issue-1994-01-10•Federal Register notices — 1994-01-10
Federal Register notices — 1994-01-10
issue-1994-01-10Federal Register notices — 1994-01-10Notice
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 94-614 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-614]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 meetings during the week of
January 10, 1994.
An open meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 12, 1994, at
10:00 a.m., in Room 1C30. A closed meeting will be held on Thursday,
January 13, 1994, at 3:00 p.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 Beese, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the open meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
January 12, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., will be:
Consideration will be given to whether to propose for public
comment amendments to Form ADV and related rules under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that would require investment
advisers sponsoring wrap fee programs to prepare a separate
disclosure or ``brochure'' for wrap fee program clients, and specify
the information required in the brochure. For further information,
please contact Eric C. Freed at (202) 272-2107.
The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 13, 1994, at 3:00 p.m., will be:
Institution of injunctive actions.
Institution of administrative proceedings of an enforcement
nature.
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: Blair Thomas at (202) 272-2300.
Dated: January 6, 1994.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-614 Filed 1-6-94; 2:23 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-609 Soo Line Railroad Co.Trackage Rights Over a Line of Chicago, Central and Pacific Railroad Co. in Rockford, IL
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1407-1408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-609]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32446]
Soo Line Railroad Co.--Trackage Rights--Over a Line of Chicago,
Central and Pacific Railroad Co. in Rockford, IL
AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.
ACTION: Notice of exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission exempts from the prior approval requirements of
49 U.S.C. 11343-11345, the acquisition by Soo Line Railroad Company of
temporary overhead trackage rights over approximately 4 miles of
Chicago, Central and Pacific Railroad Company rail line in Rockford,
IL, subject to conditions.
DATES: The exemption became effective on January 6, 1994. Petitions to
reopen must be filed by January 31, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Finance Docket No. 32446 to: (1)
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce
Commission, Washington, DC 20423; and (2) petitioner's representatives,
Terence M. Hynes and Molly A. Meegan, Sidley & Austin, 1722 Eye Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard B. Felder (202) 927-5610; TDD
for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write
to, call or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., room 2229,
Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202)
289-4357/4359. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available
through TDD services (202) 927-5721.)
Decided: January 5, 1994.
By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Phillips,
Commissioners Simmons, and Philbin.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-609 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-595 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 1414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-595]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
Sunshine Act Meetings
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), U.S.C.
552b:
DATE AND TIME: January 12, 1994, 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Room 9306, Washington, DC 20426.
STATUS: Open.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
Note.--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Lois D. Cashell, Secretary,
Telephone (202) 208-0400. For a recording listing items stricken from
or added to the meeting, call (202) 208-1627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all papers relevant to the items on the
agenda; however, all public documents may be examined in the Reference
and Information Center.
Consent Agenda--Hydro, 992nd Meeting--January 12, 1994, Regular Meeting
(10:00 a.m.)
CAH-1.
Project No. 8369-024, Village of Saranac Lake
CAH-2.
Project No. 553-020, City of Seattle, Washington
CAH-3.
Project No. 8436-092, Smith Falls Hydropower
CAH-4.
Project No. 5223-021, International Falls Power Company
CAH-5.
Project No. 2519-004, Central Maine Power Company
Consent Agenda--Electric
CAE-1.
Docket No. ER93-985-000, New England Power Pool
CAE-2.
Docket No. ER94-129-000, Massachusetts Electric Company
CAE-3.
Docket No. ER94-166-000, Gulf States Utilities Company
CAE-4.
Docket No. ER94-52-000, Upper Peninsula Power Company
CAE-5.
Docket No. ER93-254-001, Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc.
CAE-6.
Docket No. EF93-5091-001, Western Area Power Administration
CAE-7.
Docket No. ER93-938-002, Southwestern Electric Power Company
CAE-8.
Docket No. ER92-183-003, Florida Power Corporation
CAE-9.
Docket No. ER93-219-001, Western Massachusetts Electric Company
CAE-10.
Docket No. QF90-143-002, Yuma Cogeneration Associates
CAE-11.
Docket No. ER93-251-001, Wisconsin Electric Power Company
CAE-12.
Omitted
CAE-13.
Omitted
CAE-14.
Omitted
CAE-15.
Docket No. EL92-41-000, Nevada Power Company
Consent Agenda--Oil and Gas
CAG-1.
Docket No. RS92-15-000, Equitrans, Inc.
CAG-2.
Docket No. RP94-80-000, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
CAG-3.
Docket Nos. RP93-56-003, RP93-86-003 and RP93-139-003,
Transwestern Pipeline Company
CAG-4.
Docket No. PR93-12-000, Dow Intrastate Gas Company
CAG-5.
Docket Nos. RP91-161-014, et al., RP92-3-000, et al., RP90-108-
016, RP91-82-008 and RS92-5-000, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation
Docket Nos. RP91-160-011, et al., RP92-2-000, et al., RP90-107-
013 and RS92-6-000, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company
CAG-6.
Docket Nos. RP93-192-002 and 004, Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation
CAG-7.
Docket No. RP94-63-000, Black Marlin Pipeline Company
CAG-8.
Docket No. RP94-77-000, Mojave Pipeline Company
CAG-9.
Docket Nos. RP92-104-008 and RP92-131-009, K N Energy, Inc.
CAG-10.
Docket Nos. RP91-224-012 and RP92-1-018, Northern Natural Gas
Company
CAG-11.
Docket No. IS94-4-001, All American Pipeline Company
CAG-12.
Docket Nos. RP85-203-013 and RP88-203-010, Panhandle Eastern
Pipe Line Company
Docket No. RP85-202-011, Trunkline Gas Company
Docket Nos. RP93-127-001, 002 and RP93-102-002, Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation
CAG-13.
Docket No. RP85-170-009, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation
CAG-14.
Docket No. RP85-181-006, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation
CAG-15.
Docket No. CP93-707-001, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation
CAG-16.
Docket No. CP92-459-001, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation
Docket No. CP92-460-001, Trunkline Gas Company
CAG-17.
Docket No. CP93-75-001, Sunrise Energy Company v. Transwestern
Pipeline Company
CAG-18.
Docket No. CP93-520-000, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation
CAG-19.
Docket No. CP93-183-000, Northern Natural Gas Company and
Continental Gas Storage, L.P.
CAG-20.
Docket No. CP93-304-000, Northern Natural Gas Company
CAG-21.
Docket No. CP92-508-000, Penn-York Energy Corporation and
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
CAG-22.
Omitted
CAG-23.
Docket No. CP93-750-000, Western Resources, Inc. and Southern
Union Company d/b/a Missouri Gas Energy
CAG-24.
Omitted
CAG-25.
Docket No. CP92-479-002, New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation
Docket No. CP93-36-001, North Penn Gas Company
CAG-26.
Docket Nos. RP93-151-000, 001, 002, 003, 005, RP94-39-000 and
001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Docket Nos. RP94-48-000, 001 and 002, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipe Line Company
CAG-27.
Omitted
CAG-28.
Docket No. RP94-35-002, Colorado Interstate Gas Company
Hydro Agenda
H-1.
Reserved
Electric Agenda
E-1.
Docket No. EC93-6-001, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company and PSI
Energy, Inc. Order on rehearing.
Oil and Gas Agenda
I. Pipeline Rate Matters
PR-1.
Reserved
II. Restructuring Matters
RS-1.
Omitted
RS-2.
Docket Nos. RS92-19-003, 004, 007, 008, RP92-104-000 and RP92-
131-000, K N Energy, Inc. Order on compliance and rehearing.
III. Pipeline Certificate Matters
PC-1.
Reserved
Dated: January 5, 1994.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-595 Filed 1-6-94; 11:37 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-571 Establishment of Import Restraint Limits for Certain Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in the People's Republic of China and Permanent Denial of Goods Exported in Excess of Import Restraint Limits in 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1385-1387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-571]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS
Establishment of Import Restraint Limits for Certain Cotton,
Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and
Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in the People's Republic of
China and Permanent Denial of Goods Exported in Excess of Import
Restraint Limits in 1994
January 5, 1994.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing
limits and notice of permanent denial of goods shipped in excess of the
1994 limits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Heinzen, International Trade
Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of
Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these
limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards
of each Customs port or call (202) 927-6703. For information on
embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended;
section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C.
1854).
Inasmuch as no agreement was reached in recent consultations
between the Governments of the United States and the People's Republic
of China on a mutually satisfactory solution regarding the extension of
the bilateral textile agreement, including quota limits, illegal
transshipment of textile products from China, overshipping annual
limits, and other violations of the provisions of the bilateral
agreement, the United States Government has decided to establish limits
for the period beginning on January 1, 1994 and extending through
December 31, 1994. The annual limits for January 1, 1994 through
December 31, 1994 shall be effective January 17, 1994.
It should be noted that CITA, under Executive Order 11651, as
amended, and section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended,
intends to permanently deny entry to goods which have been shipped in
excess of the 1994 limits.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS
numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories
with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal
Register notice 58 FR 62645, published on November 29, 1993).
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
January 5, 1994.
Commissioner of Customs,
Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20229.
Dear Commissioner: Under the terms of section 204 of the
Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); and in
accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11651 of March 3,
1972, as amended, you are directed to prohibit, effective on January
17, 1994, entry into the United States for consumption and
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool, man-made
fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile
products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in
China and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on
January 1, 1994 and extending through December 31, 1994, in excess
of the following levels of restraint:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Twelve-month restraint limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200................................ 463,566 kilograms.
218................................ 7,919,394 square meters.
219................................ 1,609,888 square meters.
226................................ 7,310,063 square meters.
237................................ 1,245,294 dozen.
239................................ 1,991,612 kilograms.
300/301............................ 2,694,290 kilograms.
313................................ 29,829,197 square meters.
314................................ 33,939,959 square meters.
315................................ 116,403,311 square meters.
317/326............................ 13,957,535 square meters of which
not more than 2,670,351 square
meters shall be in Category 326.
331................................ 3,539,461 dozen pairs.
333................................ 64,133 dozen.
334................................ 222,374 dozen.
335................................ 278,482 dozen.
336................................ 113,030 dozen.
338/339............................ 1,525,465 dozen of which not more
than 1,157,995 dozen shall be in
knit shirts other than T-shirts
and tank tops in Categories 338-S/
339-S\1\.
340................................ 603,342 dozen of which not more
than 301,671 dozen shall be in
shirts made from fabric with two
or more colors in the warp and/or
the filling, excluding napped
shirts in Category 340-Z\2\.
341................................ 482,186 dozen of which not more
than 289,312 dozen shall be in
blouses made from fabric with two
or more colors in the warp and/or
the filling in Category 341-Y\3\.
342................................ 188,380 dozen.
345................................ 83,037 dozen.
347/348............................ 1,556,789 dozen.
350................................ 109,122 dozen.
351................................ 354,168 dozen.
352................................ 1,159,137 dozen.
359-C\4\........................... 395,659 kilograms.
359-V\5\........................... 587,624 kilograms.
360................................ 5,073,230 numbers of which not more
than 3,460,433 numbers shall be in
Category 360-P\6\.
361................................ 2,864,699 numbers.
363................................ 21,823,736 numbers.
369-D\7\........................... 3,230,177 kilograms.
369-H\8\........................... 3,303,681 kilograms.
369-L\9\........................... 2,170,919 kilograms.
369-S\10\.......................... 395,021 kilograms.
410................................ 1,440,098 square meters of which
not more than 1,154,393 square
meters shall be Category 410-A\11\
and not more than 1,154,393 square
meters shall be in Category 410-
B\12\.
433................................ 16,947 dozen.
434................................ 9,656 dozen.
435................................ 17,736 dozen.
436................................ 11,036 dozen.
438................................ 19,312 dozen.
440................................ 27,590 dozen of which not more than
15,765 dozen shall be in Category
440-M\13\.
442................................ 30,743 dozen.
443................................ 99,320 numbers.
444................................ 147,656 numbers.
445/446............................ 184,452 dozen.
447................................ 57,398 dozen.
448................................ 16,135 dozen.
607................................ 2,169,081 kilograms.
611................................ 3,707,576 square meters.
613................................ 5,088,830 square meters.
614................................ 7,996,731 square meters.
615................................ 16,647,741 square meters.
617................................ 11,631,609 square meters.
631................................ 845,508 dozen pairs.
633................................ 38,564 dozen.
634................................ 419,550 dozen.
635................................ 438,256 dozen.
636................................ 386,545 dozen.
638/639............................ 1,738,928 dozen.
640................................ 1,067,699 dozen.
641................................ 960,852 dozen.
642................................ 220,625 dozen.
645/646............................ 530,970 dozen.
647................................ 1,109,833 dozen.
648................................ 792,968 dozen.
649................................ 619,581 dozen.
650................................ 77,894 dozen.
651................................ 530,873 dozen of which not more
than 93,464 dozen shall be in
Category 651-B\14\.
652................................ 1,776,617 dozen.
659-C\15\.......................... 281,050 kilograms.
659-H\16\.......................... 1,924,991 kilograms.
659-S\17\.......................... 414,247 kilograms.
669-P\18\.......................... 1,352,112 kilograms.
670-L\19\.......................... 10,761,357 kilograms.
831................................ 348,384 dozen pairs.
833................................ 18,439 dozen.
835................................ 87,104 dozen.
840................................ 338,840 dozen.
842................................ 184,388 dozen.
845................................ 1,567,105 dozen.
846................................ 121,724 dozen.
847................................ 898,893 dozen.
863-S\20\.......................... 6,336,219 numbers.
870................................ 21,638,621 kilograms.
Group II
330, 332, 349, 353, 354, 359-O\21\, 93,858,209 square meters
431, 432, 439, 459, 630,632, 643, equivalent.
653, 654 and 659-O\22\, as a group.
Sublevel in Group II
643................................ 353,211 numbers.
Group III
201, 220, 222-225, 227, 229, 362, 253,179,660 square meters
369-O\23\, 400, 414,464, 465, 469, equivalent.
600, 603, 604-O\24\, 606, 618-622,
624-629, 665, 666, 669-O\25\ and
670-O\26\, as a group.
Group IV
832, 834, 836, 838, 839, 843, 644/ 20,140,687 square meters
844, 850-852, 858 and 859, as equivalent.
agroup.
Sublevel in Group IV
644/844.......................... 2,554,380 numbers.
836.............................. 188,478 dozen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Categories 338-S/339-S: all HTS numbers except 6109.10.0012,
6109.10.0014, 6109.10.0018, 6109.10.0023, 6109.10.0040, 6109.10.0045,
6109.10.0060 and 6109.10.0065.
\2\Category 340-Z: only HTS numbers 6205.20.2015, 6205.20.2020,
6205.20.2050 and 6205.20.2060.
\3\Category 341-Y: only HTS numbers 6204.22.3060, 6206.30.3010,
6206.30.3030 and 6211.42.0054.
\4\Category 359-C: only HTS numbers 6103.42.2025, 6103.49.3034,
6104.62.1020, 6104.69.3010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052, 6203.42.2010,
6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010, 6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and
6211.42.0010.
\5\Category 359-V: only HTS numbers 6103.19.2030, 6103.19.4030,
6104.12.0040, 6104.19.2040, 6110.20.1022, 6110.20.1024, 6110.20.2030,
6110.20.2035, 6110.90.0044, 6110.90.0046, 6201.92.2010, 6202.92.2020,
6203.19.1030, 6203.19.4030, 6204.12.0040, 6204.19.3040, 6211.32.0070
and 6211.42.0070.
\6\Category 360-P: only HTS numbers 6302.21.1010, 6302.21.1020,
6302.21.2010, 6302.21.2020, 6302.31.1010, 6302.31.1020, 6302.31.2010
and 6302.31.2020.
\7\Category 369-D: only HTS numbers 6302.60.0010, 6302.91.0005 and
6302.91.0045.
\8\Category 369-H: only HTS numbers 4202.22.4020, 4202.22.4500 and
4202.22.8030.
\9\Category 369-L: only HTS numbers 4202.12.4000, 4202.12.8020,
4202.12.8060, 4202.92.1500, 4202.92.3015 and 4202.92.6090.
\10\Category 369-S: only HTS number 6307.10.2005.
\11\Category 410-A: only HTS numbers 5111.11.3000, 5111.11.7030,
5111.11.7060, 5111.19.2000, 5111.19.6020, 5111.19.6040, 5111.19.6060,
5111.19.6080, 5111.20.9000, 5111.30.9000, 5111.90.3000, 5111.90.9000,
5212.11.1010, 5212.12.1010, 5212.13.1010, 5212.14.1010, 5212.15.1010,
5212.21.1010, 5212.22.1010, 5212.23.1010, 5212.24.1010, 5212.25.1010,
5311.00.2000, 5407.91.0510, 5407.92.0510, 5407.93.0510, 5407.94.0510,
5408.31.0510, 5408.32.0510, 5408.33.0510, 5408.34.0510, 5515.13.0510,
5515.22.0510, 5515.92.0510, 5516.31.0510, 5516.32.0510, 5516.33.0510,
5516.34.0510 and 6301.20.0020.
\12\Category 410-B: only HTS numbers 5007.10.6030, 5007.90.6030,
5112.11.2030, 5112.11.2060, 5112.19.9010, 5112.19.9020, 5112.19.9030,
5112.19.9040, 5112.19.9050, 5112.19.9060, 5112.20.3000, 5112.30.3000,
5112.90.3000, 5112.90.9010, 5112.90.9090, 5212.11.1020, 5212.12.1020,
5212.13.1020, 5212.14.1020, 5212.15.1020, 5212.21.1020, 5212.22.1020,
5212.23.1020, 5212.24.1020, 5212.25.1020, 5309.21.2000, 5309.29.2000,
5407.91.0520, 5407.92.0520, 5407.93.0520, 5407.94.0520, 5408.31.0520,
5408.32.0520, 5408.33.0520, 5408.34.0520, 5515.13.0520, 5515.22.0520,
5515.92.0520, 5516.31.0520, 5516.32.0520, 5516.33.0520 and
5516.34.0520.
\13\Category 440-M: only HTS numbers 6203.21.0030, 6203.23.0030,
6205.10.1000, 6205.10.2010, 6205.10.2020, 6205.30.1510, 6205.30.1520,
6205.90.2020, 6295.90.4020 and 6211.31.0030.
\14\Category 651-B: only HTS numbers 6107.22.0015 and 6108.32.0015.
\15\Category 659-C: only HTS numbers 6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020,
6103.43.2025, 6103.49.2000, 6103.49.3038, 6104.63.1020, 6104.63.1030,
6104.69.1000, 6104.69.3014, 6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010,
6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090, 6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010,
6210.10.4015, 6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017 and 6211.43.0010.
\16\Category 659-H: only HTS numbers 6502.00.9030, 6504.00.9015,
6504.00.9060, 6505.90.5090, 6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090 and
6505.90.8090.
\17\Category 659-S: only HTS numbers 6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020,
6112.41.0010, 6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030, 6112.41.0040, 6211.11.1010,
6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010 and 6211.12.1020.
\18\Category 669-P: only HTS numbers 6305.31.0010, 6305.31.0020 and
6305.39.0000.
\19\Category 670-L: only HTS numbers 4202.12.8030, 4202.12.8070,
4202.92.3020, 4202.92.3030 and 4202.92.9025.
\20\Category 863-S: only HTS number 6307.10.2015.
\21\Category 359-O: all HTS numbers except 6103.42.2025, 6103.49.3034,
6104.62.1020, 6104.69.3010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052, 6203.42.2010,
6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010, 6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025, 6211.42.0010
(Category 359-C); 6103.19.2030, 6103.19.4030, 6104.12.0040,
6104.19.2040, 6110.20.1022, 6110.20.1024, 6110.20.2030, 6110.20.2035,
6110.90.0044, 6110.90.0046, 6201.92.2010, 6202.92.2020, 6203.19.1030,
6203.19.4030, 6204.12.0040, 6204.19.3040, 6211.32.0070 and 6211.42.0070
(Category 359-V).
\22\Category 659-O: all HTS numbers except 6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020,
6103.43.2025, 6103.49.2000, 6103.49.3038, 6104.63.1020, 6104.63.1030,
6104.69.1000, 6104.69.3014, 6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010,
6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090, 6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010,
6210.10.4015, 6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017, 6211.43.0010 (Category 659-
C); 6502.00.9030, 6504.00.9015, 6504.00.9060, 6505.90.5090,
6505.90.6090, 6505.90.7090, 6505.90.8090 (Category 659-H);
6112.31.0010, 6112.31.0020, 6112.41.0010, 6112.41.0020, 6112.41.0030,
6112.41.0040, 6211.11.1010, 6211.11.1020, 6211.12.1010 and 6211.12.1020
(Category 659-S).
\23\Category 369-O: all HTS numbers except 6302.60.0010, 6302.91.0005,
6302.91.0045 (Category 369-D); 4202.22.4020, 4202.22.4500, 4202.22.8030
(Category 369-H); 4202.12.4000, 4202.12.8020, 4202.12.8060,
4202.92.1500, 4202.92.3015, 4202.92.6090 (Category 369-L); and
6307.10.2005 (Category 369-S).
\24\Category 604-O: all HTS numbers except 5509.32.0000 (Category 604-
A).
\25\Category 669-O: all HTS numbers except 6305.31.0010, 6305.31.0020
and 6305.39.0000 (Category 669-P).
\26\Category 670-O: only HTS numbers 4202.22.4030, 4202.22.8050 and
4202.32.9550.
Imports charged to these category limits for the period January
1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 shall be charged against those
levels of restraint to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the
event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by
previous entries, such goods shall be subject to the levels set
forth in this directive.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of
Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption
to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has
determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs
exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 94-571 Filed 1-6-94; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-545 NATIONAL WOMEN'S BUSINESS COUNCIL
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)] [Sunshine Act Meetings] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-545] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: January 10, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL WOMEN'S BUSINESS COUNCIL SUMMARY: In accordance with the Women's Business Ownership Act, Public Law 100-533 as amended, the National Women's Business Council announces a forthcoming Council Meeting. The meeting will cover action items to be taken by the National Women's Business Council in Fiscal Year 1994 including but not limited to increasing procurement opportunities and access to capital for women business owners. DATE: January 21, 1994, 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ADDRESS: Federal Reserve Martin Building. STATUS: Open to the public. CONTACT: For further information contact Maia Jourgensen, Deputy Director or Gilda Washington, Administrative Officer, National Women's Business Council, 409 Third Street, SW., suite 5850, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 205-3850. Maia Jourgensen, Deputy Director, National Women's Business Council. [FR Doc. 94-545 Filed 1-5-94; 4:43 pm] BILLING CODE 6820-AB-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-523 National Cancer Institute; Meetings of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), Division of Cancer Prevention and Control and Its Subcommittees
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1403-1404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-523]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute; Meetings of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BSC), Division of Cancer Prevention and Control and Its
Subcommittees
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the
meeting of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Board of
Scientific Counselors National Cancer Institute, and its Subcommittees
on January 20-21, 1994, Building 31C, National Institutes of Health,
9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. Meetings of the
Subcommittees will also be held at the times and places listed below.
The meetings of the Board will be open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to
3:30 p.m. on January 20 and from 8:30 a.m. to adjournment on January 21
to discuss issues relating to Board business as indicated in the
notice. The Subcommittee meetings will be held on January 20 from 8:30
a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and will be open to the public. Attendance by the
public to any of these meetings will be limited to space available.
In accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6),
title 5, U.S.C. and section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the meeting
will be closed on January 20 from 3:30 p.m. to adjournment for
discussion of activities carried out by and through the National Cancer
Institute which will include a discussion of extramural/intramural
programmatic and personnel policies of a sensitive nature. These
discussions could disclose information of a personal nature where
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
The Committee Management Office, National Cancer Institute,
National Institutes of Health, Executive Plaza North, room 630, 9000
Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (301/496-5708) will provide a
summary of the meeting and roster of Board members, upon request.
Other information pertaining to these meetings can be obtained from
the Executive Secretary, Linda M. Bremerman, National Cancer Institute,
National Institutes of Health, Executive Plaza North, room 232, 9000
Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (301-496-8526), upon request.
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should
contact Linda M. Bremerman in advance of the meeting.
Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, Division of
Cancer Prevention and Control.
Dates of Meeting: January 20-21, 1994.
Place of Meeting: Building 31 Conference Room 10.
Open: January 20-10:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. January 21-8:30 a.m. to
adjournment.
Agenda: Review progress of programs within the Division and review
of concepts being considered for funding.
Closed: January 20-3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
Agenda: Extramural/Intramural programmatic and personnel policies
of a sensitive nature.
The following open meetings will be held on January 20, 1994, from
8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Name of Committee: Surveillance Subcommittee.
Place of Meeting: Building 31C, Conference Room 9.
Agenda: Discuss current and future programs of Surveillance
Subcommittee and review of concepts being considered for funding.
Name of Committee: Early Detection and Community Oncology
Subcommittee.
Place of Meeting: Building 31C, Conference Room 10.
Agenda: Discuss current and future programs of Early Detection and
Community Oncology Subcommittee and review of concepts being considered
for funding.
Name of Committee: Cancer Control Science Subcommittee.
Place of Meeting: Building 31C, Conference Room 8.
Agenda: Discuss current and future programs of Cancer Control
Science Subcommittee and review of concepts being considered for
funding.
Name of Committee: Cancer Prevention Research Subcommittee.
Place of Meeting: Building 31C, Conference Room 7.
Agenda: Discuss current and future programs of Cancer Prevention
Research Subcommittee and review of concepts being considered for
funding.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the
meeting due to the difficulty of coordinating the attendance of members
because of conflict schedules.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393,
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396,
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398,
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control.)
Dated: January 4, 1994.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 94-523 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-522 National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-522]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting
The Division of Extramural Activities of the National Institute of
Mental Health announces an ad hoc concept review. This committee will
be performing review of a Request for Applications entitled ``Multi-
Site Study of Mental Health Service Use, Need, Outcomes, and Costs for
Child and Adolescent Populations (UNO-CAP).''
This meeting will be held January 18, 1994, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
at the Chevy Chase Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase,
Maryland 20815, and will be open to the public. Attendance by the
public will be limited to space available. Anyone who plans to attend
and any individual who needs special assistance, such as sign language
interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact
Victoria Levin, Parklawn Building, room 9C-15, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-1177 by January 14, 1994. Other
information pertaining to the meeting may also be obtained from Ms.
Levin.
Ms. Joanna L. Kieffer, Committee Management Officer, National
Institute of Mental Health, Parklawn Building, room 9-105, (301) 443-
4333, will provide a summary of the meeting and a roster of the
committee members upon request.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.126,
Small Business Innovation Research; 93.176, ADAMHA Small
Instrumentation Program Grants; 93.242, Mental Health Research
Grants; 93.281, Mental Research Scientist Development Award and
Research Scientist Development Award for Clinicians; 93.282, Mental
Health Research Service Awards for Research Training: and 93.921,
ADAMHA Science Education Partnership Award.)
Dated: January 5, 1994.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 94-522 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-519 Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of Management and Budget for Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-519]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
January 5, 1994.
The Federal Communications Commission has submitted the following
information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M
Street, NW., suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800. For
further information on this submission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202) 632-0276. Persons wishing to comment
on this information collection should contact Timothy Fain, Office of
Management and Budget, room 3235 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-
3561.
OMB Number: 3060-0048.
Title: Application for Consent to Transfer of Control.
Form Number: FCC Form 704.
Action: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit (including small
businesses).
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 800 responses; 8 hours average burden per
response; 6,400 hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, requires that common carriers and noncommon carrier
permittees or licensees contemplating a transfer of control apply for
authority to make such transfer. In addition to information specified
on FCC Form 704, applicants may be required to file other information.
Information is used by FCC staff to determine whether an entity seeking
control of an existing permittee or licensee is legally and financially
qualified to become a common carrier or noncommon carrier
telecommunications licensee. If the information is not submitted the
above determination required by the Communications Act could not be
made. The FCC Form 704 has been revised to incorporate a certification
pursuant to rules implementing the provisions of section 5301 of the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-519 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-518 Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of Management and Budget for Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-518]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
January 5, 1994.
The Federal Communications Commission has submitted the following
information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M
Street, NW., suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800. For
further information on this submission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202) 632-0276. Persons wishing to comment
on this information collection should contact Timothy Fain, Office of
Management and Budget, room 3235 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-
3561.
Please note: The Commission has requested expedited OMB review
of this item by January 7, 1994, under the provisions of 5 CFR
1320.18.
OMB Number: None.
Title: Implementation of sections 3(n) and 332 of the
Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, First Report and Order.
Action: New collection.
Respondents: Individuals or households, state or local governments,
federal agencies or employees, non-profit institutions and businesses
or other for-profit (including small businesses).
Frequency of Response: One time filing requirement due by February
10, 1994.
Estimated Annual Burden: 50 responses; 2 hours average burden per
response; 100 hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
Public Law 103-66, title VI, section 6002(b), 107 Stat. 312, 395
(1993), amended sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 153(n) and 332, to create a comprehensive
regulatory framework for all mobile radio services. Under the amended
statute, certain private land mobile radio licensees will be
reclassified as ``commercial mobile radio service'' licensees and will
be treated as common carriers subject to the foreign ownership and
control restrictions of section 310(b) of the Communications Act. A
``grandfathering'' provision, however, in new section 332(c)(6) permits
the Commission to grant waivers of section 310(b) to private land
mobile licensees that petition the Commission by February 10, 1994.
