issue-1994-01-03•Federal Register notices — 1994-01-03
Federal Register notices — 1994-01-03
issue-1994-01-03Federal Register notices — 1994-01-03Notice
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. 93-32105 Army Science Board; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32105]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Army Science Board; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following
Committee Meeting:
Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
Date of Meeting: 11 and 12 January 1994.
Time of Meeting: 11 January.
0900-1100 Hours (Open)
1100-1130 Hours (Closed)
1300-1700 Hours (Closed)
12 January
0830-1130 Hours (Closed)
1300-1330 Hours (Closed)
1330-1350 Hours (Open)
1400-1700 Hours (Closed)
Place: Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Agenda: The Army Science Board's Ad Hoc Study on ``Innovation in
Artillery Force Structure'' will hold an initial meeting of the
Panel Members. The intent of the meeting is to present general and
specific information to the panel pertaining to force structure
development within the Army. It will consist of primarily classified
briefings. This meeting will be closed to the public (where
indicated) in accordance with section 552b(c) of title 5, U.S.C.,
specifically subparagraph (1) and (4) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C.,
Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). The proprietary and classified matters
to be discussed are so inextricably intertwined so as to preclude
opening all portions of the meeting.
The open portion of the meeting will be open to the public. Any
person may attend, appear before or file statement with the committee
at the time and in the matter permitted by the committee. The ASB
Administrative Officer Sally Warner, may be contacted for further
information at (703) 695-0781.
Sally A. Warner,
Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 93-32105 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32092 Military Traffic Management Command, Defense Transportation Tracking System
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32092]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Military Traffic Management Command, Defense Transportation
Tracking System
AGENCY: Military Traffic Management Command, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Since its inception in February 1989, the Defense
Transportation Tracking System (DTTS) has been expanded to cover a
large number of shipments involving more Security Risk Categories (SRC)
of munitions. The DTTS provides electronic tracking of shipments while
enroute and increases security and response capability in the event of
accident or incident. It is Department of Defense policy to track all
SRC I through IV munitions shipments using Satellite Motor Surveillance
Service (SM). Shipments of Uncategorized Division 1.1 through 1.3
munitions will use SM at the option of the DOD shipper service
headquarters. The rates charged by munitions carriers for SM will be
expressed as a separate accessorial charge and considered along with
linehaul ratend other accessorial charges to determine the overall low
rate for rating and routing purposes under Chapter 17 of the Defense
Traffic Management Regulation (AR 55-355); NAVSUPINST 4600.70S; AFR 75-
2; MCO P4600; DLAR 4500.3).
DATE: The effective date for this notice is 1 January 1994.
ADDRESS: Headquarters, Military Traffic Management Command, 5611.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Piparato, (703) 756-1094.
Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-5050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HQMTMC published notice of proposed policy
change describing Phase III and the Final Phase of the DTTS expansion
in the Federal Register on July 6, 1993, 58 FR 36188. Comments were
submitted by the Munitions Carriers Conference, Inc., on behalf of its
members.
Munitions carriers conference comment: Carriers should not be
required to incorporate SM charges into linehaul rates. All services
that are not an ordinary or normal incident of the linehaul service,
require a separate tariff or schedule provision.
MTMC response: The proposed expansion of the DTTS envisioned a
final phase beginning on 1 January 1994 which would have required SM
for every DOD munitions shipment. Because the requirement for SM was to
be an indivisible or essential element from origin to destination for
every category of munitions being shipped, MTMC believed the rate for
SM service should be included in the linehaul rate. In view of the fact
that MTMC has been unable to fully implement the DTTS expansion within
established program guidelines, SM will continue to be regarded as an
accessorial service to be used on all SRC I through IV shipments. It
will be used for ``Uncategorized'' munitions shipments when DOD shipper
service headquarters so dictate. MTMC will continue to receive rate
tenders listing SM as a separate accessorial service instead of
requiring its incorporation into the linehaul rate.
Munitions carriers conference comment: MTMC's proposal to include
SM charges into the linehaul rate unreasonably discriminates against
munitions motor carriers. Rail carriers provide rail surveillance
service (RS) as a separate accessorial service.
MRMC response: MTMC's proposal to expand the DTTS was done in
recognition of evolving satellite tracking technology and shipping
requirements. By seeking to integrate SM service into the linehaul rate
and to consider SM as an integral part of transporting munitions
shipments, MTMC was departing from past practices within the motor
carrier industry. MTMC does not believe that RS is the same as SM. RS
includes Military Traffic Expediting Service and inspection of a
conveyance at major terminals by rail personnel for evidence of
tampering with seals or security devices. SM provides DTTS with truck
location reports, in transit truck status changes, and emergency
situation notification. Therefore, in view of the difference in the two
types of Transportation Protective Services, continuing RS as a
separate accessorial service would not have constituted unreasonable
discrimination against motor carriers in favor of rail carriers.
However, because MTMC's initial SM program objectives have not been
completely implemented, MTMC has decided to continue SM as a separate
accessorial service.
MTMC's policy for determining accessorial charges and linehaul
rates on munitions shipments is through free and open competition. Once
rates are submitted, DOD's policy is to procure transportation services
that meet its requirements at the lowest overall cost to the
Government. Carriers participating in the transport of DOD munitions
are advised that this provides final notice on all phases and concludes
the DTTS expansion program.
Kenneth L. Denton,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 93-32092 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-03-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32089 Carolina Power & Light Co.; H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32089]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-261]
Carolina Power & Light Co.; H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,
Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering issuance of a
scheduler exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
E, to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or the licensee), for H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBR), located in Darlington
County, South Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would allow temporary relief from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2., for the
licensee at HBR to annually exercise its emergency plan. By letter
dated November 21, 1993, as supplemented November 22, 1993, the
licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part
50, Appendix E, to conduct an annual exercise of the HBR Radiological
Emergency Plan in 1993. The licensee had planned to conduct a full-
participation exercise involving the State of South Carolina and local
response organizations on November 30, 1993. The licensee requested
that an exemption be granted for the conduct of the onsite portion of
the exercise because the licensee would not have sufficient staff to
conduct a meaningful exercise of the HBR Emergency Plan due to resource
constraints caused by an unscheduled outage to investigate and address
core design issues. This proposed delay will prevent HBR from meeting
the requirement to conduct an annual exercise of the HBR Emergency
Plan. However, the licensee proposed that the offsite portion of the
exercise involving the State of South Carolina and local governmental
authorities be conducted as scheduled on November 30, 1993. The
licensee requested a delay of the onsite portion of the 1993 annual
exercise from November 30, 1993, to the week of March 21, 1994. The
request to move the exercise date was originated by the licensee
because they would be unable to participate on November 30, 1993, as a
result of their involvement at that time in addressing safety issues
identified during startup after refueling outage 15. The reactor was
ascending to full power operation after a refueling outage when low
power physics testing revealed an improper configuration emanating from
the design of the new fuel. The new fuel consisted of 44 fuel
assemblies, 5 of which were found to be configured improperly against
design specifications. As a result, the NRC dispatched an Augmented
Inspection Team to the site and the licensee formed three investigative
teams. The licensee stated that all of these efforts to develop
corrective actions for core reconfiguration and to investigate and
resolve any industry implications of fuel configuration problems
diverted focus and resources. The offsite portion of the exercise
involving the State of South Carolina and local governmental
authorities would be conducted as scheduled on November 30, 1993. This
proposed delay will prevent the licensee from meeting the requirement
to annually exercise the HBR Radiological Emergency Plan, as specified
in Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, and, therefore, the licensee requested
a scheduler exemption.
The previous emergency preparedness exercise at HBR was
successfully conducted on November 17, 1992, and included the partial
participation of State and local agencies for notifications and
communications only. The licensee had scheduled, planned, and
coordinated the 1993 exercise with participating Federal, State, and
local agencies for November 30, 1993. The scope and objectives, and the
final scenario documentation for the November 1993 exercise were
submitted to the NRC on September 13, 1993, and October 14, 1993,
respectively, which is within the time frame established for their
submittal in support of a November 1993 exercise. In addition, the
licensee states that a training exercise with the State of South
Carolina and local governmental agencies was conducted on November 16,
1993, which activated all emergency facilities and included
participation from all major responder groups.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is needed because the licensee would not
have sufficient staff to meaningfully exercise the HBR Emergency Plan
due to resource constraints caused by an unscheduled outage to
investigate and address core design issues.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption does not involve any measurable
environmental impacts since the exemption deals with the exercise of
the licensee's emergency plan. Plant configuration and operations are
not changed. Thus, the proposed exemption would not affect the
probability or consequences of a potential reactor accident and would
not otherwise affect radiological plant effluents. Consequently, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological impacts
associated with the proposed exemption.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
exemption involves only the emergency plan exercises. It does not
affect nonradiological plant effluents and there are no other
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the staff has concluded that there are no measurable
environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated.
The principal alternative to the exemption would be to require
strict compliance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2., for
the licensee at HBR to annually exercise its emergency plan. This would
not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in
a diversion of plant resources from addressing important health and
safety issues.
Alternative Use of Resources
This exemption from the scheduled exercise in November 1993 does
not reduce the use of resources since the schedule for future exercises
will not be affected by this exemption. The licensee has stated it will
conduct the previously scheduled 1994 exercise in November 1994, as
planned. Thus, the requested exemption would provide only temporary
relief from the requirement to conduct an annual exercise.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The staff consulted with the State of South Carolina regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that the proposed action would not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed exemption.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated November 21, 1993, as supplemented November 22, 1993,
which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local
public document room located at the Hartsville Memorial Library, Home
and Fifth Avenues, Hartsville, SC 29550.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-I, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 93-32089 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32085 FD Services, Inc., Casper, WY; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32085]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-29,097]
FD Services, Inc., Casper, WY; Dismissal of Application for
Reconsideration
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18 an application for administrative
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Office of Trade
Adjustment Assistance for workers at FD Services, Incorporated, Casper,
Wyoming. The review indicated that the application contained no new
substantial information which would bear importantly on the
Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was
issued.
TA-W-29,097; FD Services, Incorporated Casper, Wyoming (December 17,
1993)
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of December 1993.
Marvin M. Fooks,
Director, Office of Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 93-32085 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32084 Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32084]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply
for Worker Adjustment Assistance
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under section
221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (``the Act'') and are identified in the
Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director
of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training
Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to section
221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether
the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title
II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as
appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial
separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the
firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest
in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public
hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director,
Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address show below, not
later than January 13, 1994.
Interested persons are invited to submit written Comments regarding
the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than
January 13, 1994.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at
the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance,
Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of December 1993.
Marvin M. Fooks,
Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Appendix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner (union/ Date Date of Petition
workers/firm) Location received petition No. Articles produced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shade/Allied, Inc. Petersburg, WV.......... 12/20/93 12/06/93 29,327 Business Forms.
(Workers).
Tetra-Pak, Inc. Minneapolis, MN......... 12/20/93 12/01/93 29,328 Liquid Filling Machines.
(Workers).
Continental Airlines Denver, CO.............. 12/20/93 12/02/93 29,329 Aircraft Maintenance.
(Workers).
J.M. Huber Corp. (Co.).. Houston, TX............. 12/20/93 12/06/93 29,330 Oil and Gas.
Exolon-Esk Co. (USWA)... Tonawanda, NY........... 12/20/93 12/22/93 29,331 Aluminum Oxide & Silicon
Carbide.
Recycled Aluminum Metals Dallesport, WA.......... 12/20/93 12/07/93 29,332 Recycling Service.
Co. (Co.).
CTS Connector Division New Hope, NM............ 12/20/93 12/03/93 29,333 Electronic Components.
(Workers).
Washington Scientific, Long Lake, MN........... 12/20/93 11/30/93 29,334 Computer Components.
Inc. (IBT).
Restaura, Inc. (Workers) Wentzville, MO.......... 12/20/93 10/30/93 29,335 Food Vending Services.
Williamette Industrial Beaverton, OR........... 12/20/93 11/02/93 29,336 Computer Paper.
Forms Div. (Workers).
Union Texas Petroleum Midland, TX............. 12/20/93 11/29/93 29,337 Oil & Gas Drilling.
(Workers).
Lockheed Corp./Fort Abilene, TX............. 12/20/93 12/08/93 29,338 Aircraft Wire Harnesses.
Worth Co. (Workers).
Tuboscope Pipeline Houston, TX............. 12/20/93 12/06/93 29,339 Pipeline Inspection
Services (Workers). Services.
Mobil Corp, Research & Princeton, NJ........... 12/20/93 12/06/93 29,340 Engineering & Research--
Dev. (Co.). Oil, Gas.
Olsken Services Ogdensburg, NY.......... 12/20/93 12/01/93 29,341 Aluminum Ingot.
(Workers).
Elliott Turbomachinary Jeannette, PA........... 12/20/93 12/10/93 29,342 Turbines and
Co. (USWA). Compressors.
Philips Lighting Co. Fairmont, WV............ 12/20/93 12/09/93 29,343 Home Lighting Products.
(IUE).
Alliant Techsystems, Hopkins, MN............. 12/20/93 12/10/93 29,344 Munitions.
Inc. (Workers).
Camco Products & Houston, TX............. 12/20/93 12/10/93 29,345 Oilfield Equipment.
Services (Workers).
Pennington Seismic Tulsa, OK............... 12/20/93 11/23/93 29,346 Seismic Data, Profiles &
Exchange (Workers). Surveys.
Pennington Seismic Oklahoma City, OK....... 12/20/93 11/23/93 29,347 Seismic Data, Profiles &
Exchange, Inc. Surveys.
(Workers).
Mobil Corp/Research & Paulsboro, NJ........... 12/20/93 12/06/93 29,348 Research & Dev.--Oil and
Dev. (Co.). Gas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 93-32084 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32083 Glass Ceiling Commission; Open Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32083]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Glass Ceiling Commission; Open Meeting
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L.
102-166) and section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
(Pub. L. 92-462, 5 U.S.C. app. II) a Notice of establishment of the
Glass Ceiling Commission was published in the Federal Register on March
30, 1992 (57 FR 10776). Pursuant to section 10(a) of FACA, this is to
announce a meeting of the Commission which is to take place on
Thursday, February 10, 1994. The purpose of the Commission is to, among
other things, focus greater attention on the importance of eliminating
artificial barriers to the advancement of minorities and women to
management and decisionmaking positions in business. The Commission has
the practical task of:
(a) Conducting basic research into practices, policies, and manner
in which management and decisionmaking positions in business are
filled;
(b) Conducting comparative research of businesses and industries in
which minorities and women are promoted or are not promoted to
management and decisionmaking positions; and
(c) Recommending measures designed to enhance opportunities for and
the elimination of artificial barriers to the advancement of minorities
and women to management and decisionmaking positions.
Time and place: The meeting will be held on Thursday, February
10, 1994 from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. at the Hotel InterContinental, 251
S. Olive Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.
Agenda: The agenda for the meeting is as follows: Introduction
of Commissioners, Review of Hearing Agenda, Review Briefing Book,
Discussion of Rules of Procedure, Report on Research, Discussion of
Perkins-Dole Award, Discussion of Final Report.
There will be a 15 minute break in the meeting between 4:30 p.m.
and 4:45 p.m.
Public participation: The meeting will be open to the public.
Seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Seats
will be reserved for the media. Disabled individuals should contact
the Commission no later than February 1, 1994, if special
accommodations are needed. Individuals or organizations wishing to
submit written statements should send twenty (20) copies to Ms.
Joyce D. Miller, Executive Director, Glass Ceiling Commission, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., room S-2233,
Washington, DC 20210, postmarked no later than February 1, 1994.
For further information contact: Ms. Joyce D. Miller, Executive
Director, Glass Ceiling Commission, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., room S-2233, Washington, DC 20210, (202)
219-7342.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of December 1993.
Robert B. Reich,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 93-32083 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-23-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32081 Glass Ceiling Commission; Open Site Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32081]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Glass Ceiling Commission; Open Site Hearing
SUMMARY: Pursuant to title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L.
1-2-166) and section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
(Pub. L. 92-462, 5 U.S.C. app. II) a Notice of establishment of the
Glass Ceiling Commission was published in the Federal Register on March
30, 1992 (57 FR 10776). Pursuant to section 10(a) of FACA, this is to
announce a public hearing of the Commission which is to take place on
Friday, February 11, 1994. The purpose of the Commission is to, among
other things, focus greater attention on the importance of eliminating
artificial barriers to the advancement of minorities and women to
management and decisionmaking positions in business. The Commission has
the practical task of:
(a) Conducting basic research into practices, policies, and manner
in which management and decisionmaking positions in business are
filled;
(b) Conducting comparative research of businesses and industries in
which minorities and women are promoted or are not promoted to
management and decisionmaking positions; and
(c) Recommending measures designed to enhance opportunities for and
the elimination of artificial barriers to the advancement of minorities
and women to management and decisionmaking positions.
Time and place: The hearing will be held on Friday, February 11,
1994 from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. in the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors Hearing Room, room 381B, Kenneth Hahn Hall of
Administration, 500 West Temple Street, (Corner of Temple and
Grand), Los Angeles, California 90012.
Issues: Testimony should highlight successful initiatives and/or
recommendations for addressing the areas discussed below. The
Commission is especially interested in hearing about procedures,
practices and systems that have been put in place to make sure that
goals are achieved in work force diversity.
Recruitment: What systems are in place to ensure that external
recruiting for decisionmaking positions will produce a pool of
applicants which provides opportunities for minorities and women?
Similarly, does the process for considering promotion of current
employees to decisionmaking positions ensure consideration of
minorities and women?
Developmental practices and credential building experiences: How
are minorities and women ensured that they will be given the kinds
of experiences that will make them competitive for decisionmaking
positions, including not only advanced education, but also
developmental assignments such as to corporate committees and task
forces, special projects, etc.
Accountability for equal employment opportunity
responsibilities: How are senior level executives, line managers,
and corporate decision makers held accountable for EEO
responsibilities?
Compensation systems: How is the total compensation package
including bonuses, stock options and other incentives evaluated for
fairness for minorities and women? How is the appraisal system/
performance rating system protected from subjective decisions which
impact compensation? Do management and supervisory compensation
systems depend upon or reward managers' achieving work force
diversity goals, and, if so, how does that work?
Placement patterns: What kind of monitoring is done to ensure
that minorities and women are placed in the line positions that will
provide better opportunity for promotion to decisionmaking
positions?
Testimony on successful initiatives may include discussion on
the elements above and how other factors are combined to create a
complete initiative resulting in the advancement of minorities and
women.
Agenda: The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
8 a.m. Introduction of Commissioners
8:30 a.m. Welcome by government officials
8:45 a.m. Witnesses
12 Noon Lunch break
1:30-4 p.m. Witnesses
4:30 p.m. Open microphone session
Public participation: The hearing will be open to the public.
Seating will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. Seats
will be reserved for the media. Disabled individuals should contact
the Commission no later than February 1, 1994, if special
accommodations are needed.
Individuals or organizations wishing to testify orally must
provide written testimony or an executive summary of testimony in
advance of the hearing. Send Twenty (20) copies, postmarked on or
before January 25, 1994, to: Ms. Joyce D. Miller, Executive
Director, Glass Ceiling Commission, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., room S-2233, Washington, DC 20210.
The written testimony must contain the following information:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of each person to
appear;
(2) The capacity in which the person will appear;
(3) The approximate amount of time requested for presentation;
(4) The issues that will be addressed.
(5) Twenty (20) copies of testimony or executive summary.
(Written material may be longer in length than oral comments.)
As many people as time allows will be permitted to testify. The
amount of time requested for each presentation will be reviewed in
light of the number of persons or groups wishing to appear. To
provide all interested parties an opportunity to present their
views, the Glass Ceiling Commission may impose an appropriate time
restriction for each presentation or limit presentations to only one
person for an organization or group.
A videotape may be made of the hearing, and minutes of the
hearing will be taken.
Materials submitted at this hearing should not be submitted at
any subsequent Glass Ceiling Commission hearings.
Those individuals or organizations wishing to submit written
statements, but not testify orally, should send twenty (20) copies
to Ms. Joyce D. Miller, Executive Director, Glass Ceiling
Commission, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
room S-2233, Washington, DC 20210. Written statements should be
postmarked on or before January 25, 1994.
for further information contact: Ms. Joyce D. Miller, Executive
Director, Glass Ceiling Commission, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., room S-2233, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-
7342.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of December 1993.
Robert B. Reich,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 93-32081 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-23-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32080 Procurement List; Proposed Additions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32080]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED
Procurement List; Proposed Additions
AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled.
ACTION: Proposed Additions to Procurement List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Committee has received proposals to add to the Procurement
List commodities to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE: February 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41
U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested
persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the
proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of
the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required
to procure the commodities listed below from nonprofit agencies
employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors
considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other
than the small organizations that will furnish the commodities to the
Government.
2. The action does not appear to have a severe economic impact on
the current contractors for the commodities.
3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish
the commodities to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the commodities proposed for addition to the
Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should
identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they
are providing additional information.
It is proposed to add the following commodities to the Procurement
List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
Pallet, Wood
3990-00-NSH-0072
(Requirements for Federal Prison Industries, Washington, DC)
Nonprofit Agency: Handi-Shop Industries, Inc., Tomah, Washington.
Cabinet, Tool, Mobile
5140-00-030-6617
5140-00-870-4796
5140-01-010-4775
5140-01-010-4776
Nonprofit Agency: Custom Manufacturing Services, Inc., Louisville,
Kentucky.
Tool Box, Portable
5140-00-319-5079
5140-00-494-2015
Nonprofit Agency: Custom Manufacturing Services, Inc., Louisville,
Kentucky.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 93-32080 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32079 Procurement List; Proposed Additions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32079]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED
Procurement List; Proposed Additions
AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled.
ACTION: Proposed Additions to Procurement List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Committee has received a proposal to add to the
Procurement List commodities to be furnished by nonprofit agencies
employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE: February 2, 1994.
ADDRESS: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41
U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested
persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the
proposed action.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, all entities of
the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required
to procure the commodities listed below from nonprofit agencies
employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following actions will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors
considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other
than the small organizations that will furnish the commodities to the
Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish
the commodities to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the commodities proposed for addition to the
Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should
identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they
are providing additional information.
The following commodities have been proposed for addition to the
Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
Coveralls, Safety
8415-00-939-7879
8415-00-939-7880
8415-00-939-7881
8415-00-939-7882
8415-00-926-5113
Nonprofit Agency: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, New York.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 93-32079 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32078 Procurement List; Additions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32078]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED
Procurement List; Additions
AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled.
ACTION: Additions to Procurement List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List commodities and
services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who
are blind or have other severe disabilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 29 and November 5, 1993, the
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
published notices (58 F.R. 58156 and 39013) of proposed additions to
the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning
capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the commodities
and services, fair market price, and impact of the additions on the
current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that
the commodities and services listed below are suitable for procurement
by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors
considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other
than the small organizations that will furnish the commodities and
services to the Government.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current
contractors for the commodities and services.
3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish
the commodities and services to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the commodities and services proposed for
addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following commodities and services are hereby
added to the Procurement List:
Commodities
Poly Bag, White
8105-LL-S04-9869
8105-LL-S04-8762
(Requirements for the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Bremerton,
Washington)
Services
Administrative Service, Federal Highway Administration, 610 East 5th
Street, Vancouver, Washington
Janitorial/Custodial, Building 1028, Kirtland Air Force Base, New
Mexico
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the
effective date of this addition or options exercised under those
contracts.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 93-32078 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32076 Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 84, Houston, TX
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32076]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 670]
Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 84, Houston, TX
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a--81u), the Foreign-Trade
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Whereas, an application from the Port of Houston Authority, Texas,
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 84, for authority to expand its Zone
Site 11 at the liquid bulk storage facility of Oiltanking of Houston,
Inc., Houston, Texas, within the Houston Customs port of entry, was
filed by the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on December 22, 1992
(Docket 38-92, 58 FR 3532, 9/30/93);
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 would be in the public
interest, provided that the restrictions in Board Order 409 authorizing
the site apply to the expanded site;
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, and further subject to the restrictions contained in
Board Order 409 (53 FR 53042, 12-30-88).
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. 93-32076 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32075 Star Enterprise (Oil Refinery), Port Arthur, TX; Grant of Authority for Subzone Status
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32075]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 668]
Star Enterprise (Oil Refinery), Port Arthur, TX; Grant of
Authority for Subzone Status
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
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 Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast
Texas, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 116, for authority to establish a
special-purpose subzone for the refinery facilities of Star Enterprise,
in Jefferson and Hardin Counties (Port Arthur area), Texas, was filed
by the Board on March 21, 1991, and notice inviting public comment was
given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 17-91, 56 FR 13799, 4-4-91);
and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and
Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the
application would be in the public interest if approval is subject to
the conditions listed below;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
subzone (Subzone 116A) at the Star Enterprise refinery facilities in
Jefferson and Hardin Counties (Port Arthur area), Texas, at the
location described in the application, subject to the FTZ Act and the
Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Foreign crude oil or products used as fuel for the refinery
shall be dutiable.
2. Star shall elect privileged foreign status on foreign crude oil
and other foreign products admitted to the subzone, except as indicated
below.
3. Star may elect nonprivileged foreign status with respect to
foreign crude oil that is associated with sulfur by-product that
results from the refining process, based on an appropriate allocation
method to be determined by Customs. This initial approval is limited to
a period of three years beginning from the date of activation, subject
to extension.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st 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. 93-32075 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32074 Star Enterprise, (Oil Refinery), Convent, LA; Grant of Authority for Subzone Status
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32074]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 667]
Star Enterprise, (Oil Refinery), Convent, LA; Grant of Authority
for Subzone Status
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
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 South Louisiana Port Commission,
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 124, for authority to establish a
special-purpose subzone for the refinery facilities of Star Enterprise,
Convent, Louisiana, was filed by the Board on March 21, 1991, and
notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ
Docket 16-91, 56 FR 13797, 4-4-91); and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and
Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the
application would be in the public interest if approval is subject to
the conditions listed below;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
subzone (Subzone 124C) at the Star Enterprise refinery facilities in
Convent, Louisiana, at the location described in the application,
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including
Sec. 400.28, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Foreign crude oil or products used as fuel for the refinery
shall be dutiable.
2. Star shall elect privileged foreign status on foreign crude oil
and other foreign products admitted to the subzone, except as indicated
below.
3. Star may elect nonprivileged foreign status with respect to
foreign crude oil that is associated with sulfur by-product that
results from the refining process, based on an appropriate allocation
method to be determined by Customs. This initial approval is limited to
a period of three years beginning from the date of activation, subject
to extension.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st 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. 93-32074 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32073 Sanden International (U.S.A.), Inc., (Automotive Air-Conditioner Components), Wylie, TX; Grant of Authority for Subzone Status
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32073]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 666]
Sanden International (U.S.A.), Inc., (Automotive Air-Conditioner
Components), Wylie, TX; Grant of Authority for Subzone Status
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
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 Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport Board, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 39, for authority to
establish a special-purpose subzone at the automotive air-conditioner
components manufacturing plant of Sanden International (U.S.A.), Inc.,
in Wylie, Texas (Dallas/Fort Worth Customs port of entry area), was
filed by the Board on December 21, 1992, and notice inviting public
comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 37-92, 58 FR 78,
01-04-93); and,
Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the FTZ Act
and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the
application is in the public interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
subzone (Subzone 39C) at the Sanden International (U.S.A.), Inc., plant
in Wylie, Texas, 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. 93-32073 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32072 Cotton Yarn From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32072]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-351-037]
Cotton Yarn From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order on cotton yarn from Brazil. We
are terminating the review with respect to Companhia Brasileira de
Fiacao, (CBF) and benefits received by this company are not included in
the net subsidy rate of the Department's preliminary results.
We preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be 0.30 percent ad
valorem for all producers and exporters of cotton yarn from Brazil for
the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. In accordance
with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate less than 0.50 percent ad valorem is de
minimis. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or 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 March 12, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' (58 FR 13583) of the countervailing duty order
on cotton yarn from Brazil (42 FR 14089; March 15, 1977) for the period
January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. On March 31, 1993, the
Government of Brazil requested an administrative review for that
period. We initiated the review on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960). The
Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). When examining Brazilian
customs information at verification, we found that export information
for non-subject merchandise, combed cotton yarn, had been inadvertently
included in the questionnaire response. Brazilian officials were not
aware that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers that covered
combed cotton yarn were not included in the scope of this order. At
verification, we found that one respondent, CBF, had no shipments of
the subject merchandise to the United States during the review period.
Therefore, we are terminating the review with respect to this company.
The final results of the last administrative review of this order were
published in the Federal Register on February 2, 1993 (58 FR 6779).
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of Brazilian yarn,
carded but not combed, wholly of cotton. During the review period, such
merchandise was classifiable under item numbers 5205.11.10, 5205.11.20,
5205.12.10, 5205.12.20, 5205.13.10, 5205.13.20, 5205.14.10, 5205.14.20,
5205.15.10, 5205.15.20, 5205.31.00, 5205.32.00, 5205.33.00, 5205.34.00,
and 5205.35.00 of the HTS. The HTS item numbers are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
The review covers the period January 1, 1992 through December 31,
1992, seven programs and the following eight producers/exporters of
cotton yarn from Brazil: Companhia Industrial e Agricola Boyes,
Companhia Textil do Vale, Cotonificio Guilherme Giorgi S.A., Fiacao
Nordeste do Brasil S.A.--Finobrasa, Fiacao e Tecelagem Kanedo do Brasil
S.A., Nisshinbo do Brasil Industria Textil Ltda., Toyobo do Brasil
Industria Textil, and Unitika do Brasil Industria Textil Ltda.
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
In calculating the benefits received during the review period, we
followed the methodology described in the preamble to 19 CFR 355.20(d)
(53 FR 52325; December 27, 1988). First, we calculated a country-wide
rate, weight-averaging the subsidy rates of the eight companies subject
to review to determine the overall subsidy from all countervailing
programs benefitting exports of the subject merchandise to the United
States. Because the overall weighted-average country-wide rate was de
minimis, as defined by 19 CFR 355.7, we did not proceed any further in
our analysis.
Analysis of Programs
(1) Program That Provided Benefits During the Period of Review
a. Reductions of Taxes and Import Duties Through BEFIEX
The Commission for the Granting of Fiscal Benefits to Special
Export Programs (BEFIEX) allows Brazilian exporters, in exchange for
export commitments, to take advantage of several types of benefits,
such as import duty reductions and accelerated depreciation for
machinery used in the production of exports. Because this program
provides tax reductions that are limited to exporters, we preliminarily
determine that this program is countervailable. Brazilian Law 8.032 of
April 12, 1990, eliminated this program for new projects. However, the
Department has determined that residual benefits may continue due to
outstanding BEFIEX contracts.
Four cotton yarn exporters received import duty tax reductions and
two of these cotton yarn exporters also received merchant marine
freight tax reductions by virtue of their BEFIEX contracts during the
review period.
To calculate the benefit, we divided the amount of each firm's
import duty reductions and merchant marine tax exemptions received in
1992 by that firm's total exports in 1992. We then weight-averaged the
benefits by each respondent's share of exports of the subject
merchandise to the United States. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the benefit to be 0.30 percent ad valorem for all firms.
(2) Terminated Programs With No Residual Benefits During the Period of
Review
a. Income Tax Reduction for Export Earnings
This program was terminated effective April 12, 1990, by Decree Law
8034 which established a uniform tax rate of 30 percent for domestic
and export earnings beginning with tax year 1990. Since the last tax
returns on which these benefits could be claimed were filed in 1991,
there are no residual benefits from this program. (See Cotton Yarn From
Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, (56 FR 47456) and Cotton Yarn From Brazil; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, (57 FR 1454).)
b. CACEX (Carteira de Comercio Exterior) Preferential Working Capital
Financing for Exports
This program was terminated effective August 30, 1990, by Central
Bank Resolution 1744. In accordance with Resolution 1744, there are no
residual benefits from this program since all non-used portions of
financing were cancelled when the program was eliminated. At
verification, we saw no evidence of this financing at the companies.
c. IPI (Tax on Industrialized Products) for Imports of Machinery or
Equipment Under Decree Law 2324
This program was terminated effective December 28, 1989, by Decree-
Law 7988. Companies could benefit from the tax exemption until December
31, 1990, and no residual benefits were provided after this date. At
verification, we saw no evidence of IPI tax exemptions under Law 2324
at the companies.
(3) Programs Not Used
We also examined the following programs and preliminarily determine
that the respondents did not use them during the review period:
A. SUDENE Corporate Income Tax Reduction for Companies Located in
the Northeast of Brazil.
B. Preferential Export Financing under CIC-OPCRE of the Banco do
Brasil.
C. Preferential Financing for Industrial Enterprises by the Banco
do Brasil (FST and EGF loans).
Verification
As required under 19 CFR 355.36(a)(1)(iv)(B) of the Department's
regulations, we verified Brazilian cotton yarn exporters because no
verification had been conducted in either of the two immediately
preceeding administrative reviews. We selected several companies for
verification of both programs that were used and programs that were not
used. When conducting verification of Brazilian customs information, we
found that Brazilian officials had inadvertently reported export
information for shipments of non-subject merchandise, combed cotton
yarn, to the United States. According to Brazilian government records,
CBF, a company originally included in this review, had no shipments of
the subject merchandise to the United States during the review period.
At the company, we examined company records and found no evidence of
shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the
review period.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the net
subsidy to be 0.30 percent ad valorem for all firms for the period
January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. In accordance with 19 CFR
355.7, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad valorem is de minimis.
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a)(1) of the Act (19
U.S.C. 1671e(a)(1)), the Department intends to instruct the Customs
Service to liquidate, upon publication of the final results of this
review in the Federal Register, without regard to countervailing
duties, all shipments of the subject merchandise from Brazil exported
on or after January 1, 1992, and on or before December 31, 1992.
The Department also intends to instruct the Customs Service not to
collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on any
shipments of this merchandise from Brazil entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the
final results of this administrative review.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted
seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Any hearing,
if requested, will be held within seven days after the scheduled date
for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal
briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
355.38(e). Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request
disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective
order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or
employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than
the date the case briefs, under Sec. 355.38(c), are due. The Department
will publish the final results of this administrative review including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal
brief.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 93-32072 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32071 Potash From Canada; Intent To Terminate Suspended Investigation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32071]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-701]
Potash From Canada; Intent To Terminate Suspended Investigation
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to terminate suspended investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is notifying the public of its
intent to terminate the suspended investigation on potash from Canada.
Domestic interested parties who object to this termination must submit
their comments in writing no later than January 31, 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eric Hassman or Melissa Skinner, Office of Agreements Compliance,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 19, 1988, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published a suspension of investigation on potash from Canada (53 FR
1393). The Department has not received a request to conduct an
administrative review of this suspended investigation for the most
recent four consecutive annual anniversary months.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(iii), the Secretary of
Commerce will conclude that a suspended investigation is no longer of
interest to interested parties and will terminate the suspended
investigation if no domestic interested party objects to termination
and no interested party requests an administrative review by the last
day of the fifth anniversary month. Accordingly, as request by
Sec. 353.25(d)(4)(i) of the Department's regulations, we are notifying
the public of our intent to terminate this suspended investigation.
Opportunity to Object
No later than January 31, 1994, domestic interested parties, as
defined in Sec. 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6) of the Department's
regulations, may object to the Department's intent to terminate this
suspended investigation.
Seven copies of any such objections should be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
20230.
If interested parties do not request an administrative review (in
accordance with the Department's notice of opportunity to request
administrative review) by January 31, 1994, or domestic interested
parties do not object to the Department's intent to terminate by
January 31, 1994, we shall conclude that the suspension agreement is no
longer of interest to interested parties and shall proceed with the
termination.
This notice is in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Roland L. MacDonald,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 93-32071 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32070 Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Iron Construction Castings From Canada
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32070]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-503]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Iron Construction Castings From Canada
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Municipal Castings Fair Trade
Council and its individually-named members (petitioner), the Department
of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from Canada.
The review covers 11 manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States during the period March 1, 1992,
through February 28, 1993. For these preliminary results, we applied
best information available (BIA) for 10 of the manufacturers/exporters.
The review indicates the existence of dumping margins during the
period.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lisa Raisner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482-3518.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 5, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register
(51 FR 17220) the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings
from Canada. The petitioner requested in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(a) that we conduct an administrative review. We published the
notice of initiation on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960). The Department has
now conducted that administrative review in accordance with section 751
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain iron
construction castings from Canada, limited to manhole covers, rings,
and frames, catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames
used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water, and
sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050 and to
valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase
water, gas, or other valves, or water and gas meters, classifiable as
light castings under HTS item numbers 8306.29.0000 and 8310.00.0000.
The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes
only. The written description remains dispositive.
This review covers sales of certain Canadian iron construction
castings by Associated Foundry Ltd., Bibby Foundry Ltd., Bibby
Waterworks Inc., Dobney Foundry Ltd., Fonderie Bibby St. Croix, LaPerle
Foundry Division (LaPerle), McCoy Foundry Company, Penticton Foundry
Ltd., Titan Foundry Ltd., Titan Supply Ltd., and Trojan Industries,
Inc., during the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.
Analysis
We received only one questionnaire response, and that was from
LaPerle. Based on our analysis of this response, we have determined
that LaPerle is related to other respondents in this review. LaPerle
and its related entities meet all five criteria, in addition to
ownership, that the Department considers in determining whether to
collapse related parties, as laid out in Certain Granite Products for
Spain, 53 FR 24335, 1988; Certain Granite Products for Italy 53 FR
27187, 1988; Steel Wheels from Brazil, 54 FR 8780, 1989; Cellular
Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan, 54 FR 48011, 1989; and
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,
and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR 37099
(July 9, 1993). The five criteria, in addition to ownership, are as
follows:
Interlocking boards of directors;
Similar production processes, facilities or equipment so
as to facilitate shifting of production between facilities;
Do not operate as separate and distinct entities;
Share of marketing and sales information or offices; and
Involvement in the pricing or production decisions of the
other entity.
In conducting our analysis of related parties in this review, we
issued two supplemental questionnaires and granted extensions for
several of the responses. In spite of this, LaPerle did not provide us
with enough information to adequately support its position as an
independent entity. In addition, it did not consolidate all information
for itself, including information for its U.S. affiliate(s) and related
home market or third country firms whose information would be used in
this review, as outlined in our questionnaire. Therefore, we have
determined that LaPerle significantly impeded the proceedings. LaPerle
was deemed uncooperative and, in accordance with section 776(c) of the
Tariff Act, we applied BIA to LaPerle and its related parties.
Best Information Available
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we have used
BIA in cases where a party refused or was unable to produce information
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise
significantly impeded these proceedings. The Department generally uses
a two-tiered approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative
respondents or respondents who substantially impede the proceedings
(first tier), the Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate
for any company from the original investigation or prior administrative
review or (2) the highest rate found in the current review for any
company. For respondents which attempt to cooperate (second tier), the
Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to
the firm for the subject merchandise or (2) the highest calculated rate
in the current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings (Other
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58
FR 39729, July 26, 1993). For parties refusing to respond or parties
who substantially impeded the administrative review, the first-tier BIA
rate we applied in these preliminary results is 9.9 percent, which is
the highest of the rates found for any firm in the original
investigation (see Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Amendment to
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Amendment to
Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 34110, September 25, 1986).
For more information on these BIA applications to the above
companies, see the analysis memorandum.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that margins
exist for the period March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993, as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Foundry Ltd.............................. 9.9
Bibby Foundry Ltd................................... 9.9
Bibby Waterworks Inc................................ 9.9
Dobney Foundry Ltd.................................. 9.9
Fonderie Bibby St. Croix............................ 9.9
LaPerle Foundry, Inc................................ 9.9
McCoy Foundry Company............................... \1\7.5
Penticton Foundry Ltd............................... 9.9
Titan Foundry Ltd................................... 9.9
Titan Supply Ltd.................................... 9.9
Trojan Industries, Inc.............................. 9.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments during the period; since there was no prior review of
this company, we assigned the all other rate from the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation.
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after
the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the
Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective,
upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative
review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada that
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(1)
of the Tariff Act:
(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be their company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review or the original 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 this
or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 7.5 percent,
which is 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 or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders.
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
These 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(c).
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 93-32070 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32069 Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Taiwan; Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32069]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-603]
Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Taiwan; Intent To Revoke
Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to revoke antidumping duty order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is notifying the public of its
intent to revoke the antidumping duty order on stainless steel cooking
ware from Taiwan. Domestic interested parties who object to this
revocation must submit their comments in writing no later than January
31, 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Turoscy or John Kugelman,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)
485-5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 20, 1987, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published an antidumping duty order on stainless steel cooking ware
from Taiwan (52 FR 2138). The Department has not received a request to
conduct an administrative review of this order for the most recent four
consecutive annual anniversary months.
The Department may revoke an antidumping duty order or finding if
the Secretary of Commerce concludes that it is no longer of interest to
interested parties. Accordingly, as required by Sec. 353.25(d)(4) of
the Department's regulations, we are notifying the public of our intent
to revoke this antidumping duty order.
Opportunity to Object
No later than January 31, 1994, domestic interested parties, as
defined in Sec. 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6) of the Department's
regulations, may object to the Department's intent to revoke this
antidumping duty order.
Seven copies of any such objections should be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, room B-099, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
If interested parties do not request an administrative review in
accordance with the Department's notice of opportunity to request
administrative review by January 31, 1994, or domestic interested
parties do not object to the Department's intent to revoke by January
31, 1994, we shall conclude that the order is no longer of interest to
interested parties and shall proceed with revocation.
This notice is in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Roland L. MacDonald,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 93-32069 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32068 NASA Advisory Council, Minority Business Resource Advisory Committee; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32068]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 94-098]
NASA Advisory Council, Minority Business Resource Advisory
Committee; Meeting
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory
Council, Minority Business Resource Advisory Committee.
DATES: January 27, 1994, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Ames Research Center, Mail Auditorium, Building 201, Moffett
Field, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ralph C. Thomas, III, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, room 9K70,
300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2088.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to
the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as
follows.
--Review of Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 MBRAC Activities and Accomplishments
--Priority Issues for FY 1994
--Report of the Associate Administrator for Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization
--Participation from the Public
--Chairman's Report
--Committee Reports
--Wrap-up/Annual Schedule of Committee Meetings.
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
Timothy M. Sullivan,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 93-32068 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32067 Brazing Copper Wire and Rod From South Africa; Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32067]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-791-502]
Brazing Copper Wire and Rod From South Africa; Intent To Revoke
Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to revoke antidumping duty order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is notifying the public of its
intent to revoke the antidumping duty order on brazing copper wire and
rod from South Africa.
Domestic interested parties who object to this revocation must
submit their comments in writing no later than January 31, 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Valerie Turoscy 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 January 29, 1986, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published an antidumping duty order on brazing copper wire and rod from
South Africa (51 FR 3640). The Department has not received a request to
conduct an administrative review of this order for the most recent four
consecutive annual anniversary months.
The Department may revoke an antidumping duty order or finding if
the Secretary of Commerce concludes that it is no longer of interest to
interested parties. Accordingly, as required by Sec. 353.25(d)(4) of
the Department's regulations, we are notifying the public of our intent
to revoke this antidumping duty order.
Opportunity to Object
No later than January 31, 1994, domestic interested parties, as
defined in Sec. 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6) of the Department's
regulations, may object to the Department's intent to revoke this
antidumping duty order.
Seven copies of any such objections should be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, room B-099, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
If interested parties do not request an administrative review in
accordance with the Department's notice of opportunity to request
administrative review by January 31, 1994, or domestic interested
parties do not object to the Department's intent to revoke by January
31, 1994, we shall conclude that the order is no longer of interest to
interested parties and shall proceed with revocation.
This notice is in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Roland L. MacDonald,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 93-32067 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32066 Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China; Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32066]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-814]
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the People's
Republic of China; Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of affirmative preliminary determination of
circumvention of antidumping duty order.
SUMMARY: On July 21, 1993, the Department of Commerce received an
application for a circumvention inquiry of the antidumping duty order
on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from the People's
Republic of China. Pursuant to that application, the Department of
Commerce initiated a circumvention inquiry on September 2, 1993, which
was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 1993 (58 FR
47859).
We preliminarily determine that imports into the United States of
pipe fittings that were finished in Thailand from unfinished pipe
fittings produced in the People's Republic of China constitute
circumvention of the antidumping duty order on certain carbon steel
butt-weld pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China, within the
meaning of section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary
determination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karin Price, Donald Little, or Maureen
Flannery, Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 6, 1992, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (57 FR 29702) the antidumping duty
order on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings)
from the People's Republic of China (PRC). On July 21, 1993, the
petitioner, the U.S. Fittings Group, alleged that the antidumping duty
order on pipe fittings from the PRC was being circumvented, and
requested that the Department investigate the matter. The U.S. Fittings
Group is an ad hoc trade association of domestic producers of pipe
fittings; its members currently consist of Hackney, Inc.; Ladish
Company, Inc.; L.A. Boiler Works, Inc.; Mills Iron Works, Inc.; Steel
Forgings, Inc.; and Tube Forgings of America, Inc.
The petitioner alleged that the antidumping duty order on pipe
fittings from the PRC is being circumvented through the shipment of
unfinished pipe fittings produced in the PRC to Awaji Sangyo (Thailand)
Company, Ltd. (AST), located in Thailand, which then finishes the pipe
fittings and exports them to the United States free of antidumping
duties. AST was excluded from the antidumping duty order on pipe
fittings from Thailand (57 FR 29702, July 6, 1992) due to the finding
of a de minimis margin for AST in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation of that case.
The petitioner requested, in accordance with section 781(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Tariff Act), that the Department
conduct a circumvention inquiry. On September 2, 1993, pursuant to the
petitioner's application, the Department initiated a circumvention
inquiry in this matter. The notice of initiation of circumvention
inquiry of the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from the PRC was
published in the Federal Register on September 13, 1993 (58 FR 47859).
On September 24, 1993 and September 28, 1993, respectively, the
Department issued circumvention questionnaires to AST, and to the
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MFTEC) in the PRC
on behalf of all manufacturers and sellers of pipe fittings in the PRC.
AST responded to Part 1 of the questionnaire on October 4, 1993 and to
Part 2 of the questionnaire on November 8, 1993. Mitsui & Company
(Mitsui), on behalf of Shenzhen Fittings Manufacturing Factory
(Shenzhen Factory), the Chinese supplier of unfinished pipe fittings to
AST, responded to Part 1 of the questionnaire on October 15, 1993 and
to Part 2 of the questionnaire on November 8, 1993. Shenzhen Factory is
a limited partnership, in which Mitsui is the general partner. Neither
MFTEC nor other Chinese manufacturers or sellers of the subject
merchandise responded to the Department's questionnaire. The Department
issued supplemental questionnaires to AST and to Mitsui on November 12,
1993 and November 16, 1993, respectively. The Department received AST's
response to its supplemental questionnaire on November 23, 1993, and
Mitsui's response to its supplemental questionnaire on November 29,
1993. The Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires to
AST and Mitsui on December 3, 1993; responses were received on December
10, 1993.
The Department also issued a circumvention questionnaire to Thai
Benkan Company, Ltd. (Thai Benkan), a Thai importer of unfinished tees
manufactured by Shenzhen Factory, on November 8, 1993. The Department
received a response from Thai Benkan on November 30, 1993, which was
revised on December 2, 1993. Thai Benkan stated in its response that it
has made no shipments of pipe fittings to the United States after
November 1991.
The Department also issued a questionnaire to Silbo Industries,
Inc. (Silbo), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise from Thailand and
the PRC, on November 16, 1993. Silbo responded to part of the
questionnaire on December 8, 1993. The remaining portion of its
response is due to the Department on January 4, 1994. Additionally, the
Department sent a questionnaire to another company whose name is
proprietary. However, the response was untimely and was returned and
not considered for our determination.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
Imports covered by the antidumping duty order are shipments of
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, having an inside diameter of less
than 14 inches, imported in either finished or unfinished form. These
formed or forged pipe fittings are used to join sections in piping
systems where conditions require permanent, welded connections, as
distinguished from fittings based on other fastening methods (e.g.,
threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings). Carbon steel butt-weld pipe
fittings are currently classified under subheading 7307.93.30 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description
of the scope of this order remains dispositive.
Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry
The products subject to this circumvention inquiry are pipe
fittings, as described above in the ``Scope of the Antidumping Duty
Order'' section, which are exported in unfinished form from the PRC to
Thailand, where some finishing is performed. We requested data for the
period January 1, 1991 through August 31, 1993, except for pattern of
trade data, which were requested for the period January 1, 1988 through
August 31, 1993.
Nature of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry
Section 781(b)(1) of the Tariff Act provides that if:
(A) Merchandise imported into the United States is of the same
class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is
the subject of an antidumping duty order,
(B) Before importation into the United States, such imported
merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from
merchandise which (i) is subject to such order, or (ii) is produced in
the foreign country with respect to which such order applies,
(C) The difference between the value of such imported merchandise
and the value of the merchandise completed or assembled in another
foreign country is small, and
(D) The administering authority determines that action is
appropriate under this paragraph to prevent evasion of such order,
the Department, after taking into account any advice provided by the
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under section 781(e), may
include such imported merchandise within the scope of such order.
In determining whether to include merchandise assembled or
completed in a foreign country within an order, section 781(b)(2) of
the Tariff Act directs the Department to consider such other factors as
(1) the pattern of trade, (2) whether the manufacturer or exporter of
the merchandise produced in the country to which the order applies is
related to the entity who uses such merchandise to assemble or complete
in the foreign country the merchandise that is subsequently imported
into the United States, and (3) whether imports into the foreign
country of the merchandise produced in the country to which the order
applies have increased after issuance of that order.
I. Statutory Criteria
(1) Class or Kind of Merchandise
In this inquiry, the merchandise completed in Thailand and exported
to the United States is pipe fittings having an inside diameter of less
than 14 inches. Thus, the product exported to the United States is of
the same class or kind of merchandise as the product subject to the
antidumping duty order.
(2) Merchandise Imported Into the United States Completed From
Merchandise Subject to an Order
The pipe fittings finished in Thailand and exported to the United
States were completed from unfinished ``as-formed'' pipe fittings
manufactured in the PRC. Therefore, the merchandise exported to the
United States is completed from merchandise subject to the antidumping
duty order and produced in the country with respect to which the
antidumping duty order applies.
(3) Difference in Value
In this anti-circumvention inquiry, we based our analysis of the
difference in value on both a quantitative analysis of the value of the
finishing process in Thailand, and a qualitative analysis of the nature
of the processing performed in Thailand and the level of investment in
Thailand. Such an analysis is consistent with our analysis in previous
anti-circumvention inquiries. See, e.g., Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Affirmative
Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order (58 FR 26100,
April 30, 1993).
(a) Value of the Completed Merchandise. We used the selling price
of the finished tees sold by AST to the United States on a model-
specific, per kilogram basis to represent the value of the finished
pipe fittings sold to the United States, as reported in AST's
questionnaire response. The terms of sale for these sales were CIF U.S.
port duty unpaid.
(b) Value of Thai Completion. In order to determine the value of
the Thai completion, we used the cost of manufacturing at AST's factory
which finished the tees from unfinished Chinese tees for each month
during the period January 1, 1991 through August 31, 1993 in which the
finishing occurred, as provided by AST. We allocated selling, general,
and administrative expenses and profit from AST's financial statements,
as well as an amount of Awaji Sangyo K.K. of Japan's export selling
expenses as provided in AST's November 23, 1993 response, to AST's cost
of manufacturing.
We used the value of the Thai completion, as provided by AST,
because it was the most complete, verifiable information available.
Complete factors data were unavailable for constructing the cost of the
unfinished Chinese tees. For example, Shenzhen Factory was not able to
provide the consumption rates of raw material inputs, other than steel
pipe, used in manufacturing the unfinished tees or the number of labor
hours used in the production process. Public data on electricity
consumption for producing unfinished tees were also not available.
We calculated the difference in value percentage by dividing the
value added in Thailand by the value of the completed merchandise. We
preliminarily determine that the difference in value is 15 percent of
the value of the completed merchandise. (Since the precise figure is
business proprietary, the stated percentage is within a range of plus
or minus 10 percent.) See December 22, 1993 proprietary analysis
memorandum from case analyst to the File. In order to determine whether
15 percent is ``small'' within the meaning of the Tariff Act, we
examined the nature of the processing performed in Thailand and the
level of investment in Thailand.
Nature of Processing
According to the description of the manufacturing process provided
by the ITC in its final affirmative determination of injury concerning
imports of pipe fittings from the PRC and Thailand (see Certain Carbon
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from China and Thailand; Determinations
of the Commission in Investigations Nos. 731-TA-520 and 521 (Final)
Under the Tariff Act of 1930, Together With the Information Obtained in
the Investigations, USITC Publication 2528, June 1992 at I-7 through I-
10), the cold process is the most efficient process for forming tees
which are less than 12 inches in diameter. In the cold process, the raw
material pipe is first cut to length, and the section is enclosed in a
die that matches the shape and size of the finished tee within a press.
The die is then closed, plugs are used to seal the ends, and a fluid,
such as water or a light oil, forces under pressure the metal into the
shape of the die. This process produces the unfinished tee. Finishing
steps re-round, resize, and anneal the unfinished tee.
The finishing steps involved in the production of pipe fittings
include one or more of the following: shot blasting, machine beveling,
boring and tapering, grinding, die stamping, inspection, and painting.
According to the ITC, beveling, boring, and tapering add an estimated
11-20 percent of value, and the remaining finishing operations add an
estimated 3-9 percent of value.
Mitsui's response indicates that Shenzhen Factory produces
unfinished tees using a cold-forming method. After Shenzhen Factory
cuts the raw material carbon steel pipe to a pre-determined length and
lubricates the pipe on the exterior surface, it cold forms the pipe
using the ``Bulge Method,'' a process in which a hydraulic press is
used.
AST receives the unfinished tees in this as-formed condition, with
the bulging head closed. AST then cuts the bulging head off the tee,
heat treats the ``decapped'' as-formed tee in order to prevent the
steel material from becoming brittle from the stress of cold-forming,
shot blasts the tees to remove heat scales from the surface, and bevels
and precision machines the ends of the tees. These processes are then
followed by cleaning, coating with an oxidizing agent or paint, and
marking. AST does not provide any additional materials to the
unfinished pipe fitting.
Based on the above description of the manufacturing process for
tees and other pipe fittings, we preliminarily determine that the
finishing operations performed by AST, or by any other Thai company, to
finish pipe fittings are of minor value when compared to the production
of the unfinished pipe fittings.
Level of Investment
AST has stated that it began in 1991 its tees conversion operation,
i.e., the conversion of unfinished tees into finished tees, pursuant to
a formal corporate decision made in the prior year. This was an interim
step with the goal of producing tees in an integrated process, from the
raw material pipe, by the end of 1993. The level of investment
undertaken by AST, or which will be undertaken by AST, toward this goal
indicates that the plant and equipment required to produce the as-
formed tee from the raw material pipe is substantial as compared to
that required for the finishing operations. See December 22, 1993
proprietary analysis memorandum from case analyst to the File.
