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, TAC Unit/OAS-EA,
room 3886C, Bureau of Export Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
For further information or copies of the minutes call Lee Ann
Carpenter, 202-482-2583.
Dated: December 30, 1993.
Betty Ferrell,
Director, Technical Advisory Committee Unit.
[FR Doc. 94-159 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-158 Homespun Products, Inc., et al.; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 580-582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-158]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 922 3264]
Homespun Products, Inc., et al.; Proposed Consent Agreement With
Analysis To Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this
consent agreement, accepted subject to final Commission approval, would
prohibit, among other things, the California-based corporations and an
officer, who purported to market pillows and Christmas ornaments, from
making any material misrepresentations regarding earnings or profits of
participants in any work opportunity and from making misrepresentations
about the marketplace demand for any product or service. In addition,
the proposed settlement would require the respondents to pay $1.04
million to the Commission for consumer redress or disgorgement.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,
room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Klurfeld or Gerald Wright, San
Francisco Regional Office, Federal Trade Commission, 901 Market St.,
Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 744-7920.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 2.34 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby
given that the following consent agreement containing a consent order
to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to
final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record
for a period of sixty (60) days. Public comment is invited. Such
comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be
available for inspection and copying at its principal office in
accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease and Desist
In the Matter of HOMESPUN PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, G & S
MARKETING, INC. a corporation, and GREGORY A. STRAW, individually
and as an officer of said corporations.
The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of
Homespun Products, Inc., a corporation, G & S Marketing, Inc., a
corporation, and Gregory A. Straw, individually and as an officer of
said corporations (``proposed respondents'' or ``respondents''), and it
now appearing that proposed respondents are willing to enter into an
agreement containing an order to cease and desist from the acts and
practices being investigated,
It is hereby agreed by and between Homespun Products, Inc. by its
duly authorized officer, G & S Marketing, Inc., by its duly authorized
officer, and Gregory A. Straw, individually and as an officer of said
corporations, and their attorney, and counsel for the Federal Trade
Commission that:
1. Proposed respondent Homespun Products, Inc., is a corporation
organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of California, with its principal office and place of
business located at 201 Benton Court, Suisun, California 94585.
Proposed respondent G & S Marketing, Inc. is a corporation
organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of California, with its principal office or place of
business located at 201 Benton Court, Suisun, California 94585.
Proposed respondent Gregory A. Straw is an officer of said
corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and
practices of said corporation and his address is the same as that of
the corporation.
2. Proposed respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts set
forth in the draft complaint here attached.
3. Proposed respondents waive:
a. Any further procedural steps;
b. The requirement that the Commission's decision contain a
statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law;
c. All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or
contest the validity of the order entered pursuant to this agreement;
and
d. All claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
4. This agreement shall not become part of the public record of the
proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. If this
agreement is accepted by the Commission, it, together with the draft of
complaint contemplated thereby, will be placed on the public record for
a period of sixty (60) days and information in respect thereto publicly
released. The Commission thereafter may either withdraw its acceptance
of this agreement and so notify the proposed respondents, in which
event it will take such action as it may consider appropriate, or issue
and serve its complaint (in such form as the circumstances may require)
and decision, in disposition of this proceeding.
5. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not
constitute an admission by proposed respondents that the law has been
violated as alleged in the draft of complaint, or that the facts
alleged in the draft complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts,
are true.
6. This agreement contemplates that, if it is accepted by the
Commission, and if such acceptance is not subsequently withdrawn by the
Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 2.34 of the Commission's
Rules, the Commission may, without further notice to proposed
respondents, (1) issue its complaint corresponding in form and
substance with the draft of complaint here attached and its decision
containing the following order to cease and desist in disposition of
the proceeding, and (2) make information public in respect thereto.
When so entered, the order to cease and desist shall have the same
force and effect and may be altered, modified or set aside in the same
manner and within the same time provided by statute for other orders.
The order shall become final upon service. Delivery by the U.S. Postal
Service of the complaint and decision containing the agreed-to order to
proposed respondents' address as stated in this agreement shall
constitute service. Proposed respondents waive any right they may have
to any other manner of service. The complaint may be used in construing
the terms of the order, and no agreement, understanding,
representation, or interpretation not contained in the order or the
agreement may be used to vary or contradict the terms of the order.
7. Proposed respondents have read the proposed complaint and order
contemplated hereby. They understand that once the order has been
issued, they will be required to file one or more compliance reports
showing that they have fully complied with the order. Proposed
respondents further understand that they may be liable for civil
penalties in the amount provided by law for each violation of the order
after it becomes final.
Order
For purposes of this order, the following definitions shall apply:
``Work Opportunity'' means any offer to a person to earn income by
producing goods or providing services, where (1) the offeree must pay
to the offeror, or a person identified by the offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating; and (2) the offeror represents that the
offeree will or could be compensated in any manner by the offeror or by
a person identified by the offeror.
``Participant'' means any person who pays the offeror of a work
opportunity, or a person identified by such offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating in a work opportunity.
``Net Earnings or Profits'' means the compensation paid to a
participant in a work opportunity, less the costs to a participant of
materials, supplies and shipping.
I
It is ordered That respondents Homespun Products, Inc., a
corporation, G & S Marketing, Inc., a corporation, their successors and
assigns, and their officers, and Gregory A. Straw, individually and as
an officer of Homespun Products, Inc. and G & S Marketing, Inc., and
respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through
any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection
with the marketing, advertising, promotion, offering, or sale of any
work opportunity, in or affecting commerce, as ``commerce'' is defined
in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist
from:
A. Making any material misrepresentation, including but not limited
to:
1. Misrepresenting the past, present or potential future earnings
or profits of participants in any work opportunity; or
2. Misrepresenting the marketplace demand for any product or
service for which respondents are offering a work opportunity.
B. Making any earnings-related or profit-related claim which uses
the phrase ``up to'' or words of similar import or which states any
dollar amount, unless the stated level of earnings or profits
constitutes the net earnings or profits which can be achieved by an
appreciable number of participants; and further, in any instances where
consumers could not reasonably foresee the major factors or conditions
affecting the ability to achieve the stated level of earnings or
profits, cease and desist from failing to disclose clearly and
prominently the class of consumers who can achieve the stated level.
II
It is further ordered That for three (3) years after the last date
of dissemination of any representation covered by this Order,
respondents, or their successors and assigns, shall maintain and upon
request make available to the Federal Trade Commission for inspection
and copying:
A. Specimen copies of all materials disseminated which contain such
representation;
B. All materials that were relied upon as substantiation in
disseminating such representation;
C. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who paid any money to respondents within the
previous three years; and
D. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who earned any income or profits from
respondents during the previous three years, and for each such
participant: all written agreements between respondents and each
participant during the previous three years; and the dates and amounts
of all payments paid to each participant for work completed pursuant to
the work opportunity during the previous three years.
III
It is further ordered:
A. That respondents Homespun Products, Inc., G & S Marketing, Inc.
and Gregory A. Straw shall pay to the FTC as consumer redress the sum
of one million and forty thousand dollars ($1,040,000); provided,
however, that this liability will be suspended, subject to the
provisions of subpart B below.
B. That the Commission's acceptance of this Order is expressly
premised upon the representations regarding the financial condition of
the respective respondents made to the FTC in a ``Financial Statement
of Corporate Defendant'' relating to Homespun Products, Inc., dated
February 12, 1993; a ``Financial Statement of Corporate Defendant''
relating to G & S Marketing, Inc., dated February 12, 1993; a
``Financial Statement of Debtor'' executed by Gregory A. Straw, dated
February 8, 1993; the federal income tax returns of Homespun Products,
Inc. for 1990, 1991 and 1992; the federal income tax returns for G & S
Marketing, Inc. for 1991 and 1992; and the federal income tax returns
for Gregory A. Straw and Susan M. Straw for 1991 and 1992. After
service upon respondents of an order to show cause, the FTC may reopen
this proceeding to make a determination whether there are any material
misrepresentations or omissions in said representations regarding the
financial condition of the respective respondents. Respondents shall be
given an opportunity to present evidence on this issue. If, upon
consideration of respondents' evidence and other information before it,
the FTC determines that there are any material misrepresentations or
omissions in the financial statements and related documents, that
determination shall cause the entire amount of monetary liability of
one million and forty thousand dollars ($1,040,000) to become
immediately due and payable to the Federal Trade Commission, and
interest computed at the rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C. 1961, as amended,
shall immediately begin to accrue on the unpaid balance. Proceedings
initiated under Part III are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any
other civil or criminal remedies as may be provided by law, including
any proceedings the Federal Trade Commission may initiate to enforce
this Order.
IV
It is further ordered That the corporate respondents shall notify
the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any dissolution,
assignment, or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor
corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries, or any other
change in the corporations that may affect compliance obligations
arising out of the Order.
V
It is further ordered That the individual respondent shall promptly
notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present business or
employment and, for a period of five (5) years after the date of
service of this Order, shall promptly notify the Commission of each
affiliation with a new business or employment.
It is further ordered That respondents shall, within sixty (60)
days after service of this Order on them, and on the first through the
fifth anniversaries of the effective date of this Order, file with the
Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and
form in which it has complied with this Order.
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final
approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from Homespun
Products, Inc., G & S Marketing, Inc., and Gregory A. Straw (``proposed
respondents''). All of the Proposed respondents are located in Suisun,
California.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons.
Comments received during this period will become part of the public
record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement and take other appropriate action, or make
final the proposed order contained in the agreement.
Homespun Products and G & S Marketing disseminate advertising
seeking individuals to assemble craft items at home. Homespun Products
sells instructional kits and craft materials, and/or charges
registration fees, to individuals wanting to perform such assembly
work.
The complaint alleges that proposed respondents have misrepresented
the weekly earnings that are regularly realized by Homespun Products'
home assemblers, through performing such assembly work and submitting
it to Homespun Products for compensation. The complaint further alleges
that proposed respondents have misrepresented that there is a
significant marketplace demand for the products they offer for
assembly. The complaint alleges that these misrepresentations violate
Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
45(a)(1)).
The proposed order requires proposed respondents to cease making
any material misrepresentations, including specifically
misrepresentations regarding past, present or future earnings or
profits of participants in any work opportunity. The order further
prohibits misrepresentations regarding the marketplace demand for any
product or service for which proposed respondents are offering a work
opportunity.
The proposed order also prohibits proposed respondents from making
any earnings-related or profit-related claims through using phrases
such as ``up to,'' or through stating any dollar amount, unless the
stated earnings or profit figures can be achieved by an appreciable
number of participants. The latter prohibition also requires disclosure
of the class of consumers who can achieve stated earnings or profit
levels, where factors or conditions affecting earnings or profits are
not reasonably foreseeable by prospective workers.
The proposed order additionally requires proposed respondents to
retain specified records relating to their advertising of work
opportunities, the persons who paid money to participate in any work
opportunity, and the earnings or profits of participants.
Additionally, the proposed order requires the corporate respondents
to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure, the
individual respondent to notify the Commission of his discontinuance of
his present business or employment and each new business or employment
affiliation, and all proposed respondents to file compliance reports
with the Commission. Proposed respondents would be subject to civil
penalties if they did not comply with any of the above order
provisions.
The proposed order also requires proposed respondents to pay to the
Federal Trade Commission $1,040,000 for consumer redress or
disgorgement. This liability is suspended, however, on the basis of
financial disclosures made by proposed respondents to the FTC, with the
proviso that the Commission can reopen the proceeding if it
subsequently determines that there are material misrepresentations or
omissions in the financial disclosures.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any
way their terms.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-158 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-157 The Hairbow Company, et al.; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 577-580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-157]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 922 3262]
The Hairbow Company, et al.; Proposed Consent Agreement With
Analysis To Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this
consent agreement, accepted subject to final Commission approval, would
prohibit, among other things, the California-based corporations and
officers, who purported to hairbows, from making any material
misrepresentations regarding earnings or profits of participants in any
work opportunity and from making misrepresentations about the
marketplace demand for any product or service. In addition, the
proposed settlement would require the respondents to pay $1.9 million
to the Commission for consumer redress or disgorgement.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,
room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Klurfeld or Gerald Wright, San
Francisco Regional Office, Federal Trade Commission, 901 Market St.,
Suite 570, San Francisco, CA. 94103. (415) 744-7920.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 2.34 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby
given that the following consent agreement containing a consent order
to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to
final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record
for a period of sixty (60) days. Public comment is invited. Such
comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be
available for inspection and copying at its principal office in
accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease and Desist
In the Matter of RUSSELL J. OSBORN, a/k/a Russell J. Osborne and
Russell J. Osbourne, individually, trading and doing business as THE
HAIRBOW COMPANY, and as an officer of Rainbow Productions, Inc., and
RAINBOW PRODUCTIONS, INC., a corporation.
The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of
Russell J. Osborn, a/k/a Russell J. Osborne and Russell J. Osbourne
(hereafter ``Russell J. Osborn''), individually, trading and doing
business as The Hairbow Company, and as an officer of Rainbow
Productions, Inc., and Rainbow Productions, Inc., a corporation
(``proposed respondents'' or ``respondents''), and it now appearing
that proposed respondents are willing to enter into an agreement
containing an order to cease and desist from the acts and practices
being investigated,
It is hereby agreed by and between Russell Osborn, individually,
trading and doing business as The Hairbow Company, and as an officer of
Rainbow Productions, Inc., and Rainbow Productions, Inc., a
corporation, and their attorney, and counsel for the Federal Trade
Commission that:
1. Respondent The Hairbow Company is an unincorporated association,
with its principal office and place of business located at 19 Front
Street, Danville, California 94526.
Respondent Rainbow Productions, Inc., is a corporation, organized,
existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of California, with its principal office and place of business
located at 19 Front Street, Danville, California 94526.
Respondent Russell Osborn is an individual, is the owner of The
Hairbow Company, and is the owner and president of Rainbow Productions,
Inc. Individually or in concert with others, he formulates, directs and
controls the policies, acts and practices of The Hairbow Company and
Rainbow Productions, Inc. His address is 19 Front Street, Danville,
California 94526.
2. Proposed respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts set
forth in the draft complaint here attached.
3. Proposed respondents waive:
a. Any further procedural steps;
b. The requirement that the Commission's decision contain a
statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law;
c. All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or
contest the validity of the order entered pursuant to this agreement;
and
d. All claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
4. This agreement shall not become part of the public record of the
proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. If this
agreement is accepted by the Commission, it, together with the draft of
complaint contemplated thereby, will be placed on the public record for
a period of sixty (60) days and information in respect thereto publicly
released. The Commission thereafter may either withdraw its acceptance
of this agreement and so notify the proposed respondents, in which
event it will take such action as it may consider appropriate, or issue
and serve its complaint (in such form as the circumstances may require)
and decision, in disposition of this proceeding.
5. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not
constitute an admission by proposed respondents that the law has been
violated as alleged in the draft of complaint, or that the facts
alleged in the draft complaint other than the jurisdictional facts, are
true.
6. This agreement contemplates that, if it is accepted by the
Commission, and if such acceptance is not subsequently withdrawn by the
Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 2.34 of the Commission's
Rules, the Commission may, without further notice to proposed
respondents, (1) issue its complaint corresponding in form and
substance with the draft of complaint here attached and its decision
containing the following order to cease and desist in disposition of
the proceeding, and (2) make information public in respect thereto.
When so entered, the order to cease and desist shall have the same
force and effect and may be altered, modified or set aside in the same
manner and within the same time provided by statute for other orders.
The order shall become final upon service. Delivery by the U.S. Postal
Service of the complaint and decision containing the agreed-to order to
proposed respondents' address as stated in this agreement shall
constitute service. Proposed respondents waive any right they may have
to any other manner of service. The complaint may be used in construing
the terms of the order, and no agreement, understanding,
representation, or interpretation not contained in the order or the
agreement may be used to vary or contradict the terms of the order.
7. Proposed respondents have read the proposed complaint and order
contemplated hereby. They understand that once the order has been
issued, they will be required to file one or more compliance reports
showing that they have fully complied with the order. Proposed
respondents further understand that they may be liable for civil
penalties in the amount provided by law for each violation of the order
after it becomes final.
Order
For purposes of this order, the following definitions shall apply:
``Work Opportunity'' means any offer to a person to earn income by
producing goods or providing services, where (1) the offeree must pay
to the offeror, or a person identified by the offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating; and (2) the offeror represents that the
offeree will or could be compensated in any manner by the offeror or by
a person identified by the offeror.
``Participant'' means any person who pays the offeror of a work
opportunity, or a person identified by such offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating in a work opportunity.
``Net Earnings or Profits'' means the compensation paid to a
participant in a work opportunity, less the costs to a participant of
materials, supplies and shipping.
I
It is Ordered That respondents Russell J. Osborn, individually,
trading and doing business as The Hairbow Company, and as an officer of
Rainbow Productions, Inc., and Rainbow Productions, Inc., a
corporation, its successors and assigns, and respondents' agents,
representatives and employees, directly or through any corporation,
subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the marketing,
advertising promotion, offering, or sale of any work opportunity, in or
affecting commerce, as ``commerce'' is defined in the Federal Trade
Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:
A. Making any material misrepresentation, including but not limited
to:
1. Misrepresenting the past, present or potential future earnings
or profits of participants in any work opportunity; or
2. Misrepresenting the marketplace demand for any product or
service for which respondents are offering a work opportunity.
B. Making any earnings-related or profit-related claim which uses
the phrase ``up to'' or words of similar import or which states any
dollar amount, unless the stated level of earnings or profits
constitutes the net earnings or profits which can be achieved by an
appreciable number of participants; and further, in any instances where
consumers could not reasonably foresee the major factors or conditions
affecting the ability to achieve the stated level of earnings or
profits, cease and desist from failing to disclose clearly and
prominently the class of consumers who can achieve the stated level.
II
It is further ordered That for three (3) years after the last date
of dissemination of any representation covered by this Order,
respondents shall maintain and upon request make available to the
Federal Trade Commission for inspection and copying:
A. Specimen copies of all materials disseminated which contain such
representation;
B. All materials that were relied upon as substantiation in
disseminating such representation;
C. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who paid any money to respondents within the
previous three years; and
D. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who earned any income or profits from
respondents during the previous three years, and for each such
participant: All written agreements between respondents and each
participant during the previous three years; and the dates and amounts
of all payments paid to each participant for work completed pursuant to
the work opportunity during the previous three years.
III
It is further ordered:
A. That respondent Russell J. Osborn shall pay to the FTC as
consumer redress the sum of one million nine hundred thousand dollars
($1,900,000); provided however, that this liability will be suspended,
subject to the provisions of subpart B below.
B. That the Commission's acceptance of this Order is expressly
premised upon the representations regarding the financial condition of
the respective respondents made to the FTC in a ``Financial Statement
of Debtor'' executed by Russell J. Osborn on September 22, 1992, and
appended ``Statement of Assets and Liabilities'' executed by Russell J.
Osborn on September 14, 1992; a ``Financial Statement of Corporate
Defendant'' relating to Rainbow Productions, Inc. executed by Russell
J. Osborn on September 22, 1992; and on the federal and California tax
returns of Russell J. Osborn for 1990. After service upon respondents
of an order to show cause, the FTC may reopen this proceeding to make a
determination whether there are any material misrepresentations or
omissions in said representations regarding the financial condition of
the respective respondents. Respondents shall be given an opportunity
to present evidence on this issue. If, upon consideration of
respondents' evidence and other information before it, the FTC
determines that there are any material misrepresentations or omissions
in the financial statements and related documents, that determination
shall cause the entire amount of monetary liability of one million nine
hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) to become immediately due and
payable to the Federal Trade Commission, and interest computed at the
rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, as amended, shall immediately
begin to accrue on the unpaid balance. Proceedings initiated under part
III are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other civil or criminal
remedies as may be provided by law, including any proceedings the
Federal Trade Commission may initiate to enforce this Order.
IV
It is further ordered That the corporate respondent shall notify
the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any dissolution,
assignment, or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor
corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries, or any other
change in the corporation that may affect compliance obligations
arising out of the Order.
V
It is further ordered That the individual respondent shall promptly
notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present business or
employment and, for a period of five (5) years after the date of
service of this order, and shall promptly notify the Commission of each
affiliation with a new business or employment.
VI
It is further ordered That respondents shall, within sixty (60)
days after service of this Order on them, and on the first through the
fifth anniversaries of the effective date of this order, file with the
Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and
form in which it has complied with this Order.
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final
approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from The Hairbow
Company, Inc., Rainbow Productions, Inc., and Russell J. Osborne
(``proposed respondents''). All of the proposed respondents are located
in Danville, California.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons.
Comments received during this period will become part of the public
record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement and take other appropriate action, or make
final the proposed order contained in the agreement.
The Hairbow Company and Rainbow Productions disseminate advertising
seeking individuals to assemble craft items at home. The Hairbow
Company sells instructional kits and craft materials, and/or charges
registration fees, to individuals wanting to perform such assembly
work.
The complaint alleges that proposed respondents have misrepresented
the weekly earnings that are regularly realized by The Hairbow
Company's home assemblers, through performing such assembly work and
submitting it to The Hairbow Company for compensation. The complaint
further alleges that proposed respondents have misrepresented that
there is a significant marketplace demand for the demand for the
products they offer for assembly. The complaint alleges that these
misrepresentations violate Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a)(1)).
The proposed order requires proposed respondents to cease making
any material misrepresentations, including specifically
misrepresentations regarding past, present or future earnings or
profits of participants in any work opportunity. The order further
prohibits misrepresentations regarding the marketplace demand for any
product or service for which proposed respondents are offering a work
opportunity.
The proposed order also prohibits proposed respondents from making
any earnings-related or profit-related claims through using phrases
such as ``up to,'' or through stating any dollar amount, unless the
stated earnings or profit figures can be achieved by an appreciable
number of participants. The latter prohibition also requires disclosure
of the class of consumers who can achieve stated earnings or profit
levels, where factors or conditions affecting earnings or profits are
not reasonably foreseeable by prospective workers.
The proposed order additionally requires proposed respondents to
retain specified records relating to their advertising of work
opportunities, the persons who paid money to participate in any work
opportunity, and the earnings or profits of participants.
Additionally, the proposed order requires the corporate respondent
to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure, the
individual respondent to notify the Commission of his discontinuance
his present business or employment and each new business or employment
affiliation, and all proposed respondent to file compliance reports
with the Commission. Proposed respondents would be subject to civil
penalties if they did not comply with any of the above order
provisions.
The proposed order also requires proposed respondents to pay to the
Federal Trade Commission $1,900,000 for consumer redress or
disgorgement. This liability is suspended, however, on the basis of
financial disclosures made by proposed respondents to the FTC, with the
proviso that the Commission can reopen the proceeding if it
subsequently determines that there are material misrepresentations or
omissions in the financial disclosures.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any
way their terms.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-157 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-156 Sandcastle Creations; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 587-590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-156]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 922 3265]
Sandcastle Creations; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To
Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this
consent agreement, accepted subject to final Commission approval, would
prohibit, among other things, the Oregon-based respondents, who
marketed potholders and mohair for use as doll's hair, from making any
material misrepresentations regarding earnings or profits or
participants in any work opportunity and from making misrepresentations
about the marketplace demand for any product or service. In addition,
the proposed settlement would require the respondents to pay $536,000
to the Commission for consumer redress or disgorgement.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,
room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Klurfeld or Gerald Wright, San Francisco Regional Office,
Federal Trade Commission, 901 Market St., suite 570, San Francisco, CA
94103. (415) 744-7920.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Sec. 2.34 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given
that the following consent agreement containing a consent order to
cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final
approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a
period of sixty (60) days. Public comment is invited. Such comments or
views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for
inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with
Sec. 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR
4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease and Desist
In the Matter of William E. Taylor, and Susan L. Taylor,
individually, and trading and doing business as Sandcastle
Creations.
The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of
William E. Taylor and Susan L. Taylor, individually, and trading and
doing business as Sandcastle Creations (``proposed respondents'' or
``respondents''), and it now appearing that proposed respondents are
willing to enter into an agreement containing an order to cease and
desist from the acts and practices being investigated.
It is hereby agreed by and between William E. Taylor and Susan L.
Taylor, individually, and trading and doing business as Sandcastle
Creations, and their attorney, and counsel for the Federal Trade
Commission that:
1. Proposed respondents William E. Taylor and Susan L. Taylor are
individuals, trading and doing business as Sandcastle Creations, an
unincorporated association, with its principal office and place of
business located at 126 SE. 1st Street, Newport, Oregon 97365.
Proposed respondent William E. Taylor is a co-owner of Sandcastle
Creations. Individually or in concert with others, he formulates,
directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of Sandcastle
Creations and his address is the same as that of Sandcastle Creations.
Proposed respondent Susan L. Taylor is a co-owner of Sandcastle
Creations. Individually or in concert with others, she formulates,
directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of Sandcastle
Creations and her address is the same as that of Sandcastle Creations.
2. Proposed respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts set
forth in the draft complaint here attached.
3. Proposed respondents waive:
a. Any further procedural steps;
b. The requirement that the Commission's decision contain a
statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law;
c. All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or
contest the validity of the order entered pursuant to this agreement;
and
d. All claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
4. This agreement shall not become part of the public record of the
proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. If this
agreement is accepted by the Commission, it, together with the draft of
complaint contemplated thereby, will be placed on the public record for
a period of sixty (60) days and information in respect thereto publicly
released. The Commission thereafter may either withdraw its acceptance
of this agreement and so notify the proposed respondents, in which
event it will take such action as it may consider appropriate, or issue
and serve its complaint (in such form as the circumstances may require)
and decision, in disposition of this proceeding.
5. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not
constitute an admission by proposed respondents that the law has been
violated as alleged in the draft of complaint, or that the facts
alleged in the draft complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts,
are true.