This present action clarifies the filing procedures for such petitions
and reminds all potentially affected private radio licensees of the
February 10, 1994 filing deadline. The Commission will use the waiver
petitions to determine whether each given petitioner should be
permitted to retain foreign ownership or control, pursuant to statute.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-518 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-517 Deformed Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Peru; Determination Not To Revoke Countervailing Duty Order
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-517]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-333-502]
Deformed Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Peru; Determination
Not To Revoke Countervailing Duty Order
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of determination not to revoke countervailing duty
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is notifying the public of its
determination not to revoke the countervailing duty order on deformed
steel concrete reinforcing bar from Peru.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Parkhill, Office of
Countervailing Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 19, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 61069) its intent to revoke
the countervailing duty order on deformed steel concrete reinforcing
bar from Peru (50 FR 48819; November 27, 1985).
Under 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(iii), the Secretary of Commerce will
conclude that an order is no longer of interest to interested parties
and will revoke the order if no domestic interested party objects to
revocation or no interested party requests an administrative review by
the last day of the fifth anniversary month.
On December 3, 1993, Florida Steel Corporation and Chaparral Steel
Co., domestic producers and petitioners in the original investigation,
objected to our intent to revoke the order. Accordingly, the
requirements of 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(iii) have not been met, and we will
not revoke the order.
This determination is in accordance with 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4).
Dated: December 30, 1993.
Roland L. MacDonald,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 94-517 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-516 Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or Uncured, From Japan
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1373-1374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-516]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-807]
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews;
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or
Uncured, From Japan
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 4, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative
reviews of the antidumping duty order on industrial belts and
components thereof, whether cured or uncured (industrial belts), from
Japan. These reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter and the periods
June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 and June 1, 1992 through May 31,
1993.
We gave interested parties the opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we
have not changed the margins from those presented in our preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Vannatta or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 4, 1993, the Department published in the Federal
Register (58 FR 58839) the preliminary results of its 1991-92 and 1992-
93 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on industrial
belts from Japan (June 14, 1989, 54 FR 25314, amended August 4, 1989,
54 FR 32104). The Department has now completed these reviews in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Tariff Act).
Scope of the Reviews
Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of industrial belts
and components and parts thereof, whether cured or uncured, from Japan.
These products include V-belts, synchronous belts, and other industrial
belts, in part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and containing textile
fiber (including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and
whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in belting in lengths
or links. These reviews exclude conveyor belts and automotive belts, as
well as front engine drive belts found on equipment powered by internal
combustion engines, including trucks, tractors, buses, and lift trucks.
During the periods of review the merchandise was classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings, 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56,
3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, 4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11,
4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.91.50, 4010.99.11, 4010.99.15, 4010.99.19,
4010.99.50, 5910.00.10 5910.00.90, and 7326.20.00. The HTS subheadings
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
These reviews cover one Japanese manufacturer and exporter of
industrial belts to the United States, Mitsuboshi Belting Limited
(MBL), and the periods June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992, and June 1,
1992 through May 31, 1993.
Analysis of the Comments Received
The Department gave interested parties the opportunity to comment
on the preliminary results of these administrative reviews. We received
a case brief from MBL, and a rebuttal brief from the petitioner, Gates
Rubber Company. We did not receive a request for a hearing.
Comment: MBL acknowledges that the Department's resort to best
information available (BIA) is authorized under section 776(c) of the
Tariff Act, since MBL did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire.
MBL argues, however, that the Department should use information
obtained in the first administrative review (1989-90) as BIA instead of
the rate from the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.
MBL contends that the Department is required to consider the most
recent information available in deciding upon a BIA rate. According to
MBL, the information provided by the respondent in the first
administrative review is the most probative evidence of the current
margin because the LTFV margin was based solely on information provided
by the petitioner for the period October 1986 through March 1988.
Furthermore, MBL argues that it could not make an informed decision
to reply to the questionnaires. MBL claims that since the Department
has not completed the 1990-91 review before distributing questionnaires
for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 reviews, the Department cannot infer that
MBL would have responded to these questionnaires if it believed the
margins for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 reviews would be lower. Therefore,
MBL claims that the Department's conduct in this case is punitive.
Finally, MBL points out that the International Trade Commission's
affirmative injury determination is being appealed at the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). MBL urges the Department not to
assess antidumping duties and order liquidation of their entries in a
review where the validity of the underlying order is in question.
Gates argues that the Department should not change its preliminary
decision to resort to the LTFV margin from the original investigation
as BIA. Gates states that MBL has provided no authority for the
proposition that the Department should use as BIA the margin from the
preliminary results in the 1989-90 administrative review. Gates
contends that knowledge of results of prior reviews is irrelevant.
Gates submits that MBL knew it might receive the highest rate, and that
it would have submitted information proving lower margins if it could.
Finally, Gates asserts that there is no justification for delaying
completion of the reviews.
Department's Position: Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act requires us
to use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable
to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form
required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation.'' In
deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations provide that
the Department may take into account whether a party refuses to provide
information requested (19 CFR 353.37(b)). MBL's contention that the
Department should use the information obtained in the 1989-90
administrative review is contrary to Department policy. When a
respondent refuses to cooperate with the Department, it is our policy
to assign as a dumping margin to that respondent, as BIA, the higher
of: (1) The highest rate found for any firm in the original LTFV
investigation or previous administrative review, or (2) the highest
rate found in the current review (Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France et al, Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360, 28379
(June 24, 1992)). The Department's methodology for assigning BIA has
been upheld by the CAFC (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United
States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United
States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). Because MBL refused to respond to
the Department's questionnaire, it was reasonable for the Department to
assign to MBL, as BIA, a rate of 93.16 percent, the highest rate found
for any firm in the original LTFV investigation. Furthermore, because
the law does not provide for extensions of deadlines pending the
outcome of court decisions in other proceedings, we have not delayed
our final results.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of these administrative reviews, the Department
determines that a dumping margin of 93.16 percent exists for MBL for
the periods June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 and June 1, 1992 through
May 31, 1993.
The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
(1) For subject merchandise exported by Mitsuboshi Belting Ltd., a
cash deposit of 93.16 percent;
(2) For subject merchandise exported by manufacturers not covered
in these reviews but covered in previous reviews or in the original
LTFV investigation, a cash deposit based on the most recently published
rate in a final result or determination for which the manufacturer or
exporter received a company-specific rate;
(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior
review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 93.16 percent, the ``all other'' rate established
in the LTFV investigation, as discussed below.
On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral
Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul
Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-
83, decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a
company it can only be changed through an administrative review. The
Department has determined that in order to implement these decisions,
it is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical
errors as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-516 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-515 New Visa Stamp for Certain Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Romania
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1387-1388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-515]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS
New Visa Stamp for Certain Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk
Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and Textile Products Produced
or Manufactured in Romania
January 5, 1994.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs authorizing
the use of a new visa stamp.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naomi Freeman, 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 Government of Romania has notified the United States Government
that instead of the former ``Ministry of Commerce and Tourism--
Department of Foreign Trade,'' officials of the newly established
``Ministry of Commerce--Department of Foreign Trade'' will issue and
sign visas for textile products exported from Romania. Effective on
February 1, 1994, textile products produced or manufactured in Romania
and exported from Romania on and after February 1, 1994 shall be
accompanied by a visa issued by the ``Ministry of Commerce--Department
of Foreign Trade.'' From February 1, 1994 through March 2, 1994, visas
from either will be accepted. After March 2, 1994, only visas issued by
the ``Ministry of Commerce--Department of Foreign Trade'' will be
accepted.
A facsimile of the new visa stamp is on file at the U.S. Department
of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel, 14th and Constitution
Avenue, NW, room 3106, Washington, DC.
See 49 FR 493, published on January 4, 1984.
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
January 5, 1994.
Commissioner of Customs,
Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20229.
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel,
the directive issued to you on December 29, 1983, as amended, by the
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
That directive directs you to prohibit entry of certain cotton,
wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles
and textile products, produced or manufactured in Romania for which
the Government of Romania has not issued an appropriate visa.
The Government of Romania has notified the United States
Government that instead of the ``Ministry of Commerce and Tourism--
Department of Foreign Trade,'' officials of the ``Ministry of
Commerce--Department of Foreign Trade'' will sign and issue visas
for textile products exported from Romania. Effective on February 1,
1994, you are directed to amend further the directive dated December
29, 1983 to provide for the use of the new visa stamp to accompany
shipments of textile products, produced or manufactured in Romania
and exported from Romania on and after February 1, 1994. From
February 1, 1994 through March 2, 1994, visas from either will be
accepted. After March 2, 1994, only visas issued by the ``Ministry
of Commerce--Department of Foreign Trade'' will be accepted. A
facsimile of the new visa stamp is enclosed with this letter.
Shipments entered or withdrawn from warehouse according to this
directive which are not accompanied by an appropriate export visa
shall be denied entry and a new visa must be obtained.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has
determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs
exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 94-515 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-514 Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Guatemala
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-514]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS
Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber
Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Guatemala
January 5, 1994.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs reducing
limits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bivens Collinson, International
Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of
Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these
limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards
of each Customs port or call (202) 927-5850. For information on
embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended;
section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C.
1854).
The 1994 limits for Categories 340/640 and 351/651 are being
reduced for carryforward used.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS
numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories
with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal
Register notice 58 FR 62645, published on November 29, 1993). Also see
58 FR 61679, published on November 22, 1993.
The letter to the Commissioner of Customs and the actions taken
pursuant to it are not designed to implement all of the provisions of
the bilateral agreement, but are designed to assist only in the
implementation of certain of its provisions.
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
January 5, 1994.
Commissioner of Customs,
Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20229.
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel,
the directive issued to you on November 12, 1993, by the Chairman,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That
directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made
fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Guatemala and
exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 1994
and extending through December 31, 1994.
Effective on January 12, 1994, you are directed to reduce the
limits for the following categories, as provided under the terms of
the current bilateral agreement between the Governments of the
United States and Guatemala:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Adjusted twelve-month limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
340/640............................ 943,400 dozen.
351/651............................ 200,000 dozen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guaranteed access level for Categories 340/640 and 351/651
remain unchanged.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has
determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs
exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 94-514 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-513 Sterling Pharmaceuticals Inc., Barceloneta, Puerto Rico; Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-513]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 677]
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Inc., Barceloneta, Puerto Rico;
Application
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, Sterling Pharmaceuticals Inc., (Pharmaceutical Products),
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
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 Puerto Rico Commercial and Farm
Credit and Development Corporation, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 61
(San Juan, Puerto Rico), for authority to establish a special-purpose
subzone at the pharmaceutical products manufacturing plant of Sterling
Pharmaceuticals Inc., located in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, was filed by
the Board on May 12, 1993, and notice inviting public comment was given
in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 1-8-93, 58 FR 29192, 5-19-93)
(Amendment: 58 FR 36933, 7-9-93); and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the
application, as amended, is in the public interest;
Now, Therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
subzone (Subzone 61B) at the Sterling Pharmaceuticals Inc., plant in
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, at the location described in the application,
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including
Sec. 400.28.
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. 94-513 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-512 Tampa, Florida; Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 79
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-512]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 676]
Tampa, Florida; Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 79
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: Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone
79, Tampa, Florida.
Whereas, an application from the City of Tampa, Florida, grantee of
Foreign-Trade Zone No. 79, for authority to expand its general-purpose
zone in Tampa, Florida, within the Tampa Customs port of entry, was
filed by the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on April 20, 1992, (Docket
12-92, 57 FR 19596, 5/7/92) (Amendments: 58 FR 31362, 6/2/93; 58 FR
36932, 7/9/93);
Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act
and the Board's regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and
the regulations are satisfied, and that approval is in the public
interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
The grantee is authorized to expand its zone as requested in the
application, as amended, subject to the Act and the Board's
regulations, including Sec. 400.28.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th 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. 94-512 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-510 Maytag Corp., Galesburg, Illinois; Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-510]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 675]
Maytag Corp., Galesburg, Illinois; Application
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: Removal of Restriction, Maytag
Corp., (Household Refrigerators), Subzone 133A, Galesburg, Illinois.
Whereas, pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1) of the Board's regulations,
the Maytag Corporation, operator of FTZ Subzone 133A in Galesburg,
Illinois (Maytag refrigerator manufacturing plant), has requested
removal of Restriction #2 of Board Order 448 (filed 6-4-93 as A(32b1)-
2-93; Doc. 61-93 was assigned 12-10-93);
Whereas, Board Order 448 (54 FR 47246; 11-13-89) approving Subzone
133A included Restriction #2 requiring the election of privileged
foreign status on foreign compressors (the restriction was temporarily
suspended until 12-31-93, Board Order 485, 55 FR 37341, 9-11-90);
Whereas, pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1), the Commerce Department's
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration has the authority to act
for the Board in making decisions relating to changes in manufacturing/
processing activity within existing zones in situations where the
proposed activity is similar to that recently approved by the Board;
and,
Whereas, the FTZ Staff reviewed the proposal, pursuant to said
provision and found that there is no longer a reason for the
restriction, and the Executive Secretary concurs in the staff report
recommending approval;
Now, therefore, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, acting for the Board pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1),
concurs in the recommendation and hereby approves the request subject
to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28.
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. 94-510 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-509 Boone County, Kentucky; Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 47
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1371-1372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-509]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 674]
Boone County, Kentucky; Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 47
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: Expansion of foreign-trade zone
47, Boone County, Kentucky.
Whereas, an application from the Greater Cincinnati Foreign-Trade
Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 47, for authority to
reorganize and expand its general-purpose zone in Boone County,
Kentucky, within the Cincinnati Customs port of entry, was filed by the
Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on November 12, 1992 (Docket 34-92, 57
FR 54568, 11/19/92);
Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act
and the Board's regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and
the regulations are satisfied, and that approval is in the public
interest;
Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
The grantee is authorized to expand its zone as requested in the
application, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including
Section 400.28.
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. 94-509 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-508 SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Co., Cidra, Puerto Rico; Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1372-1373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-508]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 679]
SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Co., Cidra, Puerto Rico;
Application
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, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Co., (Pharmaceutical
Products), Cidra, Puerto Rico.
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 Puerto Rico Commercial and Farm
Credit and Development Corporation, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 61
(San Juan, Puerto Rico), for authority to establish a special-purpose
subzone at the pharmaceutical manufacturing plant of SmithKline Beecham
Pharmaceuticals Company, located in Cidra, Puerto Rico, was filed by
the Board on January 15, 1993, and notice inviting public comment was
given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 1-93, 58 FR 7529, 2-8-93);
and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application
is in the public interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
subzone (Subzone 61C) at the SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Company
plant in Cidra, Puerto Rico, at the location described in the
application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations,
including Sec. 400.28.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th 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. 94-508 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-507 American Food Service Corp., Pennsylvania; Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-507]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 678]
American Food Service Corp., Pennsylvania; Application
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: Expansion of foreign-trade zone
35 and approval of export processing activity (beef products),
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area.
Whereas, an application from the Philadelphia Regional Port
Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 35 (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania area), for authority to expand its general-purpose zone to
include a site in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, adjacent to the
Philadelphia Customs port of entry, and for authority on behalf of
American Foodservice Corporation (AFSC) to conduct activity within FTZ
35 involving the processing of beef products for export, was filed by
the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on June 21, 1993, (Docket 26-93, 58
FR 35428, 7/1/93);
Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act
and the Board's regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board, in consultation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, has found that the requirements of the Act and the
regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the expansion and the
beef processing activity for export is in the public interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
The application for said expansion and for said processing activity
is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including
Sec. 400.28, and further subject to the following restrictions:
1. AFSC shall reexport all beef admitted to the zone in foreign
status (19 CFR 146.41 and 146.42); and,
2. AFSC shall comply with all meat inspection requirements of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th 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. 94-507 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-506 Certain Internal-Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1374-1384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-506]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-703]
Certain Internal-Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 28, 1992, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of its 1989-90 administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain internal-combustion, industrial
forklift trucks from Japan. The review covers two manufacturers/
exporters of this merchandise to the United States during the period
June 1, 1989 through May 31, 1990.
The Department gave interested parties the opportunity to comment
on the preliminary results. Based on the analysis of the comments
received, the Department adjusted the margins for both companies.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Marchal or Michael Rill, Office
of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 377-3813.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 28, 1992, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order (June 7, 1988, 53 FR 20882) on certain internal-
combustion, industrial forklift trucks from Japan in the Federal
Register (57 FR 3164). The Department has now completed that
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are certain internal-
combustion, industrial forklift trucks, with lifting capacity of 2,000
to 15,000 pounds. The products covered by this review are further
described as follows: Assembled, not assembled, and less than complete,
finished and not finished, operator-riding forklift trucks powered by
gasoline, propane, or diesel fuel internal-combustion engines of off-
the-highway types used in factories, warehouses, or transportation
terminals for short-distance transport, towing, or handling of
articles. Less than complete forklift trucks are defined as imports
which include a frame by itself or a frame assembled with one or more
component parts. Component parts of the subject forklift trucks which
are not assembled with a frame are not covered by this order. During
the review period such merchandise was classifiable under item numbers
692.4025, 692.4030, and 692.4070 of the Tariff Schedules of the United
States Annotated (TSUSA). The merchandise is currently classifiable
under the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) item numbers 8427.20.00-0,
8427.90.00-0, and 8431.20.00-0. The TSUSA and HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written
description remains dispositive.
The review covers sales made by Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota)
and Toyo Umpanki Company, Limited (TCM) during the period from June 1,
1989 through May 31, 1990.
Such or Similar Comparisons
For all respondent companies, pursuant to section 771(16) of the
Tariff Act, the Department established categories of ``such or
similar'' merchandise on the basis of load (lifting) capacity of the
forklift as imported. Within these categories, the product comparisons
were based on six primary characteristics, to which points were
assigned to indicate their relative importance. These characteristics
and their point totals are as follows: Tire type, 6 points; upright
style, 5 points; engine type, 4 points; transmission type, 3 points;
maximum forklift height, 2 points; and engine size, 1 point. The sum of
these numbers, the ``SSM Index Number'', was used to match U.S. and
home market (HM) sales. We considered models that both summed to 21
points as identical. Where there were no identical products sold in the
home market, the Department selected the most similar product on the
basis of the point totals resulting from the six characteristics listed
above.
Data Changes Included in the Final Results of Review
We found that in TCM's purchase price (PP) sales analysis, we did
not include in the credit expense calculation the time between shipment
from Japan and subsequent shipment to the customer by TCM's U.S.
subsidiary. Therefore, for the final results, we included these
expenses.
Analysis of Comments Received
The Department gave interested parties the opportunity to comment
on the preliminary results. At the request of the petitioners, (Hyster-
Yale Company, Independent Lift Truck Builders Union, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO), and United Shop and
Service Employees) and one respondent, a hearing was held on March 19,
1992. Case and rebuttal briefs were received from petitioners, Toyota,
and TCM.
General Comments
Comment 1: Petitioners contend that the Department should run its
sales below cost of production (COP) test on comparison models only,
not on entire such or similar categories. Petitioners argue that
forklifts are not a fungible product, but are instead similar to ``job
order'' products such as mechanical transfer presses, offshore oil
platforms, and large power transformers. Petitioners assert that the
unique nature of each product means that there is often just one HM
sale that is comparable to the U.S. sale, and that if the single HM
sale is sold below COP, there likely will be no dumping margin.
Petitioners state that this case is distinguishable from other dumping
cases (e.g., agricultural, chemical, or metals cases) because
relatively few HM sales are weight-averaged. Petitioners accordingly
argue that the Department should conduct the sales below COP test on
the concordance tape containing comparison models only, not on the
universe of HM sales.
TCM argues that, because forklift trucks are not custom-built
products, the Department correctly applied the COP test. TCM further
states that the Department should maintain its policy of conducting the
COP test on each load capacity category.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. In accordance
with our standard policy, we have revised the sales below COP test so
that the test is conducted on a model-specific basis instead of on a
such-or-similar category basis.
Comment 2: Petitioners state that the Department should revise its
model match methodology because it gives insufficient weight to tire
type and, therefore, results in more matches of merchandise, but not in
matches that are the most similar. Petitioners contend that tire type
is a crucial attribute of a forklift truck because the tire type
determines the construction of the frame of the truck, which the
Department found to be the ``identifying feature and principal
component of the product'' in the final determination in this case
(Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Internal
Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan (Forklifts LTFV), 53
FR 12552 (April 15, 1988)).
Petitioners suggest three alternative methods for the such or
similar comparisons and tire type matching. First, petitioners
recommend that the Department return to the original less than fair
value matching methodology. Second, petitioners propose increasing the
weight for tire type from six to ten points. Finally, petitioners state
that matches with less than fifteen points do not constitute similar
merchandise because the predominant features of the HM merchandise
would be substantially different from the U.S. truck; petitioners argue
that the Department should therefore omit all HM sales with less than
fifteen points.
TCM notes that the Department's current model match methodology was
revised in order to improve the model match process. TCM and Toyota
argue that the Department's matching methodology, which gives tire type
the highest weight, establishes tire type as the most important
criterion. Toyota contends that petitioners' assertion that forklift
trucks cannot be similar unless they have an SSM index number of
fifteen is unreasonable. This cut-off would eliminate matches of trucks
that are ``identical in every respect * * * except upright style and
its related maximum fork height.'' Respondents further argue that the
Department's twenty percent difference in merchandise test already
eliminates dissimilar models, and that the cut-off suggested by
petitioners would merely result in a greater number of unmatched sales.
Department's Position: We agree with respondents. During the first
administrative review, we refined the model match methodology used in
the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. We are employing this
same model match methodology for these final results. One such
improvement was the use of a point-weighting scheme, which increased
the precision and simplified the reporting requirements. Of the six
model match elements, we attach the most weight to tire type.
Petitioners did not provide evidence to support their claim that the
points accorded to tire type should be increased from six to ten, or
that dissimilar models were matched as the result of a flaw in our
methodology. For further discussion of our model match methodology see
Comment 80, Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks
from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
(Forklifts I), (57 FR 3167, January 28, 1992).
Comment 3: Petitioners' claim that the Department's adjustment for
the consumption tax forgiven upon exportation of forklift trucks to the
United States is erroneous in several respects. Petitioners state that
the Court of International Trade (CIT) has held that taxes on sales in
the HM must be passed through to the customer before an upward
adjustment of an imputed tax can be made to United States price (USP),
and cite Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 397
(CIT 1990) (Zenith I), Daewoo Electronics Co., v. United States, 712 F.
Supp. 931 (CIT 1989) (Daewoo), and Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United
States, 633 F. Supp. 1382 (CIT 1988) (Zenith II) in support of this
proposition. Petitioners contend that no adjustment is warranted in
this case, since neither Toyota nor TCM claimed or proved that the
consumption tax imposed on HM sales is passed through to the customers
in Japan.
Petitioners further argue that the Department improperly made an
adjustment to foreign market value (FMV) to eliminate the absolute
difference between the amount of tax in the two markets by adding to
FMV the amount of the consumption tax imputed to the U.S. sale.
Petitioners state that it is improper for the Department to make such
an adjustment in the interest of achieving tax neutrality.
Toyota argues that petitioners' arguments disregard the
Department's policy and practice with respect to adjustments to FMV and
USP for the Japanese consumption tax. Toyota cites the Department's
disagreement with the CIT decisions cited by petitioners. Toyota
asserts that it is the Department's long-standing practice not to
attempt to measure the amount of tax passed through to customers in the
HM. Under the Department's interpretation, section 772(d)(1)(C) of the
Tariff Act does not require the Department to measure the incidence of
tax in an economic sense. Rather, according to Toyota, the full
adjustment for consumption tax is necessary to make an appropriate
comparison between USP and FMV. Toyota states that in determinations
involving HM taxes, the Department has repeated that it has not had an
opportunity to appeal the issue on the merits. Until such time as the
issue is finally resolved on appeal, the Department should maintain its
long-standing practice.
TCM argues that the Department's consumption tax adjustment is
proper and accords with the law, regulations and long-standing
practice.
Department's Position: On October 7, 1993, the United States Court
of International Trade (CIT), in Federal-Mogul Corp. and The Torrington
Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 93-194 (CIT, October 7, 1993), rejected
the Department's methodology for calculating an addition to USP under
section 772(d)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act to account for taxes that the
exporting country would have assessed on the merchandise had it been
sold in the home market. The CIT held that the addition to USP under
section 772(d)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act should be the result of applying
the foreign market tax rate to the price of the United States
merchandise at the same point in the chain of commerce that the foreign
market tax was applied to foreign market sales. Federal-Mogul, Slip Op.
93-194 at 12.
The Department has changed its methodology in accordance with the
Federal-Mogul decisions. The Department will add to USP the result of
multiplying the foreign market tax rate by the price of the United
States merchandise at the same point in the chain of commerce that the
foreign market tax was applied to foreign market sales. The Department
will also adjust the USP tax adjustment and the amount of tax included
in FMV. These adjustments will deduct the portions of the foreign
market tax and the USP tax adjustment that are the result of expenses
that are included in the foreign market price used to calculate foreign
market tax and are included in the United States merchandise price used
to calculate the USP tax adjustment and that are later deducted to
calculate FMV and USP. These adjustments to the amount of the foreign
market tax and the USP tax adjustment are necessary to prevent our new
methodology for calculating the USP tax adjustment from creating
antidumping duty margins where no margins would exist if no taxes were
levied upon foreign market sales.
This margin creation effect is due to the fact that the bases for
calculating both the amount of tax included in the price of the foreign
market merchandise and the amount of the USP tax adjustment include
many expenses that are later deducted when calculating USP and FMV.
After these deductions are made, the amount of tax included in FMV and
the USP tax adjustment still reflects the amounts of these expenses.
Thus, a margin may be created that is not dependent upon a difference
between USP and FMV, but is the result of the price of the United
States merchandise containing more expenses than the price of the
foreign market merchandise. The Department's policy to avoid the margin
creation effect is in accordance with the United States Court of
Appeals' holding that the application of the USP tax adjustment under
section 772(d)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act should not create an antidumping
duty margin if pre-tax FMV does not exceed USP. Zenith Electronics
Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In
addition, the CIT has specifically held that an adjustment should be
made to mitigate the impact of expenses that are deducted from FMV and
USP upon the USP tax adjustment and the amount of tax included in FMV.
Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. v. United States, 760 F. Supp. 200, 208
(CIT, 1991). However, the mechanics of the Department's adjustments to
the USP tax adjustment and the foreign market tax amount as described
above are not identical to those suggested in Daewoo.
Comments Specific to Toyota
Comment 4: Toyota contends that for the final results, the
Department should not rely on best information available (BIA) to
calculate ocean freight, U.S. coop advertising, certain indirect
selling expenses (ISE) incurred in Japan on behalf of U.S. sales, and
the offset expense for income and profit from other business ventures
included in value-added. Toyota claims that the Department made clear
in its supplemental questionnaire that, because it was conducting two
administrative reviews simultaneously, Toyota should provide only a
narrative description of how reallocations and corrections were to be
made, which were then to be the subject of petitioners' comment and
Department scrutiny. In its supplemental questionnaire response dated
June 7, 1991, Toyota responded as directed, providing only narrative
descriptions, and not revised data on computer tape.
Once the Department made its decision regarding the accuracy of
these reallocations and corrections, it would give Toyota an
opportunity to resubmit its data employing the proper reallocations and
corrections. Toyota states that it was therefore awaiting the
Department's decisions concerning these recalculations for the first
administrative review before submitting revised computer tapes for the
second review.
Toyota claims that at no time prior to the preliminary results,
despite numerous contacts, did the Department ask Toyota to submit the
reallocations or corrections, instead directing Toyota to await the
Department's decision regarding these corrections.
Toyota contends that in the preliminary results of this review the
Department applied BIA because it mistakenly held that Toyota had
failed to comply with the Department's request for data incorporating
the reallocations and corrections. Toyota claims that it did not
provide such data because the Department never issued any instructions
for doing so.
Toyota therefore, proposes that the Department use data on the
record to make the correct reallocations and corrections for ocean
freight, U.S. coop advertising, value-added, and Toyota Automatic Loom
Works, Ltd. (TAL) ISE.
Petitioners assert that the Department specifically requested that
Toyota submit corrections and reallocations in its supplemental
questionnaire. Petitioners state that Toyota failed to submit this data
as requested, but rather advised the Department that it would await the
Department's decisions on these issues in the first administrative
review before submitting a complete response.
Department's Position: We agree with Toyota. In our supplemental
questionnaire dated May 23, 1991, we requested Toyota to provide within
a specified period of time a narrative explanation of its claimed
adjustments to price after publication of the preliminary results.
For the final results, we did not request additional information
for ocean freight, TAL ISE, and value-added because we recalculated
these expenses using information previously submitted by Toyota. See
Comments 5, 7, and 8, respectively. We did request supplemental
information for coop advertising. See Comment 6.
