1934, w highlightsdomestiq special mail services and other nonpostal services: temporary increase...

VoL41-No.71 12 1976,-12-76 MONDAY,APRILPAGES15321-15394

*1934,*

W highlightsMANDATORY PETROLEUM PRICE REGULA-'0 ~ TIONSFEA Issues refiner price regulations pertaining to recoup-

ment of Increased costs; effective 2-1-76.......... 15330

DAIRY PRODUCTSUSDA/CCC issues Increase in price support level formilk manufacturing; effective 4-1-76..... 15322

PUBLIC ASSISTANCEHEW/SRS issues regulations on nonexpendable personalproperty; effective 7-12-76 or earlier at state option.-. - 15329

MARINE SANITATION DEVICESDOT/CG issues design and construction requirementsend certification procedures; effective 4-12-76.___ 15324MEETINGS-

Commerce/NBS: Federal Information ProcessingStandards Coordinating and Advisory Committee,6-3-76 15356

National Fire Prevention and Control Administration:National Fire Safety and Research Office, 5-18-76- 15357

CFTC: Definition and Regulation of Market Instru-ments Advisory Committee, 4-27 and 4-28-76..- 15362

DOT/CG: Chemical Transportation Industry AdvisoryCommittee, 4-28 and 4-29-76....... _ 15360

EPA. Science Advisory Board, Environmental Measure-ments Advisory Committee 4-29 arid 4-30-76.- 15363

HEV/OE* National and State Advisory Councils onVocational Education, 5-4 through 5-7-76-... 15357

Justice/LEAA* Criminal Justice Standards and GoalsNationaL Advisory Committee, 5-1 through 5-5-76(2 documents) - 15352, 15353

NSF: Alan T. Waterman Award Committee, 4-25-76- 15380-USDA/AMS: Shippers Advisory Committee, 4-27 and

5-6-76 ........... 15355

reminders(The items in this list were editorially compiled as an aid to FEDERAL REGITER users. Inclusion or exclusion from this list has no legal

significance. Since this list Is intended as a reminde, it does not include effective dates that occur within 14 days of publication.)

Rules Going Into Effect Today

NoTE: There were no items eligible forinclusion in the list of RuLES GOING INTOEFFECT TODAY.

IList of Public LawsNOTE: No public bills which have become

law were received by the Office of the FederalRegister for inclusion in today's LIsT orPUBLIC LAVS.

AGENCY PUBLICATION ON ASSIGNED DAYS OF THE WEEKTen agencies have agreed to a six-month trial period based on the assignment of two days a week beginning

February 9 and ending August 6 (See 41 FR 5453). The participating agencies and the days assigned are as follows:

Monday Tuesday

NRC USDA/ASCS

DOT/COAST GUARD USDA/APHIS

DOT/NHTSA USDA/FNS

DOT/FAA USDA/REA

CsC

LABOR

Thursday - Friday

NRC USDA/ASCS

DOT/COAST GUARD USDA/APHIS

DOT/NHTSA USDA/FNS

DOT/FAA USDA/REA

cSC

LABOR

Documents normally scheduled on a day that will be a Federal holiday will be published the next work day fol-lowing the holiday.

Comments on this trial program are invited and will be received through May 7, 1976. Comments shouldbe submitted to the Director of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services

.Administration, Washington, D.C. 20408.

ATTENTION: Questions, corrections, or requests for information regarding the contents of this issue only maybe made by dialing 202-523-5286. for information on obtaining extra copies, please call 202-523-5240.To obtain advance information from recorded highlights of selected documents to appear in the next issue,dial 202-523-5022.

Published daily, Monday through Friday (no publication on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official Federalholidays), by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General ServicesAdministration, Washington, D.C. 20408, under the Federal Register Act (49 Stat. 600, as amended; 44 U.S.C.,Oh. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (1 OFR Oh. I). Distributionis made only by the *Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices Issuedby Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Executive orders and Federal agency documents havinggeneral applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by Act of Congress and other Federal agencydocuments of public interest. Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day beforethey are published, unless earlier filing is requested by the issuing agency.

The'FEDEAL REGIsTER will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, for $5.00 per month or $50 per year, payablein advance. The charge for Individual copies Is 75 cents for each issue, or 75 cents for each group of pages as actually bound,Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents,.U.S. Government Printing Oerace, Washington,D.C. i0402.

There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the FEDERAL RGIS E.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO..71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

#A U)

V

o0o.

mo'21

-contentsADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF

THE UNITED STATES

RulesPrivacy Act of 1974; Implementa--don "15321

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Proposed RulesAlmonds; proposed marketing

agreement ------------------ 15341

NoticesMeetings:

Shippers Advisory Committee-_ 15355

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

See also Agriculblra1 MarketingService; Commodity CreditCorporation; Forest Service;Soil Conservation Service.

Rules-Authority delegations:

Director, Agricultural Econom-ics, et aL .---------------- 15321

Notices-eat import limitations; .secondquarterly estimates. - - - 15355

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW

COMMISSION

NoticesHearings (2 documents) -------- 15361

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

Notices-Hearings, etc.:

Alaska Airlines, Inc ---------- 15361Eastern Air Lines, Inc. and

Piedmont Aviation, Inc --- 15362Eugene Horbach and Gac Corp- 15362Foremost International, Tours,

Inc. and Qantas AirwaysLtd 15362

Transworld Airlines, Inc..... 15362

COAST GUARD

RulesDrawbridge operations:

Illinois; correction ----------- 15324Mlarine sanitation devices; certifi-

cation procedures and designand construction require-ments ---------------- --- 15324

Proposed RulesTowing vessels; stability criteria. 15349

Notices

Meetings:Chemical Transportation Indus-

try Advisory Committee .... 15360

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

See Economic Development Ad-ministration; National Bureauof Statistics; -National FirePrevention and Control Ad-mini tration; National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Admin-istration.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION

RulesLoans and purchase programs:

Milk; price support- .......--.Wool; 1975 payment and deduc-

tion rates --------

15322

15323

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADINGCOMMISSION

NoticesMeetings:

Advisory Committee on Defini-tion and Regulation of Mar-ket Instruments ----... . 15362

COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

NoticesInsured banks; joint call for re-

port of condition along withFederal Deposit Insurance Cor-poration and Federal ReserveSystem; cross reference ------ 15362

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

NoticesApplications, etc.; controlled sub-

stances:Halpern, B. David; correction. 15352Regis Chemical Co ......... ------- 15352Sandoz Pharmaceuticals ------ 15352

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTADMINISTRATION

NoticesImport determination petitions:

Bridgewater Shoe Corp ------- 15356

EDUCATION OFFICE

Notices

Meetings:Vocational Education National

Advisory Council and StateAdvisory Councils ..........- 15357

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RulesAir quality Implementation plans;

various States, etc.:California . . . . 15326NewJersey. -............ 15328

Pesticide chemicals in or on rawagricultural commodities; tol-erances and exemptions, etc.:

Captafol- 15329

Proposed RulesAir quality implementation jilans;

various Sintes, etc.:Arkansas ------------------ 15350

NoticesAir pollution; ambient air moni-

toring reference and equivalentmethods (2 documents) -------- 15363

Meetings:Environmental Measurement

Advisory Committee ........- 15363Temporary tolerance, establish- "

ment:Certain residues and metabolites

containing 2,4-dimetbylani-line ---------------------- 15363

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONRulesAirworthiness directives:Sikorsky -15340

Proposed RulesAirworthiness directives:

British Aircraft Corp- 15349Control zones ........... 15350Transition areas. 15349Visual approach slope indicator;

eligibility --------------- 15350NoticesMeetings:

Radio Technical Commissionfor Aeronautics, cancellation. 15360

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCECORPORATION

NoticesInsured banks; joint call -for re-

port of condition along withComptroller of the Currencyand 7ederal Reserve System-__ 15363

Insured commercial State banksnot members of the, FederalReserve System; quarterly re-port of income_._...-.. 15364

FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION

RulesPetroleum price regulations, man- -

datory:Refiners; order of recoupment

of increased costs ...... 15330

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSIONNoticesComplaints 2led:

Foss Alaska Line, Inc. v. North-land Marine Lines, Inc-.... 15364

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSIONNoticesNatural Gas SUrvey Executive Ad-

visory Committee; designatingnew members, changes In repre-sentation ---------------- 15364

Hearings, etc.:Amoco Production Co___ 15361Bangor Hydro-Electrie Co__ 15365Detroit Edison Co -------.- 15365Georgia Power Co - 15365Iowa Electric Light and Power

Co 15365Montaup Electric Co_____ 15366National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. 15366Northern Natural Gas Co. (3

documents) ------------- 15366Northern States Power .-Co.

(Minnesota) - 15367Pacific Power & Light Co--__- 15367Tennessee Public Service Com-

mission v. The East Tennessee,Natural Gas Co 15367

Tennessee Public Service Com-mission v. Tennessee NatiralGas -T en___ 15367

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line -Corp ------------------- 15367

Thornbrough, Albert, et al.... 15368

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71---MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

CONTENTS

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATIONNoticesPetitions for exemptions, etc.:

Long Island Railroad Co., et aL 15360

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEMNoticesApplications, etc.:American Affiliates, Inc ------ 15368Elgin Banshares, Inc ------- 15368FAM Financial Inc ---------- 15368National City Corp ----------- 15368National Detroit Corp ------- 15368

Insured banks, joint call for re-port of conditions along withComptroller of the Currency'and Federal Deposit InsuranceCorp; cross reference ------- 15368

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICENoticesEndangered species permits; ap-

plications ---------------- 15353

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATIONRulesAnimal drugs, feeds, and related

products:Pyrantel tartrate ---------- 15323Certain residues and metab-

olites containing 2,4-dimeth-methylariline ------------- 15323

NoticesGRAS status, petitions:

Cooking oils, silica glass as afilter ------------------ 15357

FOREST SERVICE

NoticesEnvironmental statements; avail-

ability, etc.:Allegheny National Forest; off-

road vehicle policy --------.... 15355

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICENoticesRegulatory reports review; pro-

posals, approvals, etc. '(3 docu-ments) ---------.---------- 15369

GEOLOGICAL SURVEYNoticesOffshore operations; safety device

inventory reporting form .-.. 15354

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREDEPARTMENT

See also Education Office; Foodand Drug Administration; So-cial Rehabilitatibn Service.

NoticesOrganization, functions, and au-

thority delegations:Office of Regional Director, Re-

gion IX ---------------- 15358

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT

See also Housing Production andMortgage Credit Office; Inter-state Land Sales RegistrationOffice.

NoticesAuthority delegations:

'Community Planning and De-velopment, Assistant Secre-tary and Deputy (2 docu-ments) ------------ 15359, 15360

Fair Housing and Equal Oppor-tunity Assistant Secretary_- 15359Policy Development and Re-

search, Assistant Secretary_ 15360

HOUSING PRODUCTION AND MORTGAGECREDIT, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRE-TARY

Proposed RulesMutual mortgage insurance and

insured home improvementloans; maximum settlementcharges; withdrawal of pro-posal ------------------- 15348

INTERIOR DEPARTMENTSee also Fish and Wildlife Service;

Geological Survey.NoticesPrivacy Act of 1974; adoption of

routine uses -------------- 15355

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSIONNoticesCar service exemptions, manda-

tory --..... -------- 15390Fourth section applibations for

relief - 15390Hearing assignments----------15389Motor carriers:

Transfer proceedings (2 docu-ments) ----------------- 15389

Temporary authority applica-tions ------------------ 15390

INTERSTATE LAND SALESREGISTRATION OFFICE

NoticesLand developers; investigatory

hearings, orders of suspension,etc.:

Desert Foothills Estates and -

the Foothills Country ClubEstates ---------------- 15359

Desert Vista Trails ---------- 15359

JUSTICE DEPARTMENTSee Drug Enforcement Adminis-

tration; Law Enforcement As-sistance Administration.

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCEADMINISTRATION

NoticesMeetings:

Criminal Justice Standards andGoals, National AdvisoryCommittee (2 documents)--- 15352,

15353

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICENoticesClearance of reports; list of re-

quests ---------------------- 15370

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDSNoticesMeetings:

Federal Information ProcessingStandards Coordinating andAdvisory Committee -------- 15350

Voluntary product standards:Jewelry marking ------------ 15350

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON SUPPLIESAND SHORTAGES

NoticesMeetings:

Advisory Committee on NationalGrowth Policy Processes-.... 15370

NATI6NAL FIRE PREVENTION ANDCONTROL ADMINISTRATION

NoticesMeetings:

National Fire Safety and Re-search Office -------------- 15357

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERICADMINISTRATION

NoticesMarine mammal permit applica-

tions, etc.:Northwest Fisheries Center..-. 15350

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONNoticesMeetings:

-Alan T. Waterman Award Com-mittee -------------------- 15080

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONNoticesApplications, etc.:

Arizona Public Service Co. et al. 15370Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Co., et aL ----------------- 15370Consolidated Edison Co ------- 15380Duke Power Co ------------- 15370Natural Resources Defense

Council ------------------- 15371Public Service Co. of Oklahoma. 15370

POSTAL SERVICENoticesDomestiQ Special Mail Services

and other nonpostal services:Temporary increase in fees---- 15381

RENEGOTIATION BOARDNoticesTransportation by water; common

carriers holding prime con-tracts or subcontracts; exten-sion of time for filing financialstatements ---------------- 15384

SECUR ITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

NoticesHearings, etc.:

Government Employees Insur-ance Co ------------.. . .---- 15384

Ohio Power Co., et al ------- 15384

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

CONTENTS

SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE

Rules

Public assistance programs:Non-expendable personal prop-

erty, capitalization and de-preciation ---------------- 15329

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Notices

Environmental statements onwatershed.projects; availabil-ity, etc..

Ai Brook, N.Y ------------- 15355

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITYNoticesEnvironmental statements; avail-

ability, etc..Wheeler National Wildlife Ref-

uge Lands --------------- 15388TRADE NEGOTIATIONS, OFFICE OF

SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVENoticesUnfair trade practices, petitions:

National Canners As ----- 15385National Soybean Processing

Assa., et aL-15384TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTSee Coast Guard; Federal Avia-

tion Administraton: FederalRailroad Administration.

list of cfr parts affected in this issueThe following numerical guide is a list of the parts of each title of the Code of Federal Regulations affected by documents published In today's

issue. A cumulative list of parts affected, covering the current month to date, follows beginning with the second issue of the month.A Cumulative List of CFR Sections Affected is published separately at the end of each month. The guide lists the parts and sections affected

by documents published since the revision date of each title.

1 CFR

304 ---------------------------- 15321

7 CFR2 ------------------------------ 153221430 ---------- -------------- 1532214'2 ------------------------ 15323PROPOSED RULES:

981 --------------------- 15341

10 CFR212 ------------.------------- 15330

14 CFR39 ----------------------------- 15340PROPOSED RULES:

39 ---------------------- 15349'11 (2 documents) --- 15349, 15350152 --------------------- 15350

21 CFR558 ---------------------------- 15323561 ---------------------------- 15323

24 CFRPROPoSED RULES:

203 --------------------- 15348

33 CFR117 -....1.qO

.153241 r0

40 CFR'52 (2 documents) ----- 15326-15328180 ....------------------- 15329PRoPoSED RULES:

52 ---------------------- 15350

45 CFR205 ------------------------- 15329

46 CFRPROPOSED Rum:

Ch. L .......----------- 15349


CUMULATIVE LIST OF PARTS AFFECTED DURING APRIL

The following numeribal guide is a list of parts of each title of the Code ofFederal Regulations affected by documents published to date during April.

1 CFRChl. 1------------------------ 13895304 ---------------------------- 15321PROPOSED RULES:

435 ----------------------- 14496

3 CFRPROCLAMATIONS:4425 --------------------------- 143634426 --------------------------- 147234427 -------------------------- 14997EXECUTIVE ORDERS:11847 (see EO 11909) ----------- 1416111909 ----------------------- 14161MEMoiANDuAMS:January 2, 1973 (Amended by

Memorandum of March 25,1976) ---------------------- 14163

April 26, 1973 (See Memorandumof March 25, 1976) ------------ 14163

December 13, 1973 (See Memoran-dum of March 25, 1976) -------- 14163

October 29, 1974 (See Memoran-dum of March 25, 1976) -------- 14163

March 25, 1976 --------------- 14163

4 CFRPROPOSED RULES:

415 ------------------------ 14788

5 CFR

213 --------------- 14165, 14601; 14999550 ---------------------------- 141652402 --------------------------- 14725

7 CFR

2 ----------------- ------ -14170, 1532252 ---------------------------- 1501653 -------------------------- 14171663 ------ - .------------------- 14172701 --------------------------- 15022724 --------------------------- 15023729 ---------------------------- 14175730 ------------------- 13928, 14176907-------------- 13928, 14176, 15023908 -------------- 13929, 14859, 15024910 ------------------- 14177, 15025930------------------------- 14177959 ----------------------- 139301430 -------------------------- 143221472 --------------------------- 143231520 ---------------------------- 147271801 ---------------------- 14727,148601822 -------------------- : ------- 139321823 --------------------------- 139301841 --------------------------- 139301872 --------------------------- 139311890 --------------------------- 139301890p -------------------------- 139331890r --------- ....------------- 139331918 --------------------------- 147272024 ----------------- ---------- 13933

7 CFR-ContinuedPROPOSED RULES:

1 ------------------------- 1393829 ------------------------- 14760917 ------------------------ 14375981 ------------------------ 153411011 ----------------------- 141921033 ----------------------- 141921090 ..... ------- ------------ 141921099 --------------------- 147681101 -----.---------------- 141921701 ----------------------- 150261823 ----------------------- 14773

9 CFR

73 -------------------- 14501, 1499976 -------------------------- 1500078 -------------------------- 1450194 -------------------------- 15000445 ------------------------- 14256447 ------------------------- 14256

10 CFR

210 ---------------------------- 13898211-- -------------------- 13898, 13899212 ---------------- 13898, 13899, 15330213 ---------------------------- 14260215 ---------------------------- 13898

PROPOSED RULES:

140 ------------------------ 13955203 ---------------------- 14261205 ------------------------ 14900211 ------------------------- 13955212 ------------------------ 13955213 ----------- 14900, 15033, 15035

12 CFR

265 ---------------------------- 14860

PROPOSED RULES:

225 ------------------------ 14902226 ------------------------ 14194329 ------------------------ 14395505a -- -- 14902701 ---------------------- 14792

14 CFR39 ---------------------------- 13906,

13907, 14365, 14366, 14876-14878,14881-14883, 15340

71 --------- 13907, 13908, 14878, 1488373--------------- ----- 13908, 1436675 -------------------------- 1390993 -------------------.. -------- 1487997 --------------------- 13907, 148.80234 ------------------------- 14367288 -------- ----------------- 14165

PROPOSED RULES:21 ------------------------- 1439225 -------- ----------------- 1439339. 13950, 14894, 14895, 14898, 1534971 ------------------------ 13951,

13952, 14393, 14394, 14896, 14898,15349, 15350

73 ----------------- 14394, 14896

14 CFR-ContinuedPROPOSED RULEs-Continued

75 ------ ------- ----------- 14395.91 -------------- --- 14393,14897121 ----------------- 13952, 14393123 ----------------------- 13052135 ----------------------- 13952139 ----------------------- 13953152 --------------------- 15350202 ----------------------- 14787207 ----------------------- 14103208 ----------------------- 14193212 ----------------------- 14193214 ----------------------- 14193217 ...--------------------- 14193241 ---------------- 14193, 15031249 ----------------------- 14193371 ----------------------- 14193389 ----------------------- 14193

15 CFR377. - L ---- --- --- - ........- 15001

16 CFR13 ----------------------------- 13909,

14367,14501-14506,14728,147291207 ------------------- 13911, 15003

PROPOSED RULES:

443 ------------------------- 14003451 ------------------------- 14534456 ------------------ 14104, 14003,1202 ------------------------ 141121500 ------------------------ 14790

17 CFR275 ------------ ----..-------- 14507

PROPOSED RULES:

240 ------------------------- 14007270 ------------------ 13955, 13956

18 CFR

2 ----------------------------- 15003

PROPOSED RULES:

2 -------------------------- 14531

19 CFR145 ---------------------------- 14730153 ---------------------------- 14731

PROPOSED RULES:

4 -------------------------- 147 019 -------------------------- 14191

20 CFR404 ---------------------------- 13911620 ---------------------------- 15004

PROPOSED RULES:410 ------------------ ------- 13940

21 CFR1 ------------------------- ---- 141702 ---------------------- 14179, 14500


21- CFR-Continued"31 -------------------------- 14180121 --------------- 14180, 14181, 14508123 ---------------------------- 14731430 ----------------- ----------- 14183431 -------------------- ------- 14183436 ---------------------------- 14183444 :------------------------- 14186450 -------------- ----- 14184510 ---------------- 14187, 14367; 14732520 14187-522 ---------------------------- 14188524 ------------------------------. 14188540------------- --------------- 14189558 ---------------- 14367, 14732, 15323561 ---------------------- 14731, 15323640--- --- - ---- 143671308 -------------------------- 14189

PROPOSED RULES:

1 ------------ --- 14382, 147692 -------------------------- 1476931 ------------------------- 14193121 ------------------------ 15029128e ----------------------- 14526310 - ---- 14888, 15026430 ------------------------ 14384436 .. - ---- 14384440 ------- ----------------- 14384700 ------------------------ 150261301----------------------- 14b851303 ------- - - ...-------- 143981304 ----------------------- 143981308-_-----------------------..148851q11 1A00

CONTENTS

26 CFR-ConUnued

PROPOSED RULES:I ---------------------.. --- -

41 ------- -------. . . . ---- ---48

142 4 2-

40 CFR-Continued

14513 414-------14368 PROPOSED RULES:

14522,147601476014760

27 CFR

PROPOSED RULES:

4 -------------------------- 14522

29 CFR

1908 --------------------------- 150041952 --------------------- 14166, 15005

PROPOSED RULES:94 ------------------------ 1518295 ---------------- -------- 1518296 ------------------------ 1518298 ------------------------- 15182403 ----------- --- 150321952 --------------- 145411956 ----------------------- 14542

30 CFR

11 --------- -------------------- 13919

PROPOSED RULES:

70 ------------------------- 1393975 ------------------------- 14102

~,,

22 CFR16. 13912 1250 --------------------------- 13920

1285 --------------------------- 13921 45 CFR

24 CFRRC(FR

16 ----------------------------- 13917203 ---------------------------- 14509 117------------205 ---------------------------- 14861 159 -------------207 ---------------------------- 14861 208 -------------213 ---------------------- 14509,14861 PROPOSED RULES:221 ...... 7 14861232 ---------------------------- 14861 166.234 ---------------------------- 14509242---- ------------------ 14861 36 CFR24.4 --------------------------- 14861 7--------------275 ---------------------------- 14367888 ---------------------------- 14662 PROPOSED RULES:1914--------- - .----------------- 14756 7 -----------1915---- ----------------------- 14750 so ----------1916 --------------------------- 14368 221 ---------1917 --------- 14509-14513,14862 902 ---------1920 --------------------- 14757, 147582205 ------- ----------- z - .----- 14758 38 CFR

PROPOSED RULEs: 1--------------

203 ----------------------- 15348 3 --------------1917 -------------------- -- 19341- 36 -------------

19350, 14774-14787, 14890-14894,- PROPOSED RULES:15030

----- 13922, 15324--------------- 15324

............... 15005

12QqR

52 ------- --- 13954, 15350180 ---.-.-.---- 14526, 14527,14899423 1-------------------14792

41 CFR14H-1 ----- 13922

- -----14517101 ------ 14732101-11 -------- 14515, 14516101-25 ------------------------- 14865101-26 ------------------------- 14517101-32 14517

PROPOSED RULES-

101-35 14196

43 CFR

4 ----------------- 150091780 -------------------------- 147342650 ---------...........----- 147344700 ----- -.-- - -.............. 15009

P mIc LmD Ozwzzs:

5579 ----------------------- 143705580 -----...- .....-------- 143705581 ...... ----------------- --- 14518

PROPOSED RULES:

123 --------- -------------- 149863103 ................-......-143753130 ---------------- 14375

73 ----------------------------- 14740205 ------------- ------------- 15329228 .141661060 - ------ 143701068 --- .--------- 143711069 --- ---- 15009

PROPOSED RULES:------ 14391 196----. ------------------ - 14384

------.... 14863,15008

---------- ----- 1394014525

-.---- ------ 14526----------- ----14536

------------ 1

lAflfl'?- -1------------------------4

25CFR-25 CFR 36 ---------------------- 1419843h ------------------------- 15004252 ------------------------- 13937- 39 CFRPROPOSED RULES: PROPOSED RULES:

252 --------------------- 13938 3001 ----------------------- 14903

26 CFR 40 CFR1 --------------------- 13918, 14368 52 --------------------- 15326-1532810 ----------------------------- 14862 180 --------------- 13935, 14514, 15329

46 CFR78 --------------------------- - -13923

PROPOSED RULES:

Ch.I T----------------------1534935-------- 1438658- --- 1438678 ------------ 1438697-- -14386111------- 14386112 --- -- ---- 14386164-- 14389196 ----------- --- 14386536 ----------- -14792

47 CFR

0 ------------------------------ 148651 ------------------------ 14750,148657 1475068- 1487573 ---------------------------- 14518

PROPOSED RULES:

15 .................-......- 1419373 -- 14899, 1503195 ----------------- -------- 14527


FEDERAL REGISTER

49 CFR

1 ------------------------------ 14519,172 15013173 ------- ----- 15013567 ------------------------- 13923570 -- ---- 13923571 ------------------------- 14875575 --------------.... .----- 13923604 ------------- ---- 14122605 -----------------.... ---- 14127840 ------------------------- 139251003 ------------------------ 13926

49 CFR---Continued1033 ------ 13926,

14168 14371 14372, 14520, 14875,15014,15015

1249 --------------------------- 141685OCFR

1 ---- 1392618 ........ 1437233 ----------- 14373,14521,14875,1487681 ----------.---------------- 15016PROPOSED RULES:

17 ------------------------ 1488618 -------- 15166216 ---------------------- 15173

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES--APRIL

Pages Date

13895-14160 ---------------- Apr. 114161-14362 ----- - 214363-14499 ------------------ 514501-14721 ---------- ------ 614723-14857 -------------------- 714859-14996 -14997-15319.-- -------- 915321-15394 ------------------- 12


I52

rules and regulatiofsTfhils section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect most of which are

keyed to and codified In the Code of Federal Regulations, which Is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations Is sold by, the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of nr books are listed In the first FEDERALREGISTER Issue of each month.

Ttle I--General Provisions

CHAPTER Ill-ADMINISTRATIVE CONFER-ENCE OF THE UNITED-STATES

PART 304-PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OFDOCUMENTS AND RECORDS

Privacy Act ImplementationOn 11arch 3, 1976. a document was

published In the-FDERAL REGISTER (41FR 9188) proposing amendments to

- Subpart B-Privacy Act Implementa-tion, §§20420-304.25. These amend-ments were occasioned by the commentsand suggestions offered by the Presiden-tial Ad Hoc-Interagency Task Force onPrivacy Act Implementation review ofthe Conference rules and were intendedto implement further the provisions ofthe Act. -

Interested persons were given until. April 2, 1976.'to submit written com-

ments, suggestions, or objections 'con-,cernlng the proposed revisions. Nocomments having been received, the reg-ulations are adopted without change andare set forth below in the completed text,incorporating the adopted amendments.

Subpart B-Privacy Act Implementation

See.804.20 Purpose and scope.304.21 - Deflnitlons.30 Procedures for requests pertaintig

to individual records In a systemof records.

304M3 -equest for amendment or correctionof a record.

30421 Disclosure of. a reoord to a personother than the individual to -whom

Sit pertains.304.25 Schedule of fees.,

Aunoro : 5 U.S.C. 552, 552s, 571-576.

- Subpart B--Privacy Act Implementation

§ 304,.20 Purpose andtscope.The purpose of this subpart is the im-

-plementation of the Privacy Act of 1974,5 U.S.C. 552a, by establishingprocedureswhereby an individual can determine ifa system of records maintained by theAdministrative Conference contains arecord pertaining to himself, and pro-cedures for providing access to such arecordfor the purpose of review, amend-ment, or correction. Requests for assist-ance in interpreting or complying withthese regulations should be addressed tothe Executive Secretary, AdministrativeConference of the United States, 2120 LStreet, NW., Suite 500, Washington, D.C.20037.

304.21 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the terms "in-dividual,' "maintain," "record," "sys-tem of records," and "routine use" shallhave the meaning specified n 5 U.S.C.552a(a).

.§ 304.22 Procedures for requests per.mining to individual records in asystem of records.

(a) An Individual can determine if aparticular system of records maintainedby the Administrative Conference con-tains a record peitalning to himself bysubmitting a written request for such In-formation to the Executive Secretary.The Executive Secretary shall respond toa written request under this subpartwithin, a reasonable time by stating thata record on the Individual. either is oris not contained in the system.

(b) If an individual seeks access to arecord pertaining to himself In a systemof records, he shall submit a written re-quest to the Executive Secretary. TheExecutive Secretary or his designee shall,within ten working days after Its recelpt,acknowledge the request and If possibledecide If it should be granted. In anyevent, a decision shall be reachedpromptly and notification thereof pro-vided to the individual seeking access.If the request is denied, the Individualshall be informed of the reasons thereforand his right to seek Judicial review.

(c) In cases where an individual hasbeen granted access to his records, theExecutive Secretary may, prior to releas-ing such records, require the submissionof a signed notarized statement verify-ing the Identity of the individuafto as-sure that such records are disclosed tothe proper person. No vertiflcation ofidentity will be required when such rec-ords are available under the Freedom ofInformation Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, asamended.

§304.23 Request for amendment orcorrection of a record.

(a) An individual may file a requestwith the Executive Secretary for amend-ment or correction of a record pertain-ing 'to himself in a system of records.Such written request shall state the na-ture of the information in the record theindividual believes to be inaccurate orincomplete, the amendment or correc-tion desired and the reasons therefor.The' individual should supply whateverinformation or documentation he can insupport of his request for amendment orcorrection of a record.

(b) The Executive Secretary or hisdesignee shall, within ten working daysafter Its receipt, acknowledge a requestfor amendment or correction of a record.A decision shall be reached promptlyand notification thereof provided to theindividual seeking to amend or correct arecord. The Executive Secretary may re-quest such additional Information or

documentation as he may deem neces-sary to arrive at a decision upon the re-quest. If the request is granted, the rec-ord as amended shall be called to the at-tention of all prior recipients of the indi-vidual's record.(c) If the request is denied, the indi-

vidual shall be informed of the reasonstherefor and his right to appeal the de-nial In writing to the Chairman of theConference. The Chairman shall render -a decision on an appeal within thirtyworking days following the date on whichthe appeal Is received. The individualshall be notified promptly of the Chair-man's decision and, if the appeal is de-nied, the reasons therefor and the In-dividual'rg right to seek judicial -reviewand his right to file a concise statementof disagreement, which statement shallbe noted in the records to which It per-tains and supplied to all prior and subse-

.quent recipients of the disputed record.If an appeal is granted, the record asamended shall be called to the attentionof all prior recipients of the individual'srecord.(d) Requests for amendment or cor-

rection of a record must be accompaniedby a signed notarized statement verify-ing the Identity of the requesting party.§ 30 .14 Disclosure of a record to a per-

son other than the individual towhom it pertains.

Except in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552a(b), or as required by the Freedomof Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, asamended, or other applicable statute, theConference shall not disclose a record toany individual other than the individualto whom the record pertains without thewritten consent of such individual. Anaccounting of the date, nature, and pur-pose of each disclosure of a record as wellas the name and address of the person oragency to whom the disclosure was madewill be maintained. This accounting willbe made available' to the individual towhom. the record pertains upon the sub-mission of a written, notarized request tothe Executive Secretary.

§ 304.25 Schedule of fee-.Copies of records supplled to any indi-

vidual at his request shall be provided for$.20 per copy per Page. Copying fees ofless than $2 per request are waived.

Effectfve date. These regulations be-came effective April 6, 1976.

RicHAn .B G,'Executive Secretary.

AP UIL 6, 1976.MR Doo.T6-10478 Piled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71.--4,iONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 7-AgricultureSUBTITLE A-OFFICE OF THESECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

PART 2-DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITYBY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTUREAND GENERAL OFFICERS OF THE DE-PARTMENT

Research Relating to Marketing andConsumption of Agricultural Products~

Part 2, Subtitle A of Title 7, Code ofFederal Regulations is amended to revisethe delegations of authority to the Di-rector of Agricultural Economics, theAdministrator, Economic Research Serv-ice, and the Administrator, StatisticalReporting Service relating to researchwith respect to marketing and consump-tion of agricultural products, as follows:Subpart C-Delegations of Authority to

the Under Secretary, Assistant Secre-taries and Director of Agricultural Eco.nomics1. Section 2.27 is amended by adding

a new paragraph (b) (13), and by re-voking and reserving paragraph (c) (3)as follows:§ 2.27 Delegations of authority to the

Director of Agricultural Economics.* * * S. *

(b) Related to economic research.