6. This agreement contemplates that, if it is accepted by the
Commission, and if such acceptance is not subsequently withdrawn by the
Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 2.34 of the Commission's
Rules, the Commission may, without further notice to proposed
respondents, (1) issue its complaint corresponding in form and
substance with the draft of complaint here attached and its decision
containing the following order to cease and desist in disposition of
the proceeding, and (2) make information public in respect thereto.
When so entered, the order to cease and desist shall have the same
force and effect and may be altered, modified or set aside in the same
manner and within the same time provided by statute for other orders.
The order shall become final upon service. Delivery by the U.S. Postal
Service of the complaint an decision containing the agreed-to order to
proposed respondents' address as stated in this agreement shall
constitute service. Proposed respondents waive any right they may have
to any other manner of service. The complaint may be used in construing
the terms of the order, and no agreement, understanding,
representation, or interpretation not contained in the order or the
agreement may be used to vary or contradict the terms of the order.
7. Proposed respondents have read the proposed complaint and order
contemplated hereby. They understand that once the order has been
issued, they will be required to file one or more compliance reports
showing that they have fully complied with the order. Proposed
respondents further understand that they may be liable for civil
penalties in the amount provided by law for each violation of the order
after it becomes final.
Order
For purposes of this order, the following definitions shall apply:
``Work Opportunity'' means any offer to a person to earn income by
producing goods or providing services, where (1) the offeree must pay
to the offeror, or a person identified by the offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating; and (2) the offeror represents that the
offeree will or could be compensated in any manner by the offeror or by
a person identified by the offeror.
``Participant'' means any person who pays the offeror of a work
opportunity, or a person identified by such offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating in a work opportunity.
``Net Earnings or Profits'' means the compensation paid to a
participant in a work opportunity, less the costs to a participant of
materials, supplies and shipping.
I
It is ordered that, Respondents William E. Taylor and Susan L.
Taylor, individually and trading and doing business as Sandcastle
Creations, an unincorporated association, and respondents' agents,
representatives and employees, directly or through any corporation,
subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the
marketing, advertising, promotion, offering, or sale of any work
opportunity, in or affecting commerce, as ``commerce'' is defined in
the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:
A. Making any material misrepresentation, including but not limited
to:
1. Misrepresenting the past, present or potential future earnings
or profits of participants in any work opportunity; or
2. Misrepresenting the marketplace demand for any product or
service for which respondents are offering a work opportunity.
B. Making any earnings-related or profit-related claim which uses
the phrase ``up to'' or words of similar import or which states any
dollar amount, unless the stated level of earnings or profits
constitutes the net earnings or profits which can be achieved by an
appreciable number of participants; and further, in any instances where
consumers could not reasonably foresee the major factors or conditions
affecting the ability to achieve the stated level of earnings or
profits, cease and desist from failing to disclose clearly and
prominently the class of consumers who can achieve the stated level.
II
It is further ordered that, For three (3) years after the last date
of dissemination of any representation covered by this Order,
respondents shall maintain and upon request make available to the
Federal Trade Commission for inspection and copying:
A. Specimen copies of all materials disseminated which contain such
representation;
B. All materials that were relied upon as substantiation in
disseminating such representation;
C. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who paid any money to respondents within the
previous three years; and
D. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who earned any income or profits from
respondents during the previous three years, and for each such
participant: all written agreements between respondents and each
participant during the previous three years; and the dates and amounts
of all payments paid to each participant for work completed pursuant to
the work opportunity during the previous three years.
III
It is further ordered:
A. That respondents shall jointly and severally pay to the FTC as
consumer redress the sum of five hundred and thirty-six thousand
dollars ($536,000); provided however, that this liability will be
suspended, subject to the provisions of subparts B and D below, upon
the payment of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) no later than
fifteen (15) days after the date of service of this Order. Such payment
shall be made by cashier's check or certified check payable to the
Federal Trade Commission and shall be delivered to the Federal Trade
Commission, San Francisco Regional Office, 901 Market Street, suite
570, San Francisco, CA 94103.
B. That, in the event of respondents' default on the $25,000
payment set forth in subpart A above, the amount of five hundred and
thirty-six thousand dollars ($536,000), less the sum of any payments
made pursuant to subpart A above, shall become immediately due and
payable without any notice required to be given to the respondents, and
interest computed at the rate prescribed under 28 U.S.C. 1961, as
amended, shall immediately begin to accrue on the unpaid balance.
C. That any funds paid by respondents pursuant to subparts A and B
above shall be paid into a redress fund administered by the Federal
Trade Commission and shall be used to provide direct redress to those
purchasers of respondents' introductory kits (as described in the
complaint) who have not previously been reimbursed by respondents for
the cost of the kit through a refund or through the purchase of
finished product. If the Federal Trade Commission determines, in its
sole discretion, that the redress to purchasers (as defined above) is
wholly or partially impracticable, any funds not so used shall be paid
to the United States Treasury. Respondents shall be notified as to how
the funds are disbursed, but shall have no right to contest the manner
of distribution chosen by the Commission. No portion of the payment as
herein described shall be deemed a payment of any fine, penalty, or
punitive assessment.
D. That the Commission's acceptance of this Order is expressly
premised upon the financial statements and related documents previously
provided by respondents to the FTC, signed and dated July 27, 1992.
After service upon respondents of an order to show cause, the FTC may
reopen this proceeding to make a determination whether there are any
material misrepresentations or omissions in said financial statements
and related documents. Respondents shall be given an opportunity to
present evidence on this issue. If, upon consideration of respondents'
evidence and other information before it, the FTC determines that there
are any material misrepresentations or omissions in the financial
statements and related documents, that determination shall cause the
entire amount of monetary liability of five hundred and thirty-six
thousand dollars ($536,000), less the sum of any payments made under
subpart A above, to become immediately due and payable to the Federal
Trade Commission, and interest computed at the rate prescribed in 28
U.S.C. 1961, as amended, shall immediately begin to accrue on the
unpaid balance. Proceedings initiated under Part III are in addition
to, and not in lieu of, any other civil or criminal remedies as may be
provided by law, including any proceedings the Federal Trade Commission
may initiate to enforce this Order.
IV
It is further ordered that, The individual respondents shall
promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of their present
business or employment and, for a period of five (5) years after the
date of service of this order, shall promptly notify the Commission of
each affiliation with a new business or employment.
V
It is further ordered that, Respondents shall, within sixty (60)
days after service of this Order on them, and on the first through the
fifth anniversaries of the effective date of this order, file with the
Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and
form in which it has complied with this Order.
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final
approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from William E.
Taylor and Susan L. Taylor, who do business under the name Sandcastle
Creations (``proposed respondents''). The proposed respondents are
located in Newport, Oregon.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons.
Comments received during this period will become part of the public
record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement and take other appropriate action, or make
final the proposed order contained in the agreement.
Sandcastle Creations disseminates advertising seeking individuals
to assemble craft items at home. It sells instructional kits and craft
materials, and/or charges registration fees, to individuals wanting to
perform such assembly work.
The complaint alleges that proposed respondents have misrepresented
the weekly earnings that are regularly realized by Sandcastle
Creations' home assemblers, through performing such assembly work and
submitting it to Sandcastle Creations for Compensation. The complaint
alleges that this misrepresentation violates section 5(a)(1) of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)).
The proposed order requires proposed respondents to cease making
any material misrepresentations, including specifically
misrepresentations regarding past, present or future earnings or
profits of participants in any work opportunity. The order further
prohibits misrepresentations regarding the marketplace demand for any
product or service for which proposed respondents are offering a work
opportunity.
The proposed order also prohibits proposed respondents from making
any earnings-related or profit-related claims through using phrases
such as ``up to,'' or through stating any dollar amount, unless the
stated earnings or profit figures can be achieved by an appreciable
number of participants. The latter prohibition also requires disclosure
of the class of consumers who can achieve stated earnings or profit
levels, where factors or conditions affecting earnings or profits are
not reasonably foreseeable by prospective workers.
The proposed order additionally requires proposed respondents to
retain specified records relating to their advertising of work
opportunities, the persons who paid money to participate in any work
opportunity, and the earnings or profits of participants.
Additionally, the proposed order requires the individual proposed
respondents to notify the Commission of their discontinuance of their
present business or employment and each new business or employment
affiliation, and requires the proposed respondents to file compliance
reports with the Commission. Proposed respondents would be subject to
civil penalties if they did not comply with any of the above order
provisions.
The proposed order also requires proposed respondents to pay to the
Federal Trade Commission $536,000 for consumer redress or disgorgement.
This liability is suspended, however, on the basis of financial
disclosures made by proposed respondents to the FTC, and the payment to
the Federal Trade Commission of $25,000, with the proviso that the
Commission can reopen the proceeding if it subsequently determines that
there are material misrepresentations or omissions in the financial
disclosures.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any
way their terms.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-156 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-155 New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc., et al; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 582-585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-155]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 922 3266]
New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc., et al; Proposed Consent
Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this
consent agreement, accepted subject to final Commission approval, would
prohibit, among other things, the New Mexico-based corporation and its
officer, who claimed to sell beaded earrings, from making any material
misrepresentations regarding earnings or profits of participants in any
work opportunity and from making misrepresentations about the
marketplace demand for any product or service. In addition, the
proposed settlement would require the respondents to pay $1.2 million
to the Commission for consumer redress or disgorgement.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,
Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Klurfeld or Gerald Wright, San Francisco Regional Office,
Federal Trade Commission, 901 Market St., suite 570, San Francisco, CA
94103. (415) 744-7920.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Sec. 2.34 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given
that the following consent agreement containing a consent order to
cease and desist, having been filed with an accepted, subject to final
approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a
period of sixty (60) days. Public comment is invited. Such comments or
views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for
inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with
Sec. 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR
4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease and Desist
In the Matter of New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc., a corporation,
and Anthony L. Ingram, individually and as an officer of said
corporation.
The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of
New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc., a corporation, and Anthony L. Ingram,
individually and as an officer of said corporation (``proposed
respondents'' or ``respondents''), and it now appearing that proposed
respondents are willing to enter into an agreement containing an order
to cease and desist from the acts and practices being investigated,
It is hereby agreed by and between New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc.
by its duly authorized officer, and Anthony L. Ingram, individually and
as an officer of said corporation, and their attorney, and counsel for
the Federal Trade Commission that:
1. Proposed respondent New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc., is a
corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue
of the laws of the State of New Mexico, with its principal office and
place of business located at 8415 Washington Place, NE., suite D,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113.
Proposed respondent Anthony L. Ingram is an officer of said
corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and
practices of said corporation and his address is the same as that of
the corporation.
2. Proposed respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts set
forth in the draft complaint here attached.
3. Proposed respondents waive:
a. Any further procedural steps;
b. The requirement that the Commission's decision contain a
statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law;
c. All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or
contest the validity of the order entered pursuant to this agreement;
and
d. All claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
4. This agreement shall not become part of the public record of the
proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. If this
agreement is accepted by the Commission, it, together with the draft of
complaint contemplated thereby, will be placed on the public record for
a period of sixty (60) days and information in respect thereto publicly
released. The Commission thereafter may either withdraw its acceptance
of this agreement and so notify the proposed respondents, in which
event it will take such action as it may consider appropriate, or issue
and serve its complaint (in such form as the circumstances may require)
and decision, in disposition of this proceeding.
5. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not
constitute an admission by proposed respondents that the law has been
violated as alleged in the draft of complaint, or that the facts
alleged in the draft complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts,
are true.
6. This agreement contemplates that, if it is accepted by the
Commission, and if such acceptance is not subsequently withdrawn by the
Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 2.34 of the Commission's
Rules, the Commission may, without further notice to proposed
respondents, (1) issue its complaint corresponding in form and
substance with the draft of complaint here attached and its decision
containing the following order to cease and desist in disposition of
the proceeding, and (2) make information public in respect thereto.
When so entered, the order to cease and desist shall have the same
force and effect and may be altered, modified or set aside in the same
manner and within the same time provided by statute for other orders.
The order shall become final upon service. Delivery by the U.S. Postal
Service of the complaint and decision containing the agreed-to order to
proposed respondents' address as stated in this agreement shall
constitute service. Proposed respondents waive any right they may have
to any other manner of service. The complaint may be used in construing
the terms of the order, and no agreement, understanding,
representation, or interpretation not contained in the order or the
agreement may be used to vary or contradict the terms of the order.
7. Proposed respondents have read the proposed complaint and order
contemplated hereby. They understand that once the order has been
issued, they well be required to file one or more compliance reports
showing that they have fully complied with the order. Proposed
respondents further understand that they may be liable for civil
penalties in the amount provided by law for each violation of the order
after it becomes final.
Order
For purposes of this order, the following definitions shall apply:
``Work Opportunity'' means any offer to a person to earn income by
producing goods or providing services, where (1) the offeree must pay
to the offeror, or a person identified by the offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating; and (2) the offeror represents that the
offeree will or could be compensated in any manner by the offeror or by
a person identified by the offeror.
``Participant'' means any person who pays the offeror of a work
opportunity, or a person identified by such offeror, any amount of
money, whether in the form of a registration, application or other fee,
a payment for initial inventory or supplies, or in any other form, as a
condition of participating in a work opportunity.
``Net Earnings or Profits'' means the compensation paid to a
participant in a work opportunity, less the costs to a participant of
materials, supplies and shipping.
I
It is ordered that, Respondents New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc., a
corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Anthony
L. Ingram, individually and as an officer of New Mexico Custom Designs,
Inc., a corporation, and respondents' agents, representatives and
employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or
other device, in connection with the marketing, advertising, promotion,
offering, or sale of any work opportunity, in or affecting commerce, as
``commerce'' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do
forthwith cease and desist from:
A. Making any material misrepresentation, including but not limited
to:
1. Misrepresenting the past, present or potential future earnings
or profits of participants in any work opportunity; or
2. Misrepresenting the marketplace demand for any product or
service for which respondents are offering a work opportunity.
B. Making any earnings-related or profit-related claim which uses
the phrase ``up to'' or words of similar import or which states any
dollar amount, unless the stated level of earnings or profits
constitutes the net earnings or profits which can be achieved by an
appreciable number of participants; and further, in any instances where
consumers could not reasonably foresee the major factors or conditions
affecting the ability to achieve the stated level of earnings or
profits, cease and desist from failing to disclose clearly and
prominently the class of consumers who can achieve the stated level.
It is further ordered that, For three (3) years after the last date
of dissemination of any representation covered by this Order,
respondents, or their successors and assigns, shall maintain and upon
request make available to the Federal Trade Commission for inspection
and copying:
A. Specimen copies of all materials disseminated which contain such
representation;
B. All materials that were relied upon as substantiation in
disseminating such representation;
C. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who paid any money to respondents within the
previous three years; and
D. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all work
opportunity participants who earned any income or profits from
respondents during the previous three years, and for each such
participant: All written agreements between respondents and each
participant during the previous three years; and the dates and amounts
of all payments paid to each participant for work completed pursuant to
the work opportunity during the previous three years.
III
It is further ordered:
A. That respondent Anthony L. Ingram shall pay to the FTC as
consumer redress the sum of one million two hundred thousand dollars
($1,200,000); provided however, that this liability will be suspended,
subject to the provisions of subpart B below.
B. That the Commission's acceptance of this Order is expressly
premised upon the representations regarding the financial condition of
the respective respondents made to the FTC in: A ``Financial Statement
of Debtor'' executed by Anthony L. Ingram on October 20, 1992; a
``Financial Statement of Corporate Defendant'' relating to New Mexico
Custom Designs, Inc. executed by Anthony L. Ingram, as president, on
October 20, 1992; the Federal income tax returns of New Mexico Custom
Designs, Inc., for 1989, 1990 and 1991; the federal income tax returns
of Anthony L. Ingram for 1990 and 1991; accounting statements for 1990,
1991 and 1992, referred to in, and enclosed with, a letter from Gary
Harrell, Esq., to the Federal Trade Commission, dated 22 march 1993;
and a letter from Gary Harrell, Esq., to the Federal Trade Commission,
dated 3 May 1993, After service upon respondents of an order to show
cause, the FTC may reopen this proceeding to make a determination
whether there are any material misrepresentations for omissions in said
representations regarding the financial condition of the respective
respondents. Respondents shall be given an opportunity to present
evidence on this issue. If, upon consideration of respondents' evidence
and other information before it, the FTC determines that there are any
material misrepresentations or omissions in the financial statements
and related documents, that determination shall cause the entire amount
of monetary liability of one million two hundred thousand dollars
($1,200,000) to become immediately due and payable to the Federal Trade
Commission, and interest computed at the rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C.
1961, as amended, shall immediately begin to accrue on the unpaid
balance. Proceedings initiated under Part III are in addition to, and
not in lieu of, any other civil or criminal remedies as may be provided
by law, including any proceedings the Federal Trade Commission may
initiate to enforce this Order.
IV
It is further ordered, That the corporate respondent shall notify
the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any dissolution,
assignment, or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor
corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries, or any other
change in the corporation that may affect compliance obligations
arising out of the Order.
V
It is further ordered that, The individual respondent shall
promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present
business or employment and, for a period of five (5) years after the
date of service of this order, shall promptly notify the Commission of
each affiliation with a new business or employment.
VI
It is further ordered that, Respondents shall, within sixty (60)
days after service of this Order on them, and on the first through the
fifth anniversaries of the effective date of this order, file with the
Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and
form in which it has complied with this Order.
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final
approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from New Mexico
Custom Designs, Inc. and Anthony L. Ingram (``proposed respondents'').
Both of the proposed respondents are located in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons.
Comments received during this period will become part of the public
record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement and take other appropriate action, or make
final the proposed order contained in the agreement.
New Mexico Custom Designs, Inc. and Anthony L. Ingram disseminate
advertising seeking individuals to assemble craft items at home. They
sell instructional kits and craft materials, and/or charge registration
fees, to individuals wanting to perform such assembly work.
The complaint alleges that proposed respondents have misrepresented
the weekly earnings that are regularly realized by New Mexico Custom
Designs' home assemblers, through performing such assembly work and
submitting it to New Mexico Custom Designs for compensation. The
complaint further alleges that proposed respondents have misrepresented
that there is a significant marketplace demand for the products they
offer for assembly. The complaint alleges that these misrepresentations
violate section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
45(a)(1)).
The proposed order requires proposed respondents to cease making
any material misrepresentations, including specifically
misrepresentations regarding past, present or future earnings or
profits of participants in any work opportunity. The order further
prohibits misrepresentations regarding the marketplace demand for any
product or service for which proposed respondents are offering a work
opportunity.
The proposed order also prohibits proposed respondents from making
any earnings-related or profit-related claims through using phrases
such as ``up to,'' or through stating any dollar amount, unless the
stated earnings or profit figures can be achieved by an appreciable
number of participants. The latter prohibition also requires disclosure
of the class of consumers who can achieve stated earnings or profit
levels, where factors or conditions affecting earnings or profits are
not reasonably foreseeable by prospective workers.
The proposed order additionally requires proposed respondents to
retain specified records relating to their advertising of work
opportunities, the persons who paid money to participate in any work
opportunity, and the earnings or profits of participants.
Additionally, the proposed order requires the corporate respondent
to notify the Commission of changes cn Corporate structure, the
individual respondent to notify the Commission of his discontinuance of
his present business or employment and each new business or employment
affiliation, and all proposed respondents to file compliance reports
with the Commission. Proposed respondents would be subject to civil
penalties if they did not comply with any of the above other
provisions.
The proposed order also requires proposed respondents to pay to the
Federal Trade Commission $1,200,000 for consumer redress or
disgorgement. This liability is suspended, however, on the basis of
financial disclosures made by proposed respondents to the FTC, with the
proviso that the Commission can reopen the proceeding if it
subsequently determines that there are material misrepresentations or
omissions in the financial disclosures.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any
way their terms.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-155 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-154 Personal Protective Armor Association, Inc.; Proposed Consent Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 585-587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-154]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 921-0070]
Personal Protective Armor Association, Inc.; Proposed Consent
Agreement With Analysis To Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this
consent agreement, accepted subject to final Commission approval, would
prohibit, among other things, a Baltimore-based association for
manufacturers of body armor in North America from restricting its
members from engaging in comparative advertising or offering product-
liability insurance, guarantees or warranties on soft body armor, and
from placing any restraints on member advertising, including price
disclosure, product liability, and body armor performance
characteristics.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,
room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Nolan, FTC/S-2624, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-2770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Sec. 2.34 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given
that the following consent agreement containing a consent order to
cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final
approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a
period of sixty (60) days. Public comment is invited. Such comments or
views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for
inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with
Sec. 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR
4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease and Desist
The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of
certain acts and practices of the Personal Protective Armor
Association, Inc., and it now appearing that Personal Protective Armor
Association, Inc., hereinafter sometimes referred to as proposed
respondent, is willing to enter into an agreement containing an Order
to cease and desist from engaging in the acts and practices being
investigated,
It is hereby agreed by and between the proposed respondent and its
attorney and counsel for the Federal Trade Commission that:
1. Proposed respondent Personal Protective Armor Association, Inc.
(``PPAA'') is a corporation organized, existing and transacting
business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Tennessee,
with its office and principal place of business located at 3623 Falls
Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21222.
2. PPAA admits all of the jurisdictional facts set forth in the
draft of Complaint here attached.
3. PPAA waives:
(a) Any further procedural steps;
(b) The requirement that the Commission's decision contain a
statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law;
(c) All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or
contest the validity of the order entered into pursuant to this
agreement; and
(d) Any claim under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
4. This agreement shall not become part of the public record of the
proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the Commission. If this
agreement is accepted by the Commission, it, together with the draft of
Complaint contemplated thereby, will be placed on the public record for
a period of sixty (60) days and information in respect thereto publicly
released. The Commission thereafter may either withdraw its acceptance
of this agreement and so notify proposed respondent, in which event it
will take such action as it may consider appropriate, or issue and
serve its Complaint (in such form as the circumstances may require) and
decision, in disposition of the proceeding.
5. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not
constitute an admission by proposed respondent that the law has been
violated as alleged in the draft of Complaint here attached.
6. This agreement contemplates that, if it is accepted by the
Commission, and if such acceptance is not subsequently withdrawn by the
Commission pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 2.34 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice, the Commission may, without further notice to
proposed respondent, (1) Issue its Complaint corresponding in form and
substance with the draft of Complaint here attached and its decision
containing the following Order to cease and desist in disposition of
the proceeding, and (2) make information public in respect thereto.
When so entered, the Order to cease and desist shall have the same
force and effect and may be altered, modified, or set aside in the same
manner and within the same time as provided by statute for other
orders. The Order shall become final upon service. Delivery by the U.S.
Postal Service of the Complaint and decision containing the agreed-to-
order to proposed respondent's address as stated in this agreement
shall constitute service. Proposed respondent waives any right it may
have to any other manner of service. The Complaint may be used in
construing the terms of the Order, and no agreement, understanding,
representation, or interpretation not contained in the Order or the
agreement may be used to vary or contradict the terms of the Order.
7. Proposed respondent has read the proposed draft of Complaint and
Order contemplated hereby. It understands that once the Order has been
issued, it will be required to file one or more compliance reports
showing that it has fully complied with the Order. Proposed respondent
further understands that it may be liable for civil penalties in the
amount provided by law for each violation of the Order after it becomes
final.
Order
I
For the purposes of this order, the following definitions shall
apply:
A. ``Respondent'' means the Personal Protective Armor Association,
its directors, trustees, councils, committees, officers,
representatives, delegates, agents, employees, successors, or assigns.
B. ``Soft body armor'' means concealable bullet-resistant vests
generally worn by civilians and law enforcement personnel.
II
It is ordered, That Respondent, directly, indirectly, or through
any device, in connection with activities in or affecting commerce, as
``commerce'' is defined by the Federal Trade Commission Act, as
amended, cease and desist from:
A. Entering into, attempting to enter into, organizing, continuing,
or acting in furtherance of any agreement or combination, or carrying
out any agreement between or among Respondent's members, either express
or implied, that prohibits, restricts, impedes, interferes with,
restrains, places limitations on, or advises against:
1. Engaging in comparative advertising, including, but not limited
to prohibiting any member from advertising that any type of soft body
armor meets or fails to meet any ballistic resistance standard; or
2. Offering or providing products liability insurance, guarantees,
or warranties on softly body armor.
B. Restricting, regulating, impeding, declaring unethical,
interfering with, restraining, or advising against the advertising,
publishing, or dissemination by any person of the prices, terms,
availability, characteristics, or conditions of sale of soft body armor
through any means, including, but not limited to, adopting or
maintaining any rule or policy that restricts or prohibits a member
from:
1. Engaging in comparative advertising, including, but not limited
to prohibiting any member from advertising that any type of soft body
armor meets or fails to meet any ballistic resistance standard; or
2. Offering or providing products liability insurance, guarantees,
or warranties on soft body armor.
Provided, That nothing contained in this Paragraph II shall
prohibit Respondent from formulating, adopting, disseminating to its
members, and enforcing reasonable ethical guidelines governing the
conduct of its members with respect to representations, including
unsubstantiated representations, that Respondent reasonably believes
would be false or deceptive within the meaning of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
III
It is further ordered, That Respondent:
A. Distribute by first-class mail a copy of this Order and the
Complaint to each of its members within thirty (30) days after the date
this Order become final.
B. For a period of five (5) years after the date this Order becomes
final, provide each new member who joins PPAA with a copy of the Order
and Complaint within thirty (30) days of membership into PPAA.
C. File a verified, written report with the Commission within sixty
(60) days after the date this Order becomes final, and annually
thereafter for five (5) years on the anniversary of the date this Order
becomes final, and at such other times as the Commission may, by
written notice to PPAA, require, setting forth in detail the manner and
form in which it has complied and is complying with the Order.