Comment 5: Toyota claims that the Department's BIA recalculation of
ocean freight and marine insurance is overstated because the Department
misunderstood documents provided by Toyota in conjunction with sales
preselected by the Department for a mini-verification of sales in
Washington, DC prior to, or perhaps in lieu of, an on-site
verification. One of the sales involved a forklift which had a ``mast
swap'' in the United States. In other words, the truck was imported
with one mast, but, prior to sale in the U.S., the mast was switched
with that of another imported truck. Toyota provided one invoice,
marked ``chassis'' showing the truck as imported, including its
original mast, and a second invoice, marked ``mast'' for another truck,
which included the mast which was subsequently fitted onto the first
truck. Toyota contends that the Department erroneously calculated a
per-truck ocean freight expense by adding the amounts on the two
invoices, thereby yielding a per-unit figure for ocean freight equal to
ocean freight for two trucks.
Toyota argues that the Department requested pre-verification
documents, not explanations of these documents, and that the documents
were only provided to establish a paper trail for importation of the
truck and not for calculation of ocean freight.
Toyota requests that the Department recalculate ocean freight based
on one invoice or the other, or perhaps an average, but not on two per-
truck amounts added together. Toyota maintains that its original
allocation of ocean freight is accurate and should be incorporated in
the final results.
Department's Position: We agree with Toyota. For the final results
of review, we have recalculated the ocean freight expenses by averaging
the invoices together to derive the per unit expense.
Comment 6: Toyota notes a discrepancy between statements by the
Department in the notice of preliminary results and the actual BIA used
to calculate sale-by-sale U.S. coop advertising expenses. The notice of
preliminary results states that the Department used the amounts Toyota
reported for the first administrative review as U.S. coop expenses. See
Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (Forklifts I),
57 FR 3164 (January 28, 1992). Toyota observes that the Department
actually used the largest single reported U.S. coop expense from the
second review and applied it to all sales as BIA. Toyota requests that
the Department use instead the per-customer coop expense from the first
administrative review, as described in the preliminary notice. Toyota
maintains, however, that the appropriate allocation of this expense is
over all sales, rather than by dealer.
Petitioners contend that the BIA based on information from the
second, rather than the first, administrative review is reasonable
because it is based on data that is on the record in this proceeding.
Accordingly, petitioners argue that the Department should continue to
apply the largest single reported U.S. coop expense from the second
review to all sales.
Department's Position: In a supplemental questionnaire dated May
23, 1991, we requested that Toyota allocate by dealer U.S. coop
advertising expenses on a sale-by-sale basis. In a letter dated March
30, 1992, we again requested that Toyota recalculate U.S. coop
advertising expenses by dealer. On April 13, 1992, Toyota submitted
this information in an acceptable form, and we have used it in lieu of
BIA for the final results.
Comment 7: Toyota claims that in calculating the TAL ISE incurred
with respect to U.S. sales in Japan, the Department should have applied
the ISE ratio to the TAL selling price, not to the much higher selling
price of Toyota Motor Sales (TMS) in the United States. Because the
Department applied the ISE ratio to the wrong value, it greatly
overstated the expense.
Toyota further contends that, as is evident from the information
submitted and verified in the first review, TAL incurred the identical
category of indirect selling expenses for HM sales as for U.S. sales.
Toyota states that if the Department deducts TAL indirect selling
expenses from U.S. price, it must also in fairness deduct the same
category of expenses from HM price.
Department's Position: We agree with Toyota that in the preliminary
results we incorrectly calculated ISE incurred in Japan by TAL with
respect to U.S. sales. For the final results, we have applied the ISE
factor to the reported transfer price between TAL and TMS instead of to
TMS' reported selling price in the United States. We have made a
corresponding adjustment for TAL's ISE incurred on HM sales.
Comment 8: Toyota contends that the Department erred in calculating
an offset to value-added expenses for income and profit earned from
other business ventures. Toyota explains that the Department reduced
general and administrative (G&A) expenses associated with value-added
activity by an amount for net income and profit from other business
ventures that greatly exceeded that reported in its questionnaire
response. Toyota requests that the Department revise its income
``offset'' calculation for the final results to reflect the information
contained in its questionnaire response.
Department's Position: We agree with Toyota. For the final results,
we have revised the offset calculation to reflect accurately the
amounts reported for net income and profit from other business ventures
in Toyota's questionnaire response.
Comment 9: Toyota claims that the Department incorrectly calculated
U.S. credit expenses by using an intra-company interest rate and not a
rate based on its actual cost of borrowing from unrelated sources.
Specifically, in calculating credit expenses, the Department used the
interest rate paid by TMS to Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC),
its related finance company. As a result, Toyota argues that the
Department created a fictional ``expense'' that is based on an internal
transaction between TMS and TMCC which is irrelevant to the dumping
analysis. Toyota urges the Department to use the interest rate paid by
TMCC on its short-term borrowings to calculate credit expenses for
sales by TMS because the rate paid by TMCC reflects Toyota's actual
cost of financing from unrelated sources.
Petitioners disagree, arguing that the interest rate paid to
outside sources by TMCC does not account for the total cost actually
incurred by TMCC to extend credit to TMS. Petitioners note that TMCC
incurs expenses to obtain funds to finance its operations as well as
numerous operating expenses. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to
base credit expenses for TMS simply on the short-term interest rate
paid by TMCC to outside sources without accounting for the additional
expenses incurred by TMCC to extend credit on sales made by TMS.
Department's Position: We disagree with Toyota. For the final
results, we calculated U.S. credit expenses based on the experience of
the sales division of Toyota. Because TMS is the selling division in
the United States, not TMCC, we determined that the interest rate that
should be used in the calculation of credit expense is one based on
TMS' experience. Because TMS does not have any short-term loans from
unrelated sources, we have used the interest rate that TMCC charged TMS
to reflect the credit expenses incurred on U.S. sales. This approach is
consistent with the credit expense methodology used in the previous
administrative review.
Comment 10: Petitioners claim that Toyota did not report certain
direct magazine advertising expenses incurred on U.S. sales.
Petitioners state that these expenses consist of advertisements in
national industry publications that were directed at end-user customers
of Toyota's U.S. forklift dealers, and refer to the Toyota Industrial
Equipment Division (TIE) of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
Petitioners propose recalculating Toyota's direct U.S. selling expenses
to include these advertising expenses. Petitioners suggest that the
Department divide Toyota's reported cost for magazine advertisements
during the period of review (POR) by the number of forklifts sold in
the U.S. over the POR, and add this amount to U.S. direct selling
expenses for each forklift.
Toyota acknowledges that these magazine advertising expenses were
classified as direct expenses by the Department in the first review.
See Forklifts I. However, respondent claims that petitioners' proposed
recalculation of these expenses is incorrect. Toyota notes that these
expenses are specifically identified in its questionnaire response and,
therefore, should be separated out from reported ISE and reclassified
as direct selling expenses.
Department's Position: We agree with both petitioners and Toyota
that these magazine advertising expenses should be properly classified
as direct selling expenses. However, we disagree with petitioners'
contention that Toyota failed to report such expenses. Toyota did
report these expenses under ISE in its questionnaire response. Thus,
for these final results, we deducted the amount of magazine advertising
expenses identified by Toyota from reported ISE and reclassified such
expenses as direct selling expenses.
Comment 11: Petitioners claim that Toyota did not report the cost
incurred to retrofit its forklifts with redesigned seats under its
operator restraint safety seat (``ORS'') program. In support of this
contention, petitioners have submitted a Toyota advertisement, which
petitioners claim offers free installation of new winged safety seats
and seat belts to end-users of subject merchandise.
Petitioners argue that all costs incurred under this program,
including the cost of all advertisements, the cost of the new seats,
and the costs incurred to install the seats, should be considered
direct U.S. selling expenses. Petitioners assert that absent submission
of proper information by Toyota, the Department should use the total
ORS costs reported by Toyota for the first administrative review and
allocate those costs to sales during this review.
Toyota maintains that the retrofit expenses referred to by
petitioners were incurred solely for forklift trucks imported and sold
prior to the first period of review. Toyota notes that petitioners'
argument erroneously implies that the Department included retrofit
expenses in its margin analysis for the first review. Respondent states
that the Department's first review verification report confirms that
all trucks imported and sold during the first administrative review
period were manufactured with an ORS, thereby obviating the necessity
of retrofittings.
Department's Position: We agree with Toyota. Because there is no
evidence on the record indicating that forklifts sold during the POR
required retrofitting, we determine that no adjustment is required. The
advertisement submitted by petitioners makes no reference to products
sold during the POR. Petitioners have thus provided no evidence that
Toyota incurred any such expenses with respect to the Toyota sales made
in the current POR.
Comment 12: Petitioners claim that Toyota failed to report U.S.
product demonstration expenses, which were categorized by the
Department as direct selling expenses in the first review. Petitioners
argue that Toyota should therefore be required to provide its U.S.
demonstration expenses for the final results. Petitioners assert that
absent a proper submission from Toyota, the Department should assume as
BIA that the per unit product demonstration expenses in the United
States are equal to the per unit demonstration expenses reported by
Toyota for its HM sales.
Citing 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of
Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review (AFBs I),
56 FR 31692, 31725 (July 11, 1991), Toyota maintains that it correctly
categorized product demonstration expenses incurred in the United
States as ISE. Toyota claims that demonstration expenses incurred in
the United States were incurred in demonstrating forklifts to Toyota's
national account customers. In contrast, Toyota states that
demonstration expenses incurred in the HM, which were reported as
direct selling expenses, were incurred in demonstrating forklifts to
dealers so that they could demonstrate new models to their customers.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners that Toyota
failed to report U.S. product demonstration expenses. By letter of
March 30, 1992, we requested that Toyota separately report total
demonstration expenses and allocate the same per forklift truck. In its
response dated April 6, 1992, Toyota claimed that it reallocated such
expenses using the ratio of forklifts under investigation to all units
as reported in Exhibit C.4.i.1, page 2 of its December 5, 1990
response. However, after reviewing the calculation, we determined that
Toyota did not actually use this ratio. Thus, we corrected Toyota's
allocation for the final results.
We agree with petitioners that demonstration expenses incurred in
the United States should be categorized as direct selling expenses
because in both the HM and the United States, Toyota incurs
demonstration expenses in order to make sales to end-users. Toyota's
citation to AFBs I is irrelevant because AFBs I does not offer a clear
statement of policy with regard to demonstration expenses. Absent
evidence that demonstrations serve different purposes in different
markets, we determine that Toyota's U.S. demonstration expenses should
be treated as direct selling expenses. See Forklifts I.
Comment 13: Petitioners contend that Toyota did not include certain
U.S. customs fees (merchandise processing fee and harbor maintenance
fee) in its reported movement charges. Petitioners state that the
merchandise processing fee was 0.17 percent of entered value and the
harbor maintenance fee was 0.04 percent of entered value during the
period of review. For the final results, petitioners request that the
Department increase Toyota's reported movement charges by these amounts
for all of Toyota's U.S. sales.
Toyota argues that it appropriately reported such fees under
brokerage and handling expenses.
Department's Position: We agree with Toyota. These expenses are
included in respondent's reported brokerage and handling expenses.
Therefore, no adjustment is necessary.
Comment 14: Petitioners claim that the Department should resort to
BIA in determining the amount of certain U.S. inland freight costs
incurred on sales made after May 1, 1990 that Toyota failed to report.
Toyota agrees with petitioners that it failed to report certain
inland freight costs incurred on sales made during May of 1990 and that
the Department should account for such costs in its final analysis.
Department's Position: All parties concur that Toyota failed to
report certain U.S. inland freight costs for May 1990. For the final
results we therefore used Toyota's highest reported inland freight as
BIA.
Comment 15: Petitioners claim that Toyota understated its U.S.
value-added labor and overhead costs. Petitioners' reason for this
assertion is based on proprietary information. Petitioners request that
the Department use the data in Attachment 4 of petitioners' case brief
to correct these costs.
Toyota agrees that the labor cost portion of the labor and overhead
variable has been miscalculated due to a computer programming error,
but that the overhead portion is correct.
Department's Position: We agree that the labor portion of the
``labor and overhead'' variable was improperly calculated, and have
made the necessary corrections, as described by Toyota, for the final
results. We agree with Toyota that overhead was both properly
calculated and properly included in the calculation of the labor and
overhead variable. For a complete discussion of this issue, please
refer to the analysis memorandum.
Comment 16: Petitioners state that Toyota reported negative amounts
for net selling price proxy 3 (which Toyota states represents switching
operations performed in TIE processing centers and includes other U.S.
expenses and profit) on many of its ESP sales. Petitioners note that
these negative amounts always occur when Toyota reports a negative
value for the variable manufacturing cost of options switched by TIE.
Petitioners argue that these facts, in addition to other
proprietary information, indicate Toyota assumed negative U.S. value-
added expenses on any sale for which the cost of the options removed
from the forklift by TIE exceeded the cost of options installed by TIE.
Petitioners contend that Toyota incurs actual expenses to operate its
value-added facilities and to perform switching operations. They state
that, for example, removing the forks from an imported forklift results
in an actual expense rather than a negative expense to TIE. Petitioners
request that the Department correct the negative costs and expenses
reported by Toyota for net selling price proxy 3 by using the absolute
values of the negative amounts reported by Toyota.
Toyota contends that petitioners misinterpreted Toyota's value-
added calculation. Toyota explains that labor and overhead are always
positive; however, if the value-added materials are negative and are
added to labor and overhead, the value-added will be increased, but
remain negative.
Department's Position: We agree with Toyota. While the reported
amount for value-added and switching operations is negative, Toyota
accounted for its expenses of labor and overhead in its calculation.
For further discussion of respondents' further processing operations
and the potential for negative value-added, refer to the discussion of
TCM's further processing in Comment 20 below.
Comment 17: Petitioners argue that Toyota's claimed credit revenue
for its U.S. sales should be rejected because the credit revenue for
certain sales is actually earned on sales by unrelated dealers to end-
user customers and not on the sale from Toyota to the unrelated dealer.
Petitioners state that Toyota sells forklifts in the United States to
unrelated dealers and that the first unrelated sale is the sale from
Toyota to the dealer. Petitioners contend that the purpose of this
review, as stated in the questionnaire, is to examine sales by Toyota
to the first unrelated customer. Petitioners argue that credit revenue
earned on sales from the unrelated dealer to the end-user, which are
financed through TMCC, is therefore irrelevant to this review, because
the financing arranged by TMCC is a separate transaction from the sale
of the forklift.
Toyota argues that TMCC retains both the title to, and the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) interest in, the forklift until TMCC receives
payment from either the dealer or end-user. Toyota contends that a
shift in the credit transaction from the dealer to the end-user is no
more than a shift in the source of payment. In both cases, TMCC retains
ownership and the UCC interest in the forklift. Because Toyota retains
a direct relationship with the dealer or end-user, the credit revenue
is directly related to the sale of the forklift, and therefore, the
credit transaction should be adjusted for. Toyota further contends that
its ability to sell forklifts is contingent upon its ability to
encourage end-users to buy forklifts. Toyota notes, for example, that
the Department considers its subsidies of yellow page advertisements
for dealers a direct selling expense. Toyota's provision of favorable
financing to end-users similarly is intended to encourage end-user
sales, which in turn create sales to dealers. Toyota concludes by
noting that it would be unfair and illogical to account for TMCC's
credit expense and not its revenue.
Department's Position: In accordance with section 353.41 of the
Department's regulations, we used the price to the first unrelated
purchaser in the United States as the basis of U.S. price. Toyota's USP
was based on the price TMS/TIE charged its unrelated dealers.
Therefore, we consider revenue generated as a result of the sale by the
dealer to the end-user through a financing arrangement a separate
transaction, and as such, not directly associated with the sales under
review, as claimed by Toyota. This credit arrangement is unlike
Toyota's subsidy for yellow pages advertisements, which is properly
treated as a direct selling expense. That TMCC retains both the title
to, and the UCC interest in, the financed forklift until TMCC receives
the final payment from the end-user has no bearing on the calculation
of USP. Finally, we note that, contrary to Toyota's assertion, we are
not accounting for TMCC's credit expense. We therefore disallowed the
claimed adjustment for credit revenue for the sales financed by the
end-user.
Comment 18: Petitioners contend that the Department should not have
deducted Toyota's HM advertising costs as a direct selling expense for
PP comparisons. Petitioners contend that the Department should follow
its practice in the first review and treat these expenses as ISE.
Toyota does not believe that the Department applied the correct
legal test for determining whether these advertising expenses are
direct or indirect. Toyota submits that these expenses, incurred on
behalf of Toyota's customers, are direct and should therefore be
deducted from FMV in PP comparisons.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. These advertising
expenses are indirect because they are not directed at Toyota's
customer's customer. In the first administrative review, we determined
that these advertising expenses were indirect selling expenses. See
Forklifts I, Comment 18. The data submitted in this proceeding is very
similar to that submitted and disproved during verification in the
previous administrative review. We have no compelling evidence on the
record in this proceeding which indicates that the situation is any
different from that found previously. We have therefore continued to
treat these HM expenses as ISE and have not deducted them from FMV in
PP comparisons.
Comment 19: Petitioners claim that Toyota failed to support
adequately its claim concerning credit expenses incurred by Toyota on
PP sales. Petitioners state that, for reasons based on proprietary
information, the claimed method of payment used with respect to these
sales is incorrect. Petitioners assert that, accordingly, the
Department should use BIA with respect to this expense for the final
results. According to petitioners, the Department should also consider
associated bank charges in determining this BIA. Petitioners state that
bank charges should be among several elements considered in this BIA.
Petitioners provide a calculation, using data from Toyota's ESP
response, of the average time between the date the forklifts were
exported from Japan and the date the forklifts were imported into the
United States. Petitioners contend that this calculation represents the
best method for imputing Toyota's credit expense for PP sales.
Toyota asserts that, because of the immediate payment term on PP
sales, there is no credit expense, as concluded by the Department in
Forklifts LTFV and Forklifts I, which included two verifications.
Toyota states that the Department should not change its practice in
this administrative review.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that reported
credit expenses are incorrect. Although Toyota's PP sales are made on
immediate payment terms (immediate with respect to the date of delivery
in the United States), Toyota still incurs some credit expense on these
transactions for the time between shipment and payment. An expense must
therefore be imputed on PP sales for the time between shipment from
Japan and payment. Because entry dates are unavailable, we used the
average number of days between shipment and payment calculated by
petitioners in their case brief. Petitioners' figure is based on data
provided by Toyota. However, we have no information on the record
indicating that Toyota incurred bank charge fees associated with the
immediate payment PP sales and, thus, we cannot make an adjustment for
such fees.
Comments Specific to TCM
Comment 20: TCM objects to the Department's allocation of selling,
general and administrative expenses (SG&A) over U.S. further
manufacturing cost in cases involving ``swap-downs'' of masts
(substitutions of low-value masts for masts of higher value). In such
situations, TCM has allocated a negative SG&A amount to further
manufacturing. In the Department's preliminary results ESP computer
program, wherever a negative amount was reported for the further
manufacturing SG&A expense, this amount was multiplied by negative one
in order to convert it to a positive value. TCM claims that these
negative amounts should not have been converted to positive amounts
because the SG&A expenses that were allocated to the import values were
inflated so as to include an offset amount equal to the absolute value
of the negative value-added SG&A amounts. As a result, according to
TCM, the amount of total U.S. SG&A deducted from USP has been inflated
well beyond the total actual expense incurred. TCM requests that the
Department correct this problem in the computer program so that only
the actual SG&A expenses will be deducted from U.S. price.
Petitioners argue that the Department should recalculate TCM's
value-added using positive U.S. SG&A amounts for those U.S. value-added
sales where TCM listed negative SG&A amounts. Petitioners state that it
is not possible to have negative labor, factory overhead, or SG&A from
value-added operations. Petitioners suggest applying the highest
reported SG&A amount to these sales as BIA or, in the alternative,
assigning a positive value to all SG&A expenses.
Petitioners also argue that, despite the arguments in its brief,
TCM has not offered support for its contention that TCM allocated the
total U.S. SG&A amount, plus an offsetting increase, to the truck as
imported for those sales where it allocated negative SG&A in further
manufacturing. Petitioners also contend that there is insufficient
information (i.e., calculation of total SG&A, or identification of the
field where the SG&A amount allocated to the value of the truck as
imported is recorded) on the record for the Department to verify TCM's
claim. Finally, petitioners claim that TCM's use in its case brief of a
hypothetical--rather than an actual--example is not sufficient.
Petitioners, therefore, contend that the Department should continue to
use the same methodology for allocating U.S. SG&A to U.S. further
manufacturing costs that was used for the preliminary results.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that it is not
appropriate to attribute negative SG&A expenses to further processing
operations. However, in the preliminary results, our treatment of SG&A
understated the value of TCM's imported product and overstated TCM's
value-added for those products for which TCM reported negative SG&A. As
a result of these over- and under-statements, we have decided not to
follow the methodology employed in Forklifts I and in the preliminary
results of this review.
Two facts must be considered in determining how to treat TCM's
reported negative SG&A properly. First, the processing that TCM
undertook must result in the allocation of positive SG&A expenses both
to the imported product and to the further processing operations
conducted by TCM. Second, the sum of the SG&A allocated to TCM's
imported product and TCM's value-added must be equal to the amount
incurred.
Therefore, we have allocated a portion of TCM's SG&A expenses to
the COM of the further processing operations and deducted this amount
from USP. The COM of the further processing operations is the sum of
the cost of all materials added to the forklift truck, plus the labor
and factory overhead costs incurred by TCM. The remaining SG&A amount,
which we attributed to the imported product, was not deducted. This
allocation distributes the actual amount of SG&A expense incurred
between further manufacturing and the imported product. This
methodology therefore results in an allocation of positive SG&A to both
the further manufacturing operations and the imported product. The
amount allocated to the imported product also does not exceed the
amount incurred for the sale.
To do this, we calculated on a sale-by-sale basis the factor
represented by TCM's reported SG&A as a share of the total reported
manufacturing costs associated with further manufacturing (i.e.,
positive and negative values). We then used this factor, which was
always positive1, to generate an SG&A amount for each transaction
by applying the factor only to the positive costs associated with
further manufacturing. We thereby guaranteed that the SG&A value
attributed to further manufacturing was always positive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This factor will always be positive because TCM always
assigned a negative SG&A to the negative total manufacturing costs
associated with the further manufacturing of the swapdown models.
The negative SG&A divided by the negative total COM yields a
positive factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this methodology we succeed both in allocating an amount for
SG&A expense equal to that incurred by TCM, and in attributing a
positive value for SG&A expenses to all TCM's further processing
operations, i.e., including cases of ``swap-downs'' of masts
(substitutions of low-value masts for masts of higher value).
Comment 21: TCM argues that, in the ESP program, for situations in
which FMV is based on constructed value (CV), the Department neglected
to deduct direct selling expenses from FMV. TCM argues that such an
adjustment is in accordance with the Department's longstanding
practice. TCM cites section 772(e) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR
353.41(e); Tapered Roller Bearings from Japan (52 FR 30700, August 17,
1987); Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan (50 FR
45447, October 31, 1987); and Spun Acrylic Yarn from Italy (50 FR
35849, September 4, 1985).
Petitioners assert that the Department must first define the direct
selling expenses variable before a COS adjustment can be made, noting
that the variable was not defined in either the Department's January
29, 1992 ESP program or in a memorandum dated February 5, 1992.
Petitioners claim that, if the direct selling expenses variable is not
defined, neither the respondent nor petitioners will be able to verify
that the correct COS adjustments were made.
Department's Position: We agree with TCM. We were satisfied with
the respondent's reporting of direct and indirect selling expenses as
submitted. Therefore, we have made a COS adjustment using the direct
selling expenses variable.
Comment 22: TCM argues that the Department incorrectly accounted
for credit income earned on U.S. sales in PP comparisons. According to
TCM, the Department added credit income earned on U.S. sales to both
USP and FMV, despite the fact that credit income is realized on U.S.
sales only. Accordingly, TCM requests that the Department revise its
calculations to eliminate the addition to FMV of credit income earned
on U.S. sales for these final results.
Department's Position: We agree with TCM and have eliminated the
addition of credit income to FMV for these final results.
Comment 23: Petitioners argue that verification of TCM's cost data
is necessary because this data has never been verified. Petitioners
state that TCM's cost data was neither verified in the investigation,
because the cost data was not accepted, nor in the first administrative
review, due to the outbreak of the Persian Gulf War. Petitioners assert
that good cause for verification still exists and is shown by
petitioners' April 9, 1991 letter to the Department, which petitioners
claim documents extensive discrepancies in TCM's unverified cost data.
Accordingly, petitioners claim that the Department should conduct
verification of TCM's cost information prior to issuing its final
results.
TCM replies that the Department is not required to conduct
verification of TCM's COP data in this review. According to TCM, the
Department is required to conduct verification in an administrative
review only if an interested party files a timely request for
verification and if the Department has not conducted a verification
during the two immediately preceding reviews. TCM also notes that the
Department is not required to verify all sections of a respondent's
questionnaire response. In this context, TCM argues that the Department
satisfied these requirements in the previous review by conducting
verification of TCM's HM and U.S. sales, and further manufacturing
expenses. Because the Department was able to verify TCM's information
in the previous review, TCM argues that no further verification is
necessary in this review.
Department's Position: With respect to administrative reviews, the
Department is required to verify information under section 776(b)(3) of
the Tariff Act if the Secretary concludes that good cause for
verification exists, or if a timely request for verification is
received from an interested party and the Department has not conducted
a verification during either of the two immediately preceding
administrative reviews. The current administrative review is the second
review of the antidumping order in this case. Thus, verification is not
required under section 776(b)(3) of the Act. TCM's HM sales, U.S. sales
and U.S. costs, including value-added cost data from TCM's related
facilities in the United States, were verified in the previous
administrative review. The Department determined that TCM's data
reporting methodology was sound and reliable.
Because verification was not required and all other aspects of
TCM's sales were successfully verified in the previous review, because
our analysis of TCM's response did not indicate any significant
discrepancies, and because petitioners did not make a compelling case
that TCM's data was seriously flawed, we determined that presently
there was no good cause to verify TCM's submitted cost data.
Comment 24: Petitioners argue that for the final results, the
Department should revise the method it used to adjust for commissions
on TCM's sales. For PP transactions, petitioners submit that the
commission offset rule directs the Department to reduce USP by the
lesser of the HM commission or U.S. ISE when commissions are paid in
one market and not in the other. Petitioners contend that TCM failed to
report ISE for its PP sales and that the Department should accordingly
deny the commissions claimed by TCM for its HM sales.
With respect to ESP transactions, petitioners state that the
preliminary margin program incorrectly deducted all HM commissions from
HM price and all U.S. commissions from USP. Petitioners state that
commissions should be deducted from both home market price and U.S.
price only with respect to ESP comparisons that include a commission in
both transactions.
TCM responds that the special rule governing commission offsets
does not require that commissions be paid on every sale in both
markets. Rather, TCM contends that this rule applies only when no
commissions are paid on any sales in one of the markets under
consideration. Because TCM pays commissions on certain sales in both
markets, TCM concludes that the Department should continue to treat
commissions as direct selling expenses in both the U.S. and home
markets, and thereby not employ the offset rule in comparisons in which
commissions are incurred in only one transaction.
Department's Position: Petitioners' assertion that TCM failed to
report U.S. ISE on PP transactions is incorrect. For the final results,
we modified our PP computer program to deduct HM commissions from FMV
and then offset them by adding U.S. ISE up to the amount of the HM
commissions.
With regard to ESP sales, we agree with petitioners to the extent
that the mere existence of commissions on some sales in both markets
does not automatically preclude the use of the offset rule. Our
standard practice requires that for comparisons involving ESP for which
a commission is incurred in both markets, we deduct the U.S. commission
from ESP and the HM commission from FMV. For comparisons in which there
is a commission paid in one market and none in the other market, we
offset the commission with ISE incurred in the other market, to the
extent of the lesser of the commission in the one market or the ISE in
the other. In order to follow this standard practice, we have modified
our ESP computer program for the final results because, in our
preliminary results calculations, we did not offset the commission with
ISE for comparisons in which a commission was paid in one market and
not in the other.
Comment 25: Petitioners contend that TCM's HM commission sales are
outside the ordinary course of trade because they were unusual and
infrequent, as stated by TCM in its June 24, 1991 questionnaire
response. Petitioners argue that the Department should accordingly
exclude TCM's HM commission sales from FMV.
Department's Position: We disagree that TCM's HM commission sales
are outside the ordinary course of trade. TCM paid commissions to both
related and unrelated dealers on TCM's sales to end-users. Although
sales to end-users constitute a very small portion of TCM's HM sales,
and are included as comparison models, these end-users are TCM's usual
commercial customers. As a result, we consider them to be in the
ordinary course of trade.
Comment 26: Petitioners contend that HM transactions that have
shipment dates prior to March 1, 1989 are not within the relevant
reporting period (March 1, 1989 to July 31, 1990) and therefore should
be disregarded for comparison purposes. Petitioners note that the
questionnaire states that ``[t]here can be no new dates of sale after
shipment and any subsequent price modifications must be reported as
either a rebate or a discount.'' Petitioners further contend that TCM's
response supports the use of shipment date as the appropriate date of
sale, because it states that the date of sale is equivalent to the
estimated date of receipt by the customer. In the interests of
consistency, petitioners also suggest matching U.S. sales to HM sales
on the basis of shipment dates.