We have determined that the finishing operations performed to
finish unfinished tees provide limited value to the finished tee
relative to the production process used to manufacture the unfinished
tee. Moreover, the level of investment required to produce unfinished
tees is significant when compared to that required to finish the
unfinished tee. Accordingly, based on the qualitative factors discussed
above, we preliminarily determine that the calculated difference in
value percentage is ``small'' within the meaning of section 781(b) of
the Tariff Act.
(4) Action is Appropriate to Prevent Evasion of the Order We
preliminarily determine that action is appropriate to prevent the
circumvention of the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from the
PRC. The Department has no other means to ensure that entries of
Chinese pipe fittings finished by AST are suspended and any appropriate
duties ultimately collected thereon, or to ensure that proper cash
deposits are collected on entries of Chinese pipe fittings finished by
other companies in Thailand.
II. Factors
(1) Pattern of Trade
To evaluate the pattern of trade factors in this case, we examined
the timing and quantities of exports of pipe fittings from AST to the
United States during the period January 1, 1988 through August 1, 1993.
AST began exporting finished tees to the United States in 1991. Data on
AST's exports of finished tees to the United States show a significant
increase in the volume of these exports subsequent to the issuance of
the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from the PRC. We also
examined data on Shenzhen Factory's exports to the United States for
the period January 1, 1991 through August 31, 1993. These data indicate
that the volume of Shenzhen Factory's exports to the United States
decreased significantly subsequent to the issuance of the antidumping
duty order on pipe fittings from the PRC.
Therefore, this factor indicates that circumvention may have been
occurring during the period. See December 22, 1993 analysis memorandum
from case analyst to the File.
Because an antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from Thailand
was issued by the Department at the same time as the order on pipe
fittings from the PRC, any comparison of the quantity of exports from
Thailand to the United States with the quantity of exports from the PRC
to the United States prior to and subsequent to the issuance of the
orders would be meaningless. Therefore, we have not included such a
comparison in our analysis.
(2) Relationship
Generally, we consider circumvention to be more likely when the
manufacturer of the covered merchandise is related to the third country
assembler. Our inquiry indicates that the relationship between AST, the
third country assembler and exporter of the finished pipe fittings to
the United States, and Mitsui and Shenzhen Factory, the entity which
produced the unfinished pipe fittings sold to AST, was limited to the
purchase/sale of the unfinished pipe fittings. Therefore, in this
inquiry, no purchases of Chinese unfinished pipe fittings occurred
between related parties within the meaning of section 773(e)(4) of the
Tariff Act.
(3) Increase in Imports
Data on imports of unfinished pipe fittings into Thailand from
Chinese manufacturers/sellers other than Shenzhen Factory were not
available, and public data on imports of pipe fittings from the PRC
into Thailand were not available for the period after June 1992.
Therefore, to measure the increase in imports, we examined export data
supplied by Shenzhen Factory for the period January 1, 1991 through
August 31, 1993. It is clear that an increase in exports of unfinished
tees from Shenzhen Factory to Thailand occurred after the issuance of
the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from the PRC. This increase
corresponds to the increase of AST's exports of finished tees to the
United States during the same period. See December 22, 1993 analysis
memorandum from the case analyst to the File. Accordingly, this factor
indicates that circumvention activities may have occurred.
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention
After consideration of the factors discussed above, we
preliminarily determine that circumvention of the antidumping duty
order on pipe fittings from the PRC has occurred within the meaning of
section 781(b) of the Tariff Act. We base this determination on the
following. First, the items completed in Thailand and sold to the
United States are of the same class or kind of merchandise as that
covered by the order, and are completed from merchandise produced in
the PRC and covered by the order. Second, the difference in value
between the unfinished pipe fittings sold to Thailand and the value of
the finished pipe fittings exported to the United States is small. We
note that our determination of ``small'' in this case is not
necessarily synonymous with the determination of ``small'' that the
Department has used in the past or that the Department will use in
future anti-circumvention inquiries, because Congress has directed us
to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis. Further, we find
the pattern of trade and level of imports into Thailand indicate a
finding of circumvention of the antidumping duty order. Finally, we
find that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of the antidumping
duty order. To this end, and in accordance with the purposes of section
781, we are applying this finding to all Thai manufacturers/exporters
of the class or kind of merchandise, i.e., pipe fittings, subject to
the certification requirements described below.
Requirement of Certification
Considered within the scope of the antidumping duty order on pipe
fittings from the PRC are all imports from all producers into the
United States of pipe fittings from Thailand, as defined in the ``Scope
of the Inquiry'' section of this notice, unless accompanied by a
certificate stating that such pipe fittings have not been produced from
unfinished Chinese pipe fittings.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.29(j)(2), we are directing the U.S.
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of pipe fittings
from Thailand. The merchandise subject to suspension of liquidation is
pipe fittings, as defined in the ``Scope of Circumvention Inquiry''
section of this notice, that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. (We note that entries of pipe fittings from
Thailand, with the exception of AST's pipe fittings, are currently
being suspended pursuant to the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings
from Thailand (57 FR 29702, July 6, 1992).) For all such imports which
are accompanied by a certificate stating that such pipe fittings have
not been produced from unfinished Chinese pipe fittings, the U.S.
Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond in
the amount of the company-specific rate for the Thai manufacturer/
exporter, or, if there is no company-specific rate for the Thai
manufacturer or exporter, the ``All Others'' rate for pipe fittings
from Thailand. For all such imports which are accompanied by a
certificate stating that the merchandise was manufactured using Chinese
unfinished pipe fittings and the name of the manufacturer of the
Chinese unfinished pipe fittings, the U.S. Customs Service shall
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond in the amount of the
company-specific rate of the manufacturer of the Chinese unfinished
pipe fittings. For all such imports which are accompanied by a
certificate stating that such pipe fittings have been produced from
unfinished Chinese pipe fittings, but do not provide the specific
Chinese manufacturer, the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash
deposit or posting of a bond in the amount of the highest rate for pipe
fittings from the PRC. For all other imports of pipe fittings from
Thailand which are accompanied by an inadequate certificate, or no
certificate, the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or
posting of a bond in an amount based on the higher of (1) the highest
rate for any manufacturer/exporter of pipe fittings from the PRC, or
(2) the rate for the Thai manufacturer/exporter, or, if there is no
company-specific rate for the Thai manufacturer or exporter, the ``All
Others'' rate for pipe fittings from Thailand.
This suspension of liquidation shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification of the International Trade Commission
The Department, consistent with section 781(e)(1)(B) of the Tariff
Act, will notify the ITC of this preliminary determination to include
merchandise subject to this inquiry within the antidumping duty order
on pipe fittings from the PRC. Pursuant to section 781(e)(2) of the
Tariff Act, the ITC may request consultation concerning the
Department's proposed inclusion of the subject merchandise. If, after
consultations, the ITC believes that a significant injury issue is
presented by the proposed inclusion, the ITC will have 60 days from the
date of notification to provide written advice to the Department.
Public Comment
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this determination, and may request a hearing within
10 days of publication. Case briefs and/or written comments from
interested parties may be submitted not later than February 16, 1994.
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues
raised in those briefs or comments, may be filed not later than
February 22, 1994. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on February
24, 1994. The Department will publish its final determination with
respect to this anti-circumvention inquiry, including the results of
its analysis of any written or oral comments.
This preliminary affirmative circumvention determination is in
accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1677j(b))
and 19 CFR 353.29(f).
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 93-32066 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32062 Illinois: Final Determination of Adequacy of State Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32062]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4821-1]
Illinois: Final Determination of Adequacy of State Municipal
Solid Waste Permit Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of final determination of full program adequacy for
Illinois' application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires States to develop and implement
permit programs to ensure that municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs)
which may receive hazardous household waste or small quantity generator
waste will comply with the revised Federal MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR part
258). RCRA section 4005(c)(1)(C) requires the Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) to determine whether States have adequate ``permit''
programs for MSWLFs, but does not mandate issuance of a rule for such
determinations. The USEPA has drafted and is in the process of
proposing a State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR) that will provide
procedures by which the USEPA will approve, or partially approve,
State/Tribal landfill permit programs. The Agency intends to approve
adequate State/Tribal MSWLF permit programs as applications are
submitted. Thus, these approvals are not dependent on final
promulgation of the STIR. Prior to promulgation of the STIR, adequacy
determinations will be made based on the statutory authorities and
requirements. In addition, States/Tribes may use the draft STIR as an
aid in interpreting these requirements. The Agency believes that early
approvals are an important benefit. Approved State/Tribal permit
programs provide interaction between the State/Tribe and the owner/
operator regarding site-specific permit conditions. Only those owners/
operators located in States/Tribes with approved permit programs can
use the site-specific flexibility provided by 40 CFR part 258 to the
extent the State/Tribal permit program allows such flexibility. The
USEPA notes that regardless of the approval status of a State/Tribe and
the permit status of any facility, the revised Federal Criteria will
apply to all permitted and unpermitted MSWLF facilities.
Illinois applied for a determination of adequacy under section 4005
of RCRA. The USEPA reviewed Illinois' application and tentatively
determined that Illinois' permit program is adequate to ensure
compliance with the revised Federal MSWLF Criteria. After consideration
of all comments received, the USEPA is today issuing a final
determination that the State's program is adequate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of adequacy for Illinois shall be
effective on January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
USEPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
Attn: Mr. Andrew Tschampa, mailcode HRP-8J, telephone (312) 886-0976.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On October 9, 1991, the USEPA promulgated revised Federal MSWLF
Criteria (40 CFR part 258). Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), requires States to
develop permitting programs to ensure that facilities comply with the
revised Federal Criteria. Subtitle D also requires in section 4005 that
the USEPA determine the adequacy of State municipal solid waste
landfill permit programs to ensure that facilities comply with the
revised Federal Criteria. To fulfill this requirement, the Agency has
drafted and is in the process of proposing a State/Tribal
Implementation Rule (STIR). The rule will specify the requirements
which State/Tribal programs must satisfy to be determined adequate.
The USEPA intends to approve State/Tribal MSWLF permit programs
prior to promulgation of STIR. The USEPA interprets the requirements
for States or Tribes to develop ``adequate'' programs for permits or
other forms of prior approval to impose several minimum requirements.
First, each State/Tribe must have enforceable standards for new and
existing MSWLFs that are technically comparable to the revised Federal
Criteria. Second, the State/Tribe must have the authority to issue a
permit or other notice of prior approval to all new and existing MSWLFs
in its jurisdiction. Third, the State/Tribe must also provide for
public participation in permit issuance and enforcement as required in
section 7004(b) of RCRA. Fourth, the USEPA believes that the State/
Tribe must show that it has sufficient compliance monitoring and
enforcement authorities to take specific action against any owner or
operator that fails to comply with an approved MSWLF permit program.
The USEPA Regional offices will determine whether a State/Tribe has
submitted an ``adequate'' program based on the interpretation outlined
above. The USEPA plans to provide more specific criteria for this
evaluation when it proposes the STIR. The USEPA expects States/Tribes
to meet all of these requirements for all elements of a MSWLF permit
program before it grants full approval to a program.
B. State of Illinois
On March 31, 1993, Illinois submitted an application to obtain an
adequacy determination for the State's municipal solid waste landfill
permit program. On October 20, 1993, the USEPA published a tentative
determination of adequacy for all portions of Illinois program. Further
background information on the tentative determination of adequacy
appears in 58 FR 54145, October 20, 1993. The combination of the
State's existing permit program, the incorporation of certain portions
of the revised Federal Criteria, and the interim period of IEPA
enforcement created by Public Law 88-496, will ensure full compliance
with all of the revised Federal Criteria. In its application, Illinois
demonstrated that the State's permit program adequately meets the
location restrictions, operating criteria, design criteria, groundwater
monitoring and corrective action requirements, closure and post-closure
care requirements, and financial assurance criteria in the revised
Federal Criteria.
In addition, Illinois demonstrated that the State's MSWLF permit
program has the authority to issue permits incorporating the
requirements of the revised Federal Criteria for all MSWLFs in the
State. The USEPA determined that the Illinois' permit program contains
provisions for public participation, compliance monitoring, and
enforcement.
The revised Federal Criteria that is incorporated into the Illinois
permit program will eventually be replaced by equivalent regulations
developed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB). As previously
discussed in 58 FR 54145, October 20, 1993, the USEPA has received the
proposed IPCB regulations. The USEPA started its review and had
submitted comments to the IPCB. The IPCB has indicated that it will
issue revised regulations in December 1993. The USEPA will continue its
review when it receives the revised regulations.
Along with the tentative determination, the USEPA announced the
availability of the application for public comment and the date of a
public hearing on the application. The public hearing was held at the
USEPA Region 5 office in Chicago, Illinois, on November 29, 1993.
The USEPA received public comment concerning the tentative
determination of full program adequacy for Illinois' MSWLF permit
program. One commenter asked whether the regulatory flexibility found
in 40 CFR 258.50(b) would be utilized by the State. In the application,
Illinois indicated that the Illinois rules do not provide for
suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements by the Agency.
However, an operator may petition the IPCB for an adjusted standard
from the regulations of general applicability. In granting an adjusted
standard from groundwater monitoring requirements, the IPCB may
consider contaminant, fate, and transport requirements, as well as
other factors deemed relevant. An adjusted standard must be justified
and consistent with applicable Federal law, and it cannot result in
environmental or health effects significantly more adverse than those
considered by the IPCB in general rulemaking.
C. Decision
After reviewing the public comment, I conclude that Illinois'
application for adequacy determination meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Accordingly, Illinois is
granted a determination of adequacy for all portions of its municipal
solid waste permit program.
Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that citizens may use the citizen
suit provision of section 7002 of RCRA to enforce the revised Federal
Criteria independent of any State/Tribal enforcement program. As the
USEPA explained in the preamble to the revised Federal Criteria, the
USEPA expects that any owner or operator complying with provisions in a
State/Tribal program approved by the USEPA should be considered to be
in compliance with the Federal Criteria. See 56 FR 50978, 50995
(October 9, 1991).
Today's action takes effect on the date of publication. The USEPA
believes it has good cause under section 553(d) of the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), to put this action into effect less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. All of the
requirements and obligations in the State's program are already in
effect as a matter of State law. The USEPA's action today does not
impose any new requirements that the regulated community must begin to
comply with. Nor do these requirements become enforceable by the USEPA
as Federal law. Consequently, the USEPA finds that it does not need to
give notice prior to making its approval effective.
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this notice from
the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this approval will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. It does not impose any new
burdens on small entities. This notice, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of section
4005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6946.
Dated: December 20, 1993.
Valdus V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 93-32062 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32061 Notice of Assessment of Need for Supplement to Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Long Term Residuals Management for Metropolitan Boston
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32061]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4820-9]
Notice of Assessment of Need for Supplement to Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement on Long Term Residuals Management for
Metropolitan Boston
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (Region I).
Action: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: During 1989, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region I, Boston, (EPA) prepared Draft and Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FSEIS, respectively)
evaluating the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's (MWRA) Long-
Term Residuals Management Program for Metropolitan Boston under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The DSEIS and FSEIS evaluated
a variety of alternative sites and technologies for managing sewage
residuals, including the program then proposed by MWRA. Based on this
evaluation, EPA ultimately approved the MWRA's chosen plan which
included a primary program and a backup program. In March, 1990 EPA
issued its record of Decision (ROD) completing the NEPA review.
The MWRA's primary program consisted of dewatering and heat drying
sludge into pellets for marketing for beneficial uses (specifically,
for land application as a fertilizer or soil conditioner). EPA and
others supported the MWRA's beneficial use program as an
environmentally progressive approach to sludge management because the
sludge was to be converted from a disposable waste to a usable product.
The backup program, consisted of disposal of dewatered sludge and/or
sludge pellets on an as-needed basis at an MWRA-owned and operated
landfill which was to be constructed in Walpole, Massachusetts. The
backup program was designed in recognition of the possibilities that
(1) technical problems at the heat drying facility could result in the
MWRA needing to dispose of dewatered sludge; (2) pellet marketing
success could fluctuate over time due to changing demand or competition
from other producers; and (3) problems with meeting land application
regulations could occur.
Recently, the MWRA proposed a modification to the backup program
for sludge management. More specifically, MWRA proposed replacing
immediate construction of the Walpole landfill with a new multi-faceted
alternative. The new alternative consists of three principal elements.
First, the MWRA has entered into a contract reserving disposal capacity
for its entire sludge output over 30 years, whether in pellet or cake
form, at a commercial landfill in Utah owned and operated by the East
Carbon Development Corporation Environmental, L.C. (ECDC). This
contract also provides the MWRA with backup disposal capacity, if
needed, at a landfill in North Dakota owned and operated by USPCI, Inc.
(USPCI). Second, the MWRA has developed an ``Emergency Preparedness
Plan'' (EPP) designed to ensure that the MWRA is immediately able to
secure alternative commercial disposal services in the event that both
the Utah and North Dakota landfills were to become unavailable. Third,
the MWRA has committed to retain ownership of the Walpole landfill
site, and to maintain the necessary permits and approvals so that the
landfill could promptly be built if commercial backup services became
unavailable or unreliable.
Notice is hereby given that in accordance with its responsibilities
under NEPA, EPA has assessed the need for a supplement to the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Residuals Management for
the Boston Metropolitan Area, in light of the recently proposed
modifications made by the MWRA.
EPA has concluded that the MWRA's modified backup disposal program
appears to be environmentally sound and adequately reliable to support
the overall residuals management program. EPA has also determined that
the new backup program will not affect the quality of the human
environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not
already considered in the FSEIS. Therefore, preparation of a supplement
to the FSEIS is not required and will not be prepared.
Essentially, just as MWRA residuals were determined to be safe for
landfilling at the proposed Walpole landfill, the materials should also
be safe for landfilling at other permitted landfills, such as the ECDC
or USPCI landfills. In addition, while the transportation impacts of
the original plan were acceptable, such impacts should actually be
reduced under the new plan because the MWRA will rely on rail transport
to the ECDC landfill.
In addition, EPA believes that the MWRA's modifications to the
backup plan do not significantly reduce the reliability of the
residuals management plan. Therefore, the MWRA residuals management
program is still reasonably and sufficiently reliable. The program
continues to focus on heat drying and pellet marketing for reuse as its
primary option, while providing for environmentally sound landfilling
as the backup. The key change is that the Walpole landfill has been
relegated to the status of a tertiary backup, while out-of-state
commercial landfills (i.e., the ECDC, USPCI and EPP landfills) have
become the primary and secondary backups. While the new program raises
concerns such as the potential for commercial landfills going out-of-
business or disposal at out-of-state landfills being subject to
political problems, the MWRA has developed a program that reasonably
addresses those concerns in light of current conditions. Moreover, the
new program has one element of added reliability in that the ECDC/USPCI
contract provides substantially greater disposal capacity than would
have been provided by the Walpole landfill alone.
To obtain a copy of EPA's Assessment of Need For Supplement to The
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Long Term Residuals
Management For Metropolitan Boston contact: Ann Rodney, U.S. EPA,
Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-4424.
Paul Keough,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 93-32061 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32060 Draft Guidance Document on Indirect Exposure Assessment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32060]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4821-5]
Draft Guidance Document on Indirect Exposure Assessment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
2ACTION: Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the extension of the public comment
period for the external review draft of a draft guidance document
entitled, Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. This draft
Addendum provides revisions and updates to the Agency's 1990 interim
final document, Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with
Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions.
DATES: In the November 22, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 61688-61689),
EPA announced that the public comment period for the external review
draft of this document would be from November 22 through January 7,
1994. The Agency is now extending the public comment period to February
15, 1994. Comments must be in writing and postmarked by the February
date.
ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the draft Addendum or the 1990 interim
final Methodology, interested parties should write the ORD Publications
Center, CERI-FRN, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, or telephone 513-569-7562;
facsimile 513-569-7566. Please provide your name, mailing address, and
the EPA document number. The titles are as follows: external review
draft of the Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks
Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions (EPA/600/AP-
93/003); Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with
Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions (EPA/600/6-90/003).
The draft Addendum and the interim final Methodology document will
also be available for inspection at the RCRA Docket, the ORD Public
Information Shelf/EPA Headquarters Library, and all of the EPA Regional
and Laboratory Libraries. The EPA Headquarters Library is located in
room M2904, and is open between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments
to: Docket Clerk, Office of Solid Waste (5305), Docket Number F-93-
AMCA-FFFFF, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Comments should include the docket number F-93-
AMCA-FFFFF. The RCA docket is located in Room M2616 at EPA Headquarters
and is available for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Appointments may be made by calling
202-260-9327. Copies cost $0.15 per page; charges under $25.00 are
waived.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
800-424-9346; TDD 800-553-7672 (hearing impaired); in the Washington,
DC, metropolitan area, the number is 703-412-9810; TDD 703-412-3323.
For technical information, the Hotline will provide a specific contact
person, depending on the particular subject matter.
Dated: December 27, 1993.
Carl R. Gerber,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development.
[FR Doc. 93-32060 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32059 Market Transactions Advisory Committee; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32059]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33390; File No. 265-18]
Market Transactions Advisory Committee; Meeting
agency: Securities and Exchange Commission.
action: Notice of meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') Market Transactions Advisory Committee
(``Committee'').
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: This is to give notice that the Securities and Exchange
Commission Market Transactions Advisory Committee will meet on January
19, 1994, in Room 1C30 at the Commission's main offices, 450 Fifth
Street NW., Washington, DC, beginning at 10 a.m. The meeting will be
open to the public. This notice also serves to invite the public to
submit written comments to the Committee.
addresses: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate and
should refer to File No. 265-18. Comments should be submitted to
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
for further information contact: Jack Drogin, Division of Market
Regulation at (202) 272-2775, or Ari Burstein, Division of Market
Regulation at (202) 504-2933; Securities and Exchange Commission, 450
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
supplementary information: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 10a, the Securities and
Exchange Commission Market Transactions Advisory Committee hereby gives
notice that it will meet on January 19, 1994, in Room 1C30 at the
Commission's main offices, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC,
beginning at 10 a.m. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Committee was formed under Section 17A(f) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Committee's responsibilities include
assisting the Commission in identifying State and Federal laws that
impede the safe and efficient clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and in advising the Commission on the use of the
Commission's authority under the Market Reform Act of 1990 to adopt
uniform federal rules regarding the transfer and pledge of securities.
The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the progress of the
Committee's subgroups and to plan the continued progression of the
Committee's work. In addition, the Committee will discuss the status of
the project to revise Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code
undertaken by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
laws.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32059 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32057 Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32057]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for
Review
December 27, 1993.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511. Copies of
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room
3171 Treasury Annex, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20220.
Internal Revenue Service
OMB Number: 1545-0023.
Form Number: IRS Form 720.
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.
Description: Form 720 is used to report excise taxes due from
retailers and manufacturers on the sale or manufacture of various
articles, to report taxes on facilities and services, and taxes on
certain products and commodities (gasoline and vaccines, etc.). It
enables IRS to monitor excise tax liability for various categories on a
single form and to collect the tax quarterly in compliance with the law
and regulations (Internal Revenue Code 6011).
Respondents: Individuals or households, Businesses or other for-
profit, Small businesses or organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 338,000.
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learning about the law or Preparing and sending the
Form Recordkeeping the form form to the IRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
720......................... 25 hr., 35 min............ 2 hr., 20 min............. 8 hr., 51 min.
Sch. A...................... 2 hr., 23 min............. .......................... 2 min.
Sch. C Part I............... 2 hr., 38 min............. .......................... 2 min.
Sch. C Part II.............. 7 hr., 10 min............. .......................... 7 min.
Sch. C Part III............. 14 min.................... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Response: Quarterly.
Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 9,917,620 hours.
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20224.
OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202) 395-6880, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 3001, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 93-32057 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32056 Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for Review
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32056]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for
Review
December 27, 1993.
The Department of Treasury has made revisions and resubmitted the
following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public
Law 96-511. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the
Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 3171 Treasury Annex, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
Internal Revenue Service
OMB Number: New.
Form Number: IRS Form 8840.
Type of Review: Resubmission.
Title: State of Closer Connection Exception (Under Section
7701(b)).
Description: Form 8840 is used by an alien individual, who
otherwise meets the substantial presence test, to explain the basis of
the individual's claim that he or she is able to satisfy the closer
connection exception described in Regs. sec. 301.7701(b)-2.
Respondents: Individuals or households.
Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 350,000.
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:
Recordkeeping--13 minutes
Learning about the law or the form--7 minutes
Preparing the form--1 hour, 19 minutes
Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS--35 minutes
Frequency of Response: Annually.
Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 756,000 hours.
OMB Number: New.
Form Number: IRS Form 8843.
Type of Review: Resubmission.
Title: Statement of Exempt Individuals (Under section 7701(b)).
Description: Form 8843 is used by an alien individual to explain
the basis of the individual's claim that he or she is able to exclude
days of presence in the U.S. because the individual is a teacher/
trainee or student; professional athlete; or has a medical condition or
problem.
Respondents: Individuals or households.
Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 150,000.
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form 8843 Pt. I Form 8843 Pt. I Form 8843 Pt. I Form 8843 Pt. I
& II & III & II & V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping........................... 13 min.......... 13 min.......... 13 min.......... 13 min.
Learning about the law or the form...... 5 min........... 5 min........... 5 min........... 5 min.
Preparing the form...................... 29 min.......... 34 min.......... 24 min.......... 34 min.
Copying, assembling, and sending the 17 min.......... 17 min.......... 17 min.......... 17 min.
form to the IRS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Response: Annually.
Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 172,485 hours.
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202) 535-4297, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20224.
OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202) 395-6880, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 3001, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 93-32056 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32055 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Applications for Unlisted Trading Privileges; Notice and Opportunity for Hearing; Boston Stock Exchange, Incorporated
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32055]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Applications for Unlisted Trading
Privileges; Notice and Opportunity for Hearing; Boston Stock Exchange,
Incorporated
December 23, 1993.
The above named national securities exchange has filed applications
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant
to section 12(f)(1)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule
12f-1 thereunder for unlisted trading privileges in the following
securities:
Grupo Financiero Serfin S.A. de C.V.
American Depositary Shares, No Par Value (File No. 7-11719)
Detroit Diesel Corp.
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value (File No. 7-11720)
Emerging Markets Telecommunication Fund
Common Stock, $.001 Par Value (File No. 7-11721)
Golden Star Resources, Ltd.
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value (File No. 7-11722)
Talbots, Inc.
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value (File No. 7-11723)
Trans World Airlines
Voting Trust Cert., No Par Value (File No. 7-11724)
Trans World Airlines
Cum. Preferred, $.01 Par Value (File No. 7-11725)
Torch Energy Royalty Trust
Common Stock, No Par Value (File No. 7-11726)
These securities are listed and registered on one or more other
national securities exchange and are reported in the consolidated
transaction reporting system.
Interested persons are invited to submit on or before January 18,
1994, written data, views and arguments concerning the above-referenced
application. Persons desiring to make written comments should file
three copies thereof with the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. Following this
opportunity for hearing, the Commission will approve the application if
it finds, based upon all the information available to it, that the
extensions of unlisted trading privileges pursuant to such applications
are consistent with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the
protection of investors.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32055 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32051 Minimum Wages for Federal and Federally Assisted Construction; General Wage Determination Decisions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32051]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment Standards Administration
Minimum Wages for Federal and Federally Assisted Construction;
General Wage Determination Decisions
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are
issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the
information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local
wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They
specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are
determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and
mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and
in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and
fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by
authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the
Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as
amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in
29 CFR part 1, appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may
from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of
wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in
accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe
benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the
provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages
payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to
laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract
work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public
comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations
as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the
effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to
issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and
in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the
public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and
supersedeas decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are
effective from their date of notice in the Federal Register, or on the
date written notice is received by the agency, whichever is earlier.