D. For a period of five (5) years after the date this Order becomes
final, maintain and make available to Commission staff for inspection
and copying upon reasonable notice, records adequate to describe in
detail any action taken in connection with any activity covered by Part
II of this Order.
IV
It is further ordered, That PPAA shall notify the Commission at
least thirty (30) days prior to any change in the corporation such as
dissolution, assignment, or sale, resulting in the emergence of a
successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries, and
any other change that may affect compliance with this order.
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an agreement to a
proposed consent order from Personal Protective Armor Association
(``PPAA''), which is located in Baltimore, Maryland. The agreement
would settle charges by the Commission that the proposed respondent
violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in
practices that restricted competition among PPAA members.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons.
Comments received during this period will become part of the public
record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed
order.
The Complaint
The complaint prepared for issuance by the Commission along with
the proposed order alleges that PPAA and its members have engaged in
acts and practices that have unreasonably restrained competition among
manufacturers of soft body armor. The complaint alleges that PPAA
members have maintained a policy against comparative advertising and
have adopted a policy not to compete in offering products liability
insurance to law enforcement agencies.
According to the complaint, advertising, including comparative
advertising and advertising of warranties and products liability
insurance, enables firms to inform consumers as to the quality, price,
and terms of sale of the product. Consumers consider terms of sale such
as products liability insurance and certification that the soft body
armor passes applicable performance standards. Comparative advertising
and advertising of warranties and products liability insurance enables
firms to inform consumers about these factors and increases the
information available to consumers.
The complaint states that, during some periods, from 1986 to the
present, PPAA has maintained a policy against comparative advertising,
including a policy which declares it unethical for any member to make
any representation that another member's vests have failed
certification testing. The complaint also states that, during some
periods, from 1986 to the present, PPAA adopted a policy to respond
uniformly to bids by not offering products liability insurance in
competing for contracts from law enforcement agencies.
The complaint alleges that the purposes or effects of the
challenged act or practice have been to restrain competition
unreasonably:
a. By frustrating and restraining competition in the marketing and
sale of soft body armor on the basis of price, service, and quality;
b. By depriving consumers of the benefits of truthful information
about the performance of soft body armor;
c. By depriving consumers of the potential value of warranties,
including products liability insurance, in the purchase of soft body
armor.
The Proposed Consent Order
Part I of the order covers definitions. These definitions make
clear that the consent order applies to directors, trustees, councils,
committees, officers, representatives, delegates, agents, employees,
successors, or assigns of PPAA. The order also defines ``soft body
armor'' as concealable bullet-resistant vests generally worn by
civilians and law enforcement personnel.
Part II of the order describes the conduct prohibited by the order.
Part II prevents PPAA from entering into or carrying out any agreement
between or among its members that restricts engaging in comparative
advertising or restricts offering or providing products liability
insurance. Part II also prevents PPAA from restricting or interfering
with the advertising or dissemination of prices, terms, availability,
characteristics, or conditions of sale of soft body armor by adopting a
policy which restricts or prohibits a member from engaging in
comparative advertising or offering or providing products liability
insurance.
Part III of the order requires PPAA to furnish a copy of the
Commission's order to each of its members; to provide each new member
who joins PPAA with a copy of the Order and complaint; and to file
compliance reports for five years.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Roscoe B. Starek, III
I concur in the Commission's decision to accept for public
comment the Consent Order in this matter. The evidence demonstrates
that ten companies, representing more than 90% of U.S. sales of
protective body armor, engaged in unreasonable restraints of trade
in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15
U.S.C. 45. The agreements here restrain significant dimensions of
competitive rivalry among body armor manufacturers. Therefore, they
appear likely, absent an efficiency justification, to restrict
output. The respondent has not proffered any efficiency
justification for the restraints. Under the standards set forth in
the Commission's decision in Massachusetts Board of Registration in
Optometry,\1\ and its progeny, this ``inherently suspect'' conduct
is appropriately condemned without a full rule of reason analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\110 F.T.C. 549, 604 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, however, it may have been appropriate to name as
respondents the members of the Personal Protective Armor Association
(``PPAA''). This case is not typical of the Commission's cases
challenging anticompetitive conduct of state licensing boards and
trade associations. In most such cases, the board or association
represents hundreds or thousands of competing entities.\2\ Naming
individual members as respondents in such cases is generally
impracticable: It may unnecessarily complicate litigation or create
intractable problems for settlement negotiations.\3\ More
importantly, naming members is often unnecessary: The respondent
board or association is typically the only (or only effective) means
by which the multitude of competitors can reach and enforce an
agreement restraining competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See, e.g., American Medical Association, 94 F.T.C. 701, 702
(1979) (membership consisting of approximately 170,000 medical
doctors); Mass. Board, 110 F.T.C. at 560 (more than 1350
optometrists subject to the Board's restraints); Detroit Auto
Dealers Association, Inc., 111 F.T.C. 475, 419 (1989) (membership
consisting of 231 automobile dealerships).
\3\But see Detroit Auto Dealers, 111 F.T.C. at 518-521 (addenda
to final order) (naming as respondents the association, 17
constituent associations, 96 member dealerships, and 81
individuals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, competitors in the relatively concentrated
protective body armor industry may be able to collude effectively
outside the auspices of the PPAA or any other formal trade
association.\4\ If so, the proposed Consent Order, which names only
the PPAA as a respondent, may provide an insufficient remedy. So
long as the PPAA is not involved,\5\ the same body armor
manufacturers could engage in collusive conduct falling squarely
within the core cease and desist provisions of the Order without
exposure to civil penalties under section 5(l) of the FTC Act, 15
U.S.C. 45(l).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Thus, unlike many cases involving association restraints in
which the respondent association itself is a critical first mover,
the conduct at issue here constitutes archetypal cartel behavior in
which this particular association's involvement may be merely
detail.
\5\Under the Order, respondent PPAA is defined to include any
association that can be held to be a legal successor. The evidence
does not clearly indicate whether or not PPAA has any structural,
legal, or historical advantage that would impede the creation of a
new, non-successor body armor trade association.
\6\Of course, this conduct would expose these firms to private
and state actions for damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 15. Such exposure, however, apparently did not deter the
conduct that led to the Commission's action in this matter.
In determining the optimal scope of any future enforcement
actions against anticompetitive restraints facilitated by a trade
association, the necessity of the particular association to
effective collusion among its members should be considered
carefully.
[FR Doc. 94-154 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-153 National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting of the Subcommittee To Evaluate the National Cancer Program, National Cancer Advisory Board
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 590-591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-153]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting of the Subcommittee
To Evaluate the National Cancer Program, National Cancer Advisory Board
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the
meeting of the Subcommittee to Evaluate the National Cancer Program,
National Cancer Advisory Board, National Cancer Institute, National
Institutes of Health on January 20-22, 1994 at the San Diego Hilton,
1175 East Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, California 92109.
The meeting will be open to the public from 3 p.m. to recess on
January 20; from 9 a.m. to recess January 21, and from 9 a.m. until
adjournment on January 22. Attendance by the public will be limited to
space available. Discussions will address the evaluation and
achievements of the National Cancer Program.
Ms. Carole Frank, Committee Management Specialist, National Cancer
Institute, National Institutes of Health, Executive Plaza North, room
630M, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (301/496-5708),
will provide a summary of the meeting and a roster of the Subcommittee
members upon request.
Ms. Cherie Nichols, Executive Secretary, Subcommittee to Evaluate
the National Cancer Program, National Cancer Advisory Board, National
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, room
11A23, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (301/496-5515), will furnish
substantive program information.
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should
contact Ms. Cherie Nichols on (301/496-5515) in advance of the meeting.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 94-153 Filed 1-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-152 Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Suspending the Investigation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-152]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-349]
Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination
Suspending the Investigation
In the Matter of Certain Diltiazem Hydrochloride and Diltiazem
Preparations
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (ID)
issued by the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) suspending the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia P. Johnson, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone
202-205-3098.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 31, 1993, the Commission instituted
an investigation into allegations by complainants Tanabe Seiyaku Co.,
Ltd. and Marion Merrell Dow (``complainants'') that respondents Gyma
Laboratories of America, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan
Laboratories, Inc. and Profarmaco Norbel SRL (``Mylan respondents'') ;
Orion Corporation Fermion, Interchem Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer,
Inc., and Copley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (``the Fermion Respondents'');
and Abic Ltd. (``Abic'') were violating section 337 in the importation
and sale of certain diltiazem hydrochloride and diltiazem preparations
allegedly manufactured abroad by a process covered by claim 1 of U.S.
Letters Patent 4,438,035 (``the '035 patent''). Plantex USA
(``Plantex'') was later added as a respondent. On May 3, 1993,
respondent Abic requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(``PTO'') reexamine all claims of the '035 patent. On June 25, 1993,
the PTO granted Abic's request and began reexamination proceedings. On
November 22, 1993, the PTO issued an office action rejecting claims of
the '035 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
On November 23, 1993, as a result of the PTO's rejection,
complainants moved to suspend the Commission investigation pending the
outcome of the PTO reexamination proceedings. Respondents opposed the
motion, and the Commission investigative attorney (IA) supported the
motion. On November 24, 1993, the presiding ALJ issued an ID suspending
the investigation until 30 days after the completion of reexamination
proceedings at the PTO or until such time as may be prescribed by the
Commission.
On December 2, 1993, Abic and Plantex filed a petition for review
of the ID. On December 6, 1993, the Fermion respondents filed a
response in support of Abic and Plantex's petition for review. On
December 9, 1993, complainants and the IA filed oppositions to
respondents' petition for review.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and Sec. 210.53(h) of the
Commission's Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.53(h)).
Copies of the ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in
connection with this investigation are available for inspection during
official business hours (8:45 to 5:15 p.m. in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons
are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.
Issued: December 28, 1993.
By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-152 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-151 Certain Dielectric Miniature Microwave Filters and Multiplexers Containing Same
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-151]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-359]
Certain Dielectric Miniature Microwave Filters and Multiplexers
Containing Same
Notice is hereby given that the prehearing conference in this
matter will commence at 10 a.m. on January 12, 1994, in Courtroom A
(Room 100), U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E St.
SW., Washington, DC, and the hearing will commence immediately
thereafter.
The Secretary shall publish this notice in the Federal Register.
Issued: December 29, 1993.
Sidney Harris,
Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 94-151 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-150 Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China and Thailand
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-150]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigations Nos. 731-TA-669-670 (Preliminary)]
Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China and
Thailand
Determinations
On the basis of the record\1\ developed in the subject
investigations, the Commission determines, pursuant to section 733(a)
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports from the People's Republic of
China and Thailand\2\ of certain cased pencils, provided for in
subheading 9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than
fair value (LTFV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
\2\Commissioner Brunsdale and Commissioner Crawford determine
that there is no reasonable indication that an industry in the
United States is materially injured or threatened with material
injury by reason of imports of certain cased pencils from Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On November 10, 1993, a petition was filed with the Commission and
the Department of Commerce by the Pencil Makers Association, Inc.,
Marlton, NJ, alleging that an industry in the United States is
materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV
imports of certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China
and Thailand. Accordingly, effective November 10, 1993, the Commission
instituted antidumping investigations Nos. 731-TA-669-670
(Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of
a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by
posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the
notice in the Federal Register of November 17, 1993 (58 FR 60670). The
conference was held in Washington, DC, on December 1, 1993, and all
persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these
investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on December 27, 1993. The
views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 2713
(December 1993), entitled ``Certain Cased Pencils from the People's
Republic of China and Thailand: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-669-670
(Preliminary).''
Issued: December 29, 1993.
By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-150 Filed 1-4-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-148 Claims Against Iran
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 597-598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-148]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Claims Against Iran
AGENCY: Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The persons listed in the information section of this notice
have claims pending against the Islamic Republic of Iran which are
before the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC) for
adjudication. The claims are among a total of approximately 3,100
claims of under $250,000 which were settled under an agreement between
the United States and Iran which took effect on June 22, 1990. However,
these claimants have failed to inform the FCSC of their current
addresses, and despite its efforts, the FCSC has been unable to locate
or contact these claimants. The purpose of this notice is to publicize
the names, claim numbers, and last known addresses of these claimants,
and to inform them that unless they furnish their current addresses to
the FCSC by March 1, 1994, their claims will be dismissed from further
consideration.
DATES: The deadline for providing an updated address is March 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David E. Bradley, Chief Counsel, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
of the United States, 601 D Street, NW., room 10430, Washington, DC
20579, (202) 208-7730 or FAX (202) 208-2816.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of
the United States (FCSC) hereby gives notice that it has been unable to
locate the following named claimants, whose last known addresses and
claim numbers also appear below, who have claims pending before the
FCSC for property and financial losses alleged to have been caused by
the Government of Iran. These claims are among the approximately 3,100
claims of under $250,000 each which were settled en bloc under an
agreement between the United States and Iran which took effect on June
22, 1990. Settlement Agreement in Claims of Less than $250,000, Case
No. 86 and Case No. B38, Award No. 483 (1990). The FCSC has been given
authority to adjudicate the claims under title V of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (Pub. L. 99-93,
approved August 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 437 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note)). Further,
the FCSC hereby gives notice to each of these claimants that it will
dismiss their claims from further consideration, regardless of their
potential validity, unless it receives notification of the claimant's
current address on or before the deadline of March 1, 1994.
Dated at Washington, DC on December 30, 1993.
Judith H. Lock,
Administrative Officer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim
Name & last known address No. IR-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adretta, Richard A., 1074 Lorimer Street, #1R, Brooklyn, NY
11222........................................................ 3150
Arthur Tickle Engineering Works, Inc., 26 Delevan Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11231........................................... 0368
Autodynamics, Inc., 1115 Green Grove Road, Neptune, NJ 07753.. 1373
Avilla, Henry, 17th ASG CM, Unit 45013, Box 2954, APO AP,
96338........................................................ 1633
Batton, Cleophas, c/o Savaneeya Batton, 3871 N. Shelby Ln.,
Douglasville, GA 30135....................................... 2077
Berckemeyer, Jack R., 1860 Okeechobee Drive, Colorado Springs,
CO 80915..................................................... 0129
Bill, Luis L., 7401 New Hampshire Ave., #506, Hyattsville, MD
20783........................................................ 2686
Blackledge, Albert H., Otis Engineering Corp, P.O. Box 34380,
Dallas, TX 75234............................................. 1395
Blake, Harvey E., 1155 South Riverside Ave, Space 148, Rialto,
CA 92376..................................................... 2556
Boen, Clinton, Route 2, Box 10, Oark, AR 72852................ 2638
Brennan, John J., 16410 Miami Drive, North Miami Beach, FL
33162........................................................ 1145
Burge, John J., 3211 Oakridge Drive, Chino Hills, CA 91709.... 2628
Burkeman, Walter B., 252 South Maple Drive, Beverly Hills, CA
90212........................................................ 3032
Bushey, Alfred J., RAO, 3d GSC/CDR, APO San Francisco, 96274.. 0367
Carey, Don N., 111 Woodlawn, Dollard, Des Orneaux, Canada
H9A124....................................................... 1204
Carriger, Lillian, 421 North Air Depot Blvd., #1, Midwest
City, OK 73110............................................... 2295
Carriger, Charles, 1954 Highway 58, #114, Mojove, CA 93501-
1933......................................................... 1125
Carroll, Sue G., 757 Ledyard Place, Montgomery, AL 36109...... 0411
Carter, M.A., 1015 Bois d'Arc Street, Duncan, OK 73536........ 1619
Chandler, George M., c/o T. Norton, 20102 Chaparral Circle,
Penn Valley, CA 95946........................................ 1674
Cobb, Frank W., Route 1, Box 123, Jackson, Alabama 36545...... 0739
Curtiss, Russell E., 2101 S. 324th Street, Space #6, Federal
Way, WA 98003................................................ 2075
Davis, Laurene D., 4024 Kenwood Drive, Spring Valley, CA 92077 2509
Douglas, Arthur S., Box 59, Taif, Saudi Arabia................ 2792
Duck, John W., 1015 Bois d'Arc Street, Duncan, OK 73536....... 1690
Edwards, William N., 1101 Melanie Lane, Ozark, MO 65721....... 1391
Eubanks, Joe, 1215 E. 48th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90011...... 2292
Fleming, Victor D., 6801 Trovita Way, Citrus Heights, CA 95610 3085
Fox, Joseph A., 2441 W. 205H Street, #105, Torrance, CA 90501-
1463......................................................... 0432
Gavenas, Steven P., c/o U.S. Embassy Refugee Section, Bangkok,
Thailand..................................................... 2894
Gaynes Dept. Store, 861 Williston Road, South Burlington, VT
05401........................................................ 1291
Gensplit Finance Corp., P.O. Box 1086, Sheboygan, WI 53081.... 0149
Girard, William Glen, 220 Holmes Blvd., #G-1, Gretna, LA 70053 1963
Glenn, Robert L., 124 W. Manta Cove, Savannah, GA 31410....... 3183
Greenlaw, Osborne M., 4379 Dunmovin Drive, Kennesaw, GA 30144. 2058
Guinn, Elias, HC36 Box 184, Chavies, KY 41727................. 2931
Hancock, Herschel, NAC c/o Material Control Dept., APO New
York, NY 09674............................................... 2622
Harvey, Norman Grant, 3834 Jupiter, Lompoc, CA 93436.......... 1621
Hayes, Robert C., 711 Tenna Loma, Dallas, TX 75208............ 2360
Henderson, Howard W., 211 Artesian Forest, 6 Wellwood St.,
Conroe, TX 77304............................................. 2679
Hewitt, Thomas, Est. of, c/o Ms. Nita Hewitt, 4020 Pinehurst,
Amarillo, TX 79109........................................... 2951
Holleman, David J., P.O. Box 3694, Jeddeah, Saudi Arabia...... 1677
Howard, Kelly, 5218 Prairie Creek Drive, Flower Mound, TX
75028........................................................ 1931
Howarth, Neville, 30709 Rue Langlois, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90274........................................................ 1060
Howell, Donald T., 13823 NE 74th Street, Redmond, WA 98052.... 1596
Huffman, Jack, 1600 N. Lake Street, #6, Madera, CA 93638...... 2497
Imperial Van Lines, Inc., 2805 Columbia Street, P.O. Box 2917,
Torrance, CA 90503........................................... 2939
ITT Blackburn Co., P. Moelling, 1525 Woodson Road, St. Louis,
MO 63114..................................................... 2920
Jarratt, Thomas Earl, 552 W. I-30, P.O. Box 428, Garland, TX
75043........................................................ 0483
Jones, James B., P.O. Box 1949, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia....... 2469
Kamely, Daphne, 7119 Matthew Mills Road, McLean, VA 82358..... 3140
Killion, Milton, 196 E. Pleasantview Drive, Hurst, TX 76053... 2428
Killion, Armedia, 196 E. Pleasantview Drive, Hurst, TX 76053.. 2428
King, Frederick L. 1021 E. Wheeler Street, Kokomo, IN 46901... 0473
Kolendo, Chester, NAC, APO New York, NY 09674................. 2621
Kos, Jr., Frank, NAC c/o Material Control, APO New York, NY
09674........................................................ 2623
Kuzbicki, Ramon S., 13079 Artesia Blvd., Suite 232, Cerritos,
CA 90701..................................................... 3198
Le Fevre, Jr., Bernard, 1115 West Fern, Redland, CA 92373..... 2234
Leake, Jr., James J., Saudi Arabian Airlines, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia....................................................... 2068
Lee, Pamela C., 23 Lockatong Road, Stockton, NJ 08559......... 0523
Lopez, Filimon R., 1020 Alta Vista, Arcadia, CA 91006......... 2053
Loving, Joseph Sidney, 7059 Fernhill Drive, Malibu, CA 90265.. 0301
Mackown, Patricia A.B., 3640 Buttonwood Drive, Titusville, FL
32796........................................................ 0289
Maxwell, Raymond S., Saudi Arabian Parsons Ltd., P.O. 3694,
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia......................................... 1667
McClay, John F., 1601 Lexington Place, Bedford, TX 76022...... 2355
McDowell, James K., 1111 Schilling Road, MS 7041, Hunt Valley,
MD 21030..................................................... 2610
McNicholas, Martin J., 5249 North Fairhill Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19120....................................... 2600
Mechtron Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 2322, Wilmington, DE 19899 2534
Mehrpouyan, Cyrus, c/o atty, 502 Capital Avenue, North Bay
Village, FL 33141............................................ 1155
Miller, Kenneth George, 6913 Old Briarstown Drive, Waco, TX
76710........................................................ 1866
Morse Shoe, Inc., c/o atty, Martin Cole, 111 E. 80th St., New
York, NY 10021............................................... 3017
Mullis, Jr., Lance C., 3649 Groover Lake Road, Lithia Springs,
GA 30057..................................................... 2084
Nelson, Roger, 501 DeeAnn Road, Decatur, AL 35603............. 0362
Nelson, Charles, NAC Box 402, APO New York, NY 09674.......... 2618
Nelson, II, John, 9415 Lynngrove, Dallas, TX 75205............ 2429
Nilsen, Karina, 821 S. Stanley Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90036.. 0753
Noe, Victor E., 3316 Ellen Avenue, Hebron, Kentucky 41048..... 3080
Oritz-Moreno, Orlando, 1409 Prestwick Court, Orlando, FL 32817 2773
Outsen, Kenneth W., 29018 39th Avenue South, Auburn, WA 98002. 0728
Parrish, Thadius A., 1045 West 55th Street, Los Angeles, CA
90037........................................................ 1620
PLT Engineering, Inc., L. Hansen, One Sugar Creek Pl., 14141
SW Freeway, Sugar Land, TX 77478............................. 2512
Rea International Corp., Alan Marrus, 937 East Hazelwood
Avenue, Rahway, NJ 07065..................................... 2921
Riedel, Herbert, 20531 Shadow Mount Road, Walnut, CA 91789.... 1576
Riedel, Collen M., 20531 Shadow Mount Road, Walnut, CA 91789.. 1576
Rowlett, Larry, 629 North Mesa Drive, Mesa, AZ 85203.......... 1095
Russ, Donald O., P.O. Box 27281, San Antonio, TX.............. 2617
Russ, Jack O., NAC Box 401, APO New York, NY 35124............ 2619
Scalfati, Joseph, 12926 N.E. 147th Place, Kirkland, WA 98034.. 0754
Scarritt, John, c/o Aramco, P.O. 10803, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 1476
Schoonmaker, David T., 16 Warfield Avenue, Cranston, RI 02920. 1569
Shahrestani, Mostaffa, 10600 Western Avenue, #23, Stanton, CA
90680........................................................ 2886
Shamilzadeh, Michael, 430 East 57th Street, New York, NY...... 0868
Shamilzadeh, Charles, 645 Bryant Avenue, Roslyn Harbor, L.I.,
New York..................................................... 0869
Shaney, Richard E., P.O. Box 3694, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia....... 1662
Skeen, Alfred J., 7128 Tristan Circle, Stockton, CA 95210..... 2454
Smith, Oscar M., 5327 Montgomery, N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87109. 1905
Smith, George L., NAC, APO New York, NY 09674................. 2620
Sotelo, William H., 1380 Christi Drive, Vista, CA 92083....... 0250
Spring, Mark D., c/o Petroleum Air Services, PO Box 2711,
Cairo, Egypt................................................. 2470
Sturgis, Guy C., 1207 North Garfield, Midland, TX 79701....... 1586
Tamaddoni-Jahromi, Paula, Route 1, Box 571, Bainbridge, GA
31717........................................................ 1209
Tehrani, Shahin, 43 Strathmore Road, Great Neck, NY 11023..... 3200
Ulicki, Thomas E., 515 Sunset Lane, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858.... 0439
Veyro, Jose V., 1320 Todd Court, Wichita, KS 97207............ 2687
West, Bert A., 1786 Grove Valley Avenue, Palm Harbor, FL 33563 2474
Williams, Gerald W., 1015 Bois d'Arc Street, Duncan, OK 73536. 1388
Youngs, Neil G., 111 Anthony Drive, Lakeville, MN 55044....... 2654
Zeiser, Robert E., 18 Grand Street, Smithtown, NY 11787....... 1562
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-148 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-146 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Additions of Market-at-the-Close Orders to the ``List of Exchange Rule Violations and Fines Applicable Thereto Pursuant to Rule 476A'' and Amending Minor Rule Violation Enforcement and Reporting Plan
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 641-642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-146]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33403; File No. SR-NYSE-93-35]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Additions
of Market-at-the-Close Orders to the ``List of Exchange Rule Violations
and Fines Applicable Thereto Pursuant to Rule 476A'' and Amending Minor
Rule Violation Enforcement and Reporting Plan
December 28, 1993.
On October 7, 1993 the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to revise the Rule 476A
Violations List for imposition of fines for minor violations of rules
and/or policies by adding to the list Exchange procedures with respect
to entry and cancellation of market-at-the-close (``MOC'') orders on
expiration days (i.e., expiration Fridays or the day on which Quarterly
Index options expire). The NYSE also requested approval, under Rule
19d-1(c)(2), to amend its Rule 19d-1 Minor Rule Violation Enforcement
and Reporting Plan to include the MOC procedures.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
\2\17 CFR 240.19b-4 (1991).
\3\See letter from James E. Buck, Senior Vice President and
Secretary, NYSE, to Sharon Lawson, Assistant Director, Exchange and
Options Regulation, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated
October 5, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change was published for comment in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 33161 (November 5, 1993), 58 FR 60078
(November 12, 1993). No comments were received on the proposal.