In response, TCM argues that the date of sale, rather than the date
of shipment, determines the reporting period for HM sales. TCM further
argues that, in accordance with Department practice, TCM reported as
the date of sale the date on which the parties were bound by the terms
of sales. Because TCM followed the Department's requirements in
determining dates of sale and reporting HM sales, and because the
Department did not request from TCM additional information regarding
sale dates, TCM concludes that the Department should not revise its
reporting requirements for HM dates of sale.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. Any given sale
cannot have a date of sale later than the date of shipment to the
customer. Any adjustments to price or quantity that take place after
the date of shipment must be reported as discounts or rebates, in the
case of changes in price, or quantity adjustments in the case of
changes in quantity.
We have therefore used the HM date of shipment as the date of sale
instead of the date of delivery, which TCM reported as the date of
sale. We analyzed these HM shipment dates in order to determine whether
they met our criterion for contemporaneity with regard to matching to
the U.S. sale dates. We found that all but two of TCM's proposed
matches were suitably contemporaneous, and that these transactions were
only used for matching with two ESP sales. We assigned these two sales
the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for ESP sales.
Comment 27: Petitioners claim that TCM failed to include the G&A
expenses of one of its related subsidiaries, C. Itoh Industrial
Machinery Inc. (CIM). Petitioners state that TCM calculated a G&A
factor for U.S. ISE but failed to apply this factor to the selling
price and, therefore, did not include an amount for the G&A portion of
U.S. selling expenses in its reported sale-by-sale ISE.
TCM responds that it reported the expenses in question in
accordance with the Department's instructions. According to TCM, it
initially reported all SG&A expenses that it incurred in the United
States as either direct or indirect selling expenses. The Department
subsequently requested, however, that TCM segregate G&A from selling
expenses, and allocate the G&A expenses to TCM's U.S. further
processing operations. Thus, TCM asserts that petitioners' argument is
incorrect because the expenses in question are included, at the
Department's request, in TCM's further manufacturing submissions.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. The G&A expenses
in question pertain to all of TCM's U.S. sales of subject merchandise,
regardless of whether the merchandise is further processed in the
United States. Because these G&A expenses are applicable to all U.S.
sales, we have included them in our calculation of U.S. ISE for these
final results.
Comment 28: Petitioners claim that there are two errors in the U.S.
ISE that TCM reported for sales by another related subsidiary, Mitsui
Machinery Distribution, Inc. (MMD). First, petitioners claim that sale-
by-sale ISE shown in TCM's sales listing does not reconcile with the
formula provided by TCM (ISE factor x net price). In particular,
petitioners state that the amounts reported for certain ESP sales are
lower than the amount that results from applying the formula.
Petitioners request that the Department recalculate this expense using
the formula provided by TCM.
Second, petitioners claim that TCM failed to report an amount for
MMD's G&A in TCM's reported ISE. Petitioners request that the
Department allocate a portion of the ``General G&A'' reported by TCM to
MMD's forklift truck sales to derive a G&A ratio for MMD, then multiply
this factor by net sales price for each of MMD's sales to compute G&A
expenses for each sale.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that TCM did not
calculate a G&A factor for MMD. We have corrected this omission using
the factor, calculated using TCM's data, provided by petitioners in
their case brief because this factor offers a reasonable estimate of
MMD's G&A expenses.
We disagree that TCM failed to calculate properly the amounts
reported for ISE on MMD's sales. In reviewing petitioners' Attachment 4
to the case brief, we found that petitioners included an incorrect
amount for dealer inspection/prep charge and that petitioners did not,
as TCM's sample calculation showed, allocate a portion of the ISE to
U.S. value-added. After adjusting petitioners' calculations in
Attachment 4 to account for the correct dealer inspection/prep charge
and the ISE reported in U.S. value-added, we found that for the
calculations sampled, the results matched the amounts calculated and
reported by TCM.
Comment 29: Petitioners argue that for two sales, TCM did not
recalculate, as requested by the Department in its supplemental
questionnaire, certain value-added costs. Therefore, petitioners assert
that the Department should use the highest costs reported by TCM for
these expense categories as BIA.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. For the final
results, we used the highest costs reported by TCM for these expense
categories as BIA.
Comment 30: Petitioners contend that TCM's brokerage expenses are
understated because the brokerage allocation factor (total brokerage
costs for U.S. forklift sales divided by total revenue from U.S.
forklift sales) was multiplied by transfer price instead of sales
price. Petitioners request that the Department recalculate this expense
by multiplying the brokerage factor by sales price.
TCM replies that the total revenue over which it allocated
brokerage expenses was the revenue of TCM's factory in Japan, which
represents the aggregate of all TCM's transfer prices. Because it
calculated its brokerage expense factor by allocating brokerage
expenses over transfer prices, TCM argues that it is appropriate to
calculate per-unit brokerage expenses by multiplying this expense
factor by TCM's reported transfer prices.
Department's Position: We agree with TCM. We find TCM's allocation
method for calculating Japanese brokerage charges to be reasonable. TCM
calculated a factor by dividing total Japanese brokerage paid on its
exports of forklift trucks to the United States by the total transfer
prices (revenue recorded by the factory at Shiga) of the forklifts
exported to the United States. Because the Japanese brokerage charges
would have been paid on the basis of the transfer price, it is
reasonable that TCM would use this in the denominator of the allocation
equation.
Comment 31: Petitioners state that TCM failed to report the actual
trading company expense incurred for one sale. Petitioners contend that
the Department should treat this expense as a movement expense, in
accordance with the first review, and should assign the highest
reported trading company markup as BIA for this observation.
TCM argues that petitioners misunderstand TCM's method for
calculating trading company markups. According to TCM, it pays trading
companies a single fee that includes movement expenses incurred by the
trading companies and the trading companies' markup. In its response,
TCM separately reported the movement expenses and the markup; the total
of these items represented the single fee that TCM paid to the trading
company. In those instances in which the trading company markup is
negative, the actual movement expenses incurred by the trading company
exceed the fee that the trading company receives from TCM; thus, the
negative markup reported by TCM is a downward adjustment to actual
movement expenses, paid by the trading company, to reflect the amount
paid by TCM. Because TCM's reporting method is accurate and is based on
actual expenses, TCM asserts that the use of BIA is unwarranted. Should
the Department determine to reject TCM's negative trading company
markup, TCM requests that the Department set any negative amounts equal
to zero, in order to reflect the actual movement expenses incurred by
the trading companies.
Department's Position: As in the first review, we treated the
trading company markups as a movement charge. The appropriate deduction
to USP for inland freight is the expense incurred by TCM. Because the
addition of the negative markup yields the actual expense incurred by
TCM for this sale, we have, for the final results, recalculated inland
freight using TCM's submitted data.
Comment 32: Petitioners contend that interest income claimed by TCM
from long-term installment sales may have been earned on sales from
TCM's unrelated dealers to end-users rather than on sales from TCM to
its dealers, and as such should not be added to the price of TCM's
sales. Petitioners assert that installment sales are generally sales to
end-users rather than to dealers. In addition, petitioners claim that
TCM did not properly justify the interest rate it used in calculating
this income.
TCM argues that the credit income at issue is earned by TCM itself,
not by its dealers. TCM further argues that such income is a legitimate
increase to U.S. price, because it is agreed to by the customer at the
time of sale. Therefore, TCM claims that the Department should continue
to add credit income to U.S. price for the final results.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. Concerning the
issue of whether the installment sales in question were made by TCM to
its unrelated dealers, as opposed to sales from the dealers to end-
users, we have not found any evidence that these transactions did not
concern sales by TCM to its dealers. We also do not have any evidence
that TCM did not collect the credit income that it has reported,
regardless of the interest rate that it charged. Therefore we have
continued to add credit income to USP for the final results.
Comment 33: Petitioners, citing Color Picture Tubes from Korea (52
FR 44186, November 18, 1987), contend that TCM's U.S. advertising
expenses are direct selling expenses because the advertisements are
aimed at a purchaser who buys the merchandise from the first unrelated
purchaser or from a subsequent purchaser, i.e., the customer's
customer. Petitioners further contend that a TCM advertisement
submitted as Exhibit 6 of petitioners' case brief is proof that these
expenses are direct advertising expenses because the advertisement: (1)
specifically promotes internal-combustion forklifts subject to this
review; (2) identifies TCM Manufacturing, USA, Inc., TCM America, Inc.,
and C. Itoh Industrial Machinery, Inc., as the source of the
advertisement; and (3) does not refer to or promote specific TCM
dealers.
Petitioners submit that TCM failed to support its claim that all of
its U.S. advertisements were indirect selling expenses and state that
the Department should therefore reject TCM's claim and treat all of the
advertising expenses as direct expenses. Petitioners provide
calculations for allocating this expense as a direct selling expense to
forklifts sold through CIM and to forklifts sold through MMD.
In rebuttal, TCM argues that the only advertising expenses related
to subject merchandise were for general corporate advertising, rather
than advertising for specific products. TCM further argues that the
advertising cited by petitioner does not relate to subject merchandise,
because it concerns forklift trucks manufactured in the United States.
Because TCM's advertising is either intended to promote the company as
a whole, or is not related to forklift trucks produced in Japan, TCM
concludes that the Department should treat TCM's U.S. advertising
expenses as indirect selling expenses.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that these
expenses are direct selling expenses because these advertisements, as
evident from the examples submitted by TCM, are aimed at the ultimate
consumer. We disagree with TCM regarding TCM's claim that the
advertising in question is unrelated to subject merchandise because the
trucks sold by TCM in the United States were in fact manufactured in
Japan, and were, at most, customized through further processing in the
United States. Therefore, we have treated these advertising expenses as
a direct selling expense in the final results.
Final Results of Review
We determine the following percentage margins to exist for the
period June 1, 1989 through May 31, 1990:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation...................................... 6.87
Toyo Umpanki Co., Ltd......................................... 4.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated above. The
Department will issue appraisement instructions concerning all
respondents directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will
be the rates as listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; and (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered by this review, a
prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise.
The cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
be 39.45 percent. On May 25, 1993, the CIT in Floral Trade Council v.
United States, Slip Op. 93-79 and Federal Mogul Corporation v. United
States, Slip Op. 93-83, decided that once an ``all others'' rate is
established for a company it can only be changed through an
administrative review. The Department has determined that in order to
implement these decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the original
``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation (or that rate as
amended for correction of clerical errors as a result of litigation) in
proceedings governed by antidumping duty order for the purposes of
establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative
reviews. In proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless we are
able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV
investigation, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to
adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first final results
of administrative review published by the Department (or that rate as
amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation)
as the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of establishing cash
deposits in all current and future administrative reviews.
Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty order,
the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 39.45
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the amended final
notice of the LTFV investigation by the Department (53 FR 20882, June
7, 1988).
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of the
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-506 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-504 Draft Fishery Management Plan for Corals, Plants, and Associated Invertebrates for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1384-1385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-504]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 010394B]
Draft Fishery Management Plan for Corals, Plants, and Associated
Invertebrates for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public hearings and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council will hold public
hearings on the Draft Fishery Management Plan for Corals, Plants, and
Associated Invertebrates for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(FMP).
DATES: Written comments on the draft FMP should be submitted on or
before February 15, 1994. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates,
time, and location of the public hearings.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Miguel A. Rolon, Executive
Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera
Avenue, suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 0918-2577.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miguel A. Rolon, (809) 753-6910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft FMP proposes the following
management measures: (1) Prohibit the harvest or possession of stony
corals, whether dead or alive, except for legally permitted research,
education, and restoration programs; (2) prohibit the harvest or
possession of sea fans and gorgonians (octocorals) and any species in
the fishery management unit if attached or existing upon live-rock,
live or dead, except for legally permitted research, education, and
restoration programs; (3) prohibit the sale or possession of any
prohibited species unless the specimen entered the management area in
interstate or international commerce and is fully documented as to
point of origin; (4) prohibit the use of chemical, plants or plant-
derived toxins, and explosives to harvest organisms in the coral
fishery management unit, except for legally permitted research,
education, and restoration programs; (5) limit harvest of fishery
management unit organisms except for those listed in Appendix A, to
hand-held dip-nets, slurp guns, hand and other non-habitat destructive
gear, except for legally permitted research, education, and restoration
programs; (6) require an annual permit to harvest or possess organisms
in the fishery management unit; (7) require collectors, dealers, and
exporters of species managed under the coral plan to acquire an annual
permit, to submit monthly records and report harvest, shipments, and
unit cost; and (8) establish a Marine Conservation District (MCD) in
the exclusive economic zone, due south of St. John, U.S. Virgin
Islands, within the coordinates specified below; no possession while
moored, fishing, or harvesting of any organisms will be allowed in the
MCD; no anchoring will be allowed in the MCD. Exceptions to the above
restrictions are allowed for legally permitted research, education, and
restoration programs.
Proposed Coordinates for Marine Conservation District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..................... 18 deg.15.3' N. 64 deg.46.9' W.
B..................... 18 deg.15.0' N. 64 deg.42.2' W.
C..................... 18 deg.10.0' N. 64 deg.42.2' W.
D..................... 18 deg.10.0' N. 64 deg.46.9' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All hearings will be held from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and are scheduled
on the following dates at the following locations:
1. Tuesday, February 1, 1994--Conference Room, Legislature
Building, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
2. Wednesday, February 2, 1994--Boulon Center, Legislature Room,
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.
3. Thursday, February 3, 1994--Conference Room, Legislature
Building, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
4. Tuesday, February 8, 1994--Conference Room, Hotel Antibes, Cabo
Rojo, Puerto Rico.
5. Wednesday, February 9, 1994--Restaurant Meson Criollo, Road 987
Km 3.2, Las Croabas, Fajardo, Puerto Rico.
Testimony may be presented at any of the hearings. Copies of the
draft FMP are available (see ADDRESSES).
Dated: January 5, 1994.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 94-504 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-503 Passenger Operations by Mexican Motor Carriers—Implementation of North American Free Trade Agreement
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1406-1407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-503]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Ex Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 93)]
Passenger Operations by Mexican Motor Carriers--Implementation of
North American Free Trade Agreement
AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.
ACTION: Notice of policy statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this Notice is to announce implementation of
the provisions of the first phase of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) relating to land transportation. Effective January 1,
1994, the Commission will accept and process applications by Mexican
passenger carriers for operating authority to provide charter and tour
bus service across the United States-Mexico International Border line
into the United States.
DATES: The policy announced here will apply to applications filed on or
after January 1, 1994. Comments must be filed by January 18, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Send comments referring to Ex Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 93) to:
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce
Commission, Washington, DC 20423.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph B. O'Malley (202) 927-6292, or
Richard B. Felder (202) 927-5610. [TDD for hearing impaired: (202) 927-
5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 6 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act
of 1982 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 10922(l)) imposed a 2-year moratorium
(subject to renewal) on the Commission's issuance of new grants of
operating authority to motor carriers domiciled in or owned or
controlled by persons of Mexico or Canada. Under this statute, the
President has the authority to remove or modify the moratorium if he
determines it to be in the national interest, that is, if overriding
economic or foreign policy considerations make such an action
advisable, or if a negotiated settlement with one country or the other
can be reached. Under the moratorium, the President must notify the
Congress in writing 60 days before the date on which the removal or
modification is to take effect.
Shortly after it went into effect, the President exercised his
authority and removed the moratorium with respect to Canada. The
President indicated in a memorandum to the United States Trade
Representative that the United States and Canada had reached a
bilateral understanding that would ensure fair and equitable treatment
for both U.S. and Mexican motor carriers on both sides of the
International Boundary line. 47 FR 54053.
The moratorium remained in place for Mexican motor carriers because
the Mexican Government continued to restrict U.S. motor carriers'
access to Mexico. Under the terms of the statute, the President
extended the moratorium for 2-year periods in 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990,
and, most recently, in 1992. On November 3, 1993, however, in a
Statement of Administrative Action, the President gave notice to
Congress that he would lift the moratorium with respect to Mexican
charter and other tour services on NAFTA's effective date, that is, on
January 1, 1994.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This satisfies the 60-day notice period called for under 49
U.S.C. 10922(l). In any event, Congress, in approving NAFTA,
specifically consented to the President's modifying the moratorium
as announced on November 3, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under NAFTA, the moratorium will be lifted in phases.\2\ The
schedule of liberalization is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The NAFTA schedule of liberalization does not remove all
barriers for Mexican motor carrier operations in the United States.
The moratorium will remain in place for Mexican carriers in the one
area that was not liberalized, namely, point to point carriage of
domestic cargo in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Upon entry into force of NAFTA, for access by Mexican charter and
tour bus operators;
2. Three years after signature of NAFTA, for access by Mexican motor
property carriers into United States border States, and for
establishing companies to distribute international cargo within the
United States;
3. Three years after entry into force, for access by Mexican regular-
route passenger carriers;
4. Six years after entry into force, access for cross-border operations
by Mexican motor property carriers.
In Phase 1 of NAFTA, Mexican domiciled or owned or controlled
passenger carriers may now apply for authority under 49 U.S.C. 10922(c)
to transport passengers in charter and tour bus service in the United
States in foreign commerce, that is, the service must begin or end in
Mexico (or Canada). Wholly domestic interstate operations in the United
States cannot be authorized or permitted.
NAFTA authorizes the granting of authority for charter operations
and tour bus service only. By statute, we may authorize motor common
carriers of passengers to operate over either regular or irregular
routes, but irregular-route services must be limited to charter and
special operations. Regular-route operations ordinarily involve the
expeditious transportation of passengers between fixed termini, over
defined routes and according to established schedules. Charter
operations, on the other hand, ordinarily contemplate providing
transportation for a group, assembled by someone other than the
carrier, which group contracts for the exclusive use of certain
equipment for the duration of a particular trip or tour. Generally, a
flat rate for the use of the vehicle is charged, on either a
``mileage'' or an ``hourly'' basis, and the passengers travel together
for the entire trip.
As we recognized most recently in Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc.--
Adirondack Trailways, 8 I.C.C.2d 330, 334 n.5 (1992), special
operations originally were described as services rendered (generally on
weekends, holidays, or other special occasions) to a number of
passengers that the carrier itself has assembled into a travel group
through its own sales of a ticket to each individual passenger covering
a particular trip or tour. Fordham Bus Corp. Common Carrier
Application, 29 M.C.C. 293, 297 (1941). In Asbury Park-N.Y. Transit
Corp. v. Bingler Vacation Tours, 62 M.C.C. 731, 740 (1954) (Bingler),
aff'd sub nom. Bingler Vacation Tours v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
793 (D. N.J. 1955), aff'd per curiam, 350 U.S. 921 (1955), though, the
Commission adopted the position that ``special operations'' is a
catchall classification, which may include almost anything that is
neither charter operations nor the usual operations of a regular-route
carrier.
Accordingly, ``tour service'' is only one form of special
operations, as the Commission discussed in Passenger Transportation in
Special Operations, 112 M.C.C. 160, 165-67, 171-74 (1970), which
clearly distinguishes the requirements of ``tour service'' from those
of ordinary special operations. Thus, under the Bingler criterion, to
constitute a ``tour service'', the carrier must furnish something
substantial in addition to, or different from, bare expeditious
transportation between two points. This contemplates a common interest
of passengers visiting a particular place(s) or event(s) and does not
include ordinary, point-to-point transportation, over either regular or
irregular routes.3 It appears that the ``tour service'' that NAFTA
is intended to cover is this type of special operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Special operations that are not ``tour services'' might
include, for example, limousine services in which door-to-door
service is provided, over irregular routes (according to the
specific locations to be served on any particular trip), to and from
any point in a given territory. Such services will not be authorized
by authority to provide ``tour service''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, certificates that we issue to Mexican carriers will
usually be framed, in accord with our usual practices with regard to
such authorities, to authorize service
Over irregular routes, in foreign commerce, transporting passengers, in
charter operations and in special operations, in tour service, between
ports of entry on the international boundary between the U.S. and
Mexico, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States
(except Alaska and Hawaii).
Because this notice is occasioned by a partial lifting of the
moratorium, no special rules or rulemaking are necessary. The same
application procedure and regulations apply to Mexican and United
States carriers alike. For example, carriers must abide by all U.S.
Department of Transportation safety regulations, comply with the
Commission's insurance requirements (49 U.S.C. 10927), publish and file
with the Commission applicable tariffs (49 U.S.C. 10761, 10762), and
file with the Commission agents for service of process (49 U.S.C.
10330). We will, however, provide a short comment period to enable
interested persons to submit written views, arguments or
representations regarding this subject. Because we have little or no
discretion in this area, we do not contemplate a subsequent decision
unless we receive comments raising substantial issues it would be
helpful or necessary to address. Notice of this proceeding will be
published in the Federal Register and the ICC Register and interested
parties will have 7 days from the date of publication to comment.
Finally, the current application form OP-1 requires all applicants
for ICC operating authority to certify that they are not domiciled in
Mexico or owned or controlled by persons of Mexico. We will modify that
certification requirement when we revise the application form. For the
present, Mexican charter and special operations applicants should
either disregard the certification section, or simply indicate ``not
applicable.'' Applicants not completing the certification affirmatively
will receive charter and special operations tour service authority
limited to movements in foreign commerce.
Decided: December 30, 1993.
By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Simmons,
Commissioners Phillips and Philbin.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-503 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-500 Tucson Electric Power Co.; Application for Rescission of a Prohibition Order Issued Pursuant to the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-500]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Fossil Energy
[Docket No. ERA-FE-81-012]
Tucson Electric Power Co.; Application for Rescission of a
Prohibition Order Issued Pursuant to the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel
Use Act of 1978
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of application to rescind Prohibition Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Tucson Electric Power Company has requested that DOE rescind a
Fuel Use Act Prohibition Order issued to electric generating units at
its Irvington Generating Station located near Tucson, Arizona.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to the Department of Energy,
Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Fuels Programs, Docket room 3F-056,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Docket No. ERA-FC-81-012 should be printed on the outside of the
envelope and on the documents contained therein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Xavier Puslowski (Program Office) 202-
586-4708 or Michael T. Skinker, Esq. (Program Attorney) 202-586-6667.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the
Department of Energy (DOE) has received an application by Tucson
Electric Power Company (TEP) to rescind the Prohibition Order issued on
July 15, 1981 (46 FR 37960, July 23, 1981), pursuant to the Powerplant
and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA) 42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. The
order prohibited the burning of oil or natural gas in TEP's Irvington
Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3, located near Tucson, Arizona.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 501.102(b), TEP filed its application based on a
substantial change in the circumstances upon which the Prohibition
Order was originally issued. TEP claims this change in circumstances to
be beyond its control. TEP cites the sharp reduction in economic
benefits to be realized from the conversion to coal and the potentially
costly environmental disincentives to using coal, combined with TEP's
financial situation, as the impetus for the requested relief. TEP
requests rescission to permit the company to continue to use oil or
natural gas above the percentage limits specified in the prohibition
order.
Procedural Matters
Any party or person desiring to be heard or to protect this
application for rescission should file five copies of any comments,
petitions to intervene, or protests at the address provided above. Any
request for a public hearing must be made within the public comment
period. In making its decision regarding the requested rescission
action, DOE will consider all relevant information submitted or
otherwise available to it.
The public file containing a copy of the application and other
documents and supporting materials on this proceeding is available,
upon request, at the address above.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 1994.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Office of Coal & Electricity, Office of Fuels Programs,
Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-500 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-499 Draft Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan-Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action at the Tonawanda Site, Tonawanda, NY
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1388-1389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-499]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Draft Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan-Environmental Impact
Statement for Remedial Action at the Tonawanda Site, Tonawanda, NY
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Extension of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE, in response to public comments received to date, has
decided to extend to February 10, 1994, the public comment period on
the draft feasibility study/proposed plan-environmental impact
statement (FS/PP-EIS) for remedial action at the Tonawanda Site,
Tonawanda, New York (DOE/EIS-0191D, EPA EIS No. 930393).
DATES: Comments on the draft FS/PP-EIS should be postmarked by February
10, 1994, to ensure consideration. Comments postmarked after that date
will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments or requests for copies of the draft FS/PP-EIS
should be addressed to: Ron Kirk, New York Site Manager, Former Sites
Restoration Division, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations
Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831. Telephone: (615)
576-7477. Fax number (615) 576-0956.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
Tonawanda Site, contact Ron Kirk at the above address. For further
information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
procedures, contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Oversight (EH-25), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-4600 or leave a message
at (800) 472-2756. For further information on DOE's Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
procedures, contact: Randall Kaltreider, Acting Director, Office of
Environmental Compliance (EH-22), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-
4440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 12, 1993, the Environmental
Protection Agency published a notice in the Federal Register (58 FR
60022) announcing the availability of the draft FS/PP-EIS (DOE/EIS-
0191D, EPA EIS No. 930393) and the close of the public comment period
scheduled for January 11, 1994. DOE's draft FS/PP-EIS for the Tonawanda
Site integrates NEPA values with the procedural and documentation
requirements of CERCLA, whenever practicable pursuant to DOE Order
5400.4. In response to requests from several parties to extend the
comment period, and to ensure that all interested parties have the
opportunity to comment, DOE is extending the comment period to February
10, 1994. Comments should be postmarked by February 10, 1994, to ensure
consideration; comments postmarked after that date will be considered
to the extent practicable.
Issued in Washington, DC, January 4, 1994.
Tara O'Toole,
Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 94-499 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-498 Proposed Subsequent Arrangement
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1390-1391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-498]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Proposed Subsequent Arrangement
Pursuant to section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2160), notice is hereby given of proposed
``subsequent arrangement'', under the Additional Agreement for
Corporation between the Government of the United States of America and
the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) concerning Peaceful Uses
of Atomic Energy, as amended, and the Agreement for Cooperation between
the Government of the United States of America and the Government of
Norway concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
The subsequent arrangement to be carried out under the above-
mentioned agreements involve approval for the following retransfer:
RTD/NO(EU)-60 for the transfer from the Federal Republic of Germany to
Norway of 17.63 kilograms of uranium containing 3.517 kilograms of the
isotope uranium-235 (19.95 percent enrichment) for test fuel
fabrication for the Halden reactor.
In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen
days after the date of publication of this notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 1994.
Salvador N. Ceja,
Acting Director, Office of Nonproliferation Policy, Office of Arms
Control and Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 94-498 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-496 Notice of Open Meeting of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-496]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4823-4]
Notice of Open Meeting of the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: FACA Committee Meeting--Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), we are giving notice of the next
meeting of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue
Committee. The meeting is open to the public without advance
registration.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues related to
enhancing the federal facilities environmental restoration process.
DATES: The meeting will be held on January 19, 1994 from 9 a.m. until
6:15 p.m. and on January 20, 1994 from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City,
2799 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anyone needing further information on any aspect of the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee should contact
Marilyn Null, Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement, U.S. EPA (Mail
Code 2262), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-5686.
Dated: December 16, 1993.
Marilyn Null,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 94-496 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-495 Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-495]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4823-3]
Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request
(ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature
of the information collection and its expected cost and burden.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 9, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information or to obtain a copy of this ICR contact Sandy
Farmer at EPA, (202) 260-2740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Office of Research and Development
Title: Request for Information for the bioremediation Field
Initiative Database Systems (EPA ICR No. 1672.01).
Abstract: This is a new ICR for gathering information on the
design, operation, and performance of biological treatment technologies
from remediation experts and managers working at sites where biological
treatment technologies are being tested or implemented. The authority
for collecting information on innovative treatment technologies is
described at Section 311 of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, Section 8003 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act, and Section 10 of
the Toxic Substance Control Act. The information will help the EPA to
deploy innovative technologies more quickly at Superfund and other
sites.
Selected respondents will be asked to complete and return, via
mail, a two-part questionnaire. The first part requests general site
information, such as location, contacts, contaminants, and legislative
authority under which the site is being remediated. The second part
requests site-specific biotechnology information, such as the stage of
the operation, wastes and media being treated, clean-up level goals,
and the performance and cost of the treatment. All responses will be
strictly voluntary. Following the initial questionnaire, respondents
will receive follow-up questionnaires on a semi-annual basis to update
the information already provided.
The EPA will enter the information from completed questionnaires
into computer databases that will be publicly accessible through
computerized bulletin boards.
Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for respondents is
estimated to average 1.6 hours per response with 5 hours per response
for the first-time respondents and 0.5 hours for respondents updating
previous responses, including time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and compiling the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the questionnaire.
Respondents: Respondents may be State and local governments,
businesses, non-profit institutions, and small businesses and
organizations involved in the use of innovative technologies at
Superfund or other remediation sites.
Estimated No. of Respondents: 767.
Estimated Responses Per Respondent: 2.
Frequency of Collection: Semiannual.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: An estimated annual
average of 2,401 hours over three years.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden to:
Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information Policy
Branch (2136), 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
and
Timothy Hunt, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Dated: January 4, 1994.
David Schwarz,
Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division.