These decisions are to be used in accordance with the provisions of 29
CFR parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the applicable decision, together with
any modifications issued, must be made a part of every contract for
performance of the described work within the geographic area indicated
as required by an applicable Federal prevailing wage law and 29 CFR
part 5. The wage rates and fringe benefits, notice of which is
published herein, and which are contained in the Government Printing
Office (GPO) document entitled ``General Wage Determinations Issued
Under the Davis-Bacon And Related Acts,'' shall be the minimum paid by
contractors and subcontractors to laborers and mechanics.
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest
in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate
and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department.
Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of
submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department
of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division,
Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., room S-
3014, Washington, DC 20210.
Modification to General Wage Determination Decisions
The number of decisions listed in the Government Printing Office
document entitled ``General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-
Bacon and Related Acts'' being modified are listed by Volume and State.
Dates of publication in the Federal Register are in parentheses
following the decisions being modified.
Volume I:
Massachusetts:
MA930001 (Feb. 19, 1993)
MA930002 (Feb. 19, 1993)
Pennsylvania:
PA930004 (Feb. 19, 1993)
Volume II:
None
Volume III:
Arizona:
AZ930006 (Aug. 27, 1993)
General Wage Determination Publication
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and
related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the
Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled ``General Wage
Determinations Issued Under The Davis-Bacon And Related Acts''. This
publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government
Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository
Libraries across the country. Subscriptions may be purchased from:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402, (202) 783-3238.
When ordering subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of
interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the
three separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an
annual edition (issued on or about January 1) which includes all
current general wage determinations for the States covered by each
volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates
will be distributed to subscribers.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December 1993.
Alan L. Moss,
Director, Division of Wage Determinations.
[FR Doc. 93-32051 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-27-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32050 Challenge and Advancement Advisory Panel; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32050]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Challenge and Advancement Advisory Panel; Meeting
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting
of the Challenge and Advancement Advisory Panel (Literature Section) to
the National Council on the Arts will be held on January 13, 1994 from
9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This meeting will be held in room 714, at the Nancy
Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
A portion of this meeting will be open to the public from 3 p.m. to
5:30 p.m. for a policy discussion.
The remaining portion of this meeting from 9 p.m. to 3 p.m. is for
the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation
on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including
information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants. In
accordance with the determination of the Chairman of November 24, 1992,
this session will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)
(4), (6) (B) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
Any person amy observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in
attendance.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact the Office of Special Constituencies, National Endowment for
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained
from Ms. Yvonne Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5439.
Dated: December 27, 1993.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Panel Operation, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 93-32050 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32049 Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Filed During the Week Ended December 23, 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32049]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Filed During the Week Ended
December 23, 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: 49331.
Date filed: December 21, 1993.
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
Subject: TC2 Reso/P 1493 dated October 19, 1993, Middle East-Africa
Resos r-1 to r-19.
Proposed Effective Date: April 1, 1994.
Docket Number: 49332.
Date filed: December 21, 1993.
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
Subject: TC2 Reso/P 1485 dated October 1, 1993, Europe-Middle East
Resos r-1 to r-29.
Proposed Effective Date: April 1, 1994.
Docket Number: 49333.
Date filed: December 21, 1993.
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
Subject: TC3 Reso/P 0611 dated October 8, 1993, Europe-Japan/Korea
Resos r-1 to r-54.
Proposed Effective Date: January 12, 1994.
Phyllis T. Kaylor,
Chief, Documentary Services Division.
[FR Doc. 93-32049 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32048 Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During the Week Ended December 23, 1993
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32048]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During the Week
Ended December 23, 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: 49328.
Date filed: December 20, 1993.
Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: January 18, 1994.
Description: Application of Katmailand, Inc. d/b/a Katmai Air,
pursuant to section 401(d)(1) of the Act, and subpart Q of the
Regulations, applies for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing interstate and overseas scheduled air
transportation between the points of Brooks Camp, Katmai National Park,
Alaska and King Salmon, Alaska.
Phyllis T. Kaylor,
Chief, Documentary Services Division.
[FR Doc. 93-32048 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32047 Food Distribution Program; Level of Assistance From October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32047]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Distribution Program; Level of Assistance From October 1,
1993 to September 30, 1994
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial level of per-meal assistance
for the Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) for Fiscal Year 1994.
The initial level of assistance is set at $.6146 for each eligible meal
in accordance with section 311(a)(4) of the Older Americans Act of
1965, as amended by section 310 of the Older Americans Act Amendments
of 1992.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip K. Cohen, Program
Administration Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive,
Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594 or telephone (703) 305-2660.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Classification
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under Nos. 10.550 and 10.570 and is subject to the
provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental
consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015,
subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June
24, 1983.)
This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions
that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
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.
Legislative Background
On September 30, 1992, the President signed Public Law 102-375, the
Older Americans Act Amendments of 1992. Section 310 of this law amended
section 311(a)(4) of the Older Americans Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.
3030a(a)(4), to require the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain an
annually programmed level of assistance equal to the greater of: (1)
The current appropriation divided by the number of meals served in the
preceding fiscal year; or (2) 61 cents per meal adjusted annually
beginning with Fiscal Year 1993 to reflect changes in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI). Section 311(c)(2) of the Older Americans Act was
amended to provide that the final reimbursement claims shall be
adjusted to use the full amount appropriated for the fiscal year.
Notwithstanding the initial rates established by the Older
Americans Act, the Department must comply with the spending clause of
the U.S. Constitution and 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A) (known as the
Antideficiency Act), which prohibit the obligation or expenditure of
funds in excess of the available appropriation. Thus the Department is
required to establish (and, if necessary, adjust) rates in such a
manner as to not exceed the program appropriation.
In Fiscal Year 1994, a situation exists similar to that at the
beginning of Fiscal Year 1993, i.e., the Fiscal Year 1994 appropriation
will not sustain reimbursement at the mandated annually adjusted rate.
However, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-111),
which appropriated NPE funding for Fiscal Year 1994, imposed additional
rate management requirements for this year. Title IV, Domestic Food
Programs, of the Act provides that `` * * * a maximum rate of
reimbursement to States will be established by the Secretary, subject
to reduction if obligations would exceed the amount of available funds,
with any unobligated funds to remain available for obligation in the
fiscal year beginning October 1, 1994.'' Thus the Department cannot
increase the initially announced Fiscal Year 1994 rate, and can
decrease this rate only if it cannot be sustained throughout the year.
Fiscal Year 1994 Rate and Procedures
Senate Report No. 102, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess., at 125 (July 20,
1993) clarifies the congressional intent of Public Law 103-111 with
regard to the 1994 level of NPE funding by identifying the FY 1994 rate
as `` * * * the maximum reimbursement per meal permitted by law as
estimated by the Secretary at the beginning of the fiscal year within
the level of available funds.'' Thus the Department is required to
establish the highest initial per-meal reimbursement rate which it
believes can be sustained throughout the fiscal year.
Accordingly, the Department hereby announces an initial rate of
$.6146 per meal, which will not be increased, and which can be
decreased only if necessary to keep expenditures within the limit of
the $150 million NPE appropriation established by Public Law 103-111.
This consistent and stable rate will enable State agencies to better
plan and budget their operations, and local project operators can, in
turn, depend on a steady, uniform flow of meal service support during
the fiscal year. Any funds not paid out for Fiscal Year 1994
reimbursement will, in accordance with legislative mandate, be carried
over into Fiscal Year 1995 and expended in per-meal reimbursement for
that year. In the unlikely event that the rate needs to be decreased,
the adjustment will be announced in the Federal Register.
Dated: December 10, 1993.
George A. Braley,
Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 93-32047 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32046 Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment; Secret Service Headquarters Building, Washington, DC
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32046]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment; Secret Service
Headquarters Building, Washington, DC
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the General Services
Administration (GSA) has filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency, and made available to other governmental and private bodies, a
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed construction of
the United States Secret Service (USSS) Headquarters Building in
Washington, DC.
The project proposes the construction of an approximately 461,000
gross square foot building, with associated parking. The Headquarters
Building will house 1,288 employees. The USSS Headquarters currently
occupies space in one Government-owned building and three leased
buildings.
Written comments on the DEA may be submitted until February 7,
1994, and should be addressed to: General Services Administration,
Planning Staff (WPL), room 7618, 7th & D Streets, SW., Washington, DC
20407, Attention: Sonia I. Rivera-Hersha. Additional copies of the DEA
are available for public review at the following locations:
General Services Administration, Bid Room, room 1701, 7th & D Streets,
SW., Washington, DC 20407.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library, 901 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20001.
June V. Huber,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 93-32046 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32045 Intent To Engage in Compensated Intercorporate Hauling Operations
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32045]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
Intent To Engage in Compensated Intercorporate Hauling Operations
This is to provide notice as required by 49 U.S.C. 10524(b)(1) that
the named corporations intend to provide or use compensated
intercorporate hauling operations as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 10524(b).
Parent Corporation
Inland Container Corporation, Delaware, 4030 Vincennes Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0937.
Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Which Will Participate in the Operations
and States of Incorporation
Crockett Container Corporations, California
El Morro Corrugated Box Corporation, Delaware
El Morro Corrugated Box Corporation, Puerto Rico
Georgia Kraft Company, Delaware
Inland Container Corporation Foundation, Inc., Indiana
Inland Container FSC, Inc., United States Virgin Islands
Inland Corrugados de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, D.F.
Inland de Mexico Holding Co., S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, D.F.
Inland International Holding Company, Delaware
Inland Paper Company, Inc., Indiana
Inland Real Estate Investments, Inc., Indiana
King Container Company, California
Pakway Container Corporation, Indiana
Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company, Texas
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32045 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32043 Refunds Resulting From Btu Measurement Adjustments; Commission Action
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32043]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RM84-6-038]
Refunds Resulting From Btu Measurement Adjustments; Commission
Action
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that for the reasons set forth below, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is ceasing further efforts to
recover overdue Btu refunds that are due in 147 cases where the first
seller is in bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code.1 The Commission believes that further efforts
are not warranted because they are not likely to result in any
additional recovery, and the Commission's resources are better utilized
in other areas. The Commission emphasizes, however, that by this action
it is not waiving or extinguishing the Btu refund obligation required
to be paid by any bankruptcy court order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The bankruptcy code is contained in Title 11 of the U.S.
Code. The first sellers are listed on Appendix A. Since some first
sellers owe refunds to more than one pipeline, the number of first
sellers is less than the number of cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated the Commission's regulations which permitted
first sellers to measure the Btu content of natural gas based on the
condition of the gas as actually delivered (the ``dry rule'') and
required maximum lawful prices under the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
(NGPA) to be calculated by measuring the Btu content under the ``wet''
rule that had been in effect under the Natural Gas Act.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Interstate Natural Gas Association of America v. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission 16 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1108 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order No. 399, et seq.,3 which implemented the court's
decision, required first sellers to refund all overcharges resulting
from the use of the ``dry rule'' by November 5, 1986. In addition,
interstate and intrastate pipelines were required to file reports
identifying first sellers who had not paid their Btu refunds,4 and
interstate pipelines were required to flow the Btu refunds through to
their customers.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Order No. 399, 49 FR 37735 (Sept. 26, 1984), FERC Stats. &
Regs. [Regulations Preambles 1982-1985] 30,597 (Sept. 20, 1984);
Order No. 399-A, 49 FR 46353 (Nov. 26, 1984), FERC Stats. & Regs.
[Regulations Preambles 1982-1985] 30,612 (Nov. 20, 1984); Order No.
399-B, 50 FR 30141 (July 24, 1985), FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulation
Preambles 1982-1985], 30,651 (July 18, 1985).
\4\Pipelines were required to file the reports by December 18,
1984, June 17, 1985, and January 5, 1987.
\5\The Commission held that the state regulatory agency that
regulates an intrastate pipeline may determine the disposition of
Btu refunds received by those pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than $1 billion of Btu overcharges have been refunded to
customers pursuant to Order No. 399, et seq. The pipelines' refund
reports initially showed 5,610 cases totalling over $140 million where
the Btu refunds had not been paid. Staff's efforts pursuing payment of
outstanding Btu refund obligations reduced the number of pending Btu
refund cases to 560 and the total of unpaid Btu refunds to
approximately $9.8 million. These numbers do not include 553 cases
where the Commission previously determined to cease further collection
efforts because such efforts were not likely to result in payment of
the Btu refund.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Notices published in the Federal Register on August 6,
1990 (55 FR 32,028), February 14, 1991 (56 FR 6,000), and June 16,
1992 (57 FR 26,836). These cases consisted of 467 cases where staff
could not locate the first seller; 28 cases where the first seller
filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 and the debt was less than
$2,000; and 58 cases where the first seller's assets had been
liquidated under Chapter 7. The notices emphasized that if the first
sellers were subsequently located, the cases would be reactivated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
As a result of its efforts pursuing the payment of outstanding Btu
refund obligations, the Commission has determined that the first
sellers in the 147 cases listed on Appendix A are in bankruptcy
proceedings under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The
refund obligation in these cases range from $112.61 to $709,463.38, and
totals $3,533,636.05. The Commission does not know the actual
disposition of the bankruptcy proceedings of the first sellers listed
on Appendix A. However, such knowledge is not necessary for the action
that the Commission is now taking. Most of the bankruptcy proceedings
were filed more than 4 years ago, and the Btu refund obligation will
have been treated in those proceedings in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that no purpose would be served by the Commission
continuing to process these cases. Therefore, the Commission will not
expend any further staff resources on these cases, and they will be
considered closed. This action, however, does not waive or extinguish
the payment of any Btu refund obligation that is required to be paid by
any order of the bankruptcy court.
The dollar range in these cases follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Refund
Dollar range cases obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$100,001-$710,000.............................. 8 $1,761,854.11
50,001-100,000................................. 9 637,526.63
25,001-50,000.................................. 13 480,179.61
2,001-25,000................................... 80 631,442.18
100-2,000...................................... 37 22,633.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By direction of the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
Appendix A--First Sellers That Filed Chapter 7 or 11 Bankruptcy
A. Rex Jasper Jr.
Alan J. Antweil
Amarex Inc.
Ambra Oil & Gas Co.
Amcole Energy Corp.
American Public Energy Co.
Amquest Corp.
Arapaho Petroleum Inc.
Arrowhead Energy Co.
Bridge Oil (USA) Inc. (pred: Nucorp Energy Inc.)
Cayman Production Co.*
Clerk U.S. Bankruptcy Court of DC Reg. Bank 83-B-O
Damar
Delta Energy Resources
Eads Exploration Inc.
Earth Energy Resources 19
Earth Energy Resources Inc.
Energy Resources Oil
Enico Pipeline
Equipment Inc.
Fritz, J.F. (Payee Erin Baker, Trustee)
Frontier Exploration Inc.
G. Murrell (A/C Allied Bank of TX)
George Schurman
Great Western Resources
Herbert E. Russell
Heston Oil Co.
Ike Lovelady
Johnson Oil & Gas Corp.
L & L Operating Co.
League Minerals
Lingen Oil & Gas Inc.
Magic Circle Energy Corp.
Majestic Energy Corp.
Marine Contractors & Supply Inc.
Marion Corp.
McMurrey Petroleum Inc.
Mgf Mansfield Inc.
Mgf Oil Corp.
Milton Wessels/Constructive Trust/Uriah Exploration
Monterrey Petroleum
Morris R. Antweil
O'Connor & Young Drilling & Chapman Drilling
Ohio Partners Oil Co.
Originala Petroleum
Owen, J.P. & Co. Inc.
Partners Oil Co.
Pecos Irrigation Co.
Petromark Resources Co.
Pickard Oil Co. & J.W. Kirk Inc.
Placid Oil Co.
Pontchartrain Oil & Gas Corp. #2
Ports of Call Oil Co.
Quintex Petroleum Corp.
R. N. Hillin d/b/a Hillin Production Co.
Ramsey Property Mgmts, Inc. (Champion Reserve-CRI)
Resources Investment Corp.
Richland Resources Corp.
Robinson Brothers
Robinson Brothers Drilling Inc.
Royce Lawson*
S & J Operating Co.
Seneca Oil Co.
Smith Petroleum Co.
Stockton Oil and Gas
Taylor Operating Co.
Tex-OK Petroleum Inc.
Texas General Petroleum Corp.
Texas General Resources Inc.
Tomlinson Oil Co. Inc.
Tondu Energy Corp.*
Trans-Western Exploration Inc. (A/C MBank Dallas N)
Transcontinental Oil Corp. (C/O Paul v. Degenhart)
William W. Hamilton (Attn: Brett Martin)
Winter Hawk Ltd.
*Filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
[FR Doc. 93-32043 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32035 Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Central Pierce County Aquifer System, Pierce County, WA
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32035]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Sole Source Aquifer Designation; Pierce County, WA; Notice
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4821-4]
Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Central Pierce County
Aquifer System, Pierce County, WA
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
the Region 10 Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that the Central Pierce County Aquifer System is
the principal source of drinking water for the designated area, and
that the aquifer system, if contaminated, would create a significant
hazard to public health. As a result of this determination, all federal
financially-assisted projects proposed in the designated area will be
subject to EPA review to ensure that they do not create a significant
hazard to public health.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This determination shall be promulgated for purposes of
judicial review at 1 Eastern time on January 18, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The information upon which this determination is based is
available to the public and may be inspected during normal business
hours at the main and satellite branches of the Pierce County Library
System, and at the EPA Library, 10th Floor, Park Place Building, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Downey, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Ground Water Section, WD-133, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101, 206-553-0682.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 United States Code,
300f, 300h-3(e), Pub. L. 93-523), the Region 10 Administrator of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has determined that the Central Pierce
County Aquifer System is the principal source of drinking water for the
designated area, and that the aquifer system, if contaminated, would
create a significant hazard to public health. As a result of this
determination, federal financially-assisted projects proposed in the
designated area will be subject to EPA review to ensure that they do
not create a significant hazard to public health.
The information upon which EPA is issuing this final determination
has been summarized in the ``Support Document for Sole Source Aquifer
Designation of the Central Pierce County Aquifer System'', EPA 910/R-
93-001, prepared by the EPA Region 10 Ground Water Section.
I. Background
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act states:
If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon
petition, that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal
drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, would
create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish
notice of that determination in the Federal Register. After the
publication of any such notice, no commitment for federal financial
assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise)
may be entered into for any project which the Administrator
determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so
as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment
for federal assistance may, if authorized under another provision of
law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it
will not so contaminate the aquifer.
EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one which
supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water in the area
overlying the aquifer. Current EPA guidelines also stipulate that these
areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) which could
physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon
the aquifer for drinking water. For convenience, all EPA designated
sole or principal source aquifers are usually referred to simply as
``sole source aquifers''. Although EPA has the statutory authority to
initiate sole source aquifer designations, the Agency has a
longstanding policy of acting only in response to petitions. These
petitions may be submitted to EPA by any individual or organization and
must document and meet all designation criteria as outlined in the
``Sole Source Aquifer Designation Petitioner Guidance'', EPA 440/6-87-
003.
On June 23, 1987, EPA Region 10 received a sole source aquifer
petition from the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD). The
petition requested EPA designation of the ``Clover/Chambers Creek
Aquifer'', an area of approximately 144 square miles of central Pierce
County in the State of Washington. On July 29, 1987, EPA requested
additional information from the TPCHD. A revised petition was submitted
on February 1, 1988. On February 24, 1988, EPA sent the TPCHD a letter
which acknowledged that the petition was considered complete, and that
the technical review phase would begin.
EPA guidance allows sole source aquifer designations to be
delineated for an entire aquifer, an aquifer system, or part of an
aquifer that is hydrogeologically separated from the rest of the
aquifer. The EPA Region 10 technical review determined that the
petitioned Clover/Chamber Creek area was not an entire aquifer or a
hydrogeologically separate unit of an aquifer but was located within a
larger aquifer system. Thus, the boundaries were extended to those now
designated. On July 25, 1988, the TPCHD provided EPA with drinking
water consumption estimates for the larger area.
II. Basis for Determination
Pursuant to section 1424(e), the EPA Regional Administrator has
determined that the Central Pierce County Aquifer System is the
principal drinking water source for the area, and which, if
contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health. Based
on the information available to this Agency, the Regional Administrator
has made the following findings which are the bases for the
determination noted above:
1. The Central Pierce County Aquifer System supplies approximately
60 percent of the average drinking water demand for the area, and
approximately 84 percent of the peak drinking water demand for the
area.
2. No alternative source or combination of sources can physically,
legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer
system for drinking water.
3. Based upon these two findings, contamination of the Central
Pierce County Aquifer System would create a significant hazard to
public health.
III. Description of the Central Pierce County Aquifer System
Note: Some information in this section represents an unfootnoted
summary from the ``Support Document for Sole Source Aquifer
Designation of the Central Pierce County Aquifer System'', EPA 910/
R-93-001, prepared by the EPA Region 10 Ground Water Section.
The EPA technical review determined that the Central Pierce County
Aquifer System consists primarily of unconsolidated sediments deposited
by glaciers and associated meltwater during the Quaternary Period.
Ground water originates almost entirely as precipitation upon the land
surface. Recharge to the aquifer system is greatest where the
precipitation falls on permeable glacial outwash sediments such as sand
or gravel. The ground water moves regionally toward the Puget Sound and
river valleys that constitute the aquifer system boundaries. Locally,
the direction and gradient of ground water movement can vary
dramatically from the overall regional trend.
Depth to ground water varies from zero to hundreds of feet. The
greatest depth to ground water occurs in recharge areas where the
unsaturated zone is composed of highly permeable glacial outwash
materials. Ground water occurs at or near the land surface in discharge
areas and where materials with low permeability, such as glacial till
(an unsorted assemblage of clay, silt, sand, pebbles, cobbles, and/or
boulders), restricts recharge during the wet season. Seasonal
variations in water table elevations of 20 to 30 feet have been
observed in some parts of the aquifer system.
Deep wells drilled within the area penetrate multiple productive
aquifers of permeable glacial outwash separated by relatively
impermeable aquitards of glacial till or non-glacial sediments. The
degree of hydrologic connection between individual aquifer units can
vary greatly. Ground water discharge occurs to surface water bodies and
wetlands within the area (which can also recharge the ground water
system), and to surface water bodies which bound the area. Ground water
from the aquifer system is naturally low in dissolved solids and can be
used for drinking, irrigation, and most industrial purposes without
treatment.
The natural sensitivity of the aquifer system to contamination is
influenced by the permeability of geologic materials that overlie and
occur within the aquifer system, the amount of recharge from
precipitation, and the depth to ground water. The potential for
contamination is greatest where sediments are permeable, recharge is
high, and ground water is shallow.
The relative vulnerability of ground water to contamination also
increases from various human activities which provide the opportunity
for anthropogenic sources of contamination to enter the system.
Subsurface disposal of waste and wastewater is the chief threat to
ground water quality over much of the aquifer system. The Tacoma-Pierce
County Health Department has identified individual and community septic
systems, the subsurface disposal of urban stormwater, and solid waste
landfills as principal concerns. Although concentrations of nonpoint
contaminants (such as nitrate and chloride) are still generally below
drinking water standards, they have increased significantly over time
throughout parts of the aquifer system. Man-induced contamination which
has exceeded drinking water standards has been documented is some
industrial and commercial areas. Several of these areas have been
selected for clean-up under the federal Superfund program.
The sole source aquifer boundaries selected by EPA are primarily
surface water boundaries located in lowland areas that have eroded
downward through aquifer system glacial materials and which receive
discharging ground water from the aquifer system. The Puget Sound forms
the western boundary of the aquifer system. The Puyallup River forms
the northern boundary and also the eastern boundary as far south as the
Town of Electron (just northeast of Lake Kapowsin). South of Electron,
the eastern boundary follows the ancestral Puyallup River Valley which
is now occupied by Lake Kapowsin, Ohop Lake, and Ohop Creek. The
Nisqually River forms the southern boundary of the aquifer system from
its intersection with Ohop Creek downstream to the Puget Sound.
The petitioner estimates that about 400,000 people live within the
aquifer system boundaries or in nearby areas which at least partly
utilize ground water from the system. Ground water generally supplies
about 60 percent of the drinking water used within the designated area.
During peak demands, ground water supplies approximately 84 percent of
the drinking water consumed within the area. The petitioner and EPA
have determined that although alternative sources of drinking water are
physically available, they cannot legally and economically serve all
those who now depend upon the aquifer system.
IV. Project Reviews
Designation of a sole source aquifer authorizes EPA to review, at
the Agency's discretion, federal financially-assisted projects proposed
within the designated area. The principal mechanism used by EPA Region
10 to identify projects for review are Memorandums of Understanding
(MOUs) with federal funding agencies. These MOUs stipulate procedures
for screening and referring projects to EPA in order to ensure that
only projects which may have a significant impact to ground water
quality are reviewed. Should the EPA Administrator determine that a
project may contaminate an aquifer through its recharge zone so as to
create a significant hazard to public health, no commitment for federal
financial assistance may be entered into.
EPA also learns of and coordinates the review of proposed projects
with other offices within EPA and with various federal, state, local,
and tribal agencies that have a responsibility for ground water quality
protection. Information obtained from such sources is given full
consideration in the sole source aquifer review process. Through such
coordination, EPA project reviews can complement, support, and
strengthen existing ground water protection mechanisms.
V. Public Comments
In order to obtain public comment on the proposed designation, EPA
issued a public notice that was published in the Morning News Tribune
on April 22, 1993. The notice was also distributed by mail to various
federal, state, tribal, and local officials. The notice stated that (1)
EPA was proposing to designate the Central Pierce County Aquifer System
as a sole source aquifer based on the petition from the TPCHD and the
EPA review; (2) a public hearing would be held if sufficient interest
were expressed to EPA by May 25, 1993; (3) a public comment period
would remain open until June 15, 1993; and (4) a document that
summarized the bases for the proposal was available for review. EPA
also issued a press release with similar information on April 23, 1993.
EPA did not receive any requests to hold a public hearing before
the period expired and the hearing was cancelled. Three written
comments were received by EPA prior to the June 15, 1993 deadline. A
letter from the Ground Water Quality Unit Supervisor, Washington
Department of Ecology, expressed support for the designation. A letter
from the Pacific Northwest Regional Director, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, documented the Bureaus's review of the
support document but offered no additional comment.
A letter received on June 11, 1993 from the Chair of the Tacoma-
Pierce County Board of Health offered support for the designation, but
also requested a 30 day extension of the public comment period and EPA
participation in an informal public meeting to hear concerns from
interested parties about the impacts of the designation on the
community. In response to this request, EPA issued a second public
notice on June 18, 1993 that extended the public comment period until
July 19, 1993.
Two additional letters were received during the second public
comment period. Another member of the Ground Water Quality Unit,
Washington Department of Ecology, offered support for the designation
but requested additional information on the hydrogeologic analyses
which led to the revision of the petitioned boundary. This information
was provided to the Unit Supervisor by a Region 10 Ground Water Section
hydrogeologist. A letter from the Water Division Superintendent, Tacoma
Public Utilities, stated support for the designation citing the
increase in public awareness on the importance and vulnerability of
ground water resources.
In response to the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health letter of
June 11, 1993, EPA participated in an informal public meeting in Tacoma
on July 14, 1993. At the meeting, an EPA representative presented an
overview of the sole source aquifer program and outlined the Agency's
technical review process and basis for selecting the boundaries. Some
participants raised questions regarding EPA's determination of aquifer
system boundaries. In response, the boundaries selected by EPA are
primarily surface water boundaries which act as regionally important
ground water discharge areas for aquifer system materials. A detailed
description of aquifer system boundaries and the reasons for their
selection can be found in the ``Support Document for Sole Source
Aquifer Designation of the Central Pierce County Aquifer System'', EPA
910/R-93-001.