Description and Background
In 1984, the Commission adopted amendments to paragraph (c) of
Securities Exchange Act Rule 19d-1 to allow SROs to submit, for
Commission approval, plans for the abbreviated reporting of minor rule
violations.\4\ Subsequently, in 1985, the Commission approved an NYSE
Plan for the abbreviated reporting of minor rule violations pursuant to
Rule 19d-1(c) under the Act. The Plan relieves the NYSE of the current
reporting requirements imposed under section 19(d)(1) of the Act for
violations listed in NYSE Rule 476A. The NYSE Plan, as embodied in NYSE
Rule 476A, provides that the Exchange may designate violations of
certain rules as minor rule violations. The Exchange may impose a fine,
not to exceed $5,000, on any member, member organization, allied
member, approved person, or registered or non-registered employee of a
member or member organization for a violation of the delineated rules
by issuing a citation with a specific penalty.\5\ Such person can
either accept the penalty, or opt for a full disciplinary hearing on
the matter. Fines assessed pursuant to NYSE Rule 476A in excess of
$2,500 are not considered pursuant to the Plan and must be reported in
a manner consistent with the current reporting requirement of section
19(d)(1) of the Act. The Exchange also retains the option of bringing
violations of rules included under NYSE Rule 476A to full disciplinary
proceedings, and the Commission expects the Exchange to do so for
egregious or repeat violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21013 (June 1, 1984),
49 FR 23828 (June 8, 1984). Pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule
19d-1, an SRO is required to file promptly with the Commission
notice of any ``final'' disciplinary action taken by the SRO.
Pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 19d-1, any disciplinary action
taken by an SRO for a violation of an SRO rule that has been
designated a minor rule violation pursuant to the Plan shall not be
considered ``final'' for purposes of section 19(d)(1) of the Act if
the sanction imposed consists of a fine not exceeding $2,500 and the
sanctioned person has not sought an adjudication, including a
hearing, or otherwise exhausted his or her administrative remedies.
By deeming unadjudicated minor violations as not final, the
Commission permits the SRO to report violations on a periodic, as
opposed to immediate, basis.
\5\The List if contained under Supplementary Material to
Exchange Rule 476A. As discussed in note 4 supra, only those fines
imposed that are not in excess of $2,500 are subject to periodic
reporting. Fines imposed pursuant to Rule 476A in excess of $2,500
are deemed final and therefore are subject to immediate reporting to
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In adopting Rule 19d-1, the Commission noted that the Rule was an
attempt to balance the informational needs of the Commission against
the reporting burdens of the SROs.\6\ In promulgating paragraph (c) of
the Rule, the Commission was attempting further to reduce those
reporting burdens by permitting, where immediate reporting was
unnecessary, quarterly reporting of minor rule violations. The Rule is
intended to be limited to rules which can be adjudicated quickly and
objectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 13762 (July 8, 1977),
42 FR 35411 (July 14, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NYSE currently is adding its procedures with respect to entry
and cancellation of MOC orders on expiration days to the list of minor
rule violations subject to the Rule 476A minor rule violation plan. The
MOC order entry and cancellation procedures require, for example, that
MOC orders be entered on the Exchange by 3:40 p.m. on expiration days
if they are related to a strategy including any stock index future,
stock index option or option on stock index future in expiring
contracts, and that no cancellations of such orders be effected after
3:40 p.m. Violations of these policies could include late entry of MOC
orders, entry of MOC orders which do not offset a published imbalance
of 50,000 shares or more in a pilot stock or an improper cancellation
of an MOC order. These procedures are announced to members and member
organizations through an Information Memo issued approximately one week
before each expiration day.
Discussion
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in
particular, with the requirements of sections 6(b)(1), (6) and (7),
6(d)(1) and 19(d) of the Act.\7\ The proposal is consistent with the
section 6(b)(6) requirement that the rules of an exchange provide that
its members and persons associated with its members shall be
appropriately disciplined for violations of rules of the exchange. In
this regard, the proposal provides an efficient procedure for
appropriate disciplining of members for a rule violation that is
technical and objective in nature. Moreover, because the Plan provides
procedural rights to the person fined and permits a disciplined person
to request a full hearing on the matter, the proposal provides a fair
procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with
members, consistent with sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), (6) and (7), 78f(d)(1) and 78s(d)
(1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also believes that the proposal provides an
alternate means by which to deter violations of the NYSE rules included
in the Plan, thus furthering the purposes of section 6(b)(1) of the
Act. An exchange's ability to effectively enforce compliance by its
members and member organizations with Commission and Exchange rules is
central to its self-regulatory functions. Inclusion of a rule in an
exchange's minor rule violation plan should not be interpreted to mean
it is an unimportant rule. On the contrary, the Commission recognizes
that inclusion of rules under a minor rule violation plan may not only
reduce reporting burdens on an SRO but also may make its disciplinary
system more efficient in prosecuting violations of these rules.
In addition, because the NYSE retains the discretion to bring a
full disciplinary proceeding for any violation included on the List,
the Commission believes that adding the procedures for entry and
cancellation of MOC orders on expiration days to the List will enhance,
rather than reduce, the NYSE's enforcement capabilities of these
Exchange procedures.
As described above, MOC procedures are subject to change on a
monthly basis and are outlined in an Information Memo disseminated to
the members and member organizations prior to each expiration day. The
Commission believes that whether a member or member organization has
followed such specifically outlined procedures is amenable to quick,
objective determinations of compliance with respect to activity on each
expiration day. The quick and efficient resolution of questions of
compliance with such procedures would facilitate the Exchange's ability
to induce continued compliance without being hindered by the additional
time and cost associated with more sophisticated Exchange disciplinary
actions.
Finally, the Commission believes that the inclusion of the MOC
procedural rules will prove to be an effective alternate response to a
violation when the initiation of a full disciplinary proceeding is
unsuitable because such a proceeding may be more costly and time-
consuming in view of the minor nature of the particular violation. This
is further reinforced by the nature of the monthly dissemination of
these procedures to the members and their potential for change each
month in response to the instruments affected on the expiration day and
the surrounding circumstances at that time. By including the MOC
procedures in the Rule 476A Minor Rule Violation List, the NYSE can
quickly respond to violations, thereby deterring similar infractions
the following month.
It is therefore ordered, Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) and Rule 19d-
1(c)(2) under the Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-93-35)
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988) and 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2) (1991).
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-146 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-145 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extended Trading Hours for the Chicago Stock Basket
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 639-640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-145]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33401; File No. SR-CHX-93-29]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Extended Trading Hours for the Chicago Stock Basket
December 29, 1993.
On October 27, 1993, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to extend the trading hours for
the Chicago Stock Basket (``CXM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
\2\17 CFR 240.19b-4 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change was published for comment in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 33241 (November 23, 1993), 58 FR 63407
(December 1, 1993). No comments were received on the proposal.
The CHX's primary trading session, including trading of the CXM,
currently ends at 3 Central time (4 Eastern time).\3\ The CXM is a
standardized basket product consisting of twenty-five shares of each of
the stocks included in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's (``Merc'')
``MMI'' futures contract. That contract is based on the American Stock
Exchange's (``Amex'') Major Market Index (``MMI''), a broad-based
price-weighted index of twenty stocks listed on the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See Article IX, Rule 10 of the CHX Rules.
\4\For further discussion of the terms of the CXM contract and
the market structure for trading the CXM, see Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 33053 (October 15, 1993), 58 FR 54610 (October 22,
1993) (File No. SR-CHX-93-18) (``CXM Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to extend the hours for trading the CXM until
3:15 Central time (4:15 Eastern time). This proposal will make the
trading hours of the CXM consistent with the trading hours of
derivative products that are based on the same index as the CXM and
other derivative products that could be used as a hedge against the
CXM. According to the Exchange, similar trading hours should provide
risk management benefits when trading the CXM.
The Exchange states that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in
particular, with the requirements of section 6(b).\5\ In particular,
the Commission believes the proposal is consistent with the section
6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\15 U.S.C. 78f(b) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, concerns have been raised about the role that
index-related trading strategies (e.g., use of the equity cash market
to hedge positions in stock index futures and options contracts) played
in increasing market volatility.\6\ As a result, the Commission has,
among other things, encouraged the national securities exchanges to
list and trade standardized baskets of stocks.\7\ The Commission
believes that, in comparison to other methods of portfolio trading,
basket products, such as the CXM, are an efficient means to make
investment decisions based on the direction of standardized measures of
stock market performance, and may enhance the market's ability to
absorb program trading.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See, e.g., SEC, Division of Market Regulation, The October
1987 Market Break (February 1988).
\7\In addition to the CXM, the Commission has approved the
trading of market baskets on the NYSE and the Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE''). See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 27382
(October 26, 1989), 54 FR 45834 (October 31, 1989) (File No. SR-
NYSE-89-05) (approving trading of basket of stocks comprising the
Standard & Poor's (``S&P'') 500 Portfolio Index); and 27383 (October
26, 1989), 54 FR 45846 (October 31, 1989) (File No. SR-CBOE-88-20)
(approving trading of basket of stocks comprising the S&P 100 and
S&P 500 Indexes).
\8\See CXM Approval Order, supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has concluded that extending the trading hours for
the CXM will enhance market participants' ability to use that basket
for hedging purposes. The CXM offers a highly correlative hedge to the
Merc's ``MMI'' futures contract. In addition, the CXM could be used to
offset a position in the options on the MMI futures contract that are
traded on the Merc; in the options on the MMI that are traded on the
Amex; or in derivative products on other broad-based stock market
indexes.\9\ At the moment, however, CXM trading ends at 3 Central time
(4 Eastern time), while trading of such derivative products continues
until 3:15 Central time (4:15 Eastern time). The Commission recognizes
that the current lack of coordination may hinder market participants'
ability to adjust their risk in response to late price movements in the
derivatives market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\For example, the promotional literature for the CXM
illustrates how that basket could be used as a hedge against the S&P
100 options contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Commission believes that synchronizing the close
of trading for the CXM with the close of trading for such derivative
products will allow market participants to hedge their positions more
effectively. Specifically, traders and investors will be able to employ
closing strategies that reflect price movements that take place during
the last fifteen minutes of derivatives trading, as well as complete
last sale information for the various indexes' component stocks. To the
extent that the CHX proposal will promote fair hedging opportunities,
the Commission finds that extended trading hours should increase volume
in the CXM, thereby adding to the depth and liquidity of the market for
that basket product.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The Commission used a similar rationale in approving
extended trading hours for stock index options. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 22957 (February 27, 1986), 51 FR 7869
(March 6, 1986) (File Nos. SR-CBOE-85-49, SR-Amex-86-02 and SR-NYSE-
86-06). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31591 (December
11, 1992), 57 FR 60253 (December 18, 1992) (File No. SR-Amex-92-18)
(approving trading of portfolio depository receipts until 4:15
Eastern time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof. The CHX proposal is designed to eliminate a
barrier to fair hedging opportunities; accelerated approval thereof
will allow the resulting risk management benefits for traders and
investors to be realized immediately. In addition, the proposed rule
change was published in the Federal Register for the full statutory
period and no comments were received on any aspect of the proposal.
It is therefore ordered, Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-93-29) is approved.
\11\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-145 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-144 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Filing of Proposed Rule Change by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Relating to Listing Standards for Non-U.S. Companies
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 642-643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-144]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33400; File No. SR-NYSE-93-47]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Filing of Proposed Rule Change by
the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Relating to Listing Standards for
Non-U.S. Companies
December 29, 1993.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is hereby given that on December
16, 1993, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The proposed modification to NYSE policy would amend Paragraph 103
of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (``Non-U.S. Companies'') to permit
non-U.S. issuers to distribute summary annual reports to U.S. holders,
under certain circumstances.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The proposed modification to policy recognizes an amendment,
adopted in 1990, to the U.K. Companies Act which permits issuers listed
on the London Stock Exchange to provide an option to holders of their
ordinary shares to receive a full annual report or a summary annual
report. The Companies Act sets forth the specific financial and
management information that must be contained in the summary reports.
The Companies Act, as amended, also requires that shareholders who
receive only the summary report be given the opportunity, at any time,
to obtain the full annual report from the company and that companies
must notify shareholders annually of this right and how the report
might be obtained. When the program was instituted in the U.K. in 1990,
shareholders received both reports and notice of the available option
with respect to future reports.
Certain U.K. issuers are now seeking permission from the NYSE to
provide holders of listed ADRs with summary reports in place of full
annual reports if the holders do not object. The proposed modification
to policy is necessary to grant permission since current policy
requires all listed companies to submit to shareholders an annual
report with financial information as detailed in Paragraph 203.01 of
the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
The creation of the summary annual reports in the U.K. was prompted
by two objectives: Potential cost savings to the company and the
ability to provide a more easily read document to retail holders. The
effort has been deemed successful in the U.K. since a majority of
shareholders now receive the summary reports.
The Exchange is proposing that the NYSE annual report requirements
be modified to allow holders of NYSE-listed non-U.S. securities to
receive summary annual reports if (i) this is the practice in the home
country and (ii) certain conditions are met.
Specifically, issuers proposing to provide summary annual reports
to ADR holders would be required to:
(a) provide ADR holders with an ongoing option to
(1) Receive the full annual report on demand, and
(2) Annually change their election (as in the U.K., U.S. ADR
holders would initially receive both reports and notice of the
available option with respect to future reports);
(b) Follow the specific dictates of home country law or business
practice with respect to the data presented;
(c) Include a U.S. GAAP reconciliation to the extent that such
reconciliation would be required in the full annual report.
This proposal would be consistent with the Exchange's policies for
non-U.S. companies which effectively allow these companies to follow
home country practice in such areas as interim reporting and corporate
governance. In addition, we believe the modification to policy would be
consistent with the SEC's posture toward non-U.S. companies of being
accommodating without compromising disclosure.
2. Statutory Basis
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under section 6(b)(5) that an exchange have rules that are
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties. However, the Exchange adopted this proposed rule change, in
part, in response to a petition from eight listed U.K. companies
requesting that the exchange allow them to use summary annual reports.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing
for Commission Action
Within 35 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register or within such other period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Persons making written submissions
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the
Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-93-47 and should be
submitted by January 26, 1994.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-144 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-139 Noise Exposure Map Notice, Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review; Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold- Chamberlain Field) Airport, Minneapolis, MN
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 643-645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-139]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Noise Exposure Map Notice, Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program
and Request for Review; Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-
Chamberlain Field) Airport, Minneapolis, MN
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission for Minneapolis-
St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Airport under the
provisions of title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR part 150 are in compliance with
applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it is reviewing a
proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for
Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Airport
under part 150 in conjunction with the noise exposure map, and that
this program will be approved or disapproved on or before June 8, 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the FAA's determination on the
noise exposure maps and of the start of its review of the associated
noise compatibility program is December 10, 1993. The public comment
period ends February 8, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John M. Dougherty, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District
Office, room 102, 6020 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450,
(612) 725-4222. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program
should also be submitted to the above office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted for Minneapolis-St. Paul
International (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Airport are in compliance with
applicable requirements of part 150, effective December 10, 1993.
Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for
that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before June 8,
1994. This notice also announces the availability of this program for
public review and comment.
Under section 103 of title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet
applicable regulations and which depict noncompatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150, promulgated pursuant to title I of
the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval
which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for
the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of
the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission submitted
to the FAA on March 30, 1992, noise exposure maps, descriptions and
other documentation which were produced during the FAR Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Study from March 1991 to March 1992. It was requested
that the FAA review this material as the noise exposure maps, as
described in section 103(a)(1) of the Act, and that the noise
mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and
surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program
under section 104(b) of the Act.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
related descriptions submitted by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan
Airports Commission. The specific maps under consideration are the 1991
existing Noise Exposure Map and the 1996 future Noise Exposure Map. The
FAA has determined that these maps for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Airport are in compliance with
the applicable requirements. This determination is effective on
December 10, 1993. FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise
exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in
accordance with the procedures contained in appendix A of FAR part 150.
Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's
data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise
compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map
submitted under section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA
is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detail overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator who submitted those maps,
or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under section 103 of the Act. The FAA has
relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Sec. 150.21
of FAR part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been
accomplished.
The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain Field)
Airport, also effective on December 10, 1993. Preliminary review of the
submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for
the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review
will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The
formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be
completed on or before June 8, 1994.
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR part 150, Sec. 150.33. The primary considerations
in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce
the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal
of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the
introduction of additional noncompatible land uses.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than
those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be
considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise
exposure maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed noise
compatibility program are available for examination at the following
locations:
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., room 617,
Washington, DC 20591
Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis Airports District Office,
room 102, 6020-28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis-
St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Airport, 6040-28th
Street South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Issued in Minneapolis, Minnesota on December 10, 1993.
Franklin D. Benson,
Manager, Minneapolis Airports District Office, FAA Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 94-139 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-138 Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, Flight Service Technology Subcommittee; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-138]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, Flight
Service Technology Subcommittee; Meeting
Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Public Law 92-362; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a
meeting of the Flight Service Technology Subcommittee of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering and Development
(R,E&D) Advisory Committee to be held Friday, January 28, 1994, at 10
a.m. The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, in the
Round Room on the tenth floor.
The agenda for this meeting will include: Review and discussion of
the proposed task statement; organization of the effort to develop a
report and recommendations; overview of the current and future
technology associated with pre-flight weather and flight plan filing
services. This subcommittee will attempt to ensure that the FAA's
program addresses all the right technology issues.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
available. With the approval of the Subcommittee Chairman, members of
the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing
to present oral statements, obtain information, or plan to access the
building to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Carl McCullough, ASE-
10, at (202) 287-8595 or Ms. Jan Peters, ASD-3, at (202) 287-8543 in
the Office of the Associate Administrator for System Engineering and
Development, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Members of the public may present a written statement to the
subcommittee at any time.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 1993.
Martin T. Pozesky,
Executive Director, Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee.
[FR Doc. 94-138 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-137 Determination of Significance and Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and To Conduct Scoping for Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-137]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Determination of Significance and Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement and To Conduct Scoping for Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Northwest Mountain Region of the Federal Aviation
Administration (``FAA'') and the Port of Seattle (``Port'') announce
that the FAA and the Port, acting as joint lead agencies, intend to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal by the
Port to develop a new parallel runway and other airport facility
improvements to be examined in an update to the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport (Sea-Tac Airport) Master Plan. To ensure that all
significant issues related to the proposed action are identified,
scoping comments are requested.
DATES AND ADDRESSES FOR COMMENTS: To facilitate the receipt of written
comments, two scoping meetings will be conducted. The first meeting, in
a workshop format, will be conducted for the public on February 9,
1994. A meeting for Federal, state and local agencies will be conducted
on February 10, 1994. Send comments to, or seek additional information
from the responsible Federal official: Mr. Dennis Ossenkop, Airports
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., suite
540, Renton, Washington 98055-4056. To be considered, written comments
must be received on or before February 25, 1994.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recent planning studies have indicated both
an existing and long-term need for additional airfield capacity at Sea-
Tac Airport. Under current demand levels, the Airport experiences
reduced operating capability and delay during bad weather conditions
due to the close-spacing of the existing parallel runways. During busy
hours, arrival demand exceeds the bad weather arrival capacity and
aircraft and passenger delays result. In addition to increasing the
severity of delays caused by bad weather, continued growth in aircraft
operational demand is projected to exceed Sea-Tac's annual airfield
capacity within the next ten years. The objective of the Master Plan
Update, and accompanying EIS, is to address the bad weather capacity
problem and to meet long-term regional air travel needs spurred by a
growing regional economy.
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the
Master Plan Update, which is expected to include numerous projects
including, but not be limited to: A new parallel runway and
improvements to the passenger terminal, ground access system, and other
support facilities. The range of new parallel runway options that may
be considered in the EIS are anticipated to be in the immediate
vicinity of the existing airfield at Sea-Tac Airport. Based on the
Master Plan Update, other airport developments that may be considered
in the EIS would be located on or in the immediate vicinity of the
existing Sea-Tac Airport property. Mitigation measures will be
proposed, as necessary, for the significant adverse impacts created by
development. Major actions or concepts to be discussed in the draft EIS
include the no action alternative and other reasonable alternatives
meeting the purpose and need. Such alternatives are expected to include
several options related to runway lengths, separations and threshold
stagger.
The FAA and Port of Seattle have determined that the new parallel
runway is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the
environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be
prepared. The FAA and Port of Seattle have identified the following key
areas for discussion in the EIS including, but not limited to:
Alternatives, noise and land use, social and socio-economic impacts,
human health, water resources, biotic communities, construction, earth,
transportation and air quality.
Scoping is the initial step in the preparation of the EIS. The
scoping process is ``an early and open process for determining the
scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant
issues related to the proposed action.'' Agencies, affected tribes, and
members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS.
You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable
significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may
be required. Comments and suggestions are invited from Federal, State
and local agencies, and other interested parties and individuals to
ensure that the full range of issues related to a Master Plan Update
EIS are addressed and all significant issues identified.
To facilitate the receipt of comments, two scoping meetings will be
conducted. A public workshop will be conducted to receive written
comments on February 9, 1994 from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. at Tyee Senior
High School, 4424 South 188th Street, City of SeaTac. The second
meeting will be held on February 10, 1994 between 9:30 a.m. and 11 a.m.
for Federal, state and local agencies in the Sea-Tac Auditorium,
Mezzanine Level Main Terminal Building, Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport.
Issued in Renton, Washington on December 20, 1993.
Edward G. Tatum,
Manager, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Renton, Washington.
William E. Brougher,
SEPA Responsible Official, Port of Seattle.
[FR Doc. 94-137 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-135 Intent To Rule on Application To Impose and Use the Revenue From a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Hebron, KY
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 646-647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-135]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Intent To Rule on Application To Impose and Use the Revenue From
a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport, Hebron, KY
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at the Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky International Airport under the provisions of the
Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (title IX of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and
part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 4, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports
District Office, 2851 Directors Cove, suite #3, Memphis, TN 38131-0301
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Robert F. Holscher, Director of Aviation, of
the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport at the following
address: Second Floor, Terminal 1, C/NKIA, 2939 Terminal Drive, Hebron,
Kentucky 41048.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written
comments previously provided to the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport under Sec. 158.23 of part 158.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peggy S. Kelley, Planner, Memphis Airports District Office, 2851
Directors Cove, suite #3, Memphis, TN 38131-0301, (901) 544-3495.
The application may be reviewed in person at this office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport under provisions of
the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (title IX of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and
part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On December 22, 1993, the FAA determined that the application to
impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky International Airport was substantially complete
within the requirements of Sec. 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will
approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later
than March 30, 1994.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00
Proposed charge effective date: March 1, 1994
Proposed charge expiration date: June 1, 1995
Total estimated PFC revenue: $20,737,000
Brief description of proposed project(s): Impose and Use
1. Noise Compatibility and Land Use Management Measures:
a. Purchase Assurance Program off Runway Ends
b. Voluntary Acquisition in the 75 Ldn Contour
c. Voluntary Acquisition in Rolling Green Acres
d. Voluntary Acquisition in Ethan's Glen Subdivision and scattered
homes in the 65-75 Ldn, West
e. Sound Insulation of Nursing Home
f. Sound Insulation of Schools
2. Part 150 Supplemental Study and Related Planning Costs
3. Noise Monitoring Equipment.
Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has
requested not be required to collect PFCs:
1. FAR part 121 Supplemental Carriers which operate at the Airport
without an Operating Agreement with the Kenton County Airport Board and
enplane less than 1,500 passengers per year.
2. FAR part 135 on-demand air taxis, both fixed wing and rotary.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office
listed above under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT''.
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.
Issued in College Park, Georgia on December 23, 1993.
Troy R. Butler,
PFC Program Manager, Airports Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 94-135 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-132 Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and 4(f) Statement for an Airport Surveillance Radar Model 9 Facility for Washington National Airport, Washington, DC and Conduct a Public Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 645-646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-132]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and 4(f)
Statement for an Airport Surveillance Radar Model 9 Facility for
Washington National Airport, Washington, DC and Conduct a Public
Hearing
AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and 4(f) Statement, and conduct a public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public of the availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which assesses the potential
effects of constructing and operating an Airport Surveillance Radar
Model 9 (ASR-9) facility at either a site within Ward 8 of the District
of Columbia or at Washington National Airport, Arlington County,
Virginia. The DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The purpose of the proposed action is
to improve existing radar coverage provided to air traffic control
servicing Washington National Airport and the airspace over Washington,
DC.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the DEIS may be submitted in writing and may be
mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Federal
Aviation Administration, Mr. Charles Hoch (AEA-400), Manager, Airway
Facilities Division, Fitzgerald Federal Building, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Federal Aviation Administration, Mr. Mike Lanz, AEA-451.1, (718) 553-
1198 or Mr. Larry D. Walker, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. (202) 331-
7775.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An FAA evaluation concluded that potentially
significant impacts may result to two of the sites on National Park
Service land with respect to historical and visual resources.
Mitigation of these impacts are expected to be developed as a result of
the consultation process with the District of Columbia State Historic
Preservation Office.
A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was published in the Federal Register by the FAA on October 13,
1992, inviting comments. A public scoping meeting was held on October
20, 1992 to receive comments on the proposed action from the public.
Six alternative sites and the no action alternative were evaluated
in the DEIS. Three sites are located at Washington National Airport and
three sites are located on National Park Service land in Anacostia, DC.
The environmental review of the project was conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371, et seq.), Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, DOT/FAA Orders, and all applicable
Federal regulations and District of Columbia ordinances.
Comments on the DEIS are invited from Federal, State, and local
agencies, and all other interested parties, and should be directed to
the FAA at the addresses provided above. All comments received or
postmarked within 60 days from the date of publication of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Notice of Availability of the
DEIS in the Federal Register will be considered in the preparation of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The DEIS is available for public review at the following locations:
Washington Highlands Library, 115 Atlantic Street, SW., Washington, DC
20032 and Aurora Hills Library, 735 18th Street South, Arlington, VA
22202.
To obtain a copy of the DEIS, submit a written request to: Mr.
Charles Hoch (AEA-400), Manager, Airway Facilities Division, Fitzgerald
Federal Building, Federal Aviation Administration, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430.