[FR Doc. 94-495 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-492 Corporation for Open Systems International; Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-492]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Corporation for Open Systems International; Notice Pursuant to
the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993
Notice is hereby given that, on October 20, 1993, pursuant to
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Corporation for Open
Systems International (``COS'') has filed written notification
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing certain changes. The notifications were filed for
the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
Specifically, the changes are as follows: (1) Electric Power Research
Institute, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, became a member of COS on July 23,
1993; (2) Xerox Corporation and the Foxboro Company ceased membership
in COS effective August 2, 1993 and August 31, 1993, respectively; (3)
COS was advised that the name of Defense Communications Agency, a
member of COS, was changed to Defense Information Systems Agency; (4)
COS was advised that the name of Honeywell Bull, a member of COS, was
changed to Bull HN Information Systems, Inc.; and (5) COS was advised
that Control Data Corporation, a member of COS, has been reorganized
and that its membership in COS would be continued by Control Data
Systems, Inc.
On May 14, 1986, COS filed its original notification pursuant to
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 11,
1986, (51 FR 21260).
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 20,
1993. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to
section 6(b) of the Act on September 23, 1993 (58 FR 49527).
Joseph H. Widmar,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 94-492 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-490 Advisory Committee Meeting Notice
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-490]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Advisory Committee Meeting Notice
AGENCY: Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, Fort Lewis, WA, DOD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following
committee meeting:
Name of the Committee: Yakima Training Center Cultural and
Natural Resources Committee--Technical Committee.
Date of the Meeting: January 20, 1994.
Place: Yakima Training Center, Building 266, Yakima, Washington.
Time: 1 p.m.
Proposed Agenda: Cultural and Natural Resources Management Plan
Development and Review.
All proceedings are open. For further information contact Stephen
Hart, (206) 967-4540.
Kenneth L. Denton,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-490 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-487 Escort Vessels for Certain Oil Tankers
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1411-1412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-487]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
[CGD 91-202]
RIN 2115-AE10
Escort Vessels for Certain Oil Tankers
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A two-part study assessing the capability of escort tugs to
control disabled tankers in Prince William Sound, Alaska, was
commissioned by the Disabled Tanker Towing Study Group (DTTSG). The
study will specifically review the present equipment, personnel, and
procedures aboard the tankers and escort vessels operating in Prince
William Sound, as well as the assist capabilities of the vessels
presently in service for escorting these tankers. Part 1 of the study
has been completed, and the U.S. Coast Guard has been granted
permission to make it available to the public. Certain technical
findings of this study will aid the U.S. Coast Guard in promulgating
national-level tug escort regulations under section 4116(c) of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).
ADDRESSES: Part 1 of the Prince William Sound Disabled Tanker Towing
Study, entitled ``Evaluation of Existing Equipment, Personnel and
Procedures,'' is available for inspection or copying at the Office of
the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 91-
202), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-
1477.
Additionally, copies of Part 1 of the study may be ordered from the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 (phone
orders (703) 487-4650). The NTIS publication number is PB94-120961;
price $27.00 for paper copy, or $12.50 for microfiche copy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Jordan, Project Manager, OPA 90 Staff, at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or by
phone at (202) 267-6751.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Discussion
In the aftermath of the EXXON VALDEZ grounding, the state of Alaska
established a contingency plan that includes provisions requiring laden
tankers to be escorted through Prince William Sound. The escort vessels
are expected to provide immediate assistance to a tanker in the event
it suffers a propulsion or steering failure. The escort vessels also
have some spill response capabilities. At present, there are 11 tugs
and escort vessels in this service, operating out of Port Valdez and
escorting tankers to Hinchinbrook Entrance.
The Disabled Tanker Towing Study Group (DTTSG) was formed to review
the present escort vessel practices in Prince William Sound. The DTTSG
is formed of representatives from the Regional Citizen's Advisory
Council (RCAC) for Prince William Sound, the Prince William Sound
Tanker Association, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The DTTSG commissioned The Glosten Associates, Inc., to prepare a
two-part study. The first part was to conduct an expert review and
evaluation of the emergency towing equipment aboard the tankers and
escort vessels operating in Prince William Sound. The second part was
to determine, by means of actual tanker/tug trials and computer
simulation analyses, the capabilities of the escort vessels to actually
control disabled tankers.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90)
Section 4116(c) of OPA 90 requires the Secretary of Transportation
to initiate issuance of regulations that define areas where single hull
tankers over 5,000 gross tons transporting oil in bulk must be escorted
by at least two towing vessels (as defined under 46 U.S.C. 2101), or by
other vessels which the Secretary considers appropriate. These defined
areas must include Prince William Sound, Alaska, and Rosario Strait and
Puget Sound, Washington (including those portions of the Strait of Juan
de Fuca east of Port Angeles, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Georgia
subject to U.S. jurisdiction). The Secretary has delegated this
responsibility to the Coast Guard.
Federal Regulatory Action to Date
The Coast Guard's regulatory response to this section of OPA 90 has
been divided into two rulemaking projects: the first project (CGD 91-
202) focuses on the Prince William Sound and Puget Sound waters
specifically identified in the statute, the second project (CGD 91-
202a) focuses on other navigable waters where escorts might be
required.
In order to issue effective national escort rules, the Coast Guard
finds it necessary to determine the realistic capabilities of the
various types of tugs that may be used for escort service. To this end,
the Disabled Tanker Towing Study (DTTS) is expected to provide valuable
technical information. In addition to its participation in the DTTSG,
Coast Guard's other actions to date have been as follows:
(1) A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Prince William
Sound and Puget Sound waters was published in the Federal Register on
July 7, 1992 (57 FR 30058). Because the original public comments did
not include sufficient information on certain issues, the comment
period was reopened March 26, 1993 (58 FR 16391), with a request for
more-detailed comments on some specified issues. Altogether, more than
100 public comments were received.
(2) An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public
comment on other navigable waters where escort vessels should be
required was published April 27, 1993 (58 FR 25766). This ANPRM also
requested detailed comments on some specified issues. More than 45
public comments were received.
(3) Three public hearings were held: in Anchorage, Alaska, on June
3, 1993; Valdez, Alaska, on June 5, 1993; and Seattle, Washington, on
June 7, 1993. Both Alaska hearings had teleconferencing arrangements to
include outlying communities in the Exxon Valdez impacted areas. All
three hearings were well attended. Locally-interested parties,
including individuals and representatives of environmental, commercial
fishing, and recreational groups, tug operators, pilots, and tanker
operators, made presentations at each hearing. Transcripts of the three
hearings have been put in files 43, 44, and 45 of Coast Guard docket
91-202a.
Summary of the Study
The Executive Summary from Part 1 of the DTTS, ``Evaluation of
Existing Equipment, Personnel and Procedures,'' is reprinted here
verbatim:
``This study has been undertaken by The Glosten Associates, Inc.,
to evaluate the existing capability for emergency towing at Prince
William Sound and to examine alternatives that could enhance the escort
and assist capabilities for disabled tankers within the waterway from
the Alyeska Oil Terminal at the Port of Valdez to the Gulf of Alaska
outside Hinchinbrook Entrance.
Part 1, reported herein, is an objective evaluation by an
experienced salvage towing master of the existing tugs, emergency
towing equipment, towing practices, and discussion of alternate tug
types. Part 2 will evaluate alternative equipment and deployments,
using engineering methods, including simulation, that could improve the
safety or cost-effectiveness of the response system.
The Part 1 investigation was performed by subcontractor Smit Tak
BV, based in Rotterdam. Captain Jan ter Haar, a senior Smit Tak salvage
master, conducted interviews and observed normal operations and
emergency drills in the Valdez area.
Captain ter Haar feels that, with some changes such as improved bow
fendering, the existing escort/response vessels (ERVs) are adequate to
control a ship's heading in the event of a steering failure and to tow
it in the event of loss of propulsive power. He reserves any final
opinion on the number of such vessels required to control an incident,
in relation to the size of tanker and the weather conditions, to the
results of simulations in Part 2.
All tankers calling at Valdez are required to carry specific
emergency towing gear for rapid deployment and connection to a rescue
tug. This ``Prince William Sound Emergency Towing Package'' is stowed
and deployed differently on various vessels. Captain ter Haar
recommends that all vessels adopt systems that can be readied for
deployment in 15 minutes or less by a crew of two without using winch
power.
Captain ter Haar demonstrated in drills several effective
alternative methods of making towing connections with the tugs' own
gear, without deploying the ship's Prince William Sound Towing Package.
Drills were also used to assess crew skills in towing large tankers in
adverse weather with multiple tugs. He concludes that additional drills
and training, both in the makeup and towing operations, would be
beneficial.
With regard to escort vessel operations, Captain ter Haar
recommends that, in the Valdez Narrows area, escort position should be
in close proximity to tankers for faster response to a steering
failure. However, in the more open waters of Prince William Sound,
where a power or steering failure will not result in immediate peril of
grounding, close escort does not increase the level of safety of the
system. Escort vessels strategically positioned at key locations would
appear to provide the same level of protection. This deployment issue
will be analyzed more thoroughly in Part 2.
Captain ter Haar concludes that the vessels presently under
contract are suitable for rescue towing in Prince William Sound under a
full range of weather conditions. In the open waters of the Gulf of
Alaska, at and beyond Hinchinbrook Entrance, he concludes that a larger
salvage tug would improve the capability to prevent a major casualty.''
Anticipated Course of Action
The second phase of the DTTS (tanker/tug maneuvering trials and
computer simulation analyses) is currently underway. The Coast Guard
has been informed that the technical data collection should be
completed by January, 1994, and that Part 2 of the study will be
released by spring, 1994.
In the meantime, the Coast Guard is now reviewing all public
comments and studying various technical submittals, including Part 1 of
the DTTS. Because the Federal regulations that it ultimately proposes
as a result of this review will probably differ from those proposed in
the NPRM, the Coast Guard plans to issue a Supplementary Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). The Coast Guard anticipates issuing the
SNPRM after Part 2 of the study has been reviewed and analyzed.
Dated: January 4, 1994.
W. J. Ecker,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 94-487 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-484 Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During the Week Ended December 30, 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1410-1411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-484]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During
the Week Ended December 30, 1993
The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14
CFR 302.1701 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
Docket Number: 49339
Date Filed: December 30, 1993
Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: January 27, 1994
Description: Application of Czechoslovak Airlines, pursuant to Section
402 of the Act and Subpart Q of the Regulations, requests renewal of
its permit authority so as to permit CSA to continue to conduct its
operations to and from the United States fully in accordance with the
terms of the Bilateral Aviation Agreement in effect between the United
States and the Czech Republic (formerly Czechoslovakia).
Docket Number: 49341
Date Filed: December 30, 1993
Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: January 27, 1994
Description: Application of Aries Del Sur Sociedad Anonima Transportes
Aereos De Carga, pursuant to section 402 of the Act and subpart Q of
the Regulations, requests the issuance of a Foreign Air Carrier Permit
authorizing it to engage in nonscheduled foreign air transportation of
property and mail between a point or points in Argentina, via the
intermediate points Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to the
coterminal points Miami and New York and beyond to Montreal, Canada;
between a point or points in Argentina, via the intermediate points
Santiago, Chile; La Paz, Bolivia; Lima, Peru; Guayaquil or Quito,
Ecuador; and Bogota, Colombia; to the coterminal points Miami and New
York; between a point or points in Argentina, via the intermediate
points La Paz, Bolivia; Lima, Peru; Guayaquil or Quito, Ecuador;
Bogota, Colombia; and Mexico City, Mexico; to the terminal point Los
Angeles; and between a point or points in Argentina, via the
intermediate point Caracas, Venezuela, to the coterminal points Miami
and New York; and to engage in charter foreign air transportation of
property and mail between a point or points in Argentina and a point or
points in the United States, its territories and possessions, and
between a point or points in third countries and a point or points in
the United States, its territories, and possessions.
Phyllis T. Kaylor,
Chief, Documentary Services Division.
[FR Doc. 94-484 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-483 Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Filed During the Week Ended December 30, 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-483]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Filed During the Week Ended
December 30, 1993
The following Agreements were filed with the Department of
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers
may be filed within 21 days of date of filing.
Docket Number: 49337
Date filed: December 30, 1993
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association
Subject:
TC31 Resp/P 1009 dated November 5, 1993
North & Central Pacific Resos r-1 to r-3
TC31 Reso/P 1010 dated November 5, 1993
TC3 (EXc. Japan)--N.Amer./Caribbean r-4 to r-18
TC31 Reso/P 1011 dated November 5, 1993
Japan-North America/Caribbean r-19 to r-33
TC31 Reso/P 1012 dated November 5, 1993
TC3-Central/South America Resos r-34 to r-45
Proposed Effective Date: April 1, 1994
Phyllis T. Kaylor,
Chief Documentary Services Division.
[FR Doc. 94-483 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-482 Requests Under Review by Office of Management and Budget
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-482]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Requests Under Review by Office of Management and Budget
Agency Clearance Office--John J. Lane, (202) 942-8800.
Upon written request copy available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings, Information and Consumer Services,
Washington, DC 20549.
Extension
Rule 19d-2
File No. 270-204
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 34501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted for extension of Office of
Management and Budget approval Rule 19d-2 under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 et seq.). Rule 19d-2 prescribes the form and
content of applications to the Commission for stays of final
disciplinary sanctions and summary actions of self-regulatory
organizations. It is anticipated that approximately 30 respondents will
spend a total of 90 hours complying with Rule 19d-2.
Direct general comments to Gary Waxman at the address below. Direct
any comments concerning the accuracy of the estimated average burden
hours for compliance with the Commission rules and forms to John J.
Lane, Associate Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commission,
450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549 and Gary Waxman, Clearance
Officer, Office of Management and Budget, (3235-0205), room 3208, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Dated: January 3, 1994.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-482 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-478 Summer Food Service Program for Children; Program Reimbursement for 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-478]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 6
Monday, January 10, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
Summer Food Service Program for Children; Program Reimbursement
for 1994
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to
the reimbursement rates for meals served in the Summer Food Service
Program for Children (SFSP). These adjustments reflect changes in the
Consumer Price Index and are required by the statute governing the
Program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and Program Development Branch, Child
Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2620.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is not a rule as defined by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from
the provisions of that Act. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping or reporting
requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the
Office of Management and Budget.
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of
Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials, (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final
rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983).
Definitions
The terms used in this Notice shall have the meaning ascribed to
them in the regulations governing the Summer Food Service Program for
Children (7 CFR part 225).
Background
Pursuant to section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1761) and the regulations governing the SFSP (7 CFR part 225), notice
is hereby given of adjustments in Program payments for meals served to
children participating in the SFSP during the 1994 Program. Adjustments
are based on changes in the food away from home series of the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the period November 1992
through November 1993.
The new 1994 reimbursement rates in dollars are as follows:
Maximum Per Meal Reimbursement Rates
Operating Costs:
Breakfast.................................................. 1.1600
Lunch or Supper............................................ 2.0825
Supplement................................................. .5450
Administrative Costs:
a. For meals served at rural or self-preparation sites:
Breakfast.................................................. .1075
Lunch or Supper............................................ .1975
Supplement................................................. .0525
b. For meals served at other types of sites:
Breakfast.................................................. .0850
Lunch or Supper............................................ .1650
Supplement................................................. .0425
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to
Program sponsors will be based upon these Program reimbursement rates
and the number of meals of each type served. The above reimbursement
rates, before being rounded-off to the nearest quarter-cent, represent
a 1.91 per cent increase during 1993 (from 141.5 in November 1992 to
144.2 in November 1993) in the food away from home series of the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. Because of the
relatively small adjustment, the Department points out that several of
the new administrative rates are identical to the rates in effect for
the 1993 Program.
Authority: Secs. 9, 13 and 14, National School Lunch Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761 and 1762a).
Dated: January 3, 1994.
George A. Braley,
Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 94-478 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-476 Monarch-Narragansett Ventures, Inc., Notice of License Surrender
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-476]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[License # 01/01-0340]
Monarch-Narragansett Ventures, Inc., Notice of License Surrender
Notice is hereby given that Monarch-Narragansett Ventures, Inc.,
(``MNVI''), Monarch Place, 1414 Main Street, Springfield, Massachusetts
01144, has surrendered its license to operate as a small business
investment company under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as
amended (``the Act''). MNVI was licensed by the Small Business
Administration on December 8, 1986.
Under the Authority vested by the Act and pursuant to the
regulations promulgated thereunder, the surrender of the license was
accepted on December 3, 1933, and accordingly, all rights, privileges,
and franchises derived therefrom have been terminated.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small
Business Investment Companies)
Dated: December 6, 1993.
Charles R. Hertzberg,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 94-476 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-475 Surrender of License; DSC Ventures II, LP
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-475]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DSC Ventures II, LP
[License No. 09/09-0391]
Surrender of License
Notice is hereby given that DSC Ventures II, LP, 20111 Stevens
Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014, has surrendered its
license to operate as a small business investment company under the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the Act).
DSC Ventures II, LP was licensed by the Small Business
Administration on March 1, 1991.
Under the authority vested by the Act and pursuant to the
Regulations promulgated thereunder, the surrender was accepted on
December 14, 1993, and accordingly, all rights, privileges, and
franchises derived therefrom have been terminated.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small
Business Investment Companies)
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Charles R. Hertzberg,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 94-475 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-470 Betty Ruth Whittington, et al.; Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-470]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Betty Ruth Whittington, et al.; Change in Bank Control Notices;
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later
than January 27, 1993.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President)
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
1. Betty Ruth Whittington and Jimmy Harold Whittington, St.
Francisville, Louisiana; to each acquire 23.18 percent of the voting
shares of Commerce Corporation, St. Francisville, Louisiana, and
thereby indirectly acquire Bank of Commerce and Trust Company, St.
Francisville, Louisiana.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3,
1994.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-470 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-469 Triangle Bancorp, Inc., et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1401-1402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-469]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Triangle Bancorp, Inc., et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by;
and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1842) and Sec. 225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
Each application is available for immediate inspection at the
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at
a hearing.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these
applications must be received not later than January 31, 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
1. Triangle Bancorp, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina; to acquire 100
percent of the voting shares of Roanoke Valley Savings Bank, Inc., SSB,
formerly known as Roanoke Valley Savings Bank, SSB, Roanoke Rapids,
North Carolina.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President)
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
1. Bank Corporation of Georgia, Macon, Georgia; to acquire 49.7
percent of the voting shares of AmeriCorp, Inc., Savannah, Georgia, and
thereby indirectly acquire Ameribank, N.A., Savannah, Georgia.
2. 1st United Bancorp, Boca Raton, Florida; to acquire 99.72
percent of the voting shares of Suburban Bank, Lake Worth, Florida.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
1. Community Grain Company, Coon Rapids, Iowa; to acquire 100
percent of the voting shares of Farmers National Bank, Bayard, Iowa.
D. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166:
1. First Banks, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri; to acquire 100 percent
of the voting shares of Heritage National Bank, St. Louis, Missouri.
2. Independent Southern Bancshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan and Trust, Brownsville, Tennessee; to become a bank holding
company by acquiring at least 25 percent of the voting shares of
Independent Southern Bancshares, Inc., Brownsville, Tennessee, and
thereby indirectly acquire Brownsville Bank, Brownsville, Tennessee;
Union Savings Bank, Covington, Tennessee; and Tennessee Bank and Trust,
Millington, Tennessee.
E. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
1. Avon State Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Avon,
Minnesota; to become a bank holding company by acquiring an additional
15.31 percent of the voting shares of Avon Bancshares, Inc., Avon,
Minnesota, for a total of 30.58 percent, and thereby indirectly acquire
Avon State Bank, Avon, Minnesota.
F. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President)
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1. Bancrecer, S.A., Mexico City, Mexico; to become a bank holding
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of United Bank &
Trust, N.A., Dallas, Texas.
2. Extraco Bankshares, Inc., Waco, Texas; to acquire 94.97 percent
of the voting shares of Guaranty Bank and Trust Company, Gatesville,
Texas.
3. Grupo Financiero Bancrecer, S.A., De C.V., Mexico City, Mexico;
to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting
shares of United Bank & Trust, N.A., Dallas, Texas.
G. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning,
Director, Bank Holding Company) 101 Market Street, San Francisco,
California 94105:
1. Grupo Financiero Bancomer, S.A., Mexico, D.F., Mexico; to become
a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of
Bancomer, S.A., Mexico City, Mexico; Bancomer Holding Company
(Antilles) N.V., Curacao, Netherlands Antilles; Bancomer Holding
Company (Netherlands) B.V., Rotterdam, Netherlands; Bancomer Holding
Company, Los Angeles, California; and Grossmont Bank, La Mesa,
California.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3,
1994.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-469 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-468 Home Bancorp, et al.; Notice of Application to Engage de novo in Permissible Nonbanking Activities
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-468]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Home Bancorp, et al.; Notice of Application to Engage de novo in
Permissible Nonbanking Activities
The company listed in this notice has 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.
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 27, 1993.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
1. Home Bancorp, Fort Wayne, Indiana; to engage de novo in making
and servicing a loan to the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of Home Loan
Bank SB, Fort Wayne, Indiana, pursuant to Sec. 225.25(b)(1) of the
Board's Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3,
1993.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-468 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-467 Grupo Financiero Banamex Accival, S.A., de C.V.; Formation of, Acquisition by, or Merger of Bank Holding Companies; and Acquisition of Nonbanking Company
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1400-1401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-467]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Grupo Financiero Banamex Accival, S.A., de C.V.; Formation of,
Acquisition by, or Merger of Bank Holding Companies; and Acquisition of
Nonbanking Company
The company listed in this notice has applied under Sec. 225.14 of
the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) for the Board's approval under
section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) to become a
bank holding company or to acquire voting securities of a bank or bank
holding company. The listed company has also applied under Sec.
225.23(a)(2) of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(2)) 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, or to engage in such an activity. Unless otherwise
noted, these 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 31, 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning,
Director, Bank Holding Company) 101 Market Street, San Francisco,
California 94105:
1. Grupo Financiero Banamex Accival, S.A. de C.V., Mexico, D.F.,
Mexico; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of
the voting shares of Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A., Mexico, D.F.,
Mexico, and thereby indirectly acquire Banamex USA Bancorp, Los
Angeles, California, and California Commerce Bank, Los Angeles,
California.
In connection with this application, Applicant also proposes to
acquire ACCI Securities, Inc., New York, New York, and thereby engage
in full service brokerage pursuant to Secs. 225.25(b)(4) and (b)(15)
of the Board's Regulation Y; and private placement services (soliciting
purchasers in the private placement of all types of securities)
pursuant to the criteria set forth in NCNB Corporation, 76 Federal
Reserve Bulletin 864 (1990).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3,
1994.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-467 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-466 Manufacture of in Vitro Diagnostic Products; Current Good Manufacturing Practice Final Guideline; Availability
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1402-1403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-466]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 88D-0087]
Manufacture of in Vitro Diagnostic Products; Current Good
Manufacturing Practice Final Guideline; Availability
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a final guideline entitled ``Guideline for the
Manufacture of In Vitro Diagnostic Products'' that contains production
practices which are acceptable to FDA for assuring the safety and
effectiveness of in vitro diagnostic products. Manufacturers of in
vitro diagnostic products may find the information in the guideline
useful in developing procedures that comply with the current good
manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for these products. A draft
document was previously made available for public comment.
DATES: Comments by March 11, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the final
guideline to the Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance (HFZ-220),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,
301-443-6597 (toll free outside MD 800-638-2041). Send two self-
addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
requests. Submit written comments on the final guideline to the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23,
12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857. Requests and comments should
be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading
of this document. The final guideline and received comments are
available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Z. Frank Twardochleb, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-300), Food and Drug
Administration, 2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-1128.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA first announced the availability for
public comment of the draft guideline in the Federal Register of April
7, 1988 (53 FR 11561). In that same issue of the Federal Register (53
FR 11561), FDA announced the forthcoming meeting of the agency's Device
Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee (the committee). As a
result of the notice and the open public meeting, FDA received 17
letters providing comments--14 from manufacturers, 2 from trade
associations, and 1 from an attorney representing a manufacturer.
Presentations before the committee by industry and FDA resulted in
committee recommendations that the agency: (1) Continue to handle the
document as a guideline; (2) change the title and/or scope of the
document to clarify which products are subject to the guideline; and
(3) extend the comment period from June 6, 1988 to July 15, 1988.
FDA extended the comment period as recommended by the committee and
revised the guideline based on the comments received. A notice of
availability of the second draft was published in the Federal Register
of April 19, 1990 (55 FR 14863).
Since release of the second draft, four letters of comment have
been received from two trade associations, one manufacturer, and one
user association. Meetings have also been held with the two trade
associations--the Association of Microbiological Diagnostic
Manufacturers and the Health Industry Manufacturers Association. A
total of 21 letters of comment were received in response to all
notices. These comments are on file with the Dockets Management Branch
under Docket No. 88D-0087.
The notice of availability of the draft guideline stated that it
would be issued under Sec. 10.90(b) (21 CFR 10.90(b)), which provides
for the use of guidelines to establish procedures or standards of
general applicability that are not legal requirements but that are
acceptable to the agency. The agency is now in the process of
considering whether to revise Sec. 10.90(b). Although that decision has
not been made, the agency has decided to publish this guideline.
However, this notice and the final guideline are not being issued under
the authority of Sec. 10.90(b), and the final guideline, although
called a guideline, does not operate to bind FDA or any other person in
any way. The agency advises that this final guideline represents its
current position on the requirements of the CGMP regulations for in
vitro diagnostic products. The guideline may be useful to manufacturers
of in vitro diagnostic products. A person may also choose to use
alternate procedures even though they are not provided for in the
guideline. If a person chooses to depart from the practices and
procedures set forth in the final guideline, that person may wish to
discuss the matter further with the agency to prevent an expenditure of
money and effort on activities that may later be determined to be
unacceptable by FDA. This guideline does not bind the agency, and it
does not create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits for or on
any person.
On November 23, 1993 (58 FR 61952), FDA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking to revise the medical device CGMP regulations. Any revisions
to the CGMP regulations may result in the need for changes to this
guideline. Therefore, on issuing a final rule to revise the CGMP
regulations, FDA will review the guideline and make any necessary
changes.
Copies of this final guideline, along with previous drafts and
submitted comments, are available for public examination in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above).
Interested persons may submit written comments on the final
guideline to the Dockets Management Branch. Additional comments will be
considered in determining the future need for amending the final
guideline. Two copies of comments should be submitted, except that
individuals may submit one copy. Comments should be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Dated: January 4, 1994.
Michael R. Taylor,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 94-466 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-464 Viking Gas Transmission Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-464]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-100-000]
Viking Gas Transmission Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Viking Gas Transmission
Company (Viking) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A
to the filing, to be effective February 1, 1994.
Viking states that the purpose of this filing is to make several
miscellaneous tariff modifications to reflect the acquisition of
Viking's stock by Northern States Power Company and changes in
personnel, addresses and telephone numbers occasioned by that
acquisition. In addition, Viking proposes to: (1) Change the time for
commencement of the gas day from 8 a.m. to 12:00 noon; (2) establish a
minimum delivery threshold for the installation of electronic
measurement equipment; (3) delete the PGA clause from its tariff, as no
longer required; (4) eliminate references to Order No. 497 that are no
longer appropriate in view of the Commission's recent finding that
Viking is currently not subject to Order No. 497 (see East Tennessee
Natural Gas Co., et al., Dockets Nos. MG91-4-001 et al., 65 FERC
Paragraph 61,389 (December 23, 1993), mimeo at 39-40); (5) delete a
reference to common operating personnel with Viking's former affiliate,
Minnesota Intrastate Transmission System; (6) change the governing law
in its pro-forma service agreements from Texas to Minnesota; and (7)
revise the index of shippers to reflect contract modifications
occasioned by implementation of Order No. 636. Finally, Viking has
modified its tariff to correct several miscellaneous typographical
errors.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should
be filed on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene.
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available
for public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-464 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-463 Transwestern Pipeline Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-463]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-97-000]
Transwestern Pipeline Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Transwestern Pipeline
Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to be
effective February 1, 1994:
1st Revised Sheet No. 148
Transwestern states that the tariff sheet revises Transportation
Service Agreement--Form N, Operator Balancing Agreement, Sheet No. 148
in order to revise the Index Price contained therein. The revised Index
Price (i) will be based on three geographic locations, rather than one,
and (ii) will reflect the average of the daily prices for such
locations as quoted in Gas Daily for the applicable month, rather than
a price based on a price quoted in the first publication of Gas Daily
in a particular month.
Transwestern states that copies of the filing were served on its
gas utility customers, interested state commissions, and all parties to
this proceeding.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests should be filed
on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-463 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-462 Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1397-1398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-462]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-99-000]
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation (Texas Eastern) filed a limited application pursuant to
section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c (1988), and the Rules
and Regulations of the Commission promulgated thereunder to recover
Account No. 858 costs (Stranded Costs) incurred as a consequence of
Texas Eastern's implementation of Order No. 636.
Texas Eastern states that it is filing to recover Stranded Costs
pursuant to Sec. 15.2(D) of the General Terms and Conditions of Texas
Eastern's FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1.