(13) Conduct research *ith respect tothe influence of sensory perceptions,awareness, attitudes, opinions, -behaviorand other related factual data of house-holds, industrial, and institutional con-sumers upon the marketing and con-sumption of agricultural products.

(c) Related to statistical reporting.* * * * *

(3) [Reserved].

Subpart K-Delegations of Authority bythe Director of Agricultural Economics2. Section 2.86 Is amended by adding

a new paragraph (a) (13) to read as fol-lows:§ 2.86 Administrator, Economic Re-

search Service.(a) * * *(13) Conduct research with respect to

the influence of sensory perceptions,awareness, attitudes, opinions, behaviorand other related factual data of house-holds, industrial, and'institutional con-sumers upon the marketing and con-sumption of agricultural products.

3. Section 2.87 is amended by revokingand reserving paragraph (a) (3) as fol-lows:§ 2.87 Administrator, Statistical Report.

ing Service.

(a) * * *

(3) [Reserved].* * * * *

Effective Date: These amendmentsshall become effective April 12, 1976.

Dated: April 2, 1976.

For Subpart C:EAitL L. BuTz,

Secretary of Agriculture.Dated: April 2, 1976.For Subpart K:

DoN PAARLBERG,Director of Agricultural Economics.[FR Doc.76-10425 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

CHAPTER XIV-COMMODITY - CREDITCORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-CULTURE

PART 1430-DAIRY PRODUCTSSubpart-Price Support Program for Milk

INCREASE IN PRICESThe United States Department of Ag-

ricultire has announced an increase, ef-fective April 1, 1976, in the price supportlevel for manufacturing milk for themarketing year which ends March 31,1977, through purchases by CommodityCredit Corporation (CCC) of dairy prod-ucts under the price support program asprovided herein. Accordingly, § 1430.282is revised to read as follows:§ 1430.282 Price support program for

milk.(a) (1) The general levels of prices to

producers for milk will be supportedfrom April 1, 1976, through March 31,1977, at $8.13 per hundredweight formanufacturing milk.

(2) Price support for milk will bethrough purchases by CCC of butter,nonfat dry milk, and Cheddar cheese, of-fered subject to the terms and conditionsof purchase announcements issued by theAgricultural Stabilization and Conserva-tion Service, United States Departmentof Agriculture.

(3) Commodity Credit Corporation,may, by special announcements, offer topurchase -other dairy products to sup-port the price of milk.

(4) Purchase announcements settingforth terms and conditions of purchasemay be obtained upon request from:United States Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-tion Service, Commodity Operations Divi-sion, Washington, D.C. 20250.

orUnited States Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-tion Set-vlce, Prairie Village ASCS Com-modity Offlce, P.O. Box 8377, ShawneeMission, Kansas 66208.

(b) (1) CCC will consider offers ofbutter, Cheddar cheese, and nonfat drymilk in bulk containers meeting specifi-cations in the announcements at the fol-lowing prices:

[Cents per pounll

Produced ProducedCommodity and location before on or after

Apr. 1, 1970 Apr 1, 1970

Cheddar cheese, U.S. gradeA or higher (standard.moisture basis, 37.8 to39.0 pot) I ................ 83. 00 00.90

Nonfat dry milk, sprayprocems, U.S. extragrade .................. 02. 10 02. 40

Butter, U.S. grade A orhigher, Now York N.Y.,and Jersey City, Ndewrk,and Secaucus, NJ 8125 87.75

I For cheo which 11 offered on a "dry" bwis (lessthan 37.8 pot moisture) the price per pound shall be asIndicated In form ASCS-150. Coples are available Inoffices listed In (a) (4).

If upon Inspection bags do not fully comply ltnspecifications, the price pald will be subject to a discountof 0.50 cent (1% cent) per pound of nonfat dry milk.

(2) Offers to sell butter at any loca-tion for which a price is not specificallyprovided for in this section will be con-sidered at the price set forth in this sec-tion for New York City, less 80 percentof the lowest published domestic rail-road carlot freight rate per pound grossweight for a 60,000 pound carlot, ineffect at the beginning of the 1970-77marketing year (April 1, 1976), fromsuch other point to New York City. Theminimium price at any location shall bethe price at New York City minus threecents per pound. 1n the area consistingof Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti-cut, New York, New Jersey Pennsyl-vania, Delaware, Maryland, and Vir-ginia, CCC will purchase only bulk but-ter produced in that area; butter pro-duced in other areas is ineligible foroffering to CCC in these States.(c) The butter shall be U.S. Grade Aor higher. The nonfat dry milk shall beU.S. Extra Grade, except moisture con-tent shall not exceed 3.5 percent'TheCheddar cheese shall be U.S. Grade Aor higher.

(d) The products shall be manufac-tured in the United States from milkproduced in the United States and shallnot have been previously owned by CCC.(e) Purchases will be made in carlot

weights specified in the announcements,Grades and weights shall be evidencedby inspection certificates Issued by theU.S. Department of Agriculture.(Secs. 201, 401, 63 Stat. 1052, 1054, anamended; sec. 4(d). 62 Stat. 1070, asamended; 7 U.S.C. 1446, 1421, 15 U.S.C. 714b(d))

Signed at Washington, D.C,, on:April 5, 1976.

KENNETH E. FRIcIC,Executive Vice President

Commodity Credit Corporation,[FR Doc.76-10426 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15322

[Amendment 2]

PART 1472--WOOLPayment and Deduction Rates for1975MarketingYear

The regulations issued by CommodityCredit Corporation containing the re-quirements with respect to the paymentprogram for shorn wool and unshornlambs (pulled wool) for the 1974, 1975,1976, and 1977 marketing years (39 FR9446) are amended to include the pay-ment and deduction rates applicable toshorn wool and unshorn lambs sold dur-ing-the 1975 marketing year as follov.q:. 1. Section 1472.1405 is amended byadding the following new paragraph (d):§ 1472.1405 Price support payments.

(d) 1975 marketing year. The nationalaverage price received by pr6ducers forshorn wool marketed during the 1975marketing year was 44.7 cents a pound,grease basis, which was 27.3 cents apound below the price support level of72 cents for that year. Therefore, the rateof payment for the 1975 marketing yearis 61.1 percent.:2. Section 1472.1421 is amended by

adding the follo.wingnewparagraph (d):§ 1472.1421 Price support payments.

(d) 1975 marketing year. The rate ofpayment on unshorn lambs sold duringthe 1975 marketing year is 109 cents perhundredweight of live lambs based ona difference of 27.3 cents a pound be-tween the price-support level of 72 centsand the national average price of 44.7cents a pound received by producers forshorn wool during the 1975 marketingyear (§ 1472.1405(d)).

3. Section 1472.1446 is dmended byadding the following new paragraph (c):§ 1472.1446 -Deductions for promotion.

(c) For the 1975 marketing year, a de-duction will be made from each shornwool payment at the rate of 1.5 centsa pound of wool, grease basis, and from-each unshorn lamb payment at the rateof 7.5 cents per hundredweight of livelambs. Those funds will be used to f-nance the advertising and sales promo-tion program approved by the Depart-ment of Agriculture pursuant to section708 of the National Wool Act of 1965, asamended.(Sec. 4, 62 Stat. 1070, as amended; sec. 5, 62Stat. 1072, as amended; secs. 702-708, 68 Stat.910-912,. as amended; 15 US.C. 714b, 714c;7 U.S.C. 1781-1787, as amended.)

Bffective date. This amendment shallbecome effective-April 5,1976.

The payment rates announced by thisamendment are in accordance with theformulas published March 11, 1974, in§§ 1472-1405(b) (39 FR-9447) and 1472.-1421(b) (39 FR 9450). The- deductionrates are specified in the agreement be-tween the American Sheep ProducersCounc%'Inc., and the Secretary of Agrl-


culture approved by producers in a refer-endum held November 4 through 15,1974.Since there is no latitude for varyingrates, a delay In the effective date of thisamendment would only delay paymentsto producers who completed marketingsof shorn wool and unshorn lambs during1975. It Is, therefore, found that conapll-ance with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public participation proce-dure is unnecessary and impracticable.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on April 5,1976.

Nxnx E. Fazcx,Administrator, Agricultural Sta-

bilization and ConservationService.

IFR Doc.76-10427 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

Title 21-Food and DrugsCHAPTER I-FOOD AND DRUG ADMINIS-

TRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

SUBCHAPTER E-ANIMAL DRUGS. FEEDS, ANDRELATED PRODUCTS

PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FORUSE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

Pyrantel Tartrate

The Commissioner of Food and Drugshas evaluated arsupplemental new ani-mal drug application (43-290V) filed byPfizer, Inc., New York, NY 10017 pro-posing the safe and effective use of a17.6 percent pyrantel tartrate premix asan anthelminti In the treatment ofswine. The supplemental application isapproved, effective April 12, 1976.

The Commissioner is amending § 558.-485 (formerly §135e.64 prior to recodifl-cation published in the FEDERAL REGISTERof March 27, 1975 (40 FR 13989)) toreflect this approval.

In accordance with § 514.11(e) (2) (iD(21 CFR 514.11(e) (2) (U)) of the animal.drug regulations, a summary of thesafety and effectiveness data and infor-mation submitted to support the ap-proval of this application is released pub-licly. The summary is available for publicexamination at the office of the HearingClerk, Rm. 4-65, 5600 Fishers Lane,Rockvlle, MD 20852, Monday throughFriday from 9 aam. to 4 pan., except onFederal legal holidays.

Therefore, pursuant to provisions ofthe Federal Food, Drug and CosmeticAct (sec. 512(1), 82 Stat. 347; 21 U.S.C.360b(D)) and under authority delegatedto the Commissioner (21 CFR 2.120),§ 558.485 is amended by revising para-graph (a) to read as follows:§ 558.485 Pyrantel tarlrate.

(a) Approvals. (1) Premix levels of10.6 and 17.6 percent (48 and 80 gramsper pound) granted to No. 000069 in 21CFR 510.600(c). (2) Premix level of 10.6percent (48 grams per pound) granted toNo. 017800 in 21 CFR 510.600(c).

Effective date. This order shall be ef-fective April 12,1976.

15323

(Secc. 512(1), 82 Stat. 347.3247; 21 U.S.C. 360 b))Dated: April 5,1976.

C. D. VAzr Ho'-WIMG,Director,

Bureau-of Veterinary Medicine.

[FR Doc7-10412 Pled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

:FjT. 521-4: PAPM113/TI2IPART 561-TOLERANCES FOR PESTI-

CIDES IN ANIMAL FEEDS ADMINIS-TERED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRO-TECTION AGENCY

N'.(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-N-(2,4-dimethyl-phenyl)imlno]methyi]-N - methylmethan-imidamideOn January 20, 1976, the Environ-

mental Protection Agency (EPA) an-nounced (41 FR 2859) that the UpjohnCo., Kalamazoo MI 49001, had filed afood additive petition (PAP 6H5113)which proposes that 21 CFR 561.195 beamended to permit the experimental useof the insecticide N'-(2,1-dimetbyl-phenyl) - N - [(2,4 - dimethylphenyDiminojmethyll-N - methylmethanimida-mide on growing applies with a toleranceof 10 parts per million (ppm) for resi-dues of the insecticide and its meta-bolites containing the 2,4-dimethyl-aniline moiety (calculated as the parentcompound) In dried apple pomace, inaccordance with two experimental usepermits that are being issued concur-rently under the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and RodenticldeAct (FIFEA). -No comments were received with regardto this notice of filing.

The scientific data provided in the pe-tition and other relevant material havebeen evaluated. It has been determined,that residues of the insecticide may re-sult In apple pomace from the uses asprovided for by the experimental usepermits issued under FIFA, abd It hasbeen further determined thatthe amend-ment to 21 CFR 561.195 requested by thepetitioner will protect the public healthand should be established as set forthbelow.

Any person adversely affected by thisregulation may. on or Iefore May 4-2,1976, file written objections with theHearing Clerk, Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Rm. 1019, East Tower, 401M St. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Suchobjections should be Submitted in quin-tuplicate and should specify both the pro-visions of the regulation deemed to beobjectionable and the grounds for theobjections. If a hearing L requested, theobjections must state the issues for thehearlng A hearing will be granted if theobjections are supported by groundslegally sullcient to Justify the reliefsought.

Effective April 12, 1976, § 561.195 isamended as follows.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-ONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

,15324

(See. 409(c) (1) and (4) of the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346(c)(1) and (4)))

Dated: April 6, 1976.EDWIN L. JoHNSON,

Deputy Assistant Administrator''for Pesticide Programs..

Section 561.195 Is amended by desig-nating the existing paragraph as para-graph (a) and by adding the new para-graph (b) containing a tolerance forresidues of the insecticide and its metab-olites containing the 2,4-dimethyl-aniline moiety in dried apple pomace at10 ppm to read as follows:

* * a* * *

§ 561.195 -N'-(2,4 - dimethylphenyl) - N-'E [ (2,4 - dimethylphenyl) i m i n o Imethyl]-N-methylmethanimidamide.

(a) * ** * * * *

(b) (1) A tolerance of 10 parts permillion is established for residues of theinsecticider N'-(2,4-dimethylphenyl) -N-[ (2,4 - dimethylphenyl) iminolmethyll-N-methylmethanmidamide and itsmetabolites containing the 2,4-dimethyl-aniline moiety (calculated as the parentcompound) in dried apple pomace result-ing from application of the pesticide to-growing apples. Such residues may bepresent therein only as a result of appli-cation of the insecticide in accordancewith the provisions of two experimentaluse permits which expire April 5, 1977.

(2) Residues in dried apple pomace notIn excess of 10 parts per million resultingfrom use as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section remaining after ex-piration of the experimental use pro-gram will not be considered actionable Ifthe insecticide is legally applied duringthe term of and in accordance with theprovisions of the experimental use per-mits and feed additive tolerance.

(3) Upjohn Co. shall immediatelynotify the Environmental ProtectionAgency of any findings from the experi-mental use that have a bearing on safety.The firm shall also keep records of pro-duction, distribution, and performanceand on request make the records avail-able to any authorizedofficer or employee6f the Environmental Protection Agencyor the Food and Drug Administration.

* * * * *

[FR Doc.76-10402 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

Title 33-Navigation and Navigable WatersCHAPTER I-COAST GUARD,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION[COGD 75-060]

PART 117--:-DRAWBRIDGE OPERATIONREGULATIONS

Illinois River, Illinois; CorrectionIn 41 FR 11289 dated March 18, 1976,

reference was made to the use of channel16 In the preamble to this regulation.The words, "on channel 16" on line 19 ofparagraph 1 shall be deleted. The words,"Channel 16" on line 23 of paragraph 1


shall be deleted and the word, "Radio-telephones" inserted in its stead. "

R. I. PRIcE,Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,

Chief, Office of Marine En-vironment and Systems.

4rPRam 6, 1976.[FR Doc.76-10450 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[CGD 75-213]

PART 159-MARINE SANITATIONDEVICES

Certification Procedures and Design andConstruction Requirements

EBRnUARY 2, 1976.These amendments reflect the changes

made to the Marine Sanitation DeviceStandard (40 CFR Part 140) by the En-vironmental Protection Agency, (here-after EPA). The Coast Guard is replac-ing the original EPA standards of per-formance in the Coast Guard MarineSanitation Device Regulations with thenew EPA standards of performance.(hereater standards).

Under the Federal Water PollutionControl Act as amended, 33 USC 1322, theEPA promulgated its original standardsfor marine sanitation devices (37 FR12392). The Coast Guard then promul-gated marine sanitation device regula-tions (40 FR 4622), based on the originalEPA standards, establishing certificationprocedures, design and construction re-quirements, and operating requirements.

The Coast Guard Marine SanitationDevice Regulations implement the EPA

Standards and therefore use the EPAStandards. These amendments incorpo-rate the new EPA standards (NPRM 40FR 47972, Final Rule 41 FR 4452) Intothe Coast Guard Marine Sanitation De-vice Regulations.

The preamble to the U.S. Coast GuardMarine Sanitation Device Regulations(40 FR 4622) contained a table that sotout the vessel operator requirements un-der the original EPA Standards. This ta-ble has helped vessel owners, operators,and manufacturers to comply with theregulations. Accordingly, a similar tableis included here that describes the vesseloperator requirements tnder the newEPA standards.

Nom: The new EPA standards state thatin freshwater lakes, -freshwater reservoirsor other freshwater Impoundments whoseinlets or outlets are such as to prevent theingress or egress by vessel traffic subject tothis regulation, or In rivera not capable ofnavigation by interstate vessel traffic subjectto this regulation, marine sanitation devicescertified by the U.S. Coast Guard Installed onall vessels shall be designed and operated toprevent the overboard discharge of sewage,treated or untreated, or of any waste do-rived from sewage. The EPA standards fur-ther state that this shall not be construedto prohibit the carriage of Coast Guard-certi-fled flow-through treatment devices whichhave been secured so as to prevent such dis-charges. They also state that waters whorea Coast Guard-certified marine sanitationdevice permitting discharge Is allowed In-clude coastal waters and estuaries, the GreatLakes and interconnected waterways, fresh-water lakes and Impoundments accessiblethrough locks, ant other flowing waters thatare navigable interstate by vessels subject tothis regulation (40 CFR 140.3).

Vessel type Mlust be equipped with a- Unless equipped with-

Existing-a vessel whose construe- Coast Guard certified Typo 3 11 or On or before San. 30, 1978, with anytionwaslniated Ibefore lan. 30, Type 111 MBD after San. 30, 1980. US0(G certified flow-through device,1975. which may be used for lts operable

life. A US0G crtified Typo I deviceInstalled after Jan: 30, 1978, must bereplaced by San. 31, 1980, with aUCOG certified Type I or Typo IIIdevice.

Now-a vessel whose constructionwas initiated I on or after San. 30,1975.

Coast Guard certified Type a I, TypeU, or Type M MOD on and afterTan. 30,1977.

Coast GuardcertifiedTypeH orTypo A Coast Guard certified Type I M8DIII MSD dfIterlan. 30, 1980. Installed on or before Jan. 30, 1S0,

which may be used for the operablolife of the device.

ormany years the Coast Guard has considered the Initiation of construction to be laying of a keel or similarsinge of constrUction.3Typo references:"Type I marine sanitation device" means a device that, under the test conditions described In 11159123 and 1509.12

produces an effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria cotqnt not greater than 1,000 per 100 mllllter and no viiblofloating solids. This Includes all flow-through devices certified under § 159.12 or § 150.10 before promulgation of thisamendment.

"Type II marine sanitation device" means a device that, under the test conditions described In 1 91.20 and159.126a produces an effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100 milliters and sus-pended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per liter."Type It marine sanitation device" means a device that is designed to prevent the overboard discharge of treatedor untreated sewage orany waste derived from sewage.

The following paragraphs describe themajor changes to the U.S. Coast GuardMarine Sanitation Device Regulations(33 CFR, Part 159) implemented by thisamendment.

Sections 159.5 and 159.7 have been re-written to be consistent with the newEPA standards. A note has been includedin § 159.7 to advise the vessel operator of.the existence of certain EPA designatedno-discharge zones.

The new EPA standards allow Installa-tion of flow-through devices aboard nowvessels; therefore, the waiver to allowsuch installations is no longer necessary.Accordingly, § 159.13, Waiver for NewVessels Manufactured before January 30,1976, is deleted.

Section 159.53 is amended by addingthe higher flow-through performancestandard In the new EPA standard andby using the Type I, II and 3TT nomencla-ture.



Sections 159.55 and 159.57 are amendedto require that the manufacturer specifythe type of device as Type I, I, or IlLSection 159.57 now requires that themanufacturer include a Aiote advising theequipment-purchaser-of the existence ofcertain EPA specified no-dischargewaters under 40 CFR 140.3(a) (1). Thisnote is to assist the consumer in pur-chasing a device in compliance with thenew EPA standards.

Section 159.97 is amended to state thatit is the Commandant of the Coast Guardand not the recognized facility that de-termines compliance with the U.S. CoastGuard Marine Engineering Regulations

- (Subchapter F) and U.S. Coast GuardElectrical Engineering Regulations (Sub-chapter V), for devices to be installedaboard inspected vessels.

Sections 159.123, 159.125 and 159.127are amended to require that test proce-dures be as specified in 40 CFR, Part 136,"Guidelines Establishing Test Proceduresfor the Analysis of Pollutants," to beconsistent with the new EPA standards.

A new § 159.126, "Coliform Test: TypeII devices" provides for evaluation forType It devices against the EPA colifornistandards in 40 CFR 140.3(d). Similarly,a new §159.126(a), "Suspended SolidsTest: -Type II devices," provides forevaluation of Type 32 devices against the

-PA suspended solids standard in 40 CFR140.3 (d).

These amendments are promulgatedwithout notice of proposed rulemaking.These amendments reflect EPA Stand-'ards with which, under the FederalWater Pollution Control Act, CoastGuard regulations must be consistent. Inpromulgating its new standards the EPApublished a notice of proposed rulemak-ng and solicited comments before issuing

Its final rule. It Is unnecessary for theCoast Guard to publish a notice of pro-posed rulemaking since the relevant Is-sues have been considered by the EPAand the Coast Guard is required by law.to use EPA Standards in its regulations.

Good cause is found to make theseamendments effective in less than 30days. These amendments provide fortesting and evaluation of devices underthe new EPA standards. To make theseamendments dffective immediately fa-cilitates installation'of certified devicesaboard vessels.SIn consideration of the foregoing, Part159 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regula-tions is amended as follows:

1. By amending § 159.3 by revisingparagraphs (c), (g); and (o) and addingnew paragraphs (p), (q), (r), and (s) asfollows:

§ 159.3 Defi itions.

(c) "Exlsting'vessel" includes any ves-sel, the construction of which was initi-ated before January 30, 1975.

* S S S

(g) 'New vessel" includes any vessel,the construction of which is Initiated onor after January 30,1975.

(0) "Vessel" includes every descriptionof watercraft or other artificial con-

trivance used, or capable of being used,as a means of transportation on thewaters- of the United States.

(p) "Fecal coliform.bacterlap are thoseorganisms assocla&ed with the Intestineof -warm-blooded animals that are com-monly used to indicate the presence of

- fecal material and the potential presenceof organisms capable of causing humandisease.

(q) "Type I marine sanitation device"means a device that, under the test con-ditions described In § 159.123 and 159.-125, produces an effluent having a fecalcoliform bacteria count not greater than1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visiblefloating solids.

(r) "Type 1r marine sanitation device"means a device that, under the test con-ditions described In H§ 159.126 and 159.-126a, produces an eflluent having a fecal

-coliform bacteria count not greater than200 per 100 milliliters and suspendedsolids not greater than 150 milligramsper liter.

(s) "Type Tr marine spitation de-vice" means a device that Is designed toprevent the overboard discharge oftreated or untreated sewage or any wastederivedfrom sewage.

- 2. By revising § 159.5 to read as fol-lows:

§ 159.5 Requirements for vessel nmanu-facturers.

(a) On and after January 30, 1977, nomanufacturer may manufacture for sale,offer for sale, or distribute for sale orresale any new vessel equipped with n-stalled toilet facilities unless It Isequipped with an operable Type I, Ir, orIT device that has a label placed on Itunder § 159.16, or that Is certified under§ 159.12.

(b) After January 30, 1980, no manu-facturer may manufacture for sale, oroffer for-sale, or distribute for sale orresale any new vessel equipped with In-stalled toilet facilities unless it isequipped with-

(1) An operable Tylie I1 or Tr devicethat has a label placed onit under § 159.-16 or that is certified under § 159.12; or

(2) An operable Type I device Installedon the vessel before January 31, 1980,that has a label placed on It under§ 159.16 or thatis certfledunder § 159.12.

(c) After January 30, 1980, no manu-facturer may sell, offer for sale, or dis-tribute for sale or resale any existingvessel equipped with Installed toilet facil-ities unless It is equipped with-

(l) An operable Type II or TM device'that has a'label placed on it under§ 159.16 or that Is certified under 1 159.-12; or

(2) An operable Type I device Installedon the vessel before January 31, 1978,that has a label placed on it under § 159.:.16 or that Is certified under § 159.12.

3. By revising § 159.7 to read as fol-lows:§ 159.7 Requirements for vessel opera.

tors.(a) On and after January 30, 197, no

person may operate any new vessel

15325

equipped with installed toilet facilities,unless it Is equipped with an operableType I, IE or 3m1 device that has a labelplaced on it under § 159.16, or that iscertified under § 159.12.

(b) After January 30, 1980, no personmay operate any new vessel equipped.with Installed toilet facilities unless it isequipped with-

(1) An operable Type I or 31r devicethat has a label placed on It under§159.16 or othat is certified under§ 159.12; or

(2) An operable Type I device installedon the vessel before January 31, 1980,that has a label placed on It under§ 159.16 or that Is certified under § 159.12;

(c) After January. 30, 1980, no personmay operate any existing vessel equippedwith Installed toilet facilities unless it isequipped with-

(1) An operable Type Ir or TII devicethat has a label placed on it under§ 159.16 or that is certified under5159.12; or

(2) An operable Type I device installedon the vessel before January 31, 1978,that has a label placed on It underJ 159.16 or that is certified under5 159.12.

No=z: The EPA standards state that infreohrwter lakes, freshwater reservoirs orother freshwater impoundments whose inletsor outlets are such as to prevent the ingressor e2ress by vessel traffic subject to this reg-ulation. or In rivers not capable of navigationby Interstato vessel traffic subject to this reg-ulatIon, marine sanitation devices certifiedby tho U.. Coast Guard installed on all Tes-cels shall be designed and operated to pre-vent the overboard discharge of sewage,treated or untreated, or of any waste derivedfrom sewage. The EPA standards furtherstate that this shall not be construed toprohibit the carriage of Coast Guard-cerfiedflow -through treatment devices which havebeen secured so as to prevent such dis-charGs. They also state that waters where aCoast Guard-certifled marine sanitation de-vice permitting discharge Is anowed Includecoa1tal waters and estuaries, the Great Lakesand interconnected waterways, freshwaterlakes and impoundments accessible throughlocks, and other flowing waters that are navl-table interstate by vessels subject to thisregulation (40 CPR 140.3).

4. By amending 1159.12 by revising-paragraph (b) as follows:§ 159.12 Regulations for certification of

exsting devices.

(b) Any Type lT device that was in-stalled on an existing vessel before Janu-ary 30, 1975, is considered certified.

§ 159.J3 [Reserved]5. By deleting 5159.13 in its entirety.6. By amending § 159.14 by revising

paragraph (a) as follows:§ 159.14 Applicationfor certification.

(a) Any manufacturer may apply to.any recognized facility for certificationof a marine sanitation device. The appli-cation for certification must indicatewhether the device will be used aboard allvessels or only aboard uninspected ves-sels and to which standard In § 159.53


RULES AND nEGULATIONS

the manufacturerbe tested.

* *

§ 159.15 [Amend7. By amending

out the section nupla ing it with the

* S

8. By. revisingfollows:§ 159.53 General

A device must:(a) Under the tes

in §§ 159.123 andeffluent having a fcount not greatermilliliters and no(Type ),

(b) Under the tesin §§ 159.126 andeffluent having af4count not greatermilliliters and sugreater than 150(Type fl), or

(c) Be designedboard discharge ofsewage or any wast(Type I).

9. By amendinga new paragraph (a§ 159.55 Identific

(a) * * *(6) Whether the

or Ill.* *

10. By amendinEparagraphs (a) (2)adding new paragr(17) as follows:§ 159.57 Installai

maintenance in(a) * * "(2) Safe operat

the device so thatthe applicable req

requests the device to charges. They also state that waters where aCoast Guard-certified marln'saniltation de-vice permitting discharge Is allowed Includecoastal waters and estuaries, the Great Lakes

led and Interconnected wterways, freshWater159.15 (a) by striking lakes and Impoundments accessible through

mber 159.97 and re-locks, and other flowing waters that arec unber .9.97 an navigable interstate by vessels subject to thissection number 159.95. regulation (40 CPR lO.3)-.

§159.53 to read as § 159.'9 rAmended]11. By amending § 159.89 by revising

the heading by striking the word "dis-requiremehts. charge" and inserting "Type I and I'in its place and stiking out section num-

t conditions described bers 159.123 and 159.125 and replacing159.125, produce an them witti the section number 159.53.

ecal coliform bacteria 12. By revising § 159.97 as follows:than 1,000 per 100 § 159.97 Safety: inspected vessels.

visible floating solidsThe Commandant appikoves the design

st conditions described and construction of devices to be certified159.126a, produce an for installation and operation on boardecal coliform bacteria inSpected vessels on the basis of tests and

than 200 per 100 reports of inspection under the appli-ispended solids not cable marine engineering requirementsmilligrams per liter in Subchapter F of Title 46, Code of Fed-

eral Regulations, and under the appll-to prevent the over- cable electrical engineering requirementstreated or untreated In Subchapter J of Title 46 Code of Fed-derived from sewage eral Regulations.

§ 159.101 [Amended]§ 159.55(a) by adding 13. By amending § 159.101 by striking)(6) as follows: out the section number 159.125 and re-

ation. placing it with the section number159.131.

*14. By amending § 159.123 by revisingdevice is Type I, IL tie heading by striking out the word"discharge" and Inserting "Type r in

• " its place, and by revising paragraph (a)§ 159.57 by revising as follows:

and (b) (12) and byaphs (b) (16) and (b) § 159.123 Coliferm test: Type I de-

vices.(a) The arithmetic mean of the fecal[on, operation and coliform bacteria in 38 of 40 samples ofitructions. effluent discharged from a Type I device

during the test described in § 159.121ion and servicing of must be less than 1000 per 100 millilitersany discharge meets when tested in accordance with 40 CFR,direments of § 159.53. Part 136.

16. By adding new §§ 159.120 and159.126a as follows:§ 159.126 Coliform test: Typo II de-

vices.(a) The arithmetic mean of the fecal

coliform bacteria in 38 of 40 samples ofeffluent from a Type I device during thetest described in § 159.121 must be 200per 100 milliliters or less when tested inaccordance with 40 CPR, Part 136.

(b) The 40 samples must be taken fromthe device as follows: During each of the10 test days, one sample must be takenat the beginning, middle and end of an8-consecutive hour period with one ad-ditional sample taken immediately fol-lowing the peak capacity processingperiod.,§ 1 59.1 2 6 a Suspended Solids Testi'

Typo II devices.During the sewage processing test

(§ 159.121) 40 effluent samples must botaken at the same time as samples atretaken for § 159.126 and they must beanalyzed for total suspended solids inaccordance with 40 CFR, Part 130. Thearithmetic mean of the total suspendedsolids in 38 of 40 of these samples mustbe less than or equal to 150 milligramsper liter.

§ 159.127 [Amended]17. By amending § 159.127 by striking

out the citation 40 CFR 140.5 and re-placing It with the citation 40 CFR,Part 136.(Section 312(b) (1), 80 Stat. 861 (33 U.S..1322(b) (1); 49 OFR 1.45(b) and 1.40(i) and(mn)) .)

Effective date. These amendments areeffective on April 12, 1976.

Dated: April 6, 1976.E. L. Panay,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,Acting'Commantdant.

[F Doc.76-10,151 Filed 4--76,8:45 cm]

(b)(12) The maximum angles of pitch and

roll at which the device operates in ac-cordance with the applicable require-ments of § 159.53.

(16) Whether the device is Type I,,ILor IlL

(17) A statement as follows:NoT: The EPA standards state that .in

freshwater lakes, freshwater reservoirs orother freshwater Impoundments whose inletsor outlets are such as to prevent the Ingressor egress by vessel traffic subject to thisregulation, or in rivers not capable of naviga-tion by Interstate vessel traffic subject to thisregulation, marIn sanitation devices certi-fied by the U.S. Coast Guard Installed on allvessels shall be designed and operated to pre-vent the overboard discharge of sewage,treated or untreated, or of any waste derivedfrom sewage. The EPA standards furtherstate that this shall not be construed to pro-hibit the carriage of Coast Guard-certifiedflow-through treatmeuit devices which havbbeen secured so as to prevent such dis-

* S * * S$

15. By amending § 159.125 by revisingthe heading by striking out the word"'discharge" and inserting "Type I" in itsplace and by revising the text before thenote as follows:§ 159.125 Visllle floating solids: Type

I devices.During the sewage processing test

(§ 159.121) 40 effluent samples of ap-proximately 1 liter each shall be takenfrom a Type I device at the same time assamples taken in § 159.123 and passedexpeditiously through a U.S. Sieve No. 12as specified in ASTM E-11-70. Theweight of the material retained on thescreen after it has been dried to a con-stant weight in an oven at 103 ° C. mustbe divided by the volume of the sampleand expressed as milligrams per liter.This value must be 10 percent or less ofthe total suspended solids as determinedin accordance with 40 CFR, Part 13" ofat least 38 of the 40 samples.