Public Hearing
The FAA solicits public comments on the DEIS and 4(f) Statement
through a public hearing. To ensure the full range of issues related to
this proposed action are addressed, comments and suggestions are
invited from all interested parties. Interested parties are invited to
attend a public hearing that will be conducted at 10 a.m. on February
5, 1994 in the Basement Meeting Room, Washington Highlands Library, 115
Atlantic Street, SW., Washington, DC. Written comments will be accepted
until February 15, 1994.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Herbert Ross,
Assistant Manager, Airway Facilities Division.
[FR Doc. 94-132 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-130 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.; Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-130]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-245]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.; Withdrawal of Application for
Amendment to Facility Operating License
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission)
has granted the request of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.
(the licensee) to withdraw its December 2, 1988 application for
proposed amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-21 for the
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, located at the licensee's site
in New London County, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical
Specifications to reflect the implementation of modifications during
the 1989 refueling outage related to degraded grid undervoltage
detection. Since the licensee plans to make additional modifications to
the undervoltage detection circuitry during the Cycle 15 refueling
outage, additional Technical Specification changes will be necessary
and will be submitted prior to the outage.
The Commission has previously issued a Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on February 1,
1989 (54 FR 5170). However, by letter dated September 10, 1993, the
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated December 2, 1988, and the licensee's
later dated September 10, 1993, which withdrew the application for
license amendment. The above 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 local
public document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three
Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New
London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Andersen,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-130 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-129 University of California at Los Angeles Research Reactor; Order Releasing Facility for Unrestricted Use
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-129]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-142]
University of California at Los Angeles Research Reactor; Order
Releasing Facility for Unrestricted Use
By application dated February 28, 1980, the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA) submitted a request for renewal of
Facility License No. R-71 for the UCLA Research Reactor Facility (UCLA
facility). By letters dated June 14 and July 26, 1984, UCLA requested
termination of Facility License No. R-71. A ``Notice of Proposed
Issuance of Orders Authorizing Disposition of Component Parts of
Terminating Facility License'' was published in the Federal Register on
September 24, 1984 (49 FR 37484). Following hearings and stipulations
on the license renewal and termination applications by the parties
involved, an order was issued on November 8, 1985, by the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board that approved a Settlement Agreement dated
September 30, 1985, between the Regents of the University of
California, the Campus Committee to Bridge the Gap, and the staff of
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission/NRC).
The Order also terminated UCLA License No. R-71. The Settlement
Agreement stipulated a timetable for the decommissioning of the UCLA
facility.
By application dated October 29, 1985, as supplemented, UCLA
submitted a Phase I decomissioning plan. An order authorizing Phase I
dismantling of the UCLA facility and disposition of component parts was
issued by the Commission on July 14, 1986. Phase I concerned the
removal of all UCLA facility components except for the concrete
building structure, concrete biological shield, components affixed to
or embedded in the biological shield, the holdup tank, primary water
pump, sump pump, compressor system, floor drains, decontamination
sinks, and fuel storage pits. Phase I of decommissioning was completed
on August 18, 1989.
By application dated June 10, 1988, as supplemented, UCLA submitted
its Phase II decommissioning plan. An order authorizing Phase II
dismantling of the UCLA facility and disposition of component parts was
issued by the Commission on July 28, 1989. Phase II decommissioning
concerned the removal of components that remained after completion of
Phase I decommissioning. When Phase II decommissioning was completed,
UCLA submitted final survey information on January 4 and 28 and
February 22, 1993.
The reactor fuel has been removed from the core and shipped to a
Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The UCLA reactor facility has been
completely dismantled and all NRC and settlement agreement requirements
pertaining to residual radioactivity, personnel and external radiation
exposure, and fuel disposition have been met. Confirmatory radiological
surveys verified that the UCLA facility met the recommended regulatory
guidance for release of the facility for unrestricted use. Accordingly,
the Commission has found that the UCLA facility has been dismantled and
decontaminated pursuant to the Commission Orders dated July 14, 1986,
and July 28, 1989, and the Settlement Agreement. Satisfactory
disposition has been made of the component parts and fuel in accordance
with the Commission regulations in title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) chapter I, and in a manner not inimical to the
common defense and security, or to the health and safety of the public.
Therefore, on the basis of the Settlement Agreement, applications filed
by UCLA and pursuant to sections 104 and 161 b, i, of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, the UCLA facility is released for unrestricted
use as of the date of this Order. In accordance with 10 CFR part 51,
the Commission has determined that the issuance of this Order will have
no significant environmental impact. The Environmental Assessment was
published in the Federal Register on December 27, 1993 (58 FR 68445).
For further details with respect to this action see (1) UCLA final
survey information dated January 4 and 28 and February 22, 1993, (2)
the Settlement Agreement of September 30, 1985, (3) the Commission
Safety Evaluation related to release of the UCLA facility for
unrestricted use, (4) the Environmental Assessment, and (5) the
``Notice of Proposed Issuance of Orders Authorizing Disposition of
Component Parts of Terminating Facility License,'' which was published
in the Federal Register on September 24, 1984 (49 FR 37484). Each of
these items is available for public inspection at the Commission Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of items (3), (4), and (5) may be obtained upon request
addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555, Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactor Support.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas E. Murley,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-129 Filed 1-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-128 Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 606-607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-128]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323]
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licensing Nos.
DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
licensee), for operation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, located in San Luis Obispo, California.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed amendment would consist of revisions to the Technical
Specifications in response to the revised 10 CFR part 20. The change
would revise the limitations on the dose rate resulting from
radioactive material released in gaseous effluents, and reflect the
relocation of the prior 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR
20.1302. These changes are in response to the licensee's application
for amendments dated July 7, 1993.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed in order to retain operational
flexibility consistent with 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, concurrent with
the implementation of the revised 10 CFR part 20.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The proposed revision, in regard to the actual release rates as
referenced in the Technical Specifications (TS) as a dose rate to the
maximally exposed member of the public, will not increase the types or
amounts of effluents that may be released offsite, nor increase
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures. Therefore,
the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
changes do not affect nonradiological effluents and have no other
environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated
with the proposed amendments.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant
envirommental impacts associated with the proposed amendments to the
TS, any alternative to the amendments will have either no significantly
different environmental impact or will have greater environmental
impact. The principal alternative would be to deny the requested
amendments. This would not reduce environmental impacts as a result of
plant operation.
Alternatives Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement and Addendum related to
the operation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, dated May
1973 and May 1976, respectively.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not
consult other agencies or persons.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed license amendments.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality
of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated July 7, 1993, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L
Street NW., Washington, DC and at the California Polytechnic State
University, Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps
Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theodore R. Quay,
Director, Project Directorate V, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-128 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-127 North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. et al., Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 605-606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-127]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-443]
North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. et al., Seabrook Station,
Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an order authorizing a transfer of ownership
and an amendment to the Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 issued to
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic/the licensee)
for operation of the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, located in
Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the transfer of ownership of
Vermont Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc's.
(Vermont) 0.41259 percent share of Seabrook 1 to North Atlantic Energy
Company (NAEC). A license amendment would be issued to change the
footnote on page 1 of Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 by deleting
Vermont, as one of the entities for which North Atlantic is authorized
to act.
The Need for the Proposed Action
In 1990, Vermont filed a claim against Public Service Company of
New Hampshire (PSNH) with the United States Bankruptcy Court which was
then hearing a petition from PSNH for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Vermont's claim sought redress
for damages which were alleged to have been incurred while PSNH had
been the managing agent for Seabrook 1. In November 1990, the two
parties arrived at a settlement which included an agreement by PSNH or
its designee to purchase Vermont's share of Seabrook 1 subject to
obtaining the necessary approvals from all regulatory agencies.
Subsequently, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the
stipulation that PSNH and Vermont had filed describing the settlement.
In June 1992, in accordance with the Plan of Reorganization for
PSNH that was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, Northeast Utilities
(NU) acquired PSNH in merger transactions and, after receipt of NRC
approval, NAEC (a newly-formed and wholly-owned subsidiary of NU)
acquired PSNH's interest in the Seabrook 1. As the successor to PSNH's
interest in Seabrook 1, NAEC is obligated to purchase Vermont's
interest in Seabrook Station. The transfer of Vermont's ownership share
in Seabrook 1 to NAEC will consummate the settlement entered into by
Vermont and PSNH.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the transfer of ownership of
0.41259 percent of Seabrook 1 from Vermont to NAEC. The transfer will
not involve any changes to the Seabrook 1 staff, to the facility
itself, or in the manner by which Seabrook 1 is operated.
The Commission has evaluated the environmental impact of the
proposed action and has determined that the probability or consequences
of accidents would not be increased by the transfer of ownership, and
that post-accident radiological releases would not be greater than
previously determined. Further, the Commission has determined that the
transfer of ownership would not affect routine radiological plant
effluents and would not increase occupational radiological exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the transfer of
ownership would not affect nonradiological plant effluents and would
have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes
that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded that the environmental effects
of the proposed action are not significant, any alternative with equal
or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested approval.
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are identical.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of
Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2, dated December 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with the State of New Hampshire and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts had no comments on the proposed action.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed license amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request
for approval dated August 27, 1993, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW; Washington, DC 20555, and at the local
public document room located at the Exeter Public Library, 47 Front
Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Albert W. De Agazio,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-127 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-126 Physicians' Laboratory Service, Inc. (Former Licensee) Bozeman, MT; Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 608-610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-126]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030-20111, License No. 25-21258-01, EA 93-202]
Physicians' Laboratory Service, Inc. (Former Licensee) Bozeman,
MT; Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty
I
Physicians' Laboratory Service, Inc. (Licensee or PLS) was the
holder of NRC License No. 25-21258-01 (License) issued by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission). The License, which was
transferred to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital on July 2, 1993, authorized
the Licensee to possess and use byproduct material to conduct nuclear
medicine activities in accordance with the conditions of the License.
II
An inspection of the Licensee's activities was conducted July 14-
16, 1993. The results of this inspection indicated that the Licensee
had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC
requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of
Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee by letter dated
October 18, 1993. The Notice described the circumstances surrounding
the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the
Licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for
the violations.
The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter dated November 17,
1993. In its letter, the Licensee admitted the violations which
resulted in the proposed civil penalty, but requested that the NRC
reconsider the circumstances surrounding the violations and mitigate
the proposed civil penalty for reasons that are summarized in the
Appendix to this order.
III
After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements
of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein,
the NRC staff has determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this
Order, that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty
proposed for the violations designated in the Notice should be imposed.
IV
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to section 234 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205,
It is hereby ordered That:
The Licensee pay the civil penalty in the amount of $2,500
within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, money
order, or electronic transfer, payable to the Treasurer of the
United States and mailed to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk,
Washington, DC 20555.
V
The Licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of
this Order. A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a
``Request for an Enforcement Hearing,'' and shall be addressed to the
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be
sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at
the same address and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 611
Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of the hearing. If the Licensee fails to
request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the
provisions of this Order shall be effective without further
proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may
be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the Licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the
issue to be considered at such hearing shall be:
Whether, on the basis of the violations admitted by the
Licensee, this Order should be sustained.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and
Operations Support.
Appendix--Evaluation and Conclusions
On October 18, 1993, a Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations
identified during an NRC inspection on July 14-16, 1993. Physicians'
Laboratory Service, Inc. responded to the Notice on November 17,
1993. The Licensee admitted the violations that resulted in the
proposed civil penalty, but requested that the NRC reconsider the
circumstances surrounding the violations and mitigate the proposed
civil penalty. A restatement of the violation, and the NRC's
evaluation and conclusions regarding the Licensee's request follow:
Restatement of Violations Assessed a Civil Penalty
10 CFR 35.32 (a) and (e), require, in part, that by January 27,
1992, each licensee establish and maintain a written quality
management program to provide high confidence that byproduct
material or radiation from byproduct material will be administered
as directed by the authorized user. The quality management program
must include written policies and procedures to meet specific
objectives, including that prior to administration, a written
directive is prepared for any administration of quantities greater
than 30 microcuries of sodium iodide I-125 or I-131.
10 CFR 35.2, ``Definitions,'' defines a written directive, in
part, as an order in writing for a specific patient, dated and
signed by an authorized user prior to administration of a
radiopharmaceutical and specifies, in part, that for the
administration of quantities greater than 30 microcuries of either
sodium iodide I-125 or I-131 or any therapeutic administration of a
radiopharmaceutical other than sodium iodide I-125 or I-131, the
written directive must include the dosage.
1. Contrary to the above, between January 27, 1992, and July 27,
1992, the licensee did not establish a written quality management
program (01013).
2. Contrary to the above, on numerous occasions after January
27, 1992, including March 8 and 22, May 13, June 3, and July 1,
1993, the licensee administered sodium iodide I-131 for diagnostic
purposes in quantities greater than 30 microcuries without a written
directive signed by an authorized user (01023).
These violations represent a Severity Level III problem
(Supplement VI).
Civil Penalty--$2,500
Summary of Licensee's Request for Mitigation
In response to the violation involving the failure to establish
a written Quality Management Program, the Licensee admitted that it
did not establish a Quality Management Program by the January 27,
1992 effective date of the rule. The Licensee states that it first
learned of the requirement to establish a Quality Management Program
following receipt of the June 1992 NMSS Newsletter and that it
immediately devised a plan and submitted it to the NRC by July 27,
1992. Because corrective action was taken without NRC intervention,
the Licensee requested that the violation be dismissed or mitigated
to a reprimand without penalty.
In response to the violation concerning the administration of
sodium iodide without a written directive signed by an authorized
user, the Licensee admitted that a ``minimal number'' of patients
received dosages of greater than 30 microcuries without written
directives having been prepared. The Licensee stated that it took
immediate corrective action and requested that the violation and the
civil penalty be mitigated. In addition, the Licensee requested that
the NRC take into account the fact that during the past 23 years,
approximately 20,000 to 23,000 diagnostic administrations had
occurred with no known misadministrations.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Request for Mitigation
The violations were not considered separately in this case. The
proposed penalty was based on the aggregate of the two violations
(i.e., a Severity Level III problem). Thus, the severity level of
the violations was based on their collective significance--that is
the combination of not establishing a Quality Management Program
until six months after the effective date of the rule and not
implementing the requirements of the Quality Management Program even
after a written program was established by the Licensee.
The NRC places a great deal of importance on its Quality
Management regulation. Thus, its Enforcement Policy was revised at
the same time the rule was adopted to place an emphasis on
noncompliance with the rule. Example C.6 was added to Supplement VI,
such that violations involving ``A substantial failure to implement
the quality management program as required by Sec. 35.32 * * *'' was
to be classified at Severity Level III (Note: This was later amended
to state ``Substantial failure to implement the quality management
program as required by Sec. 35.32 that does not result in a
misadministration * * *'').
The term ``substantial'' has consistently been applied to
failures of a programmatic, as opposed to an isolated, nature. In
this case, the Licensee's failure was deemed programmatic because
the Licensee repeatedly failed to use written directives for
diagnostic administrations of sodium iodide I-131 on quantities that
exceeded 30 microcuries because of weaknesses in the program. Thus,
the violations were appropriately classified in the aggregate as a
Severity Level III problem.
With regard to the magnitude of the proposed civil penalty, the
Licensee's argument are related to the civil penalty adjustment
factors of Identification, Corrective Action and Licensee
Performance. The use of these factors is described in Section VI.B.2
of the Enforcement Policy. No adjustment was made to the proposed
base penalty with respect to any of these factors.
Although the Licensee identified its failure to establish a
Quality Management Program and corrected it by submitting a plan to
the NRC, the plan it submitted lacked specificity, contributing in
part to the second violation, the failure to use written directives
for diagnostic administrations of I-131 in excess of 30 microcuries.
The second violation was identified by the NRC, continued for nearly
a year after the Licensee became aware of the regulation, and was
occurring at the time of the license transfer. The Licensee's
arguments do not provide a basis for mitigation under the
identification factor.
No adjustment was made under the corrective action factor
because these violations were discovered after the license had been
transferred to another entity. Thus, this factor did not, and still
does not, appear to be applicable to the circumstances of this case.
In addition, although the Licensee corrected its failure to
establish a Quality Management Program, its corrective action was
weak, i.e., the Licensee did not implement the use of written
directives for diagnostic procedures, as discussed above. Thus, the
Licensee has not provided a basis for mitigation under the
corrective action factor.
No adjustment was made under the licensee performance factor.
The Licensee's performance was considered relatively poor in the two
inspections that preceded the July 14-16, 1993 inspection. Several
Severity Level IV and V violations were issued following each of the
two prior inspections, one occurring in September 1991 and the other
occurring in March 1990. This was balanced, however, against the
fact that the July 1993 inspection found only the violations related
to the Quality Management rule. Thus, notwithstanding the Licensee's
statements about an absence of misadministration, the Licensee has
not provided a basis for mitigation under the prior performance
factor.
NRC Conclusion
The Licensee has not provided any information that provides a
basis for reclassifying the violations or mitigating the proposed
civil penalty. The proposed civil penalty in the amount of $2,500
should be imposed by order.
[FR Doc. 94-126 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-125 Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut; Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 610-615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-125]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030-01244, License No. 06-00819-03, EAs 92-241 and 93-016]
Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut; Order Imposing
Civil Monetary Penalties
I
Yale-New Haven Hospital (Licensee), New Haven, Connecticut, is the
holder of Byproduct Material License No. 06-00819-03 (License), issued
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission). The
License was most recently amended on September 15, 1993. The License
authorizes the Licensee to perform diagnostic and therapeutic
procedures with radioactive material as well as research in accordance
with the conditions specified therein. This is a broad scope license.
The License was most recently renewed on August 13, 1985, and was due
to expire on August 31, 1990 but was extended by the NRC pending staff
action on the Licensee's renewal request. Based on the Licensee's
application to renew the License dated June 17, 1990, and pursuant to
10 CFR 30.37(b), the existing License has not expired and continues in
effect.
II
Between December 3, 1992, and January 27, 1993, the NRC performed
two inspections of licensed activities at the Licensee's facility. The
inspections were conducted to review two incidents involving
therapeutic misadministrations and a failure to control licensed
material that occurred between November 30 and December 1, 1992, and on
January 21, 1993. During the inspections, five violations of NRC
requirements were identified. A written Notice of Violation and
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) was served upon the
Licensee by letter dated April 26, 1993. The Notice states the nature
of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the
Licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalties proposed
for the violations.
The Licensee responded to the Notice on June 10, 1993. In its
response, the Licensee denies Violations II.A and II.B set forth in the
Notice; questions the Severity Level classification for Violations I.A,
I.B, and I.C; and requests reduction of the civil penalties.
III
After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements
of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein,
the NRC staff has determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this
Order, that the violations did occur, the Severity Level
classifications were appropriate, and the penalties proposed for the
violations designated in the Notice should be imposed.
IV
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to section 234 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205,
It is hereby ordered that:
The Licensee pay civil penalties in the amount of $10,000 within
30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, money order, or
electronic transfer, payable to the Treasurer of the United States
and mailed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC
20555.
V
The Licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of
this Order. A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a
``Request for an Enforcement Hearing'' and shall be addressed to the
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Commission's Document Control
Desk, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Assistant
General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address and to
the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of the hearing. If the Licensee fails to
request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the
provisions of this order shall be effective without further
proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may
be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the Licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the
issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) Whether the Licensee was in violation of the Commission's
requirements as set forth in Violations II.A and II.B in the Notice
referenced in section II above, and
(b) Whether, on the basis of such violations and the other
violations set forth in the Notice of Violation that the Licensee
admitted, this Order should be sustained.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James Lieberman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
Appendix--Evaluations and Conclusion
On April 26, 1993, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition
of Civil Penalties (Notice) was issued for violations identified
during two NRC inspections. The Licensee responded to the Notice on
June 10, 1993. The Licensee denied Violations II.A and II.B;
questioned the Severity Level classification of Violations I.A, I.B,
and I.C; and requested reduction of the civil penalties. The NRC's
evaluations and conclusions regarding the Licensee's requests are as
follows:
Restatement of Violations--Section I
I.A. Condition 23 of License No. 06-00819-03 requires that
licensed material be possessed and used in accordance with
statements, representations, and procedures contained in an
application dated December 13, 1984.
Item 7 of that application, dated December 13, 1984, states that
the Hospital Radioisotope Committee has the responsibility of
establishing and enforcing the Hospital's Radiation Safety Program
to ensure the safety and welfare of hospital personnel and property
as well as protecting the surrounding community from the potential
hazards of sources of ionizing radiation used at the hospital.
A procedure of the Hospital's Radiation Safety Program entitled,
``Procedure for Nursing Care of Patients Containing Radioactive
Sources for Therapy'', requires, in part, that ``during nursing care
procedures, the nurse must check all materials used by the patient .
. . for radioactive sources that may have become dislodged,'' and
that ``everything used by the patient (except dishes) must be saved
and monitored before disposal.''
Contrary to the above, the Hospital Radioisotope Committee did
not enforce the Hospital's Radiation Safety Program to ensure safety
and welfare of hospital personnel and property as well as protecting
the surrounding community from the potential hazards of all sources
of ionizing radiation used at the hospital. Specifically, on
November 30 and December 1, 1992, nurses on the ninth floor of Yale-
New Haven Hospital removed linen pads from a brachytherapy patient's
room without first checking the pads for radioactive sources which
may have become dislodged and failed to survey the linen pads before
disposal.
B. 10 CFR 20.207(a) requires that licensed materials stored in
an unrestricted area be secured against unauthorized removal from
the place of storage. 10 CFR 20.207(b) requires that licensed
materials in an unrestricted area and not in storage be tended under
constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee. As
defined in 10 CFR 20.3(a)(17), an unrestricted area is any area
access to which is not controlled by the licensee for purposes of
protection of individuals from exposure to radiation and radioactive
materials.
Contrary to the above, on December 1 and 2, 1992, licensed
material consisting of a 35 millicurie cesium-137 brachytherapy
source was located, at various times, in unrestricted areas, namely,
a hallway on the ninth floor of the hospital, the laundry collection
area of the hospital, and a contractor's laundry facility; and at
those times, the brachytherapy source was not under the constant
surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
C. 10 CFR 20.105(b) requires, in part, that except as authorized
by the Commission in 10 CFR 20.105(a), no licensee allow the
creation of radiation levels in unrestricted areas which, if an
individual were continuously present in the area, could result in
his receiving a dose in excess of 2 millirems in any one hour or 100
millirems in any seven consecutive days.
Contrary to the above, on December 1 and 2, 1992, the licensee
allowed the creation of radiation levels, at various times, in
unrestricted areas, namely, in a hallway on the ninth floor of the
hospital, in the laundry collection area of the hospital, and a
contractor's laundry facility, such that if an individual were
continuously present in the area, he could have received a dose in
excess of 2 millirems in any one hour or 100 millirems in any seven
consecutive days.
These violations are classified in the aggregate as a Severity
Level III problem. (Supplements IV and VI)
Civil Penalty--$2,500
Summary of Licensee Response to the Violations in Section I
The Licensee, in its response, states that the safety
significance of the loss of the source was minimal, noting that the
potential absorbed dose to any member of the general public as a
result of this incident was well below regulatory limits. Further,
the Licensee argues that the possibility of public exposure was
minimized by the hospital's prompt search for and discovery of the
source. The Licensee believes that personnel and members of the
public who may have been exposed to the source received only a
minimal dose as a result of this incident, noting that its
calculations indicate that the maximum dose to any exposed
individual was unlikely to have exceeded a total of 30 millirems.
While the Licensee recognizes that, under postulated worst case
conditions, the exposure rate at distances less than 2.4 meters
could have exceeded the NRC's applicable limits for the general
public, the Licensee argues that this exposure condition would only
have existed for very short periods of time, on the order of several
minutes, and with the bulk of the postulated exposure at a dose rate
well below NRC's standards for the general public. The Licensee also
notes that the source was located in linen that was removed from a
patient's room, and that since the linen is treated as a
biologically hazardous waste, it is highly unlikely that a person
would have any extended contact with the source once it had left the
patient's room.
The Licensee states that immediately upon discovery that a
source was missing, the Radiation Safety Officer, and the resident
physician who misplaced the source, conducted a search that promptly
located and safely recovered the missing source. The Licensee
further contends that despite this corrective action, the NRC chose
to treat the sequential consequences which flowed from the initial
failure as separate violations which could be treated in the
aggregate and escalated to a Severity Level III problem.
In addition, while the Licensee recognizes the NRC's authority
to cite for each separate violation, the Licensee believes that the
circumstances of the violations do not represent a programmatic
breakdown in its radiation safety program, and even when aggregated,
do not have the safety or regulatory significance to be considered a
Severity Level III problem.
The Licensee argues that the 100 percent escalation of the civil
penalty was not warranted since the Notice makes reference to an
incident that occurred in 1989. The NRC's enforcement policy states
that a licensee's prior performance normally refers to a period
within the last two years of the inspection at issue, or the period
within the last two inspections; whichever is longer.
The Licensee concludes by requesting that the NRC exercise its
discretion to reduce the civil penalty associated with the
violations in Section I of the Notice.
NRC Evaluation of the Licensee Response to Violations in Section I
While the NRC agrees that the doses to members of the general
public resulting from the loss of the source were small, the source
was, nonetheless, missing for a period of time in excess of twenty-
three hours. During that time, the source was in the hallway outside
the patient's room for at least seventeen hours, in a basement
laundry closet and in a laundry service truck for at least an hour
each, and on the floor of the laundry facility or in the laundry
washing machine for at least four and one half hours. None of these
locations was controlled by the Licensee for the purposes of
radiation protection. Therefore, since the radiation levels were in
excess of applicable levels for unrestricted areas for periods of
hours, this created a significant potential for an exposure in
excess of regulatory limits to personnel or members of the public,
and the NRC maintains that this is a significant lack of control of
licensed material.