Original Sheet No. 175
Original Sheet No. 176
Original Sheet No. 177
Original Sheet No. 178
Sheet Nos. 179-199
The proposed effective date of these tariff sheets is February 1,
1994.
Texas Eastern states that by this filing it seeks to recover known
and measurable Stranded Costs totalling $2,238,018.86 incurred from
September 1, 1993 through November 30, 1993. Texas Eastern has paid
$2,241,497.61 in demand charges during this period and received a rate
refund of $23,879.88 in principal and interest from Columbia Gulf
Docket Nos. RP91-160 and RP91-161 et al. on October 25, 1993, related
to September, 1993 activity. Interest of $20,401.13 at the current FERC
annual rate of 6.00%, net of deferred income tax impact, is added for
the carrying charges from the date of payment of the costs to the
projected date of payment by the customers.
Texas Eastern states that Stranded Costs shall be allocated to
Texas Eastern's customers under Rate Schedules CDS, FT-1, and SCT in
accordance with the methodology specified in Sec. 15.2(D) of the
General Terms and Conditions. At each customer's individual option,
payment of these Stranded Costs amounts may be amortized over as much
as a twelve month period with carrying charges calculated on amounts
uncollected, net of deferred taxes, pursuant to Sec. 154.305 of the
Commission's Regulations.
Texas Eastern states that copies of its filing have been served on
all firm customers of Texas Eastern and applicable state regulatory
agencies.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Regulatory
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before
January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection
in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-462 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-461 Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-461]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-98-000]
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.; Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Granite State Gas
Transmission, Inc. (Granite State) tendered for filing as part of its
FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 31
changes in rates for effectiveness on January 1, 1994.
Granite State further states that its filing includes Second
Revised Sheet No. 20 containing a revised Index in its tariff.
According to Granite State the charges on Original Sheet No. 31
allocate the accumulated balance in its A/C 191 as of October 31, 1993
to its customers, Bay State Gas Company and Northern Utilities, Inc.
Granite State further states that it proposes to directly bill the
balance in A/C 191 as transitional costs pursuant to Order Nos. 636, et
al. It is further stated that Granite State commenced restructured
operations on November 1, 1993 under a compliance plan and tariff
approved by the Commission in Docket No. RS93-1-000.
Granite State states that copies of its filing have been served on
its customers, Bay State Gas Company and Northern Utilities, Inc., and
the regulatory commissions of the States of Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with sections 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such
motions or protests should be filed on or before January 11, 1994.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-461 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-460 Carnegie Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1394-1395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-460]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-102-000]
Carnegie Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Carnegie Natural Gas Company
(Carnegie) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 7A, to become effective
January 31, 1994.
Carnegie states that it is filing the above tariff sheet as a
limited application under section 4 of the Natural Gas Act and the
Commission's Order No. 636 to direct bill to Carnegie's former bundled
firm sales customer the pre-restructuring balance of Account No. 858
costs included in Carnegie's Account No. 186.7, as adjusted for
carrying charges and interest, together with amounts direct billed to
Carnegie by Carnegie's upstream pipeline, Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation (Texas Eastern), pursuant to Texas Eastern's filing in
Docket No. RP93-204-000.
Carnegie states that copies of its filing were served on all
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE, Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should
be filed on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene.
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available
for public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-460 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-459 Carnegie Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-459]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-101-000]
Carnegie Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Carnegie Natural Gas Company
(Carnegie) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 8A, to become effective
January 31, 1994.
Carnegie states that it is filing the above tariff sheet as a
limited application under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act and the
Commission's Order No. 636 to direct bill to New Jersey Natural Gas
Company, Carnegie's former Rate Schedule LVWS customer Account No. 191
costs billed to Carnegie by Carnegie's upstream pipeline, Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation (Texas Eastern) pursuant to Texas Eastern's
filing in Docket No. RP94-47-000.
Carnegie states that copies of its filing were served on all
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should
be filed on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene.
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available
for public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-459 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-458 TS Hydro; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-458]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 11311-001 Nevada]
TS Hydro; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that TS Hydro, Permittee for the TS Ranch Project No.
11311, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The
preliminary permit for Project No. 11311 was issued November 13, 1992,
and would have expired October 31, 1995. The project would have been
located partially on lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management on TS Ranch in Lander and Eureka Counties, Nevada.
The Permittee filed the request on December 8, 1993, and the
preliminary permit for Project No. 11311 shall remain in effect through
the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a
Saturday, Sunday or holiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in which
case the permit shall remain in effect through the first business day
following that day. New applications involving this project site, to
the extent provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next
business day.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-458 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-457 NGC Energy Resources Limited Partnership, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1393-1394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-457]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-162-000, et al.]
NGC Energy Resources Limited Partnership, et al.; Natural Gas
Certificate Filings
January 3, 1994.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. NGC Energy Resources Limited Partnership.
[Docket No. CP94-162-000]
Take notice that on December 22, 1993, NGC Energy Resources,
Limited Partnership (NER), located at 13430 Northwest Freeway, suite
1200, Houston, TX 77040, filed in the above-referenced docket, pursuant
to section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717(b) and Rule
207(a)(2) of the Commission's rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207, a Petition for Declaratory Order Disclaiming Jurisdiction over
certain facilities acquired from Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
It is stated that NER entered into an agreement with Northern under
which Northern will sell NER the ``Bear Paw'' facilities located in
Blaine, Chouteau and Hill Counties, Montana, and interconnecting with
the pipeline owned by Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited at the
Montana/Saskatchewan border. NER will acquire approximately 500 miles
of various diameter gathering lines along with three compressors
totaling 13,600 horsepower.
It is further stated that NER requests that the Commission declare
the entire Bear Paw system to be gathering facilities under section
1(b) of the NGA. NER also states that Northern has filed an application
in Docket No. CP94-130-000 to authorize the abandonment and sale of
these facilities to NER.
Comment date: January 24, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
2. Questar Pipeline Company
[Docket No. CP94-159-000]
Take notice that on December 23, 1993, Questar Pipeline Company
(Questar) of 79 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 filed in
Docket No. CP94-159-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.216
of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act for
authorization to abandon minor pressure regulating facilities under the
blanket authorization issued by the Commission in Docket No. CP82-491-
000 pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection.
Questar proposes to abandon its Huntington District Regulator
Station (HU0005 DRS) located adjacent to its six-inch Jurisdictional
Lateral (J.L.) No. 44 located in Emery County, Utah, used in
conjunction with providing gas service to Mountain Fuel Supply Company
(Mountain Fuel), Questar's local distribution company affiliate.
Questar states that the facilities to be abandoned at the HU0005 DRS
comprise approximately 100 feet of three, four and six-inch piping and
one pressure regulating valve assembly. Questar states that the
investment associated with the facilities to be abandoned is $15,129.
Questar states that because these facilities function solely to reduce
delivery pressures for individual downstream sales and transportation
delivery meter stations, no actual deliveries were made directly
through these facilities. Questar states that following abandonment,
the 3-inch Huntington Tap will remain in service. Questar states that
because Mountain Fuel will continue to deliver to its customers via
individual meter and regulating stations along the length of J.L. No.
44, there will be no abandonment of gas service to Mountain Fuel or its
customers as a result of granting it permission to abandon the HU0005
DRS.
Comment date: February 17, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
3. Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership
[Docket No. CP94-143-000]
Take notice that on December 20, 1993, Great Lakes Gas Transmission
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes), One Woodward Avenue, suite 1600,
Detroit, Michigan 48226, filed in Docket No. CP94-87-000, a request
pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations
and Great Lakes' blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP90-2053-000
pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for authorization to
construct and operate a new delivery point near Chippewa Township,
Isabella County, Michigan, to provide Midland Cogeneration Venture
Limited (MCV) the flexibility and the security of a second delivery
point to receive natural gas transported by Great Lakes, all as more
fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection.
Great Lakes states that MCV is an existing shipper to whom it
provides firm transportation service of up to 80,000 Mcf of gas per day
under Part 284 of the Commission's regulations. Great Lakes states that
it currently receives the gas at its Emerson Receipt Point, located in
Great Lakes' Western Zone, and delivers gas to MCV through the Chippewa
Meter Station on Great Lakes' mainline. Great Lakes states that the
design capability of the Chippewa Meter Station has now been exceeded
and that MCV has requested it to construct and operate a new delivery
point (Midland Meter Station) to provide flexibility and the security
of a second delivery point. Great Lakes states that the Midland Meter
Station will consist of taps, two turbine meters, a gas separator, and
an electronic measurement system. Great Lakes estimates that the cost
to construct the facilities will be about $1.4 million. Great Lakes
states that the Midland Meter Station and existing transportation
service will not impact its existing peak day and annual deliveries,
and the transportation service will continue to be provided, under Part
284 of the Commission's regulation, without detriment to service to any
other shipper on its system.
Comment date: February 17, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
F. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with
reference to said application should on or before the comment date,
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
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.
G. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-457 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-456 Kansas Gas Supply Corp., et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1393-1394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-456]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-163-000, et al.]
Kansas Gas Supply Corp., et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings
December 30, 1993.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Kansas Gas Supply Corporation
[Docket No. CP94-163-000]
Take notice that on December 21, 1993, Kansas Gas Supply
Corporation (KGS), 10200 Grogans Mill Road, The Woodlands, Texas 77380,
filed in Docket No. CP94-163-000 a petition for an order declaring that
the gathering system, which KGS proposes to acquire from Williams
Natural Gas Company (WNG), is a gathering facility pursuant to Section
1(b) of the Natural Gas Act and therefore exempt from the Commission's
jurisdiction, all as more fully set forth in the petition which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
KGS states in its petition that it seeks a declaration from the
Commission that the Barber County Gathering System located in Barber
County, Kansas and Woods County, Oklahoma, which KGS proposes to
acquire from WNG, is a gathering facility. Further, KGS states that it
seeks a declaration that the acquisition, ownership and operation of
the Barber County Gathering System will not subject KGS, or any of the
facilities of KGS (including the Barber County Gathering System), or
any of the services performed or to be performed by KGS, to the
jurisdiction of the Commission under the Natural Gas Act or the
Commission's regulations thereunder.
Comment date: January 20, 1994, in accordance with the first
paragraph of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
2. Williams Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP94-147-000]
Take notice that on December 20, 1993, Williams Natural Gas Company
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No. CP94-
147-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act
for permission and approval to abandon, by sale, WNG's Barber County
gathering system and the assignment and abandonment of gas purchase
contracts and direct sales contracts to Kansas Gas Supply Corporation
(KGS), all as more fully set forth in the application on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
WNG proposes to abandon, by sale to KGS, the Barber County
gathering system located in Barber County, Kansas and Woods County,
Oklahoma; to assign and abandon the sales obligation of producers of
Natural Gas Act gas presently or previously under contract to WNG to
KGS; and to assign and abandon all of WNG's pipeline rights in the sale
facilities to KGS.
Comment date: January 20, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
3. Florida Gas Transmission Company.
[Docket No. CP94-141-000]
Take notice that on December 20, 1993, Florida Gas Transmission
Company (FGT), 1400 Smith Street, P.O. Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-
1188, filed in Docket No. CP94-141-000 a request pursuant to
Secs. 157.205 and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to
construct and operate new delivery point facilities for City Gas
Company of Florida (CGF) in Brevard County, Florida, under FGT's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-553-000 pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
FGT proposes to install a meter station, to be known as the Indian
River Meter Station, to serve as a delivery point for CGF. It is stated
that the delivery point will permit deliveries of up to 480 MMBtu
equivalent of natural gas per hour. It is asserted that the deliveries
will be made under the terms of the existing FTS-1 service agreement
between FGT and CGF. It is further asserted that the deliveries are
within CGF's existing entitlement from FGT and that the deliveries
would not disadvantage FGT's other customers. It is estimated that
construction of the facilities would cost $81,000, to be reimbursed by
CGF.
Comment date: February 14, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
4. High Island Offshore System
[Docket No. CP94-127-000]
Take notice that on December 13, 1993, High Island Offshore System
(HIOS), 500 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243, filed in
Docket No. CP94-127-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and the Rules and Regulations of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), for authorization to
abandon transportation service currently being rendered for Fina
Natural Gas Company (Fina), all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
HIOS proposes to terminate 12,000 Mcf per day in firm
transportation service which it renders for Fina according to HIOS'
Rate Schedule T-19. HIOS also proposes to terminate 20,000 Mcf per day
in associated Interruptible Overrun Transportation Service volumes it
renders according to its Rate Schedule I. HIOS notes that service for
Fina was certificated in Docket No. CP75-104 by order issued March 29,
1982, 18 FERC 61,274 (1982). HIOS states that according to timely
notice given to it by Fina's letter dated July 26, 1993, it proposes to
terminate these services effective August 22, 1994--the end of the
primary term of an agreement between HIOS and Fina dated September 25,
1987, and designated as HIOS' Rate Schedule T-19.
Comment date: Janaury 20, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
F. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with
reference to said application should on or before the comment date,
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 a grant of the certificate and/or 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 applicant to appear or be represented at the
hearing.
G. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor,
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-456 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-455 Duke Power Co.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-455]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Duke Power Co.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment
[Project No. 2607-001]
January 4, 1994.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has received an
application for relicensing of the existing Spencer Mountain
Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2607-001. The project is located on
the South Fork Catawba River in Gaston County, North Carolina.
The FERC staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA)
on the hydroelectric project in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
The EA will objectively consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts of the project and reasonable alternatives, and
will include economic and engineering analyses.
A draft EA will be issued and circulated for review by all
interested parties. All comments filed on the draft EA will be analyzed
by the staff and considered in the final EA. The staff's conclusions
and recommendations will then be presented for the consideration of the
Commission in reaching its final licensing decision.
The purpose of this notice and the attached scoping document is to
solicit comments from interested individuals, organizations, and
agencies with environmental expertise and concerns that will assist the
staff in identifying the scope of environmental issues that should be
analyzed in the EA.
The scoping document will: (1) Identify preliminary environmental
issues related to the proposed projects, (2) identify preliminary
resource issues that are not important and do not require detailed
analysis, (3) identify reasonable alternatives to be addressed in the
EA, and (4) solicit all available information, especially quantified
data, on the resource issues, including points of view in opposition
to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views.
Written comments must be filed no later than March 1, 1994 with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol
Street, NE., room 3100, Washington, DC 20426.
All written correspondence should clearly show the following
caption on the first page: Spencer Mountain Hydroelectric Project,
(FERC No. 2607-001).
Intervenors--those on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding (parties)--are reminded of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, requiring parties filing documents with the
Commission, to serve a copy of the document on each person whose name
appears on the official service list. Further, if a party or interceder
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-455 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-450 Environmental Impact Statement Related to New Rules and Regulations for Implementing the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-450]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[Docket No. 93-29700]
Environmental Impact Statement Related to New Rules and
Regulations for Implementing the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of additional meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation is amending the notice of intent
published in 58 FR 64336, Dec. 6, 1993 to add a scoping meeting in
Boise, Idaho.
DATE AND ADDRESS: This additional scoping meeting is scheduled for:
Boise, Idaho; January 24, 1994, Bureau of Reclamation's
Regional Office, room 204, 1150 North Curtis Road, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Rusty Schuster, Attention: D-5604, Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box
25007, Denver CO 80225. To be placed on a mailing list for any
subsequent information, either write Mr. Schuster or telephone (303)
236-1061, extension 237.
Dated: January 4, 1994.
J. William McDonald,
Assistant Commissioner--Resources Management.
[FR Doc. 94-450 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-446 Notice of Availability, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Disposal and Reuse of Cameron Station, VA
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-446]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary of the Army
Notice of Availability, Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact for the Disposal and Reuse of Cameron Station, VA
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of availability is for the Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) prepared
for the disposal and reuse of Cameron Station, Virginia. The EA has
assessed the potential environmental impacts for two proposed reuse
alternatives: to develop Cameron Station for mixed use; or to place
Cameron Station into caretaker status. The first alternative involves
the development of Cameron Station as follows: mixed residential on 70
acres, commercial/retail on 16 acres, open space/recreation on 50.5
acres, and 16 acres for infrastructure use. The second alternative
would place all buildings and grounds in caretaker status.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Maria De La Torre, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (CENAB-PL-E), P.O.
Box 1715, Baltimore, Maryland 21203-1715, (410) 962-2996.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the EA and FNSI will be available
to the public for review for 30 days following publication of this
notice.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Lewis D. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health), OASA (L, L&E).
[FR Doc. 94-446 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-443 National Workplace Literacy Program; Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1418-1438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-443]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Parts 462 and 472
National Workplace Literacy Program; Final Regulations and Notice
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[CFDA No. 84.198]
National Workplace Literacy Program; Inviting Applications for
New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1993
Note to Applicants: This notice is a complete application package.
Together with the statute authorizing the program and applicable
regulations governing the program, including the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), the notice contains all of
the information, application forms, and instructions needed to apply
for a grant under this competition.
Purpose of Program: The National Workplace Literacy Program
provides assistance for demonstration projects that teach literacy
skills needed in the workplace through exemplary education partnerships
between business, industry, or labor organizations and educational
organizations.
The Secretary wishes to highlight, for potential applicants, that
this program can help to further National Education Goal 5--ensuring
that every adult American will be literate and will possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and
exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The program
helps by improving approaches and methods used in meeting the literacy
needs of adults in the workplace, including those with limited English
proficiency.
Eligible Applicants: (a) Awards are provided to exemplary
partnerships between--
(1) A business, industry, or labor organization, or private
industry council; and
(2) A State educational agency, local educational agency,
institution of higher education, or school (including an area
vocational school, an employment and training agency, or a community-
based organization).
(b) A partnership must include as partners at least one entity from
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and at least one entity from paragraph
(a)(2) of this section and may include more than one entity from each
group.
(c)(1) The partners shall apply jointly to the Secretary for funds.
(2) The partners shall enter into an agreement, in the form of a
single document signed by all partners, designating one member of the
partnership as the applicant and the grantee. The agreement must also
detail the role each partner plans to perform, and must bind each
partner to every statement and assurance made in the application.
Applications are governed by the EDGAR provisions in 34 CFR 75.127-
75.129 regarding group applications.
Deadline For Transmittal of Applications: March 11, 1994.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: March 10, 1994.
Available Funds: $18,527,425 for the first 12 months. Funding for
the second and third year is subject to availability of funds and to a
grantee meeting the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253.
Estimated Range of Awards: $105,469-$1,205,234 (funding for first
12 months).
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $370,549 (funding for first 12
months).
Estimated Number of Awards: 50.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 36 months (3 twelve-month budget periods).
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR part 74 (Administration of
Grants to Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Nonprofit
Organizations), part 75 (Direct Grant Programs), part 77 (Definitions
that Apply to Department Regulations), part 79 (Intergovernmental
Review of Department of Education Programs and Activities), part 80
(Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments), part 81 (General Education
Provisions Act--Enforcement), part 82 (New Restrictions on Lobbying),
part 85 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and
Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)), and part
86 (Drug-Free Schools and Campuses); and (b) the regulations for this
program in 34 CFR parts 460 and 472, including amendments to part 472
that are found elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Description of Program: The Secretary provides grants or
cooperative agreements to projects designed to improve the productivity
of the workforce through improvement of literacy skills in the
workplace by--
(a) Providing adult literacy and other basic skills, services, and
activities;
(b) Providing adult secondary education services and activities
that may lead to the completion of a high school diploma or its
equivalent;
(c) Meeting the literacy needs of adults with limited English
proficiency;
(d) Upgrading or updating basic skills of adult workers in
accordance with changes in workplace requirements, technology,
products, or processes;
(e) Improving the competency of adult workers in speaking,
listening, reasoning, and problem solving; or
(f) Providing educational counseling, transportation, and child
care services for adult workers during nonworking hours while the
workers participate in the project.
The statute authorizing this program requires that projects use
Federal funds to supplement, and not supplant, funds otherwise
available for the purposes of the program.
Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection
criteria to evaluate applications for new grants under this
competition.
The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points. The
maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
In addition to the points awarded based on the selection criteria,
the Secretary assigns five points to applications from partnerships
that include as a partner one or more small businesses that have signed
the partnership agreement. An applicant must provide on the Partnership
Agreement form the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the small business partner.
See the Small Business Size Standards: Final and Interim Final Rules
(13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 121). These rules may be
found at many public libraries or by contacting a Small Business
Administration local district office or regional office, or by calling
the SBA's Office of Size Standards in Washington, DC at (202) 205-6618.
Reserved points: The program regulations in 34 CFR 472.21(b)
provide that the Secretary may award up to 100 points for selection
criteria, including a reserved 10 points. For this competition, the
Secretary distributes the reserved 10 points as follows:
Program Factors (34 CFR 472.22(a)).
Five points are added to this criterion for a possible total of 20
points.
Plan of Operation (34 CFR 472.22(d)). Five points are added to this
criterion for a possible total of 20 points.
The criteria: (a) Program Factors. (20 points) The Secretary
reviews each application to determine the extent to which the project--
(1) Demonstrates a strong relationship between skills taught and
the literacy requirements of actual jobs, especially the increased
skill requirements of the changing workplace;
(2) Is targeted to adults with inadequate skills for whom the
training described is expected to mean new employment, continued
employment, career advancement, or increased productivity;
(3) Includes support services, based on cooperative relationships
within the partnership and from helping organizations, necessary to
reduce barriers to participation by adult workers. Support services
could include educational counseling, transportation, and child care
during non-working hours while adult workers are participating in a
project;
(4) Demonstrates the active commitment of all partners to
accomplishing project goals; and
(5) Focuses on improving performance in jobs or job functions that
have a broad representation within the nation's workforce so that the
products can be adapted for use by similar workplaces across the
Nation.
(b) Extent of need for the project. (10 points) The Secretary
reviews each application to determine the extent to which the project
meets specific needs, including consideration of--
(1) The extent to which the project will focus on demonstrated
needs for workplace literacy training of adult workers;
(2) The adequacy of the applicant's documentation of the needs to
be addressed by the project;
(3) How those needs will be met by the project; and
(4) The benefits to adult workers and their industries that will
result from meeting those needs.
(c) Quality of training. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the quality of the training to be provided by
the project, including the extent to which the project will--
(1) Develop or use curriculum materials for adults based on
literacy skills needed in the workplace;
(2) Use individualized educational plans developed jointly by
instructors and adult learners;
(3) Take place in a readily accessible environment conducive to
adult learning;
(4) Provide training through the partner classified under 34 CFR
472.2(a)(2), unless transferring this activity to the partner
classified under 472.2(a)(1) is necessary and reasonable within the
framework of the project; and
(5) Provide, and document for others, a program of training for
staff including, but not limited to, techniques of curriculum
development and special methods of teaching that are appropriate for
workplace environments.
(d) Plan of operation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the quality of the plan of operation for the
project, including--
(1) The quality of the project design, especially the establishment
of measurable objectives for the project that are based on the
project's overall goals;
(2) The extent to which the plan of management is effective and
ensures proper and efficient administration of the project, and
includes--
(i) A description of the respective roles of each member of the
partnership in carrying out the plan;
(ii) A description of the activities to be carried out by any
contractors under the plan;
(iii) A description of the respective roles, including any cash or
in-kind contributions, of helping organizations;
(iv) A description of the respective roles of any sites; and
(v) A realistic time table for accomplishing project objectives;
(3) How well the objectives of the project relate to the purposes
of the program;
(4) The quality of the applicant's plan to use its resources and
personnel to achieve each objective; and
(5) How the applicant will ensure that project participants, who
are otherwise eligible to participate, are selected without regard to
race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(e) Applicant's experience and quality of key personnel. (8 points)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent
of the applicant's experience in providing literacy services to working
adults.
(2) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality
of key personnel the applicant plans to use on the project, including--
(i) The qualifications, in relation to project requirements, of the
project director;
(ii) The qualifications, in relation to project requirements, of
each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;
(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraph (e)(2) (i)
and (ii) of this section will commit to the project; and
(iv) How the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment
practices, will ensure that its personnel are selected for employment
without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability.
(3) To determine personnel qualifications under paragraphs (e)(2)
(i) and (ii) of this section, the Secretary considers--
(i) Experience and training in fields related to the objectives of
the project;
(ii) Experience and training in project management; and
(iii) Any other qualifications that pertain to the quality of the
project.
(f) Evaluation plan. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the quality of the plan for an independent
evaluation of the project, including the extent to which the
applicant's methods of evaluation--
(1) Are clearly explained and appropriate to the project;
(2) To the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are
quantifiable;
(3) Identify expected outcomes of the participants and how those
outcomes will be measured;
(4) Include evaluation of effects on job advancement, job
performance (including, for example, such elements as productivity,
safety, and attendance), and job retention;
(5) Are systematic throughout the project period and provide data
that can be used by the project on an ongoing basis for program
improvement; and
(6) Will yield results that can be summarized and submitted to the
Secretary for review by the Department's Program Effectiveness Panel.
Note: The Program Effectiveness Panel (PEP) is a mechanism the
Department has developed for validating the effectiveness of
educational programs developed by schools, universities, and other
agencies. The PEP is composed of experts in the evaluation of
educational programs and in other areas of education, at least two-
thirds of whom are non-Federal employees who are appointed by the
Secretary. Regulations governing the PEP are codified in 34 CFR
parts 785-789. Specific criteria for PEP review are found in 34 CFR
786.12 or 787.12.
(g) Budget and cost-effectiveness. (7 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine the extent to which--
(1) The budget is adequate to support the project;
(2) Costs are reasonable and necessary in relation to the
objectives of the project; and
(3) The applicant has minimized the purchase of equipment and
supplies in order to devote a maximum amount of resources to
instructional services.
(h) Demonstration. (5 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the quality of the applicant's plan, during
the grant period, to disseminate the results of the project,
including--
(i) Demonstrating promising practices used by the project to others
interested in implementing these techniques;
(ii) Conducting workshops or delivering papers at national
conferences or professional meetings; and
(iii) Making available material that will help others implement
promising practices developed in the project.
(i) Commitment. (5 points) The Secretary reviews each application
to determine the quality of the partnership's plan to increase, during
the project, the capacity of partners to provide a coherent program of
learning in the workplace that is based on promising practices
demonstrated in the project. For example, the partners could--
(1) Integrate workplace literacy services into long-term planning
of partner organizations;
(2) Create and implement policies and practices that encourage
worker participation in the project;
(3) Provide training that will enable each partner to build a
capacity to furnish necessary workplace literacy services in the
future; or
(4) Include in the project design an opportunity to assess what
workplace literacy services partners may provide in the future.
Additional Factor: In making awards under this program, the
Secretary may consider, in addition to the selection criteria, whether
funding a particular applicant would improve the geographical
distribution of projects funded under this program.
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs: This program is
subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental
Review of Federal Programs) and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
The objective of the Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and to strengthen federalism by relying
on State and local processes for State and local government
coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
Applicants must contact the appropriate State Single Point of
Contact to learn about, and to comply with, the State's process under
Executive Order 12372. Applicants proposing to perform activities in
more than one State should contact the Single Point of Contact for each
of those States and follow the procedure established in each State
under the Executive order. If you want to know the name and address of
any State Single Point of Contact, see the list published in the
Federal Register on September 24, 1993 (58 FR 50162-50164).
In States that have not established a process or chosen a program
for review, State, areawide, regional, and local entities may submit
comments directly to the Department.
Any State Process Recommendation and other comments submitted by a
State Single Point of Contact and any comments from State, areawide,
regional, and local entities must be mailed or hand-delivered by the
date indicated in this notice to the following address: The Secretary,
E.O. 12372-CFDA 84.198, U.S. Department of Education, room 4181, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-0125.
Proof of mailing will be determined on the same basis as
applications (see 34 CFR 75.102). Recommendations or comments may be
hand-delivered until 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on the date
indicated in this notice.
Please note that the above address is not the same address as the
one to which the applicant submits its completed application. Do not
send applications to the above address.
Instructions for Transmittal of Applications: (a) If an applicant
wants to apply for a grant, the applicant shall--
(1) Mail the original and six copies of the application on or
before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application
Control Center, Attention: (CFDA #84.198), Washington, DC 20202-4725;
or (2) Hand deliver the original and six copies of the application by
4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on the deadline date to: U.S.
Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA
#84.198), Room #3633, Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D Streets,
SW., Washington, DC.
(b) An applicant must show one of the following as proof of
mailing:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the
U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial
carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.
(c) If an application is mailed through the U.S. Postal Service,
the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of
mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
Notes: (1) The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a
dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an applicant should
check with its local post office.
(2) The Application Control Center will mail a Grant Application
Receipt Acknowledgement to each applicant. If an applicant fails to
receive the notification of application receipt within 15 days from
the date of mailing the application, the applicant should call the
U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202)
708-9494.
(3) The applicant must indicate on the envelope and--if not
provided by the Department--in Item 10 of the Application for
Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424) the CFDA number of the
competition under which the application is being submitted.
Application Instructions and Forms: To apply for an award under
this program competition, your application must be organized in the
following order and include the following six parts:
Part I: Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424 (Rev.
4-88)) and Instructions.
Part II: Partnership Agreement Form.
Part III: Budget Information and Instructions.