S S S * *

Title 40-Protection of EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGA-TION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS,

Air Pollution Emergency Plan forCalifornia

On December 16, 1975 (40 PR 58319),the Administrator issued a notice settingforth the California Air Pollution Emer-gency Plan (Plan) as proposed rulemak-Ing. The, Administrator Invited publiccomments on whether the Plan shouldbe approved or disapproved as requiredby Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

After re~iew of the comments received,the Administrator has determined thatthe California Plan is consistent with therequirements of section 110(a) (2) (F)

V) and 40 CFR Part 51.16, and is there-fore promulgativ.g approval of the Call-fornia Air Pollution Emergency Plan as


15326


part of the applicable State Implementa-tion Plan (SIP) for California.

Background. National Ambient AirQuality Standard (NAAQS) for oxidants(O,) is repeatedly exceeded in severalareas of California. Levels of photochem-*ical oxidants in the South Coast AirBasin (SCAB) have frequently exceededair episode alert levels during the sum-mer smog season. The Significant HarmLevel (SHL) for oxidants (1200 pg/rn-0.6ppm for one hour average) was ex-ceded twice i n 197.4, but not in 1975.

Historically, the SHLs of oxidantsoccur in limited areas (e.g., measured atonly one monitoring station) and onlylast for several hours on a single day.The higher the concentration, the

- shorter'the duration and the smaller theaffected area. Because photochemicaloxidants -are not emitted directly to theatmosphere but occur as a result of inter-actions between hydrocarbons, oxides ofnitrogen (NO.), and sunlight, and areinfluenced by meteorological parametersand other pollutants, it is difficult to'de-termine the effectiveness of short-termepisode control actions. The State has re-vised its. Air Pollution Emergency Plan:nine times, primarily due to technicalissues and questions on the effectivenessof control strategies for oxidants. Theimplementation process has consequentlybeen delayed.

In addition to oxidants, the NAAQS'sfor carbon monoxide (CO) have beenexceeded in several areas in California.Episode alert levels (but not SHLs) havebeen reached in the SCAB. The NAAQS'sfor sulfur dioxide (SO) have not beenexceeded in California, but impendingfuel switching (from natural gas to fueloil) may result in increased SO, levels.

The NAAQS's for particulate matter(PM) have been exceeded in severalareas of the State. However, .the onlyepisode levels reached have been due touncontrollable fugitive dust blowing inarid regions. The NAAQS for nitrogendioxide (NO) has been exceeded only inthe SCAB, but episode levels have notbeen approached.

The original SIP submitted by theState of California on February 21, 1972did-not contain comprehensive air pollu-tion emergency contingency plans. TheState plan, as submitted, failed to meetthe requirements of 40 CFR 51.16. TheAdministrator, therefore, on May 31,1972 (37 FR 10851), disapproved theemergency plan portion of the Califor-nia SIP (40 CFR 52.231). To correct thisdeficiency, the State of Californiaadopted, on November 13, 1973, an AirPollution Emergency Contingency Plan.This plan set forth requirements andguidelines for development of detailedplans by individual Air Pollution ControlDistricts (APCDs). On February 6, 1974,the State of California submitted itscomprehensive Air Pollution EmergencyContingency Plan and the implementingregulations of the affected APCDs to theAdministrator as Chapter 4 of Revision4 to the California SIP.

After careful. consideration, the Re-gional Administrator, on June 26, 1974(39 FR 23069), proposed h conditional

approval of part of California's compre-hensive Air Pollution Emergency Plan.Because of the conditional approval, theState of California has significantly re-vised their plan. During the past eight-een months, the State has responded tothe technical deficiencies and other con-ditions noted by EPA. A review of theState Plan and Program is available fromEPA, at 100 California Street, San Fran-cisco, CA 94111 or 401 M Street SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460.

EPA and the Air Resources Board(ARB) have been on a compliance sched-ule since August 6, 1975, leading towardFederal approval of an air episode planfor the SCAB of California. The sched-ule is the result of the lawsuit broughtagainst EPA and the AR by CaliforniaLung Association, et al., in the U.S. Dis-trlct..Court for the Central District ofCalifornia, Civil No. CV 75 1044 WPG.The complaint requested the Court toorder EPA to promulgate and enforce anepisode plan for the SCAB until a StatePlan is approved and to order the ARBto revise that portion of the SIP dealingwith air episodes. The State ARB wasdismissed from the lawsuit on January12, 1976, the Court concluding thatneither the Clean Air Act nor State lawprovided a cause of action against a Statefor failure to submit an approvable airepisode plan.

In July of 1975. a new unified Air Pol-lution Control District, the SouthernCalifornia APCD, was formed by Los An-geles, Orange, San Bernardino, andRiverside Counties. This unified districtcan provide effective air episode actionsbecause it removes the possibility of co-ordination difficulties among the coun-ties. The Southern California APCD(SCAPCD) adopted Emergency regula-tions of September 5, 1975 which wereconsistent with the State plan at thattime. Minor changes will be made to theregulation so that It conforms to the newState Plan.

On December 5, 1975, the ExecutiveOfficer' of the California Air ResourcesBoard- (ARB) submitted Californa's AirPollution Emergency Plan as amendedon October 21, 1975 to the Regional Ad-ministrator as a revision to the Cali-fornia SIP.

Discussion. The Plan provides thebasis for taking, action to prevent airpollution concentrations from reachinglevels which could endanger or cause sig-nificant harm to the public health andto abate such concentrations should theyoccur The Plan is primarily applicable'In the areas of California which do notmeet air quality standards and wherethe potential exists for air pollution toreach concentrations at which emer-gency actions are necessary.

The Plan provides for abatement ac-tion and specifies the minimum geo-graphical areas of applicability and pol-lutants (sulfur dioxide, oxidants, carbonmonoxide). If excessive concentrationsof other pollutants occur or are predictedto occur, the Plan provides that similarabatement actions or other actions asappropriate shall be taken by the

affected APCD after consultation withthe ARB.

The Plan provides for three episodestages. Specific levels and abatement ac-tions are given. The stages can be de-clared on either attained or predictedlevels. A "4th Stage" (Air PollutionDisaster) can be declared by the Gov-ernor whenever medical authorities orlocal officials determine that a substan-tial number bf persons are likely to suf-fer incapacitating effects from air poI-lution and analysis of the data indicatesthe condition is likely to continue or re-occur. This stage can be declared-regard-less of the measured concentrations.

The APCDs are responsible for declar-ing episodes, but the ARB can declare anepisode after consultation with theAPCD if the affected APCD fails to de-clare it Immediately, and the ARB deter-mines It is predicted to exist TheAPCDs are required to adopt the neces-sary rules and regulations to implementthe revised Plan. After notice and publichearing, the ARB can enforce the appro-priate provisions of the APCD's regula-tions if the APCD does not take respon-sible action to abate the episode.

The State Plan and local regulationsrequire abatement plans for both sta-tionary and mobile sources. The station-ary source abatement plans are requiredforan industrial business or commercialestablishment emitting 100 tons per yearor more of hydrocarbons or any otherpollutant included in the Plan. Trafficabatement plans are directed toward re-ducing the causes for vehicular trafficbut may include direct controls and mustinclude specific actions to be taken ateach episode stage. The abatement plansare reviewed and approved by the APCDaccording to the criteria established bythe ARB. The individual abatementplans must be submitted within 45 daysand reviewed by the APCD within anadditional 45 days. If disapproved, the in-dividual plan must be revised and re-submitted to the APCD within 30 days.

*The State plan provides the basis forpreventing pollutant concentrations from.reaching levels which could cause signif-icant harm. It provides for a processwhich includes rules and regulations, in-dividual abatement plants, and adminis-trative procedures. The APCDs have theresponsibility for implementing controlactions. Local regulations have beenpreviously adopted and may requireminor changes to be fully consistent withthe new State Plan. Using review criteriaequivalent to that subsequently orderedby the Executive Officer, ARB, as re-quired by the Plan, three-fourths of the2,500 individual abatement plans havebeen approved by the APCDs. The re-maining individual plans are currentlyunder review or revision. The Plan pro-vides that it the required individual planis not submitted within the specified time -limit, the applicant will be considered inviolation of the APCD's regulations.

Review of comments. A total of seven-teen letters were received from localagencies, environmental groups, andFederal agencies. The major issues raised


15327


by the comments in the letters to EPAand EPA's responses, are summarizedbelow:

1. Because episode levels for oxidants occurin Banning, Palm Springs, and Indio, TableI of the elan (showing areas of applicability)is deficient. It -excludes areas outside theSCAB. The communities of Banning, PalmSprings, and Indio are located In the south-east Desert Air Basin. However, these com-munities are covered nevertheless in theevent of an air episode because the regula-tions adopted by the SCAPCD (SouthernCalifornia Air Pollution Control District)apply to all areas within the District..Con-sequently, although not included in the Plan,the areas are covered by declarations andpublic announcements in the event episodelevels occur. Furthermore, these communitiesare receptor areas and receive photochemicaloxidants which are primarily transportedfrom other geographical areas n the SCAB.Hence, by curtailing sources and imple-menting traffic reduction plans within otherareas of the SCAB, episodes n Banning, PalmSprings, and Indio should be alleviated. EPAbelieves it is not necessary that these areasbe Included in the Plan for It to be approvedsince the plan specifies that other areas canbe added by the ARB or APCD having juris-diction.

2. The California State law requiring a24-hour notice and a public hearing beforethe ARB can step in and enforce APCD regu-lations would cause an. unwarranted delayIn an emergency.

The Plan itself provides that the APCDswill have primary responsibility and takeInitial action to prevent episode levels fromoccurring. Although under the State of Cali-fornia ;1ealth and Safety Code, there is arequirement for a 24-hour notice and pub-lic hearing before action may be taken bythe State ARB, this is iot of major concernas the plan is designed to be implementedby the APCDs. Furthermore, EPA has con-Ifidence In the ability and willingness of theAPCDs to act in the event of an episode.If, however, for some reason an APCD wouldnot implement its plan, State law providesseparate authority so that action may beimmediately taken at the State leveL UnderState of California Emergency Services Act,the Governor of California can take appro-priate action at the Air Disaster Stage with-out giving prior notice. The Governor would,of course, be advised by the ARB as well asthe Office of Emergency Services should suchaction be necessary. Moreover the Plan itselfprovides that if an APCD does not act once24-hour notice is given by the ARB, theARB may then assume continuing jurisdic-tion In future episodes without the need forfurther notice. Consequently, when these au-thorities are viewed together, it is EPA's con-clusion that timely and effective action canbe taken to implement the State Plan.

3. ThQ minimum criteria for review of theabatement plans should be part of the Planitself and not an Executive Order.

EPA doesnot require review criteria orabatement plans to be part of the State Plan.The ARB and EPA have overviewed the re-view process of the APCDs and used the samecriteria for reviewing State and FederalAgency abatement plans, respectively. TheARB has concluded that establishing the re-view criteria by Executive Order and refer-encing it in the Plan is gufficient. The StatePlan does specify in part whiat the individ-ual abatement plans shall contain. This isacceptable to EPA since we have no require-ment regarding review criteria.

The review criteria were Issued January 23,1976 and are available as a public docu-ment, ARB Erecutive Order (63. The Order

expands on the Items listed in the State Planand requires sufficient data to allow a-com-prehensive evaluation of the effectiveness ofcontrol measures planned.

4. The Plan does not give a time frame forthe APCDs to adopt the necessary rules andregulations. All APCDs likely to experienceair pollution episodes presently have, emer-gency rules and regulations. With the ap-proval of the State Plan, there will be someneed for revising these regulations to con-form fully to the approved Plan. This proc-ess is presently ongoing, and EPA has noreason to believe that the needed revisionswill not take place within a reasonable periodof time. Th2e most criti6al APCD, the South-ern California Air Pollution Control District,responded to EPA during the comment periodthat: "* * We are drafting revisions toour emergencyTegulations to bring them intoagreement with the ARB Emergency Plan."Mioreover, since the revision of the local regu-lations is a State and local administrativematter directed toward Implementation of

'the Plan, EPA concludes that any timeframe is best left to the discretion of theARB. Finally, and most importantly, EPAnotes that the State Board has sufficient legalauthority under Sections 41500-41507, Part 4,Division 26 of the California Health andSafety Code-, to require APCDs to adopt rulesand regulations, or to adopt them for theAPCDs, if required.

5. The effectiveness of the abatement ac-tlons for Air Pollution Disasters is question-able.

The technical difficultles associated withthe efficacy of predicting abatement actionsin a photochemical oxidant episode arehighly complex. The abatement plans rep-resent the best technical planning and judg-ment of the State and local authorities. EPAand ARB evaluated many possible direct andindirect means of reducing hydrocarbonemissions to prevent air pollution emer-gencies due'to photochemical oxidants. EPAbelieves that the individual abatement planapproach, together with the other controlactions In the State Plan, is the best prac-tical approach currently available. Onlyfuture smog seasons can adequately test theeffectiveness of this approach. An ongoingevaluation of the Plan's effectiveness will bemade by EPA and ARB and If more effectiveabatement actions are found, the Plan canlater be revised.

6. Why are "self help" measures listedonly for oxidants? Appendix A was added tothe Plan because of the extremely high oxi-dant levels In the SCAB. It was never in-tended to imply oxidant pollution is the onlypollutant where self-help is appropriate- orthat health warnings be issued only duringoxidant episodes. The ARn plans to Issueself-help measures for the other pollutantscoveyed by the Plan. Self-help measures forCO 'Were issued on January 22, 1976. Otherself-help measures will be adopted upon therecommendation of the Californiar StateHealth Department's Air Quality AdvisoryCommittee. The Committee Is currentlyevaluating measures for SO,

7. Nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter,and sulfur dioxide combined with par-ticulates are not listed In the Plan.

The Plan Is approved only for the pollu-tants specifically set out in the Plan (o,SO , CO). Historically, in addifion to ox-dents, only particulate matter concentra-tions have ever reached emergency levels InCalifornia, and these levels were due to -un-controllable, fugitive dust bjowing in aridregions. There have not been any recordedoccurrences of sulfur dioxide and nitrogendioxide episodes in California.

Fi'urther, the California Health Depart-.ment's Air Quality- Advisory Committee be-lieves there is Insufficient information cur-

rently to recommend episode criteria for PM,.NO, and SO, combined with PAL However,Committee continuously reviews additionalinformation as it becomes available. In theunlikely event that health-endangering highlevels of these or other pollutants are pro-dicted to occur, the Plan and the CaliforniaEmergency Services Act do provide authorityfor necessary actions (upon the declarationof an Air Pollution Disaster) to prevent theiroccurrence.

8. Federal Agencies expressed concern re-garding the role EPA will play in the individ-ual abatement plan approval process and Ingeneral how statutory requirements of Fed-eral Agencies will be handled.

EPA will continue to serve as liaison be-tween Federal Agencies and the APODs andthe ARB. EPA will review and approve theplans using the same criteria as the APODa.Approved plans will be turned over to the

"Districts for implementation with EPA serv-ing as the focal point for resolving any ques-tions or difficulties.

Conclusion. The Administrator hasweighed all the comments submitted to EPA;evaluated the Plan against the requiremontsof the CAA and 40 CFR 51.10 and conoludeqthat the Plan and the State and local pro-grams underway to implement the Plan willprevent the occurrence of SHIs in California,The Administrator thus hereby approves theCalifornia Air Pollution Emergency Planmaking it a part of the approved SIP forCalifornia.

Since this Plan should have been in oltotin 1972, and EPA has committed to a U.S.District Court to finalize this matter quickly,the Administrator hereby finds good caurofor making this approval effective Immedi-ately.

(See. 110(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended42 U.S.C. 1857c-5(a))

Dated: April 2,1976.

JOHN QUARLES,Acting Administrator.

Part 52 of Chapter I, TItle 40 of theCode of Federal Regulations Is amendedas follows:

Subpart F--California

1. Section 52.220 Is amended by addingparagraph (c) (19) as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of Plan.* * * * *

(C) * * *

(19) The California Air PollutionEmergency Plan as revised October 21,1975 was submitted by the Air ResourcesBoard on December 5, 1975.

2. Section 52.231 Is revoked.

§ 52.231 [Reserved][FR Doc.76-10397 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[IFRL 513-21PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGA.

TION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANSRevision tothe New Jersey Impleoontatlon

Plan

On October 21, 1975 (40 PR 49103)the Administrator of the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency pub-lished his proposed approval of numerousalternative and additional compliancoschedules for stationary sources subJectto the terms of 40 CFR §§ 52.1594,52.1595 and 52.1598, parts of tho NowJersey Transportation Control Plan ap-

FEDERAL REGISTER,,VOL. 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15328


proved on November 13, 1973 (31 FR31388). These regulations deal, respec-tively, with the storageof volatile organicliquids, organic liquid loading and gaso-line transfer vapor control.

Alternative compliance schedules are'those which provide for a final compli-ance date no later than the one set outin the regulation, but embodying differ-ent incremental dates from those in thecategorical compliance schedule cover-

'Ing each regulation. Additional compli-ance schedules, submitted as SIP re-visions, providefor compliance "as ex-peditiously as possible," but later thanthe final comlpliance dates of* the regu-lations.

the Notice of Proposed Rulemakingindicated that these schedules would beavailable for public viewing in Washing-ton, D.C. and New York City. On Decem-ber 11 .(40 FR 57711) a Notice of PublicHearing was published, announcing twohearings, on January 15 and 16, 1976 inCamden, and Newark, New Jersey, re-spectively. No written comments were re-ceived, and no one spoke at the publichearings.

The purpose of this Notice is to ap-prove, the alternative and, additionalcompliance schedules proposed in theOctober 21, 1975 FEDERAL REGISTER. For alisting of the schedules hereby approved,reference is directed to that issue. TheNew Jersey State Implementation Planis revised accordingly.

Dated: April 5,-1976.

JOHN QUARLES,Acting Administrator.

[FR DOc.76-10398 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

'SUBCHAPTER E-PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

iFRL 521-2; PP6F1676/R87]

PART 180-TOLERANCES AND EXEMP-TIONS FROM TOLERANCES FOR PESTI-CIDE CHEMICALS IN OR ON'RAW AGRI-CULTURAL COMMODITIES

Captafot

On larch 12, 1976, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) announced (41FR 10709) that Chevron Chemical Co.,940 Hensley S., Richmond CA 94804, hadfiled a pesticide petition (PP 6P1676).This petition proposes that 40 CFR 180.-267 be amended by the establishment oftolerances for residues of the fungicidecaptafol (cis - N- E(1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-ethyD - thiol) -4-cyclohexene-l,2-dicar-boximide) in or on the raw agriculturalcommodities peanuts (nutmeats afterthe removal of hulls)- at 0.05 part permillion (ppm) andpeanut hulls at 2.0

-ppm. No comments were received withregard to this notice.- The data submitted in the-petition and

.other relevant material have been evalu-ated, -and the fungicide is considered tobe useful for the purpose for which thetolerances are sought. The data indicate'that there is no reasonable expectation ofresidues in eggs, milk, meat, or poultryas delineated in 40 CFR 180.6(a) (3).The tolerances established by amending40 CFR 180.-67 will protect the publichealth, and it has been concluded, there-fore, that the tolerances should be estab-lished as set forth below.

Any person adversely affected by thisregulation may, within 30 days afterpublication in the F-DEnAL REG sR, filewritten objections with the HearingClerk, Environmental Protection Agency,Room 1019, East Tower, 401 At St. SW,Washington, DC 20460. Such objectionsshould be submitted in quintuplicate andshould specify both the provisions of theregulation deemed to be objectionableand the grounds for the objections. If ahearing is requested, the objections muststate the Issues for the hearing. A bear-ing will be granted If the objections aresupported by grounds legally sufficientto justify the relief sought.

Effective April 12, 1976, Part 180, Sub-part C, § 180.267 Is revised as set forthbelow.

Dated: April 6, 1976.EoDWi' L. JOHzlso,

Deputy Assistant Administratorfor Pesticide Programs.

(Sec. 408(d) (2) Federal Food. Drug, andCosmetic Act (21. U.. 346a(d) (2)))

Section 180.267 is revised by addingtolerances for residues of captafol in oron peanuts and peanut hulls at 0.05 and2.0 ppm respectively and by editoriallyrestructuring the section Into an al-phabetized columnar format to read asfollows:,

§ 180.267 Captafol; tolcranccs for resi-dues.

Tolerances are established for residuesof the fungicide captafol (cis-N-E (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethyl) thio3 - 4 - cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide) in or on the followingraw agricultural commodities:

Parts per,Commodity: millfon

Apples --------------------- 0.25Apricots ----------------- 30Cherries, sour ------------- 50Cherries, sweet ......... 2Citrus fruits .............- 0.5Corn, fresh (including sweet)

(H+CWR) ------------- 0.1 (N)Cranberries ---------------- 8Cucumbers ---------------- 2Macadamla nuts ----------- 0. (N)AMelons -

-ectarines 2Peanuts, hulls -----............ 2.0Peanuts, meats (hulls re-

moved) 0.05Onions ------------------ 01 (N)Peaches -------------------- 30Pineapples ---------------- 0.1 (N)Plums (fresh prunes)----- 2Potatoes - 0.5Taro (corm) --------------- 0.02Tomatoes ---- 1-

[FR Doc.7-10399 Plied 4-0-76;8:45 am]

Title 45--Public WelfareCHAPTER I-SOCIAL AND REHABILITA-

TION SERVICE (ASSISTANCE PRO-GRAMS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PART 205-GENERAL ADMINISTRA-TION-PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PRO-GRAMS

Non-Expendable Personal Property*Notice of proposed regulations for the

programs administered, under Titles I,

IV, VI, X, XIV, XVI, and XIX of the So-cial Security Act with respect to thecapitalization and depreciation of non-expendable personal property was puh-lished in the F=ERAnA RE isrEz onMarch 20, 1975, (40 FR 12674). -

A total of 11 comments was receivedfrom 9 State welfare agencies, I Gov-ernor and the President of the Confer-ence of StateoWelfare Finance Officers.

1. Three States objected to the $30limit for "pensin-g property used for in-direct cost functions while a $5000 limitapplied for expensing property used forother purposes. They wanted the $500limit to apply uniformly to all property.The $5000 limit was set as a result ofState's earlier complaints'that a $300limit on property to be expensed wouldimpose severe financial hardships. Al-though a uniform dollar limit would bemore desirable, the $5000 limit is too highfor personal property not directly usedin the administration of the programs.No change was made in the regulation.

2. Three States complained that therequirement to capitalize and depreciatepersonal property Imposed undue finan-clal burden on States and that such re-quirement was contrary to the SocialSecurity Act which provides for Federalfinancial participation in amounts ex-pended.

The above requirement is clearlywithin the Secretarys authority in theAct and is consistent with the purposesof 45 CFR 74, Appendix C. Although therequirements will temporarily increasethe State's financial burden, in due timethe Federal share for depreciation or useallowance would about equal the Federalshare of repladement cost

3. Two States complained that the$300 limit on property to be expended inpurchase of service contracts is too lowand makes It difficult to negotiate suchcontracts. One of these States asked whythe $5000 limit wasn' acceptable wherethe State retained title to the propertyacquired under such contracts.

Changes have been made in 205.160(a) (2) in response to these comments,by allowing the 5000 limit to apply inpurchase of service contracts where titleto the property is retained by the Stateand the contracts provide for the prop-erty, or Its residual value, to be returnedto the State agency upon completion ofthe contract. The regulation was alsochanged to include title =

The purpose of the regulations is to es-tablish clear policy for compliance withthe requirements .of the Department'sregulations concerning capital expendi-tures. The basis of the regulations is theSecretary's belf that specific policiesare necessary to assure uniform applica-tion on a nationwide basis, and. that alower cost limit is necessary for expens-Ing non-expendable personal propertywhen it "is not retained or used by thesinglb State agency.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-1.1ONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

1532-)

15330

Accordingly, the proposed regulation,as modified, is hereby adopted.

Part 205 of- Chapter II, of Title 45,Code of Federal Regulations is amendedby adding a new § 205.160 as follows:

§ 205.160 Non-expendable p c r s o n a!property.

(a) Conditions- for Federal financialparticipation. This-section is applicableto titles IV-A and B, VI, XIX, (excludingmedical assistance expenditures) andXX and, with respect to Puerto Rico,Virgin Islands and Guam, Titles I, X,XIV, and XVI. Federal financial partici-pation is available in amounts expendedby a single State agency for a unit ofnonexpendable personal property hav-ing a useful life of more than one yearonly to the, extent of the depreciationexpense (or annual use allowance of 6%percent of acquisition costY applicableto the period for which the property was.used under a Federal program or activ-ity; except that:

(1) Amounts expended for non-ex-pendable personal property costing lessthan $5,000 may be subject to Federalfinancial participation in full at the timeof acquisition at the option of the Stateagency, except as provided in paragraphs(a) (2) and (3) of this section.

(2) Non-expendable personal propertyacquired by providers under cost reim-burspment contracts with the singleState agency shall be capitalized and de-preciated (or subject to a use allow-ance) when it has an acquisition cost of$300 or more. Where the State has titleto the property and the contracts providefor return of such property or its resid-ual value upon completion of the con-tract, the $5,000 limit applies.

(3) Non-expendable personal propertyacquired by a State and assigned for useto organizational elements of a singleState agency, or of the Department Inwhich such agency is located, which aretreated as indirect cost centers or poolsin an SRS cost allocation plan shall becapitalized and depreciated (or be sub-ject to a use allowance) when it has anacquisition cost of $300 or more, exceptIn the case of indirect costs negotiatedby the HEW Office of the RegionalComptroller or by other Federal agencies.

(b) Definitions. (1) Acquisition cost-isthe amount expended by a single Stateagency for the property (excluding in-terest) plus, in the case of property ac-quired with a trade-in, the book value(acquisition cost less amount depreciatedthrough the date of trade in) of theproperty traded in. Property which wasexpensed when acquired has a book valueof zero when traded in.

(2) Depreciation expense for anytimeperiod is the portion of the acquisitioncost of property which is assignable tothat time period. The acquisition costof the property shall be divided by thenumber of years of estimated useful serv-ice life of the property to arrive at thedepreciation expense per year. Thismethod shall be used unless a State ob-tains approval from the Regional Com-missioner to use another method, which


must be demonstrated to be more con-sistent with the using up. of the asset.

(3) The number of years of estimateduseful service life of property shall bebased on the Department of Treasury,Internal Revenue Service policies on de-preciation for tax purposes. However, theRegional Commissioner will approve ashorter period if the State agency candocument that such period is justified.

(c) Other administrative require--ments.-(1) Distribution of Costs.Amounts expended by a single Stateagency for non-expendable personalproperty may be directly charged to ,program, or to an activity within a pro-gram having a separate rate-of Federalfinancial participation, if the propertyis being exclusively used for the programor activity at the time of the expendi-tures for the property. Amounts ex-pended for such property not exclusivelyused for one program or activity shallbe allocated to programs or activities byusing one of the following methods:

(i) Using cost centers or pools andallocation bases which will distribute thecosts consistent with program or activityusage of the property at the time of theexpenditures. Any credits for property.sold or retained for agency use in non-Federal programs (see § 74.134 of thistitle) shall be distributed to programsor activities consistent with the distribu-tion methods used for such property ex-penditures at the time of acquisition; or

(ii) Using a common distribution fac-tor for all property or for classificationsof property (e.g. desks distributed based

.on number of staff employed in eachprogram, or activity). Credits for prop-erty sold or retained for use in non-Fed-eral programs shall be distributed toprograms or actiVities using the samedistribution factors which are appliedto expenditures for property acquiredin the quarter in which such creditsoccurred.

(2) Accountability and managementof non-expendable property. The provi-sions in paragraph (a) (1) of this sectiondo not affect the requirements on thesingle State agency to account for andmanage non-expendable personal prop-erty as defined in § 74.132 of this title, inaccordance with the provisions in §§ 74i-134 through 136 of this title.

(3) Disposition of Certain Property. Asingle State agency shall not request dis-position instructions for property withan acquisition cost of over $1.000- perunit as specified in § 74.134(c) (2) of thistitle, but rather shall sell the propertyand account for it as specified in § 74.134(c) (1) of this title.(Sec. 1102,49 Stat. 647 (42 U.S.C. 1302))

Effective date: These regulations shallbe effective July 12, 1976, or earlier at ,

State option.(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Pro-gram No. 13.707, Child Welfare Services;13.714, Medical Assistance Programs; 13.724,Public Assistance-State and Local Training;13.748, Work Incentive Program-Child Care-Employment related Supportive Services;13.754, Public Assistance-Social Services; 13/

761, Public, Assistance-Maintenance Assist-ance (State Aid).)

Dated: January 23, 1976.DoX WORTMAN,

Acting Administrator, Socialand Rehabilitation Service.

Approved: pebruary 23, 1976:

MARJORIE LyNcr,

Acting Secretary.

[R Doc.76-10449 Filed 4-9-70;8:46 am]

Title 10-EnergyCHAPTER 1I-FEDERAL ENERGY

ADMINISTRATIONPART 212-MANDATORY PETROLEUM

PRICE REGULATIONSRefiner Price Regulations-Order of

Recoupment of Increased CostsI. BACKGROUND

On January 7, 1976 the Federal EnergyAdministration ("PEA") gave notice ofa proposed rulemaking and public hear-ing (41 FR 1680, January 9, 1976) toconsider proposals to amend Part 212of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,to implement the pricing policies of sec-tions 401 and 402 of the Energy Policyand Conservation Act ("EPCA," Pub. L,94-163). On February 1, 1976 (41 FR5111, February 4, 1976) PEA issuedamendments as a result of that rulemak-ing proceeding. One of the amendmentsadded to the price regulations applica-ble to refiners a new § 212.85, Sequenceof Recoupment of Costs, FEA stated Inthe preamble to the February 1 amend-ments:

Many refiners commentd on the necessaryinteraction of the permitted order of re-coupment of the categories of increased costswith the EPCA provision that increased costsof crude oil incurred as of January 1976 andthereafter may only be recouped withoutlimitation during the first two months afterthe month in which they were incurred. IfPEA were not to distinguish the one-month-old-costs "bank" from other "banks," andsimply required that month of measurementcosts be recouped before one-month-old"banked" costs attributable to crude oil, thecomments correctly expressed concern thatthe two-month limitation of the EPqA wouldbe effectively converted to a one-month limiton recoupment of costs. PEA therefore has,in the amendments adopted today, distin-guished among the various categories Of un-recovered increased costs, and specified therequired order of recoupment. (41 F 5113)

The new §212.85 provided, amongother things, that increased non-productcosts would be the last category of coststo be deemed to have been recouped, andPEA stated in this regard that:

Except for the complexities introduced bythe statutory two-month and ten percentlimitations, the order specified in the new§ 212.85 is the same as that under the regu-lations previously in effect, (41 FR 5113)

Although the'EPCA required that theamendments be issued by February 1,1976, FEA noted that it was consideringthe initiation of a separate rulemakingproceeding to consider, among other

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NQ. 71-ONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976


things, modification of the rule stated In§ 212.85 thatincreased non-product costsmust be-recouped last and the rule statedin § 212.83 (e) (9) that such costs, whichare not recovered: In the current monthmay not be.carrled forward ("banked")for recovery In a subsequent month.

On February 27, 1976 a notice of pro-posed rulemaking was issued to considerwhether modifications in these regula-tions were needed and whether suchmodifications should bemade retroactiveto February 1, 1976 (41 FR 9199, March -3, 1976). On March 18, 1976 a publichearing was held concerning thse Issues.Over 75 writte= and oral comments werereceived by FEA from interested parties.

SI.. A= TDLIEiTS ADOPTED

On the basis of its careful evaluationof the comments received, FEA has con-cluded, that there is a strong likelihoodthat undesirable consequences would re-sult from the combined effects of theEPCA limitations on "banking" of n-creased crude oil costs and the require-ment that non-product costs be recoupedlast and not "banked.,' The refiner priceregulations arm therefore. amended, ef-fective February 1, 1976, to- delete theprohibition of § 212.83(e) (9) against thecarry-forward of increased non-productcosts which are not recovered on a cur-rent basis, and to revise the order inwhich the categories of increased costsshall be deemed to have been recouped.

Because of the increased flexibility forrecovery of increased costs provided bydeleting theprohibition on "banking"of unrecouped increased non-productcosts, FBA has also decided to apply cer-tain limitations on the use of both"banked" increased non-product and"banked"! increased purchased productcosts, although neither category of in-creased costs is subject to the limitationsof the EPCA applicable to increased costsof crude oil. Pursuant to today's amend-ments, both increased costs of purchasedproduct and increased non-product costsmay be recovered, like increased crudeoil costs, without limitation for twomonths after the month in which theyare incurred. However, increased non-product and purchased product costswhich are not recouped within that twomonth period will be subject to a limi-tation on use in each future month ofeither 10 percent of the. total "bank" ofsuch unrecouped costs or that amountof such unrecouped costs which, whenapplied to cofapute maximum allowableselling prices, results in a maximum.al-lowable selling price in the currentmonth that is no more than 10 percenthigher than the highest price at which atleast 25 percent of the salesof the prod-uct concerned in the prior month werepriced, whichever is greater.