A number of persons at the meeting expressed economic concerns
about the designation, some contending that EPA's review authority
could hinder economic development by blocking or delaying proposed
projects. In response, sole source aquifer designations are not based
on economic criteria other than the potential cost of alternative
drinking water supplies needed to replace the petitioned aquifer should
it become contaminated, i.e, economic impacts from post-designation
project reviews are not relevant in the Agency's designation decision.
Regardless, based on past experience, EPA considers fears about
dire economic impacts from sole source aquifer project reviews to be
largely unfounded. Under the sole source aquifer program, EPA has the
authority to review only federal financially-assisted projects proposed
over a designated aquifer area. Of these, only those projects with the
potential to create a significant hazard to public health have
typically been referred to EPA for review. The majority of these
reviews have resulted in an approval of funding without any project
modification. When EPA has required changes, project proponents seeking
federal financial assistance have usually been willing and able to
modify projects in order to protect ground water quality. To date,
since Region 10's first sole source aquifer designation in 1978, only
one project proponent has been either unwilling or unable to modify the
project design in order to receive EPA approval of federal funding.
EPA acknowledges that ground water quality protection measures may
increase costs to a project or cause delays if modifications are
required. Increased project costs or significant delays due to EPA
reviews are not common because most projects are already designed in
accordance with existing standards established by federal, state, or
local entities, and such standards are often adequate. Involving EPA
early on in the planning and design phases of a project greatly
facilitates a more timely and efficient review, and increases the
likelihood of EPA approval without modification. Where EPA requires
project modifications, the Agency believes that such measures represent
an investment that will pay for itself many times over. The high cost
of replacing contaminated drinking water supplies or cleaning up
polluted ground water (when possible) underscores the wisdom of taking
steps to prevent or reduce the possibility of contamination from
occurring in the first place.
VI. Summary
Today's action affects only the Central Pierce County Aquifer
System located in the State of Washington. This action provides a
review process that allows ground water quality protection measures to
be incorporated into federal financially-assisted projects.
Gerald A. Emison,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10.
[FR Doc. 93-32035 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32033 State of Maryland's Submission of a Substantial Program Revision to Its Authorized National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NYDES) Program
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32033]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4820-6]
State of Maryland's Submission of a Substantial Program Revision
to Its Authorized National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NYDES) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the Maryland NPDESW
substantial program modification published Wednesday, November 10,
1993. (58 FR 59724). On page 59725, in the first column under DATES,
third line, the date for providing comments and/or requests for public
hearing published in the Federal Register was December 5, 1993. In
order to provide for ample opportunity to comment, the date for
providing comments and/or requests for public hearing is corrected to
read ``thirty days from the date of this notice.'' EPA will continue to
accept public comment and requests for public hearing for thirty days
from the date of this notice.
DATES: Comments and/or requests for public hearings must be received by
February 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Denise Hakowski, U.S. EPA,
Region III, 3WM55, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Denise Hakowski at (215) 597-8242.
Dated: December 21, 1993.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III.
[FR Doc. 93-32033 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32031 Shipments of Fuel From Long Island Power Authority's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick Generating Station; Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32031]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353, 50-322]
[DD-93-22]
Shipments of Fuel From Long Island Power Authority's Shoreham
Nuclear Power Station to Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick
Generating Station; Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, has taken action with regard to the
Petition of October 8, 1993, filed by Fred DeVesa, Esq., Acting
Attorney General of New Jersey, on behalf of the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection and Energy (Petitioner). The Petitioner
requested that the Commission: (1) Amend Long Island Power Authority's
(LIPA's) decommissioning plan to specifically address the transfer and
transport of LIPA's fuel to Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo); (2)
perform an Environmental Assessment (EA), pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30, and
make a determination based on the EA, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31,
regarding the proposed transfer and transport of the fuel by barge,
from LIPA to PECo, which addresses the risks associated with the
shipment of the fuel along and through New Jersey's coastal zone; (3)
perform a Consideration of Alternatives, in accordance with section
102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 40 CFR
1509(b), which addresses alternative means of transporting fuel from
LIPA to PECo; and (4) immediately stay PECo's June 23, 1993, license
amendments, the Certificate of Compliance regarding the IF-300 issued
to Pacific Nuclear Systems, and LIPA's license and general license to
transfer the fuel pursuant to 10 CFR 71.12 pending completion of the
above actions and compliance with the consistency process under the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The Petitioner asserted, in support
of these requests, that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
violated NEPA, the CZMA, and the Atomic Energy Act by allowing the
transfer and transport of LIPA's fuel to proceed absent any
consideration of the potential effects on New Jersey's coastal zone,
any case-specific environmental impact analysis, or any consideration
of alternatives to the means of transport. Specifically, the Petitioner
asserted that: (1) The NRC failed to consider alternatives under NEPA
for the proposed action; (2) the NRC failed to perform an EA for the
transfer and barge transport of LIPA's fuel; (3) the NRC's EA for
PECo's license amendments was inadequate; (4) the NRC violated NEPA by
segmenting the approval of the transfer and transport by barge; (5) the
NRC failed to require LIPA to obtain necessary approvals; and (6) the
NRC violated the CZMA by failing to require necessary consistency
reviews. The Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision,
under 10 CFR 2.206, was published in the Federal Register on October
29, 1993 (58 FR 58203).
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards has determined to deny the Petition. The reasons for this
denial are explained in the ``Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206''
(DD-93-22), which is available for public inspection in the
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.
A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the
Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the
Commission's regulations. As provided by this regulation, the decision
will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the
date of issuance of the decision unless the Commission, on its own
motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert M. Bernero,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 93-32031 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32030 Identification of Priority Foreign Countries: Request for Public Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32030]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Identification of Priority Foreign Countries: Request for Public
Comment
AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
ACTION: Request for written submissions from the public concerning
acts, policies, and practices to be considered with respect to
identification of countries under section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended (Trade Act).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 182 of the Trade Act requires the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) to identify countries that deny adequate and
effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and
equitable market access to U.S. persons that rely on intellectual
property protection. (19 U.S.C. 2242.) In addition, the USTR is
required to determine which of those countries identified are priority
foreign countries. Such priority countries could be subject to
initiation of a ``special'' 301 investigation.
The USTR requests written submissions from the public concerning
foreign countries' acts, policies, and practices that are relevant to
the decision whether particular trading partners should be identified
under section 182 of the Trade Act.
DATES: Submission must be received on or before 12 noon on Friday,
February 18, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Papovich, Deputy Assistant USTR for Intellectual Property (202)
395-6864; Gilbert Donahue at (202) 395-6864; or Thomas Robertson,
Associate General Counsel (202) 395-6800, Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 182 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competiveness Act of 1988,
the USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective
protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable
market access to U.S. persons that rely on intellectual property
protection. Those countries that have the most onerous or egregious
acts, policies or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or
potential) on relevant U.S. products are to be identified as priority
foreign countries.
The USTR may not identify a country as a priority foreign country
if it is entering into good faith negotiations, or making significant
progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, to provide adequate
and effective protection of intellectual property rights.
The USTR must decide whether to identify countries as priority
foreign countries each year and issue a decision within 30 days after
publication of the National Trade Estimate (NTE) report, i.e., no later
than April 30, 1993. Priority foreign countries are potentially subject
to initiation of an investigation under section 301 of the Trade Act.
Requirements for Submissions
Submissions should include a description of the problems
experienced and the effect of the acts, policies, and practices on U.S.
industry. Submissions should be as detailed as possible and should
provide all necessary information for assessing the effect of the acts,
policies and practices. Any submissions that include quantitative loss
claims should be accompanied by the methodology used in calculating
such estimated losses. Comments must be filed in accordance with the
requirements set forth in 15 CFR 2006.8(b) (55 FR 20593) and must be
sent to Dorothy Balaban, Special Assistant to the Section 301
Committee, room 223, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20506, no
later than 12 noon on Friday, February 18, 1994. Because submissions
will be placed in a file open to public inspection at USTR, business-
confidential information should not be submitted.
Public Inspection of Submissions
Within one business day of receipt, submissions will be placed in a
public file, open for inspection at the USTR Reading Room, in room 101,
Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. An appointment to review the file may be made by
calling Brenda Webb, (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to
the public from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Gordana S. Earp,
Acting Assistant USTR for Services, Investment and Intellectual
Property.
[FR Doc. 93-32030 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32029 Notice of Meeting for National Organic Standards Board and the Livestock Committee of the Board
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32029]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 1
Monday, January 3, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
[TMD-93-00-5]
Notice of Meeting for National Organic Standards Board and the
Livestock Committee of the Board
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public
Law 92-463), as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
announces a forthcoming meeting of the National Organic Standards Board
(NOSB).
DATES AND TIMES: January 29, 1994 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. for the
Livestock Committee and noon January 30, 1994 to noon February 2, 1994
for the entire NOSB. Adjournment for the day and reconvening times for
the next day will be determined at the meetings.
PLACE: Westpark Hotel, 1900 North Fort Meyer Drive, Rosslyn, Virginia.
All meetings of the NOSB for the week will be held at that address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harold S. Ricker, Staff Director,
NOSB, Room 4006 South Building, USDA, AMS, Transportation and Marketing
Division, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456. Phone (202) 720-
2704.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518) of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACT Act), as amended
(7 U.S.C. Section 6501 et seq.) requires establishment of a NOSB. The
purpose of the Board is to assist in the development of standards for
substances to be used in organic production and to advise the Secretary
on any other aspects of the implementation of Title XXI of the FACT
Act. The NOSB met for the first time in Washington, D.C. in March 1992
and formed six committees to work on various aspects of the program.
The committees are: Crops Standards; Processing, Labelling and
Packaging; Livestock Standards; Accreditation; National Materials List;
and International Issues.
PURPOSE AND AGENDA: The Livestock Committee will convene to discuss and
review processing and slaughter practices, a position on parasiticides,
and responses to the committee position on antibiotics. The main focus
of the meetings of the entire Board is to provide opportunities for
discussion of issues being considered by working committees. The last
meeting of the NOSB in September 1993 provided considerable time for
the committees to present their issues and papers for discussion with
the full Board. This meeting will continue to have the committees
presenting their draft positions to the full Board for discussion and
possible concurrence.
The full Board will be addressing administrative procedures for
completion of documents as final recommendations to the Secretary in
addition to discussing Committee papers. Topics to be covered in the
full Board meeting include processing standards and processing
materials needed for the National List of approved and prohibited
substances; continued work on the development of the accreditation
requirements and criteria for a peer review panel and for certifying
agents; and material inputs for organic crop production, developed by
the Crops Committee; antibiotics position and parasiticides position
papers by the Livestock Committee; import requirements for organic
products; and discussion of materials being developed by the various
committees for consideration for the National List. A final agenda will
be available on January 10, 1994. Persons requesting copies should
contact Ms. Faith Ashton at the above address or phone number.
TYPE OF MEETING: All meetings will be open to the public. Individuals
and organizations wishing to provide written comments on these issues
or to express public comment on any organic issues should forward the
request to Harold S. Ricker at the above address or faxed to (202) 690-
0338 by January 21, 1994, in order to be scheduled. The NOSB has
scheduled time for public input on Monday, January 31, 1994, beginning
at 9 a.m. and continuing until noon. While people may sign up to speak
at the door, advance scheduling assures an opportunity in the time
allowed and helps the NOSB plan its activities. Each individual or
organization will be allocated 10 minutes for presenting orally the key
issues of concern, and should provide copies of written material
elaborating on those issues for the Committees.
Dated: December 27, 1993.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 93-32029 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32025 Privacy Act of 1974; Proposed New System of Records
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32025]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Privacy Act of 1974; Proposed New System of Records
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Notice of proposed system of records--``Affordable Housing
Program Records System.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a),
the FDIC gives notice of the proposed establishment of a new system of
records entitled ``Affordable Housing Program Records System''.
DATES: Comments on the establishment of the system must be submitted by
February 11, 1994. The system will become effective February 28, 1994
unless a superseding notice to the contrary is published before that
date.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Hoyle L. Robinson, Executive
Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550-17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429, or hand-delivered to room F-400 at 1776 F Street,
NW., Washington, DC, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick N. Ottie, Attorney, FDIC,
550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429, (202) 898-6679.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC is proposing to establish a new
system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a),
entitled ``Affordable Housing Program Records System''. The system will
consist of the purchaser's or prospective purchaser's income
qualification form and substantiating documents (such as financial
statements, income tax returns, assets or collateral verifications,
appraisals, and sources of income); copies of sales contracts, deeds,
or other recorded instruments; intra-agency forms, memoranda, or notes
related to the property and purchaser's participation in the FDIC's
Affordable Housing Program; correspondence; and any other documents
related to the FDIC's Affordable Housing Program.
Accordingly, the Board of Directors of the FDIC proposes to
establish the system to read as follows:
FDIC 30-64-0023
Affordable Housing Program Records System.
Designated FDIC service centers, regional offices, and consolidated
field offices. A list of the designated locations is available from the
FDIC's Division of Depositor and Asset Services, 550-17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
Purchasers and prospective purchasers of residential properties
offered for sale through the FDIC's Affordable Housing Program. To be
considered a prospective purchaser for purposes of this records system,
the party must have (1) completed and signed an FDIC ``Certification of
Income Eligibility'' and (2) delivered the form to an authorized
representative of the FDIC's Affordable Housing Program.
Contains the purchaser's or prospective purchaser's income
qualification form and substantiating documents (such as financial
statements, income tax returns, assets or collateral verifications,
appraisals, and sources of income); copies of sales contracts, deeds,
or other recorded instruments; intra-agency forms, memoranda, or notes
related to the property and purchaser's participation in the FDIC's
Affordable Housing Program; correspondence; and any other documents
related to the FDIC's Affordable Housing Program.
Sections 9, 11, 13, and 40 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1819, 1821, 1823, 1831q).
Information in this system may be disclosed:
(1) To a congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the
request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(2) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the
course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to counsel or
witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement
negotiations or in connection with criminal proceedings;
(3) To the appropriate federal, state, or local agency or authority
responsible for investigating or prosecuting a violation of or for
enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, when
the information indicates a violation or potential violation of law,
whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising
by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation,
rule, or order issued pursuant thereto;
(4) To persons or firms retained by the FDIC to perform services in
connection with the implementation of the Affordable Housing Program
such as brokers, appraisers, mortgage lenders, outside counsel, and
outside consultants; and
(5) To mortgage companies, financial institutions, federal agencies
(such as the Federal Housing Administration, the Farmers Home
Administration, and the Veterans Administration), or state and local
government housing agencies where information is relevant to an
application or request for a loan, grant, financial benefit, or other
type of assistance or entitlement.
Disclosure may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(b)(12) to ``consumer reporting agencies'' as defined in the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims
Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Maintained on computer disks and in file folders.
Retrieved by name of purchaser or prospective purchaser of
affordable housing property, and by address of the property purchased.
File folders are maintained in lockable metal file cabinets.
Computer disks are accessed by authorized personnel.
Affordable Housing Program files and information maintained in an
online capacity are destroyed six years after termination of
receivership of the closed bank from which the property was acquired if
no longer needed by FDIC and in accordance with state or federal
banking laws.
The appropriate FDIC regional director for records maintained in
FDIC service centers and regional offices, and the appropriate FDIC
bank liquidation specialist-in-charge for records maintained in
consolidated field offices.
Requests must be in writing and addressed to the Office of the
Executive Secretary, FDIC, 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.
The request must contain the purchaser's or the prospective purchaser's
name and address.
Same as ``Notification'' above.
Same as ``Notification'' above.
Information is obtained principally from the individual upon whom
the record is maintained; information pertaining to an individual may,
in some cases, be supplemented with reports from credit bureaus and/or
other services.
None.
By direction of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 20th day of December 1993.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32025 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32024 BlueGrass Bound Timber Sale; Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Boundary County, ID
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32024]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
BlueGrass Bound Timber Sale; Idaho Panhandle National Forests;
Boundary County, ID
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; cancellation of notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 31, 1993, notice was published in the Federal
Register (FR 45879) that an environmental impact statement would be
prepared to assess the effects of timber harvest and road construction
within the Boundary Creek Drainage on the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
That notice is hereby cancelled.
Changes in Agency direction will result in significant changes to
the proposed action and the purpose and need for the proposed action. A
new Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement will
appear in the Federal Register in the early 1994.
DATE: This action is effective on January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Grant, NEPA Coordinator, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Route 4
Box 4860, Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805, (208) 267-5561.
Dated: December 17, 1993.
Debbie Henderson-Norton,
District Ranger, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle
National Forests.
[FR Doc. 93-32024 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32023 National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32023]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technology Administration
National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee;
Meeting
AGENCY: Technology Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the forthcoming closed meeting of the
National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee. The
Committee was rechartered on September 15, 1993.
The Committee shall make recommendations to the Secretary of
Commerce, through a Steering Committee, concerning award of the
National Medal of Technology.
The Committee will meet only in executive session to discuss
matters concerned with applying the criteria for determining the
relative merits of all persons and companies nominated for the Medal as
a result of a public solicitation.
TIME AND PLACE: The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m.
on January 21, 1994. The meeting will be held in room 4830 at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Paul Braden, Manager, National Medal of Technology Nomination
Evaluation Committee, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Herbert C. Hoover Building, room 4418,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5572.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Determination to close the
meetings of the Committee to the public on the basis of Section 10(d)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended,
section 552b(c)(9)(B) of title 5, United States Code was approved by
the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration,
with the concurrence of the General Counsel on (December 22, 1993), in
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, since premature
publicity about candidates under consideration for the Medal, who may
or may not ultimately receive the award, would be likely to discourage
nominations for the Medal. This would be likely to significantly
frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. A copy of the
Notice of Determination is available for public inspection and copying
in the Central Reference and Records Inspection Facility, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Herbert C.
Hoover Building, room 6628, Washington, DC 20230. (202) 482-4120.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Gary Bachula,
Deputy Under Secretary for Technology.
[FR Doc. 93-32023 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-18-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32022 New Car Assessment Program; Consideration of a Public Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32022]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 79-17; Notice 39]
New Car Assessment Program; Consideration of a Public Meeting
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice requests comments on NHTSA's consideration of a
public meeting to review and discuss issues concerning, and options
for, the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and on the agenda for the
meeting. In 1972, Congress enacted the ``Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act'' which includes requirements for the development and
dissemination of comparative information on the crashworthiness of
motor vehicles. In 1978, NCAP with the primary purpose of partially
fulfilling this requirement. In NCAP frontal crash tests of
approximately 35 passenger vehicles are conducted each year and the
test results are made available to the public. To be responsive to
Congress and to further benefit the public, NHTSA is considering
convening a public meeting on the program to review the present NCAP
and to invite information that could improve the program.
DATES: Written comments on this notice must be submitted no later than
March 4, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice must refer to the docket and notice
numbers set forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to
the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
room 5109, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Submissions
containing information for which confidential treatment is requested
should be submitted (3 copies) to Chief Counsel, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, room 5219, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, and 7 copies from which the purportedly
confidential information has been deleted should be sent to the Docket
Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jim Hackney, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-1740).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In December 1993, the agency submitted a
report to Congress on NCAP. This report can be found in this Docket and
is titled Response to the NCAP FY 1992 Congressional Requirements.
This report provides:
The results of an 18-month study to assess consumer and
media needs and preferences for better understanding and more effective
use of NCAP data. This included a summary of several consumer focus
group and media studies. These studies indicated that consumers and the
media desire comparative safety information on vehicles, a simplified
NCAP format to better understand and utilize the crash test results,
and expansion of NCAP to include other crash modes, such as side
crashes and rollovers. Plans for implementing the findings of these
studies are included in the report.
Studies of real-world crashes versus NCAP crash tests.
These studies tentatively conclude that NCAP test conditions
approximate real-world crash conditions covering a major segment of the
frontal crash safety problem. The studies also conclude that there is a
significant correlation between NCAP results and real-world fatality
risks for restrained drivers. In high speed frontal crashes, fatality
risks to restrained drivers of cars that perform well in NCAP may be as
much as 30 percent lower than fatality risks to restrained drivers of
cars that do not perform well in NCAP. A more detailed report on this
subject will soon be published for public comment.
A study on the efficacy of allowing manufacturers to
choose between the Hybrid III and the Hybrid II crash test dummy. NCAP
data were utilized in this study along with an analysis of comments to
Federal Register notices on the mandatory use of the Hybrid III crash
test dummy in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 and
in NCAP. After considering data analysis and reviewing the comments to
the two notices, NHTSA has concluded that exclusive use of the Hybrid
III in NCAP should begin with MY 1996 vehicles. This is two years
earlier than required by the recent amendment to FMVSS No. 208.
Beginning with MY 1994 vehicles, the Hybrid III is being used
exclusively for all seating positions in which the occupant is
protected by an air bag.
The report also includes a review of NCAP historical performance
and the following future goals for NCAP.
Reach a larger group of the population with simplified
data that will assist consumers in their vehicles purchases.
Expand the collection of safety information by utilizing
the additional injury-measuring capabilities of the more advance Hybrid
III dummy.
Expand NCAP to provide comparative side impact information
to consumers along with the frontal NCAP information.
Monitor rollover safety activities to determine the
potential for providing consumers with comparative information on
levels of protection in the rollover crash mode and on vehicle roll
stability.
In the report, the agency also referred to the possibility of
convening a public meeting on NCAP. A public meeting could provide an
open forum for consumer groups, media, foreign governments, national
and international safety organizations, universities, and motor vehicle
manufacturers to discuss the above NCAP goals and relevant new
suggestions. Comments could be solicited on any of the material in the
Congressional report and opportunities could be given for interested
parties to suggest alternative or additional NCAP goals and activities.
If it is determined that such a meeting is desirable, it could be
scheduled for the late spring of 1994.
Comments are therefore solicited on:
(1) The desirability and need for such a public meeting and
(2) The topics for consideration if a meeting is conducted. These
topics may include all items discussed above that are included in the
Congressional report and others such as:
Additional frontal crash modes and/or higher frontal test
speeds. Efforts in the U.S. and internationally are exploring the
applicability of various frontal crash tests in assessing occupant
protection. Offset and angled frontal tests into deformable and rigid
barriers are being conducted and assessed. What implications do these
additional crash modes and/or higher test speeds have for vehicle
crashworthiness assessment and for vehicle manufacturers?
Additional injury measures. As discussed in the
Congressional report, the Hybrid III crash test dummy provides the
capability to measure additional parameters including neck loads, chest
compression, lower leg loads, and, potentially, abdominal loads. How
would these measures be used to enhance consumer information? Should
such measures be used in consumer information prior to possible
introduction in regulations?
Whether crashworthiness assessment programs should precede
or follow the rulemaking process. For example, the present NCAP
preceded mandatory dynamic frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208
by eight years. (Note: The test procedures and test devices for 30 mph
testing had received prior rulemaking review.) However, in the case of
side impact, expansion of NCAP has awaited completed rulemaking action
prior to the possible initiation of a consumer information program. As
early as May 1984, NHTSA had established the feasibility for improving
occupant protection in side impacts (SAE Paper No. 840886, presented at
the Government/Industry Meeting in May 1984). What are the implications
to consumers and vehicle manufacturers if crashworthiness assessment
programs precede the rulemaking process?
Review of the simplified format. In December 1993, NHTSA
issued the first news release for the model year 1994 vehicles. A
simplified format that utilized a star classification system was
introduced in this release. A copy of the news release can be obtained
by contacting the NHTSA Office of Public and Consumer Affairs. This
classification system is based on a combined probability of life-
threatening head and chest injury to the driver and passenger in the
frontal NCAP test. Is this format effective in providing information to
consumers? Is there agreement on its scientific basis?
Any other relevant issues that the consumers, consumer
organizations, vehicle manufacturers, or other interested parties may
suggest.
Commenters who favor such a meeting should also indicate whether
they might be interested in providing a public statement at the meeting
and on what subjects. If it is decided to conduct a meeting, an
additional public notice will be provided.
Issued on December 27, 1993.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 93-32022 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32021 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32021]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-86-000]
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that on December 22, 1993, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 1, Sheet
No. 23 and Original Sheet No. 24, to be effective January 1, 1994.
Natural states that the filing is submitted pursuant to Section 21
of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth
Revised Volume No. 1, as a limited rate filing under Section 4 of the
Natural Gas Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) promulgated thereunder. The rate
adjustments filed for are designed to recover approximately $50.2
million of annual fixed Account No. 858 costs incurred by Natural under
contracts for transportation capacity on other pipelines. No buyout and
buydown costs are reflected in this filing.
Natural states that, due to ongoing discussions with the Natural
Customer Group regarding Gas Supply Realignment Costs and Account No.
858 costs, it was mutually agreed to let the effective date of its
filing slip to January 1, 1994 with recovery of costs over a five-month
period rather than six months.
Natural requested specific waivers of Section 21 of its Tariff and
the Commission's Regulations, including the requirements of
Sec. 154.63, to the extent necessary to permit the tariff sheets to
become effective January 1, 1994.
Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to
Natural's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory
agencies.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or a 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 and Regulations. All such 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. 93-32021 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32020 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America; Proposed Changes in FERC GAS Tariff
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32020]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Docket No. RP94-87-000]
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America; Proposed Changes in FERC GAS
Tariff
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that on December 22, 1993, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 1, First
Revised Sheet No. 14 and Original Sheet No. 25, to be effective January
1, 1994.
Natural states that the filing is submitted to commence recovering
effective January 1, 1994, approximately $21 million in known and
measurable gas supply realignment (GSR) costs which will be incurred by
Natural as a consequence of Order No. 636.
Natural requested specific waivers of Section 38 of its Tariff and
the Commission's Regulations, including the requirements of
Sec. 154.63, to the extent necessary to permit the tariff sheets as
submitted herein to become effective January 1, 1994.
Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to
Natural's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory
agencies.
Natural states that it has reached a tentative settlement with
members of the Natural Customer Group (NCG) regarding recovery from
them for GSR costs. Members of the NCG may preserve their rights by
filing an abbreviated protest which may be supplemented if the
settlement is not finalized and approved.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or a 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 and Regulations. All such protests should be filed on or before
January 4, 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. 93-32020 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32019 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America; Filing To Implement Revised Compliance Rates
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32019]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP93-36-007 and RS92-45-011]
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America; Filing To Implement Revised
Compliance Rates
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that on December 22, 1993, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America (Natural) filed in the captioned dockets to implement
revised base rates in response to changes ordered by the Commission in
its Order No. 636 restructuring compliance plan. Specifically, Natural
has requested that the revised Tariff sheets listed on Exhibit A to the
filing be made effective in these dockets on January 1, 1994.
Natural states that the purpose of the filing is to reflect a
discount adjustment in its restructuring compliance rates. The need for
this adjustment arises because the Commission has required Natural to
design rates under its special cost recovery procedure for Account No.
858 costs based on contract demands for all open access firm contracts,
irrespective of discounting, and to take discounting into consideration
in base rates. Natural's filing herein restores the discounting
adjustment which had previously been eliminated when Natural removed
Account No. 858 costs from base rates.
Natural states that copies of its filing were served on parties to
this proceeding, jurisdictional customers and interested state
regulatory agencies.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a motion to
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211.