As noted in Section C.1 of Supplement VI of the Enforcement
Policy, violations involving a failure to control access to licensed
materials for radiation purposes (as specified in the NRC
requirements) constitute Severity Level III violations. Therefore,
Violation I.B could have been individually classified at Severity
Level III. However, the NRC chose to aggregate the Licensee's
violation in failing to control licensed material with its root
cause (failure to survey--Violation I.A) as well as the effect of
the violation (the creation of radiation levels in excess of that
allowed in NRC regulations--Violation I.C) since the three
violations were all related to the one incident.
In view of the above, the assertion that Violations I.A, I.B,
and I.C were classified in the aggregate at Severity Level III
because they represent a programmatic breakdown is incorrect. In
addition, the Licensee's contention regarding corrective action,
involving the prompt location and recovery of the source are not
controlling in determining the severity level of the violation. The
severity level is determined by the safety or regulatory
significance of the violation. The Licensee's request for mitigation
of the civil penalty is discussed below.
In conclusion, the violations were properly classified in the
aggregate as a Severity Level III problem.
Restatement of Violations--Section II
II.A. 10 CFR 35.32(a) requires, in part, that each licensee
shall establish and maintain a written quality management program to
provide high confidence that byproduct material or radiation from
byproduct material will be administered as directed by the
authorized user. Pursuant to 10 CFR 35.32(a)(4), the quality
management program must include written policies and procedures to
meet the objective that each administration is in accordance with
the written directive.
Contrary to the above, as of November 30, 1992, the licensee's
quality management program did not include written policies and
procedures to meet the objective that each administration was in
accordance with the written directive. In particular, the licensee
did not establish written procedures to identify if a brachytherapy
source was not properly implanted or inadequately secured against
accidental removal. As a result, on November 30, 1992, during a
therapy procedure that involved a gynecological implant of four
cesium-137 sources, one source was either not implanted as required
or it was implanted properly but inadequately secured because the
source came out of the applicator and lay undetected in the
patient's bed. As a result, the dose administered to the patient was
less than that prescribed by the physician and the patient received
a radiation dose to the leg, an area not intended to receive
radiation.
B. 10 CFR 35.32(a)(4) requires, in part, that each licensee
shall establish and maintain a written quality management program to
provide high confidence that byproduct material or radiation from
byproduct material will be administered as directed by the
authorized user. The quality management program must include written
policies and procedures to meet the specific objective that each
administration is in accordance with the written directive.
On January 27, 1992, the licensee implemented a quality
management program for the use of byproduct material. Section 3 of
the quality management program entitled ``Policies and Procedures
for Brachytherapy'', paragraph 3.1.3 of the ``High Dose Rate Remote
Afterloading Devices'', requires, in part, that the treatment site
be confirmed with the written directive and treatment plan by the
administering person before administration of the treatment dose.
Contrary to the above, on January 21, 1993, the authorized user
physician failed to follow the quality management program in that
during a brachytherapy patient treatment with a high dose rate
remote afterloader, the treatment site was not confirmed by the
authorized user physician, causing the patient to receive 700 rads
to the rectum, instead of the vagina, as prescribed in the written
directive.
These violations are classified in the aggregate as a Severity
Level III problem (Supplement VI).
Civil Penalty--$7,500
Summary of Licensee Response to Violations in Section II
In its response, the Licensee denies that it violated the
requirement to establish and maintain a written QMP, noting that it
established a written QMP based upon the NRC's own guidance
published in Regulatory Guide 8.33 on January 27, 1992, and as
required by 10 CFR 35.32(a)(4). The Licensee further states that the
written quality management policy and procedures were distributed to
all authorized users for comment on January 21, 1992, and no
comments were received from the authorized users on this final
version, and the same version was presented to NRC Region I in a
letter dated January 27, 1992.
The Licensee also notes that in addition to giving each
authorized user a copy of the written quality management policy and
procedures, the radiation safety officer conducted formal training
for the members of the radiation therapy staff on March 5, 1992,
detailing the requirements of the QMP, and both physicians involved
in the alleged violations attended this presentation. The Licensee
further states that both physicians understood that the written
directive needed to be verified during the application process.
Nonetheless, despite the existence of a comprehensive QMP and
related training, these events occurred.
With respect to the first incident, the Licensee also states
that the resident physician followed the established procedures and,
therefore, reasonably concluded that he had successfully placed the
sources in the applicator during the loading process, and he and the
dosimetrist identified the correct sources as they were moved from
the transportation shield. The Licensee stated that in the process
of moving one of the four sources and its applicator to the patient,
the source inadvertently slipped unnoticed from the applicator, and
that since the resident missed the source in its fall under the
patient, he had no opportunity to identify the error once the
applicator was placed into the Fletcher Suit Device (FSD). Since the
resident wholly believed he had fulfilled the written directive, the
Licensee submits that he had satisfied the requirements of the QMP
regardless of his error.
With respect to the second incident involving the High Dose Rate
Afterloading (HDR) device, the Licensee states that the physician
who prepared the written directive was the same physician who placed
the applicator in error. Since he was the prescribing physician, the
Licensee contends that there is no doubt that he understood the
intent of the written directive. The Licensee states that while the
physician did not visually confirm or verify the placement, he fully
believed that he had correctly placed the applicator, based on his
sense of touch during the physical examination, knowledge of
anatomy, the feel and depth of the applicator insertion, and by
asking the patient if she felt comfortable after the placement.
Since the physician fully believed that he had carried out the
written directive, the Licensee submits that it had fulfilled the
requirements of the QMP notwithstanding his error.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response to Violations in Section II
The NRC does not dispute, in general, that the Licensee
established and maintained a QMP, or that it provided training to
authorized users. However, with respect to the first incident, the
NRC maintains that the Licensee's QMP did not include written
policies and procedures to provide high confidence that the QMP
would meet the objective that each brachytherapy administration is
in accordance with the written directive. 10 CFR 35.32(a) requires,
in part, that each licensee shall establish and maintain these
written policies and procedures to provide high confidence that the
radiation from byproduct material will be administered as directed
by the authorized user. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Licensee
to establish written procedures that provide high confidence in the
delivery process of therapeutic radiation and the accurate
administration of the prescribed dose. In this case, the Licensee
did not establish adequate written procedures, as required, to
effectively implement their QMP and procedures to verify whether
brachytherapy sources were properly inserted in accordance with the
written directive. In particular, the QMP was inadequate in that it
did not require visual or other verification of proper insertion of
the sources while they were being inserted. The Licensee stated that
it established a QMP based on requirements in 10 CFR 35.32. 10 CFR
35.32(a)(4) requires that each administration be in accordance with
the written directive. The licensee's QMP did require that a means
be employed of verifying sources are positioned properly. However,
the licensee had not established such a procedure to meet this
objective by directing the physician to verify proper insertion of
the source or sources (e.g., by visual inspection). In this
instance, visual verification of the sources in the applicator would
have been an acceptable means. The QMP did not have any procedure to
ensure, nor did the physician confirm, that the administration of
the dose was in accordance with the written directive. Therefore,
the QMP did not provide high confidence that radiation from
byproduct material would be administered as directed pursuant to 10
CFR 35.32(a).
With respect to the second incident, although the authorized
user fully understood the intent of the written directive, the
individual did not confirm or verify the proper placement of the
applicator, which had not been placed into the correct organ, with
the treatment site specified in the written directive and treatment
plan. The Licensee stated that it established a QMP based on
requirements in 10 CFR 35.32. 10 CFR 35.32(a)(4) requires that each
administration be in accordance with the written directive but did
not describe how this should be done. The licensee's QMP did require
the treatment site be confirmed with the written directive. Visual
verification of the source insertion into the proper organ would
have been an acceptable means. As in violation IIA, the QMP appears
inadequate in that it did not require visual or another specific
procedure for verification of proper insertion of the sources while
they were being inserted. The QMP did not have any specific
procedure to ensure, nor did the physician confirm, that the
administration of the dose was in accordance with the written
directive. Therefore, the QMP did not provide high confidence that
radiation from byproduct material would be administered as directed
pursuant to 10 CFR 35.32(a).
The NRC realizes that confirmation of a treatment site by the
Licensee may be accomplished in a number of ways. However, it is the
responsibility of the Licensee to establish effective procedures to
meet the performance-based objective of the QMP required by 10 CFR
35.32(a)(4), and provide high confidence that the intended
therapeutic radiation is administered to the designated treatment
site as prescribed by the physician authorized user. In this case,
simple visual confirmation could have prevented the error and would
have provided higher confidence than the physician's method of
feeling to locate the treatment site.
As demonstrated by the authorized user's failure to treat the
prescribed treatment site, the Licensee did not meet the objective
in 10 CFR 35.32(a)(4).
The NRC agrees that the Licensee had a QMP and that the
physician understood the intent of the written directive. The NRC
has determined, however, that the procedures may have been
inadequate in that the physician did not adequately confirm (or
verify) the placement of the applicator and that the QMP procedure
for confirmation (or verification) is vague and does not provide
high confidence that the objective will be met.
Accordingly, the NRC maintains that with regard to both
incidents, violations of the QMP occurred.
Summary of Licensee Response Requesting Mitigation of the Civil
Penalties
As a general comment to violations identified in Sections I and
II of the Notice, the Licensee contends that the civil penalties
should be reduced, noting that it has voluntarily conducted an
independent, formal, and comprehensive review of the hospital's
radiation safety program, and a panel of four experts conducted the
review on May 10 and 11, 1993. The Licensee also notes, as evidenced
by this formal review program, and other comprehensive measures
detailed in its incident reports dated December 22, 1992, January 4,
1993, and February 5, 1993, that it is committing significant
management and fiscal resources to address the concerns expressed in
the enforcement action. The Licensee believes that the remedial
actions that the NRC seeks to encourage will be realized without the
need for stringent enforcement in the form of proposed civil
penalties, and that this is consistent with the Enforcement Policy.
With respect to the violations in Section I, as stated above,
the Licensee notes that the NRC letter stated that 100 percent
escalation of the civil penalty was warranted based upon the
hospital's past enforcement history. Since the letter makes
reference to an incident which occurred in 1989, the Licensee
questions consideration of that action since the NRC's Enforcement
Policy indicates that a licensee's prior performance normally refers
to a period within the last two years of the inspection at issue, or
the period within the last two inspections, whichever is longer.
Since this license is a broad scope license that is inspected on a
yearly interval, the Licensee believes it is contrary to established
NRC practice to cite an incident occurring more than three and a
half years ago as a basis for escalation of the civil penalty.
Further, since the NRC's current Enforcement Policy has been
modified to provide for maximum flexibility and consideration of all
mitigating circumstances, the Licensee requests that the NRC
exercise its discretion to reduce the civil penalty associated with
the violations in Section I of the NOV.
With respect to the violations in Section II, the Licensee
states that the NRC's cover letter to the NOV indicates that all of
the adjustment factors set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, were
considered. Although the NRC increased the base civil penalty by 200
percent for ``past enforcement history and multiple examples,'' and
concluded that the remaining factors warranted no further
adjustment, the Licensee believes that, upon closer examination of
the circumstances, mitigation is warranted.
Regarding the ``multiple examples'' adjustment factor, the
Licensee notes that the NRC's Enforcement Policy makes it explicitly
clear that for this factor to be applicable, the multiple
occurrences should have the ``same root causes.'' The Licensee
contends that while the NRC indicated that the root cause of the two
incidents was inattention to detail by the treating physicians, this
is not the root cause of the cited violations. The Licensee notes
that the NOV states that the root cause of Violation II.A was
failure to have an adequate procedure in place consistent with the
program requirements in 10 CFR 35.32, whereas the second violation,
II.B, is stated by the NRC to arise from a different root cause,
namely, failure to follow an existing procedure established in
conformance with the program requirements of 10 CFR 35.32. The
Licensee further states that the fact that these violations derive
from different root causes is reinforced by the fact that the
specific corrective action for one violation would not necessarily
have prevented the other. Based on this information, the Licensee
believes that escalation of the base civil penalty under the
``multiple examples'' factor is inappropriate.
Regarding the ``prior enforcement history'' adjustment factor,
the Licensee believes that the application of this factor was
inappropriate in this case, noting that the Quality Management rule
has become effective only recently, and there has been no
opportunity to develop an enforcement history for compliance with
this rule. Just as the Enforcement Policy recognizes that this
factor should not be applied where the Licensee has not been in
existence long enough to establish a performance history, the
Licensee contends that so too should this logic be applied in
establishing performance history for quality management violations.
On this basis, the Licensee contends that escalation of the base
civil penalty is unwarranted.
Regarding the other factors, the Licensee believes that, on
balance, the remaining adjustment factors warrant mitigation even
though none was applied. Regarding the ``identification'' factor,
the Licensee notes that the current Enforcement Policy streamlines
the applicability of this factor to situations where the Licensee
identified the violations and promptly reported them to the NRC. The
Licensee argues that, in both cases, following identification of the
violation, the hospital thoroughly evaluated the events and promptly
provided the NRC with the results in letters to the NRC Region I
office, dated December 22, 1992, January 4, 1993, and February 5,
1993. Based on this information, the Licensee believes that full
mitigation on this factor is warranted.
Regarding the ``corrective action'' factor, once the violations
were identified, the Licensee maintains it took prompt action to
bring the situations into compliance. Immediate corrective actions
were implemented to assure that fully safe conditions were restored
and that further noncompliance with the NRC's requirements was
halted. In addition, as evidenced by the NRC's inspection report
dated December 30, 1992, the Licensee maintains that it had already
developed proposed long-term corrective actions, ``at the time of
the inspection,'' which was the day after the incident was reported.
Given this information, the Licensee believes that further
mitigation due to this factor is warranted.
Finally, the Licensee maintains it had no prior opportunity to
identify the two specific violations, neither misadministration
resulted in doses to the patients that exceeded the prescribed doses
by more than 20 percent of the total prescribed doses, nor are they
believed to result in any significant detriment, and therefore, no
escalation is warranted for these factors. In summary, when the
circumstances surrounding the violations are fully considered, the
Licensee submits that significant mitigation of the proposed civil
penalty for Violation II is warranted.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response Requesting Mitigation of the
Civil Penalties
The NRC has evaluated the Licensee response and has determined,
as set forth below, that the Licensee has not provided an adequate
basis for any mitigation of the civil penalty. In determining the
amount of the civil penalty, the NRC considered the escalation and
mitigation factors set forth in the NRC Enforcement Policy.
With respect to the issues provided in the Licensee's response
as a basis for mitigation of the penalty, the NRC acknowledges that
the Licensee performed an independent assessment on May 10 and 11,
1993, to improve implementation of the radiation safety program.
However, this commitment was made only after these violations were
identified by the NRC as a result of inspections conducted on
December 3 and 4, 1992, and January 26 and 27, 1993, at the
Licensee's facility. Nevertheless, the NRC mitigated the base civil
penalty for corrective action for Violations I.A, I.B, and I.C by 50
percent, the maximum recommended under the enforcement policy. No
further mitigation is warranted under this factor.
With respect to the violations in Section I, the Licensee states
that the NRC, contrary to established practice in Section VI.B.2.(c)
of the Enforcement Policy, used an enforcement action which occurred
in 1989 as part of its inspection history to establish a basis for
the 100 percent escalation of the civil penalty for licensee
performance. The NRC agrees that prior performance normally refers
to the licensee's performance within the last two years of the
inspection at issue, or the period within the last two inspections,
whichever is longer. However, Section VI.B.2.(c) also states that
the base civil penalty may be escalated by as much as 100 percent if
the current violation is reflective of the licensee's poor or
declining prior performance. While the NRC did mention the escalated
action issued in 1989 in its April 26, 1993, cover letter to the
Notice of Violation, it also referred to an escalated action that
was issued in 1992, which is within the two year/two inspection
period. Viewed collectively, the past enforcement actions
demonstrate a declining trend in performance at the Licensee's
facility. Additionally, the escalated enforcement action issued in
1989 involved the Licensee's loss of control of a cesium-137 sealed
source and subsequent improper disposal. The Licensee's corrective
action for this incident was not broad and lasting, and did not
prevent recurrence of a similar violation described in Section I of
the Notice issued April 26, 1993, involving the loss of a cesium-137
brachytherapy sealed source. Based on the above, the NRC believes
that the 100 percent escalation for Licensee performances, was a
proper application of the Enforcement Policy in determining the
civil penalty amount of $2500 for the violations in Section I. As
for the Licensee's contention regarding identification of Violations
I.A, I.B, and I.C, the NRC in the Notice proposed 50 percent
mitigation, which is the maximum recommended under the enforcement
policy.
The escalation/mitigation factors for the violations in Section
II were applied consistent with the Policy. Regarding the ``multiple
examples'' factor, the violations both involved the failure to meet
the specific objective that each administration is in accordance
with the written directive. The QMP was inadequate in that it did
not contain procedures that provide high confidence in the delivery
process of therapeutic radiation and the accurate administration of
the prescribed dose. The administering physician's inattention to
detail was the root cause and primary contributing reason for the
occurrence of both misadministrations at the facility within a short
period. In violation II.A, the physician failed to observe that one
of four sources fell into the patient's bed, while in violation
II.B, the physician failed to use any visual means to verify correct
insertion of the sources. Had either physician paid adequate
attention while inserting the sources, or if the Licensee's QMP had
provided specific procedures to verify correct source insertion,
these violations would likely have been averted. Therefore, based on
the fact that both events were due to the same root cause,
escalation on this factor was warranted.
With respect to the ``prior performance'' factor, while there is
no history in the quality management area given its recent
implementation, the Licensee's poor and declining overall
performance in the radiation safety area of the medical program
warrants escalation of the penalty on this factor, as set forth
above.
Regarding the ``identification'' factor, the NRC maintains that,
while the two misadministrations were self disclosing, the
associated quality management violations were identified by the NRC.
In both events, the Licensee did not identify the failure of the QMP
to include written policies and procedures to meet the objective
that each brachytherapy administration is verified to be to the
proper treatment site in accordance with the respective written
directive. In each case, the NRC identified the failure to establish
adequate written procedures to ensure the Licensee's proper
placement of brachytherapy source(s) at the prescribed treatment
site. Therefore, on balance, no adjustment by the NRC on this factor
was warranted.
With respect to the ``corrective action'' factor, the actions
taken in response to these violations were not considered
sufficiently prompt and comprehensive to warrant mitigation because
they were initially narrowly focused on the specific events, rather
than on root causes, the QMP and improvements necessary to increase
management oversight. The Licensee did implement additional training
and instruction in the loading and placement of brachytherapy
sources and applicators. However, the Licensee did not perform an
extensive and comprehensive root cause analysis of the two
misadministrations. The corrective actions were narrowly focused and
primarily directed at the performance of visual checks and
examinations of the sources and applicators before implantation. The
corrective actions did not include a comprehensive review of the QMP
procedures to determine what written modifications might be
necessary to ensure compliance with the failed objective and program
areas of concern. Additionally, the corrective actions failed to
address what changes in management oversight and involvement would
be incorporated into the Licensee's QMP to prevent recurrence of
similar events and improve supervision of brachytherapy activities.
Following the second event and discussions with NRC, a more
comprehensive approach was adopted. However, on balance, no
adjustment on this factor is warranted.
NRC Conclusion
The NRC concludes that the Licensee has not provided an adequate
basis for mitigating any portion of the civil penalties.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that monetary civil penalties in
the amount of $10,000 should be imposed.
[FR Doc. 94-125 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-124 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Agenda
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 607-608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-124]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Agenda
In accordance with the purposes of sections 29 and 182b. of the
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards will hold a meeting on January 6-8, 1994, in room P-
110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. Notice of this meeting
was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 1993.
Thursday, January 6, 1994
8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Remarks by ACRS Chairman (Open)--The
ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding conduct of the
meeting and comment briefly regarding items of current interest. During
this session, the Committee will discuss priorities for preparation of
ACRS reports.
8:45 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Proposed Final Rule to Revise Emergency
Planning Regulations on Exercise Requirements (Open)--The Committee
will review and comment on the proposed final rule on emergency
planning regulations that is intended to clarify the requirements for
the emergency planning exercises.
Representatives of the NRC staff will participate.
9:45 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 67.5.1,
``Reassessment of SGTR Radiological Consequences'' (Open)--The
Committee will review and comment on the proposed resolution of Generic
Issue 67.5.1 regarding reassessment of the validity of the present
techniques used to calculate radiological consequences resulting from a
steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event. Representatives of the NRC
staff will participate.
11 a.m.-12:30 a.m.: Results of the Public Workshop on License
Renewal (Open)--The Committee will hear a briefing by and hold
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the results
of the September 30, 1993 public workshop on license renewal, and a
draft Commission paper that includes staff recommendations on the
future directions of the license renewal. Representatives of the
industry will participate, as appropriate.
1:30 p.m.-3 p.m.: BWR Core Power Stability/ATWS (Open)--The
Committee will hear briefings by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff regarding the status of the issues
associated with the resolution of BWR core power stability combined
with an ATWS event, including the issue of liquid poison remixing
phenomena, and the development of emergency procedure guidelines.
Representatives of the industry will participate.
3:15 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: Reliability Assurance Program (Open)--The
Committee will hear a briefing by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff regarding the staff position on the
Reliability Assurance Program for the Advanced Light Water Reactors.
4:15 p.m.-5:15 p.m.: Evaluation of License Feedback on the Impact
of NRC Activities on Licensee Operations (Open)--The Committee will
hear a briefing by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC
staff regarding SECY-93-236, ``The Staff's Evaluation of Ongoing
Licensee Feedback on the Impact of NRC Activities on Licensee
Operations.'' Representatives of the industry will participate, as
appropriate.
5:15 p.m.-6 p.m.: Proposed ACRS Report on Certified Design Material
for ABWR (Open)--The Committee will discuss a proposed ACRS report on
Certified Design Material in the areas of Human Factors Engineering,
Radiation Protection, Piping Design, and Instrumentation and Control.
6 p.m.-6:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports regarding items considered
during this meeting.
Friday, January 7, 1994
8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)--
The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding conduct of the
meeting.
8:35 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports regarding items considered
during this meeting.
10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Meeting with the Deputy Executive Director
(Open)--The Committee will meet with Mr. Sniezek, Deputy Executive
Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and
Research, and Mr. Milhoan who will succeed Mr. Sniezek in early
February 1994 and discuss items of mutual interest.
12:30 p.m.-1:15 p.m.: Future Activities (Open)--The Committee will
discuss topics proposed for consideration during future ACRS meetings.
1:15 p.m.-2 p.m.: Report of the Planning and Procedures
Subcommittee (Open/Closed)--The Committee will hear a report of the
Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters related to the conduct
of ACRS business and internal organizational and personnel matters
relating to the ACRS staff members. It may also discuss qualifications
of candidates nominated for appointment to the ACRS.
A portion of this session may be closed to public attendance to
discuss matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and
practices of this advisory committee and to discuss matters the release
of which would represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
2 p.m.-2:15 p.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and
Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss responses from the
NRC Executive Director for Operations to recent ACRS comments and
recommendations.
2:15 p.m.-6:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports regarding items considered
during this meeting.
Saturday, January 8, 1994
8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports regarding items considered
during this meeting.
10:30 a.m.-11 a.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will
discuss miscellaneous matters related to the conduct of Committee
activities and complete discussion of topics that were not completed
during previous meetings as time and availability of information
permit.
11 a.m.-12 noon: ACRS Subcommittee Activities (Open)--The Committee
will hear reports and hold discussions regarding the status of ACRS
subcommittee activities.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings
were published in the Federal Register on September 30, 1993 (58 FR
51118). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements
may be presented by members of the public, electronic recordings will
be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting, and
questions may be asked only by members of the Committee, its
consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should
notify the ACRS 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
Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this
purpose may be obtained by contacting the ACRS Executive Director prior
to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS
meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the
conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with
the ACRS Executive Director if such rescheduling would result in major
inconvenience.
I have determined in accordance with subsection 10(d) Public Law
92-463 that it is necessary to close portions of this meeting noted
above to discuss information that involves the internal personnel rules
and practices of this advisory Committee per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and to
discuss information the release of which would represent a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
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 ACRS Executive
Director, Dr. John T. Larkins (telephone 301-492-4516), between 7:30
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
John C. Hoyle,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-124 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-123 First Chicago Corporation, et al.; Notice of Applications to Engage de novo in Permissible Nonbanking Activities
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 576-577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-123]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
First Chicago Corporation, et al.; Notice of Applications to
Engage de novo in Permissible Nonbanking Activities
The companies listed in this notice have filed an application under
Sec. 225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1))
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 commence or to engage de novo, either directly or
through a subsidiary, 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.
Each application is available for immediate inspection at the
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency,
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than January 19, 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
1. First Chicago Corporation, Chicago, Illinois; to engage de novo
through its subsidiary, First Chicago Capital Markets, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, in underwriting and dealing in, to a limited extent, all
types of debt securities; acting as agent in the private placement of
all types of securities, including providing related advisory services;
buying and selling all types of securities on the order of investors as
a riskless principal; providing financial and transactional advice in
connection with the structuring and arranging of swaps, caps, and
similar transactions; and providing, to institutional customers, full
service securities brokerage services in combination with permissible
investment advisory services, pursuant to Sec. 4 of the Bank Holding
Company Act.
2. Quad City Holdings, Inc., Bettendorf, Iowa; to engage de novo in
making and servicing loans pursuant to Sec. 225.25(b)(1) of the
Board's Regulation Y. These activities will be conducted within a 120
mile radius of the Quad City, Iowa, area.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
1. First Manistique Corporation, Manistique, Michigan; to engage de
novo through its subsidiary, First Rural Relending Company, Manistique,
Michigan, in making, acquiring, and servicing loans pursuant to Sec.
225.25(b)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y. These activities will be
conducted in the Upper Peninsula of the State of Michigan.