Although PEA does not consider suchlimitations to be necessary under currentmarket conditions in. which adequate

* supplie: are exerting downward pressureon prices, it recognizes the desirability ofproviding a means in the price regula-tions that would prevent sharp, price in-creases from occurring due to the possi-ble application of excessive amounts of

unrecouped costs In the event a periodof supply shortages were to occur. Theadoption of this new rule in conjunctionwith the removal of the restrictionagainst "banking" of non-product costsshould provide refiners the degree offlexibility essential to sound businespractices while also protecting consumersfrom the possibility of excessive priceincreases.

Several reasons have convinced FEA ofthe need for these rules changes. PEAhas determined that continuing the one-month restriction on the time of recoup-ment of increased non-product costswould tend to. have undesirable Infla-tionary effects on current market pricesby imposing pressures on refiners to re-cover increased non-product costs bymonthly price increases, because such in-creased non-product costs would be lostunder existing regulations If not recoupedin the month following the month inwhich they were Incurred.

Prices would also tend to wide monthlyfluctuations as refiners sought to setprices to recoup all increased non-prod-uct costs each month, rather than de-ferring price changes and seeking to re-cover increased non-product costs morein linewith historic seasonal pricing andothermarketfactors.

A one-month 'use-or-lose" rule on re-coupment of non-product costs, whencombined with the EPCA-mandatedlimitations on use of "banked" crude oilcosts, could Xurther have operated as adisincentive for refiners to build up in-ventories, either to anticipate refineryshutdowns, to meet seasonal demands,or otherwise in accordance with stand-ard business practices for products withcomparatively constant demand pat-terns.

A.reflner might avoid some loss of un-recouped ,increased non-product costsunder such a rule (when refinery opera-tions or other factors would not permitrecovery on a current basis) by decreas-ing refinery production and Increasingproduct purchases, including imports.Variable non-product costs (such as re-finery fuel) could be diminished al-though fixed non-product cost (such asinterest) would not be. The"use ocieze"rule -thus could have provided an incen-:tive to decrease refinery production.

During the public hearing conducted-as Part of the rulemaking proceeding,refiners commented that refining opera-tions have current earnings sub-tan-tially below 1973 levels, with very smallpercentage returns oni ssets employed.Two refiners reported absolute losses,one for all of 1975 and one for the firstten months of 1975. At such low ratesof return, which, were further threat-ened by the February 1 rules limitingrecovery of increased costs incurred,capital investments to expand refinerycapacity might have been recondfderedand deferred or eliminated.FEA received a number of estimates of

the amounts of increased costs incurredduring February 1976 (and futuremonths) that would. be Irretrievably lostif the requirement that non-product

cost- be recouped last and not "banked"were to be retained in combination withthe EPCA-mandated limits on the usa of"banked" Increased crude oil costs.

The undesirable consequences onrefinery operations and prices outlinedabove would be similar to those whichPEA concluded would have resulted fromImposing on February 1 the unmodifiedtwo-month "use-or-lose" rule on recoup-ment of increasedcrude oil costs. Be-cause of those likely consequences, FEAmodified the two-month "use-or-loze"rule on recoupment of increased cruadaoil costs to the full extent permittsd bythe EPCA.

The rule on the order of recoupmentof various calteories of increased costsestablished in § 212.85 on February 1,1976 Is revised (and incorporated in§ 212.83). consistent with the amend-ments adopted today, as follows: Of thethree basic types of increased costs--crude oil, purchased product, and non-product-eclris deemed to be recouped,according to the month in which in-curred, as follows:

First all categories of increased costsincurred In the month prior to the monthof measurement, In the followtng order:

(a) Increased crude oil costs.(b) Increased purchased product costs.Cc) Increased non-product costs.Second, all categories of increased costs

incurred in the month of measurement,In the following order:

(a) Increased crude oil costs.(b) Increased purchased product costs.

c) Increased non-product costs.Third, unrecouped increased costs in-

curred two or more months prior to- themonth of measurement, in the followingorder:

(a) Increased crude oil costs, subjceitto the EPCA 10 percent restriction, andthe January 31, 1976 "bank" of unre-couped increased product costs, subjectto the EPCA 10 percent restriction.

(b) Increased purchased product ornon-product costs, subject to the limita=tion adopted in this rulemaking.

FEAh concluded that these amend-ments should be made retroactive toFebruary 1, 1976 in order to cordinatethis action with the other EPCA-con-forming amendments and to insure thatno market distortions result from theadoption of the prior February 1, 1976amendments. February I is also the- be-ginning of the month in which the profitmargin limitation w rmoved. Accord-inalY, increased non-product; costs in-curred in January 197, and thereaftermay be carried forward for future re-coupment if not recovered In the monthimmed~ately following the month- inwhich they were incurred.

Implementing these decisions maLesPossible a general revision and simplifi-cation of the refiners' price regulations,Subpart E of Part 212. The former df,-Unction between base prices and pricesin excess of base prices, for example, isno longer necessary due to this amend-ment, and the previous removal of theprofit margin limitation. Instead, maxi-mum allowable prices can now be com-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--,ONDAY, AP2iIL 12, 1976

15331


puted by adding to May 15, 1973 prices,pursuant to the revised cost. allocationformulae of § 212.83(c), increased crudeoil costs, increased product costs and In-creased non-product costs. The order ofrecoupment rules appear as § 212.83(f).

-Ml. SUXMARY OF A!IENDMENTSA. Subpart E changes. Subpart E is

generally revised as follows:,§ 212.81 Applicability. Remains un-changed. -

§ 212.82 Definitions. All definitionsused in the subpart are now consolidatedin this section, and the "price rule" whichformerly appeared in § 212.82 now ap-pears in revised form in § 212.83.

The definitions of "cost of crude oil,""firm," "import fees and duties incur-red," "landed cost," and "transactionsbetween affiliated entities" (all of whichformerly appeared at § 212.83(b) ) re-main unchanged.

The term "cost of products purchased"s substituted for "cost of petroleum

product" to conform to the term usedto distinguish between costs of crude oiland purchased products in the Febru-ary 1 amendments, but the definition re-mains otherwise unchanged.

The definition of "increased non-prod-uct costs" Is revised in the section refer-ence to reflect the redesignation of thesection referred to.

The definition of "increased productcosts" is revised to reflect the terminol-ogy adopted February 1 and today, butis not changed in substance.

New definitions of "increased costs,""Increased costs of crude oil," "in-creased costs of products purchased," and"maximum allowable price" are added.Maximum allowable price means, in es-sence, the May 15, 1973 price, plus In-creased product costs, plus increasednon-product costs.

The definition of "base price" isdeleted.

§ 212.83 Price rule. Paragraph (a)now contains the "price rule" formerlyfound in §212.82(a), revised to deletethe concepts of "base price" and 'allow-'able price in excess of base price" and toIncorporate the concept of "maximumallowable price." (The former § 212.82 Cc)regarding "allowable price in excess ofbase price" Is deleted.)

Paragraph (a) also includes the twocomputational.instructions with respectto May 15, 1973 prices and the one modi-fication to the price rule with respect tobenzene and toluene; all were formerlyin J 212.82(b) and are unchanged in sub-stance.

Paragraph (b) incorporates the former§ 212.83(f) regarding affiliated entities.

Paragraph (c) contains, as before, theformulae for computing and allocatingincreased costs among products, In orderto determine a refiner's maximum allow-able prices. The paragraph has been re-vised, however, to provide that bothincreased product costs and increasednon-product costs are to be calculatedpursuant to the formulae.

The requirement that aviation Jet fuelbe priced as a single covered product,

formerly in § 212.82(b) (3), is incorpo-rated into § 212.83(c) (1) (11) (C) and(E). The substance is unchanged.

The special propane rule in § 212.83 (c)(1) (ii) (A) is modified by redesignatingparagraphs Cc) (1) (li) (A) (II) through(IV) as (M) through (V), by adding anew (c) (1) (iii) (A) and by revisingparagraph (c) (1) (il) (A) CV) to reflectthe new rule that unrecovered increasednon-product costs attributable to pro-pane refined from crude oil may be car-ried forward, but are subje6t to the spe-cial annual rule for costs attributable'topropane. The "banking" of increasednon-product costs attributable to pro-pane produced from natural gas was nota subject of this rulemaking proceeding,and paragraph (c) (1)'(iii) (A) (IV) (for-merly (III)) of the rule therefore re-mains unchanged.

The refiners' price formulae in § 212.-83(c) (2) (1) and (ii) are revised to in-clude new terms '-A'," to represent in-creased crude oil costs, and "N'," to rep-resent increased non-product costs.

The definitions in § 212.83(c) (2) (1ii)are revised as follows:

The terms "diu"' and "Du' are revisedto be amounts that may be applied toMay 15, 1973 prices to compute "maxi-mum allowable prices" rather than "baseprices" (the amounts computed pursuantto the formulae now include both In-creased product and increased non-prod-uct costs) :

The term "At" referred to above, is de-fined, analogously to the term "Bi" forincreased costs of covered products, tomfean the total amount of increasedcrude oil costs attributable to the coveredproduct or products of the type IT'. "At"consists of three subcomponents relatedto the three time periods of recoupmentestablished by PEA pursuant to theEPCA, "Ait" or increased crude oil costsincurred in the month of measurement,plus "A." or one-month-old-costs, plus"Air" or two-or-more-months-old costs.

'The inclusion in the "A," factor of theformula for "banked" crude oil costseliminates the necessity to use the factor"GWt" for this purpose and therefore thisfactor is now only used to reflect over-recoupment of increased costs resulting,for example, from -variances betweensales estimates and actual sales volumes.

"Bi" is redefined also to include thethree subcomponents, "Bit" or increasedcosts of purchased product incurred Inthe month of measurement, plus "B," orone-month-old such costs, plus "B," ortwo-or-more-months-old such Costs.

The term "N,," referred to above as theIncreased non-product cost term, Is de-fined, also analogously to the term "B."for Increased costs of covered products,to mean the total amount of increasednon-product costs attributable to thecovered product or products of the type"i" Incurred on or after January 1, 1976and through the month of measurement"t,/" which has not been recovered In salesthrough the period "t."

"N," is defined to include "Nit," theincreased non-ptoduet costs Incurred Inthe month of measurement "t," plus

"N" or one-month-old such costs, plus"Nir" or the two-or-more-months-oldsuch costs.

"N," the increased non-product costsincurred in the month of measurement,Is defined just as It formerly was in§.212.87, and is referred to by'two termswithin the "NWl" term, "Et" and "F01/'

"Et" consists of the seven types of in-creased non-product costs, except mar-keting cost increase, formerly defined in§ 212.87(c) (1), (2), (3), and (5). Thesubstance. of those definitions s un-changed. The total amount of the in-creased non-product costs representedby "Bt" Is allocated among the coveredproducts of the type "It" by multiplyingby "Viu/V" just as formerly required insection § 212.87(b) (1) (il).

"FT" is the marketing cost increase at-tributable to the covered product orproducts of the type 'I," formerly definedin § 212.87(c) (4) and in the "Lit" factorof the formulae In § 212.83(c), which iscomputed separately according to prod-uct type, and is therefore not subject tothe "Vu/u' volumetric allocation factor.

"G t " is redefined to be the correctionfor overrecoupment of increased costs.

Paragraphs (c) (1) (iv) and (e) (1) of§ 212.83 on the reallocation of increasedcosts of crude oil and the reallocation ofthe banks among product categories arecombined and redesignated as § 212.83

d).Paragraph (e) of § 212.83 is revised

by adding a paragraph to reflect "bank-ing" of increased non-product costs, byrevising the provision for "banking" in-creased costs attributable to purchasedproducts, and by adding a paragraphstating a limit on the use of the three-or-more-month-old unrecouped Increasednon-product and purchased productcosts.

The provisions regarding equal appli-cation among classes of purchaser andcorrections for overrecoupment are re-moved from paragraph (e) and redesig-nated as paragraphs (f) and (g). Theformer paragralh (f) is redesignatedparagraph (b).

All paragraphs containing a referenceto base prices are revised to refer tomaximum allowable prices.

§ 212.84 Disallowance of costs. Re-mains unchanged.

§ 212.85 Sequence of recoupment ofcosts. The former § 212.85 Is revised toreflect the "banking" of non-productcosts and the new sequence of recoup-ment and s incorporated as § 212.83(f).

§ 212.87 Increased non-product costs.The former § 212.87 Is deleted since thesubstance of that section has now beenIncorporated Into § 212.83.

B. Other changes. Other clarifying orconforming changes are as follows:

§ 212.31 Definitions. The definition of"base price" is deleted.

The definition of "general refineryproducts" Is revised to reflect the exclu-sion of aviation jet fuel from that cate-gory. This change was made to the Sub-part E rules on February 1, 196, but wasinadvertently omitted from the § 212.31definitions section.


L15332


§ 212.129 Price and octane numberinformation and posting. A new § 212.129(c) is added, incorporating the require-ment formerly found in § 212.82(e).

§ 212.161 . Applicability and relation-ship to other Subparts. The prior refer-ence to § 212.87(b) in paragraph (b) (2)(iii) is revised to refer to the formulaein § 212.83(c).

V. ADDITIONAL AcTIoNs REGARDINGINCREASED NON-PRODUCT COSTS

PEA is considering conducting a rule->making proceeding addressing the defi-nition of increased non-product costsand the means by which particular sortsof non-product costs should be allocatedto each covered product or category. PEAis also still considering appropriate ac-tion, including further regulation amend-ments pursuant to this rulemaking pro-ceeding, regarding the rules on recoup-ment of increased non-product costsprior to February 1,.1976.(Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of1973, Pub. L. 93-159, as amended, Pub. L. 93-511, Pub. IL 94-99, Pub. L. 94-133 and Pub.L. 94-163; Federal Energy Administration Actof 1974, Pub. L. 93-275; E.O. 11790, 39 FR23185).

In.consideration of the foregoing. Part212 of Chapter II, Title 10 Code of Fed-eral Regulations is amended as set forthbelow, effective February 1, 1976.

Issued in Washington, D.C., April 6,1976.

MCICAEL F. BUTLER,General Counsel,

Federal Energy Administration.1. Section 212.31 is amended by delet-

Ing the definition of "base price" and byrevising the definition of "general re-finery products" to read as follows:§ 212.31 Definitions.

"General refinery products" means allcovered products other than No. 2 oils,aviation jet fuel, gasoline, and crude oil.

2. Section 212.82 is revised to read asfollows:*§-212.82 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart-"Cost of crude oil" means (1) for pur-

poses of domestic crude oil, the first saleprice or the-purchase price if the trans-action occurs after the first sale, pro-vided that the first sale price or purchaseprice conforms with the requirements ofPart 212, plus the cost of transportation.The cost of domestic crude oil also in-cludes the cost of unfinished oils whichare used in refining and are further re-fined and which are covered products;(2) for purposes of imported crude oil,the landed cost.

"Cost of products -purchased" means(1) for purposes of domestic coveredproducts other than crude oil, the pur-chase price including transportationcosts; (2) for purposes of imported cov-ered products other than crude oil, thelanded cost.

"Firm" means a parent and the con-solidated and unconsolidated entities (if

any) which It dlrebtly or indirectly con-trols.

"Import fees and duties Incurred"means only Import fees and duties thatare paid by or on behalf of the firm pur-chasing the product and that are in ad-dition to the purchase price of the prod-uct, and does not Include any Importfees and duties paid by or on behalf offirms other than the purchasing firm,such as import fees and duties that arealready reflected in the price chargedfor a product. Import fees and duties are"incurred" (for purposes of determiningincreased product costs) at the time theproduct is released from U.S. customscustody or entered into U.S. customs ter-ritory, or withdrawn from a bondedwarehouse for consumption, whicheveroccurs first, even though payment of thefees or duties may be at a later date.

"Increased* costs" means "increasedproduct costs" plus "Increased non-prod-uct costs."

"Increased costs of crude oil" meansthe amount computed pursuant to the"A" factor of the formulae n § 212.83 (c).

"Increqsed costs of products pur-chased" means the amount computedpursuant to the 3'B" factor of the formu-lae in § 212.83(c).'

"Increased non-product costs" meansthe amount computed pursuant to the"N" factor of the formulae In § 212.83 (c).

"Increased product costs" means the"Increased costs of crude oil" plus the"increased costs of products purchased"and is the sum of (1) the difference be-tween the cost of crude oil during themonth of measurement and the cost ofcrude oil during the month of May, 1973plus (2) the difference between the costof products purchased during'the monthof measurement and the cost of productspurchased during the month of May,1973. If a particular petroleum productwas neither purchased nor landed duringthe month of May 1973, the cost of thatpetroleum product in May 1973 shall beimputed to be the lowest price at'or abovewhich at least 10 percent of that productwas priced by the refiner in transactionsduring the month of May 1973.

'Landed cost" means: (1) For pur-poses of covered products purchased incomplete arm's-length transactions, thepurchase price at the point of origin,plus the actual transportation costs, plusimport fees and duties incurred.

(2) For purposes of covered productspurchased in arm's-length transactionsand shipped pursuant to a transactionbetween affiliated entities, the purchaseprice at the point of origin, plus thetransportation cost computed by use ofthe customary accounting proceduresgenerally accepted and consistently andhistorically applild by the firm con-cerned, plus import fees and'duties in-curred.

(3) For purposes of covered productsother than crude oil purchased in atransaction between affiliated entitiesand shipped pursuant to an arm's-lengthtransaction, the cost of the product com-puted by use of the customary account-ing procedures generally accepted andconsistently and historically applied by

the firm concerned, plus the actual trans-portation cost, plus import fees and du-ties incurred.

(4) For purposes of covered productsother than crude oil purchased andshipped pursuant to a transaction be-tween affiliated entities, the costs of theproduct and the transportation bothcomputed by use of the customary ac-counting procedures generally acceptedand consistently and historically appliedby the firm concerned, plus import feesand duties incurred.

(5) For purposes of crude oil pur-chased in a transaction between affiliatedentities and shipped pursuant to anarm's-length transaction, the cost of thecrude oil computed pursuant to § 212.84,plus the actual transportation cost, plusimport fees and duties incurred.

(6) For purposes of crude oil pur-chased and shipped pursuant to a trans-action between affiliated entities, the costof the crude ol computed pursuant to§ 212.84, plus the transportation costcomputed by use of the customary ac-counting procedures generally acceptedand consistently and historically appliedby the firm concerned, plus import feesand duties incurred. I

"Maximum allowable price" means theweighted average price at which the cov-ered product was lawfully priced intransactions with the class of purchaserconcerned on May 15, 1973, computed inaccordance with the provisions of§ 212.83(a), plus increased product costsand increased non-product costs in-curred between the month ofr measure-ment and the month of May 1973.Decreases in product costs and in non-product costs in successive months ofmeasurement are reflected n reductionsin the amount of increased product costsor non-product costs incurred in suchmonths of measurement.

"Transactions between affiliated en-tities" means all transactions betweenentities which are part of the same firmand transactions with entities n whichthe firm has a beneficial interest to theextent of entitlement of covered productby reason of the beneficial interest.

3. Section 212.83 is revised to read asfollows:§ 212.83 Price rule:

(a) General rule. (1) Rule. A refinermay not charge to any class of purchasera price for a covered product in excessof the maximum allowable price exceptas provided in subparagraph (4) of thisparagraph.

(2) SpeciaZ sales on Mray 15, 1973. Incomputing the maximum allowable price,a firm may not exclude any temporaryspecial sale, deal, or allowance in effecton May 15, 1973.

(3) Imputed prices. If no transactionoccurred with respect to a particularproduct on May 15, 1973, the most recentday preceding May 15, 1973 when atransaction occurred shall be used forpurposes of computing the maximum al-lowable price. If a refiner first offered anItem for sale after May 15, 1973 andprior to the effective date of this para-graph, the first day when the item was

FEDERAL 'REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, AP21L 12, 1976

15333


offered for sale shall be used for purposesof computing the maximum allowableprice.

(4) Special rule for benzene and tol-uene. A refiner may not charge to anyclass of purchaser a price for benzeneand toluene In excess of the maximumallowable price as determined pursuantto paragraph (1) of this paragraph, plusa maximum of $.337 per gallon for ben-zene and $.2P8 per gallon for toluene.

(b) Affiliated entities. For purposes ofthis section, transactions between affili-ated entities may be used to calculateincreased costs. Whenever a firm uses alanded cost which is computed by usedof Its customary accounting procedures,the FEA may allocate such costs betweenthe affiliated entities if it determinesthat such allocation is necessary to re-flect actual costs of these entities or theFEA may disallow any costs which itdetermines to be In excess of the propermeasurement of costs.

(c) Allocation of increased costs. Ex-cept as provided in Subpart F, this para-graph prescribes the requirements gov-erning the inclusion of a refiner's in-creased product costs and increased non-product costs in the computation of itsmaximum allowable prices for coveredproducts.

(1) Allocation of increased costs in-curred in the period "t"--(i)No. 2 oils,aviation let fuel, and gasoline. In com-puting maximum allowable prices forsales of No. 2 oils, aviqtion Jet fuel, andgasoline, a refiner may increase itsMay 15, 1973 selling price to each class ofpurchaser each calendar month begin-ning with February 1976 by an amount toreflect the increased product costs plusthe increased non-product costs attribu-table to sales of that covered product us-ing the differential between the month ofmeasurement and the month of May1973, provided that the amount of in-.creased costs used in computing a maxi-mum allowable price is calculated in ac-cordance with the provisions of para-graphs (d) through (h) of this sectionand by use of the formula set forth inparagraph (c) (2) (1) of this section, andthat the formula of paragraph (c) (2) (1)of this section is computed separately forNo. 2 oils, for aviation jet fuel, and forgasoline, and that- the amount of In-creased costs included in computing max-imum allowable prices of No. 2 oils, ofaviation Jet fuel, and of gasoline isequally applied to each class of pur-chaser.

(ii) General refineryV products. (A) Incomputing maximum allowable prices forsales of a general refinery product, a re-finer may increase its May 15, 1973 sell-Ing price to each class of purchaser eachmonth beginning with February 1976 byan amount to reflect the increased prod-uct costs plus the increased non-productcosts attributable to sales of general re-finery products, using the differential be-tween the month of measurement and themonth of May 1973, provided that theamount of increased costs used in com-puting a maximum allowable price is cal-culated in accordance with the provisions

of paragraphs (d) through (I) of thissection and by use of the formula setforth in paragraph (c) (2) (i) of this sec-tion, and provided that the amount ofincreased costs included in computingmaximum allowable prices of a particulargeneral refinery product must be equallyapplied to each class of purchaser. In ap-portioning the total amount of increasedcosts allocable to general refinery prod-ucts among particular general refineryproducts, a refiner may apportionamounts of increased costs to a particu-lar general refinery product in whateveramounts it deems appropriate.(B) For purposes of this Isection, eachof the following products or product cat-egories shall constitute "a particulargeneral'refinery product": aviation gas-oline, benzene, butane, gas, oil, greases,hexane, kerosene, lubricant base oilstocks, libricants, naphthas, natural gasliquids, natural gasoline, No. 1 heatingoil and No. 1-D diesel fuel, No. 4 fuel oiland No. 4-D diesel fuel, propane, residualfuel oil, special naphthas (solvents),toluene, unfinished oils, xylene, and otherfinished products. A blend of two or moreparticular covered products is consideredto be that particular covered productconstituting the major proportion of theblend.

(C) Notwithstanding the provisions ofparagraph (c) (1) (i) (B) of this section,and except as provided in paragraph (c)(1) (ii) (E), for purposes of this section,a refiner, upon notice to and unless dis-approved by the FEA, may designateproducts or product categories to con-stitute "a particular general refineryproduct," if the products or product cat-egories so designated by the refiner rep-resent discrete, technical product dif-ferences that have been consistently andhistorically applied by that refiner. Forpurposes of this paragraph (c) (1) (t)(C), marketing considerations do notrepresent "discrete, technical productdifferences."

(D) The notice required by ;paragraph(c) (1) (HI) (C) above shall include botha list of the products or product cate-gories designated by the refiner as par-ticular general refinery products, and adescription of the discrete, technicalproduct differences between such prod-ucts or product categories. A refiner thatprovides the notice described hereinshall, upon notice by the FEA, provideverification to the FEA that such dis-crete, technical product differences havebeen consistently and'historically appliedby the refiner.

(E) Notwithstanding the provisions ofparagraph (c) (1) (i) (C), for purposes of.computing the maximum allowable price,aviation jet fuel shall be treated as asingle covered product.

(il) Propane-(A) Special PropaneRule. Notwithstanding the provisions ofparagraph (W) (1) (ii) of this section andin addition to the requirements of para-graphs (d) through (h) of this section,a refiner in computing its maximum al-lowable prices bf propane for eachtwelve-month period of August 1 throughJuly 31:

(I) May not apportion to propane agreater percentage of increased cost ofcrude oil purchased or landed In thecorresponding twelve-month period July1 through June 30 than the percentagothat the volume of propane sold duringthe twelve-month period August 1through July 31 that was produced bythat refiner from crude oil is of the totalvolume of all products (including otherthan covered products) sold by it duringthe same twelve-month period that wereproduced by that refiner from crude oil;and

(II) May not apportion to propane agreater -percentage of Increased non-product costs incurred in refining crudeel in the corresponding twelve-monthperiod July 1 through June 30 than thevolumetric percentage determined Insubparagraph (I) ; and

(III) May apportion to propane theincreased cost of propane purchased orlanded in the corresponding twelve-month period of July 1 through June 30;and

(IV) May apportion to propane the In-creased costs attributable t6 propaneproduced from natural gas during thecorresponding twelve-month period July1 through June 30, as determined pur-suant to the provisions of § 212.166; and

V) May not apportion to propane anyincreased costs incurred prior to July 1 ofany year and not recovered through July31 of that year.

(B) Exception to equal applicationrule for propane. Notwithstanding theprovisions of paragraph (c) (1) (i) above,a refiner may comply with the provisionsof that paragraph by applying unequalamounts of increased costs to the weight-ed average May 15, 1973 selling price ofpropane to classes of purchaser of pro-pane, provided that the highest amountof Increased costs applied to the weightedaverage May 15, 1973 selling price to anyclass of purchaser shall not exceed bymore than 100 percent the amount of in-creased costs applied to the weighted av-erage May, 15, 1973 selling price to anyother class of purchaser, and, providedfurther, that no greater amount of In-creased costs shall be applied to theweighted average May 15, 1973 sellingprice of propane in sales to any class ofpurchaser that includes either an inde-pendent marketer, as defined In § 211.51of this Chapter, or a purchaser that usesthe product for resillential use, as de-fined In § 211.51 of this Chapter, than Isapplied to the weighted average May 15,1973 selling price of propane.in sales toany other class of purchaser.

(2) Formulae-() No. 2 oils, aviationlet fuel, and gasoline. For No. 2 oils, avla-tion jet fuel, and gasoline (f=1, i=2, andt=3) :

di=A+B+XN-G,t--H,U

(HI) General reflnery Products. Forgeneral refinery products (=4):

(III) Definitions. For purposes of pam-graphs (c) (2) (i) and (c (2) (11) of thbsection:


(A) subscripts atu superscripts. Thetype of-covered products is referenced bythe subscript i:

i=l represents No. 2 oils.i=2 represents aviation jet fuel.i=3 represents gasoline.i -=represents all general refinery

products.. The time period for measurement is

referenced by the superscript; where:o=the month of May 1973.u=the current month. Quantities cal-

culated for current month will beestimates, which shall be basedon the best available data.

t=the month of -measurement (themonth 6f measurement is themonth preceding the currentmonth).measurement.

s=the month preceding the month ofr=all months two or more months be-

fore the month of measurement.(B) 2The "D" factors. d"u = The dollar

increase that may be applied in theperiod "u" to the May 15, 1973 sellingprice of the covered product or productsof the type "IT" to each class of purchaserto compute the maximum allowable priceto each class of purchaser, -except thatthe dollar increase that may be appliedin the period "u" to the May 15, 1973selling price of gasoline to compute themaximum allowabl6 prices to the classesof purchaser that purchase gasoline atretail from a refiner at any service sta-tion operated by employees of the refinermay be "du" plus a maximum of $.03per gallon of gasoline provided that incomputing "di" for gasoline, the nu-merator of the formula in clause (i) ofthis subparagraph is reduced by anamount equal to the product of the actualamount of cents per gallon increaseadded to "du" above multiplied by theestimated number of'gallons of gasolineto be sold during the period "u" at retailthrough service stations operated by em-ployees of the refiner. The formula for"dtu" must be computed separately fori=1, for i=2, and for i=3.

Diu=The total dollar imount a refinermay apportion in the period "u'" to gen-eral refinery products (i=4) in whateveramounts it deems appropriate to eachparticular general refinery product tocompute the maximum allowable priceprovided that the total dollar amount fori=4 shall be reduced by an amount equalto the total number of gallons of benzeneand -toluene sold by' the refiner duringthe month of May 1973 multiplied by$.20 and further multiplied by anamount equal to the total number of bar-

- rels of refinery input to crude oil distil-lation units processed during the monthof measurement and measured in accord-ance with Bureau of Mines form 6-1300-M divided by'the total number of suchbarrels processed during the month ofMay 1973. The formula for "D u" mustbe computed only once for i=4- (all gen-eral refinery products).

(C) The "A" factor.- A,=AtA,,3+AiT

"Ai" is, for i=l, i=2, i=3, and i=4, thesum of the increased costs of crude oil


attributable to the specific covered prod-uct or products of the type I'l purchasedor landed on or after January 1,1976 andprior to or during the period "s" and notrecovered In sales of that productthrough the period 't" and the increasedcosts of crude oil attributable to thespecific covered product or products ofthe type 'T' purchased or landed on or'after January 1. 1976 in the period "t.""At" also includes the increased costs ofcrude oil and purchased products attrib-utable to the covered product or prod-ucts of the type I" incurred throughDecember 31, 1975 and not passedthrough as of January 31, 1976, and notrecovered in sales of that productthrough the period "t."

or

provided that the formula elected to beused, once elected, shall continue to beused.

"Act" is the total Increased cost ofcrude oil attributable to the specificcovered product or products of the type"i" purchased or landed in the period"t" for refining by that refiner. The costand quantity of crude oil that Is con-sumed as refinery fuel or that Is other-wise consumed or disposed of in theperiod "t" so as not to be available forthat refiner's input to crude oil distilla-tion units shall be excluded from thisamount (except to the extent permittedwith respect to crude oil sold under§ 211.65 of this Chapter pursuant to thedefinitions of "Q"' and "Ct").Where:

Qt=The total quantity or volume ofcrude oil purchased or landedin the period "t" for refining orfor resale under § 211.65,provided, however, that thisamount shall be reduced by thequantity of crude oil sold under§ 211.65 in the period 't".

QO=The total quantity or volume ofcrude oil purchased or landedin the period "o" for refining.

CO=The total cost of crude oil pur-chased or landed in the period"o" for refining.

Ct=The total cost of crude oil pur-chased or landed in the period"t" for refining or for resaleunder § 211.65, provided, how-ever, that this amount shall bereduced by the revenues fromsales of crude oil under § 211.65made In the period 't", exceptfor any transportation adjust-ment or the handling fee pro-vided for by § 212.94(b).

Va-1The total volume of all coveredproducts (other than propane,which shall may be included tothe extent that It was refinedby the refiner from crude oil)and all products refined fromcrude oil than covered productsestimated to be sold in theperiod "'"

15335

Vu=The total volume of a specificcovered product or products ofthe type "I" (other than pro-pane, which shall be includedto the extent that it was refinedby the refiner from crude oil)estimated to be sold in theperiod "a."

RI=The total volume of all coveredproducts refined by the refinerfrom crude oil and all productsrefined by the refiner fromcrude oil other than coveredproducts in the period "t."

Rit=The total volume of a specificcovered product or products ofthe type "" refined by the re-finer from crude oil in theperiod 't."

"As"' is the total increased cost ofcrude oil attributable to the specificcovered product or products of the type"I" computed under "A4 t" for the monthpreceding the month of measurement("s") beginning on or after January 1,1976 but not recovered in sales of thatproduct during the period "t."

"Air" is the total increased cost ofcrude oil attributable to the specificcovered product or products of the type"IT computed under "A" for all monthsthrough the month two months beforethe month of measurement ("r") begin-ning on or after January 1, 1976 but notrecovered in sales of that productthrough the period "t." "A,," also in-cludes the increased costs of crude oiland purchased products attributable tothe covered product or products of thetype "I" incurred through December 31,1975 and not passed through as of Jan-uary 31, 1976, and not recovered in salesof that product through the period "t."(D) The "B" factor.