All such protests should be filed on or before January 4, 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32019 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32018 State of Oklahoma; NGPA Notice of Determination by Jurisdictional Agency Designating Tight Formation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32018]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. JD94-01658T; Oklahoma-60]
State of Oklahoma; NGPA Notice of Determination by Jurisdictional
Agency Designating Tight Formation
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that on December 20, 1993, the Corporation Commission
of the State of Oklahoma (Oklahoma) submitted the above-referenced
notice of determination pursuant to Sec. 271.703(c)(3) of the
Commission's regulations, that the Booch Sandstones of the McAlester
Formation (Booch Formation), at a depth of 2,225 feet, and the
Hartshorne Formation, at a depth of 2,625 feet, underlying a portion of
Latimer County, Oklahoma, qualify as tight formations under Section
107(c)(5) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. The recommended area
for both formations is the same and is described as Sections 9 and 10
of T6N, R19E, in Latimer County, Oklahoma.
The notice of determination also contains Oklahoma's findings that
the referenced formations meet the requirements of the Commission's
regulations set forth in 18 CFR part 271.
The application for determination is available for inspection,
except for material which is confidential under 18 CFR 275.206, at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Persons objecting to the determination may file a
protest, in accordance with 18 CFR 275.203 and 275.204, within 20 days
after the date this notice is issued by the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32018 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32017 State of Oklahoma; NGPA Notice of Determination by Jurisdictional Agency Designating Tight Formation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32017]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. JD94-01659T; Oklahoma-61]
State of Oklahoma; NGPA Notice of Determination by Jurisdictional
Agency Designating Tight Formation
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that on December 20, 1993, the Corporation Commission
of the State of Oklahoma (Oklahoma) submitted the above-referenced
notice of determination pursuant to Sec. 271.703(c)(3) of the
Commission's regulations, that the basal Spiro Sandstone member of the
Atoka Formation (Basal Atoka of the Union Valley Formation (Cromwell
Formation), at a depth of 9,800 feet, underlying a portion of Haskell
County, Oklahoma, qualify as tight formations under Section 107(c)(5)
of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. The recommended area is the same
for both formations and is described as all of Section 7, the E/2 of
Section 18, the E/2 of Section 19 and all of Section 20 in T7N, R20E,
in Haskell County, Oklahoma.
The notice of determination also contains Oklahoma's findings that
the referenced formations meet the requirements of the Commission's
regulations set forth in 18 CFR part 271.
The application for determination is available for inspection,
except for material which is confidential under 18 CFR 275.206, at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20426. Persons objecting to the determination may file a
protest, in accordance with 18 CFR 275.203 and 275.204, within 20 days
after the date this notice is issued by the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32017 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32016 State of Oklahoma; NGPA Notice of Determination by Jurisdictional Agency Designating Tight Formation
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32016]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. JD94-01657T; Oklahoma-59]
State of Oklahoma; NGPA Notice of Determination by Jurisdictional
Agency Designating Tight Formation
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that on December 20, 1993, the Corporation Commission
of the State of Oklahoma (Oklahoma) submitted the above-referenced
notice of determination pursuant to Sec. 271.703(c)(3) of the
Commission's regulations, that the basal Spiro Sandstone member of the
Atoka Formation (Basal Atoka Formation), underlying a portion of
Latimer County, Oklahoma, qualifies as a tight formation under section
107(c)(5) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. The recommended area
is described as Sections 4, 8, and 17 of T6N, R18E, in Latimer County,
Oklahoma.
The notice of determination also contains Oklahoma's findings that
the referenced formation meets the requirements of the Commission's
regulations set forth in 18 CFR part 271.
The application for determination is available for inspection,
except for material which is confidential under 18 CFR 275.206, at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20426. Persons objecting to the determination may file a
protest, in accordance with 18 CFR 275.203 and 275.204, within 20 days
after the date this notice is issued by the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32016 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32015 City of Lansing, Michigan's Board of Water & Light; Availability of Final Environmental Assessment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32015]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 10684; Michigan]
City of Lansing, Michigan's Board of Water & Light; Availability
of Final Environmental Assessment
December 27, 1993.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for a minor
license for the existing, unlicensed Moores Park Dam Hydroelectric
Project, located on the Grand River, in the City of Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan, and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment
(FEA) for the project. In the FEA, the Commission's staff has analyzed
the potential environmental impacts of the project and has concluded
that approval of the project, with appropriate enhancement measures,
would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
The Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment for
the Moores Park Dam Hydroelectric Project was issued on September 22,
1993. In response, the Commission received two comment letters which
were reviewed by the Commission's staff and addressed in the FEA.
Copies of the FEA are available for review in the Public Reference
Branch, room 3104, of the Commission's offices at 941 North Capitol
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32015 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32014 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company Southern Natural Gas Co.; Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32014]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-154-000]
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company Southern Natural Gas Co.;
Application
December 27, 1993.
Take notice that on December 22, 1993, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252-2511 and
Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern), P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham,
Alabama 35202-2563, jointly referred to as Applicants, filed in Docket
No. CP94-154-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural
Gas Act, for permission and approval to abandon an emergency gas
exchange service, effective September 1, 1993, all as more fully set
forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
The Applicants were authorized in Docket No. CP63-146, to construct
and operate two emergency interconnections between the pipeline
facilities of the two companies, and to use those facilities to provide
an emergency exchange of natural gas between Tennessee and Southern.
The facilities were constructed at a point where Southern's 24 inch
Second North Main Line crossed Tennessee's 30 inch Delta Portland Line
in Lowndes County, Mississippi, and at a point where Southern's 18 inch
line crossed Tennessee's 30 inch line in Clarke County, Mississippi.
The facilities were only to be used two accommodate a gas-for-gas
emergency exchange. It is stated that the Applicants performed the
emergency exchange service under agreements, denoted as Tennessee's
Rate Schedule X-13 and Southern's Rate Schedule X-15, which were both
dated November 1, 1962, as amended. It is further stated that the
emergency gas-for-gas exchange was designed to be used when either
Southern or Tennessee was confronted with an emergency on its system,
which could be alleviated by deliveries of natural gas from the system
of the other.
The Applicants state that they are proposing to abandon the
emergency service because, the restructure of services under Order No.
636 has rendered the above-referenced agreement unnecessary and
obsolete.
No facilities are proposed to be abandoned herein.
Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with
reference to said application should on or before January 18, 1994,
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.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter
finds that permission and approval for the proposed abandonment are
required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave
to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion
believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such
hearing will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised,
it will be unnecessary for Applicants to appear or be represented at
the hearing.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32014 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32013 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32013]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-139-000, et al.]
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate
Filings
December 20, 1993.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
[Docket No. CP94-139-000]
Take notice that on December 17, 1993, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, filed in
Docket No. CP94-139-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.212
of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR
157.205 and 157.212) for authorization to construct and operate
delivery tap facilities in Alcorn County, Mississippi to enable
Tennessee to implement an interruptible transportation service for
Eastex Hydrocarbons, Inc. (Eastex), under the blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP82-413-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Tennessee states that it entered into an interruptible
transportation agreement with Eastex for service under Tennessee's Rate
Schedule IT. Tennessee indicates that, in order to implement the
delivery of gas to Eastex of up to 600 dt equivalent of natural gas per
day, it proposes to install, own, operate and maintain a two-inch hot
tap assembly, interconnect piping and measurement facilities in Alcorn
County, Mississippi. It is indicated that the tie-in assembly would be
constructed on Tennessee's existing right of way and that the
measurement facility would be installed on a site adjacent to
Tennessee's right of way. Tennessee states that the facilities would
cost an estimated $19,142, which would be 100% reimbursable to
Tennessee.
Tennessee states that construction of the proposed delivery point
is not prohibited by its existing tariff. Tennessee further states that
the addition of the delivery facilities would have no impact on
Tennessee's peak day and annual deliveries.
Comment date: February 3, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
2. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
[Docket No. CP94-133-000]
Take notice that on December 15, 1993, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company (Panhandle), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in
Docket No. CP94-133-000, a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 of the
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) for
authorization to construct, own and operate a new delivery tap and
associated facilities for Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power), a
local distribution company, located in Moultrie County, Illinois, under
the authorization issued in Docket No. CP83-83-000 pursuant to section
7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Panhandle proposes to install a hot tap, approximately 800 feet of
10-inch pipeline and a M&R Station in order to deliver up to 75,000 Mcf
per day of natural gas to Illinois Power. Panhandle estimates that the
cost of the proposed facilities is approximately $832,000. Panhandle
states that the volumes to be delivered through the proposed facilities
are within the certificated entitlements of Illinois Power's current
transportation agreements under Rate Schedules EIT and EFT. Panhandle
submits that there will be no impact on Panhandle's peak day or annual
deliveries to Illinois Power.
Comment date: February 3, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
3. Mississippi River Transmission Corporation
[Docket No. CP94-136-000]
Take notice that on December 15, 1993, Mississippi River
Transmission Corporation (MRT), 9900 Clayton Road, St. Louis, Missouri
63124, filed in Docket No. CP94-136-000 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 upgrade
a delivery point used to serve Illinois Power Company (IP), an existing
transportation customer, under MRT's blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP82-489-000 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.
MRT proposes to upgrade its existing delivery point serving IP's
Wood River Power Plant in East Alton, Illinois, by replacing two 4-inch
control valves with two 6-inch control valves. MRT explains that the
proposed facilities would reduce the pressure drop associated with
deliveries to the Wood River Power Plant and thereby enable MRT to
serve increased peak hourly demands of that facility. MRT advises that
the upgrade would not result in an increase in the maximum daily or
annual volumes which MRT would transport for IP under current
agreements and authority. MRT estimates that the cost of the facilities
would be $9,200 which would be reimbursed.
Comment date: February 3, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
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. 93-32013 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32012 Trunkline Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32012]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-137-000, et al.]
Trunkline Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings
December 23, 1993.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
[Docket No. CP94-137-000]
Take notice that on December 16, 1993, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
(Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas, 77252, filed in Docket No.
CP94-137-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas
Act for permission and approval to abandon certain facilities by sale
to Kinder Gas Processing Corporation (Kinder), all as more fully set
forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection.
Specifically, Tennessee seeks authorization to abandon by sale to
Kinder, a 3.6 mile 4.5-inch diameter gathering line that extends west
from Tennessee's K-N Line into the LeBlanc field in Allen Parish,
Louisiana.
Comment date: January 13, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
2. Northwest Pipeline Corporation
[Docket No. CP94-134-000]
Take notice that on December 15, 1993, Northwest Pipeline
Corporation (Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158,
filed in Docket No. CP94-134-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205
and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.216) for authorization to abandon by sale to The
Washington Water Power Company (Water Power) its existing laterals
located in Whitman, Washington and Union Counties, Oregon, under
Northwest's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-433-000
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.
Northwest proposes to abandon by sale to Water Power its existing
La Crossee, Rosalia and St. Johns Laterals which are located in Whitman
County, Washington and its existing Union Lateral in Union County,
Oregon at a price of $6,667.
Comment date: February 7, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
3. CNG Producing Company
[Docket No. CP94-146-000]
Take notice that on December 17, 1993, CNG Producing Company (CNG
Producing), 1450 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-6000,
filed in Docket No. CP94-146-000 a petition pursuant to section 16 of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)), for a declaratory
order disclaiming Commission jurisdiction over certain facilities and
the services provided through them, all as more fully set forth in the
petition which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
CNG Producing seeks a declaratory order from the Commission finding
that certain facilities would be gathering facilities, exempt from the
Commission's jurisdiction under section 1(b) of the NGA, at such time
as the facilities are acquired from CNG Transmission Corporation
(CNGT). CNG Producing states that CNGT has agreed to sell to CNG
Producing at net book value its interest in nine offshore compressors
(a total of 11,125 horsepower with the largest compressor being rated
at 3,500 horsepower) at six locations, seven offshore pipelines
(ranging from 378 feet to 7.3 miles in length and 12 to 20 inches in
diameter), and associated measurement and regulation facilities.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\CNGT filed in Docket No. CP93-340-000 to abandon the
facilities by sale to CNG Producing. See notice of filing issued by
the Commission on May 17, 1993 (58 FR 29573, May 21, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNG Producing explains that the facilities are part of CNGT's
miscellaneous facilities located in the Gulf of Mexico that were
constructed between 1974 and 1981 to move purchased gas from the
wellhead to third-party pipeline facilities for transportation to
onshore transmission facilities in Louisiana. CNG Producing advises
that the facilities are currently used to move gas into offshore
pipelines for redelivery onshore. CNG Producing states that, upon
acquisition, the facilities would be used by CNG Producing to gather
and market natural gas, including its own production. CNG Producing
further states that the facilities are not owned in their entirety by
CNGT, but each facility is jointly owned by at least one other party.
Comment date: January 13, 1994, in accordance with the first
paragraph of 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, 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.
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 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. 93-32012 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32011 Cambridge Electric Light Co., et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation Filings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32011]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER94-273-000, et al.]
Cambridge Electric Light Co., et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate
Regulation Filings
December 23, 1993.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Cambridge Electric Light Company
[Docket No. ER94-273-000]
Take notice that on December 14, 1993, Cambridge Electric Light
Company tendered for filing its fifth annual informational filing with
the Commission to set forth the actual Net Annual Costs of
constructing, owning and maintaining its Transmission System for the
twelve month period pending December 31, 1992.
Comment date: January 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
2. PacifiCorp
[Docket No. ER94-272-000]
Take notice that PacifiCorp, on December 16, 1993, tendered for
filing in accordance with Commission's Order pertaining to agreements
involving final amnesty for jurisdictional service and waiver of
notice, issued July 30, 1993 under Docket No. PL93-2-002, the Letters
of Agreement between the City of Ashland (City) and PacifiCorp.
Copies of this filing were supplied to the City, the Public Utility
Commission of Oregon, and the Utah Public Service Commission.
PacifiCorp requests waiver of prior notice requirements be granted.
Comment date: January 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
3. New England Power Company
[Docket No. ER94-271-000]
Take notice that on December 16, 1993, New England Power Company
(NEP) tendered for filing Amendments to Service Agreements Nos. 9 and
21 under FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1. Pursuant to the
Commission's Final Order in Docket No. PL93-2-000, dated July 31, 1993,
NEP requests waiver of the Commission's notice requirements so that the
Contracts can be made effective in accordance with their terms.
Comment date: January 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
4. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
[Docket No. ER94-270-000]
Take notice that on December 16, 1993, New York State Electric &
Gas Corporation (NYSEG) tendered for filing an agreement with Otsego
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Cooperative). Pursuant to the agreement,
NYSEG agreed to construct a certain tap facilities to facilitate
transmission service to the Cooperative. NYSEG requests that the
Commission consider the Agreement an expired CIAC agreement. In the
alternative, NYSEG is filing the agreement as an initial rate schedule,
and NYSEG requests an effective date of February 21, 1973. Accordingly,
it has requested waiver of the Commission's notice requirements for
good cause shown.
NYSEG states that a copy of this filing has been served by mail
upon the Cooperative and upon the Public Service Commission of the
State of New York.
Comment date: January 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
5. St. Joseph Light & Power Company
[Docket No. ER94-244-000]
Take notice that on December 14, 1993, St. Joseph Light & Power
Company (St. Joseph) tendered for filing the June 17, 1991, Microwave
Communication Agreement By and Among Associated Electric Cooperative,
Inc., Midwest Power Systems, Inc. (formerly Iowa Power Inc.), Kansas
City Power & Light Company, City of Lincoln, Nebraska Public Power
District, Omaha Public Power District, and St. Joseph Light & Power
Company (Agreement).
St. Joseph states that this Agreement addresses the installation
and maintenance by St. Joseph of microwave communication facilities
which are required and used to operate the Cooper--Fairport--St. Joseph
345 Kv Interconnection, the coordinating agreement for which was filed
in Docket No. ER91-41-000, St. Joseph Rate Schedule FERC No. 19.
Comment date: January 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
6. PacifiCorp
[Docket No. ER94-266-000]
Take notice that PacifiCorp on December 16, 1993, tendered for
filing in accordance with the Commission's Order pertaining to
agreements involving final amnesty for jurisdictional service and
waiver of notice, issued July 30, 1993 under Docket No. PL93-2-002, the
Transmission Service Agreement between Southern California Edison
Company and PacifiCorp, effective October 15, 1993.
Copies of this filing were supplied to Southern California Edison
Company, the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, and the Utah Public
Service Commission.
PacifiCorp requests waiver of prior notice requirements be granted.
Comment date: January 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
7. Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.
[Docket No. TX94-4-000]
On December 15, 1993, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.,
filed with the Commission an application requesting that the Commission
order Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) and Southwestern
Electric Service Company (SESCO) to provide transmission services
pursuant to Sections 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act.
The names of the affected parties are as follows:
Affected State regulatory authority: Public Utility Commission of
Texas.
Affected Federal power marketing agency: Southwestern Power
Administration.
Affected electric utilities:
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Central Power & Light Company
Southwestern Electric Service Company
Texas Utilities Electric Company
Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.
West Texas Utilities Company
Tex-La currently receives wholesale electric service at 28 points
of delivery (PODS) on TU Electric's system and 5 PODs on SESCO's
system, all within the load control area of TU Electric. Tex-La seeks
transmission services from TU Electric and SESCO which will enable Tex-
LA to move the operational control of these 33 PODs from the load
control area of TU Electric to the load control area of West Texas
Utilities Company (WTU) using remote control telemetry equipment.
The proposed date for initiating the requested transmission service
is June 29, 1994, or as soon thereafter as the operational control of
all Tex-La PODs on TU Electric's and SESCO's systems has been
transferred to WTU and service by WTU commences. The proposed date for
terminating the requested transmission services is February 1, 2025,
except that, as to any such POD which Tex-La transfers prior to such
date to the Southwest Power Pool, transmission service shall cease at
the time of such transfer.
During 1992, the sum of the non-coincident peak demands at the 28
Tex-La PODs on the TU Electric system was 92.5 MW, and a total of
358,760 MWH of energy was delivered to Tex-La by TU Electric at such
PODs. At the 5 PODs on SESCO's system, the sum of Tex-La's 1992 non-
coincident peak demands was 22.9 MW, and a total of 93,367 MWH of
energy was delivered to Tex-La SESCO. The transmission service being
requested by Tex-La is firm network transmission service, over the TU
Electric and SESCO transmission systems at a level and quantity
sufficient for Tex-La to meet its loads at the PODs with (1) 27.5 MW of
power and energy sold by the Southwestern Power Administration from the
Denison Dam hydroelectric facility, (2) when Denison Dam is
unavailable, 27.5 MW of backup power from Brazos Electric Power
Cooperative, Inc., (3) 6 MW of power sold by Central Power and Light
Company, and (4) wholesale power purchased from WTU for the balance of
Tex-La's requirements.
Comment date: January 17, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
8. PacifiCorp
[Docket No. ER94-253-000]
Take notice that PacifiCorp, on December 15, 1993, tendered for
filing Amendment No. 1, dated November 29, 1993 (Amendment), to the
Long-Term Sales Agreement between PacifiCorp and Western Area Power
Administration (Western), PacifiCorp Rate Schedule FERC No. 313.
The Amendment revises the yearly load factor at which PacifiCorp
will make firm energy available to Western.
PacifiCorp requests an effective date of November 1, 1993, be
assigned to the Amendment.
Copies of this filing were supplied to Western, the Public Utility
Commission of Oregon and the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of California.
Comment date: January 10, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
9. Florida Power Corporation
[Docket No. ER94-34-000]
Take notice that on December 17, 1993, Florida Power Corporation
(FPC) tendered for filing an amendment to its October 15, 1993, filing
in this docket. This amendment contains the development of the rate
charge for transmission related plant, a calculation of portion of
Windemere substation breakers assignable to Orlando Cogen, the
procedure for calculating contribution in aid of construction and a map
of the interconnection.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
10. PacifiCorp
[Docket No. ER94-279-000]
Take notice that PacifiCorp, on December 17, 1993, tendered for
filing in accordance with 18 CFR part 35 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations, a request for a change in rate for energy storage services
under the September 5, 1986, Energy Storage Agreement between
PacifiCorp and The Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
(Snohomish), PacifiCorp Rate Schedule FERC No. 243.
PacifiCorp requests a waiver of prior notice be granted and that an
effective date of September 5, 1986, be assigned to the change in rate.
Copies of this filing were supplied to Snohomish and the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
11. Northeast Utilities Service Company
[Docket Nos. ER93-94-001 and ER93-417-001]
Take notice that on December 15, 1993, Northeast Utilities Service
Company (NUSCO) tendered for filing a response to a deficiency letter
issued by the Commission Staff and Amendments to two Service Agreements
regarding service under NUSCO's Transmission Tariff No. 1. These
Service Agreements provide for transmission to the NU System Companies
for their power sales to Rowley Municipal Lighting Plant and Fitchburg
Gas and Electric Light Company. NUSCO does not foresee the incurrence
of Out of Rate Costs associated with this transmission service. NUSCO
states that its filing is in accordance with the Commission's filing
requirements and that copies of the filing have been mailed to Rowley
and Fitchburg.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
12. Canal Electric Company
[Docket No. ER94-257-000]
Take notice that on December 15, 1993, Canal Electric Company
(Canal) filed three documents under Section 205 of the Federal Power
Act: (1) A Capacity Disposition Commitment between itself and
Commonwealth, which implements the terms of the Capacity Acquisition
and Disposition Agreement (FERC Rate Schedule No. 21, Supplement No.
25) with respect to the assignment by Commonwealth to Canal of a
portion of Commonwealth's entitlement in Canal Unit No. 2 Canal will
sell a portion of Commonwealth's entitlement to the output of Canal
Unit No. 2 to Washington Electric Cooperative Incorporated (WEC) over
the period January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2000. This entitlement is
referred to herein as the ``WEC Quota;'' (2) a Power Contract between
itself and Commonwealth, which provides that Canal will credit all
revenues from the sale of the WEC Quota to Commonwealth; and (3) a
Power Sale Agreement between itself and WEC with respect to the sale of
the WEC Quota.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
13. Northern Indiana Public Service Company
[Docket No. EL94-15-000]
Take notice that on December 15, 1993, Northern Indiana Public
Service Company (Northern Indiana), tendered for filing a petition
requesting a Commission determination that it will not exercise its
jurisdiction, granted by the Federal Power Act (FPA), over service
provided by Northern Indiana to Greenfield Mills, Inc. (Greenfield
Mills), the owner and operator of a hydroelectric facility in Lagrange
County, Indiana. Northern Indiana purchases power generated by
Greenfield Mills and, should Greenfield Mills need electricity for its
operations, Northern Indiana provides such ``backfeed'' power from its
system supply. Northern Indiana will purchase power generated by
Greenfield Mills during the 18-hour period from 6 a.m. to midnight at a
rate of 7 mills per kilowatt hour (Kwh); power generated during the
remaining six hours of the day will be purchased by Northern Indiana at
a rate of 3 mills per Kwh. Northern Indiana sells backfeed to
Greenfield Mills by offsetting two Kwh of power purchased for every one
Kwh of power sold.
Northern Indiana seeks a declaratory order regarding Commission
jurisdiction due to the de minimis nature of the Greenfield Mills
transaction. Over the past 10 years, Northern Indiana's annual revenue
from the contract has been about $865 per year and, during the past
decade, Northern Indiana has sold only 615,200 Kwh of power to
Greenfield Mills, representing only 38 ten-thousandths of one percent
of its total sales for resale. Copies of Northern Indiana's petition
for declaratory order are on file with the Commission and are available
for public inspection.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
14. Public Service Company of New Mexico
[Docket No. EC94-5-000]
Take notice that on December 21, 1993, Public Service Company of
New Mexico (PNM) filed an application seeking an Order or other
appropriate determination approving the sale by PNM to Utah Associated
Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) of an undivided ownership interest in a
PNM Main Power Transformer (step-up transformer) associated with San
Juan Generating Station Unit 4, located in San Juan County, New Mexico.
Copies of this filing have been served upon UAMPS and the New
Mexico Public Utility Commission.
Comment date: January 13, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
15. Kentucky Power Company
[Docket No. ER94-61-000]
Take notice that on December 16, 1993, Kentucky Power Company
(Kentucky Power) filed, as an amendment to the filing made in this
Docket on October 28, 1993, a proposed form of service agreement for
proposed tariff MRS-D, and a service agreement executed by the City of
Olive Hill, Kentucky (Olive Hill). The amendment was submitted in
compliance with a request by the Commission's Staff. Kentucky Power
requests an effective date of January 1, 1994.
Kentucky Power states that a copy of its filing was served upon
Olive Hill and the Kentucky Public Service Commission.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
16. Portland General Electric Company
[Docket No. ER94-277-000]
Take notice that on December 16, 1993, Portland General Electric
Company (PGE) tendered for filing a Power Sales Contract under which
PGE purchases power from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The
Power Sales Contract includes provisions under which PGE may, in
certain conditions, take energy from BPA and return the energy at a
later time.
Under the provisions of 18 CFR 35.11, PGE requests that the
Commission grant waiver of the notice requirements of 18 CFR 35.3 to
allow the Agreement to take effect on August 25, 1982.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
17. Tampa Electric Company
[Docket No. ER94-285-000]
Take notice that on December 17, 1993, Tampa Electric Company
(Tampa Electric) tendered for filing a Service Agreement with the City
of St. Cloud, Florida (St. Cloud) under Tampa Electric's FERC Electric
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, and a related revised tariff sheet.
Tampa Electric proposes that the tendered documents be made
effective on February 15, 1994.
Copies of the filing have been served on St. Cloud, the other
customers under Tampa Electric's tariff, and the Florida Public Service
Commission.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
18. PacifiCorp
[Docket No. ER94-280-000]
Take notice that PacifiCorp, on December 17, 1993, tendered for
filing, in accordance with Commission's Order pertaining to agreements
involving amnesty for jurisdictional service and waiver of notice,
issued July 30, 1993, under Docket No. PL93-2-002, the Operation,
Construction and Ownership Agreements of the Jim Bridger Project
between Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp.
Copies of this filing were supplied to Idaho Power Company, the
Public Utility Commission of Oregon, the Utah Public Service
Commission, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and the Wyoming
Public Service Commission.
PacifiCorp requests in accordance with 18 CFR 35.11 of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations and that a waiver of prior notice
requirements be granted.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
19. New England Power Company
[Docket No. ER94-278-000]
Take notice that on December 17, 1993, New England Power Company
(NEP), tendered for filing a supplement to its FPC Rate Schedule No.
77. The supplement, dated August 14, 1967, recognizes an additional
pint of interconnection between NEP and Public Service of New
Hampshire. NEP seeks waiver of notice under the Commission's guidelines
published in Final Order, Docket No. PL93-2-000, so that the supplement
may be deemed effective in accordance with its terms.
Comment date: January 11, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
20. Entergy Services, Inc.
[Docket No. ER94-104-000]
Take notice that on November 23, 1993, Entergy Services, Inc., on
behalf of Arkansas Power & Light Company, supplemented its earlier
filing in this docket by filing Exhibit 2 to the Contract Between the
United States of America, represented by the Secretary of Energy,
acting by and through the Administrator, Southwestern Power
Administration, and Arkansas Power & Light Company.
Comment date: January 6, 1994, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such
motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32011 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32006 Submission of Proposed Information Collections to OMB
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32006]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Submission of Proposed Information Collections to OMB
AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.
ACTION: Notice of proposed information collections submitted to OMB for
approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is
giving notice that the proposed collections of information described in
this notice have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR part 1320.
Public comment is invited on these collections.
DATES: Comments should be submitted by February 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed information collections and
supporting documentation can be obtained from the Policy and Program
Analysis Division (NAA), National Archives at College Park, 8601
Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20704-6001. Telephone requests may be
made to (301) 713-6730.
Written comments should be sent to Director, Policy and Program
Analysis Division (NAA), at the above address. A copy of the comments
should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NARA,
Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Ann Hadyka or Nancy Allard at (301) 713-6730.