2. U.S. Bancorp, Portland, Oregon; to engage de novo in data
processing activities pursuant to Sec. 225.25(b)(7) of the Board's
Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 30,
1993.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-123 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-122 Bridgeville Financial Corp., et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-122]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Bridgeville Financial Corp., 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 January 28, 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101:
1. Bridgeville Financial Corp., Bridgeville, Pennsylvania; to
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting
shares of Bridgeville Savings Bank, Bridgeville, Pennsylvania.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President)
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
1. D/W Bankshares, Inc., Dalton, Georgia; to become a bank holding
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Dalton/
Whitfield Bank & Trust, Dalton, Georgia.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
1. Home Bancorp, Fort Wayne, Indiana; to become a bank holding
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Home Loan
Bank, S.B., Fort Wayne, Indiana.
2. Orangeville Bancorp, Inc., Orangeville, Illinois; to acquire 100
percent of the voting shares of State Bank of Winslow, Winslow,
Illinois.
D. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
1. Community First Bankshares, Inc., Fargo, North Dakota; to
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Grand National Bank of
Colorado, Fraser, Colorado.
2. Sentry Bancorp, Inc., Edina, Minnesota; to become a bank holding
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Cannon Valley
Bank, Dundas, Minnesota.
3. Michigan Financial Corporation, Marquette, Michigan; to merge
with Houghton Financial Inc., Houghton, Michigan, and thereby
indirectly acquire Houghton National Bank, Houghton, Michigan.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
1. First Missouri Bancshares, Inc., Brookfield, Missouri; to become
a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of
First Missouri National Bank, Brookfield, Missouri.
2. Huckabay Enterprises A Limited Partnership, Mustang, Oklahoma;
to become a bank holding company by acquiring 48.54 percent of Wichita
Bancshares, Inc., Snyder, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire Bank
of the Wichitas, Snyder, Oklahoma; to acquire 50 percent of the voting
shares of Southwest State Corporation, Sentinel, Oklahoma, and thereby
indirectly acquire Southwest State Bank, Sentinel, Oklahoma; and to
acquire 60.70 percent of the voting shares of First Mustang
Corporation, Mustang, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire The
First Mustang State Bank, Mustang, Oklahoma.
3. Meadows Enterprises A Limited Partnership, Burns Flat, Oklahoma;
to become a bank holding company by acquiring 43.92 percent of the
voting shares of Wichita Bancshares, Inc., Snyder, Oklahoma, and
thereby indirectly acquire Bank of the Wichitas, Snyder, Oklahoma; to
acquire 50 percent of the voting shares of Southwest State Corporation,
Sentinel, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire Southwest State
Bank, Sentinel, Oklahoma; and to acquire 62.23 percent of the voting
shares of Washita Bancshares, Inc., Burns Flat, Oklahoma, and thereby
indirectly acquire Washita State Bank, Burns Flat, Oklahoma.
4. FIAB Holdings, Inc., San Francisco, California; to become a bank
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First
Indo-American Bank, San Francisco, California.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 30,
1993.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-122 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-121 FNB Financial Services, Inc., ESOP; Acquisition of Company Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-121]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
FNB Financial Services, Inc., ESOP; 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
January 28, 1993.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
1. FNB Financial Services, Inc., ESOP, Durant, Oklahoma; to acquire
FNB Capital Corporation, Inc., Durant, Oklahoma, and thereby engage in
direct lending activities pursuant to Sec. 225.25(b)(1) of the Board's
Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 30,
1993.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-121 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-117 Grant of Individual Exemptions; Tenneco, Inc., The General Employee Benefit Trust, et al.
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 602-605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-117]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 94-1, et al.; Exemption Application
No. D-9438, et al.]
Grant of Individual Exemptions; Tenneco, Inc., The General
Employee Benefit Trust, et al.
AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of
Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction
restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
Notices were published in the Federal Register of the pendency
before the Department of proposals to grant such exemptions. The
notices set forth a summary of facts and representations contained in
each application for exemption and referred interested persons to the
respective applications for a complete statement of the facts and
representations. The applications have been available for public
inspection at the Department in Washington, DC. The notices also
invited interested persons to submit comments on the requested
exemptions to the Department. In addition the notices stated that any
interested person might submit a written request that a public hearing
be held (where appropriate). The applicants have represented that they
have complied with the requirements of the notification to interested
persons. No public comments and no requests for a hearing, unless
otherwise stated, were received by the Department.
The notices of proposed exemption were issued and the exemptions
are being granted solely by the Department because, effective December
31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR
47713, October 17, 1978) transferred the authority of the Secretary of
the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary
of Labor.
Statutory Findings
In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part
2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon
the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:
(a) The exemptions are administratively feasible;
(b) They are in the interests of the plans and their participants
and beneficiaries; and
(c) They are protective of the rights of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plans.
Tenneco, Inc., The General Employee Benefit Trust (the GEBT) and Case
Corporation Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid Employees (the Plan) Located
in Houston, TX
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 94-1; Application No. D-9438]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections 406(a) and 406 (b)(1) and (b)(2) of
the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section
4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1) (A) through (E) of
the Code, shall not apply to the transfer of shares of common stock
(the Stock) of Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (Cummins) to the GEBT by
Tenneco, Inc. (Tenneco), the Plan sponsor, to reflect the contribution
of the Stock to the Plan, provided that: (a) The Stock is valued at its
fair market value as of the date of contribution by a qualified,
independent appraiser; (b) the contribution of the Stock is approved on
behalf of the Plan by a qualified, independent fiduciary; (c) the
GEBT's continued holding of the Stock is monitored by a qualified,
independent fiduciary; (d) the GEBT's independent fiduciary will
monitor and enforce the conditions of the exemption and take whatever
action is necessary to protect the GEBT's rights, including, but not
limited to, the enforcement of a legally enforceable contribution
obligation (the Contribution Obligation) as described in the Notice of
Proposed Exemption, which will remain in force for as long as the GEBT
continues to hold any shares of the Stock; and (e) the Contribution
Obligation is secured by a letter of credit issued by a bank approved
by the GEBT's independent, qualified fiduciary.
Comments
In the Notice of Proposed Exemption, the Department invited
interested persons to submit written comments and requests for a
hearing on the exemption. All comments and requests for hearing were
due by December 20, 1993. The Department received over 100 telephone
inquiries from interested persons who expressed concern over the
effect, if any, of the transaction on their pension benefits. These
inquiries were responded to by a Department representative who informed
the callers that the transaction does not affect the calculation of
pension benefits or the Plan's obligation to make benefit payments.
The Department received a total of 29 written comments with only
one of those comments containing a request for a hearing.\1\ Nine
commentators stated that they did not understand the proposed exemption
or how it would affect their pensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Because the exemption provides relief from section 406(b) of
the Act, 29 CFR 2570.46 of the Department's regulations provides
that the Department in its discretion may convene a hearing if
requested by interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining commentators were opposed to the granting of the
exemption. The comments addressed 17 general areas of concern about the
proposed transaction. The concerns are summarized as follows:
1. Questions about the correct value of Cummins Stock, including a
question about the discrepancy between the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) price quoted in the Notice and the price quoted in a national
newspaper on December 2, 1993.
2. Concerns that the restrictions on the Stock make the Stock less
valuable and increase the risk that the Plan will not be able to
dispose of the Stock in the future.
3. Concerns about the wisdom of investing this much of the GEBT's
assets in one company.
4. Assertions that Tenneco would not be able to stand behind its
obligation under the Contribution Obligation based on its history of
financial troubles.
5. Concern that the letter of credit proposes to protect only 20%
of the value of the Stock, leaving 80% at risk.
6. A request that Tenneco fully fund all of its pension
liabilities.
7. A request that Tenneco guarantee the value of the Stock to be
contributed to the GEBT.
8. Questions about the possibility that the transaction will
decrease the amount of pension payments to participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan.
9. Concerns over changes in retiree medical benefits.
10. Questions regarding the wisdom of allowing Tenneco to
contribute Cummins stock to the GEBT since, according to the
commentator, Tenneco owns Cummins.
11. Comments indicating that the Plan participants would prefer to
receive cash contributions rather than stock.
12. Allegations that individuals who would be affected by the
proposed transaction have not received proper notice.
13. Questions concerning the independent fiduciary's alleged
determination that the Stock will experience no precipitous declines in
value in the future.
14. Confusion over the consequences for the GEBT of any decline in
value of the Stock.
15. Concern over the proper exercise of the voting and other
privileges applicable to shareholders of the Stock.
16. Questions about the guidelines for determining if and when to
adjust the amount of the letter of credit (or alternative collateral)
which secures the Contribution Obligation.
17. A request that Tenneco guarantee that the value of the
contribution will not be diminished by transaction costs when the Stock
is sold at some future date.
Responses to these comments were submitted by the applicant, on
behalf of both Tenneco and Woodbridge, the GEBT'S independent
fiduciary. These responses are summarized as follows, corresponding in
order to the comments listed above:
1. According to the applicant, subsequent to the publication of the
Notice of Proposed Exemption, Cummins had a 2 for 1 stock split which
accounts for the change in the price of the Stock as listed on the
NYSE.
2. The applicant notes that after a review of the Stock's past
performance, Woodbridge has determined that the Stock is a prudent
investment for the Plan despite the restrictions on transferability.
Furthermore, the applicant states that the Stock's value has been
determined by an independent appraisal company, taking the restrictions
into account. Finally, the applicant notes that the restrictions on
transfer of the Stock will expire in July, 1996.
3. The applicant explains that once the Stock is contributed to the
GEBT, it will represent only 5.65% of the assets of the GEBT. In
addition, because each of the Affected Plans has an undivided interest
in the assets of the GEBT, no single plan will hold all of the Stock.
4. The applicant asserts that Standard & Poors and Moody's rating
of Tenneco debt as investment grade, as well as Tenneco's recent sale
of $1 billion of equity, are indications that Tenneco is a viable
company. The applicant again notes that the proposed transaction is
backed by the judgment of Woodbridge as independent fiduciary, by the
independent appraisal of the Stock and by the letter of credit in the
amount of 20% of the value of the Stock.
5. The applicant represents that due to Tenneco's financial
condition, as described in 4. above, a letter of credit in the amount
of 20% of the value of the Stock is sufficient to protect the interests
of the GEBT. The applicant represents that the face value of the letter
of credit is approximately $32,000,000. The applicant also represents
that Tenneco's financial condition is good and that its credit-
worthiness is adequate security for the unsecured portion of the
Contribution Obligation.
6. According to the applicant, the contribution of the Stock to the
GEBT is part of an overall strategy to ensure that the Tenneco Plans
will be fully funded.
7. The applicant represents that the Contribution Obligation
assumed by Tenneco guarantees the value of the contribution since
Tenneco is required to make a cash contribution to the GEBT to
compensate for any loss in the value of the Stock in any calendar
quarter. Furthermore, the Contribution Obligation is secured by a
letter of credit issued by a major bank in the amount of 20% of the
value of the Stock.
8. The applicant responds by explaining that all plans invested in
the GEBT are defined benefit plans, the benefits of which are not
affected by the investment performance of plan assets.
9. Retiree medical benefits are not relevant to the proposed
exemption.
10. Tenneco does not own Cummins. The applicant represents that
Tenneco owns less than 10% of Cummins' stock.
11. The applicant represents that the contribution of the Stock to
the GEBT is essentially the same as a cash contribution to the GEBT
followed by a purchase of Cummins' stock by the GEBT. In addition, the
applicant states that maintaining the Plan assets primarily in
uninvested cash would be a breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The
applicant further states that the GEBT will at all times maintain
sufficient liquid assets to pay benefits when due.
The applicant also represents that the Stock is not replacing cash
or other assets in the GEBT; rather, the Stock is being contributed in
addition to the assets already held in the GEBT. According to the
applicant, the contribution of Stock enables Tenneco to accelerate the
time at which the GEBT will receive contributions.
12. The applicant represents that it has complied with all
applicable notice requirements. An authorized representative of Tenneco
has provided the Department with a declaration under penalty of perjury
attesting to the truth of the information regarding Tenneco's notice to
interested persons as required by the Department's regulations (see 29
CFR 2570.43). In addition, in response to information indicating that
several interested persons in and around Hutchinson, Kansas had not
received proper notice of the proposed exemption, the applicant
represents that notice was again provided to people in the Hutchinson
area.
13. The applicant explains that, contrary to the commentator's
assertion, Woodbridge has not made any such determination but has
concluded that the Stock is a prudent investment for the GEBT, based in
part on the Stock's market history over the past 3 years. In addition,
Woodbridge has determined that any decline in value of the Stock would
be adequately compensated for by the Contribution Obligation.
14. The applicant asserts that the Contribution Obligation ensures
that the value of the stock contribution will remain the same even if
the value of the Stock decreases. The applicant explains that, if, for
example, the Stock is valued at $160,000,000 on the date of
contribution to the Plan and, over the course of a year the price
drops, Tenneco would be obligated, over the course of that year, on a
quarterly basis, to contribute cash so that the value of the Stock plus
the aggregate amounts of cash contributed pursuant to the Contribution
Obligation equals $160,000,000. It is represented, therefore, that the
value of the intial contribution will never be diminished.
15. The applicant responds by explaining that Woodbridge, acting in
its capacity as independent fiduciary, will exercise the stock voting
rights and the right to designate a person to the Cummins Board of
Directors, pursuant to the direction of the GEBT's Investment
Committee; provided, that Woodbridge may decline to designate the
Investment Committee's choice if it determines that to do so is in the
GEBT's best interests.
16. The applicant states that the determination regarding the
increase in the amount of the letter of credit or the need to provide
alternative collateral is a simple calculation based on the difference
between (a) the balance of the letter of credit and (b) the product of
the number of shares of the Stock held by the GEBT, the contribution
price of the Stock and 20%.
17. The applicant explains that the Contribution Obligation will be
in effect when the Stock is sold in the future. According to the
applicant, if the Stock is sold at a loss, any transaction costs would
be accounted for by the Contribution Obligation which would require
Tenneco to contribute an amount equal to the number of shares sold,
multiplied by the difference between the realized net price and the
Lowest Price (see paragraph 5 in the Notice of Proposed Exemption). If
the Stock is sold at a gain, the GEBT would bear the transaction costs.
The applicant represents that it is customary for pension plans to bear
such transaction costs in similar circumstances.
Only one of the interested persons who commented on the proposed
exemption requested a public hearing, although several others indicated
that they wished to be notified if a hearing was scheduled. The
Department has considered the concerns expressed by the commentators
and the applicant's written responses addressing such concerns, and, on
the basis of the materials provided, has determined not to hold a
public hearing. Furthermore, after giving full consideration to the
entire record, including the written comments and the responses
thereto, the Department has decided to grant the exemption.
Finally, the applicant has informed the Department that it intends
to enter into the transaction on December 29, 1993, and requests that
the exemption be made effective as of that date. The Department concurs
with this suggested modification.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption refer to
the Notice of Proposed Exemption published on November 15, 1993, at 58
FR 60217.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This exemption is effective December 29, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Virginia J. Miller of the
Department, telephone (202) 219-8971. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Lakeshore Foods Corp. Retirement Savings Plan (the Plan) Located in
Michigan City, Indiana
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 94-2; Exemption Application No. D-
9441]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the
Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of
the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) of through (E) of the
Code, shall not apply to (1) past and proposed interest-free loans to
the Plan (the Loans) by Lakeshore Foods Corporation, the sponsor of the
Plan, with respect to guaranteed investment contracts number C90816 and
number C91096 (the GICs) issued by Inter-American Insurance Company of
Illinois (Inter-American); and (2) the Plan's potential repayment of
the Loans (the Repayments); provided that the following conditions are
satisfied:
(A) No interest and/or expenses are paid by the Plan;
(B) The Loans are made to reimburse the Plan for amounts invested
with Inter-American under the terms of the GICs;
(C) The Repayments are restricted to cash proceeds paid to the Plan
(the GIC Proceeds) by Inter-American and/or any other responsible third
party with respect to the GICs, and no other Plan assets are used to
make the Repayments;
(D) Any GIC Proceeds received by the Plan are applied first to make
the Plan whole with respect to the Guaranteed Amount (as defined in the
Notice of Proposed Exemption), and thereafter to repay the Loans; and
(E) The Repayments will be waived to the extent the Loans exceed
the GIC Proceeds.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to
the notice of proposed exemption published on October 29, 1993 at 58 FR
58197.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This exemption is effective as of December 23, 1992.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Willett of the Department,
telephone (202) 219-8881. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Goodman-Gable-Gould Company Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) Located
in Baltimore, Maryland
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 94-3; Exemption Application No. D-
9498]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the
Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of
the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code,
shall not apply to (1) a loan of up to $250,000 (the Loan) by the Plan
to the Office Property Joint Venture (OPJV), a party in interest with
respect to the Plan; and (2) the personal guarantees of OPJV's
obligations under the Loan by William A Goodman, Harvey M. Goodman,
Lawrence H. Goodman, and Myron Schwartz, each of whom is a party in
interest with respect to the Plan; provided the following conditions
are satisfied:
(A) All terms of the Loan are at least as favorable to the Plan as
those which the Plan could obtain in an arm's-length transaction with
an unrelated party;
(B) For the duration of the Loan, the principal balance of the Loan
does not exceed twenty-five percent of the net assets of the Plan at
any time;
(C) For the duration of the Loan, the Plan's interests with respect
to the Loan are represented by Barry C. Greenberg, an independent
fiduciary who will monitor and enforce the OPJV's compliance with the
Loan terms and the conditions of this exemption; and
(D) Upon the making of the Loan and for its duration, the Loan is
secured by a perfected lien on real property having a fair market value
of no less than 150% of the outstanding principal balance of the Loan.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to
the notice of proposed exemption published on November 10, 1993 at 58
FR 59738.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Willett of the Department,
telephone (202) 219-8881. (This is not a toll-free number.)
General Information
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code
does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified
person from certain other provisions to which the exemptions does not
apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section
404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to
discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in
accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the
requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate
for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) These exemptions are supplemental to and not in derogation of,
any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or
administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the
fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory
exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of these exemptions is subject to the express
condition that the material facts and representations contained in each
application are true and complete and accurately describe all material
terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption. In the
case of continuing exemption transactions, if any of the material facts
or representations described in the application change after the
exemption is granted, the exemption will cease to apply as of the date
of such change. In the event of any such change, application for a new
exemption may be made to the Department.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of December, 1993.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations, Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 94-117 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-116 Proposed Exemptions; Avram A. Jacobson, M.D. Employee Profit Sharing Plan; The Avram A. Jacobson, M.D. Employee Money Purchase Pension Plan, Collectively
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 599-601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-116]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[Application No. D-9470 through D-9473]
Proposed Exemptions; Avram A. Jacobson, M.D. Employee Profit
Sharing Plan; The Avram A. Jacobson, M.D. Employee Money Purchase
Pension Plan, Collectively
AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed exemptions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains notices of pendency before the
Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from
certain of the prohibited transaction restriction of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
Written Comments and Hearing Requests
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or
request for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise
stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the
date of publication of this Federal Register Notice. Comments and
request for a hearing should state: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and (2)
the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in
which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A
request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and
include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the
hearing. A request for a hearing must also state the issues to be
addressed and include a general description of the evidence to be
presented at the hearing.
ADDRESSES: All written comments and request for a hearing (at least
three copies) should be sent to the Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5649, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. Attention: Application No. stated in each Notice of Proposed
Exemption. The applications for exemption and the comments received
will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
room N-5507, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all
interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the
Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the Federal
Register. Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed
exemption as published in the Federal Register and shall inform
interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing
(where appropriate).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed exemptions were requested in
applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in
29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4
of 1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17, 1978) transferred the authority of
the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested
to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed
exemption are issued solely by the Department.
The applications contain representations with regard to the
proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are
referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete
statement of the facts and representations.
Avram A. Jacobson, M.D. Employee Profit Sharing Plan (the Profit
Sharing Plan) and the Avram A. Jacobson, M.D. Employee Money Purchase
Pension Plan (the Money Purchase Plan; Collectively, the Plans) Located
in Beverly Hills, California
[Application Nos. D-9470 through D-9473]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the
authority of section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836,
32847, August 10, 1990). If the exemption is granted, the sanctions
resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code by reason of
section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the
proposed cash sale (the Sale) of certain works of art (the Art Work) by
the Plans to Avram A. Jacobson, M.D., a sole proprietor and
disqualified person with respect to the Plans.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Since Dr. Jacobson and his wife are the only participants in
the Plans, there is no jurisdiction under Title I of the Act
pursuant to 29 CFR 2510.3-3(b). However, there is jurisdiction under
the Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed exemption is conditioned upon the following
requirements: (1) The Sale is a one-time cash transaction; (2) the
Plans are not required to pay any commissions, costs or other expenses
in connection with this transaction; (3) the Art Work is appraised by
qualified, independent appraisers; (4) the sale price for the Art Work
reflects the greater of either: (a) The original amount paid by the
Plans at the time of acquisition; or (b) its fair market value on the
date of the Sale; and (5) within ninety days of the publication in the
Federal Register of the grant of this notice of proposed exemption, Dr.
Jacobson will file Forms 5330 with the Internal Revenue Service (the
Service) and pay all applicable excise taxes that are due by reason of
the past prohibited transactions.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. The Plans are a profit sharing plan and a money purchase pension
plan, which as of December 31, 1992, had total assets of $1,642,180 and
$960,643 respectively. Dr. Jacobson is the 100 percent owner of Avram
A. Jacobson, M.D. (the Employer), a sole proprietorship and the
sponsoring employer of the Plans. Dr. Jacobson maintains a pathology
practice in Beverly Hills, California. The only participants in the
Plans are Dr. Jacobson and his wife. The Trustee of the Plans is Dr.
Jacobson, who has sole investment discretion with respect to the assets
of the Plans.
2.The Profit Sharing Plan owns three works of contemporary art and
the Money Purchase Pension Plan owns one work of mixed media art,
collectively known as the Art Work. The Art Work was purchased for a
cash amount of $685,000 by the Plans from unrelated parties with
respect to Dr. Jacobson, the Employer, or the Plans. To date, the Plans
have not incurred any costs associated with acquisition and holding of
the Art Work. A description of the Art Work is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of
Plan Title Artist purchase Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSP................... ``Untitled''............... M. Merz.................... 10/6/89 $135,000
PSP................... ``Grau''................... G. Richter................. 11/9/89 150,000
MPPP.................. ``Pau''.................... F. Stella.................. 5/1/86 180,000
PSP................... ``Fouffi Noutti in Hell''.. J. Schnabel................ 5/18/93 220,000
---------------
Total............. ........................... ........................... .............. 685,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Following its acquisition, the Art Work has been in the
possession of Dr. Jacobson at his residence located at 630 N. Sierra
Drive, Beverly Hills, California. During a 1993 audit, the Service
determined that Dr. Jacobson had engaged in prohibited transactions
with the Plans by reason of his use of the Art Work for the years 1989
and 1990.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The Department notes that in 1987 the Profit Sharing Plan
purchased a third party note for cash form the Norman L. Jacobson,
M.D., P.A. Profit Sharing plan, the sole participant and trustee of
which is Dr. Jacobson's brother, Norman L. Jacobson. In 1993, the
Profit Sharing Plan sold the note back to the Norman L. Jacobson,
M.D., P.A. Profit Sharing Plan for cash. The Department is not
granting an exemption for such purchase and sale and is expressing
no opinion as to whether the purchase and sale of such note
constitutes a violation of any provision of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jacobson represents that he will file Forms 5330 with the
Service and pay the applicable excise taxes associated the past
prohibited transactions within ninety days of the publication in the
Federal Register of the notice granting this proposed exemption. In
addition, Dr. Jacobson will pay the Plans the fair market rental value
in the amount of approximately $90,000 for his use of the Art Work for
years 1989 through 1993. Excise taxes will accrue for the period
between 1989 and 1993.
4. At present, the Art Work has produced no income for the Plans.
In order to enable the Plans to divest themselves of the Art Work and
to invest in income-producing, marketable securities, Dr. Jacobson
proposes to purchase the Art Work from the Plans for a cash amount
equal to the aggregate of the greater of either: (a) The original
amount paid by the Plan at the time of acquisition; or (b) its fair
market value on the date of the Sale. Accordingly, Dr. Jacobson
requests an administrative exemption from the Department to permit his
purchase of the Art Work from the Plans under the terms and conditions
described herein.
5. The Art Work has been valued by two separate, independent,
qualified appraisers, Arline Edelbaum and Jacqueline Silverman, both
the Los Angeles, California. Ms. Edelbaum is a senior member of the
American Society of Appraisers and has nineteen years experience in
appraising fine arts and personal property. Ms. Silverman is a
certified member of Appraisers Association of America and has fifteen
years experience in appraising modern and contemporary art. Both
appraisers represent that they are unrelated to and independent of Dr.
Jacobson. Ms. Edelbaum and Ms. Silverman's valuations of the Art Work
as of June 28, 1993 and June 22, 1993, respectively, are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan Work Purchase price Edelbaum Silverman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSP.......................... ``Untitled''..................... $135,000 $135,000 $120,000
PSP.......................... ``Grau''......................... 150,000 165,000 150,000
MPPP......................... ``Pau''.......................... 180,000 275,000 275,000
PSP.......................... ``Fouffi Noutti in Hell''........ 220,000 165,000 175,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because their fair market values are less than or equal to their
original purchase price, ``Untitled'' and ``Fouffi Noutti in Hell''
will be purchased by Dr. Jacobson for their original purchase prices of
$135,000 and $220,000, respectively. In addition, Dr. Jacobson will
purchase ``Grau for $165,000, which reflects its higher fair market
valuation as determined by Ms. Edelbaum. Finally, Dr. Jacobson will
purchase ``Pau'' for $275,000, which reflects its fair market value as
determined by both appraisers. Dr. Jacobson proposes to purchase the
Art Work for an aggregate cash purchase price of $795,000.