B=Bt+B0S+B,r

"B/" Is, for i=1, i=2, i=3, and i=4, thesum of the increased costs of the specificcovered product or products of the type"i" purchased or landed on or after Jan-uary 1, 1976 and prior to or during theperiod "s" and not recovered in sales ofthat product through the period "t" andthe increased costs of the specific coveredproduct or products of the type "i" pur-chased or landed on or after January 1,1976 in the period "t'

"Bit" is the total increased cost of thespecific covered product or products ofthe type "I" purchased or landed in theperiod "t," provided such cost is not in-cluded in computing "As". The cost of aspecific covered product orproducts ofthe type "i" shall include the costs of aspecific covered product or products notof the type "I" that are purchased andrefined or blended and that are attrib-utable to the production of the coveredproducts of the type I". The cost andquantity of covered products purchasedor landed that are consumed as refineryfuel shall be excluded from this amount.Where:

eeO=The total cost of a covered prod-uct or products of the type ""purchased or landed in theperiod "o.


A.'=Q ' ON . (RON


cit=The total cost of a covered prod-uct or products of the type "i"purchased or landed in theperiod "t".

qoThe total quantity or volume ofa covered product or productsof the type "" purchased orlanded in the period "o".

a, t =The total quantity or volume ofa covered product or productsof the type "IT" purchased orlanded in the period "t".

74 =The lowest price at or abovewhich at least 10 percent of theproduct or products of type "i"were priced in transactionsduring the month of May 1973or, if none occurred in thatmonth, the month next preced-ing May, 1973 in which suchtransactions occurred. Alterna-tively, the cost of fhe coveredproduct.or products concernedduring the month of May 1973may be used if computed by theuse of accounting proceduresgenerally accepted and con-sistently and historically ap-"plied by the firm concerned,and provided that the PEA hasapproved in writing of the costfigures used.

"B,"' is the total increased costs of thespecific covered product or products ofthe type "IT" computed under "EB" forthe month preceding the month of meas-urement ("s") beginning on or after Jan-uary 1, 1976 but not recovered in sales ofthat product during the period "t:"

"Bell is the total.increased cost of thespecific covered product or products ofthe type "i" computed under "Bs" forall months through the month twomonths before the month of measure-ment ("r") beginning on or after Jan-uary 1, 1976 but not recovered in salesof that product through the period "t."

(E) The "N" factor.

"1i ' Is, for i=1, i=2, i=3, and i=4,the increased non-product costs attrib-utable to the specific covered product orproducts of the tyle "T" incurred on orafter January 1,1976 and prior to or dur-ing the period "s" and not recovered insales of that product through the period"I' and the increased non-product costsattributable to the specific covered prod-uct or products of the type "i" incurredon or after January 1, 1976 in the pe-riod 'It."

"Ntv" Is the total increased non-prod-uct costs attributable to the specific cov-ered product or products of the type "i"Incurred in the period "W"

Where Et=the total increased non-product costs (excluding marketing costIncreases, which are included In "FS"' )Incurred during the period "t"; pro-vided- that such costs are included onlyto the extent that such costs are attrib-utable to refining operations under the

customary accounting procedures gen-erally accepted and historically and con-sistently applied by the firm concerned,and are not included in computingMay 15, 1973 prices or in computing in-creased product costs; and further pro-vided that such costs are the sum of thefollowing:

(W Refinery fuelc est increase. Refin-ery fuel cost increase is the base refineryfuel usage multiplied by the throughputfor the month of measurement, andmultiplied by the amount which repre-sents the difference between the averagerefinery fuel cost rate in the month ofmeasurement and the average refineryfuel cost rate In the nionth of May, 1973,where:

"Average refinery fuel cost rate" meansthe weighted average cost of refinery fuelper tinit of energy (e.g., dollars per mil-lion British Thermal Units (B.T.U.)). If-the calculation of refinery fuel costs Isnot feasible in energy units, a refinermay substitute a method that is morereasonably consistent with the dataavailable. In such case, however, the re-finer must prepare a schedule justifyingthe alternative method of calculationand explaining why the results repre-sent the average refinery fuel cost rate;

"Base refinery fuel usage" means theamount of refinery fuel, in units of en-ergy (e.g., million B.T.U.'s) uied per bar-rel of refinery throughput during themonth of May 1973. If the calculation ofrefinery fuel costs is not feasible in en-ergy units, the refiner may substitute amethod that is more reasonably consist-ent with the data available. In suchcases, however, the refiner must preparea schedule justifying the alternativemethod of calculation and explainingwhy the results represent the base refin-ery fuel usage; and

"Throughput" means the volume ofcrude oil, unfinished oils, and naturalgas liquids refined during the time periodspecified.

Refiners shall maintain records of thevolume and cost of covered productspurchased or landed that are consumedas refinery fuel.

(31) Labor cost increase. Labor costincrease is the base labor cost multipliedby an amount which represents the ratioof .the average labor rate during themonth of measurement minus the aver-age labor rate during 'the month ofMay, 1973 to the average labor rate dur-ing the month of May, 1973; multipliedby the productivity offset factor of 0.934where:

"Average labor rate" means theweighted average direct and indirect re-muneration or inducement for personalservices which are reasohably subject tovaluation (in dollars per man-hours) foFthose personnel employed at the refin-ery or those personnel directly Involvedwith refinery operations, including thatof the cost of any contract which is at-tributable to non-employees that per-form such services pursuant to a contractbetween a refiner and an outside entity.To substantiate the average labor rate,a supporting document must be pre-

pared which summarizes the personnel'considered In the calculation and thedate of any rate increases. Calculationof the average labor rate must be basedon the historical accounting practicesemployed by the refiner; and

"Base labor cost" means the total costof refinery labor incurred during May1973 calculated In accordance with theprocedures and personnel used in deter-mining the average labor rate.

(II) Additive cost increases. Additivecost Increase is the month of measure-.ment additive usage (in supply units)multiplied by the throughput for themonth of measurement, and multipliedby the amount which represents the dif-ference between the average additive costrate in the month of measurement andthe average additive cost rate In May1973, where:

"Additive" means those materials andcompounds Including catalysts and proc-ess chemicals, which are not coveredproducts, and which are added to orblended with crude oil or covered prod-ucts during the refining process;

"Month of measurement additiveusage" means the amount of additiveused in the refining process per barrelthroughput during the month of meas-urement, measured in units per barrelof throughput (e.g., lbs/bbl); and

"Average additive cost rate" means theweighted average unit cost of the addi-tives used in the refining process (e.g.,dollars/lb). Such unit cost calculationmust employ the same units as employedin the calculation of the "month ofmeasurement additive usage"; and"Throughput" means the volume ofcrude oil, unfinished oils, and natural gasliquids refined during the time period,specified.

(IV) Utility cost increase. Utility costincrease is, for each utility, the utilityusagefor the month of measurement, andmultiplied by the amount which repre-sents the difference between the averageutility cost rate In the month of meas-urement and the average utility cost ratein the month of May 15, 1973, where:

"Average utility cost rate" means theweighted average rate of utility cost perunit of such utility (e.g., cents per :ilo-watt or cents per gallon) used in the re-finery process; and

"Utility usage" means the volume ofthe utility used In the refilnery process(e.g., kilowatts or gallons); and

(V) Pollution control cost increase.Pollution control cost increase Is the op-erating cost attributable to acquiring,installing and maintaining any equip-ment required for the firm to complywith rules and regulations Issued by theEnvironmental Protection Agency, pro-vided that such equipment has been ae-quired and installed since May 15, 1073,and provided that such costs are ac-counted for under the customary ac-counting procedures generally acceptedand historically and consistently appliedby the firm concerned as operating costs,but only to the extent that such costs arenot otherwise covered by this section,

(VI) Interest cost increase. Interestcost increase is the difference between


t15336

the dollar amount of interest incurredfor the use of capital n the month ofmeasurement and the dollar amount ofinterest incurred for the use of capital inMay, 1973.

(VI) Container cost increase. Con-tainer cost increase is, for each type ofcontainer, the base container usagemultiplied by the throughput for themonth of ileasurement, and multipliedby the amount which represents the dif-ference between the' averag& containercost in the month of measurement andthe average container cost in the monthof May 1973, where:

"Average container cost" means theweighted average cost of containers usedby the refiner for packaging coveredproducts;

'ase container usage" means the.number of containers used per barrel ofrefinery throughput during the month ofMay 1973;

"'Throughput" means the volume ofcrude oil, unfinished oil, and natural gas

liquids refined during the time periodspecified; and

"Container" means any barrel, drum,can, tube, jar, or bottle used for thestoring-or packaging of covered products.

V,=the total volume of a specificcovered product or products of the type"i" (other than propane, which shall beincluded to the extent that.it was refinedby the refiner from crude oil) estimatedto be sold inthe period "u!"

V =the total volume of all coveredproducts (other than propane, -whichshall be included to the extent that itwas refined by the refiner from crude oil)and all products refined from crude oilother than covered products estimatedto be sold in the period "u."

F,t=the marketing cost increase andis the difference betweeathe cost of mar-keting covered products in the month ofmeasurement and the cost of marketingcovered products in the month of May,1973. "Cost of marketing covered prod-ucts" means the costs attributable tomarketing operations with respect tocovered products provided that suchcosts are included only to the extent thatthey are so attributable under the cus-tomary accounting/ procedures generallyaccepted and historically. and consist-ently applied by the firm concerned andare not included in computing Mlay 15,1973 prices, in computing- increasedproduct costs, or in computing other in-creased' non-product costs. A refinermust prepare a schedule itemizing theprincipal costs included in this categoryand describing the accounting proce-dures by which they are calculated. Theamount of marketing cost increasewhich may be applied to compute maxi-mum allowable prices for covered prod-ucts is, however, limited to the extentthat such marketing cost increases may:

(IM Allow an increase in the prices ofgasoline, No. 2 heating oil, and No. 2-Ddiesel fuel above the prices otherwisePermitted to be charged or such prod-ucts pursuant to the provisions of thispart by an amount not in eycess of onecent per gallon with respict to retail


sales and one-half cent per gallon withrespect to all other sales; and

(M (aa) Allow an increase in theprice of gasoline above the prices other-wise permitted to be charged for gaso-line pursuant to this part (includingparagraph (I) of this definition) by anamount not in excess of two cents pergallon with respect to all retail sales;and

(bb) Allow an Increase in the price ofgasoline, during the 150-day periodcommencing November 19, 1975. abovethe prices otherwise permitted to becharged for gasoline pursuant to thispart (including paragraphs (I) and CII)(aa) of this definition) by an amountnot in excess of two cents per gallonin retail sales in Alaska; and

(IM Allow an ncrease in the prlcesof gasoline above the prices otherwisepermitted to be charged for gasolinepursuant to the provisions of this part(including the foregoing paragraph (I)of this definition) by an amount not inexcess of one-quarter cent per gallonwith respect to all sales other than re-tail sales: and

(IV) Allow an increase n the prices ofmiddle distillates above the prices other-wise permitted to be charged for mid-dle distillates pursuant to the provisionsof this part (including the foregoingparagraph (I) of this deflntioh) by anamount not in excess of one cent pergallon with respect to retail sales andnotin excess of one-quarter cent per gallIon with respect to all other sales, exceptthat, with respect to retail sales of avia-tion fuels by fixed base operators afterNovember 30, 1975, allow an Increase inthe amount otherwise permitted to becharged for that item pursuant to theprovisions of this part by an amount notto exceed four cents per gallon; and

V) Allow an increase in the prices ofresidual fuel oil above the prices other-wise permitted to be charged for re-sidual fuel oil pursuant to the provisionsof this part by an amount not in excessof three-fourths cent per gallon with re-spect to retail sales and one-fourth centper gallon with respect to all other sales;and

(V) Allow an increase in the price ofpropane, in sales after September 30,1975, above the prices otherwise permit-ted to be charged for propane pursuantto the provisions of this part by anamount not in excess of three cents pergallon with respect to all retail sales ex-cept those to the petrochemicals indus-try, to public utilities, and to syntheticnatural gas plants; one cent per gallonwith xespect to retail sales to the petro-chemicals industry, to public utilities,and to natural gas plants and one-halcent per gallon with respect to all othersales; and

CVII) Reflect the total dollar amountof non-product costs attributable to in-cludable amounts of commissions incur-red during the period 't" beginning withJanuary 1, 1976 with respect to salsthrough consignee-agents of the coveredproduct or products of the type "f'. Theincludable amount of commission incur-

15337

red with respect to each item soldthrough each consignee-agent is the dol-lar amount per unit of volume by whichthe commission in the period "'t" exceedsthe commisslon in effect on May 15,1973.provided that the includable amountshall be an amount reasonably intendedto cover increased non-product costs ofthe consignee-agent and that It shallnot exceed the amount of the non-pro-duct cost price increase that would bepermitted if the consignee-agent tooktitle to the product it distributes andwere a sellersubjectto § 212.93(b).

Nju=the total increased non-productcosts attributable to the specific coveredproduct or products of the type "I" com-puted under ",et' for the month preced-ing the month of measurement ("") be-ginning on or after January 1, 1976 butnot recovered n sales of that productduring the period "t". " I

Nr=tho total increased non-productcosts attributable to the specific coveredproduct or products of the type "i"f com-puted under "N" for all months throughthe month two months before the monthof measurement ("r") beginning on orafter January 1, 1976 but not recoveredin sales of that product through theperiod "t."

(F) The "G" factor.Gil=the total dollar amount by 'whlch

increased costs attributable to the cov-ered product or products of the type "ifto the period "t" have been overecoveredin sales of that Product through theperiod "t," that must be subtracted pur-suant to paragraph (g) of this section.

(G) The "H" factor. -H, '--For 1--1, --2, and i=-4 the por-

tion, if any, of the total dollar amountavailable in the period "le for inclusionn price adjustment to theproduct of the

type " that pursuant to paragraphs (d)or (e) of this section the refiner electsto include n prices of gasoline for theperiod "W" (in which case "H4 "" shall besubtracted); for =3, the portion, if any,of the total dollar amount available inthe period "" for inclusion n price ad-Justments to No. 2 oils, aviation jet fuel,or general refinery products that pur-suant to paragraphs (d) or (e) of thissection the refiner elects to include inthe price of gasoline for the period "a"(in which case "H" shall be added).

(H) The "7" factor;VU"=The total, volume of a specific

covered product or products of the type"1 (other than Propane, which shall beincluded to the extent that it was refinedby the refiner from crude oil) estimatedto be soldintheperiod "u".

(d) Reallocation of increasecT costsamong Product categories. Increasedcosts incurred in the period "t" and allo-cable to No. 2 oils, aviation jet fuel, andgasoline pursuant to paragraph (c) (l)(i) of this section and to general refineryproducts pursuant to pragraph (c) (I)(i) of this section or incurred In theperiods " or "r" and, carried forwardpursuant to paragraph (e) of this sec-tion may be reallocated among productcategories pursuant to the "H" factor in

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NOd, 71-1ONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976


the formulae in paragraph (c) (2) of thissection each month only as follows:

<1) General refinery products. To theextent that a refiner does not allocateIts Increased costs for. general refineryproducts to maximum allowable pricesfor such products, it may instead allocatethat part of its increased costs for gen-eral refinery products only to maximumallowable prices for gasoline. No In-creased costs for general refinery prod-ucts may be reallocated to maximumallowable prices for No. 2 oils or aviationjet fuel.

(2) No. 2 oils. To the extent that arefiner does not allocate its increasedcosts for No. 2 oils to maximumallowable prices for No. 2 oils, it may in-stead allocate that part of its increasedcosts for No. 2 oils only to maximum al-lowable prices for gasoline. No increasedcosts for No. 2 oils may. be reallocatedto maximum allowable prices for generalrefinery products or aviation jet fuel.

(3) Aviation let fuel. To the extentthat a refiner does not allocate its in-creased costs for aviation jet fuel-- tomaximum allowable prices for aviationJet fuel, it may instead allocate that partof its increased costs for aviation jetfuel only to maximum allowable pricesfor ghsollne. No increased costs for avi-ation jet fuel may be reallocated to maxi-mum allowable prices for No. 2 oils orgeneral refinery products.

(4) Gasoline. No increased costs forgasoline may be reallocated to maximumallowable prices for general refinery-products, aviation jet fuel, or No. 2 oils.

(5) No other use of reallocated in-creased costs. The total amount of in-creased costs available for allocation toNo. 2 oils, aviation Jet fuel, or generalrefinery products may not include anyamount represented by the factor 'fH" inthe formulae in paragraph (c) (2) of thissection that the refiner has elected to in-clude in a prior month in the calcula-tion of the maximum permissible amountthat may be added to May 15, 1973 pricesof gasoline pursuant to this paragraph.

(e) Carryover and allocation of in-creased costs incurred in periods "s" and"r."-(1) Computation of amounts of in-creased product costs carried over as ofJanuary 31, 1976-(i) For No. 2 oils andgasoline. For purposes of calculating thetotal amount of unrecouped increasedproduct costs of No. 2 oils and gasolinethat may be carried forward and addedto May 15, 1973 selling'prices under the"A," factor under the general formulaeof paragraph (c) (2) of this section, sub-Ject to the limitations of paragraph (e)(5) of this section, as of January 31,1976 (for t=January, 1976), each firmshall calculate the total amount of un-recouped increased product costs of cov-ered products of the type i=1 and i=2as defined in § 212.83 (c) as that sectionexisted on January 31, 1976. The totalamounts of unrecouped increased prod-uct costs so calculated shall be ittrib-uted to the product or products of thetype i,-1 and 1=3, respectively, as de-fined in § 212.83(c) as amended, effec-tive February 1, 1976.

(it) For general refinery products. Forpurposes of calculating the total amountof unrecouped increased product costsof general refinery products that may becarried forward-and added to May 15,1973 selling prices under the "A t" factorof the general formulae of paragraph(c) (2) of this section, subject to thelhnitations of PAragraph (e) (5) of thissection, as of January 31, 1976 (for t=January, 1976), each firm shall calculatethe total amount of unrecouped increasedproduct costs of covered products of thetype i=3 as defined in § 212.83(c) as thatsection existed on January 31, 1976. Thefirm shall then substract that amount ofunrecouped increased product costs at-tributed to aviation jet fuel (i=2) pur-suant to paragraph (e) (1) (1i) of thissection as amended effective February 1,1976. The total amount of remaining un-.recouped increased product costs so cal-culated shall be attributed to the productor products of the type i=4 as defined in§ 212.83(c) as amended effective Febru-ary 1, 1976.

(iii) For aviation jet fuel. For purposes'of calculating the total amount of unre-couped increased product costs of avia-tion jet fuel that may be carried forwardand added to May 15, 1973 selling pricesunder the "A," factor of the general for-mulae of paragraph (c) (2) of this sec-tion, subject to the limitations of para-giaph (e) (5) of this section, as of Janu-ary31, 1976 (for t=January 1976), a firmshall (I) calculate the total amount ofunrecouped increased product costs ofcovered products of the type i=3 pursu-ant to § 212.83(e) as that section existedon January 31, 1976 and then (II) multi-ply by a fraction, the numerator of whichshall be the dollar volume of aviation jetfuel sold during 1975, and the denomina-tor of which shall be the dollar volumeof all general refinery products sold dur-ing 1975. Not more than tae totalamount of unrecouped increased productcosts so calculated may be attributed tothe product of the type i=2 as definedin" §-212.83(c) as amended effectiveFebruary 1, 1976.

(2) Computation of amounts of in-creased costs of crude oil carried over asof February 29, 1976 and thereafter. Be-ginning with February 29, 1976 (for t=February 1976) and at the end of eachmonth thereafter, each refiner shall cal-culate the total amount of unrecoupedincreased costs of crude oil incurred inJanuary 1976 or any month thereafterattributable to the covered product orproducts of the type IT' that may be car-ried forward and added to May 15, 1973selling prices for such products of thetype "i" under the "At" factor of thegeneral formulae of paragraph (c) (2) ofthis section as follows:

(i) If in any month a refiner chargesprices for the covered product or productsof the type "TI that result in the re-coupment of less than the total dollaramount of increased costs of crude oilcalculated for such products of the type"i" pursuant to the "Ait" factor underthe general f6rmulae of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the unrecouped

amount, of increased costs of crude oilmay be carried forward pursuant to the"A,," factor under the general formulaeof paragraph (c) (2) of this section andadded to the May 15, 1973 selling pricesfor such products of the type 'I' to com-pute maximum allowable prices for suchproducts for the Innediately subse-quent month, and

(li) Any amount of such unrecoupedincreased costs of crude oil still remain-ing two months after the month In whichsuch costs were incurred may be car-ried forward pursuant to the "Air, factorunder the general formulae of paragraph(c) (2) of this section and added to May15, 1973 selling prices to compute the'maximum allowable prices for that cov-ered product for any subsequent month,subject to the limitations of paragraph(e) (6) of this section.

(3) Computation of amounts o1 in.erdased costs of purchased products car-ried over as of February 29, 1976 andthereafter. Beginning with February 29,1976 (for t=February 1976) and at theend of each month thereafter, each re-finer shall calculate the total amount ofunrecouped increased costs of purchasedproducts incurred in January 1976 orany month thereafter attributable to thecovered product or products of the type"i" that may be carried forward andadded to May 15, 1973 selling prices forsuch products of the type 'l' under the"Bi" factor of the general formulae ofparagraph c) (2) of this section asfollows: I

(I) If In any month a refiner chargesprices for the covered product or prod-ucts of the typo "i" that result In therecoupment of less than the total dollaramount of increased costs of purchasedproducts calculated for such products ofthe type "i" pursuant to the "Bit" factorunder general formulae of paragraph.(c) (2) of this section, the unrecoupedamount of increased costs of purchasedproducts may be carried forward pursu-ant to the "B s" factor under the generalformulae of paragraph (c) (2) of thissection and added to the May 15, 1973selling prices for. such products of thetype i"' to compute maximum allowableprices for such products for the immedi-ately subsequent month, and

(ii) Any amount of such unrecoupedincreased costs of purchased productsstill remaining two months after themonth in which such costs were Incurredmay be carried forward pursuant to the"B,," factor under the general formulaeof paragraph (c) (2) of this section andadded to May 15, 1973 selling prices tocompute the prices for that coveredproduct for any subsequent month, sub-ject to the limitations of paragraph (e)(7) of this section..

(4) Computation of amounts of in-creased non-product costs carried overas of February 29, 1976 and thereafter.Beginning with February 29, 1976 (fort=February 1976) and at the end of eachmonth thereafter, each refiner shall cal-culate the total amount of unrecoupedincreased non-product costs Incurred InJanuary 1976-or any month thereafter

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO: 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

115338

RULES AND REGULAT:CN3

attributable to the covered product or able prices for all covered products ofproducts of the type IT' that maybe car- the type "i" for any month shall not ex-Tied forward and added to May 15, 1973 ceed in any month,selling prices for such products of the (1) 10 percent of the highest amounttype "i" under the "N" factor of the of all unrecouped increased purchasedgeneral formulae of paragraph (c) (2) of product and non-product costs calcu-this section as follows: I lated pursuant to the "Bi" and "N"

(i) If in any month a refiner charges factors under the general, formulae ofprices for the covered product or prod- paragraph (c) (2) of MIS section anducts of the type "T" that result in the re- carried forward pursuant to paragraphs-coupment of less than the total dollar (e) (3) (1) and (e) (4) it) for all coveredamount of increased non-product costs products a of the end of any month oncalculated for such products. of the type or after March 31,1976, or"i" pursuant to the "Nit" factor under 0i) An amount which, when added togeneral formulae of paragraph (c) (2) of compute maximum allowable prices re-this section, the unrecouped amount of sults in maximum allowable prices forincreased non-product costs may be car- .the current month which are no moreried forward pursuant to the "N" fac- than 10 percent higher than the highesttor under the general formula of para- prices computed pursuant to this Partgraph (c) (2) of this section and added to at which at least 25 percent of the a'lesthe May 15, 1973 selling prices for such ofL the product concerned in the pre-products of the type "i" to compute max- ceding month were priced, whichever of

imum allowable prices for such products (1) or (ii) Is greater.for the immediately subsequent month, () ,equence of recoupment of costs.and For purposes of calculating rccoupment

(ii) Any amount of such unrecouped.-Of increased costs under the general

increased non-product costs still remain- formulae in paragraph c) of this sec-ing two months after the month in tion, costs shall be deemed to have beenwhich such costs were incurred may be recovered in prices charged in any cur-carried forward pursuant to the "Ne" rent month "u" only in the followingfactor under the general formulae of sequence:paragraph (c) (2) of this section and (1) All increased costs incurred dur-added to May 15, 1973 elling prices to ing the month two months before thecompute the maximum allowable prices current month ("s") and not passedfor that covered product for any subse- through in the immediately precedingquent month, subject to the limitations month ("t"), represented by the symbolsof paragraph (e) (7) of this section. 'A.3" "Ba" and "N,0' under the general

(5) -Limitation on use of amounts car- formulae in § 212.83(c), and consideredried over pursuant to paragraph (e) (1). to be recouped in that respective order,Beginning February 1, 1976 the portion (0) All increased costs incurred in theof the total amount of, unrecouped in- month of measurement ("t"), repre-creased product costs calculated as of sented by the symbols "A~t , "Bit," andJanuary 31, 1976 pursuant to paragraph "Nit" under the general formulae in(e) (1 )of this section and'not recouped § 212.83(c), and considered to be re-through the period "t" which may be couped in that respective order,added to the May 15, 1973 selling prices (3) () Increased costs of crude oil andto compute the maximum allowable purchased product Incurred through De-prices for the covered product or prod- cember 31, -1975 and not passed throughucts of the type "I" for any month shall as of January 31, 1976, and not passednot exceed in-any month, ten percent of through by the immediately preceding,the total such amount calculated as of month (t't) included in the symbolJanuary 31,1976 for all covered products. '.A#"' under the general formulae in

(6) Limitation on use of amounts car- § 212.83(c), provided that the portion ofried over pursuant to paragraph (e) (2) such amount deemed to have been re-(ii). Beginning February 1, 1976 the covered in the current month ("a") shalltotal amount of unrecouped increased not exceed the limitation imposed bycrude oil costs calculated pursuant to paragraph (e) (5) of this section, andparagraph (e) (2) (ii) ofthis section (ii) Increased costs of crude oil in-which may .be added to the May 15, curred on or after January 1, 1976 and1973 selling prices to compute the maxi- three or more months before th currentmum allowable prices for all covered month and not passed through by theproducts of the type "IT" for any month immediately preceding month includedshall not exceed in any month, ten per- in the symbol "Air" under the generalcent of the highest amount calculated formulae In § 212.83(c), provided thatpursuant to paragraph (e) (2) (ii) of this the portion of such amount deemed tosectioh for all covered products as of have been recovered in the currentthe end of any month on orafter March month ("u") shall not exceed the lLmita-31,1976. tion imposed by paragraph (e) (6) of this

(7) Limitation on use of amounts car- section,ried over pursuant to paragraphs (e) (3) (4) Increased costs of purchased prod-(ii) and (e) (4)ii). Beginning February ucts and increased non-product costs in-1, 1976'the total amount of unrecouped curred on or after January 1, 1976 andincreased costs of purchased products three or more months before the currentand increased non-product costs calcu- month ("u") and not recovered throughlated pursuant to paragraphs (e) (3) (ti) the month of measurement ('t'), repre-and (e) (4) (it) of this section which may sented by the symbols "B,," and "N,,"be added to the May 15,. 1973 selling under the general formulae in § 212.83 (c)prices to compute the maximum allow- and considered to be recouped In that

rsp2ective order, provided that the por-tion of such amount deemed to have beenrecovered n the current month ("U"'s]all not exceed the limitation imposedby paragraph (e) (7) of this section.

(ug) Corrections for over-reoupment.If in any month beginning with Febru-ary 1976 a firm charges prices for No. 2oils, aviation jet fuel, gasoline, or forgeneral refinery products that result inthe recoupment of more than the totaldollar amount of increased costs caIcu-lated for that covered product pursuantto the general formulae and allowableunder paragraphs (c) (1) and (c) (2) ofths section, the excess revenues receivedmnst be subtracted from the May 15,1973 selling prices pursuant to the "G"factor of the formulae in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c) 42) of this section, to com-pute maximum allowable prices for thatcovered product in a subsequent month.(h) Equal application among classes of

purchaser. With respect to each coveredproduct other than crude oil, when a firmcalculates the amount of increased costsnot recouped that may be added to May15, 1973 selling prices to compute maxi-mum allowable prices in a subsequentmonth, it shall calculate its revenues asthough the greatest amount of increasedcosts actually added to any May 15, 1973selling price of that covered product andincluded in the price charged to any classof purchaser, had been added, in thesame amount, to the May 15, 1973 sellingprices of such product and included inthe price charged to each class of pur-chaser; except that, where. an equalamount of increased costs is not includedIn the price charged to a purchaser be-cause of a price term of a written con-tract covering the sale of such productthat was entered into on or before Sep-tember 1, 1974, that portion of the in-creased costs not included in the pricecharged to such a purchaser need not beincluded in the calculation of revenues,and except to thd extent that § 211.67(m)of this chapter specifically requires cer-tain costs and revenues resulting fromentitlements transactions to be appliedexclusively to determine maximumallowable prices in sales In which pur-chasers do not receive entitlements forthe importation of an eligible product.§ 212.8- [.Amended]

4. Section 212.84 is amended in para-graph (a) by deleting the reference to" 212.83(f)" and inserting in lieu there-of a reference to § 212.83(b).§ 212.85 [Reserved]

5. Section212.85 is deleted.§ 212.87 ' [Reserved]

6. Section 212.87 Is deleted.7. Section 212.129 is amended by add-

ing a new paragraph c) to read as fol-lows:§ 212.129 Price and octane number in-

formation and posting.

c) Each refiner of gasoline must, withrespect to each sale of gasoline other thana retail sale, certify In writing to the pun-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71---IONDAY, AP31L 12, 1976

15340

chaser the octane number, as defined in§212.31, of the gasoline sold.

8. Section 212.132 is amended to readas follows:

§ 212.132 Records on Sequence of CostRccoupments.

(a) Refiners. Refiners are required tocalculate and keep records as of the lastday of each calendar month for eachproduct or group of products representedby the symbol "i" in the formulae con-tained in § 212.83(c) of what amount ofeach of the types of costs set forth in§ 212.83(f) were used in computing pricesfor that month, and of the allocation ofincreased product costs to propane pur-suant to § 212.83 (c) (1) (1i) (A)

(b) Reftners that are also processorsof natural gas. Refiner processors arerequired to calculate and keep records asof the last day of each calendar monthof what amount of each of the types ofcosts set forth In § 212.83(f) were usedIn computing prices for that month, and-of the allocation of increased productcosts to propane pursuant to § 212.83(c)(1) (11i) (A)

§ 212.161 [Amended]

9. Section 212.161 is amended in para-graph (b) (2) (i Jy changing the ref-erence to "§ 212.87(b)" to a reference to"the formulae In § 212.83 (c)

In Doc.'76-10403 FUed 4--7-76;9:10 am]


Title 14-Aeronautics and SpaceCHAPTER I-FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN-

ISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANS-PORTATION[Docket No. 76-H-F_O; Amdt. 39-2577]

PART 39-AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVESSikorsky S-55 Series and S-62A

HelicoptersAmendment 39-194 (31 FR 2681) AD

66-4-3, an amended by Amendment 39-1563 (37 FR 35021) established replace-ment times for Sikorsky S-55 and S-62helicopter main rotor blades and author-ized an increased replacement time ifblades were modified, and inspected atthe times and in the manner set-forth inSikorsky Service Bulletins No. 55810-7Dand No. 62B10-5D, dated November 2,1972.

After issumg Amendment 39-1563, themanufacturer obtained approval for analternate pressure indicator and has im-proved the procedures for checking theblade internal pressure and testing thepressure indicator. The manufacturerhas also revised the service bulletins to-include the new indicator and incorpo-rate these modified procedures. Experi-ence with actuations of the pressure in-dicators in service has emphasized theimportance of improved procedures forchecking blade pressures and testing thepressure indicators.

The Agency has determined that com-pliance' with these revised procedures isnecessary to ensure the effectiveness ofthe blade inspection system. AD 66-4-3in, therefore, being revised to requirecompliance with the revised procedures

In the latest Sikorsky service bulletins orlater FAA approved revisions.

Since a situation exists that requiresImmediate adoption of this regulation, Itis found that notice and public proce-dure hereon are impracticable and goodcause exists for making this amendmenteffective in less than thirty (30) daysafter the date of publication In the FED-ERAL REGISTER.

In consideration of the foregoing andpursuant to the authority delegated tome by the Administrator (31 P.R. 13697),§ 39.13 of Part 39 of the Federal AviationRegulations, Amendment 39-194 (31 PR2681) AD 66-4-3, as amended byAmendment 39-1563, (37 IM 25021), isfurther amended as follows:

(1) By deleting "No. 55B10-7D datedNovember 2, 1972 or 62B10-6D dated No-vember 2, 1972," from paragraph () andInserting in Its place: No. 55B10-79dated March 26, 1976 or No. 62B10-gEdated March 26, 1976 or later FAA ap-proved revisions.

This amendment becomes effectiveMarch 27, 1976.