The following proposed information collections have been submitted
to OMB:
1. National Historical Publications and Records Commission Budget
Form (NA Form 17001)
Description: The information collection is a budget form used in
lieu of SF 242-A. It is part of a grant application prepared by
nonprofit organizations and institutions, state and local government
agencies, Federally acknowledged or state recognized Native American
tribes or groups, and individuals to apply for National Historical
Publications and Records Program (NHPRC) support of projects in
documentary editing and historical records preservation and planning.
Purpose: The information is used for evaluation of grant
applications.
Frequency of response: One time with grant application.
Number of respondents: 200.
Reporting hours per response: 3 hours.
Annual reporting burden hours: 600.
Dated: December 21, 1993.
Trudy Huskamp Peterson,
Acting Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 93-32006 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32004 Appointments of Individuals to Serve as Members of Performance Review Boards
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32004]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appointments of Individuals to Serve as Members of Performance
Review Boards
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) requires that the appointments of individuals
to serve as members of performance review boards be published in the
Federal Register. Therefore, in compliance with this requirement,
notice is hereby given that the individuals whose names and position
titles appear below have been appointed to serve as members of
performance review boards in the National Labor Relations Board for the
rating year beginning October 1, 1992 and ending September 30, 1993.
Name and Title
Robert E. Allen--Associate General Counsel, Advice
Frank V. Battle--Deputy Director of Administration
Harold J. Datz--Chief Counsel to Board Member
Yvonne T. Dixon--Acting Deputy General Counsel
Frederick Freilicher--Chief Counsel to Board Member
John E. Higgins--Solicitor
Susan Holik--Chief Counsel to Board Member
Gloria Joseph--Director of Administration
Nicholas E. Karatinos--Acting Associate General Counsel, Enf. Lit.
Barry J. Kearney--Deputy Associate General Counsel, Advice
Joseph E. Moore--Deputy Executive Secretary
W. Garrett Stack--Associate General Counsel, Operations-Management
Elinor H. Stillman--Chief Counsel to the Chairman
Berton B. Subrin--Director, Office of Representation Appeals
John C. Truesdale--Executive Secretary
Dated: Washington, DC, November 8, 1993.
By Direction of the Board.
John C. Truesdale,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32004 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32003 Controlled Substances: Established 1994 Aggregate Production Quota
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32003]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Controlled Substances: Established 1994 Aggregate Production
Quota
AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, DOJ.
ACTION: Notice of established 1994 aggregate production quotas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice establishes 1994 aggregate production quotas for
controlled substances in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
DATE: This order is effective January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard McClain, Jr., Chief, Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug
Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Telephone: (202) 307-
7183.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney General establish
aggregate production quotas for all controlled substances in Schedule I
and II each year. This responsibility has been delegated to the
Administrator of the DEA pursuant to Sec. 0.100 of Title 28 of the Code
of Federal Regulations.
On October 8, 1993, a notice of the proposed 1994 aggregate
production quotas for certain Schedule I controlled substances was
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 52510). All interested persons
were invited to comment on or object to these proposed aggregate
production quotas on or before November 8, 1993. No comments or
objections were received.
This notice is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant
to Executive Order 12866.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in the Executive Order 12612 and it has been
determined that this matter does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Administrator hereby certifies that this matter will have no
significant impact upon small entities within the meaning of and intent
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The
establishment of annual production quotas for Schedules I and II
controlled substances is mandated by law and by the international
commitments of the United States. Such quotas impact predominantly upon
major manufacturers of the affected controlled substances.
Therefore, under the authority vested in the Attorney General by
section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 826)
and delegated to the Administrator by Sec. 0.100 of title 28 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, the Administrator of the DEA hereby
establishes the 1994 aggregate production quotas for the following
controlled substances, expressed in grams of anhydrous base, be
established as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established
Basic class 1994 quotas
(in grams)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Methoxyamphetamine.................................... 10
3-Methylfentanyl........................................ 10
Cathinone............................................... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Stephen H. Greene,
Acting Administrator of Drug Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 93-32003 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32001 Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Laboratory Management
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32001]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Laboratory Management
ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Laboratory
Management will meet in closed session on January 19-20, January 28,
and February 24, 1994 at the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the
Task Force will develop a strategy for restructuring and substantially
reducing the size of the defense laboratory infrastructure while
simultaneously maintaining its generic capabilities and improving
product quality.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings, concern matters
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly these
meetings will be closed to the public.
Dated: December 27, 1993.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 93-32001 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-Mz
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32000 Ocean Freight Forwarder License Revocations
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32000]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Ocean Freight Forwarder License Revocations
Notice is hereby given that the following ocean freight forwarder
licenses have been revoked by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant
to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the
regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of ocean
freight forwarders, 46 CFR part 510.
License Number: 2722
Name: Consolidated International Forwarding Co. dba CIFCO
Address: 345 W. 74th Place, Hialeah, FL 33014
Date revoked: April 24, 1993
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid surety bond.
License Number: 3114
Name: Great Bear Transportation, Inc.
Address: 10612 Shoemaker Ave., Unit B, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Date revoked: July 1, 1993
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid surety bond.
License Number: 3649
Name: Worldwide Transportation International, Inc.
Address: 600 W. Hillsboro Blvd., Ste. 372, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
Date revoked: November 22, 1993
Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.
License Number: 897
Name: Dyson Shipping Company, Inc.
Address: One World Trade Center, Ste. 1907, New York, NY 10048
Date revoked: November 30, 1993
Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Director, Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 93-32000 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-31999 Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Reissuance of License
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-31999]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Reissuance of License
Notice is hereby given that the following ocean freight forwarder
license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant
to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the
regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of ocean
freight forwarders, 46 CFR part 510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
License No. Name/Address Date Reissued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2456R................... Export Forwarding Company, 2213 Royal Lane, Dallas, TX December 10, 1993.
75229.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Director, Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 93-31999 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-31998 Private Land Mobile Radio Services; Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Public Safety Plan Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-31998]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Gen. Docket No. 89-573; DA 93-1530]
Private Land Mobile Radio Services; Philadelphia Metropolitan
Area Public Safety Plan Amendment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Chief, Land Mobile and Microwave Division and the Acting
Chief, Spectrum Engineering Division released this Order amending the
Public Safety Radio Plan for the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area (Region
28). As a result of accepting the amendment for the Plan for Region 28,
the interests of the eligible entities within the region will be
furthered.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Betty Woolford, Private Radio Bureau, Policy and Planning Branch, (202)
632-6497.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Order
Adopted: December 16, 1993.
Released: December 27, 1993.
By the Chief, Land Mobile and Microwave Division and the Acting
Chief, Spectrum Engineering Division:
1. The Private Radio Bureau and the Office of Engineering and
Technology, acting under delegated authority, accepted the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area (Region 28) Public Safety Plan (Plan) on February 2,
1990, 5 FCC Rcd 3067 (1990).
2. By letter dated June 28, 1993, the Region proposed to amend its
Plan. The proposed amendment would revise the current channel
allotments. The Commission placed the letter on Public Notice for
comments due on August 27, 1993, 58 FR 40818 (July 30, 1993). The
Commission received comments from the Tri-State Radio Planning
Committee (Region 8) and several groups associated with it. As a result
of these comments, Region 28 and Region 8 held a meeting to resolve the
differences between the two regions. A new amendment was filed by
Region 28 on November 3, 1993, to reflect the agreements reached as a
result of the meeting between the two regions.
3. We have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Region 28 Plan
and conclude it furthers the interests of the eligible entities within
the Region.
4. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Public Safety Radio Plan for
the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area (Region 28) is amended, as set forth
in the Region's letter of June 28 and its subsequent letter of November
3, 1993. This Amendment is effective immediately.
Federal Communications Commission.
Richard J. Shiben,
Chief, Land Mobile & Microwave Division.
[FR Doc. 93-31998 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-31997 Notice of Availability for Loan of Fish and Wildlife Items
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-31997]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 102693A]
Notice of Availability for Loan of Fish and Wildlife Items
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice lists fish and wildlife items that have been
abandoned or forfeited to the United States and are available for loan
to qualified institutions, organizations, and individuals through each
NOAA Regional Enforcement Office. The notice also describes the
qualifications necessary to obtain loan of an item, the means of
applying for a loan, and the general conditions under which a loan will
be made.
ADDRESSES: For availability of items currently available, see Regional
Enforcement Office addresses under supplementary information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Special Agent Alan Mager (Office of Enforcement) (301) 427-2010 x110.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act
of 1978, (16 U.S.C. 7421), NOAA may make loans of fish and wildlife
items that have been seized and subsequently abandoned or forfeited to
the United States Regulations appearing at 15 CFR part 904, subpart F,
govern the conditions under which loans of items are made and the
procedures for making loans. Items available for loan are most commonly
seized under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1404) and
the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Loans will be made
for educational, scientific, and public display purposes.
All such loans will be made through loan agreements, which will
provide, among other things, that title to the items remain with the
United States, that the items may not be transferred without permission
of NOAA, and that violation of a loan agreement may subject the
violator to penalties under the applicable statute. In order to qualify
for a loan, an applicant must intend to use the item only for non-
commercial scientific, educational, or public display purposes and
demonstrate the ability to provide adequate security for the item.
Loan recipients will be selected so as to ensure wide distribution
through the scientific, educational, public display, and museum
communities. Priority in granting application will be given in the
following order: NOAA and other Government agencies; educational,
scientific, or other public or private institutions; and private
individuals.
Those interested in applying for a loan of an item should apply at
the Regional Enforcement Office where the item is available, as listed
below. In order to give those interested adequate opportunity to apply,
no loan will be executed for 45 days from the date of this publication.
Update lists will be published periodically.
A list of items currently available at each Enforcement Office
follows.
Northeast Region
Apply to: Mr. John McCarthy, MNFS Law Enforcement Regional Office,
1 Blackburn Drive, room 206, Gloucester, MA 01930, (508) 281-9213.
Control # Description
NE7513004A SPERM WHALE TEETH, RAW
NE761082A (3) SEALSKIN COATS, FULL LENGTH
NE761082A (1) SEALSKIN COAT, JACKET
NE771007A (1) SEALSKIN COAT
NE771071A (1) SEALSKIN PARKA, SIZE 8
NE781108A (1) SEALSKIN COAT
NE791007A (2) SEALSKIN PELTS
NE801067A (1) SEA LION COAT
NE811010A (1) SEALSKIN COAT
NE811011A (1) SEALSKIN COAT
NE811013A (1) SEALSKIN COAT
NE811022A (1) SEALSKIN JACKET
NE841008A SPERM WHALE TEETH, CLEANED
NE841010A (1) BLACK FUR SEAL COAT
NE871001A (1) SEALSKIN COAT
NE871011A (3) SEALSKIN DOLLS
NE871012A (2) SEALSKIN COATS
NE871014A (1) SEALSKIN PURSE
NE871029A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE871030A (3) SEALSKIN COATS
NE881025A (3) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE881034A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE881035A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE881036A (1) SEALSKIN SEAL SOUVENIR
NE881037A (1) SEALSKIN JACKET
NE881039A (2) SEALSKIN DOLLS
NE881040A (1) SEALSKIN TOY DOLL
NE881041A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE881043A (2) SEALSKIN DOLLS
NE881044A (1) SEALSKIN COAT, BLACK
NE881051A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE881052A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE881052A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE881052A (1) PAIR SEALSKIN BOOTIES
NE881054A (4) SEALSKIN KEY CHAINS
NE891001A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE891003A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE891004A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE891005A (5) SEALSKIN DOLLS
NE891006A (2) SEALSKIN DOLLS
NE891007A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE891008A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE891008A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE891010A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE891011A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE891016A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE891023A (2) PAIRS SEALSKIN BOOTS
NE891026A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE891028A (1) PAIRS SEALSKIN SLIPPERS
NE891032A (3) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901002A (1) SEALSKIN HAT
NE901010A (4) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901011A (2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901017A (2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901023A (1) SEALSKIN PURSE
NE901025A (1) PAIR SEALSKIN BOOTS, MINIATIRE
NE901025A (1) SEALSKIN DOLL
NE901026A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901027A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901028A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901029A (1) SEALSKIN KEY RING
NE901030A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901031A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901032A (2) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSES
NE901033A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901034A (2) SEALSKIN SCRAPS
NE901035A (2) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSES
NE901036A (1) SEALSKIN KEY RING
NE901037A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901039A (1) SEALSKIN KEY RING
NE901040A (2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901041A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901042A (2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901043A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901047A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901048A (1) SEALSKIN PURSE
NE901049A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901050A (3) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901052A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901053A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901054A (5) SEALSKIN KEY RINGS
NE901055A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901056A (6) SEALSKIN CHANGES PURSES
NE901062A (5) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSES W/KEY RINGS
NE901062A (2) SEALSKIN PURSES
NE901062A (5) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSES
NE901063A (1) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSE
NE901064A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901065A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901066A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE901067A (1) SEALSKIN ANIMAL
NE901068A (1) SEALSKIN PURSE
NE901069A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901070A (1) SEALSKIN ANIMAL
NE901071A (1) SEALSKIN ANIMAL
NE901072A (1) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSE W/MINIATURE
NE901073A (3) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSES W/MINIATURES
NE901073A (1) SEALSKIN PURSE
NE901074A (2) SEALSKIN ANIMALS W/MINIATURES
NE901075A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901076A (2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901077A (1) SEALSKIN CHANGE PURSE
NE901078A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901079A (1) SEALSKIN ANIMAL
NE901080A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE901081A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901082A (2) SEALSKIN KEY CHAINS
NE901083A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE901084A (1) SEALSKIN ANIMAL
NE901086A (1) SEALSKIN ANIMAL
NE901087A (2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE901088A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE901089A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE911006A (1) SEALSKIN KEY CHAIN
NE911007A (2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE911008A (3) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE911009A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE911010A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE911011A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE911012A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE911013A (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NE911014A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE911015A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE911016A (36) SEALSKIN KEY CHAINS/(2) SEALSKIN MINIATURES
NE911017A (1) DESK DISPLAY W/(2) SEAL, MOUNTED
NE911020A (2) WHALE BALEEN/(4) WHALE BONE, VERTEBRAE
NE911023A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE911026A (1) SEALSKIN JACKET
NE911027A (1) DESK DISPLAY W/(2) SEALS, MOUNTED
NE911029A (2) CANS SEAL MEAT
NE911030A (3) SEALSKIN TOYS/(1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE911040A (2) SEALSKIN TOYS W/(2) MINIATURES
NE911041A (1) DESK DISPLAY W/(3) SEALS MOUNTED
NE911043A (1) CAN SEAL MEAT
NE911045A (1) SEALSKIN TOY W/(2) MINIATURES
NE911046A (1) PAIR SEALSKIN GLOVES, MINIATURE
NE911052A (2) BLACK LEATHER JACKETS W/SEALSKIN TRIM
NE911053A (1) SEALSKIN TOY W/(1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
NE911054A (2) SEALSKIN TOYS
NE921006A (1) DESK DISPLAY W/(2) SEALS, MOUNTED
NE921011A (1) SEALSKIN MINIATURE
Northwest Region
Apply to: Mr. Wayne C. Lewis, NMFS Law Enforcement Regional Office,
7600 and Point Way NE., C15700, Seattle, WA 98115, (206) 526-6133.
Control # Description
NW910018 (1) SEALSKIN PURSE
NW910019 (1) PAIR OF SEALSKIM ALASKAN YO-YOS
NW910053 (1) PAIR SEALSKIN SLIPPERS
NW911220 (1) SEALSKIN JACKET
NW911245 (1) SMALL SEALSKIN PURSE
NW911524 (1) SEALSKIN TOY
NW911525 (1) STUFFED HARP SEAL
Southwest Region
Apply to: Mr. Gene Proulx, NMFS Law Enforcement Regional Officer,
501 W. Ocean Blvd. Suite 4400A, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, (310) 980-
4050.
Control # Description
SW750011A (1) CARVED SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW750015A (25) RAW SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW750020A (1) SPERM WHALE TOOTH WITH CARVED LION
SW750026A (2) SPERM WHALE TOOTH PENDANTS
SW760006A (2) CARVED WHALE TEETH
SW760021A (1) SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW760026A (1) SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW760033A (100) POLISHED SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW761004A (6) SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW761008A (26) SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW761025A (1) SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW770001A (9) WHALE TEETH PENDANTS, (2) RINGS
SW770001A (1) SCRIMSHAW WHALE TOOTH PENDANT
SW770010A (80) PIECES SCRIMSHAW WHALE IVORY
SW770010A (7) ASSORTED PIECES OF IVORY
SW770015A (1) WHALE TOOTH
SW770030A (1) SCRIMSHAWED TOOTH
SW771001A (1) PLASTIC CARVED LION & STAND
SW771037A (6) RAW SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW780002A (30) ASSORTED WHALE IVORY CARVINGS
SW780027A (2) SPERM WHALE TOOTHBIRD CARVING
SW780031A (40) WHALE TOOTH PENDANTS
SW780068A (1) SEALSKIN COAT
SW780071A (1) WHALE BONE PENDANT
SW780096A (51) SEALSKIN TOYS
SW780096A (3) SEALSKIN TOYS
SW781009A (1) SCRIMSHAWED SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW781017A (3) SCRIMSHAW WHALE TEETH
SW781026A (3) TEETH (1 POLISHED) (2 SCRIMSHAWED)
SW790020A (2) SPERM WHALE TEETH (7 IN.)
SW790059A (46) BALEEN TONGUE SCRAPERS
SW790081A (21) SPERM WHALE TEETH PENDANT JEWELRY
SW790085A (6) SPERM WHALE TEETH (3 WORKED, 3 UNWORKED)
SW790170A (7) SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW790184A (2) RAW SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW790185A (1) TAN CARRYING CASE
SW790185A (27) WOOD BOXES, (24) SCRIM TEETH, (1) POLISHED TOOTH
SW790185A (10) WHALE TEETH, (3) WHALE BONES
SW790185A (3) SCRIMSHAWED WHALE TEETH
SW790198A (3) RAW SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW790200A (3) PIECES SPERM WHALEPENDANTS
SW790206A (1) CARVED SPERM WHALETOOTH
SW790217A (1) HAWKSBILL TURTLE (STUFFED)
SW800023A (1) WHALE BONE PENDANT
SW800041A (2) SPERM WHALE TEETH ON STANDS
SW800046A (9) SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW800047A (1) SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW800063A (2) SCRIMSHAWED & SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW800085A (1) TANNED SEAL SKIN
SW800093A (1) IVORY PENDANT
SW800099A (1) WHALE TOOTH PENDANT
SW800102A (2) SPERM WHALE CARVINGS, (1) WHALE TOOTH
SW800123A (1) SCRIMSHAWED TOOTH
SW800128A (1) IVORY PENDANT
SW810019A (2) RAW SPERM WHALE TEETH, PENDANT
SW810085A (1) HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE
SW810089A (3) HAWKSBILL TURTLES
SW810089A (2) GREEN SEA TURTLES
SW810092A (1) GREEN SEA TURTLE
SW810094A (1) GREEN SEA TURTLE
SW810094A (2) HAWKSBILL TURTLES
SW810095A (1) HAWKSBILL TURTLE
SW810097A (1) HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE
SW810098A (2) HAWKSBILL TURTLES
SW820037A (1) POLISHED SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW820096A (1) RAW SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW820156A (3) RAW SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW830123A (7) PCS TURTLE JEWELRY
SW840005A (1) RAW SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW850020A (6) WHALE TEETH, (2) CARVINGS
SW860046A (2) CANS WHALE MEAT
SW860226A (7) SPERM WHALE TEETH (SCRIMSHAW)
SW860245A (7) SCRIMSHAWED SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW860246A (1) SCRIMSHAW PENDANT AND TOOTH
SW860302A (1) WHALE TOOTH
SW860327A (16) HAWKSBILL TURTLE SHELL TRAYS
SW860355A (1) ETCHED WHALE BONE PENDANT
SW860361A (4) WHALE TEETH
SW860395A (55) SPERM WHALE IVORYNETSUKES
SW860395A (1) SCRIMSHAW SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW870006A (85) SPERM WHALE IVORYNETSUKES
SW870007A (66) SPERM WHALE IVORYNETSUKES
SW870224A (2) WHALE TEETH SCRIMSHAW
SW870449A BRASS COPPER NAILS
SW870601A (12) BRACELETS, (4) RINGS, (1) STORYBOARD, (1) HAIR CLIP,
(2) EARRINGS
SW880045A (1) TRAY, (TOLUK)
SW880119A (3) SCRIMSHAW SPERM WHALE TEETH
SW880170A (1) TRAY HAWKSBILL TURTLE SHELL
SW880198A (3) TRAYS HAWKSBILL TURTLE SHELL
SW880200A (1) FUR SEAL COAT
SW880317A (1) SCRIMSHAWED SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW880360A (1) TANNED SEAL SKIN
SW890424A (5) SPERM WHALE BONE CARVINGS
SW890430A (1) CARVED EAGLE HEAD SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW900011A WHALE TEETH (SCRIMSHAWED) #9492 2 US
SW900063A (1) SPERM WHALE TOOTH
SW900451A (3) HAWKSHELL SEA TURTLE SHELL ``TOLUK'' TRAYS
SW910034A (1) SPERM WHALE TOOTH (SCRIMSHAW)
Alaska Region
Apply to: Mr. David Flannagan, NMFS Law Enforcement Regional
Office, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, (907) 586-7225.
Control # Description
AK800113A (1) HARBOR SEAL HEAD
AK810051A (1) PAIR SEALSKIN MUKLUKS
AK820064A (36) KILLER WHALE TEETH
AK820064A (6) KILLER WHALE TEETH
AK820135A (1) WALRUS TUSK
AK830003A (1) FUR COAT WITH SEAL SKIN SECTION
AK830060A (1.5) SEAL HIDES
AK830085A (1) SEA LION HIDE
AK830085A ASSORTED PIECES OF SEA LION HIDE AND MEAT
AK830231A (1) TANNED SEAL SKIN
AK830243A (1) UNTANNED HARBOR SEAL SKIN
AK830296A (1) BALEEN FROND, 12 INCHES
AK840173A (2) SEAL HIDES
AK840262A (1) FROND OF BOWHEAD BALEEN
AK840318A (4) VERTEBRAE AND (1) RIB FROM GREY WHALE
AK850018A (1) UNTANNED SEAL SKIN
AK850244A (2) SEAL SKINS
AK850250A (1) WHALE RIB
AK850289A (3) PIECES OF BALEEN
AK850300A (1) SCRIMSHAWED WHALE TOOTH
AK860042A (1) WHALE VERTEBRA
AK860060A (2) BALEEN WHALE VERTEBRAE
AK860072A (1) SEAL SKIN PARKA
AK860073A (1) SEAL SKIN VEST
AK860171A (1) GREY WHALE RIB BONE AND VERTEBRAE
AK860227A (2) SEAL SKIN VESTS
AK860262A (1) SEAL SKIN AND LEATHER VEST
AK860267A (2) VERTEBRAE AND (2) RIBS FROM HUMPBACK WHALE
AK870034A (1) WHALE VERTEBRA
AK870053A (1) PAIR SEAL SKIN BOOTS
AK870060A (1) WHALE BONE
AK870085A (2) HAND PUPPERTS WITH SEAL SKIN MITTENS
AK870201C (2) TOTEMIC KILLER WHALES
AK870201D (1) TOTEMIC WHALE
AK880010A (1) KILLER WHALE TOOTH
AK880092A (1) STUFFED BABY SEAL SKIN
AK880168A (2) WALRUS TUSKS
AK880186A (1) SEAL SKIN WALLET
AK880187A (1) PURSE MADE PARTLY OF SEAL SKIN
AK880297A (2) LARGE PIECES OF GREY WHALE BALEEN
AK880360A (1) BALEEN FROND
AK890038A (5) SEAL SKIN WALLETS
AK890070A (1) PILLOW/(2) PAINTINGS/ (1) PLAQUE/ (2) PURSES/ (1) PAIR
GLOVES
AK890070A (1) WALRUS TOOTH/ (5) BALEEN ART PIECES
AK890308A (4) WHALE BONES
AK890308A (1) SEAL SKIN COIN PURSE
AK890308A (3) SEAL SKIN PILLOWS
AK890308A (1) SEAL SKIN HANDBAG
AK890308A (3) PAIR SEAL SKIN SLIPPERS
AK890308A (1) SEAL SKIN EYEGLASS CASE
AK890308A (1) SEAL SKIN ORNAMENT
AK890308A (1) SEAL SKIN DOLL
AK900062A (8) BALEEN PLATES (5-10 FEET LONG)
AK900068A (1) GRAY WHALE RIB BONE/1 GRAY WHALE JAW BONE
AK900181A (1) PAIR SEAL SKIN MUKLUKS/(2) PIECES SEAL SKIN SCRAPS
AK900498A (6) WHALE VERTEBRAE/(3) WHALE RIBS
AK900540A (3) WHALE RIB BONE/(1) VERTEBRAE
AK900542A (3) WALE VERTEBRAE/(1) ADULT WALRUS SKULL
AK910193A (1) HANDICRAFT ITEM MADE FROM SEAL SKIN
AK910194A ADULT AND MINIATURE SEAL HIDE SLIPPERS/IVORY TRINKET
AK910210A (1) SEA LION TOOTH/(2) SMALL WALRUS TEETH
AK910240A (1) CLUTCH PURSE MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910294A WOODEN CARVING AND PURSE MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910295A (1) WHALE BONE CARVING
AK910295A (1) NECKLACE MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910296A (1) PURSE MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910297A (1) PURSE MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910298A (1) HANDBAG MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910299A (1) PIN MADE FROM SEAL SKIN
AK910300A (1) TASSEL MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910302A (1) PURSE MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK910303A (1) NECKLACE MADE FROM SEAL HIDE
AK911099A (1) DOLL MADE WITH SEAL SKIN
AK911100A (1) LEATHER BAG MADE FROM MARINE MAMMAL PRODUCTS
AK911291A (7) DOLLS MADE OF SEAL SKIN
AK911322A (1) PAIR SEAL SKIN BOOTS/(1) SEAL SKIN HAT
AK911324A (2) SEAL HIDE WALL HANGINGS/ (8) SEAL HIDE DOLLS
AK920022A (2) WHALE VERTEBRAE
AK920175A (2) WHALE RIBS AND (5) VERTEBRAE
AK920254A (1) SEAL HIDE PICTURE
AK920256A SEAL HIDE SLIPPERS
AK920257A (3) PAIR SEAL HIDE SLIPPERS
AK920258A (2) SEAL HIDE WALLETS
AK920259A (1) SEAL HIDE PURSE
AK920260A (2) SEAL HIDE AND BALEEN PLAQUES
AK920261A (12) SEAL HIDE PIECES
AK920262A (1) SEAL HIDE HANGING
AK920263A (1) SEAL HIDE PIN CUSHION
AK920264A (2) SEAL HIDE SLIPPERS
AK920265A SEAL HIDE PLAQUE
AK920266A (2) SEAL HIDE NECKLACES/ (2) BROOCHES/(2) WALLETS
AK920268A SEAL HIDE WALLET
AK920321A SEAL HIDE PURSE
AK920322A (1) SEAL HIDE PLAQUE
AK920324A (1) SEAL HIDE PLAQUE
AK920325A SEAL HIDE PLAQUE
AK920326A HERBAL REMEDY MADE IN PART OF SEAL
AK920327A (3) SEAL HIDE PLAQUES
AK920328A (1) PAIR SEAL HIDE SLIPPERS
AK920459A GREAT WHALE PARTS (1 SHOULDER BLADE, 2 RIBS, 1 VERTEBRAE)
AK920478A (3) SEAL HIDE DOLLS
AK920479A SEAL HIDE
AK920480A SEAL HIDE PLAQUE
AK920481A SEAL HIDE WALL HANGING
AK920482A (2) SEAL HIDE WALL HANGINGS
AK920485A SEAL HIDE PLAQUE
AK920486A SEAL HIDE PLAQUE
AK920644A (1) STELLAR SEA LION SKULL (3 PIECES)
AK920665A SEAL HIDE WALL HANGING
AK920666A SEAL HIDE WALL HANGING
AK920667A (1) WHALE SCAPULA, (4) WHALE VERTEBRAE
AK920672A (2) SEAL HIDE DOLLS
Classification
Because this notice involves the disposition of public property,
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that
this notice is not a rule subject to 5 U.S.C. 553.