6. In summary, it is represented that the proposed transactions
will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section
4975(c)(2) of the Code because: (a) The Sale will be a one-time cash
transaction; (b) the Plan will not be required to pay any commissions,
costs or other expenses in connection with this transaction; (c) the
Art Work will be appraised by a qualified, independent appraiser; (d)
the sale price for the Art Work will reflect the greater of either: (1)
The original amount paid by the Plan at the time of acquisition; or (2)
its fair market value on the date of the Sale; and (e) within ninety
days of the publication in the Federal Register of the grant of this
notice of proposed exemption, Dr. Jacobson will file Forms 5330 with
the Service) and pay all applicable excise taxes that are due by reason
of the past prohibited transactions.
Notice to Interested Persons
Since Dr. Jacobson and his wife are the only participants in the
Plan, it has been determined that there is no need to distribute the
notice of the proposed exemption to interested persons. Comments are
due thirty days after publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathryn Parr of the Department,
telephone (202) 219-8971. (This is not a toll-free number.)
General Information
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code
does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest of disqualified
person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption
does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of
section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to
discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in
accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the act; nor does it affect the
requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate
for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the
Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find
that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of
the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries and protective of
the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be supplemental to,
and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the
Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional
rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an
administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the
transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be subject to the
express condition that the material facts and representations contained
in each application are true and complete and accurately describe all
material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the
exemption. In the case of continuing exemption transactions, if any of
the material facts or representations described in the application
change after the exemption is granted, the exemption will cease to
apply as of the date of such change. In the event of any such change,
application for a new exemption may be made to the Department.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of December, 1993.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations, Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 94-116 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-115 Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 601-602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-115]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Exemption
In the matter of Kalon L. Kelley IRA and Karen R. Kelley IRA
(the IRAs), located in Santa Barbara, California [Exemption
Application Nos. D-9167 and D-9168]
In the Federal Register dated December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66031/
66032), the Department of Labor (the Department) published a notice of
proposed exemption from certain taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. The notice of proposed exemption concerned the
prospective cash sale of certain commercial real property (the
Property) by the IRAs to Kalon L. Kelley and Karen R. Kelley (the
Applicants), disqualified persons with respect to the IRAs.
On December 17, 1993, the applicant informed the Department that it
wished to withdraw the notice of proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed exemption is hereby withdrawn.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of December, 1993.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Pension and Welfare
Benefits Administration, Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 94-115 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-113 Newspapers To Be Used for Publication of Notice on Proposed Actions for Southern Region; Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 561-563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-113]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 3
Wednesday, January 5, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Newspapers To Be Used for Publication of Notice on Proposed
Actions for Southern Region; Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Responsible Officials in the Southern Region will publish
notice of proposed actions under 36 CFR part 215 in the newspapers that
are listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. As
provided in 36 CFR 215.5(a), the public shall be advised, through
Federal Register notice, of the principal newspapers to be utilized for
publishing notices on proposed actions.
DATES: Use of these newspapers for purposes of publishing notices of
proposed actions under 36 CFR part 215 shall begin on or after January
5, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jena Paul Kruglewicz, Regional Appeals
Coordinator, Southern Region, Planning and Budget, 1720 Peachtree Road,
NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30367-9102, Phone: 404-347-4867.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Responsible Officials in the Southern Region
will give notice of proposed actions under 36 CFR part 215 in the
following principal newspapers which are listed by Forest Service
administrative unit. The timeframe for comment shall be based on the
date of publication of the notice of the proposed action in the
principal newspaper.
Southern Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forest
System lands in more than one state of the 13 states of the Southern
Region and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Atlanta Journal, published daily in Atlanta, GA
Southern Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forest
System lands in only one state of the 13 states of the Southern Region
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will appear in the principal
newspaper elected by the National Forest(s) of that state.
National Forests in Alabama, Alabama Forest Supervisor Decisions
Montgomery Advertiser, published daily in Montgomery, AL
District Rangers Decisions
Bankhead Ranger District: Northwest Alabamian, published weekly (Monday
& Thursday) in Haleyville, AL
Conecuh Ranger District: The Andalusia Star, published daily (Tuesday
through Saturday) in Andalusia, AL
Oakmulgee Ranger District, The Tuscaloosa News, published daily in
Tuscaloosa, AL
Shoal Creek Ranger District: The Anniston Star, published daily in
Anniston, AL
Talladega Ranger District: The Daily Home, published daily in
Talladega, AL
Tuskegee Ranger District: Tuskegee News, published weekly (Thursday) in
Tuskegee, AL
Caribbean National Forest, Puerto Rico Forest Supervisor Decisions
El Nuevo Dia, published daily in Spanish in San Juan, PR
District Ranger Decisions
El Horizonte, published weekly (Wednesday) in Fajardo, PR
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, Georgia Forest Supervisor
Decisions
The Times, published daily in Gainesville, GA
District Ranger Decisions
Armuchee Ranger District: Walker County Messenger, published bi-weekly
(Wednesday & Friday) in LaFayette, GA
Toccoa Ranger District: The News Observer published weekly (Wednesday)
in Blue Ridge, GA
Chestatee Ranger District: Dahlonega Nugget, published weekly
(Thursday) in Dahlonega, GA
Brasstown Ranger District: North Georgia News, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Blairsville, GA
Tallulah Ranger District: Clayton Tribune, published weekly (Wednesday)
in Clayton, GA
Chattooga Ranger District: Northeast Georgian, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Clarksville, GA
Cohutta Ranger District: Chatsworth Times, published weekly (Tuesday)
in Chatsworth, GA
Oconee Ranger District: Monticello News, published weekly (Thursday) in
Monticello, GA
Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Forest Supervisor Decisions
Knoxville News Sentinel, published daily in Knoxville, TN (covering
McMinn, Monroe, and Polk Counties)
Johnson City Press, published daily in Johnson City, TN (covering
Carter, Cocke, Greene, Johnson, Sullivan, Unicoi and Washington
Counties)
District Rangers Decisions
Ocoee Ranger District: Polk County News, published weekly (Wednesday)
in Benton, TN
Hiwassee Ranger District: Daily Post-Athenian, published daily (Monday-
Friday) in Athens, TN
Tellico Ranger District: Monroe County Advocate, published weekly
(Thursday) in Sweetwater, TN
Nolichucky Ranger District: Greeneville Sun, published daily (Monday-
Saturday) in Greeneville, TN
Unaka Ranger District: Johnson City Press, published daily in Johnson
City, TN
Watauga Ranger District: Elizabethton Star, published daily (Sunday-
Friday) in Elizabethton, TN
Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky Forest Supervisor Decisions
Lexington Herald-Leader, published daily in Lexington, KY
District Rangers Decisions
Morehead Ranger District: Morehead News, published bi-weekly (Tuesday
and Friday) in Morehead, KY
Stanton Ranger District: The Clay City Times, published weekly
(Thursday) in Clay City, KY
Berea Ranger District: Jackson County Sun, published weekly (Thursday)
in McKee, KY
London Ranger District: The Sentinel-Echo, published tri-weekly
(Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) in London, KY
Somerset Ranger District: Commonwealth-Journal, published daily (Sunday
through Friday) in Somerset, KY
Stearns Ranger District: McCreary County Record, published weekly
(Tuesday) in Whitley City, KY
Redbird Ranger District: Manchester Enterprise, published weekly
(Thursday) in Manchester, KY
National Forests in Florida, Florida Forest Supervisor Decisions
The Tallahassee Democrat, published daily in Tallahassee, FL
District Rangers Decisions
Apalachicola Ranger District: The Weekly Journal, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Bristol, FL
Lake George Ranger District: The Ocala Star Banner, published daily in
Ocala, FL
Osceola Ranger District: The Lake City Reporter, published daily
(Monday-Saturday) in Lake City, FL
Seminole Ranger District: The Daily Commercial, published daily in
Leesburg, FL
Wakulla Ranger District: The Tallahassee Democrat, published daily in
Tallahassee, FL
Francis Marion & Sumter National Forest, South Carolina Forest
Supervisor Decisions
The State, published daily in Columbia, SC
District Rangers Decisions
Enoree Ranger District: Newberry Observer, published tri-weekly
(Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) Newberry, SC
Andrew Pickens Ranger District: Seneca Journal and Tribune, published
bi-weekly (Wednesday and Friday) in Seneca, SC
Long Cane Ranger District: Index-Journal, published daily (Sunday
through Friday) in Greenwood, SC
Wambaw Ranger District: News and Courier, published daily in
Charleston, SC
Witherbee Ranger District: News and Courier, published daily in
Charleston, SC
Tyger Ranger District: The State, published daily in Columbia, SC
Edgefield Ranger District: Augusta Chronicle, published daily in
Augusta, GA
George Washington National Forest, Virginia Forest Supervisor
Decisions
Daily News Record, published daily in Harrisonburg, VA
District Rangers Decisions
Lee Ranger District: Shenandoah Valley Herald, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Woodstock, VA
Warm Springs Ranger District: The Recorder, published weekly (Thursday)
in Monterey, VA
Pedlar Ranger District: News-Gazette, published weekly (Wednesday) in
Lexington, VA
James River Ranger District: Virginian Review, published daily in
Covington, VA
Deerfield Ranger District: Daily News Leader, published daily in
Staunton, VA
Dry River Ranger District: Daily News Record, published daily in
Harrisonburg, VA
Jefferson National Forest, Virginia Forest Supervisor Decisions
Roanoke Times & World-News, published daily in Roanoke, VA
District Rangers Decisions
Blacksburg Ranger District: Roanoke Times & World-News, published daily
in Roanoke, VA
Glenwood Ranger District: Roanoke Times & World-News, published daily
in Roanoke, VA
New Castle Ranger District: Roanoke Time & World-News, published daily
in Roanoke, VA
Mount Rogers National Recreation Area: Bristol Herald Courier,
published daily in Bristol, VA
Clinch Ranger District: Kingsport-Times News, published daily in
Kingsport, TN
Wythe Ranger District: Southwest Virginia Enterprise, published bi-
weekly (Wednesday and Saturday) in Wytheville, VA
Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana Forest Supervisor Decisions
Alexandria Daily Town Talk, published daily in Alexandria, LA
District Ranger Decisions
Caney Ranger District: Minden Press Herald, published daily in Minden,
LA
Catahoula Ranger District: Alexandria Daily Town Talk, published daily
in Alexandria, LA
Evangeline Ranger District: Alexandria Daily Town Talk, published daily
in Alexandria, LA
Kisatchie Ranger District: Natchitoches Times, published bi-weekly
(Sunday and Wednesday) in Natchitoches, LA
Vernon Ranger District: Leesville Leader, published daily in Leesville,
LA
Winn Ranger District: Winn Parish Enterprise, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Winnfield, LA
National Forests in Mississippi, Mississippi Forest Supervisor
Decisions
Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS
District Ranger Decisions
Bienville Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson,
MS
Biloxi Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS
Black Creek Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in
Jackson, MS
Bude Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS
Chickasawhay Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in
Jackson, MS
Delta Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS
Holly Springs Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in
Jackson, MS
Homochitto Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson,
MS
Strong River Ranger District: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in
Jackson, MS
Tombigbee Ranger District; Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson,
MS
Ashe-Erambert Project: Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS
National Forests in North Carolina, North Carolina Forest Supervisor
Decisions
The Asheville Citizen-Times, published daily in Asheville, NC
District Ranger Decisions
Cheoah Ranger District: Graham Star, published weekly (Thursday) in
Robbinsville, NC
Croatan Ranger District: The Sun Journal, published weekly (Sunday
through Friday) in New Bern, NC
French Broad District: The Asheville Citizen-Times, published daily in
Asheville NC
Grandfather District; McDowell News, published daily in Marion, NC
Highlands Ranger District: The Highlander, published weekly (May-Oct
Tues & Fri; Oct-April Tues only) in Highlands, NC
Pisgah Ranger District: The Asheville Citizen-Times, published daily in
Asheville, NC
Toecane Ranger District: The Asheville Citizen-Times, published daily
in Asheville, NC
Tusquitee Ranger District: Cherokee Scout, published weekly (Wednesday)
in Murphy, NC
Uwharrie Ranger District: Montgomery Herald, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Troy, NC
Wayah Ranger District: The Franklin Press, published tri-weekly
(Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) in Franklin, NC
Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas, Oklahoma Forest Supervisor
Decisions
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in Little Rock, AR
District Ranger Decisions
Caddo Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in
Little Rock, AR
Cold Springs Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published
daily in Little Rock, AR
Fourche Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in
Little Rock, AR
Jessieville Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily
in Little Rock, AR
Mena Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in
Little Rock, AR
Oden Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in
Little Rock, AR
Poteau Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in
Little Rock, AR
Winona Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in
Little Rock, AR
Womble Ranger District: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, published daily in
Little Rock, AR
Choctaw Ranger District: Tulsa World, published daily in Tulsa, OK
Kiamichi Ranger District: Tulsa World, published daily in Tulsa, OK
Tiak Ranger District: Tulsa World, published daily in Tulsa, OK
Ozark-St. Francis National Forest: Arkansas Forest Supervisor Decisions
Courier-Democrat, published daily (Sunday through Friday) in
Russellville, AR
District Ranger Decisions
Sylamore Ranger District: Stone County Leader, published weekly
(Tuesday) in Mountain View, AR
Buffalo Ranger District: Newton County Times, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Jasper, AR
Bayou Ranger District: Courier-Democrat, published daily (Sunday
through Friday) in Russellville, AR
Pleasant Hill Ranger District: Johnson County Graphic, published weekly
(Wednesday) in Clarksville, AR
Boston Mountain Ranger District: Southwest Times Record, published
daily in Fort Smith, AR
Magazine Ranger District: Southwest Times Record, published daily in
Fort Smith, AR
St. Francis Ranger District: The Daily World, published daily (Sunday
through Friday) in Helena, AR
National Forests in Texas, Texas Forest Supervisor Decisions
The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in Lufkin, TX
District Rangers Decisions
Angelina Ranger District: The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in
Lufkin, TX
San Jacinto Ranger District: The Houston Post, published daily in
Houston, TX
Neches Ranger District: The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in
Lufkin, TX
Raven Ranger District: The Courier, published daily in Conroe, TX
Tenaha Ranger District: The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in
Lufkin, TX
Trinity Ranger District: The Lufkin Daily News, published daily in
Lufkin, TX
Yellowpine Ranger District: The Beaumont Enterprise, published daily in
Beaumont, TX
Caddo-LBJ Ranger District--Caddo-LBJ National Grassland: Denton Record-
Chronicle, published daily in Denton, TX
Dated: December 28, 1993.
R.B. Erickson,
Deputy Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 94-113 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-112 Marine Mammals
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-112]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Marine Mammals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA, Commerce.
ACTION: Issuance of modifications to permit Nos. 657 (P77#31), 707
(P77#40) and 711 (P77#43).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on December 28, 1993, Permit Nos.
657, 707, and 711, issued to the Southwest Fisheries Science Center,
NMFS, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, California, were modified.
ADDRESSES: The modifications and related documents are available for
review upon written request or by appointment in the following
office(s):
Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West
Highway, suite 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/712-3389);
Director, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, suite 4200,
Long Beach, CA 90802, (310/980-4016); and
Marine Mammal Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, NMFS, 2570 Dole Street,
room 106, Honolulu, HI 96822 (808/955-8831).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modifications have been issued
under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1351 et seq.), the provisions of Secs. 216.33 (d)
and (e) of the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine
Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the provisions of Sec. 222.25 of
the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of
endangered fish and wildlife (50 CFR part 222).
Permit Nos. 657, 707, and 711 were modified to extend the effective
dates through December 31, 1994.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
William W. Fox, Jr.,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-112 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-109 Change in Discount Rate for Water Resources Planning
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 592-593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-109]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Change in Discount Rate for Water Resources Planning
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth that the discount rate to be used in
Federal water resources planning for fiscal year 1994 is 8 percent.
Water Resources Planning Act and Water Resources Development Act of
1974 requires an annual determination of a discount rate. Federal water
resources planning for fiscal year 1994 is 8 percent. Discounting is to
be used to convert future monetary values to present values.
DATES: This discount rate is to be used for the period October 1, 1993,
through and including September 30, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Norbert S. Ries, Special Programs Manager, Investigations and
Oversight Branch, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: D-5110,
Building 67, Denver Federal Center, Denver CO 80225-0007; telephone:
(303) 236-9336, extension 233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the interest
rate to be used by Federal agencies in the formulation and evaluation
of plans for water and related land resources is 8 percent for fiscal
year 1994.
This rate has been computed in accordance with section 80(a),
Public Law 93-251 (88 Stat. 34) and 18 CFR 704.39, which: (1) Specify
that the rate shall be based upon the average yield during the
preceding fiscal year on interest-bearing marketable securities of the
United States which, at the time the computation is made, have terms of
15 years or more remaining to maturity (average yield is rounded to
nearest one-eighth percent); and (2) provide that the rate shall not be
raised or lowered more than one-quarter of 1 percent for any year. The
Treasury Department calculated the specified average yield to be 7.08
percent. However, application of the above mentioned limitation to the
fiscal year 1993 rate of 8.25 percent limits the change in the fiscal
year 1994 rate to 8 percent.
The rate of 8 percent shall be used by all Federal agencies in the
formulation and evaluation of water and related land resources plans
for the purpose of discounting future benefits and computing costs, or
otherwise converting benefits and costs to a common time basis.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
Donald R. Glaser,
Deputy Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 94-109 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-107 Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-107]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Exemption
In the matter of Day Runner, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the Plan),
Located in Fullerton, California [Exemption Application No. D-9357]
In the Federal Register dated April 27, 1993 (58 FR 25661), the
Department of Labor (the Department) published a notice of proposed
exemption from the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and from certain taxes imposed
by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The notice of proposed exemption
concerned the proposed cash sale by the Plan to Day Runner, Inc. (the
Employer), the sponsor of the Plan, of a guaranteed investment
certificate issued by Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company of New
Jersey.
On December 16, 1993, the applicant informed the Department that it
did not wish to proceed with the exemption application procedure.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed exemption is hereby withdrawn.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of December, 1993.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Pension and Welfare
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 94-107 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-106 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 574-575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-106]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP94-149-000]
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; Application
December 29, 1993.
Take notice that on December 20, 1993, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (TGPL), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in
Docket No. CP94-149-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon a 652 horsepower
compressor unit and appurtenant facilities in Nueces County, Texas, all
as more fully set forth in the application on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection.
TGPL proposes to abandon by sale the compressor, which is located
at the interconnection between TGPL's Petronilla Lateral and the
pipeline system of Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas
Eastern) in Nueces County. It is stated that the compressor was
installed under Commission authorization in Docket No. CP80-533-000 by
order issued March 23, 1981. It is asserted that the compressor was
installed to alleviate capacity constraints on TGPL's Petronilla
Lateral so that TGPL could take delivery of up to 30,000 Mcf of gas per
day which was imported from Mexico at an existing delivery point with
Texas Eastern. It is explained that TGPL was purchasing gas from Border
Gas, Inc. for system supply purposes, but that TGPL has not purchased
gas under the gas purchase contract since December 1984 and does not
plan to resume such purchases. It is stated that the proposed
abandonment would have no impact on the daily design capacity or
operating conditions on TGPL's system. It is further stated that no
customers would lose service as a result of the proposed abandonment.
Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with
reference to said application should on or before January 7, 1994, file
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426,
a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).
All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to
make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any
hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter
finds that permission and approval for the proposed abandonment are
required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave
to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion
believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such
hearing will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised,
it will be unnecessary for TGPL to appear or be represented at the
hearing.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-106 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-103 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Midwest Securities Trust Company; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Limitation or Elimination of Directors' Liability
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 640-641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-103]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33379; File No. SR-MSTC-93-10]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Midwest Securities Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Limitation
or Elimination of Directors' Liability
December 23, 1993.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on August 27, 1993, the
Midwest Securities Trust Company (``MSTC'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
substantially by MSTC. MSTC amended the filing on October 6, 1993.\2\
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
\2\Letter from David T. Rusoff, Foley & Lardner, to Richard
Strasser (Attorney), Division of Market Regulation, Commission
(October 5, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
MSTC proposes to amend Article Ten of its Articles of Incorporation
and Article VI, Section 1 of its By-Laws to limit or eliminate the
potential monetary liability of its directors to the extent permitted
by the Illinois Business Corporation Act except where such liability is
the result of a violation of the federal securities laws.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, MSTC included statements
concerning the purpose of and statutory basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text
of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. MSTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
The proposal will limit or eliminate the potential monetary
liability of MSTC directors under certain circumstances. The proposed
change is based on Section 2.10(b)(3) of the Illinois Business
Corporation Act, under which MSTC is organized, which allows
corporations to adopt provisions in their articles of incorporation
that limit or eliminate the potential monetary liability of directors
under certain circumstances.
General corporate law imposes a fiduciary duty of care upon each
corporate director. This duty of care requires a director to exercise
informed business judgment in good faith and to act with an honest
believe that the action taken is in the best interest of the
corporation. The proposal will not eliminate an MSTC's director's duty
of care but will limit the personal liability of an MSTC director to
MSTC or its shareholders should the director fail through negligence or
gross negligence to satisfy his or her duty of care.\3\ Under Illinois
law, such limitations of personal liability do not apply in certain
situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\MSTC's proposal will limit a director's liability even if
that director had been grossly negligent provided that the director
exercised informed business judgment in good faith and acted with an
honest belief that the action taken was in the best interest of the
corporation. Because there has been no judicial interpretation on
the scope of the applicable Illinois legislation, it is possible
that an Illinois court may find as a matter of law that a director
cannot act in a manner that is both grossly negligent and in good
faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal will prohibit limitation of a director's liability in
instances where liability arises directly or indirectly as a result of
a violation of federal securities laws. The proposal will not eliminate
equitable remedies such as rescission or injunctive actions. Moreover,
it will not eliminate the liability of an officer of MSTC for actions
taken in that capacity even if the officer is also a director. Finally,
the proposal will not affect the liability of a director for acts or
omissions that occurred prior to approval of the proposal.
Limiting or eliminating directors' liability will help to ensure
that MSTC will be able to recruit and retain competent directors. Due
to the increased number and magnitude of lawsuits against directors,
many other corporations from various states already have adopted
provisions similar to those in MSTC's proposal.
The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A of the Act because it will remove an impediment to
attracting competent directors and thus will help assure the fair
representation of shareholders and participants in the selection of
directors and in the administration of MSTC's affairs.
(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
MSTC believes that no burden will be placed on competition as a
result of the proposed rule change.
(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No comments were solicited or received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
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 submissions, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of MSTC. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
MSTC-93-10 and should be submitted by January 26, 1994.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-103 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-101 Licensee Order To Show Cause
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 575-576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-101]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Licensee Order To Show Cause
The Chief, Audio Service Division, Mass Media Bureau, has before
him the following matter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM
Licensee City/state docket
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley College, Licensee of WCSP (AM)..... Crystal Springs, 93-306
MS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Regarding the silent status of Station WCSP(Am))
Pursuant to section 312(a) (3) and (4) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, Wesley College has been directed to show cause why
the license for Station WCSP(AM) should not be revoked, at a proceeding
in which the above matter has been designated for hearing concerning
the following issues:
1. To determine whether Wesley College has the capability and
intent to expeditiously resume broadcast operations of WCSP(AM)
consistent with the Commission's Rules.
2. To determine whether Wesley College has violated Secs. 73.1740
and/or 73.1750 of the Commission's Rules.
3. To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
forgoing issues, whether Wesley College is qualified to be and remain
the licensee of Station WCSP(AM).
A copy of the complete Show Cause Order and HDO in this proceeding
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Dockets Branch (room 320), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's
duplicating contractor, International Transcription Service, 2100 M
Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037 (telephone 202-857-3800).
Federal Communications Commission.
Stuart B. Bedell,
Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 94-101 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-100 Licensee Order to Show Cause
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-100]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Licensee Order to Show Cause
The Chief, Audio Service Division, Mass Media Bureau, has before
him the following matter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM
Licensee City/state docket
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keyboard Broadcasting Communication, Ripley, MS...... 93-317
Licensee of WCSA (AM).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Regarding the silent status of Station WCSA (AM))
Pursuant to section 312(a)(3) and (4) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, Keyboard Broadcasting Communication has been directed
to show cause why the license for Station WCSA (AM) should not be
revoked, at a proceeding in which the above matter has been designated
for hearing concerning the following issues:
1. To determine whether Keyboard Broadcasting Communication has the
capability and intent to expeditiously resume broadcast operations of
WCSA(AM) consistent with the Commission's Rules.
2. To determine whether Keyboard Broadcasting Communication has
violated Secs. 73.1740 and/or 73.1750 of the Commission's Rules.
3. To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
foregoing issues, whether Keyboard Broadcasting Communication is
qualified to be and remain the licensee of Station WCSA (AM).
A copy of the complete Show Cause Order and HDO in this proceeding
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Dockets Branch (room 320), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's
duplicating contractor, International Transcription Service, 2100 M
Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037 (telephone 202-857-3800).
Federal Communications Commission.
Stuart B. Bedell,
Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 94-100 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32116 Announcement of Extension of the Visa and Exempt Certification Arrangement Between the United States and India
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32116]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS
Announcement of Extension of the Visa and Exempt Certification
Arrangement Between the United States and India
December 30, 1993.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
ACTION: Announcing the extension of the visa and exempt certification
arrangement with India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Tallarico, International
Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of
Commerce, (202) 482-4212.
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 existing export visa and exempt certification arrangement
between the Governments of the United States and India has been
extended through January 31, 1994, as agreed in an exchange of letters
between the two Governments dated December 23 and 27, 1993. This notice
is to remind the public that the U.S. Customs Service must continue to
require visas and exempt certifications as previously published, for
textiles and textile products produced or manufctured in India, and
exported to the United States. Any cancellation of those requirements
will be announced in the Federal Register.
See 44 FR 68504 published on November 29, 1979.
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 93-32116 Filed 12-30-93; 4:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.