Part IV: Budget Narrative.
Part V: Application Narrative.
Part VI: Additional Assurances and Certification:
a. Assurances--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).
b. Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension, and
Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (ED
form 80-0013) and Instructions.
c. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and
Voluntary Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered Transactions (ED Form 80-0014)
and Instructions.
(Note: ED Form 80-0014 is intended for the use of grantees and
should not be transmitted to the Department.)
d. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL) (if
applicable) and Instructions, and Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
Continuation Sheet (Standard Form LLL-A).
All forms and instructions are included as Appendix A of this
notice. Questions and answers pertaining to this program are included,
as Appendix B, to assist potential applicants.
An applicant may submit information on a photostatic copy of the
forms in Appendix A. However, each of the pertinent documents must
include an original ink signature. All applicants must submit ONE
original signed application, including ink signatures on all forms and
assurances and SIX copies of the application. Please mark each
application as original or copy. Local or State Agencies may choose to
submit two copies with the original.
No grant may be awarded unless a complete application form has been
received.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Miller or Jeanne Williams, Special
Programs Branch, Division of National Programs, Office of Vocational
and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, room 4513-MES, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-7327. Telephone (202) 205-
9750.
Information about the Department's funding opportunities, including
copies of application notices for discretionary grant competitions, can
be viewed on the Department's electronic bulletin board (ED Board),
telephone (202) 260-9950; or on the Internet Gopher Server at
GOPHER.ED.GOV (under Announcements, Bulletins, and Press Releases).
However, the official application notice for a discretionary grant
competition is the notice published in the Federal Register.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
PROGRAM AUTHORITY: 20 U.S.C. 1211(a).
Dated: January 3, 1994.
Augusta S. Kappner,
Assistant Secretary Vocational and Adult Education.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
Appendix A
TN10JA94.000
TN10JA94.001
TN10JA94.002
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Instructions for Part II--Partnership Agreement Form
Partners must submit a signed Partnership Agreement Form and
enclose it with the application. As indicated in 34 CFR 472.2, it is
essential that the partners sign and submit this document in order for
their application to be considered complete. If the agreement is
retyped, the applicant should make sure that none of the wording is
changed. Any changes in wording could alter the meaning of the
agreement and thus render the application ineligible. Any reference in
the application to an organization as a partner in the project is
considered to mean a bona fide partner in the partnership who must sign
the partnership agreement. If the document is not signed by all
organizations identified as partners and submitted with the application
or if the wording is changed and alters the meaning of the agreement,
the Secretary will return the application without further consideration
for funding pursuant to 34 CFR 75.216.
Preference is given under this program to an application that
includes one or more small businesses as a partner. For the purpose of
this program, to claim a small business preference, the applicant must
certify which of the partner enterprises is a small business under the
Small Business Administration's Size Standards: Final and Interim Final
Rules (13 CFR part 121) and furnish the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code in the Final and Interim Final Rules within
which each such enterprise classifies itself. The SIC code for a small
business partner must be entered in the space provided on the
Partnership Agreement Form.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
TN10JA94.003
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Instructions for Part III-Budget Information
Section A--Budget Summary by Categories
1. Personnel: Show salaries to be paid to project personnel.
2. Fringe Benefits: Indicate the rate and amount of fringe
benefits.
3. Travel: Indicate the amount requested for both inter- and intra-
State travel of project staff. Include funds for three people to attend
three developmental staff meetings in Washington, DC.
4. Equipment: Indicate the cost of non-expendable personal property
that has a useful life of more than one year and a cost of $300 or more
per unit ($5,000 or more if State, Local, or Tribal Government).
5. Supplies: Include the cost of consumable supplies and materials
to be used during the project.
6. Contractual: Show the amount to be used for (1) procurement
contracts (except those which belong on other lines such as supplies
and equipment); and (2) sub-contracts.
7. Other: Indicate all direct costs not clearly covered by lines 1
through 6 above, including consultants.
8. Total, Direct Costs: Show the total for lines 1 through 7.
9. Indirect Costs: Indicate the rate and amount of indirect costs
(see Note).
10. Training/Stipend Cost: (not allowable)
11. TOTAL, Federal Funds Requested: Show total for lines 8 through
10.
Note: The National Workplace Literacy Program includes a
statutory requirement that Federal funds supplement, and not
supplant, non-Federal funds. 34 CFR 75.563 requires programs of this
type to use a restricted indirect cost rate. 34 CFR 75.564-75.568
provides the formula for determining the restricted indirect cost
rate and provides definitions of terms used in the formula. A
grantee other than a State or local government may use the
restricted indirect cost rate or eight percent, whichever is less.
Copies of part 75 of 34 CFR may be obtained from the Government
Printing Office by writing to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Telephone: (202)
783-3238. These regulations may also be found at many local
libraries.
Section B--Cost Sharing Summary
Indicate the actual rate and amount of cost sharing. The National
Workplace Literacy Program requires that the partnership provide at
least 30 percent cost sharing. The share required refers to a
percentage of Total project cost, not of Federal funds.
Part IV--Instructions for Budget Narrative
Prepare a detailed Budget Narrative for the first year of the
project that justifies, and/or clarifies the budget figures shown in
sections A and B. (Please note that the National Literacy Act of 1991
(Pub. L. 102-73) amended the section of the Adult Education Act that
authorizes the National Workplace Literacy Program to permit any
eligible organization to use 100 percent Federal funds for
administrative costs incurred in establishing a project during a start-
up period. 34 CFR 472.32(b) requires that an applicant minimize the
start-up period, if any, proposed for its project and that the start-up
period not exceed six months.) Explain:
1. The basis used to estimate certain costs (professional
personnel, consultants, travel, indirect costs) and any other cost that
may appear unusual;
2. How the major cost items relate to the proposed project
activities;
3. The costs of the project's evaluation component;
4. What matching occurs in each budget category; and
5. A breakdown of expenditures in the start-up period, and in the
subsequent operational period.
Provide estimated budget totals for the second and third years of
the project.
Instructions for Part V--Application Narrative
Before preparing the Application Narrative, an applicant should
read carefully the description of the program and the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate applications.
The narrative should encompass each function or activity for which
funds are being requested and should--
1. Begin with an Abstract; that is, a summary of the proposed
project including a list of the members of the partnership;
2. Describe the proposed project in light of each of the selection
criteria in the order in which the criteria are listed in this
application package; and
3. Include any other pertinent information that might assist the
Secretary in reviewing the application.
The Secretary strongly requests the applicant to limit the
Application Narrative to no more than 50 double-spaced, typed, 8\1/2\''
x 11'' pages (on one side only), although the Secretary will consider
applications of greater length. Be sure that each page of your
application is numbered consecutively.
Include as an appendix to the Application Narrative supporting
documentation, also on 8\1/2\'' x 11'' paper (e.g., letters of support,
footnotes, resumes, etc.), or any other pertinent information that
might assist the Secretary in reviewing the application.
Applicants are advised that--(1) Under Sec. 75.217 of the Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), the Department
considers only information contained in the application in ranking
applications for funding consideration. Letters of support sent
separately from the formal application package are not considered by
the technical review panels.
(2) In reviewing applications, the technical review panel evaluates
each application solely on the basis of the established technical
review criteria. Letters of support contained in the application will
strengthen the application only if they contain commitments that
pertain to the established technical review criteria, such as
commitment of resources.
Include any other pertinent information that might assist the
Secretary in reviewing the application under the Adult Education Act,
as amended.
Instructions for Estimated Public Reporting Burden
Under terms of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended, and
the regulations implementing that Act, the Department of Education
invites comment on the public reporting burden in this collection of
information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 90 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. You may send comments regarding this burden
to the U.S. Department of Education, Information Management and
Compliance Division, Washington, DC 20202-4651; and to the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, OMB 1830-0521,
Washington, DC 20503.
(Information collection approved under OMB control number 1830-0521.
Expiration date: December 31, 1995.)
BILLING CODE 4001-01-P
TN10JA94.004
TN10JA94.005
TN10JA94.006
TN10JA94.007
TN10JA94.008
TN10JA94.009
TN10JA94.010
TN10JA94.011
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Appendix B
Potential applicants frequently direct questions to officials of
the Department regarding application notices and programmatic and
administrative regulations governing various direct grant programs. To
assist potential applicants the Department has assembled the following
most commonly asked questions.
Q. Can we get an extension of the deadline?
A. No. A closing date may be changed only under extraordinary
circumstances. Any change must be announced in the Federal Register and
apply to all applications. Waivers for individual applications cannot
be granted, regardless of the circumstances.
Q. We just missed the deadline for a previous Department of
Education competition. May we submit the application we prepared for it
under this competition?
A. Yes. However the likelihood of success is not good. A properly
prepared application must meet the specifications of the competition to
which it is submitted.
Q. I'm not sure which competition is most appropriate for my
project. What should I do?
A. We are happy to discuss any questions with you and provide
clarification on the unique elements of the various competitions.
Q. How can I best ensure that my application is received on time
and is considered under the correct competition?
A. Applicants should carefully follow the instructions for filing
applications that are set forth in this notice. Be sure that Block 10
of the face page of the application (Standard form 424) clearly
indicates the CFDA number 84.198, and the title of the program--
National Workplace Literacy Program--representing the competition in
which the application should be considered.
Q. Will you help us prepare our application?
A. We are happy to provide general program information. Clearly, it
would not be appropriate for staff to participate in the actual writing
of an application, but we can respond to specific questions about
application requirements, evaluation criteria, and the priority.
Applicants should understand that this previous contact is not
required, nor will it in any way influence the success of an
application.
Q. How long should an application be?
A. The Department of Education is making a concerted effort to
reduce the volume of paperwork in discretionary program applications.
However, the scope and complexity of projects is too variable to
establish firm limits on length. Your application should provide enough
information to allow the review panel to evaluate the significance of
the project against the criteria of the competition. We recommend that
you address all of the selection criteria in an ``Application
Narrative'' of no more than 50 pages in length. Supporting
documentation may be included in appendices to the Application
Narrative. Some examples:
(1) Staff qualifications. These should be brief. They should
include the person's title and role in the proposed project and contain
only information about his or her qualifications that are relevant to
the proposed project. Qualifications of consultants should be provided
and be similarly brief. Resumes may be included in the appendices.
(2) Copies of evaluation instruments proposed to be used in the
project in instances where such instruments are not in general use.
(3) Copies (samples) of any curricula that reflect the applicant's
experience and the scope and direction of any current or previous
projects related to this application.
Note that a Budget Narrative describing specific uses of funds
requested in the budget form also is required. No applications will be
funded without this material. The Budget Narrative is not included in
the recommended 50 page limit.
Q. How should my application be organized?
A. The applicant should assemble its package in the following
order: The SF 424 on top, followed by the abstract, Partnership
Agreement Form, table of contents, Budget Information Form, Budget
Narrative, Application Narrative, assurances and certifications, and
appendices.
Do not substitute your own cover for the SF 424. Please include one
extra, loose copy of the SF 424 for use by the Application Control
Center. Please number all pages. The Application Narrative should be
organized to follow the exact sequence of the components in the
selection criteria in this notice.
Q. Can project funds be used to cover travel expenses?
A. Travel associated with carrying out the project can be funded
using program funds if necessary and reasonable. The Secretary
anticipates that the project director, one business or labor
representative, and the evaluator will attend three developmental staff
meetings over the course of the project (one start-up conference, one
mid-point conference, and one close-out conference). Therefore, you may
wish to include the costs of nine trips to Washington, D.C. in the
travel budget.
Q. How can I ensure that my application is filed on behalf of a
validly formed partnership?
A. The requirements for forming a partnership and filing an
application on its behalf are explained in Sec. 472.2 of the program
regulations. A partnership requires a signed agreement between at least
one entity described in Sec. 472.2(a)(1) and at least one entity
described in Sec. 472.2(a)(2). Note that State and local governments--
like any other entities--may not qualify as partners unless they fall
within these descriptions. For example, under the regulations, a State
or local educational agency or a municipal employment and training
agency is an eligible partner, but a State or city government is not an
eligible partner. No agency of the Federal government is an eligible
partner. Federal employees including members of the armed services are
not eligible for training. If you are not sure whether a particular
entity is an eligible partner, please call the program officers listed
as information contacts in the application notice.
Q. Can entities that are not eligible partners be involved in a
workplace literacy project?
A. Yes. They could potentially be involved as ``contractors,''
``helping organizations,'' or ``sites,'' as defined in Sec. 472.5 of
the regulations. Note that entities that are ``helpers'' or ``sites''
may not receive funds from the grant.
Q. Must the signed partnership agreement be submitted with the
application?
A. Yes. The agreement is required both to establish the
partnership's legal eligibility and to ensure each partner's continuing
commitment during the workplace literacy project. Prior to submitting
an application, partners should ensure that each partner clearly
understands its role and responsibilities in the project.
The Department interprets even a single reference in the
application to an organization as a partner to mean that it is a bona
fide partner in the partnership and, thus, is required to sign the
partnership agreement. The applicant should be careful to designate
partners, helpers, contractors, etc. in the same way wherever they are
mentioned throughout the application. Because partnership requirements
are established by law, the Department reviews each agreement form to
be certain that it meets the terms of the law requiring all entities
named as partners to sign the agreement. The Department wishes to
underscore that if any of the entities named as partners in the
application have not signed the agreement form, the application will be
returned to the applicant without further consideration for funding.
Q. How does the Department define ``small business''?
A. In 34 CFR 472.5, the Department defines ``small business'' as a
business entity that--
(1) Is organized for profit, with a place of business located in
the United States and that makes a significant contribution to the U.S.
economy through payment of taxes or use of American products,
materials, or labor, or both; and
(2) May be in the legal form of an individual proprietorship,
partnership, corporation, joint venture, association, trust or a
cooperative, except that where the form is a joint venture there can be
no more than 49 percent participation by foreign business entities in
the joint venture; and
(3) Meets the requirements found in 13 CFR part 121 concerning
Standard Industrial Classification codes and size standards.
If you are not sure whether or not you meet the definition of a
small business, you may want to contact your local district office or
regional office of the Small Business Administration (SBA) for advice.
If you are unable to locate those offices you may call the SBA's Office
of Size Standards at (202) 205-6618.
Q. May an application including a business partner that is a small
local affiliate of a larger corporation receive the small business
priority points?
A. The overall size of the business partner and its affiliates will
determine the answer. Size determinations must include the business
partner and all its domestic and foreign affiliates regardless of
whether the affiliates are organized for profit. 13 CFR 121.401
describes affiliating circumstances for size determination purposes and
establishes exceptions thereto.
Q. May an application including a business partner that operates as
the small local franchisee or licensee of a larger corporation receive
the small business priority points?
A. Small business priority points may be awarded when a business
partner meets the following three conditions: It (1) is a local
franchisee or licensee within the size determination standards, (2) has
the right to profit from its efforts and (3) bears the risk of loss
commensurate with ownership. Exceptions to this general interpretation
may arise where affiliation results from other means than the franchise
or license agreement such as common ownership, common management or
excessive restrictions on the sale of the franchise interest. See
Sec. 121.401(m) of 13 CFR.
Q. Must a small business participant be a partner for the
application to qualify for the small business priority points?
A. Yes. The small business participant must be a partner who has
signed the Partnership Agreement for the application to qualify for the
extra points.
Q. Must an applicant provide the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) code for the small business partner in order to receive the small
business priority points?
A. Yes. The SIC code must be entered on the line provided on the
Partnership Agreement form.
Q. What is meant by a required percent of non-Federal cost-sharing
or matching funds?
A. In this program, the recipient of Federal funds is required to
``match'' the Federal grant by paying at least a minimum percentage of
total program costs. Total program costs include both the Federal funds
received and the non-Federal contribution. For example, a partnership
that is required to pay 30 percent of total program costs of $100,000
would have to contribute $30,000 to match a Federal award of $70,000
($30,000 = 30 percent of $100,000 ($30,000 plus $70,000)). All
partnerships must contribute at least 30 percent of total program
costs, except that partnerships may receive full reimbursement for
their necessary and reasonable administrative costs incurred in
establishing a project during the project start-up period. That period
should be minimized and may not exceed six months, at which time the
project is expected to provide services to adult workers.
Q. What costs may be included in the 30 percent match (cash or in-
kind)?
A. Any cost that can be paid with Federal funds from this program
is allowable as match (see Education Department General Administrative
Regulations, 34 CFR 74.50-74.57 and 34 CFR 80.24).
Q. What costs are not allowed using project funds (Federal or non-
Federal match)?
A. The following items are not allowable costs in the National
Workplace Literacy Program:
Life skills such as balancing a checkbook, learning to
read to children, writing personal correspondence, etc.
Personal counseling such as counseling for alcoholism,
mental health, health, domestic problems, or housing issues.
Job skills or vocational training such as direct training
in statistical process control (SPC) rather than literacy skills needed
for SPC.
Computer literacy, defined as any training above the level
of computer competence needed to operate a computer-assisted program of
instruction used in a workplace literacy project. Non-allowable costs
include teaching of word processing, WordPerfect, Lotus, dBase, etc.
Stipends or tuition payments.
Training of supervisors, other than those one step up from
targeted workers such as maintenance crew supervisors.
Construction costs.
Institutional allowance.
Any unreasonable or unnecessary cost.
Q. May a project provide vocational or job training activities?
A. No. Projects must provide adult education programs that teach
literacy skills needed in the workplace. Workplace literacy activities
include only the adult education activities listed in the Description
of Program section of the Notice Inviting Applications. This list does
not include vocational or job training activities such as auto
mechanics, dye casting, tailoring, and statistical process control.
Workplace literacy instruction, however, may enable individuals to
benefit subsequently or simultaneously from advanced vocational skills
training provided from other funds. If you are not sure whether a
particular activity is eligible under this program, please call one of
the program officers listed as information contacts in the application
notice.
Q. May a project provide training in operating a computer?
A. Training to operate a computer that is part of the performance
of a job is a form of vocational or job training and is not an eligible
activity under this program. However, computers could be used as a
means of instruction if this were necessary and reasonable under the
circumstances of a particular project. In such a context, it would be
permissible to ensure that students possessed those rudimentary skills
that are necessary to interact with computer-assisted literacy
instruction.
Q. What should be disseminated?
A. The criterion ``Demonstration'' encourages applicants to use
certain dissemination strategies but does not preclude the use of
additional strategies that are appropriate for a particular project.
Projects should distribute materials that will help others to adopt
promising practices arising from the project, such as assessment
instruments, recruitment materials, job task analysis materials, staff
development materials, curricula, etc. The Department does not expect
or anticipate that partnerships will disseminate trade secrets or other
protected information. However, a project's dissemination activities
should clearly benefit businesses and workplaces outside of the
partnership.
Q. What is the Department of Education's Program Effectiveness
Panel?
A. As mentioned in the note to the criterion ``Evaluation plan,''
the Program Effectiveness Panel (PEP) is a mechanism that the
Department has developed for validating the effectiveness of
educational programs developed by schools, universities, and other
agencies.
Specific criteria for PEP review are found at 34 CFR 786.12 or
787.12. For further information about PEP, prospective applicants may
wish to read Making the Case: Evidence of Effectiveness in Schools and
Classrooms, which contains criteria and guidelines for submitting
project results to PEP. This publication is available from the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20208-5645.
Telephone: (202) 219-2134.
Q. How many copies of the application should I submit and must they
be bound?
A. The original application should be bound and clearly marked as
the original application bearing the original signatures. In addition
six copies should be submitted and marked as copies. Local or State
Agencies may choose to submit two copies with the original.
Applications should not include foldouts, photographs, audio-visuals,
or other materials that are hard to duplicate.
Q. When will I find out if I'm going to be funded?
A. You can expect to receive notification within 8 to 9 months of
the application closing date, depending on the number of applications
received and the number of competitions with closing dates at about the
same time.
Q. Will my application be returned?
A. We do not return applications. Therefore, applicants should
retain at least one copy of the application.
Q. What happens during negotiations between high ranking applicants
and the U.S. Department of Education grants office?
A. During negotiations, technical and budget issues may be raised.
These are issues that have been identified during panel and staff
reviews that require clarification. Sometimes issues are stated as
``conditions.'' These are issues that have been identified as so
critical that the award cannot be made unless those conditions are met.
Questions may also be raised about the proposed budget. Generally,
these issues are raised because there is inadequate justification or
explanation of a particular budget item, or because the budget item
seems unimportant to the successful completion of the project. If you
are asked to make changes that you feel could seriously affect the
project's success, you may provide reasons for not making the changes
or provide alternative suggestions. Similarly, if proposed budget
reductions will, in your opinion, seriously affect the project
activities, you may explain why and provide additional justification
for the proposed expenses. An award cannot be made until all
negotiation issues have been resolved.
Q. Where can copies of the Federal Register, program regulations,
and Federal statutes be obtained?
A. Copies of these materials can often be found at your local
library. If not, they can be obtained from the Government Printing
Office by writing to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Telephone: (202) 783-3238. When
requesting copies of regulations or statutes, it is helpful to use the
specific name, public law number, or part number. The materials related
to this notice should be referred to as follows:
(1) The Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and
Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988, Public Law 100-297,
title III, sections 301-385.
(2) The National Literacy Act of 1991, title II, Public Law 102-73,
section 202.
(3) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) (34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, and 86).
(4) 34 CFR parts 460 and 472 (National Workplace Literacy Program).
Note: Amendments to 34 CFR 472 are published in this issue of
the Federal Register.
(5) Small Business Size Regulations (13 CFR part 121).
[FR Doc. 94-443 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-441 General Provisions - Copyright Restoration of Certain Mexican and Canadian Works
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-441]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
[Docket No. RM 93-13]
General Provisions - Copyright Restoration of Certain Mexican and
Canadian Works
AGENCY: Copyright Office; Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of policy decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office publishes this notice to inform the
public that the North American Free Trade Agreement which entered into
force on January 1, 1994, and its implementing legislation (Pub. L. No.
103-182) authorizes the Copyright Office to establish procedures for
copyright restoration of certain works first fixed or published in
Mexico or Canada after January 1, 1978 and before March 1, 1989. This
notice is intended to summarize the content of that legislation.
Copyright owners of affected works must file a statement of intent with
the Copyright Office to restore copyright for eligible works; details
of new procedures to file these statements will be published within the
next 60 days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Eric Schwartz, Policy Planning Advisor,
Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540.
Telephone: (202) 707-8350. Fax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North American Free Trade Agreement and
the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. No.
103-182) provide for the restoration of copyright for certain works
that are currently in the public domain in the United States. Under new
section 104A of title 17, copyright protection may be restored for
certain motion pictures that were first fixed or published in Mexico or
Canada, and any work included in such motion pictures that was first
fixed or published with these motion pictures, if the work ``entered
the public domain in the United States because it was first published
on or after January 1, 1978, and before March 1, 1989, without the
notice required by sections 401, 402, or 403 of [title 17], the absence
of which has not been excused by the operation of section 405 of [title
17], as such sections were in effect during that period.'' 17 U.S.C.
104A(a) (1993). A motion picture or underlying work (such as original
music or dramatic text embodied in the motion picture) meeting these
requirements ``shall have copyright protection under [title 17] for the
remainder of the term of copyright protection to which it would have
been entitled in the United States had it been published with such
notice.'' Id.
Copyright owners of qualifying works must file a ``statement of
intent'' with the Copyright Office between January 1, 1994 (the date on
which the Agreement entered into force) and January 1, 1995 to notify
the public of their intent to restore copyright protection for these
works in the United States. After January 1, 1995, the Copyright Office
must publish in the Federal Register, the list of works for which
statements have been filed and which are determined to be properly
qualified for protection. The restoration of copyright protection for
these works will be provided at that time in accordance with section
104A of title 17. Section 104A(c) of title 17 provides that persons who
are copying, performing or selling copies of such works may continue
such activities for a period of one year following publication of the
1995 Federal Register notice. This exemption applies only to copies
produced or acquired before the date of enactment of the implementing
legislation (December 8, 1993).
Within the next 60 days, the Copyright Office will announce in the
Federal Register the procedures necessary to file a ``statement of
intent'' with the Office, including the applicable statements and
materials that must be submitted. In the meantime, copyright owners and
other interested parties can contact Eric Schwartz, Policy Planning
Advisor, Copyright Office, at (202) 707-8350, for additional
information.
January 3, 1994.
Barbara Ringer,
Acting Register of Copyrights.
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 94-441 Filed 1-7-94;8:45am]
BILLING CODE: 1410-07F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-439 Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-439]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM94-4-17-000]
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2, the
revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become
effective February 1, 1994.
Texas Eastern states that these revised tariff sheets are filed
pursuant to Section 15.1, Electric Power Cost (EPC) Adjustment, of the
General Terms and Conditions of Texas Eastern's FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth
Revised Volume No. 1. Section 15.1 provides that Texas Eastern shall
file to be effective each February 1 revised rates for each applicable
zone and rate schedule based upon the projected annual electric power
costs required for the operation of transmission compressor stations
with electric motor prime movers and to also reflect the EPC Surcharge
which is designed to clear the balance in the Deferred EPC Account as
of October 31, 1993.
Texas Eastern states that these revised tariff sheets are being
filed to reflect changes in Texas Eastern's projected expenditures for
electric power for the twelve month period beginning February 1, 1994
based upon actual expenditures for the twelve month period ending
October 31, 1993.
Texas Eastern states that copies of its filing have been served on
all firm customers of Texas Eastern and current Rate Schedule FT-1 and
IT-1 shippers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Regulatory
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before
January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing
are on a file with the Commission and are available for public
inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-439 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-438 National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-438]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM94-4-16-000]
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to be
effective on February 1, 1994:
Second Revised Sheet No. 225
National states that the purpose of this filing is to update the
amount of take-or-pay charges approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and to be recovered by National by operation of Section 20
of the General Terms and Conditions to National's FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1. National further states that the pipeline
supplier that has received approval to bill revised take-or-pay
charges, as reflected in National's filing herein is: Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Corporation.
National states that copies of National's filing were served on
National's jurisdictional customers and on the interested state
commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 or 211 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211). All such motions to
intervene or protests should be filed on or before January 11, 1994.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-438 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-437 Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.; Fuel Reimbursement Charge Filing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1398-1399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-437]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM94-3-49-000]
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.; Fuel Reimbursement
Charge Filing
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its
FERC Gas Tariff the following revised tariff sheets:
Second Revised Volume No. 1
Third Revised Sheet No. 15
Second Revised Sheet No. 15A
Third Revised Sheet No. 16
Second Revised Sheet No. 16A
Third Revised Sheet No. 18
Second Revised Sheet No. 18A
Second Revised Sheet No. 19
Second Revised Sheet No. 20
Third Revised Sheet No. 21
Original Volume No. 2
Fifty-second Revised Sheet No. 10
Fiftieth Revised Sheet No. 11B
The proposed effective date of the tariff sheets is February 1,
1994.
Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets reflect
revisions to the fuel reimbursement charge and percentage components of
the Company's relevant gathering, transportation and storage rates,
pursuant to Williston Basin's Fuel Reimbursement Adjustment Provision,
contained in Section 38 of the General Terms, and Conditions of Second
Revised Volume No. 1 of Williston Basin's FERC Gas Tariff.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such
motions or protests should be filed on or before January 11, 1994.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a
party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene. Copies of the
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-437 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-436 CNG Transmission Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-436]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-96-000]
CNG Transmission Corp.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, CNG Transmission Corporation
(CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the
filing, to become effective on February 1, 1994.
CNG states the proposed rate changes would increase CNG's revenues
by $106.6 million based on a test period cost of service for the twelve
months ended September 30, 1993, as adjusted for known and measurable
changes through June 30, 1994. CNG states that increased rates are
necessary primarily to recover increased operation and maintenance
expenses, increased costs of material and supplies, increased costs of
transportation by others, increased depreciation expense, increased
taxes, stranded costs, and increased plant investment. The filed rate
of return is based on a capitalization of 65.73 percent common equity
and 34.27 percent debt with an equity return of 14 percent.
CNG's filing includes primary and alternate tariff sheets. CNG
states that the primary tariff sheets reflect the end of CNG's
gathering rate moratorium and the establishment of a two-part gathering
rate. The alternate tariff sheets reflect continuation of the gathering
rate moratorium that was approved for CNG in Docket No. RP88-211.
CNG states that it has posted and served its filing in accordance
with Sec. 154.16 of the regulations.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211). All motions or
protests should be filed on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-436 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-435 Southern Natural Gas Co.; GSR Cost Recovery Filing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1396-1397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-435]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-95-000]
Southern Natural Gas Co.; GSR Cost Recovery Filing
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern) filed pursuant to section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, 15
U.S.C. 717(c) (1988), to recover gas supply realignment (``GSR'') costs
incurred as a consequence of Southern's implementation of restructured
pipeline services under Order No. 636, et seq. Southern states that the
tariff sheets identified below were filed in compliance with the
Commission's orders in Southern's restructuring proceeding in Docket
No. RS92-10-000 and the procedures set forth in Section 31 of the
General Terms and Conditions of Southern's FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh
Revised Volume No. 1:
First Revised Second Revised Sheet No. 15
First Revised Second Revised Sheet No. 17
First Revised Second Revised Sheet No. 18
Second Revised Sheet No. 29
Second Revised Sheet No. 30
Second Revised Sheet No. 31
Southern states that the purpose of this filing is to set forth
additional known and measurable GSR costs which have been paid or
incurred by Southern since the filing on December 1, 1993 of its first
GSR cost recovery filing in Docket No. RP94-67-000. Southern states
that it sets forth in this filing the revised demand surcharges and
revised interruptible rates that will be charged in connection with its
recovery of GSR costs associated with the reformation of additional gas
supply contracts that have become unnecessary and/or unmarketable as a
result of the receipt by Southern of revised service elections from its
customers following the mandatory restructuring by Southern of its
pipeline services under Order No. 636. Southern requests that the
tariff sheets be made effective on February 1, 1994.