Dated: December 19, 1993.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.
[FR Doc. 93-31997 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-31968 Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review; Office of Child Support and Enforcement
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-31968]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review; Office of Child
Support and Enforcement
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request to approve a revised questionnaire for the April 1994
Current Population Survey Supplement on Child Support. This inquiry, to
be conducted by the Census Bureau, is sponsored by the Office of Child
Support Enforcement (OCSE) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
The Administration for Children and Families is requesting an
expedited review by the Office of Management and Budget in order to
have the questionnaire available in time for the April 1994 survey.
Therefore, as prescribed by the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, Office on Management and Budget's Regulations and the Department
of Health and Human Services IRM Circular #15 issued on September 14,
1992 for expedited review of information collections activities, we are
including in this notice the entire information collection materials
for review by the general public.
The following is a copy of the package in its entirety. Written
comments and questions regarding the requested approval for information
collection should be sent by January 31, 1994, directly to: Laura
Oliven, OMB Desk Officer for ACF, OMB Reports Management Branch, New
Executive Office Building, room 3002, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.
Information on Document
Title: April 1994 Current Population Survey Supplement on Child
Support.
OMB No.: 0992-0272.
Description: This collection of information is authorized by Title
IV-D of the Social Security Act. An Office of Management and Budget
letter dated July 1, 1983, also directs the Office of Child Support
Enforcement to collect this information. OMB previously approved this
data collection under OMB approval number 0992-0272.
The Survey of Child Support is designated to obtain information on
the characteristics of individuals eligible to receive child support
and the types of financial arrangements made to assist in the support
of such individuals and any children for whom they retain custody.
These data will assist legislators and policymakers in determining how
effective their policy making efforts have been over time in applying
the various child support legislation to the overall child support
enforcement picture.
Survey Instrument: 1994 CHILD SUPPORT SUPPLEMENT, OMB No. 0992-0272,
Expires:
All items in the instrument have a blind Don't Know and Refusal
option.
UNIVERSE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY
(102 is asked of Married respondents)
102. This month we are also asking questions about children who do
not live with both of their parents. I have listed that (NAMES OF
CHILDREN) are all under the age of 21. Which of these children, IF ANY
have a (father/mother/father or mother) who lives outside of this
house?
SCREEN SHOWS ROSTER OF CHILDREN. ENTER LINE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN
for None, No More, Parent temporarily absent GO TO 104
(103a is asked of Never Married, Divorced, Widowed, and Separated
respondents)
103a. Does (Child) have a (father/mother) who lives outside this
household?
Yes GO TO 104
No
103b. There are many reasons why children may not live with both of
their biological or adoptive parents. Why doesn't (CHILD) have a
biological or adoptive (mother/father) living outside the household?
Other parent has died..................................... 1 END
Child was adopted by a single parent...................... 2 END
Other parent terminated their parental rights............. 3 END
Other parent is living in the household................... 4 END
Other parent is no longer recognized as a parent by this 5
household.
Other (Specify)________................................... 6
103c. Did (Child's) (mother/father) ever have any type of child
support agreement or ever attempt to have any type of child support
agreement with (Child's) (mother/father)?
Yes
No END
104. (Are you/Which of the adults in this household is) LEGALLY
responsible for CHILD?
Enter Liner Number________
or for None ____ GO TO 104b
104a. What is (Name for adult from Q104)'s relationship to (CHILD)?
Grandparent 1 END INTERVIEW
Aunt or Uncle 2 END INTERVIEW
Sister or Brother 3 END INTERVIEW
Foster Parent 4 END INTERVIEW
Parent 5
Other (Specify) ________ 6 END INTERVIEW
104b. What is (REFERENCE PERSON's) relationship to (CHILD)?
Grandparent 1 END INTERVIEW
Aunt or Uncle 2 END INTERVIEW
Sister or Brother 3 END INTERVIEW
Foster Parent 4 END INTERVIEW
Parent 5
Other (Specify) ________ 6 END INTERVIEW
(105-108 are asked or married respondents)
105. Are you CHILD's natural biological (mother/father)?
Yes GO TO 107
No GO TO 105
106. Did you ever legally adopt CHILD?
Yes
No
107. Is (NAME OF MOTHER/FATHER) CHILD's natural biological (mother/
father)?
Yes GO TO 150
No GO TO 108
108. Did (NAME OF MOTHER/FATHER) ever legally adopt (CHILD)?
Yes
No
SECTION 1--ROSTER OF CHILD SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS
Lead-in. A legal arrangement about financial support for a child could
be called many things, for example, a court order, a court award, a
divorce or separation agreement, or a legal agreement.
150. Has there ever been any kind of legal arrangement that says
that (CHILD)'s (father/mother) should provide any kind of financial
support for (him/her)?
Yes GO TO 151
No GO TO 152
Legal arrangement pending GO TO 154
There is an arrangement, but R GO TO 153
does not know if it is legal
151. Would you call it a court order, a court award, or a legal
agreement?
Court order GO TO 154
Court award GO TO 154
Legal agreement GO TO 154
152. Has there ever been any other kind of agreement or
understanding that says that (CHILD)'s (father/mother) should help
support (him/her)?
Yes
No
153. Would you call it an agreement or an understanding?
Agreement
Understanding
154. Payments that are made for the support of a child are called
child support, even if there is no legal agreement.
Did this agreement ever say that (CHILD)'s (father/mother) should
make child support payments?
Yes
No
156. Which of your other children were ever covered by the same
agreement?
SCREEN SHOWS ROSTER OF CHILDREN, ENTER LINE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN
for None, No More, Parent temporarily absent
SECTION 2--HISTORY OF MOST RECENT AGREEMENT
249. I am going to ask you questions about (NAME ALL COVER
CHILDREN).
251. An agreement about child support can be made legal by going
through a court, before a judge, or through an official legal process.
Was this agreement about child support payments for (NAME ALL
COVERED CHILDREN) ever made legal?
Yes GO TO 258
No
253. In what year did you first (have this agreement/have this
understanding)?
19 ________
255. And in what year was (the children's) (father/mother) supposed
to begin making child support payments?
19 ________
257. What month was that? ________
258. Some parents agree to the amount of child support before
making the agreement legal.
Did you and the (children's) (father/mother) do this?
Yes
No
259. In what year was the (agreement) first made legal?
19 ________
261. And in what year was the children's (father/mother) supposed
to begin making child support payments?
19 ________
263. What month was that? ________
266. Since the (agreement) was first made legal, has there been a
change in the amount of child support that (the children's) (father/
mother) is legally required to pay?
Yes.............................. 1
No............................... 2 GO TO 271
Yes, but don't know if it is 3
legal.
267. Did the amount change because a child was too old to receive
support?
Yes
No
268. In what year was (the children's) (father/mother) supposed to
begin paying the new amount?
PROBE IF NEEDED: For the most recent legal change.
19 ________
270. What month was that? ________
271. Have you and (the children's) (father/mother) ever agreed to
change the amount of child support that (he/she) is supposed to pay
(without going through a judge or legal process)?
Yes
No GO TO 300
273. In what year was (the children's) (father/mother) supposed to
begin paying the new amount?
PROBE IF NEEDED: The last time this happened.
19 ________
275. What month was that? ________
SECTION 3A--SUPPORT AGREEMENT AND BEHAVIOR PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR
300. The next questions ask about the (agreement about) child
support for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN). The questions ask about what
was supposed to happen, even if the (agreement) was not followed
exactly.
Between January 1 and December 31, 1992, was (the children's)
(father/mother) supposed to make any child support payments for (any
of them)?
Yes.............................. 1 GO TO 302
No............................... 2
Yes, if he has a job............. 3 GO TO 302
DK because Child Support
Enforcement Office filed the
paper work...................... 4
301. Why was that?
Child(ren) too old in 1992....... 1 GO TO 340
Other parent died before 1992.... 2 END INTERVIEW
Family lived together in all or 3 GO TO 375
part of 1992.
Child(ren) lived with other 4 GO TO 375
parent in all or part of 1992.
Other (Specify) ________......... 5 GO TO 375
302. During 1992, were any of the child support payments supposed
to be deducted from (his/her) paycheck?
Yes
No
303. And during 1992, were any of these payments supposed to be
sent to you (READ ALL CATEGORIES):
PROBE IF NEEDED: For most of 1992.
By a child support, welfare or other public agency............. 1
By a court..................................................... 2
or did the payments come directly from (him/her) (or (his/her)
place of employment)?......................................... 3
Other (Specify) ________....................................... 4
306. The following questions ask about the child support (the
children's) (father/mother) was supposed to pay, whether or not you
received it. During 1992, how often was (he/she) supposed to make these
payments?
PROBE IF NEEDED: Would that be every week, every month, or some
other way?
Every week 1GO TO 312
Every other week 2GO TO 312
Twice a month 3GO TO 312
Every month or Monthly 4GO TO 312
Every quarter 5GO TO 312
For the year 6GO TO 312
Other (Specify) ________ 7GO TO 314
312. Sometimes child support that was not paid in previous years is
added to the amount of support owed today. This is called back support.
Did the amount that (the children's) (father/mother) was supposed to
pay in 1992 include back support?
Yes
No
313. (How) much was (the weekly) payment for (NAME ALL COVERED
CHILDREN) supposed to be, during 1992?
ENTER AMOUNT $________.00
OTHER (Specify) ________
314. Sometimes child support that was not paid in previous years is
added to the amount of support owed today. This is called back support.
Did the amount that (the children's) (father/mother) was supposed to
pay in 1992 include back support?
Yes
No
315. About how much altogether was (he/she) supposed to pay for
(NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN) during 1992?
ENTER AMOUNT $________ .00
OTHER (Specify) ________ GO TO 326
316. The following questions ask about the child support (CHILD/the
children's) (father/mother) was supposed to pay, whether or not you
received it. (Before the change was made in 1992, how often was (he/
she) supposed to make these payments?
PROBE IF NEEDED: Would that be every week, every month, or some
other way?
Every week 1
Every other week 2
Twice a month 3
Every month or monthly 4
Every quarter 5
For the year 6
None 7
Other (Specify) ________ 8GO TO 319
317. Sometimes child support that was not paid in previous years is
added to the amount of support owed today. This is called back support.
Did the amount that (the children's) (father/mother) was supposed to
pay (before the change was made in 1992 include back support?
Yes
No
318. (Before was made, how much was (the weekly) payment for (NAME
ALL COVERED CHILDREN) supposed to be?
ENTER AMOUNT $________.00 GO TO 321 or 325b
AMOUNT VARIED GO TO 320
OTHER (Specify) ________ GO TO 320
319. Sometimes child support that was not paid in previous years is
added to the amount of support owed today. This is called back support.
Did the amount that (the childrens's) (father/mother) was supposed to
pay (before the change from in 1992 include back support?
Yes
No
320. About how much altogether was (he/she) supposed to pay for
(NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN) before the change was made in 1992?
ENTER AMOUNT $________.00
OTHER (Specify) ________
321. Next, (after the change was made in through December) 1992,
how often was (the children's) (father/mother) supposed to make these
payments?
PROBE IF NEEDED: Would that be every week, every month, or some
other way?
Every week 1
Every other week 2
Twice a month 3
Every month or monthly 4
Every quarter 5
For the year 6
None 7GO TO 326
Other (Specify) ________ 8GO TO 324
322. Did the amount that (he/she) was supposed to pay (after the
change was made in 1992 include back support?
Yes
No
323. (After the change was made), how much was (the weekly) payment
for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN) supposed to be)?
ENTER AMOUNT $________.00
OTHER (Specify) ________ GO TO 326
324. Did the amount that (the children's) (father/mother) was
supposed to pay (after the change was made in 1992 include back
support?
Yes
No
325. About how much altogether was (he/she) supposed to pay for
(NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN) (after the change was made in) 1992?
ENTER AMOUNT $________.00
OTHER (Specify) ________
325b. Altogether, you were supposed to receive (X$ from output
variable) during 1992. Is that correct?
Yes
No
325c. (About) how much altogether was (he/she) supposed to pay for
(NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN) during 1992?
ENTER AMOUNT $________.00
OTHER (Specify) ________
326. Someone receiving A.F.D.C. may get up to $50 of child support
each month in addition to A.F.D.C.. This money is sometimes called a
bonus or a pass through. This child support bonus may come with an
A.F.D.C. check or in a separate check.
Between January 1 and December 31, 1992, was any child support
passed on to you by A.F.D.C. for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN)?
Yes 1
No 2
No, I was not on A.F.D.C. in 1992 3
Other (Specify) ________ 4
327. (The next questions ask about the amount of child support you
received during 1992. Please include any child support forwarded to you
by a court, or a child support enforcement agency, and any payments
made directly to you. Between) January 1 and December 31, 1992, did you
actually receive any child support payments--even one--for (NAME ALL
COVERED CHILDREN)?
Yes.............................. 1 IF 326=1, GO TO 333, ELSE GO TO
340
No............................... 2 IF 326=1, GO TO 333, ELSE GO TO
340
Other (Specify) ________......... 3 IF 326=1, GO TO 333, ELSE GO TO
340
328. In 1992, did you receive every single one of the child support
payments you were supposed to receive for (the children)?
Yes
No
329. Of the child support payments you received in 1992, how many
of them were received on time. Would you say all of them were on time,
most of them, some of them or none of them?
All.............................. 1
Most............................. 2
Some............................. 3
None............................. 4
330. And of the child support payments you received, how many of
them were for the full amount you were supposed to receive? Would you
say all of them, most of them, some of them, or none of them?
All.............................. 1
Most............................. 2
Some............................. 3
None............................. 4
331. So you received ($ from 313) (every week) for (NAME ALL
COVERED CHILDREN) in 1992. Is this correct?
Yes GO TO 340
No
332. How much child support did you actually receive altogether in
1992 for (the children)?
ENTER AMOUNT $________ ALL SKIP TO 340
333. The next questions ask about the amount of child support you
received between January 1 and December 31, 1993. (Please include any
back support and any child support passed through the welfare agency in
addition to you regular A.F.D.C. payment.)
How much child support did you actually receive altogether in 1992
for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN)?
ENTER AMOUNT $________
334. So you received (Total amount from 333) dollars altogether in
1992. Is this correct?
Yes SKIP TO 340
No
335. What is the correct amount of child support you actually
received in 1992?
ENTER AMOUNT $________
340. The next questions are about health insurance.
Does the child support (agreement) say who is supposed to provide
health insurance for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN)?
Yes
No SKIP TO 342
341. According to the (agreement), who was supposed to provide
health insurance for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN)?
Respondent for all children.................................... 1
Other parent for all children.................................. 2
Both parents for all children.................................. 3
Parents each cover different children.......................... 4
Not specified in the award..................................... 5
DK--because the Child Support Enforcement Office filed the
paper work.................................................... 6
Other ________
342. During 1992, did (the children's) father/mother) actually have
health insurance that covered (the children)--through an HMO, a regular
insurance policy, or some other plan?
PROBE: FOR MOST OF 1992
Yes GO TO 400
No GO TO 400
343. Someone receiving A.F.D.C. may get up to $50 for child support
each month in addition to A.F.D.C.. This money is sometimes called a
bonus or a pass through. This child support bonus may come with an
A.F.D.C. check or in a separate check.
Between January 1 and December 31, 1992, was any child support
passed on to you by A.F.D.C. for (CHILD)?
Yes............................................................ 1
No............................................................. 2
No, Not on A.F.D.C............................................. 3
Other (Specify) ________....................................... 4
344. (The next questions ask about the amount of child support you
received during 1992. Please include any child support forwarded to you
by a court, or a child support enforcement agency, and any payments
made directly to you. Between) January 1 and December 31, 1992, did you
actually receive any child support payments--even one--for (CHILD)?
Yes.............................. 1
No............................... 2 IF 341=1 GO TO 345, ELSE GO TO
355
Other (Specify) ________......... 3 GO TO 355
345. How much child support did you actually receive altogether in
1992 for (CHILD)?
ENTER AMOUNT $________
346. So you received ($ from 345) dollars altogether in 1992. Is
this correct?
Yes 1 SKIP TO 355
No 2
347. What is the correct amount of child support you actually
received in 1992?
ENTER AMOUNT $________
348. The next question is about health insurance.
During 1992, did (CHILD)'s (father/mother) actually have health
insurance that covered (CHILD)--through an HMO, a regular insurance
policy, or some other plan?
PROBE: FOR MOST OF 1992?
Yes GO TO 376
No GO TO 376
SECTION 3B--REASON FOR NO LEGAL AGREEMENT
376. YOUNGEST CHILD ON ROSTER IS REFERENCE CHILD.
Is there a legal agreement about child support for (CHILD) pending
now?
Yes 1GO TO 400
No 2
DK Because Child Enforcement
Office or A.F.D.C. Office may
have filed papers 3
377. Here are some reasons a parent might not have a legal
arrangement about child support. Please tell me which of these reasons
describe why you do not have a legal arrangement about child support
for (CHILD).
PROBE: Was that a reason you did not have a legal arrangement
about child support?
YES NO DK REF
A. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because (IF AGE CHILD > 17) (CHILD) was too
old for child support.
B. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because (CHILD) stays with (his/her)
(father/mother) part of the time.
C. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because (CHILD)'S (father/mother) provides
what (he/she) can.
D. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because you did not feel the need to get
legal, that is go to court.
E. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because you did not want (CHILD) or
yourself to have contact with (CHILD)'s
(father/mother).
F. Did you not have a child support order
because you did not want (Child)'s (father/
mother) to pay child support.
G. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because (CHILD)'s (father/mother) could not
afford to pay child support.
H. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because (IF R=FEMALE) you did not have a
legal ruling about who the father was, that
is you did not legally establish paternity.
I. Did you not have a child support order 1 2 3 4
because you could not locate (CHILD)'s
(father/mother)..
378. Why did you not have a legal agreement about child support for
(CHILD)?
FIELD CODE OTHERS
Other parent in jail/prison 1GO TO 400
Other parent died before 1992 2END INTERVIEW
Other parent lives in another 3GO TO 400
country
Split custody 4GO TO 400
Respondent able to support the 5GO TO 400
child
Recently separated 6GO TO 400
Other (Specify)________ 7GO TO 400
379. Other than the reasons you have already told me about, was
there any other reason you did not have a legal agreement or court
order about child support for (CHILD)?
Yes
No GO TO 400
380. What was that?
FIELD CODE OTHERS
Other parent in jail/prison 1GO TO 400
Other parent died before 1992 2END INTERVIEW
Other parent lives in another 3GO TO 400
country
Split custody 4GO TO 400
Respondent able to support the 5GO TO 400
child
Recently separated 6GO TO 400
Other (Specify)________ 7GO TO 400
SECTION 4--HELP GETTING SUPPORT
400. Have you ever contacted a child support enforcement or 4D
office, a department of social services, a welfare office, or any state
or local government agency about anything to do with child support?
Yes GO TO 402
No
401. Have you ever been contacted by one of these agencies about
anything to do with child support?
Yes
No IF 400-1 GO TO 402, ELSE GO TO 406
402. Which of the following things did you have contact about:
YES NO DK REF
A. Were you in contact about finding the 1 2 3 4
other parent.
B. Were you in contact about (IF R=FEMALE) 1 2 3 4
getting a legal ruling about who the father
is, that is establishing paternity.
C. Were you in contact about getting a legal 1 2 3 4
agreement or court award for the other
parent to pay child support.
D. Were you in contact about collecting 1 2 3 4
child support that the other parent owed.
E. Were you in contact about changing the 1 2 3 4
amount of child support the other parent
was legally required to pay.
F. Were you in contact about getting an 1 2 3 4
agreement for the other parent to provide
health insurance.
G. Were you in contact about getting 1 2 3 4
A.F.D.C. or Medicaid.
405. In what year did you last have contact with one of these
agencies? 19________
406. Next, thinking about the government programs that help
families with children, between January 1 and December 31, 1992:
YES NO DK REF
A. Did you have Medicaid or any other state 1 2 3 4
provided health insurance coverage at any
time?.
B. Did you receive any food stamps?......... 1 2 3 4
C. Did you receive any A.F.D.C. or A.D.C. 1 2 3 4
payments?.
SECTION 5--AGREEMENT ABOUT CUSTODY AND VISITATION
501. The next questions are about the relationship between (CHILD)
and (his/her) (father/mother).
Does (CHILD)'s (father/mother) have visitation privileges?
Yes
No GO TO 503
502. Did you ever go to court, before a judge, or through a legal
process to make the visitation privileges legal?
Yes
No
503. Sometimes children live with each parent for part of the time.
This is called joint physical custody.
Did a court or judge ever give you and (CHILD)'s (father/mother)
joint physical custody?
Yes
No
504. Joint legal custody of a child means that both parents have
the right to help make decisions about the child
Did a court or judge ever give you and (CHILD)'s (father/mother)
joint legal custody?
Yes
No
SECTION 6--PARENT-CHILD CONTACT
601. Did you and (CHILD)'s (father/mother) live in the same state
during 1992?
PROBE IF NEEDED: As far as you know, did you live in the same state
during most of 1992?
Yes GO TO 603
No
602. In what state did (CHILD)'s (father/mother) live during 1992?
PROBE IF NEEDED: Where did (he/she) live during most of 1992?
ENTER NAME OF STATE ______
Outside of the United States
603. Did either you or (CHILD) have any kind of contact at all with
(CHILD)'s (father/mother) during 1992?
Yes
No GO TO 700
604. Did (CHILD) spend time with (his/her) (father/mother) on at
least one day in 1992?
Yes
No SKIP TO 611
605. Including birthdays, holidays and vacation days, between
January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1992, on how many days altogether did
(CHILD) spend time with (his/her) (father/mother)?
PROBE IF NEEDED: ON HOW MANY DAYS EACH WEEKEND WAS THAT, WOULD THAT
BE FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY?
______
611. (Other than the child support you told me about, between)
January 1 and December 31, 1992 did (the children's) (father/mother) do
any of the following for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN):
YES NO DK REF
A. Give any birthday, holiday or other gifts 1 2 3 4
to (CHILD/the children.
B. Provide clothes (IF REFERENCE CHILD OR 1 2 3 4
ANY CHILD W/ AGREE = 1 has AGE <4,
diapers,) or shoes for (NAME ALL COVERED
CHILDREN).
C. Provide food or groceries REFERENCE CHILD 1 2 3 4
OR ANY CHILD W/ AGREE = 1 has AGE < 2 or
formula) for (NAME ALL COVERED CHILDREN.
D. Pay for child care or summer camp........ 1 2 3 4
E. Pay for medical expenses, such as 1 2 3 4
medicine or visits to the doctor or
dentist, other than health insurance.
SECTION 7--BACKGROUND QUESTIONS
700. CHECK ITEM: Current martial status?
Never Married.................... 1 END INTERVIEW
Currently Married................ 2 GO TO 701
Divorced......................... 3 GO TO 702
Separated........................ 4 GO TO 703
Widowed.......................... 5 GO TO 704
701. Last, I have a couple of background questions. Have you been
married before or is your current marriage your first marriage?
Married before................... 1 GO TO 705
First marriage................... 2 GO TO 720
Other ______..................... 3 END INTERVIEW
702. Last, I have a couple of background questions. Have you been
married more than once?
Yes GO TO 705
No GO TO 705
703. Last, I have a couple background questions. In what year did
your separation take place?
19 ______ GO TO 706
704. Last, I have a couple of background questions. Have you ever
been divorced?
Yes, divorced.................... 1GO TO 705
No............................... 3END INTERVIEW
705. In what year did your (most recent) (divorce) take place?
19______
706. What was the year of that marriage
19______
707. At the time you separated, were you working?
Yes GO TO 708
No GO TO 709
708. Were you working 35 hours or more per week or less than 35
hours per week?
35 hours or more................. 1 GO TO 710
Less than 35 hours............... 2 GO TO 710
709. Did you work at any time during the five years before your
last separation?
Yes GO TO 710
No GO TO 701
710. CHECK ITEM:
Total Number of kids in household:
One.............................. 1 GO TO 711
Other............................ 2 GO TO 710
711. Is (CHILD) from (the marriage before this one)?
Yes.............................. 1 END INTERVIEW
No............................... 2 END INTERVIEW
712. Which of your children living here are from (the marriage
before this one)?
None END INTERVIEW
All END INTERVIEW
Annual Number of Respondents: 56,000.
Annual Frequency: 1.
Average Burden Hours per Response: .0241.
Burden Hours: 1,350.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Larry Guerrero,
Deputy Director, Office of Information Systems Management.
[FR Doc. 93-31968 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-30302 Housing Preservation Grants
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-30302]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farmers Home Administration
Housing Preservation Grants
AGENCY: Farmers Home Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) announces that it is
soliciting competitive applications under its Housing Preservation
Grant (HPG) program. This action is taken to comply with Agency
regulations found in 7 CFR part 1944, Subpart N, which requires the
Agency to announce the opening and closing dates for receipt of
preapplications for HPG funds from eligible applicants. The intended
effect of this Notice is to provide public agencies, private nonprofit
organizations, and other eligible entities notice of these dates. The
HPG program will be available to provide repair and rehabilitation
assistance to owner(s) of single or multi-unit rental properties and
cooperative housing projects, as well as homeowners. This is the first
time the HPG program will be available to provide repair and
rehabilitation assistance to owners of rental properties. Also, the
selection criteria has been changed from the previous year.
DATES: FmHA hereby announces that it will begin receiving
preapplications on January 3, 1994. The closing date for acceptance by
FmHA of preapplications is on April 4, 1994. This period will be the
only time during the current fiscal year that FmHA accepts
preapplications. Preapplications must be received by or postmarked on
or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit preapplications to FmHA field offices; applications
must contact their FmHA State Office for this information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sue M. Harris, Senior Loan Officer, Multi-family Housing Processing
Division, FmHA, USDA, room 5337, South Agriculture Building,
Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 720-1606 (This is not a toll free
number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 7 CFR part 1944, Subpart N provides details
on what information must be contained in the preapplication package.
Entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the FmHA State
Office to receive further information and copies of the application
package. Eligible entities for these competitively awarded grants
include State and local governments, nonprofit corporations, Federally
recognized Indian Tribes, and consortia of eligible entities.
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
assistance under No. 10.443, Housing Preservation Grants. This program
is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR
part 3015, subpart V; 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983). Applicants are also
referred to 7 CFR part 1944, Sections 1944.674 and 1944.676 (d) and (e)
for specific guidance on these requirements relative to the HPG
program.
The funding instrument for the HPG program will be a grant
agreement. The term of the grant can vary from 1 to 2 years, depending
on available funds and demand. No maximum or minimum grant levels have
been set, although based on fiscal year (FY) 1991 and FY 92 experience,
the Agency anticipates that the average grant will be between $100,000
and $150,000 for 1 year proposal. For FY 94, $23,000,000 is available
and has been distributed under a formula allocation to States pursuant
to 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L, ``Methodology and Formulas for
Allocation of Loan and Grant Funds.''
Decisions on funding will be based on the preapplications, and
notices of action on the preapplications should be made no earlier than
66 days prior to the closing date.
Dated: November 30, 1993.
Sharron S. Longino,
Acting Administrator, Farmers Home Administration.
[FR Doc. 93-30302 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-07-M
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.