This amendment is made under theauthority of sections 313(a), 601, and 603of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423) and sec-tion 6(c) of the Department of Trans-portation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c))

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts,on April 2, 1976.

W. E. CResSY,Acting Director,

New England Region.[FR Doc.76-10410 Filed 4-9-76;8.45 am]


15341

T proposedrulesThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rule- and regulations. The purpose of

these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate In the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAgricultural Marketing Service

[7 CFR Part 981 J[Docket No. AO-214-A51

RECOMMENDED DECISION AND OPPOR-TUNITY TO FILE WRITTEN EXCEPTIONSTO -MARKETING AGREEMENT ANDORDER

Proposals for Further Amendments

Notice is hereby given of the filingwith the Hearing Clerk of this recom-mended decision with respect to proposedfurther amendment of the marketingagreement, as amended, and Order No.981, as amended (7 CFR Part 981), regu-lating the handling of almonds grown in'California.

Interested persons may file written ex-ceptions to this decision-with the Hear-ing Clerk, Untied States Department ofAgriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, byApril 27, 1976. The exceptions should befiled in quadruplicat6..All written sub-missions made pursuant to this noticewill be made available for public inspec-tion at the office of the Hearing Clerkduring rekular business hours (7 CFR1.27(b)).

The above notice of filing of -he deci-sion and of opportunity to file exceptionsthereto is issued pursuant to the provi-sions of the Agricultural MarketingAgreement Act of 1937, as amended (7U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the applicablerules of practice and procedure govern-ing the formulation of marketing agree-ments and marketing orders (7 CFR Part900).

Preliminary statement. This proposedamendment of the marketing agreement,as amended, and order, as amended, wasformulated on the record of a publichearing held at Sacramento, California,November 18 and 19, 1975. Notice of thehearing was published in the October 29,1975, issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER (40FR 50289; 51646). The proposals con-

-tained in th. notice of hearing were sub-mitted by the Almond Control Board,Superior -Farming Company, ValleyAlmond Growers Cooperative and theFruit and Vegetable Division, Agricul-tural Marketing Service.

Material Issues. The material issuesof record are as follows:

(1) Revising the definition of (a)"almonds", (b) "edible kernel", (c) "in-edible kernel", (d) "handier", (e) "han-dler carryover", f) "trade demand", and(g) "Control Board";

- (2) Establishing quality controls byproviding for (a) incoming determina-tion of inedible almonds in grower de-liveries to handlers and disposition of

these almonds, and (b) the authority toprescribe outgoing minimum quality in-spection requirements for almonds;

(3) Changing the bases for establish-ing salable and reserve percentages;

(4) Revising the provisions for a han-dler's disposition of almonds for reservecredit;(5) Deleting the bonding provision for

reserve almonds;(6) Clarifying the treatment of col-

lected assessments attributable to credit-able advertising with respect to refundsand operating reserve;

(7) Revising the provision pertainingto the varietal shelling ratios for un-shelled almonds;

(8) Changing the composition of theBoard and the nomination procedures;

(9) Making such changes in the orderas may be necessay to bring the entireorder, as amended, into conformity withthe amendatory action resulting from thehearing.

Findings and conclusions. The follow-ing findings and conclusions on the ma-terial issues are based on the record ofthe hearing:(1) (a) The definition of "almonds" as

contained in § 981.4 of the marketingagreement and order (hereinafter, in thistext of the Findings and Conclusions,collectively referred to as -the "order")should be changed . by redefining"almonds" to mean (unless otherwisespecified) all varieties of almonds (ex-cept bitter almonds), either shelled orunshelled, grown n the State of Cali-fornia, and for the purposes of researchincludes almond shells and hulls. Cur-rently, production and marketing re-search is permitted under § 981.41 foractivities which are designed to assist,improve, or promote the marketing, dis-tribution, consumption or efficient pro-duction of almonds. Research to find newand more profitable uses for, or bettermethods of, handling shells and hullsshould be permitted under the order.Currently, hulls are used mainly for live-stock feed, while shells have some use asroughage in livestock feed and for fire-place briquettes. Shells and hulls to-gether weigh approximately three timesthe kernelweight of almonds. Since theannual production of almonds on a ker-nelweght basis is about 200 millionpounds, a sizable quantity of shells andhulls is produced annually and repre-sents a significant economic factor. Thetestimony is that grower returns couldbe improved If more profitable outletsor better methods of handling can befound for shells and hulls.

The proposal to revise the delinitionof almonds published In the Notice ofHearing contained the words "and for

the purposes of § 981.41 includes almondshells and hulls". However, testimony in-dicated that the Board should not under-take any marketing promotion includingadvertising activity for shells and hulls,and therefore those words should notbe included in § 981.4. Also, no testimonywas given in support of the proposal torevise § 981.41 by adding, "For the pur-poses of this section, the term almondsincludes almond shells and hulls". There-fore, the proposal should not be adopted.

(b) Section r81.7 currently defines theterm "edible kernel". The definition ofthis term should be revised to mean akernel, piece, or particle of almond ker-nel that is not inedible. This changeshould be made In conjunction with therevision of the definition of the term"inedible kernel" n § 981.8.(c) Section 981.8 currently defines the

term "Inedible kernel" to mean thatwhich Is not an edible kernel. As dis-cussed in Material Issue 2, the ordershould provide for the control of inedi-ble almonds and it is therefore necessarythat the term "inedible kernel" be re-defined so that handlers may knowwhich defective almonds will be scoredas inedible kernels. The term "inediblekernel" should mean a kernel, piece, orparticle of almond kernel with any de-fect scored as serious damage, or dam-age due to mold, gum, shrivel, or brownspot, as defined In the U.S. Standardsfor Shelled Almonds, or which has em--bedded dirt not easily removed by wash-ing. Section 981.8 should also authorizethe Board, with the approval of theSecretary, to modify the definition of"Inedible kerner'. However, the Boardshould submit any recommendation formodification to the Secretary not laterthan August 1 of any crop year.

This definition would be consistentwith widely accepted industry practice.Handlers have been picking out certainalmonds with defects which would bescored as damaged under the US. Stand-ards. These defects include (1) gum,covering one-eighth of the surface ormore, (2) brown spot in an aggregategreater than a one-eighth inch circle,and (3) shrivel where the pellicle is lessthan three-fourths filled. Testimony wasalso presented that handlers have beenscoring embedded dirt not easily removedas a defect. The scoring of these defectsIn receipts from growers has becomecommon and the almonds affected withthese defects have been excluded fromhandlers' redetermination weights bythe Board. Under the U.S. Standards,mold is included in the scoring for dam-age, but this defect was not included Inthe listing of the defects comprisingdamage published In the Notice of Hear-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-AMONDAY, AP21L 12, 1976

PROPOSED RULES

Ing. Testimony was presented that thisdefect should be included.

During the blanching process, theskin, or pellicle, covering the kernel Isremoved. A question was raised at thehearing whether these skins would beconsidered kernels and hence werewithin the proposed definition. The pro-ponents indicated that it was not theintent of the testimony to consider skinsas edible or inedible almonds. In orderto clarify the matter, proponents pro-posed a sentence to be included In thedefinition of "inedible kernel" indicat-ing that when the skin is removed fromthe kernel, It shall not be considered asa piece or particle of almond kerneLHowever, this sentence is unnecessary.It Is clear from the testimony that de-tached skins are not kernels and do notfall within the meaning of edible or in-edible kernels.

In order to permit the industry to up-date the definition of "inedible kernel"on the basis of operating experience, or

-to cope with marketing problems whichthe industry may encounter in the fu-ture, the Board, with the approval of theSecretary, should be authorized tomodify that definition. Any modificationwould be by rulemaking procedure. Sothat any modification may be applieduniformly throughout a crop year, andto avoid any inequities that may result ifchanges are made during a crop year,the Board should submit its recom-mendation on modification to the Secre-tqzy not later than August 1 of any cropyear. This would provide time to makethe modification effective before almondsare received by handlers from growers involume, and should afford the industryample time to make any necessary prep-arations. August 1 should be used as thedeadline date because, not later thanthat date, the Board must furnish theSecretary with certain estimates and rec-ommendations to aid the Secretary infixing the salable and reserve percent-agestfor the crop year. The Board gen-erally meets the latter part of July toformulate these estimates and recom-mendations. Any recommendation tomodify the definition of "inedible kernel"should be made at this meeting. How-ever, this limitation should not precludethe Secretary from making any neces-sary modification during a crop year.For exfumple, in the event the applicabledefinitions in the U.S. Standards arechanged after August 1, it may be desir-able to retain the definitions applicableat the beginning of the season in orderto achieve the equity and uniformitytestified to at the hearing.

(d) The definition of "handier" in§ 981.13 should be revised to excludefrom the definition any person receivingalmonds from growers and other personsand delivering these almonds to ahandier. The persons to be'excluded fromthe definition are referred to in the -in-dustry as accumulators. Currently, thesepersons are regulated under the order ashandlers. However, when they transfertheir receipts to another handler bymeans of interhandler transfers pursuantto J 981.55 they are relieved of all order

requirements except those relating to re-poiting receipts and Interhandler, trans-fers. The evidence Is that this reportingIs not essential for compilation of in-dustry data becauise that data also ap-pear In the reports of the handler whoreceives the almonds, processes them,and places them into trade channels.Moreover, under another proposal, dis-cussed in -Material Issue 2, handlerswould remove and dispose of inediblekernels In excess of a given percentagein the incoming receipts. Accumulatorsdo not process almonds nor do they havefacilities to remove inedible kernels.

An accumulator buys almonds in smalllots from spare-time growers or gleaners.He accumulates these recelpts and deliv-ers them to a processing handler. Glean-ers are persons, other than growers, whogather almonds from such sources asbackyard or roadside trees, or fromorchards after normal harvesting hasbeen completed. The term "gleaners"was included in the proposed definitionappearing in the Notice of Hearing, al-though the term itself was not defined.The term "other persons" should be usedin lieu of "gleaners".

Accumulators and gleaners should notbe excluded from the definition of "han-dlers" on any almonds which they do notdeliver to a handier. If they place anyalmonds Into the current of commercewithin the meaning of § 981.16, theyshould be handlers for those almonds andsubject to order requirements.

As proposed in the Notice of Hearing,the exclusion would have been applicableto almonds delivered to "a handier of rec-ord with the Board". However, the evi-dence is that the exclusion would ex-tend -to almonds delivered to any han-dler, whether or not the handier was thenon record with the Board. The'order ap-plies to all almond handlers and regu-lates their activities, whether or not theyare on record with the Board at any giv-en time, and It is the obligation of theBoard to know at all times who is han-dling almonds. Therefore, the term "onrecord with the Board" is unnecessaryand should not be included In the defi-nition.(e) The definition of !handler carry-

over" in § 981.20 should be revised by de-leting the words "(except those held ascertified reserve) " to conform with the1970 amendment of the order (35 FR11372). These -words no longer are ap-plicable. After that amendment, physi-cal setasIde, including inspection andcertification, of reserve almonds uponwithholding was unnecessary. The Noticeof Hearing included one proposal to de-lete the words "for their own accounts"In § 981.20. However, no testimony waspresented to supp6rt this deletion, andtherefore these words should be retained.

(f) Thedeflnition of "trade demand"In § 981.21 should be revised so that inrecommending the salable and reservepercentages for any crop year, the Boardmay include, with the approval of theSecretary, export outlets for almonds.,The term "trade demand" is used In com-puting salable and reserve percentagesfor any crop year. Currently, trade de-

mand means the quantity of almondswhich will be acquired by the domestictrade In the United States, Puerto Ricoand the Canal Zone. For the reasons dis-cussed in Material Issue 3, the Boardshould be authorized to Include exportoutlets when estimating trade demandfor certain crop years, when arriving atits estimates and recommendations re-quired in § 981.49.

(g) The name of the "Almond Con-trol Board" should be changed to the"Almond Board of California." Section981.22 should provide that "Board"means the "Almond Board of California"which is the administrative agency es-tablished by the order. Also, the centercaption preceding § 981.30 should be re-vised to read "ALMOND BOARD O1CALIFORNIA", and "Controrl should bedeleted wherever It appears before"Board" In the order.

The word "Control" Is objectionable tosome, and this change should enhancethe value of the Board's name In publicrelations and consumer education ac-tivity. The Board and the industry shouldbe permitted to use previously printedstationery and forms bearing the name"Almond Control Board". This wouldavoid loss and permit a phasing out ofthe name "Almond Control Board".

(2) A new § 981.42 should be includedIn the order to authorize certain methodsof quality control. Until now, this au-thority was deemed unnecessary to en-sure a quality product to consumer.Most almond sales have been to indus-trial users who buy on specificatiols and,In turn, must market a prodtlct accept-able to consumers. However, as a resultof increased production, it was testifiedthat handlers will have to sell more ofthe almond crop directly to consumers.These sales will not be according to speol-fication buying of industrial users. Also,the percentage of defective kernels Inthe crop has increased in recent year,and scrutiny by regulatory agencies ofthe quality of food offered consumers isincreasing.

Therefore, § 981.42 should requirehandlers to cause to be deternined,through the inspection agency, and atthe handler's expense, the percent ofinedible kernels In each variety receivedby him, and shall report the determina-tion to the Board. The quantity of inedi-ble kernels In each variety In excess oftwo percent of the kernelwegh receivedshould constitute a weight obligation tobe accumulated In the course of proc-essing and should be delivered to theBoard, or to Board accepted crtshers,feed manufacturers, or feeders. In orderto achieve uniform determinations, eachhandler should be required to use theinspection agency defined in § 981.17 tosample, analyze, and report, either di-rectly or through handler personnelworking under Inspection agency guid-ance, the percentage of inedible kernelsIn each variety delivered by each grower.Inedible kernels would be those definedin, § 981.8, as discussed in Material Issue1(c).

The sampling and inspection require-ments should be applicable to all al-


15W4

PROPOSED RULES

monds received by a handler, includingthe deliveries of a handler's own produc-tion. A person engaged in the commercialproduction of almonds generally willmake several deliveries, and each'deliv-ery may. be made up of more than onevariety. Each of these deliveries shouldbe sampled, and the inedible kernel con-tent of each variety determined by, orunder the supervision of, a third party.Testimony 'was presented that this de-terminaifto is not new because mosthandlers- now sample each delivery toprovide the basis-for payments to grow-ers. However, handlers should be, per-mitted to -accumulate small quantitiesreceived as door lots until there is a-iuantity large enough to permit samplingand -a determination of the inediblekernel content in the accumulated re-ceipts.

Inedible kernels accumulated in thecourse of processing should be deliveredto the Board, or to Board accepted oilcrushers, feed manufacturers, or feeders.This change from wording proposed inthe Notice of Hearing should be made torecognize that, in a handler's plant, in--edible kernels are accumulated fromblanching, manufacturing processes, andother processes. The two percent levelshould provide a practical means of re-quiring inedible kernels to be accumu-lated by- each handler to satisfy hisweight obligation. Requiring handlers tomeet this obligation should ensure thateach handler's outgoing shipments ofalmonds are relatively free of almondswith serious damage, and the number ofkernels with minor damage should beminimal.

The inedible kernel content of receiptsshould be determined by variety so thatthose varieties that normally have aninedible-kernel content of less than twopercent cannot be used to cancel out theobligation of the higher testing varieties.For example, 100,000 pounds of varietyX with one percent inedible kernelsshould not be added to 100,000 poundsof variety Y with three percent inedible-kernels to produce an average of twopercent, and hence no disposition obliga-tion. On the other hand, the evidence isthat it would not be practical or neces-sary to require a varietal or qualitativedetermination of the material disposedof in satisfaction of an obligation. Theobjective is to remove inedible kernelsfrom the pack and this would be achievedby totalling all of a handler's -obliga-tions and allowing him to satisfy thetotal from pickouts, rejects, and anyother material unsuitable for humanconsumption. While it is conceivable thatsome edible almonds could be included inmaterial delivered in satisfaction of anobligatioii, it was testified that the eco-nomics'of delivering $1.00 per pound ma-terial to a $.10 per pound outlet wouldkeep this to a minimun However,-a han-dler may receive a lot which is so poorthat the entire lot must be dumped. Inthat case, the weight of the entire lotshould be credited to the handier.

Since disposition would be to crushers,feed -manufacturers, or feeders accepta-

ble to the Board, the word "approved"appearing in the Notice of Hearingshould be changed to "accepted". This

-would be consistent with current proce-dures providing for establishment of alist of users acceptable to the Board.

Section 981.42 should also authorizethe Board, with the approval of the Sec-retary, to change the two percent ex-emption for any crop year, to authorizeadditional outlets, and to establish rulesand regulations as may be necessary orincidental to the administration of theprovision. This would include, but not belimited to, the method of determininginedible kernel content and satisfactionof the disposition obligation. This wouldpermit timely adjustment of the provi-sion to changing conditions, Improve-ment in the procedures, or correction ofany deficiencies or errors that may de-velop in its application.

It is possible that some small-slzedhandlers may not, in the course 6f proc-essing beyond the removal of inediblekernels, generate sufficient material tomeet the computed obligation. For ex-ample, some handlers may not blanchalmonds or process them into manufac-tured items. Thus, § 981.42 should au-thorize the Board, for good cause, towaive' portions of the obligation forhandlers not generating inedible kernelsfrom such sources as blanching or manu-facturing. "Good cause" should be proofthat the handler attempted to meet hisobligation but was unable to because ofnonrecoverable losses in shelling or forsome other reason. Also, many accumu-lations of inedible kernels will have vary-ing amounts of shell or other foreignmaterial comingled with the almondmeat. In order to give credit for theweight of almond meat In each disposi-tion, the meat content should be deter-mined by procedures prescribed by theBoard, and this weight reported to theBoard. The quantity disposed of shouldbe deducted from the handlers receipts.

Section 981.42 should also provide au-thority for outgoing quality inspection.The evidence is that this is intended asa contingency for use only if the incom-ing regulation should prove inadequatefor industry needs. For example, otherregulatory agencies may establish regu-lations which would apply to packedalmonds or almond products. This au-thority should provide that for any cropyear the Board may establishwlth theapproval of the Secretary, such mini-mum quality and Inspection require-ments applicable to almonds to behandled or to be processed into manUi-factured .products, as will contribute toorderly marketing or be in the publicinterest. Section 981.42 should also pro-vide that in a crop year when these re-quirements are in effect, no handler shallhandle or process almonds unless theymeet the applicable requirements as evi-denced by certifications acceptable to theBoard.

Testimony was presented that theBoard's interest would be only In settinga minimum level of quality for almonds

to be handled as almonds or processedinto almond products. Handlers shouldbe permitted to sell almonds whichequal or exceed the minimum quality. Itwas also testified that the minimumquality could apply to a quality factor,such as the level of aflatoxin, which theinspection agency defined in § 981.17ordinarily does not test. In that case, thedetermination would have to be madeby the Department or a laboratory ap-proved by the Department. On the otherhand, if the outgoing regulation wouldrequire a determination of such factorsas the inedible kernel content, thisdetermination should be made by theinspection agency.

In connection with any outgoingregulation, the Board, with the approvalof the Secretary, should be authorizedto establish rules and regulations neces-sary and incidental to the administra-tion of that regulation.

(3) Section 981.47 provides the methodfor establishing salable and reserve per-centages by the Secretary. In order to aidthe Secretary in fixing these percentages,§ 981.49 requires the Board to submitcertain estimates and recommendationsto the Secretary not later than August 1,.In computing prior percentages, esti-mates of total production were used.However, data show that the marketablequantities packed out by handlers are asmuch as five percent less than the quan-tities delivered by growers. About 40 per-cent of the weight loss is due to the re-2noval of defective (i.e., inedible)kernels, which are disposed of in oil orfeed outlets. The balance is due to mois-ture loss during storage and to processinglosses, such as shelling and conversioninto cut forms. The evidence is that anestimhte of the marketable quantityshould be used by the Board and theSecretary in computing salable andreserve percentages. Therefore, "mar-ketable" should be inserted before"almonds" in the third sentence of§ 981.47 and ,in § 981.49(a). The term"marketable" should exclude that por-tion of the production which is receivedby a handier but is not handled by himor any other handler. However,/in somecrop years, almonds diverted to oil orfeed may be eligible for reserve satis-faction, as discussed in Material Issue 4.For the purpose of computing salable-and reserve percentages in those cropyears, an estimate of the quantity to bediverted to those outlets should be in-cluded with the marketable quantity inthe total quantity allocated to trade de-mand and other outlets. This total.quantity should be referred to as theallocation quantity.

As discussed in Material Issue 1(f), theterm "trade demand" should be revisedso that in recommending the salable andreserve percentages for any crop year,the Board may include, with the approvalof the Secretary,. export outlets for al-monds In Its estimate of trade demand.As indicated in that Issue, trade demandcurrently means the quantity of almondswhich will be acquired by the domestic

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-M.AONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15343

PROPOSED RULES

trade. This meaning was satisfactory solong as the salable quantity (ie, do-mestic shipments) constituted the majorportion of the annual movement, andf.o.b. prices, point of origin, for salablealmonds were higher than for almondsexported for reserve credit. However, Infour of the six crop years beginning withthe 1969-70 crop year, the quantity soldIn export exceeded domestic sales- Noreserve percentages have been in effectfor the last three crop years, includingthe 1975-76 crop year, and there havebeen no established differences betweendomestic and export (f.a.s.) prices. Dur-ing these years, it was-unnecessary toestablish a reserve percentage to allocatepart of the supply to the export market.

However, production of almonds, bothIn California and worldwide, is increas-Ing, and some form of volume regula-tion will be necessary to achieve pricestability and develop new uses and out-lets, including new geographical areas.Testimony was that a reserve percentageof five to 10 percent may be enough toaccomplish this. However, the formulafor computing the salable and reservepercentages does not permit this becausedomestic needs (ie, salable almonds)constitute about 50 percent or less of thesupply subject to regulation, and therebyresulting in a reserve percentage of about50 percent or more. So that the industrycan establish a modest reserve percent-age, the order should permit exports tobe included in the trade demand esti-mate.

Testimony was also presented that ex-ports should not be Temoved as a reserveoutlet permanently because the market-ing outlook for California almonds Inunclear. It may be necessary again forthe California almond industry to com-pute the percentages under the currentprovisions of the order If marketing con-ditions In export necessitate resumptionof the use of minimum export prices.

To conform with the recommendationto permit the trade demand estimate toInclude domestic and export sales, thelast sentence in § 981.66(d) should pro-vide that the Board may dispose of orauthorize the disposition of, reserve al-monds in noncompetitive outlets in anycrop year In which the quantity exceedsthat needed for export or the exportquantity Is included In salable almonds.Also, the title of paragraph (c) of§ 981.66 should be revised by substitutingthe word "salable" instead'of "domestic".When exports are part of the salable sup-ply, there would be no export portion Inthe reserve.

The third sentence In § 981.47 shouldbe revised so that the correct quantityof carryover on June 30 of a crop yearavailable to satisfy trade demand in thesucceeding crop year would be used tocompute the salable (and hence, also thereserve) percentage for that year. Asdiscussed in Material Issue 1(e), certifi-cation of reserve no lojiger was neces-sary after the 1970 amendment of theorder. Since then, all carryover has beenconstrued as meeting the definition of"handier carryover". However, If part of

the carryover as of June 30 representsunexported reserve obligation, this quan-tity Is not available to satisfy domestictrade demand In the succeeding cropyear. Or, as discussed In this MaterialIssue, If export tonnage is included Intrade demand for a crop year, the un-exported reserve obligation, from theprevious year, would satisfy part of thattrade demand. Consequently, thereshould be flexibility in applying the for-mula for computation of the salable per-centage so that all, or a portion, of thehandier carryover, is used.

Under the proposal, four situations arepossible when computing the salable per-centage: (1) There is a carryover of un-exported reserve tonnage and trade de-mand of- the new crop year is to be do-mestic only; (2) there is a carryover ofunexported reserve tonnage and thetrade demand of the new crop year is tobe both domestic and export; (3) therewas no reserve in -the prior crop year,the carryover is all salable but a largequantity Is committed to export, and thetrade demand of the new crop year is tobe domestic only; and (4) the carryoversituation Is the same as (3), except thattrade demand is to be both domestic andexport.

It was testified that when trade de-mand of the new crop year is to be do-mestic only, the unexported reserve orcommitments to export would not beavailable to satisfy trade demand andhence should be subtracted from thecarryover. However, all carryover shouldbe available for trade demand when bothdomestic and export requirements areincluded in trade demand.

The third sentence of § 981.47 shouldtherefore be modified, in part, to provide,that in establishing the salable and re-serve percentages, the Secretary shallover at the end of the crop year, to theestimated trade demand, either domesticor domestic plus export, less the handiercarryover available to satisfy trade de-mand plus the desirable handler carry-over at the end of the crop year, to theestimated production of marketable al-monds, or the allocation quantity,whichever Is applicable.

(4) Section 981.51 prescribes certainrequirements for reserve. The provisionsof that section are based on the market-ing and regulatory conditions of 1956when each handier was required to meethis reserve obligation by physically set-ting aside-lots meeting grade require-ments prescribed in paragraphs (a), (b),and (c), of-that section. The necessityfor physical setaside of reserve almondswas deleted by the 1970 amendment, andthe grade requirements therefore are ob-solete and should be deleted.

Section 981.51 also limits the weightthat may be certified and credited as re-serve to the kernel weight less any in-edible kernel weight in excess of threepercent of its edible kernel content. Thistolerance would lose its significance ifthe incoming quality regulation necessl-tates the removal of inedible kernels inexcess of two percent in a lot and dis-position in non-human consumption out-

lets. It was testified that most packs forhuman consumption would havo veryfew, If any inedible kernels. Therefore,inspection of almonds disposed of as re-serve almonds In non-human consump-tion outlets would be unnecessary. Inview of this, the requirements for outgo-ing inspection of reserve almonds shouldbe deleted except In those crop yearswhen the agency agreement authorizedin § 981.67 provides that all export salesmust be madeat minimum prices. In thatevent, the inspection would be necessaryin order to establish the grade and sizeof each lot, thereby determining whetherthe sales price is equal to or better thanthe minimum price for the grade and sizebeing shipped. Inspection and certifica-'tion of reserve almonds for human con-sumption should also be required If out-going quality requirements are estab-lished pursuant to proposed § 981.42(b).

As discussed In Material Issue 3, Insome crop years almonds diverted to oilor feed should be eligible for reservesatisfaction, and an estimate of thisquantity should be included in the totalquantity allocated to trade demand andother outlets (i.e., the allocation quan-tity). This estimate should be includedwith the estimates and recommendationsfurnished by the Board to the Secretarypursuant to § 981.49. In connection withthe proposed revision of § 981.61, It wastestified that In those years when a re-serve Is established and a portion of thereserve obligation may be satisfied by di-version of almonds in oil or feed outlets,the quantity diverted should be creditedagainst the handler's reserve obligationand, as currently provided, deductedfrom his receipts. This should includeany inedible kernels disposed of by the.handier in satisfaction of any disposi-tion obligation incurred pursuant to§ 981.42(a). Handlers should be affordedthis as an incentive to keep low qualitymaterial out of normal trade channels.

The provisions of § 981.51 should bedeleted except for the modification andgrade authority in the last sentence. Thenew provisions of § 981.51 should providethat each handler may satisfy his reserveobligation with such almonds specifiedin the terms of the agency agreement au-thorized in § 981.67, including all appli-cable Inspection and certification re-quirements. Disposition of reserve al-monds by handlers Is pursuant to § 981.-67 of the order. Section 981.67 provides,In part, for the.Board to authorize han-dlers to act as Its agents by means of anagency agreement. In the event a han-dler does not become an agent of theBoard, § 981.51 should provide that thishandler may receive credit by similarlydelivering almonds to the Board or Itsdesignees. It was testified that the incom-ing quality control would require a han-dler to process his receipts and removeinedible kernels to meet any dispositionobligation Incurred pursuant to § 981.42(a), and thus, a non-agent would haveabout the same grade of almonds as anagent to satisfy his reserve oblIgation

Revision of § 981.51 would necessitateconforming changes In other sections of


;15344

PROPOSED RULES

the -order. The third sentence in § 981.-61 should be revised so that the rede-

-termined kernelweight of.each handler'sreceipts, as of any date during the cropyear, shall -be his carryover as of thatdate plus the weight of almonds deliveredor used in products, minus the carryover-at the beginning of the crop year, the-weight on which another handlerhas as-sumed the obligations, and the weightdelivered to exempt outlets. Since theorder no longer requires a physical set-aside of a handler's .reserve obligation,the undisposed portion of reserve can nolonger be readily separated from the to-tal carryover as of December 31, March31, or June 30, and determining the por-tion'of the carryover that is reserveshould not be done -until the redeter-mined weight is known. Consequently,redetermination should be computed onthe basis of the total inventory plus thetotal deliveries and usage in products.

Since the quantity of reserve almondsdisposed of in oil or feed outlets wouldbe deducted from. a handler's receipts,the words "and which are not reservealmonds" appearing in the first sentenceof § 981.50 should be deleted as a con-forming. change. In that same provision,-the words "disposed of in" should bechanged to "delivered to" to conformwith the third sentence of § 981.61. Thus,upon delivery to an accepted user, thehandler should be able to claim the ap-plicable credit. It should be the Board'sresponsibility to maintain surveillanceover users to assure that they dispose ofthe almonds through crushing or feed-ing.

(5) Section 981.53 should be deleted.Section 981.53 authorizes a handler todefer withholding reserve to any datedesired by the handler, but not later thanMay 15 of the crop year, by means of awritten undertaking secured by a bond-or bonds. This provision has not beenused since the 1970 amendment.

The purpose of -the deferment was topermit handlers to use early receipts tomeet market needs. With larger crops-and the need to hold inventories to serv-ice year-round customers, it is no longer-necessary for most handlers to deferwithholding to meet their reserve obli-gations. For those handlers who do notsell the year-round, the withholding re--quirement must be met by them whilethey still have almonds. These handlerscannot be permitted to defer the with-holding until May 15.

As a conforming change, item (a) in§981.52 reading: -"Any quantity forwhich he has a temporary defermentpursuant to § 981.53," should be deletedand items (b)- and (c) should be redesig-nated as (a) and (b) respectively. Also,the words "the time for withholding hasbeen deferred pursuant to § 981.53 or"in the second sentence of the same sec-tion should be deleted.

(6) Section 981.80 authorizes -theBoard to incur such expenses as the See-retary may find are reasonable andlikely to be incurred by it during eachcrop year, for the maintenance andfunctioning of the Board, including the

accumulation and maintenance of an op-erating reserve fund, and for such pur-poses as the Secretary may, pursuant tothe provisions of the order, determineto be appropriate. Section 981.81(a) re-quires handlers to pay to the Board, byway of assessments, such sum, less anyamounts credited pursuant to § 981.41,as the Secretary finds Is necessary toprovide funds to meet the authorizedBoard expenses -and the operating re-serve requirements, and establishes forthe crop year. Section 981.41(c) author-izes the Board, with the approval ofthe Secretary, to provide for creditingall or any portion of a handler's directexpenditures for marketiig promotionincluding paid advertising, that pro-motes the sale of almonds, almond prod-ucts or their uses. That paragraph alsoprovides that no handler shall receivecredit for any allowable direct expendi-tures that would exceed the total of hisassessment obligation which Is attribut-able to that portion of his assessmentdesignated for marketing promotion in-eluding paid advertising. The provisionsof §§ 981.80 and 981.81 on establishmentand maintenance of an operating re-serve fund, and of § 981.41 on marketingpromotion including paid advertisingwere included in the order in the 1972amendment.

Testimony was presented that para-graphs (b) and (c) of § 981.81 should be.modified. The modification should es-tablish that advertising assessments car-ried into a new crop year do not becomea part of the operating reserve fund im-mediately. The operating reserve shouldbe a pool of funds available to pay thecosts of authorized activities of the Boardduring any part of the crop year whenassessment income permits. Further-more, withdrawals from the operatingreserve should be replaced so that anadequate reserve is available to servicethe needs of the next crop year.

It should also be clear that the Boardmay spend any money collect"d fromhandlers as the uncredited portion of theassessment rate attributable to market-ing promotion and paid advertising.Since this money generally s not avail-able until a crop year has ended, the onlytime the Board can spend this money isin the succeeding crop year. Moreover,that money should not be available forspending by the Board and simultane-ously used to create a reserve.

Based on the Board's experience withthe provision included in the order In1972, its fiscal affairs may be brokendown into four accounts; administrative,research, creditable advertising, andconsumer education. For the purpose ofpreparing budgets, determining assess-ments, and establishing limits In theoperating reserve fund, the Board shouldbe able to use two major classifications;"administrative-research" and "market-ing promotion". The latter classificationwould include creditable advertising andconsumer education.