Southern states that it seeks to recover $53.8 million in GSR costs
which has been paid or incurred in connection with the reformation of
two gas supply contracts. Southern states that these GSR costs have
arisen as a direct result of the need to realign gas supply contracts
following customers' elections during restructuring to terminate their
sales entitlements under Order No. 636. Southern further states that
none of the GSR costs sought to be recovered in the instant filing
constitute take-or-pay settlement costs under gas supply contracts
existing at March 31, 1989 which would be subject to the provisions of
Southern's 1988 take-or-pay settlement in Docket No. RP86-63-000.
Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon
Southern's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests should be filed
on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of
Southern's filing are on file with the Commission and are available for
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-435 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-434 K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1395-1396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-434]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-93-000]
K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, K N Interstate Gas
Transmission Co. (KNI), tendered for filing proposed changes in its
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume Nos. 1-A and 1-B. KNI states
that the proposed changes would increase revenues from jurisdictional
transportation, no-notice, and storage service by $12.0 million based
on the twelve-month period ending September 30, 1993, as adjusted for
known and measurable changes.
KNI states that the jurisdictional rates filed herewith are
designed to enable KNI to recover increases in its jurisdictional cost
of service resulting from: (1) Additional facilities, and (2) increased
operating costs and higher costs of materials and supplies.
KNI requests that the tendered sheet(s) be accepted for filing and
be permitted to become effective February 1, 1994.
KNI states that copies of the filing were served upon KNI's
jurisdictional customers and interested public bodies.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should
be filed on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene.
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available
for public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-434 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-433 Southern Natural Gas Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-433]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-94-000]
Southern Natural Gas Co.; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 30, 1993, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the
tariff sheets listed on appendix A to the filing, to become effective
March 1, 1994.
Southern states that the tariff sheets reflect an anticipated
reduction in the level of firm service from its customer, Atlanta Gas
Light Company, and a reduced level of jurisdictional revenues from the
level established under the compliance filing in Docket No. RS92-10.
Southern states that it has continued to employ the Straight Fixed
Variable method for cost classification, cost allocation and rate
design and has utilized the mitigation methods required by the
Commission in its Order of September 3, 1993. In order to prevent a
significant increase to Southern's remaining firm customers as a result
of the reduced firm service entitlements Southern proposes to (1)
design IT rates based on a 75% load factor basis, (2) charge separately
for injections and withdrawals into the Contract Storage Service (CSS)
and the ANR Storage Service, and (3) revise the allocation methodology
for the ANR Storage Service to reflect the use of contract demands for
allocating costs to this incremental service.
Southern requests waiver of the five-month suspension period in
order to allow the proposed tariff sheets to become effective March 1,
1994, the date the anticipated reduced service levels will become
effective.
Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon all of
Southern's jurisdictional purchasers, shippers and interested state
commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should
be filed on or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene.
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available
for public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-433 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-432 Pacific Gas Transmission Co.; Change in Rates
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-432]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-88-000]
Pacific Gas Transmission Co.; Change in Rates
January 4, 1994.
Take notice that on December 23, 1993, Pacific Gas Transmission
Company (PGT) submitted for filing pursuant to section 4 of the Natural
Gas Act and Sec. 154.63 of the Commission's Regulations thereunder,
certain tariff sheets to establish a mechanism to adjust the effective
and fuel and line loss percentages to reflect more closely the current
requirements for fuel and line loss on PGT's system.
PGT proposes to make the revised tariff sheets needed to implement
this mechanism effective on January 22, 1994.
A copy of this filing has been served on the parties on PGT's
jurisdictional sales customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or protest said filing should file
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests should be filed on
or before January 11, 1994. Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-432 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-431 Brooklyn Energy Limited Partnership; Application for Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-431]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EG94-13-000]
Brooklyn Energy Limited Partnership; Application for
Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status
January 4, 1994.
On January 3, 1994 Brooklyn Energy Limited Partnership (``BELP'')
(c/o Mary Ann Ralls, Reid & Priest, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale
generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's Regulations.
BELP is a Nova Scotia limited partnership formed to own an electric and
steam generating facility to be located in Brooklyn, the Province of
Nova Scotia, Canada.
Any person desiring to be heard concerning the application for
exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or
comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with
Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure. The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to
those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application. All
such motions and comments should be filed on or before January 14, 1994
and must be served on Applicant. Any person wishing to become a party
must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with
the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-431 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-430 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. Relating to a Discount of its Transaction, Comparison and Floor Brokerage Transaction and Assessment Fees for November 29, 1993 to December 31, 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1409-1410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-430]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33410; File No. SR-Phlx-93-62]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change by the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
Relating to a Discount of its Transaction, Comparison and Floor
Brokerage Transaction and Assessment Fees for November 29, 1993 to
December 31, 1993
January 4, 1994.
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
20, 1993, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' 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 Phlx proposes to discount its transaction, comparison and floor
brokerage transaction and assessment fees encompassing all transactions
executed on the Phlx in equities, equity options, index options and
foreign currency options on the Phlx for the billing cycle beginning
settlement date November 29, 1993, to settlement date December 31,
1993. The discount shall be a 33 percent reduction across-the-board for
all fees, charges and assessments as described above.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Phlx proposes to discount the following fees, charges and
assessments: Equity Transaction Value Charge; Equity Floor Brokerage
Assessment; Equity Floor Brokerage Transaction Fee; Option
Comparison Charge; Option Transaction Charge; Option Floor Brokerage
Assessment; Floor Brokerage Transaction Fee; Option Comparison
Charge; Option Transaction Charge; Option Floor Brokerage
Assessment; Floor Broker Transaction Fee; Option Comparison Charge;
Option Transaction Charge; Option Floor Brokerage Assessment; Floor
Broker Transaction Fee; Option Comparison Charge; Option Transaction
Charge; Option Floor Brokerage Assessment; Floor Broker Transaction
Fee; and Volume Discount For Currency Option Transaction Charge
Activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Exchange seeks to discount its transaction, comparison and
floor brokerage transaction and assessment fees encompassing all
transactions executed on the Phlx in equities, equity options, index
options and foreign currency options on the Phlx for the billing cycle
beginning settlement date November 29, 1993, to settlement date
December 31, 1993. The discount shall be a 33 percent reduction across-
the-board for all fees, charges and assessments as described above for
the limited period from November 29, 1993, to December 31, 1993 (Phlx's
final month's billing cycle) in recognition of record volume and cost
efficiencies anticipated to continue through December. In this regard,
discounts will not apply to non-transaction related fees and charges
such as the floor facilities fees, booth and post rental fees, as well
as membership dues, etc.
2. Statutory Basis
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among members using its facilities. The proposed fee
schedule change also aligns service fees more closely to the cost of
providing those services.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
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
Comments were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing
for Commission Action
The foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed by the Exchange and therefore has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and subparagraph (e) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Persons making written submissions
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld 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 Room. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-93-62 and should
be submitted by January 28, 1994.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-430 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-419 Grand Island Advisory Commission; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-419]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Grand Island Advisory Commission; Meeting
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Grand Island Advisory Commission meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Grand Island Advisory Commission will meet on January 21,
1994 at 8 a.m. at the Comfort Inn on M-28 East in Munising, Michigan.
An agenda for the one day meeting will consist of a final planning team
update, a review of the final changes to the alternatives and a
discussion by the Advisory Commission on the recommendation to the
Secretary
Interested members of the public are encouraged to attend.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions about this meeting to Dennis Jones, Public Service
Team Leader, Hiawatha National Forest, 2727 N. Lincoln Road, Escanaba,
MI 49829, (906) 786-4062.
Dated: January 3, 1994.
Deborah Rebholz,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-419 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-418 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; Determination
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-418]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition;
Determination
Notice is hereby given of the following determination: Pursuant to
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat.
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects in the
exhibit, ``Egon Schiele'' (see list\1\) imported from abroad for the
temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of
cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to a loan
agreement with the foreign lender. I also determine that the temporary
exhibition of the objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington,
DC from on or about February 6, 1994, to on or about May 8, 1994; at
the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, IN from on or about June
11, 1994, to on or about August 6, 1994; and the San Diego Museum of
Art, San Diego, CA from on or about August 27, 1994, to on or about
October 30, 1994, is in the national interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. Nelia
Sheahan of the Office of the General Counsel of USIA. The telephone
number is 202/619-6975, and the address is room 700, U.S.
Information Agency, 301 Fourth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public notice of this determination is ordered to be published in
the Federal Register.
Dated: January 4, 1994.
R. Wallace Stuart,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 94-418 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-417 Availability of Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement; Fort Greely, Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-417]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[AK-930-4410-02-2410-P]
Availability of Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement; Fort Greely, Alaska
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DOI.
ACTION: Notice of availability of Fort Greely Proposed Resource
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 (Pub. L.
99-606), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Steese/White Mountains District has prepared a Proposed Resource
Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for
the Fort Greely military withdrawal, which is located near Delta
Junction, Alaska, southeast of Fairbanks. The U.S. Army's 6th Infantry
Division (Light) assisted in drafting the plan. The document addresses
planning for nonmilitary use of the withdrawal. It addresses questions
such as access, recreation, timber and fuel wood harvesting, and
wildlife habitat and cultural resource protection. Although mining is
discussed, none would be allowed in the immediate future because of
potential conflicts with the military's mission.
DATES: Protests on the PRMP/FEIS must be postmarked by February 15,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Protests on the PRMP/FEIS should be sent to: Bureau of Land
Management, Division of Planning and Environmental Coordination (WO-
760), 1849 C Street NW. (406 L St.), Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Ducker, Military Withdrawals
Planning Team Leader, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office,
222 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; phone (907) 271-3369.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRMP/FEIS is available by contacting Jim
Ducker at the address or phone number listed above.
The Proposed Plan refines the Preferred Alternative presented in
the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DRMP/DEIS). These refinements are the result of comments from the
public and the availability of information developed since the
distribution of the draft.
The PRMP/FEIS describes the Proposed Plan and its impacts in full
and presents summaries of five alternatives and their impacts. Complete
descriptions of the alternatives and their impacts can be found in the
DRMP/DEIS which are available at the main public libraries in
Fairbanks, Delta Junction, and Anchorage, and at the Steese/White
Mountains District Office in Fairbanks and the Alaska State Office in
Anchorage.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Roger Bolstad,
District Manager, Steese/White Mountains District.
[FR Doc. 94-417 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-416 Availability of Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement; Fort Wainwright, Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 1405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-416]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[AK-930-4410-02-2410-P]
Availability of Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement; Fort Wainwright, Alaska
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DOI.
ACTION: Notice of availability of Fort Wainwright Proposed Resource
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 (Pub. L.
99-606), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Steese/White Mountains District, has prepared a Proposed Resource
Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for
the portion of the Fort Wainwright military withdrawal known as the
Yukon Maneuver Area. This tract is southeast of Fairbanks, and adjacent
to and east and north of Eielson Air Force Base. The U.S. Army's 6th
Infantry Division (Light) assisted in drafting the plan. The document
addresses planning for nonmilitary use of the withdrawal. It addresses
questions such as access, recreation, timber and fuel wood harvesting,
and wildlife habitat and cultural resource protection. Although mining
is discussed, none would be allowed in the immediate future because of
potential conflicts with the military's mission.
DATES: Protests on the PRMP/FEIS must be postmarked by February 15,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Protests on the PRMP/FEIS should be sent to: Bureau of Land
Management, Division of Planning and Environmental Coordination (WO-
760), 1849 C Street NW. (406 L St.), Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Ducker, Military Withdrawals
Planning Team Leader, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office,
222 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; phone (907) 271-3369.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRMP/FEIS is available by contacting Jim
Ducker at the address or phone number listed above.
The Proposed Plan refines the Preferred Alternative presented in
the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DRMP/DEIS). These refinements are the result of comments from the
public and the availability of information developed since the
distribution of the draft.
The PRMP/FEIS describes the Proposed Plan and its impacts in full
and presents summaries of five alternatives and their impacts. Complete
descriptions of the alternatives and their impacts can be found in the
DRMP/DEIS which are available at the main public libraries in Fairbanks
and Anchorage and at the Steese/White Mountains District Office in
Fairbanks and the Alaska State Office in Anchorage.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Roger Bolstad,
District Manager, Steese/White Mountains District.
[FR Doc. 94-416 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-404 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1405-1406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-404]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission
Meeting
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Federal Advisory
Committee Act that a special meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m.,
Saturday, January 22, 1994, at Ferry Hill headquarters, 16500
Shepherdstown Pike, Route 34, West, Sharpsburg, Maryland.
The Commission was established by Public Law 91-664 to meet and
consult with the Secretary of the Interior on general policies and
specific matters related to the administration and development of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
The members of the Commission are as follows:
Mrs. Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld, Chairman, Washington, DC
Ms. Diane C. Ellis, Brunswick, Maryland
Brother James T. Kirkpatrick, F.S.C., Cumberland, Maryland
Ms. Anne L. Gormer, Cumberland, Maryland
Ms. Elise B. Heinz, Arlington, Virginia
Mr. George M. Wykoff, Jr., Cumberland, Maryland
Mr. Rockwood H. Foster, Washington, DC
Mr. Barry A. Passett, Washington, DC
Mrs. Jo Reynolds, Potomac, Maryland
Ms. Nancy C. Long, Glen Echo, Maryland
Ms. Mary Elizabeth Woodward, Shepherdstown, West Virginia
Dr. James H. Gilford, Frederick, Maryland
Mr. Edward K. Miller, Hagerstown, Maryland
Mrs. Sue Ann Sullivan, Williamsport, Maryland
Mr. Terry W. Hepburn, Hancock, Maryland
Mr. Laidley E. McCoy, Charleston, West Virginia
Ms. Jo Ann M. Spevacek, Burke, Virginia
Mr. Charles J. Weir, Falls Church, Virginia
The purpose of this special meeting is to hear the recommendation
of the special committee on the Cumberland Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and reach a decision on a formal position on the EIS.
The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public
may file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matter
to be discussed. Persons wishing further information concerning this
meeting, or who wish to submit written statements, may contact Thomas
O. Hobbs, Superintendent, C&O Canal National Historical Park, P.O. Box
4, Sharpsburg, Maryland 21782.
Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection six
(6) weeks after the meeting at Park Headquarters, Sharpsburg, Maryland.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
Chrysandra L. Walter,
Regional Director, National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 94-404 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-380 Notice of Program Interest for Minority Technical Education Program
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1389-1390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-380]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Program Interest for Minority Technical Education
Program
AGENCY: Department of Energy, San Francisco Operations Office.
ACTION: Notice of Program Interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Economic Impact and
Diversity, desires to encourage the submission of unsolicited proposals
in support of the Department's Minority Technical Education Program.
Such support is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 7141 (d) and 7256(a); Public
Law 95-619, part 3, sec. 2.11(d), which states that the Director of the
Office of Minority Economic Impact may provide appropriate assistance
to minority educational institutions to enable these institutions to
participate in the activities of the Department. It is intended in
particular to obtain proposals from post secondary two-year educational
institutions, or from teams of organizations including qualified post
secondary two-year educational institutions. For purposes of this
solicitation, a qualified ``Minority Education Institution'' is a post
secondary two-year educational institution of higher learning (such as
a community college or vocational college) that is a non-profit entity
with a minimum of 25 percent total minority enrollment. Pursuant to
Public Law 95-619, ``Minority'' means any individual who is a citizen
of the United States and who is a Negro, American Indian, Eskimo,
Oriental, or Aleut or is a Spanish speaking individual of Spanish
descent. This notice describes the principal scope of the activity and
provides some guidance on submitting proposals.
DATES AND ADDRESSES: Proposals (3 copies) should be submitted to Estela
Romo, HRMD, U.S. Department of Energy, 1301 Clay St., Oakland, CA
94612. Applications received after March 15, 1994, will be held for one
year and may be eligible for awards in FY 95. Proposers receiving
awards in FY 1994 will be notified not later than June 15, 1994. Each
proposal must contain a cover sheet (Standard Form 424), a technical
proposal and budget justification.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All questions concerning this program
notice should be directed to Arlene Coleman at (510) 637-1870.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With this notice, it is DOE's intent to
encourage the submission of proposals for minority two year post
secondary training that would address the following program objectives:
1. Increase the number of minority students that select a course of
study leading to energy-related careers to enable and encourage them to
bridge from high school to community college to four year educational
institutions; and/or, increase the career opportunities through
retention programs, retraining, and bridge programs in energy related
careers.
2. Strengthen the quantity and quality of energy-related technical
and academic curricula with emphasis on applied training provided for
minority students at two-year post secondary schools.
3. Establish partnerships with industry and other community
entities that promote economic growth opportunities of the community
serviced by enriching energy-related technology transfer activities.
The purpose of this notice is to encourage the submission of
proposals that address one or more of the following:
1. Provide financial assistance to financially needy honor students
participating in the program.
2. Establish linkages with DOE contractors and private and/or
public energy-related institutions to support student and faculty
internships.
3. Institute energy related training in computer science, the
physical sciences, the life sciences, environmental sciences,
engineering, software engineering, engineering technologies.
4. Enhance the development of tech-prep education program curricula
and bridge programs related to dropout prevention, re-entry, limited
English proficiency, technical skills, and career opportunities to
prepare high school students.
5. Enhance the articulation agreements from vocational schools and
community colleges to four-year colleges and universities.
6. Identify and establish technology transfer activities between
the population serviced by the two-year post secondary institution and
private/or public institutions as it relates to economic growth and
development of the community.
7. Establish linkages with DOE contractors, and private or public
energy related institutions to support student and faculty internships
and apprenticeships.
8. Provide support for travel expenses associated with
participants' attendance at technology transfer meetings, workshops,
and visits to national laboratories.
9. Establish linkages to overcome isolation of the institution
through cooperative agreements, specialized curricula or other outreach
activities.
10. Enhance the academic core and/or the basic principles of
applied technology and science of the energy related curricula.
11. Identify and establish technology transfer activities between
the population serviced by the two-year post secondary institution and
private/or public institutions as it relates to economic growth and
development of the community.
Authority: 10 CFR part 600, subparts A and B.
Eligibility
To be eligible to participate in this program, an institution must
be a nonprofit institution of higher education which offers a two year
associate degree program, a two year certificate program, and which is
qualified as an institution of higher education. The education
institution must have 25 percent or more minority enrollment. It should
have a history of graduating minority students in some energy-related
or technical field such as applied mathematics, engineering
technologies, environmental science, computer sciences, software
engineering, engineering, life sciences, or physical sciences. This
program is open to institutions within the United States and its
territories. Institutions having more than one eligible component may
choose whether to apply on behalf of the institution as a whole or to
submit freestanding applications on behalf of one or more components.
Individual components of a community, vocational, or other institutions
are separately eligible.
Indirect Costs
Indirect costs will be limited to eight percent.
Project Director
The Project Director is the representative and spokesperson for the
institution in matters concerning the award. The Project Director
should be available for consultation with the DOE Program Manager and
assist in resolving issues or problems encountered by the DOE Program
Manager during the tenure of the project.
Project Funding
FY 1994 funding up to $537,110 is available for awards under this
program. It is estimated that these funds will support awards from
seven to eight schools with funding levels of approximately $67,000 for
this first fiscal year. Funding for the second year through the fifth
year is estimated at $50,000 per year subject to the availability of
funds. These estimates of funding and number of awards do not bind the
U.S. Department of Energy to a specific number of awards unless
otherwise specified by statute or regulation.
Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria
Applications may be subjected to external review following
preliminary screening.
Projects will be selected for funding based on their quality as
determined by DOE staff evaluation of the merit of the application
using the following general criteria. The general criteria will be
either Acceptable or Unacceptable based on the following:
1. The potential contribution which the proposed effort is expected
to make to the program's objectives, if pursued at this time.
2. Evidence of overall merit.
3. Use of unique, innovative, or meritorious methods, approaches,
or ideas, including formal agreements between institutions.
4. Qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the
application's Project Director and key personnel who are considered to
be critical in achieving applicant objectives.
5. Demonstrate cost-sharing from non-Department of Energy sources.
6. The number of minority categories, number of participants that
are expected to be impacted.
7. The degree to which the past efforts have impacted the local
community in relationship to education in general.
The following specific criteria will be applied to projects. These
criteria, along with the general criteria described previously, will be
used for the technical evaluation of each project. Final selection of
projects will be made by DOE based on the technical evaluations and
other factors such as duplication of activities, total program balance,
geographic distribution, balance of minority category and sub-category,
demonstration of cost-sharing, and other factors.
1. Identification of needs of the project.
a. Institutional assessment and profile in meeting proposed
requirement.
b. Identification of specific basic applied technologies and
training objectives.
c. Involvement of community entities serviced by the two-year
educational institution and other appropriate entities in establishment
of project needs. Specifically, the project must address energy related
technology transfer activities as it relates to economic growth of the
community serviced by the education institution.
2. Plan of operation.
a. Definition of project activities needed with appropriate time
and resource projections.
b. Management Plan.
c. Relationship of this project to the overall institutional plan.
3. Pool of potential student trainee participants.
4. Overall benefits to the institution(s) and the community served
by the institution.
Proposal Preparation Guidelines
Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall contain
the information required in this announcement and should reference
Program Notice DE-FG03-94SF20212 Proposals will be evaluated,
independently, as received and selected for awards up to the limit of
available funding. DOE assumes no responsibility for any costs
associated with proposal preparation under this announcement.
Issued in Oakland, CA, on December 21, 1993.
Department of Energy
Martin J. Domagala,
Acting Manager.
[FR Doc. 94-380 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-349 Wyoming Wind Energy Project; Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1404-1405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-349]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[WY-030-94-5101-10-K014; WYW-130382]
Wyoming Wind Energy Project; Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and to conduct scoping for the U.S. Windpower, Wyoming Wind
Energy Project, Carbon County, Wyoming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended, the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins
District Office, will direct the preparation of an EIS on the potential
impacts of a proposed wind energy project. A total of 1,390 wind
turbines and associated facilities will be constructed on 62,000 acres
(25,091 hectares) of private, Federal and state lands over a 10-12 year
development period in Carbon County, Wyoming. The EIS will be prepared
by a third party contractor. If the project is approved, the BLM will
issue a Right-of-Way Grant under section 501 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976.
DATES: Comments will be accepted through February 25, 1994. Public
Scoping Meetings will be held at the Jeffrey Center, Third and Spruce
Streets, Rawlins, Wyoming on February 2, 1994, at 7 p.m. and on
February 3, 1994, at the Albany Country Public Library, Large Meeting
Room, 310 S. 8th Street, Laramie, Wyoming, at 7 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Bureau of Land Management,
Rawlins District Office, Walter E. George, Project Leader, 1300 3rd
Street, P.O. Box 670, Rawlins, WY 82301, or Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), Office of Energy Resources (R&E), Richard Stone,
Environmental Specialist, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Land Management, Walter E. George, Project Leader, 1300 3rd
Street, P.O. Box 670, Rawlins, WY 82301, phone number (307) 324-7171 or
Bonneville Power Administration, Richard Stone, Environmental
Specialist, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208, phone number (503) 230-
3797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Windpower proposes to construct a 500
megawatt (MW) Wind Energy Project to be located on Foote Creek Rim and
Simpson Ridge in Carbon County, Wyoming. The project area is located
approximately 40 miles (64.35 Km) southeast of Rawlins and 40 miles
(64.36 Km) northwest of Laramie, Wyoming. The Foote Creek Rim portion
is in all or portions of approximately 10 sections in Townships 19N and
20N, Ranges 78W and 79W north and west of Arlington. Access to the
Foote Creek Rim site is from I-80 and State Highway 13. The Simpson
Ridge portion is in all or portions of 92 sections in Townships 20N,
21N, and 22N, Ranges 80W and 81W, south of Hanna. Access to the Simpson
Ridge portion is from I-80 and State Highway 287 and State Highway 72.
Land ownership in the project area is approximately 62% private, 28%
Public (administered by BLM), and 10% State of Wyoming.
The project will be constructed in phases over a 10-12 year period.
The first phase, involving 75 MW of electrical power generated by
approximately 215 Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs), would be constructed
on Foote Creek Rim in 1995-96. Later phases would involve 50MW
(approximately 75 WTGs/50 MW) increases per year, as utility contracts
are approved, until the 500 MW capacity is reached (for a total of
1,390 WTGs). Ancillary facilities include, but are not limited to:
above and below-ground electric and communication lines, access roads,
substations, control/maintenance building and transformer sites. The
Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Energy, a Cooperating
Agency for the EIS, will execute a power output contract to purchase 25
MW of electricity from the project under element 2b of BPA's Resource
Supply Expansion Program. The Foote Creek Rim phase of the project
would meet this requirement.
The wind turbines will be erected on 80 to 120 ft (24 to 37 m)
lattice towers with height determined by specific meteorological and
geographic characteristics. The WTGs are variable speed, up-wind,
three-fiberglass-bladed machines with a rotor diameter of 108 ft (33
m). The WTGs will be spaced approximately 162 to 216 ft (49 to 66 m)
apart with approximately 1,080 to 1,620 ft (329 to 494 m) between each
row.
Two potential electrical utility interconnections are proposed. The
first is with the PacifiCorp 230 kV system at the Miner's substation at
Hanna, WY. A wood pole 230 kV line would be erected from the project
site northwest, approximately 25 mi (40 Km), to the Miner's substation.
The second proposed interconnection would be with the Western Area
Power Administration's parallel 115 kV lines at a site in T21N, R77W,
Sec. 34. A transmission line of approximately 7 mi (11 Km) would extend
from the project site northeast to the proposed tap substation.
Dated: January 3, 1994.
Ray Brubaker,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 94-349 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-248 Intent To Rule on Application To Impose and Use and Impose Only the Revenue From a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport, Pullman, WA
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1412-1413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-248]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Intent To Rule on Application To Impose and Use and Impose Only
the Revenue From a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Pullman-Moscow
Regional Airport, Pullman, WA
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 Pullman-Moscow
Regional 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).
This document supersedes the notice, ``Intent to rule on
application to impose and use and impose only the revenue from a
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport,
Pullman, Washington'', published on December 29, 1993 (58 FR 68985).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 9, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: J. Wade Bryant, Seattle
Airports District Office, SEA-ADO, Federal Aviation Administration,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., suite 250, Renton, WA 98055-4056.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. David Crowner, airport Manager at the
following address: Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport, 3200 Airport
Complex N., Pullman, WA 99163.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written
comments previously provided to Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport under
Sec. 158.23 of part 158.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Vargas, (206) 227-2660;
Seattle Airports District Office, SEA-ADO; Federal Aviation
Administration; 1601 Lind Avenue SW., suite 250, Renton, WA 98055-4056.
The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at
Pullman-Moscow Regional 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).
On December 20, 1993, the FAA determined that the application to
impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Pullman,
WA and the City of Pullman, WA and the City of Moscow, ID was
substantially complete with 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 22, 1994.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Level of the proposed PFC: 3.00
Proposed charge effective date: April 1, 1994
Proposed charge expiration date: October 31, 1997
Total estimated PFC revenue: $169,287.65
Brief description of proposed project(s): Impose and Use projects:
Runway 5/23 rehabilitation, runway and taxiway signage, lighting
upgrade and runway 5 safety area stabilization, master plan update,
aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) vehicle acquisition and storm
water pollution prevention plan development, modify ARFF building and
expand general aviation (GA) apron.
Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has
requested not be required to collect PFCs: Only those Air taxi's
defined as follows: the carriage in air commerce of persons for
compensation or hire as a commercial operator, but not an air carrier,
on an ``on-demand'' basis with aircraft having a maximum seating
capacity of less than twenty passengers or a maximum payload capacity
of less than 6,000 pounds.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office
listed above under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' and at the FAA
regional Airports office located at: Federal Aviation Administration,
Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, ANM-600, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., suite 540 Renton, WA 98055-4056.
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the
City of Pullman.
Issued in Renton, Washington on December 22, 1993.
Edward G. Tatum,
Manager, Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 94-248 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-209 Meetings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1408-4109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-209]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION
Meetings
Notice is hereby given of the meetings of the Prospective Payment
Assessment Commission on Wednesday and Thursday, January 19-20, 1994,
at the Madison Hotel, 15th & M Streets, Northwest, Washington, DC.
The Full Commission will convene at 9 a.m. on each day in Executive
Chambers 1, 2 and 3.
All meetings are open to the public.
Donald A. Young,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 94-209 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-BW-M
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.