Therefore, paragraph (b) of § 981.81should provide that any money collectedas assessments for either the adminis-

15345

trative (maintenance and functioning)or research activities of the Board andnot used for the expenses of the applica-ble crop year, may be used in paying theBoard's admnilstrative-research ex-penses of the first four months of thesucceeding crop year. io later than thefifth month the amount not expended inthe previous crop year for administra-tive-research shall be retained in theoperating reserve fund. Paragraph (b)should also provide that- any amountsnot credited pursuant to § 981.41 for acrop year may be used by the Board forits marketing promotion expenses of thesucceeding crop year, and any unex-pended portion of those amounts at theend of that crop year shall be retainedIn the marketing promotion portion ofthe operating reserve fund. The Boardshould not accumulate money in excessof its needs. Therefore, any money ineach portion of the operating reservefund in excess of the level authorized toparagraph (c) shall be refunded to han-dlers or used to reduce the assessmentrate of the subsequent crop year, as theBoard may determine. Each handler'sshare of a refund shall'be the amount bywhich his payment of assessments ex-ceeds his pro rata share of the two majorclassifieations of Board expenses. Forthe purpose of computing any refundfrort the marketing promotion portion,each handler's payment of assessmentsshall include any amount credited to thehandler pursuant to § 981.41. In lieu ofa refund, each handler may have theamount due him credited to his assess-ment obligation of the crop year in

which the amount would be refunded.Consistent with the revision of para-

graph (b), paragraph (c) of § 981.81should provide that the Board may main-tain an operating reserve fund consistingof an administrative-research portionand a marketing promotion portion. Theamount in each portion shall not exceedapproximately six-months budget forthe activity area or such lower amountas the Board may establish with the ap-proval of the Secretary. However, thislimitation shall not restrict the tem-porary retention of excess funds for thepurpose of stabilizing or reducing the as-sessment rate of a crop year. To the ex-tent that funds from current crop yearassessments are inadequate, funds in theoperating reserve may be used for theauthorized activities of the crop year.Funds so used, and not exceeding thesix-month limitation, shall be.replacedto the extent practicable from assess-ients subsequently collected for the crop

year.(7) In § 981.62(a), the designation of

"major varieties" and "minor varieties"should be deleted, and the list of almondvarieties and their corresponding per-centages should be rearranged in a uni-fled list in descending order accordingto the varietal shelling ratio. The ratiosare used to compute the kernel weight ofalmonds which are handled unshelled.

In the notice of hearing the proposalwas to redesignate five almond varietiesas either "major varieties" or Iminor

FEDERAL-REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-IONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

PROPOSED RULES

varieties." It was testified, how'ever, thatthe "major" and "minor" designationscan be confusing, and there is no usefulpurpose in continuing these designations.

(8) Testimony on several proposalspertaining to the Board, including estab-lishment, membership representation,and nominations, was presented at thehearing. These included Proposals 19, 20,21, and 22 in the Notice of Hearing, andone introduced at the hearing. For thereason stated in this Material Issue, allof these proposals should be denied.

Proposal 19 would divide the produc-tion area into two -districts and assignan independent grower member and al-ternate member to each district so thatgrowers and their representatives wouldbe closer to each other. The proponentindicated that, currently-growers in thesouthern San Joaquin Valley are about400 miles from their representative onthe Board.

Another proponent submitted Pro-posals 20, 21, and 22. The proponentstated that the proposals are necessaryfor several reasons. Since the promulga-tion of the order in 1950, the composi-tion of the Board, nomination of itsmembers, or the groups they represent,have not been changed, even though thealmond industry has changed in the past25 years and more changes can be ex-pected in the future. Under the proposal,each segment of the industry would haveoan opportunity to be represented on theBoard by a direct vote and, to be as"democratic" as possible, it was furtherproposed that the cooperative and otherthan cooperative designated Board posi-tions would be removed. It was con-tended that such a division encouragesmembers' of the Board to act on a per-sonal rather than an industry -wide basis.Proposal,20 would establish a Board of12 members (instead of 10, as currentlyprovided), with an alternate for eachmember. Six members and their alter-nates would represent growers and sixmembers and alternates would representhandlers. It would divide the productionarea into three districts and assign twogrower members and their alternates toeach district. Proposal 21 would prescribequalifications for members and their al-ternates to serve on the Board. Eachgrower member and alternate member,at the time of his selection and duringhis term of office would have to be agrower within the district for which se-lected. Each grower member and alter-nate member would be prohibited fromhandling almonds either in a proprietarycapacity or as a director, officer, or em-ployer; each handler member and alter-nate member would have to be a director,officer, or employee of a handler. Pro-posal 22 would revise the nominationprocedures for membership on the Board.Each grower could vote only in one dis-trict. Each grower would be able to votefor two candidates. The person receivingthe greatest number of votes, by num-ber, and the person receiving the great-est number of votes, by tonnage, wouldbe the member nominees. Handlers wouldvote for members and alternate members

separately, and each handler's vote wouldbe weighted by the quantity of almondshandled during a designated period. Ahandler would be able to divide his voteamong candidates in each category as-signing to each vote the portion of theweighting available to him as he maychoose. The member nominees would bethose six persons receiving the highest

* weighted vote.A fourth proposal submitted at the

hearing was not included in the Noticeof Hearing. It would increase the mem-bership of the Board to 11 members andtheir alternates. This additional memberwould be assigned to cooperative and in-dependent handlers, none of which in-"dividually handled more than three per-cent of the almonds delivered by grow-ers. The proponent offered this proposalto give small handlers representation onthe Board.

Opposition to all of these proposalswas presented at the hearing, with em-phasis on Proposals 20, 21, and 22. Insummation, the opponent stated thatthe success of the order and the Board'sadministration of it cannot be equalledin any other industry, and this historyis the strongest recommendation formaintaining the current makeup of theBoard.

That the success of the order and itsadministration by the Board over theyears has proven successful appears evi-,dent to many in the industry. However,acceptance alone should not necessarilyjustify the status quo. As testified, thealmond industry has changed consider-ably since the order was promulgated.Since then, almond production increasedfrom about 40 million pounds, kernelweight basis, to 217.7 million pounds,kernel weight basis, in 1974. Almondacreage increased from about 90,500bearing acres and about 18,000 non-bearing acres in 1950, to about 230,000bearing acres and about 74,000 non-bearing acres in 1974. In 1950, almondproduction in California was confinedlargely to the Sacramento Valley andadjacent counties. Today, California'salmond production extends from thesouthern part of the San Joaquin Val-ley to the Sacramento Valley.

Although these changes may lend cre-dence to the two proposals for a divisionof the area into districts, at least for thepurpose of obtaining producer nomineeswho do not market their productionthrough cooperative handlers, the testi-mony presented on both was insufficientto enable recommending one over theother. The same applies to the proposalsfor the creation of an 11-member and a12-member committee, and the proposalson division of membership between fiveproducer members and six handler mem-bers, or six producer members and sixhandler members. In addition, seriouspotential difficulties in Proposals 21 and22 were uncovered by the opposition tes-timony which should preclude theiradoption.

However, for the purposes of this rec-ommended decision, any further analysisof the relative strength and weaknesses

of the four proposals is unnecessary. Itis clear from all of the testimony pre-sented on the four proposals that theindustry is not In agreement on the ap-propriate provisions covering Board com-position, representation, and nomina-tions. It Is essential that there be sub-stantial agreement within all segmentsof any industry on matters of this sort,The diversity of testimony presented onthese matters Indicate h need for furtherstudy by the almond industry and agree-ment on any changes to be presented atan amendatory hearing.

(9) Some of the amendatory actionsincluded in this recommended decisioncause the need to make certain conform-Ing changes so that the order, asamended, will be in conformity withthose actions. Any such changes are dis-cussed with the Issues to which they arepertinent. All such changes should beincorporated In the recommendedamendment of the order.

Rulings on briefs of interested persons,At the conclusion of the hearing, theAdministrative Law Judge fixed Decem-ber 29, 1975, as the final date for inter-ested persons to file proposed findingsind conclusions, and written argumentsor briefs, based upon the evidence re-ceived at the hearing. On December 23,1975, the time for filing such documentswas extended to January 9, 1976.

Briefs and proposed findings and con-clusions were filed on behalf of certaininterested persons. These briefs, proposedfindings and conclusions, and the evi-dence in the record were considered Inmaking the findings and conclusions setforth above. To the extent that thd sug-gested findings and conclusions filed byinterested persons are inconsistent withthe findings and conclusions set forthherein, the requests to make such find-ings or to reach such conclusions aredenied.

General findings. Upon the basis of therecord, it is found that:

(1) The findings hereinafter set forthare supplementary, and in addition, tothe previous findings and determina-tions which were made in connectionwith the issuance of the marketing agree-ment and order and each previously is-sued amendment thereto. Except insofaras such findings and determinations may,b- in conflict with the findings and deter-minations set forth herein, all of saidprior findings and determinations arehereby ratified and affirmed;

(2) The marketing agreement and or-der, as amended, and as hereby proposedto be further amended, and all of theterms and conditions thereof, will tendto effectuate the declared policy of theact;

(3) The marketing agreement and or-der, as amended, and as hereby proposedto be further amended, regulate the han-dling of almonds grown in the productionarea in the same manner as, and are ap-plicable only to persons in the respectiveclasses of commercial and Industrial ac-tivity specified in, ,the marketing agree-ment and order upon which hearingshave been held;

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-hMONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15346

15347PROPOSED RULES

(4) The marketing agreement and or-der, as amended, and as herebjy proposedto be further amended, are limited Intheir application to the smallest region-al production area which is practicable,consistently v'th carrying out the de-clared policy of the act, and the issuanceof several orders applicable to subdivi-sions of the production area.'would noteffectively carry out the declared policyof the act;

-(5)'There are no. differences in the- production and marketing of almonds

grown in the production area which makenecessary different terms and provisionsapplicable to different parts of such area;and- (6) All handling of almonds grown in

the production area as defined in thenrketing agreement and order, asamended, and as hereby proposed to befurther amended, is in the current ofinterstate orforeign commerce or direct-ly burdens, obstructs, or affects suchcommerce. -

Recommended amendment of the mar-keting agreement and order.

The following amendment of thde mar-keting agreement and order, as amended,is recommended as the detailed meansby which the foregoing conclusions may.be carried out:

1. Revise § 981.4:to read as follows:

§ 981.4 Almonds."Almonds" means (unless- otherwise

specified) all varieties of almonds (ex-cept bitter almonds), either shelled orunshelled, growh-in the State of Cali-fornia, and for the purposes of researchincludes almond shells and hulls.

2. Revise § 981.7 to read as follows:

§ 981.7 Edible kernel.'7,ile kernel" means a kernel, piece,

or particle of almond kernel that is notinedible.


§ 981.8- Inedible kernel.!!Inedible kernel" means a kernel, piece,

or particle of almond kernel with anydefect scored as serious damage, or dam-age due to mold, gum, shrivel, or brownspot, as defined in the- United StatesStandards for Shelled Almonds, or whichhas embedded dirt not easily removed bywashing. This definition may be modifiedby the Board with the approval of theSecretary: Provided, That the Boardshall -submit any recommendation formodification-to the Secretary not laterthan August 1.


§ 981.13 Handier."Handier" means 6ny person handling

almonds during any crop year, exceptthat, such term shall not include eithera grower who sells only almonds of hisown. production at retail at a roadsidestand operated by him, or a person re-ceiving almonds from growers andother persons and delivering these al-monds to a handler. ,


§ 981.20 Handler carryover.-"Handler carryover" as of any given

date means all almonds, wherever lo-cated, then held by handlers for theirown accounts (whether or not sold) butnot including any almond products. -

6. Revise § 981.21 to read a; follows:

S 981.21 Trade demand."Trade demand" means the quantity

of almonds (kernel weight basis (whichcommercial distributors and users suchas the wholesale, chain store, confec-tionery, bakery, Ice cream, and nut salt-ing trades will acquire from all handlersduring a crop year for distribution inthe United States, Puerto Rico, and theCanal Zone: Provided, That in recom-mending the salable and reserve per-centages for any crop year, the Boardmay include, with the approval of theSecretary, export outlets for almonds.

7. Amend § 981.22 by changing "Con-trol Board" to "Board" and revising thedefinition to read as follows:

§ 981.22 Board."Board" means the Almond Board of

California which is the administrativeagency established by this subpart.

§ 981.30 [Amended]8. Revise the center caption preceding

§ 981.30 to read "ALMOND BOARD OFCALUFORNIA" and delete "Control"wherever it appears in the order.

9. Add § 981.42 to read as follows:

§ 981.42 Quality control.(a) Incoming. Each handler shall

cause to be determined, through the In-spection agency, and at handler ex-pense, the percent of inedible kernels ineach variety received by him, and shallreport the determination to the Board.The quantity of inedible kernels in eachvariety in excess of two percent of thekernel weight received, shall constitutea weight obligation to be accumulated Inthe course of processing and shall be de-livered to the Board, or Board acceptedcrushers, feed manufacturers, orfeeders. The'Board, with the approvalof the Secretary, may change this per-centage for any crop year, may author-ize additional outlets, and may estab-lish rules and regulations necessary andincidental to the administration of thisprovision, including the method of de-termining inedible kernel content andsatisfaction of the disposition obligation.The Board for good cause may waiveportions of obligations for those handlersnot generating inedible material fromsuch sources as blanching or manufac-turing.

(b) Outgoing. For any crop year theBoard may establish, with the approvalof the Secretary, such minimum qualityand inspection requirements applicableto almonds to be handled or to be proc-essed Into manufactured products, as willcontribute to orderly marketing or bein the public interest. In such crop year,no handler shall handle or process al-

monds into manufactured items or prod-ucts unless they meet the applicablerequirements as evidenced by certifica-tion acceptable to the Board. The Board,with the approval of the Secretary, mayestablish rules and regulations necessaryand Incidental to the administration ofthis provision.


§ 981.47 Method of establishing salableand reserve pcercentages.

Whenever the Secretary finds, fromthe recommendations and supporting in-formation supplied by the Board or fromany other available Information, that todesignate the percentages of almondsduring any crop year which shal- besalable almonds and reserve almondswould tend to effectuate the declared pol-Icy of the act, he shall designate suchpercentages. Except as provided in§ 981.50 tle salable and reserve percent-ages shall each be applied to the kernelweight of almonds received by a handlerfor his own account during the crop year.In establishing such salable and reservepercentages, the Secretary shall giveconsideration to the ratio of estimatedtrade demand (either domestic or domes-tic plus export, less the handler carry-over available to satisfy trade demandplus the desirable handler carryover atthe end of the crop year) to the esti-mated production of marketable almonds(all expressed in terms of kernel weight)or the allocation quantity (marketableproduction plus almonds diverted to oilor feed when eligible for reserve satis-faction) whichever is applicable; the rec-ommendation submitted to him by theBoard; and such other information as'he deems appropriate. The total of thesalable and' reserve percentages estab-lished each crop year shall equal 100percent.

§ 981.49 [Amended]11. Revise § 981A9(a) by inserting the

word "marketable" before "almonds".12. Revise § 981.50 to read as follows:

§ 981.50 Reserve obligation.

Whenever salable and reserve percent-ages are in effect for a crop year, eachhandler shall withhold from handling a,quantity of almonds having a kernelweight equal to the reserve percentageof the kernel weight of all almonds suchhandler receives for his own accountduring the crop year: Provided, That anyquantity of almonds delivered to outletssuch as poultry or animal feed or crush-ing into oil, in a manner Permitting ac-countability to the Board, shall not beincluded In such receipts. The quantityof almonds hereby required to be with-held from handling shall constitute, andmay be referred to as the "reserve" or"reserve obligation" of a handler. Thealmonds handled as salable -almonds byany handler, in accordance with the pro-visions of this part, shall be deemed to bethat handler's quota fixed by the Secre-tary within the meaning of section Sa(5)of the act.


PROPOSED RULES


§ 981.51 Requirements for reserve.

Each handler may satisfy his reserveobligation with such almonds specifiedin the terms of the agency agreement au-thorized in § 981.67, including all appli-cable inspection and certification re-quirements. Any hafidler who does notbecome an agent may receive credit bysimilarly delivering almonds to the Boardor its designees. These requirements maybe established by the Board, with the ap-proval of the Secretary, and from timeto time so nmodified, and may includegrade requirements for reserve almondsdelivered to human consumption outlets.

§ 981.53 [Reserved]14. Delete § 981.53 andmake conform-

ing changes in § 981.52. As so revised,§ 981.52 reads as follows:

§ 981.52 Holding requirement and de-livery.

Each handler shall, at all times, holdin his possession or under his control, inproper storage for the account of theBoard, the quantity of almonds necessaryto meet his reserve obligation less: (a)Any quantity which was disposed of- byhim pursuant to §981.67; and (b) anyquantity for which he is otherwise re-lieved by the Board of responsibility toso hold almonds. 'Upon demand of theBoard reserve almonds shall be deliveredto the Board f.o.b. handler's warehouseor point of storage, except that the Boardshall not make such demand upon a'handler with respect to reserve almondsfor which he has agreed to undertake dis-position pursuant to § 981.67. Any han-dler who does not act as agent for theBoard in the disposition of re~erve al-monds shall be subject to tIfe applicableinspection and certification requirementsprescribed by the Board pursuant to§ 981.67.


§ 981.61 Redetermination of kernelweight.

The Board, on the basis of reports byhandlers, shall redetermine the kernelweight of almonds received'by eachhandler for his own account during eachcrop year through each of the followingdates: December 31, March 31, and June30. Such redetermined kernel weight foreach handler shall be the basis for com-puting his reserve obligation for the cropyear through such dates, except that ad-justment shall be made for almonds onwhich the obligation has been assumedby another handler. The redeterminedkernel weight of each handler's receipts,as of any date during the crop year, shallbe his carryover as of that date plus theweight of almonds delivered or 'used inproducts minus the carryover at the be-ginning of the crop year, the weight onwhich another handler has assumed theobligations, and the weight delivered toexempt outlets. Weights used in suchcomputations for various classificationsof almonds shall be: (a) For unshelledalmonds, the kernel weight computed byapplication of shelling ratios authorized

pursuant to § 981.62; (b) for shelled al-monds, the net weight; and (c) forshelled almonds used in production ofalmond products, the net weight of suchalmonds.'

-16. Revise § 981.62 (a) to read as fol-lows:

§ 981.62 Varietal shelling-ratios for un-shelled almonds.

(a) The varietal shelling ratios appli-cable to unshelled almonds for determi-nation of kernel weight are as follows:Varieties: Percent

- Jordanolo ---------------------- 60Kaperial ------------------------ 60Merced ----------------- 60Nonpareil ---------------------- 60Thompson ---------------------- 60Bigelow ------------------------ 55Harparell ----------------------- 55Eureka ----------------------- 54Baker -------------------------- 53Trembath ---------------------- 53Ballco ------------------------- 50Davey -------------------------- 50IXL ---------------------------- 50Long IXL -o ------------ 50Ne Plus Ultra -------------------- 50Ruby -------------------------- 50Smith (Smith's XL) ------------- 48Lewelllng (Lewelling's Prolific)---. 47Walton ------------------------- 41Drake -------------------------- 40Emerald ------------------------ 40Mission ------------------------ 40Ripon -------------------------- 40Standard - 38Sultana ------------------- 36Peerless ------------------------ 35Tarragona ---------------------- 33

.Uardshell ----------------------- 30Bidwell ------------------------ 30

§ 981.66 [Amended]17. Revise § 981.66 by substituting the

word "salable" for the word "domestic"in the title of § 981.66(c), and by revisingthe last sentence 'of § 981.66(d) to read asfollows: "The Board may dispose of re-serve almonds in non-competitive outletsin any crop year in which the quantityexceeds that needed for export or the ex-port quantity is included in salable al-monds".

18. Revise § 981.81 (b) afd (c) to readas follows:

§ 981.81 Assesment.-(a) * *-

(b) Refunds. Any money collected asassessments for either the administrative(maintenance and functioning) or re-search activities of the Board and notused for the expenses of the applicablecrop year, may be used in paying theBoard's administrative-research ex-penses of the flrst four months of thesucceeding crop year. No later than thefifth month, the amount not expended inthe previous crop year for administra-tive-research shall be retained in theoperating reserve fund. Any amounts notcredited pursuant to § 981.41 for a cropyear may be used by the Board for itsmarketing promotion expenses of thesucceeding crop year, and any unex-pended portion of those amounts at theend of that crop year shall be retained

in the marketing promotion portion ofthe operating reserve fund. Any funds ineach portion of the operating reservefund in excess of the level authorizedpursuant to paragraph (c) of this sec-tion shall be refunded to handlers orused to reduce the assessment rate of the,subsequent crop year, as the Board maydetermine. Each handler's share of a re-fund shall be the amount by which hispayment of assessments exceeds his prorata share of the two major classifica-tions of Board expenses. For the purposeof computing any refund from the mar-keting promotion portion, each handler'spayment of assessments shall include anyamount credited to the handler pursuantto § 981.41. In lieu of a refund, each han-dler may have the amount due him cred-ited to his assessment obligation of thecrop year in which the amount would berefunded.

(c) Reserves. The Board, may main-tain an operating reserve fund consist-ing of an administrative-research por-tion and a marketing promotion portion,The amount in each portion shall notexceed approximately six-months' budgetfor the activity area or such lowe'amount as the Board may establish withthe approval of the Secretary: Provided,That this limitation shall not restrict thetemporary retention of excess funds forthe purpose of stabilizing or reducing theassessment rate of a crop year. To theextent that funds from current crop yearassessments are inadequate, funds in theoperating reserve may be used for theauthorized activities of the crop year,Funds so used, and not exceeding the six-month limitation, shall be replaced tothe extent practicable from assessmentssubsequently collected for the crop year,

Signed at Washington, D.C. on April 6,1976.

WILLIAm T. MAnLnY,Acting Deputy Administrator,

Program Operations,[FR Doc.76-10422 Filed 4-0-76;8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANDURBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of Assistant Secretary for HousingProduction and Mortgage Credit

E 24 CFR Part 203 ][Docket Nos. R-72-107, R-72-1981

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE ANDINSURED HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS

Proposed Regulations EstablishingMaximum Settlement Charges WithdrawnNotices of Proposed Rule Making were

published on. July 4, 1972, (37 FR 13185and 37 FR 13186) to amend Title 24 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations to es-tablish standards governing the amountsof settlement costs allowable in connec-tion with HUD insured mortgage trans-.actions.

Interested persons were given the op-portunity to participate in the rule mak-ing through submission of written coin-ments. Approximately 800 responses werereceived. These comments surfaced basic

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 197,6

15348

PROPOSED RULES

problems requiring resolution which de-layed publishing the rules for final ef-fect. Subsequently, Congress passed theReal Estate Settlement Procedures Actof- 1974 (Pub. L. 93-533) which was im-plemented by HUD's Regulation X (24CFR, Part 82) on WMay 22, 1975 (40 FR22448) rendering these proposals unnec-essary at this time. For this reason theDepartment has determined that rulemaking- action on the proposed amend- -ment is not appropriate at the presenttime, that the proposal should, therefore,be withdrawn, and the proceedings InDocket Nos. R-72-197 and R-72-198 ter-minated. The termination of these pro-6dedings, however, is withoutprejudice toany futher rule making by the Depart-ment with respect to the subject of theseproceedings nor does it commit the De-partment to any course of action.

Issued at Washington, D.C., April 7,-1976.

DAv S. CoON,Assistant Secretary for Housing

Production and- MortgageCredit-FHA Commissioner.

[FR Doc.76-10469 Filed 4-9-76;8:4r amnl

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[46 CFR Ch. 1][CGD 76-018]

TOWING VESSEL STABILITY STUDY

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The Coast Guard is considering pro-posing rules based upon a research studyby Hydronautics, Inc., on towing vesselstability. Copies of the report of thisstudy are available to the public.

Interested persons are invited to par-ticipate in determination of whether ornot the study should be used as a basisfor proposed rules and comment on thestudy by submitting wfitten data, views,or arguments. Communications shouldidentify the docket number (CGD '16-018) and be submitted to the Comman-dant (G-CMC/81), U.S. Coast Guard,Washington, D.C. 20590. All communica-tions received before July 1, 1976 will beconsidered by the -Coast Guard beforeproposing any rules. All comments sub-mitted will be available -before and afterthe closing date for comments for exam-ination by interested persons in Room8117, Department of Transportation,Nassif Building, 400-Seventh Street SW.,Washington, D.C. If it is determined tobe in the public interest to propose rulesafter consideration of the available dataand comments, a notice of proposed rule-making will be issued.

Any rulemaking action would probablyaddress the standards for the determi-nation of load lines on those towing ves-sels that are subject to the "Interna-tional Voyage Load Line Act of 1973"(46 U.S.C. 86, et seq.) and the "Coast-wise L;oad Line Act, 1935" (46 U.S.C: 88,et seq.).

'The report is in three parts. The firstpart includes a literature study of ex-

isting towing vessel stabfli!y criteria, acensus and naval architectural cate-gorization of the U.S. towing vessel fleet,detailed stability calculations for a num-ber of vessels, and the selection ofmodels and testing programs. The sec-ond part describes the model testing pro-gram of selected models in which em-phasis was placed upon pulling againsta hawser at various angles In a simulatedseaway. The third part is the analysisof the results of the model testing pro-gram and the researchers' propostd.in-

"tact stability criteria based upon thatanalysis. The third part also includes anassessment of the impact of the proposed-stability criteria on the U.S. fleet andrecommendations for additional re-'search. The proposals in the third partare not current Coast Guard regulation,policy, opinions, or recommendation, butare only the recommendation of thestudy's researchers.

Copies of the report may be obtainedby writing to: National Technical Infor-mation Service, Springfield, Virginia22161, telephone 703-321-8521. Pleaseidentify the report, "Evaluation of Cur-rent Towing Vessel Stability Criterionand Proposed Fishing Vessel StabilityCriteria," and accession numbers andinclude remittance. The accession num-bers and prices are:

Part One, volumQ one, AD A006815,$6.25.

Part One, volume two, AD A007138,$15.25.

Part Two, AD A019830, $5.00.Part Three, AD A019831, $6.75.This advance notice of proposed rule-

making Is Issued under the authority of46 U.S.C. 86, 88a, 375, 416, 49 U.S.C.1655(b); 49 CFR, 1.46(b and (n)(6).


W. AL BEZnaRT,Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,

Chief, Office of Merchantrarine Safety.

[FR Doc.'6-10452 Fled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

Federal Aviation Administration

[14CFRPart39][Docket No. 155811

BRITISH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION BAC1-11 200 AND 400 SERIES AIRPLANESProposal To Require Replacement of Light

Alloy Stop

The Federal Aviation Administrationis considering amending Part 39 of theFederal Aviation Regulations by addingan airworthiness directive applicable toBAC 1-11 200 and 400 series airplanes.There have been reports of failures ofthe light alloy stop on the cabin pres-sure discharge valve manual control onBAC 1-11 200 and 400 series airplanesthat could result in a loss of cabin pres-surization. Since this condition is likelyto exist br develop in other airplanes ofthe same type design, the proposed air-worthiness directive would require thereplacement of the light alloy stop witha stop of improved strength and require

the replacement of the mounting screwson BAC 1-11 200 and 400 series airplanes.

Interested persons are invited to par-ticipate in the making of the proposedrule by submitting such written data,views, or arguments, as they may desire.Communlcations should identify thedocket number and be submitted in dup-licate td the Federal Aviation Adminis-tration, Office of the Chief Counsel, At-tention: Rules Docket, AGC-24, 800 In-dependence Avenue, SW., Washington,D.C. 20591. All communications receivedor on before My 12, 1976, will be con-sldered by the Administrator before tak-Ing action upon the proposed rule. Theproposals contained in this notice maybe changed In the light of comments re-ceived. All comments will be available,both before and after the closing datefor comments, in the rules docket for ex-amination by interested persons.

This amendment is proposed under theauthority of sections 313(a), 601, and603 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958(49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423) andof section 6(c) o of the Department ofTransportation Act (49 US.C. 1655(c)).

In consideration of the foregoing, itIs proposed to amend § 39.13 of Part 39 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations by add-ins the following new airworthiness di-rective:

lv Amcnarr Cona ona %o. Applies toModel BAC 1-11 200 and 400 series air-planes, certificated in all categories.

Compliance Is required within the next200 hours time in servIce after the eifectivedate of this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent the Inadvertent loss of cabinpremzure due to failure of the light alloystopon the cabin pressure discharge valve mian-ual control, accomplish the following:

Replace the light alloy stop, P/IN AB55-2301. on the gear wheel and drum assemblyof the air conditioning discharge valve man-ul1 control (P/N AB55A2435 or ED§,5Af79)with an improved strength stop, P/1 AB55--3433, or an FAA-approved equivalent. Replacethe original mounting base mounting screws,P/N VGS6720--C16, with longer screws PINVGS6720-C20, or an FAA-approved equiva-lent

(British Aircraft Corporation Service Bul-letin No. 21-PM 5139, Revision 2 dated Sep-tember 5, 1973, applies to this same subject).

Issued In Washington, D.C. on April 5,1976.

R. P. SKULL-,Director,

Flight Standards Service.[IFR DOa.'76-10407 Piled 4-9-76.8:45 am]

[E4CFRPart7l][Airspace Docket No. 76-SO-371

EVERGREEN ALA.Proposed Designation of Transition Area

The Federal Aviation Administmtionis considering an amendment to Part 71of the Federal Aviation Regulations thatwould designate the Evergreen, Ala.,transition area.

Interested persons may submit suchwritten data, views or arguments as theymay desire. Communications should besubmitted in triplicate to the Federal

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-M.IONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15349

PROPOSED RULES

Aviation Administration, Southern Re-glon, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 20636,Atlanta, Ga. 30320. All communicationsreceived on or before may 12, 1976 willbe considered before action is taken bnthe proposed amendment. No hearing iscontemplated at this time, but arrange-ments for informal conferences withFederal Aviation Administration officialsmay be made by contacting the Chief,Airspace and Procedures Branch. Anydata, views or arguments presented dur-ing such conferences must also be sub-mitted in writing in accordance with thisnotice in order to become part of therecord for consideration. The proposalcontained in this notice may be changedin light of comments received.

The official docket will be available forexamination by interested persons at theFederal Aviation Administration, South-ern Region, Room 645, 3400 WhippleStreet, East Point, Ga.

The Evergreen transition area would-be designated as:

That airspace extending upwards from 700feet above the surface withln a 6.5-mile ra-dius of Middleton Field Airport (Lat. 31 °-24'52" N., Long. 87°02'29" W.).

The proposed designation is 'requiredto provide controlled airspace protectionfor IM operations at Middleton Field.A prescribed instrument approach pro-cedure to this airport, utilizing theMonroeville VORTAC, is proposed inconjunction with the designation of thistransition area. If the proposed designa-tion is acceptable, the airport operatingauthorization will be changed from VFRto IFR.

This amendment is proposed under theauthority of sec. 307(a) of the FederalAviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1348(a))and of sec. 6(c) of the Department ofTransportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)).

Issued In East Point, Ga., on April 2,1976.

PHILLIP M. SWATEK,Director, Southern Region.

[FR Doc.76-10408 Filed 4-9-70;8:45 am]

14 CFR Part 71][Airspace Docket No. 76-SO-39]

HATrIESBURG, MISS.

Proposed Desigination of Control Zone

The Federal Aviation Administrationis considering an amendment to Part 71of the Federal Aviation Regulations thatwould designate the Hattiesburg, Miss.,control zone.

Interested persons may submit suchwritten data, views or arguments as theymay desire. Communications should besubmitted in triplicate to the Federal,Aviation Administration, Southern Re-gion, Air Traffic Division-P.O. Box 20636,Atlanta, Ga. 30320. All communicationsreceived on or before May 12, 1976 willbe considered before action is taken onthe proposed amendment. No hearing iscontemplated at this time, but arrange-ments for informal conferences withFederal Aviation Administration officialsmay be made by contacting the Chief;-

Airspace and Procedures Branch. Anydata, views or arguments presented dur-ing such conferences must also be sub-mitted -in writing in accordance withthis notice in order to become part ofthe record for consideration. The pro-posal contained in this notice may bechanged in light of comments received.

The official docket will be available forexamination by interested persons at theFederal Aviation Administration, South-ern Region, Room 645, .3400 WhippleStreet, East Point, Ga.

The Hattiesburg control zone would bedesignated as:

Within a 5-mile radius of Pine Belt Re-gional Airport (latitude 31°28'03" N., longi-tude 89°20'11.6" W.). This control zone iseffective from 0530 to 1430 hours and from1600 to 0100 hours, 16eal time, daily.

The proposed control zone is requiredto provide controlled airspace protectionfor IFR operations at the Pine Belt Re-gional Airport during the periodi that aircarrier flights are being conducted.

This amendment is proposed underthe authority of sec. 307(a) of the Fed-eral Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1348(a)) and of Sec. 6(c) of the Departmentof Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)).

Issued in East Point, Ga., on April 2,1976.

PHIL"IP M. SWATEK,Director, Southern Region.

[FR Doc.76-10409 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[14 CFR Pa'rt 152][Docket No. 15551; Notice No. 76-11]'

ELIGIBILITY OF VISUAL APPROACHSLOPE INDICATOR (VASI)

Notice of Proposed Rule MakingThe FAA is considering amending Part

152 of the Federal Aviation Regulationsto eliminate the requirement in § 152.103(h) (2) that installation of two-box VASI(VASI-2) is mandatory with new con-struction of medium intensity runwaylights (MIRL) on runways at airportsserving small aircraft (other than turbo-jet powered aircraft).

Interested persons are invited to par-ticipate in the making of the proposedrule by submitting such written data,views, or arguments as they may desire.Communications, should identify theregulatory docket or notice number andbe submitted in duplicate to: FederalAviation Administration, Office of theChef Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket,AGC-24, 800 Independence Ave. SW,Washington, D.C. 20591. All communica-tions received on or before May 12, 1976,will be considered by the Administratorbefore taking action on the proposedrule. The proposal contained in this no-tice may be changed in the light of com-ments received. All comments submittedwill be available, both before and afterthe closing date for comments, in theRules Docket for examination by inter-ested persons.

Airport 'aid program experience hasshown that the mandatory requirement

for installation of VASI-2 with MIRLhas, because of the additional installa-tion costs, impeded the installation ofMIRL's at airports eligible under the pro-gram. Numerous comments to this effecthave been received from airport spon-sors and airport industry groups.

In addition, the Installation of theVASI offers no operatlonal advantage, Interms of lower landing minimums, underthe criteria (U.S, Standard for TerminalInstrument Approach Procedures) ap-plicable to Instrument approach proce-dures developed and Issued under Part97 of the PARs (Standard InstrumentApproach Procedures).

Accordingly, the FAA believes that theVASI should be eliminated as a manda-tory item of airport development for in-stallation with MIRL, but retained as aninstallation eligible for funding "underthe Airport Aid Program.

This proposal is made under the au-thority of Sections 11 through 27 of theAirport and Airway Development Act of1970 (84 Stat. 220-233), Section 1.47(g)(1) of the Regulations of the Offiqe ofthe Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR1.47(g) (1)).

In-consideration of the foregoing, it isproposed to amend § 152.103(h) (2) ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations to readas follows:

§ 152.103 Lighting and electrical work;specific.

(h) Economy approach lighting aids.

(2) A two-box Visual Approach SlopeIndicator (VASI-2) Is eligible on lightedrunways not served by turbojet poweredaircraft. The VASI-2 is also eligible forinstallation on runways with an ap-proach slope deficiency and for retro-fitting existing runways on such of thoseairpots that have MIRL installed.

* * S * *

Issued in Washingtoln, D.C., on April 2,1976.

WILLIAM V. VITALE,Director, Airports Service.

[FR Doc.76-10406 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 ]IFRL 521-6]

APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OFIMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Proposed Approval of Arkansas Rogula.tions and Strategy for Control of Partic.ulate MatterOn May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10850), pur-

suant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act,42 USC 1857c-5, the Administrator ap-proved with some exceptions, the plansubmitted by the State of Arkansas forthe implementation of the National Am-bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).The Administrator's approval includedthe "strategy" and regulations controllingparticulate matter as submitted to theEnvironmental Protection Agency on


15350

PROPOSED RULES

January 28, 1972., Later actions regard-ing the Arkansas State ImplementationPlan as it related to control of particu-late matter, appeared on March 8, 1973,and February 25, 1974, when the Ad-nnnstrator disapproved the plan formaintenance of standards under FED-ERAL REGISTER publications 38 FR 6280and 39 FR 7276.

The plan as submitted by Arkansas onJanuary 28, 1972, addressed the controlof particulate matter through ambientair concentration measurements ratherthan through emission limitations on in-dividual sources. Regulations were de-veloped which restricted the level of par-ticulate matter at the property line, andthe source was held responsible for meet-mg the ambient air quality value. Suchboundary line control regulations mayallow dispersion techniques, such as in-creased stack height, to be employed inachieving reductions in ground level con-centrations. This type of regulation isconsidered difficult to enforce and doesnot offer positive emissiort reductions.-For this reason, the State of Arkansasreevaluated individual source require-ments and imposed limitations on sourceemissions. Consequently, on June 27,1975, the Governor of Arkansas sub-mitted a revision to the particulatematter control strategy and regulationswhich incorporated emission limitationson individual sources, a process weightrate limitation and additional require-ments relating to review of new or modi-fied sources. In demonstrating attain-ment, the revision included-an analysisof all significant sources, however, sourceenssmon regulations were presented foronly those necessary to satisfy the re-duction requirements. Upon review of allsubmitted material, it was determinedthat the Arkansas plan ekhiblted ade-quate emission control to assure attain-ment of the annual NAAQS for particu-late matter. The submittal also correctsthe disapproved portion of the plan aspublished under § 52.173 in the FEDERALREGISTER, May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10851)TIns latter part referred to the submittalof compliance schedules which are nowcorrected.

Therefore, notice is hereby given thatthe Administrator of the Environmental-Protection Agency intends to approve the

supplementary information Includingthe strategy and regulations for controlof particulate matter and attainment ofthe annual NAAQS. Notice Is also giventhat the Administrator Intends to revokethe disapproval for compliance schedulesrequired under § 51.15(a) (2) of thischapter.

The actions proposed today are not in-tended to correct the plan regardingmaintenance of particulate matter stand-ards, but rather to recognize supplemen-tary information submitted by the Stateand incorporate the new Informationand regulations in the approved portionof the State ImpIementation Plan. Thedisapproval notice published on Febru-ary 25, 1974, 40 CFR 52.22 (39 FA 7276)for maintenance of standards remains Ineffect. Additional analyses being con-ducted with regard to maintenance ofstandards and designations of air qualitymaintenance areas which affect thestrategy for pariculate matter in Arkan-sas will be published in the future. Also,future evaluations will be made regard-ing the attainment and maintenanceof the twenty-four hour, short termNAAQS. As stated above,'the Adminis-trator is addressing only the long.term,annual geometric mean, and the Inten-tion is to propose approval of only theattainment of the annual standard atthis time. The short term particulatematter standard in Arkansas as well asother states will be considered underseparate publication at a later date.

While the Administrator recognizesthe submittal of section 1 through sec-tion 10 of the State ImplementationPlan, it should be pointed out that theproposed approval does not cover thedelegation of authority to enforce Fed-eral requirements. Any reference to thedelegation of authority of new sourceperformance standards or other Federalenforcement requirements shouldbe de-leted. In particular, section 2 speaks ofqualification for delegation to the Arkan-sas Department of Pollution Control andEcolbgy by the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency of authority toenforce Federal requirements as one ofthe purposes of the plan revision. Theproposed approval does not include dole-gations of authority and any such dele-gations, if warranted, will be handled

under separate evaluations and publica-tions at a later date.

The strategy and regulations as sub-mitted by the Arkansas Department ofPollution Control and Ecology are avail-able for public Inspection during normalbusiness hours at the offices of:Mnvironmental Protection Agency, Region VI.

IG00 Patterson Streek, Dallas,_exas 75201.Environmental Protection Agency, Public In-

formation Reference Unit, Room 2932, EPALibrary, 401 "iW" Street SW., Washington.D.C. 204G0.

Arkansas Department of Pollution-Controland Ecology, 8001 National Drive, LittleRock, Akansas 72209.On May 2, 1975 the Arkansas plan re-

vision was subjected to'public hearingsin accordance with 40 CFR 51.4. Whilethe Administrator does not plan on fur-ther hearings regarding -the Arkansasproposed revisions to the State Imple-mentation Plan, interested persons maystill participate in this rulemaking bysubmitting written comments to:Regional Admlnistrator Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, Region VI, 160 PattersonStreet, Dallas, Texas 7520LRelevant comments ricelved on. or be-_

fore May 12, 1976 will be considered.This notice of proposed rulemaking is

Issued unler the authority of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42USC 1857c-5.

JoN- C. Wm=,-Regional Adnumstrator

Environmenutal Protection Agency.Subpart E-Arkansas

It is proposed to amend Part 52 ofChapter I, Title 40 of the Code of FederalRegulations as follows:

1. In § 52.170, Jiaragraph (c) isamended by adding a paragraph- (3) asfollows:

§ 52.170 Identication of Plan.

(C) 8 8(4) June 27, 1975, Sections f through

10 of the Regulations and Strategy ofthe Arkansas Plan of Implementation forAir Pollution Control.

§ 52.173 [Reserved]2. Section 52.173 is revoked.[1FR Doc.70-0483 Filed 4-9--76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-MONDAY. APRIL 12. 1974

15351

noticesTh s section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public,. Notices I

of hearings and Investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applicationsand agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEIMPORTER OF TETRAHYDROCANNA-

I BINOLSApplication; Correction

On March 4,1976, Notice was publishedIn the FEDERAL REGISTEa (Vol. 41, No. 44)that on September 9, 1975, B. David Hal-pern, Polysclences, Inc., Paul Valley In-dustrial Park, Warrington, PA 18976,made application to the Drug Enforce-ment Administration to be registered asan importer of marihuana, a basic classcontrolled substance in schedule I, forthe importation of unique Isomers andsemi-synthetic manufactures for supplyto researchers and analytical labora-tories as standards. That Notice shouldread tetrahydrocannabinols instead ofmarihuana.

Comments, objections and requests fora hearing are extended to May 17, 1976.

Dated: April 6,1976.PETER B. BENSINGER,

Administrator,Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc.76-10461 FlIed 4-9-76; 8:45 am]

MANUFACTURE OF CONTROLLEDSUBSTANCES

Notice of.Application

Section 303(a) (15 of the Comprehen-sive Drug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 823(a) (1)) states:

"The Attorney General shall registeran applicant to manufacture controlledsubstances In schedule I or II If he de-termines that such registration is con-sistent with the public interest and withUnited States obligations under interna-tional treaties, conventions, or protocolsin effect on the effective date of this part.In determining the public Interest, thefollowing factors shall be considered:

(1) maintenance of effective controlsagainst diversion of particular controlledsubstances and any controlled substancesin schedule I or II compounded there-from into other than legitimate medi-cal, scientific, research, or industrialchannels, by limiting the importationand bulk manufacture of such controlledsubstances to a number of establishmentswhich can produce an adequate and un-Interrupted supply of these substancesunder adequately competitive conditionsfor legitimate medical, scientifid, re-search, and industrial purposes;"

Pursuant to Section 1301.43 of Title 21of- the Code, ofUFederal Regulations(CFR), notice is hereby given that onMarch 10, 1976, Regis Chemical Com-pat y, 8210 N. Austin Avenue, MortonGrove, Illinois 60053, made application to

the Drug Enforcement Administration tobe registered as a bulk manufacturer ofmescaline, a basic class of controlled sub-stance in schedule L

Pursuant-to Section 301 of the Con-trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 821).and in accordance with Section 1301.43(a) of Title 21 of the CFR, notice ishereby, given that the above firm hasmade application to the Drug Enforce-ment Administration to be registered asa bulk manufacturer of the basic classof controlled substance indicated, andany other such firm, and any existingregistered bulk manufacturer of mesca-line, may Mle written comments on orobjections to the issuance of such regis-tration and may, at the same time, Mewritten request for a hearing on the ap-plication in accordance with 21 CFR1301.54 in such form as prescribed by 21CPR 1316.47. Such comments, objectionsand requests for a hearing may be filedno later than Way 17, 1976.

Comments and objections may be ad-dressed to the DEA Federal Register Rep-resentative, Ofce of Chief Counsel, DrugEnforcement Administration, Room 1203,1405 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.20537.

Dated: April 6,'1976.PETRr B. BENSINGER,


FR Doc.76-10463 led 4-9-76;8:45 am

IMPORTATION OF CONTROLLEDSUBSTANCES

Notice of ApplicationPursuant to Section 1008 of the Con-

trolled Substances Import and ExportAct (21 U.S.C. 958(h)), the AttorneyGeneral shall, prior to issuing a registra-tion under this section to a bulk manu-facturer of a controlled substance inschedule I or II, and prior to issuing aregulation under Section 1002(a) author-izing the importation of such a sub-stance, provide manufacturers holdingregistrations for the bulk manufacture ofthe substance an opportunity for ahearing.

Therefore in accordance with Section1311.42 of Title 21, Code of Federal Regu-lations (CPR), notice is hereby giventhat on January 19, 1976, Sandoz, Inc.,Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, 59 Route 10,East Hanover, New Jersey 07936, madeapplication to the Drug Enforcement Ad-ministration to be registered as an im-porter-of codeine, a basic class of con-trolled substance in schedule IL

As to the basic class of controlled sub-stance listed above for which .applica-

tion for registration has been made, anyother applicant therefor, and any exist-

-ing bulk manufacturer registered there-for, may file written comments on or ob-Jections to the issuance of such regis-tration and may, at the same time, file awritten request for a hearing on suchapplication in accordance with 21 CF1301.54 in such form as prescribed by21 CFR 1316.47. Such comments, objec-tions and requests for a hearing maybe filed no later than May 17, 1970,

Comments and objections may be ad-dressed to the DEA Federal Register Rep-resentative, Office of Chief Counsel, DrugEnforcementAdministration, Room 1203,1405 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, DC.20537.

This procedure is *to be conductedsimultaneously with and Independent ofthe procedures described in 21 CFR1311.42 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). Asn6ted in a previous notice at 40 FR43745-46 (September 23, 1975), all ap-plicants for registration to Import a basicclass of any controlled substance Inschedule I or Ir are and will continueto be required to demonstrate to theAdministrator of the Drug EnforcementAdministration that the requirements forsuch registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C.958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CF1311.42 (a), (b), (a), (d), (e) and () aresatisfied.

Dated: April 6, 1976.PETER B. BENsmORn,


[FR, Doc.76-10462 lncd 4-9-76;8,:45 am]

Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ONCRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS ANDGOALS

MeetingThis is to provide notice of meeting of

the National Advisory Committee onCriminal Justice Standards and Goals.

The National Advisory Committee willbe meeting at the Nassau Inn, Prince-ton, New Jersey on May 1, 2, and 3, 1976.The meeting will be open to the public.

Discussion will focus on the progressand review of the Individual task forces,which are: (1) Disorders and Terrorism;(2) Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention; (3) Organized Crime; (4)Private Security; (5) Research and De-velopment.

Meeting Times: May 1-10 ain,-0 pm.,May 2-9 a.m.-6 p.m., May 3-9 a.m.-5p.m.

For further information, contact Wil-liam T. Archey, Director, Policy Analysis

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, "APRIL 12, 1976

O E15353

Division, Office of Planning and Manage-ment, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Wash-ington, D.C.

Attorney-Advisor,Offlce of General Counsel.

IFR Doc.76-10446 Piled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ONCRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS ANDGOALS

MeetingThis is to provide notice of meeting of

the Organized Crime Task Force of theNational Advisory Committee on Crim-inal Justice Standards and Goals.

The Organized Crime Task Force willbe meeting at the Rossyln Hotel, 1500Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia on May4, 1976. The meeting will be open to thepublic.

Discussion will focus on the review andfinal development of the entire report onorganized crime with specific emphasison Section 1 (Organized Crime in Amer-ica) ; Chapter 9, Executive and Legisla-tive Responsibilities; and Section 3, Rec-"ommendatlons.

Meeting Times: May 4-9 ant-9p.m.,May 5-9 amn.-5 pm.

For further information, contact Wil-liam T. ArcEey, Director, Policy AnalysisDivision, Office of Planning and Manage-ment, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Wash-ington, D.C.

JAY A. BROZOST,Attorney-Advisor

Office of General Counsel.IR Doc.76-10447 Piled 4-9-76;8:46 am)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service -

ENDANGERED SPECIES PERMITNotice of Receipt of Application

Notice is hereby given that the follow-ing application for a permit is deemedto have been received undbr section 10 ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973(P. TL 93-205)

Applicant: St. Louis Zoological Park,"Forest Park, St. ouis, Missouri 63110,Richard D. Schultz, Director.

DEARTXWT OF D711E M I

0, EDERKLISHAIW1IUWE

UCEHSE/Pff=APPUCA10XI

2. "PLUCAmr. IPo. % "W. &1--o.04

St. Louis Zoological ParkForest ParkSt. Louis, Missouri 63110'1-314-781-0900

[. A" CAA VCR VXPORt sely -P01.41"

Z. sr7, CC.PT'n4 ArC~r.1TY FCR VIUC RZL'-C=TCo UL=4

To import 3 males and 3 femalesMayottensis Lemurs, Lemur fulvus (maca,rayottensis endanger'ed sp cies, "

captive reared in France, for display,propagating and zoological purposes.

4. IF "UrkD.'Is k 1MMMj WL, CC~X TH "ItIN CW; I ,

fto -umt r CLA.J% TIC(R N P LU%&3 0CC. CR aOOI=f0 , 13- 0-3 OUL City and county o'med public zoo, USDA

.C ," WEE c" I 13 _' licensed, engaged in conservation-andDiONE , propagation of wildlife, education,

exhibits, research and recreation.,OCCCPATM

A usN AGNY on VTU~r'1AL&IVnUATt'i UA.TO DOWITHU rUE0LMIMTO CT.C17=T GYMS~t UtJC~PUC7 UC IRCE R. C.C

Richard D. Schultz, DirectorIF -IPPUXAXTr M- COGAW-1. MCAYC STATEM CWH.01aS&CCRATW

ILOCAITCH MO PFMOW=ACTM71Y 1 O C Z0 7, CG 0 1JVI --- 0AO CU=t Y VA - J r AEZ.A A.,

St. Louis Zoological Park , ?iW H,

Forest Park :St.os ar sou 6ES-14, ES-311, ES-156, ES-331, 6-SP-77,St. Lou s, M~issour i 63110 PRT-7-17 9 -2 ( VPr -_ R -51-7 8

1-314-781-0900 4601HIVC ThEIR APPRIALTO C=T ;A;Marr70,4

pory1 OMl

N,A.

9. CERFnEMER CaC OMlICCY vcmnIULIL, FAYA=IT 13 O'7O g011 U ORRlE

,''.' -4 NAM-C.,-" o' : =r" ,:n.'r r€

"FNA 1rLFZWCNLC=L Viff GIYO~ CATE Until-terminatedII1/A

1.ATTACHRDITm TE4C VOIC13C FG=TIOI MCW=IV 1TNZ WCF W==IJPC1G4T F===2 0" so CIIzR=U= C1__0ATTA~CM IT =41TUTE ANl WIe=&. PART C? 7)0 APU CA1C-L = = 1=14 4C7 O CFR M=R VCHIO ATTAOT-CaTE1A.R=

CERICATIOXIU1E1BY CERTIPYTHIATt IW.VERMA =J A2 M~LhI" %71H THE! RMITM4SO CIAL'aD El ITfLE!$. PIRT V3, CF7CCCCZeJFEJREGULATIONS A"D TilE OTHER 'PUCAMEL PALMJ CA VJC0WPTUR S CF OITFI I OF ITTLE AA D I FURETIR CERSMTr THE N FCP-SA114 iUB UTTED W 114 APPICATI 4 KR A U IVFEfT iS CAPXTLEE A= ACCJL roL 70 TIM 8ST CF r X1,4LEO - VI AZEUNF.

-DINESTNTUATAJffIJE STATEXE14fT FEDIMA SlYfti[CTXZTO Tr CP0IW.ULflMZSCF I U.S.C. 1:3L

V_' ~ ~ ~ ~ . , P,"j'a u '-


.. . .I'..-_ ~ . . _..,,.

NOTICES

NOTICES

FEBRUARY 6, 1976. your consideration on our request at your

Mr. LYNN A. GREENWALT,Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Law Enforcement Division, U.S. De-partment, of the Interior, Washing-.ton, D.C.

DEAR MR. GREENWALT: The St. LouisZoological Park hereby applies for an En-dangered Species Permit under Section10(a) of the Endangered Species Act of1973. We submit the following informa-tion pursuant to Sections 13.12 of Vol-ume 39, No. 3 and- 17.22 of Volume 40,No. 188 of the FEDERAL REGISTER.

1. The request is for permit to importthree (3) males and three (3) femaleslMayottensis Lemurs, Lemur fulvus (ma-caco) inayottensis, captive born 1973 to1975.

2. As documented in the c6rrespond-ence (see 1) from Simon de Bendern thespecimens were captive born and will -notbe a drain on the wild population.

3. Not applicable.4. Captive born at "7-es Cypris", Cap

Martin, France.5. The lemurs will be maintained at the

St. Louis Zoological Park, St. Louis, Mis-souri 63110. A current zoo album, an an-nual reports and other appropriate mate-rials are on file with U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, Law Enforcement Division.(Please consult Endangered Species ap-plication and materials submitted June18, 1975.)

6. (1.) Photos and diagrams enclosed.(ii.) The curatorial staff and keepers

of the Primate Unit have been recognizedby their 'peers as 'experts in lemur blo-logy, propagation and management. Seeenclosed material.

(I1.) The St. Louis Zoo Is currently in-volved in cooperative breeding programs,studbook maintenance, as well as I..I8. inan effort to enhance captive propagationof all zoo" species, especially those of rareand endangered status,

(iv.) The lemurs will be shipped in cratesexceeding the minimum standards of the.I.A.r.A. live animal regulations (see en-closure).

(v.) See enclosure. As is obvious in thesuimmary bnclosed loss of new born top thelist. More seclusion for pregnant femalesduring birth times has corrected thisproblem.

7. See enclosure.8. (1.) The lemurs will be maintained for

propagation, educational and behavioralstudy purposes (see enclosure).

(it.) By applying the same standard of ex-cellence in animal management achieved withour successful black lemur colony.

(III.) Studies of reproductive behavior willbe conducted. Progeny resulting from propa-gational efforts will be available to cooper-ating institutions to insure future captivepopulations, thus relieving pressures on wildpopulations. .

(iv.) Autopsies will be performed on de-ceased specimens and, if desirable, theirremains will be made available to- ap-propriate public educational facilities (seeenclosure). -

A completed form 3-200 as well as otherdocuments regarding, this request are en-closed. We sincerely hope that we can receive

earliet.c.n.ni.n....

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES H. HOESSLE,General Curator,

Deputy Director.

Documents and other information sub-anitted in connection with this applica-tion are available for public inspectionduring normal business hours at theService's office in Suite 600, 1612 KStreet, N.W., Washhlgton, D.C.

Interested persons may commer.t onthis application by submitting writtendata, views, or arguments, preferably intriplicate, to the Director (FWS/LE),'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Post Of-fice Box 19183, Washington, D.C. 20036.All relevant comments received within30 days of the date of publication will beconsidered.


C. R. BAVIN,Chief, Division of Law Enforcement,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc.56-10432 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

Geological Survey

SAFETY DEVICE INVENTORYREPORTING

Gulf of Mexico Area

Notice is herby given that the U.Z.Geological Survey intends to publish aNotice to Lessees and Operators requir-ing them to furnish certain data on aSafety Device Inventory Reporting form.

This is the irst phase of a three partprogram designed to obtain informationrelative to safety devices used in offshoreoperations.

The User's Instruction Booklet andform which is referenced in the proposedNotice may be obtained by writing to:

Chief, Conservation Division, U.S. GeologicalSurvey,- National, Center, Mail Stop 600,12201 Sunrisa Valley Drive, Reston, Vir-ginia,22092-

Comments relative to material con-tained in the proposed Notice to Lesseesand Operators and/or the proposed formare solicited. Interested parties may sub-mit written comments to the Conserva-tion Division at the aforementioned ad-dress on or before May 24, 1976.

W. A. RADLINSKY,Acting Director.

NOTICE To LESSEES AND OPERATORS OF FEDERALOIL AND GAS LEASES IN THE OUTER CONTI-nExTAL SHELP, Guw or Mx co AREA

SAFETY DEVICE INVENTORY REPORTING SYSTEIM

As a part of its total effort to ensure re-duction in the probability of accidents andpollution during oil and gas operations in theOuter Continental Shelf (OCS), the U.S. Geo-logical Survey is Implementing an OCS Safe-ty and Pollution Control Device Failure Re-porting and Information Exchange Program.The program consists of three phases: TheSafety Device Inventory Reporting System,the Failure and Activity Reporting- System,

and the Generation of Statistical Reports,This Notice sets forth requirements for theoperator's Input to the Safety Device Inven-tory phase.

The enclosed Inventory package contahsthe OCS Safety Device Inventory Reporti,form and the User's Instruction Booklet. Thedata which is requested on the form is to beprovided by the operator for each of thefollowing active devices:

DEVICE--NAME

Burner Flame DetectorCheck ValveCombustible Gas DetectorEmergency Shutdown ValveFlow Sensor-High, Low, Hi/LoFusible MaterialLevel Sensor-nigh, Low, HI/LoPressure Sensor-High. Low, HI/LoRelief ValveRupture DiskShutdown ValveSubsurface Safety ValveSurface Safety ValveTemperature Sensor-High, Low, HI/LoValve Actuator

This information is being collected underthe authority of the safety device Informs-,tion and history requirements of 00S Or-" ders 5 and 8. Submittal as requested will pro-vide a computerized format for the comptlh-tion of a safety device Inventory for all O3production platforms, and when failures oc-cur, it will facilitate the maintenance of

i safety device histories. A computerized out-put of statistical reports will be possibleusing this bank of information.

By drawing upon the experiences of opera-tors of OCS leases, the U.S. Geological Sur-vey will be able to provide certain informna-tion, in the form of periodic reports, on thesurvivability of common makes and modelsof safety devices, on the common causes offailures, on problem areas experiencing highfailure rates, Pnd on a variety of other fail-ure-related subjects. These summaries will beavailable to the operators, to the equipmentmanufacturers, and to Interested outsideparties. In addition, a variety of cumulativedevice failure history reports will be printedfor numerous applications. These data canbe utilized to (1) identify failure-proneequipment even though failures have not yetoccurred, (2) inspect Installed equipment todetermine whether or not conditions, existwhich have resulted In failures of like itemsat other locations, (3) improve design ofequipment and related testing, operationaland preventive maintenance procedures, and(4) identify the more reliable safety devices.

The data which is requested herein is to beprovided by the operator on the inventoryreporting forms by either field or home officepersonnel. The inventory can be conducted byany means which produces, for every plat-form, the results stipulated In the Instruc-tions. The completed forms for each plat-form are to be submitted by the operator tothe Oil and Gas Supervisor, Field Operations,no later than January 3, 1077, Updates ofthe initial inventory shall be submittedevery six months.

For periodic updates of the informationcontained on the forms, the U.S. GeologicalSurvey will provide computer printouts of theinformation which the operator previouslyprovided so that he can revalidato any datawhich Is not current. Subsequent majorequipment changes or now platform Installa-tions are to be Inventoried on the OCSSafety Device Inventory Reporting form Inthe same6 manner as the original existingplatform Inventories.


NOTICES

In summary, the information which'is re- includes analysis of current Informationquested on the OCS Safety Device Inventory concerning market supply and demandReporting form will be utilized in a Program factors, and consideration of recom-to improve safety and pollution prevention mendations for regulation of shipmentsin OCS operations. ThV inventory is the lrststep in the implementation of the system. of the named fruits.The failure and activity reporting system The names of committee members,will follow. Ultimately, the reports produced agenda, and other information pertain-from the inventory and failure data will aid ing to each meeting may be obtainedthe operators in improving the ,quality ald from Frank D. Trovillion, Manager,service life of their safety devices. Growers Administrative Committee, P.O.

D. W. SoLAxAS, Box R, Lakeland. Florida 33802; tele-Oil and Gas Supervisor. phone 813-682-3103.

IFR Doc.76-10431 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am] Dated: April 7, 1976.

WnLAS T. Mivmcy.Office of the Secretary Acting Deputy Administrator,

PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 Program Operations.Adnntnn of -- t I Us- [FR Doc. 76-10482 Flied 4-9-70;8:45 am]

By notice published in the FEDERALREGISTER on February 18, 1976 (41 FR7437),the Department proposed adop-tion of an additional routine use for theHealth Unit Medical Records System(Interior/Ofce of the Secretary-23).Notices published in the FEDERAL REGIS-TER for February 24,'1976 (41 FR 8087)proposed aaoption of an additional rou-tine for another system of records, theBureau 'of Indian Affairs Payroll Sys-tem (Interior/BIA-17), and the modifi-cation of one of the routine uses for theEmergency Defense Mobilization FilesSystem (Interior/Office of the Secre-tary-51).

No commients on these proposals havebeen received. Accordingly, pursuant to5 U.S.C. 301 and 552a and 43 U.S.C. 1461,the proposals are adopted withoutchange.'

RICHARD R. ET.r,Deputy Assistant Secretary

of the Interior.APRIL 6,1976.[FR Doc.76-10476 Filed 4-9-76;8.45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.Agricultural Marketing Service

SHIPPERS ADVISORY COMMITTEEMEETINGS

Public Meetings

Pursuant to the provisions of § 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct (86 Stat. 770), notice is hereby givenof meetings of the Shippers AdvisoryCommittee established under Marketing

/ Order No. 905 (7 CFR Part 905). This or-der regulates the handling of oranges,grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelosgrown in Florida and is effective pursu-ant to the provisions of the AgriculturalMarketing Agreement Act of 1937, asamended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). Meetingsof the committee will be held on (1)April 27, 1976, at 10:30 a.m. in the AM.Michael Auditorium of the Florida CitrusMutual Building, 302 South Massachu-setts Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, and (2)May 6, 1976, at 10:30 a.in. in the Drift-woodInn, 3150 Ocean Drive, Vero Beach,Florida.

The meetings will be open to the publicand a brief period will be set aside ateach meeting for public comments andquestions. The agenda of each meeting

Forest ServiceOFF-ROAD VEHICLE POUCY

ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FORESTAvailability of Draft Environmental

Statement

Parsuarit to Section 102(2) (C) of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969, the Forest Service, Department ofAgriculture, has prepared a draft envi-ronmental statement on the Off-RoadVehicle Policy for the Allegheny NationalForest, USDA-FS-Rg-DES-ADM-76-04.

The environmental statement concernsthe proposed management polley for off-road vehicle use on National Forest landsin Elk. Forest, McKean, and Warrencounties n northwestern Pennsylvania.

This draft environmental statementwas transmitted to CEQ on April 5, 1976.

Copies are available for inspectionduring regular working hours at the fol-lowing locations.USDA, Forest Service, South Agriculture

Bldg., Room 3231, 12th St. & IndependenceAve., SW. Washington, D.C. 20250.

USDA, Forest Service, Eastern Region, 633West Wisconsih Avenue, llwaukee, Wls-consin 53203.

USDA, Forest Service. Allegheny NationalForest, 222 Liberty Street. Warren, Pennsyl-vania 16365.

A limited number of single copies areavailable upon request to Forest Super-visor, Allegheny National Forest, 222 LIb-erty Street, Warren, Pennsylvania16365.

Copies of the environmental statementhave been sent to various Federal, State.and local agencies as outlined in theCEQ Guidelines.

Written comments are invited from thepublic, and from State and local agen-cies which are authorized to develop andenforce environmental standards, andfrom Federal agencies having jurisdic-tion by law or special txpertlse with re-spect to any environmental impact in-volved for which comments have not beenrequested specifically.

Written comments concerning the pro-posed action and requests for additionalinformation should be addressed to For-est Supervisor, Allegheny National For-est, 222 Liberty Street Warren, Pennsyl-vanla 16365. Written comments must bereceived by June 4, 1976, in order to be

15355

considered In the preparation of the finalenvironmental statement.

CURrs L Sir,Acting Regional Forester.

APRIL 5, 1970.IFR DocS.7-10445 Fllcd 49-76;8:45 aml

Soil Conservation ServiceMILL BROOK-WATERSHED PROJECT,

NEW YORKAvailability of Final Environmental Impact

StatementPursuant to Section 102(2) (C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of1969; Part 1500 of the Council on Envi-ronmental Quality Guidelines (38 FR20550, August 1, 1973); and Part 650 ofthe Soil Conservation Service Guidelines(39 FR 19650, June 3, 1974); the SoilConservation Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, has prepared a final en-vironmental Impact statement (EIS) forthe Mill Brook Watershed -Project, Che-nango County, New York, USDA-SCS-EIS-WS-(ADM)-75-1(F)-NY.

The EIS concerns a plan for water-shed protection, flood prevention, andfish and wildlife development in Che-nango County, New York.

The planned works of improvementprovide for conservation land treatmentmeasures on 923 acres, one floodwaterretarding structure, one multiple-pur-pose structure, one public fish and wild-life development, and approximately 0.25mile of channel work.

The final EIS has been filed with theCouncil on Environmental Quality.

A limited supply is available at thefollowing location to fill single copyrequests:Soil Con'arvaton Service, USDA. 700 East

Water Street, Room 400, Syracuse. NewYork 13210. -

(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram No. 10.904, National Archives Ref-erence Services.)

Dated: April 5, 1976.JOSEPH W. M&As,

Deputy Administrator for WaterResources, Soil ConservationService.

IFR Dec.7l-10419 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

Officeof the SecretaryMEAT IMPORT LIMITATIONS

Second Quarterly EstimatesPublic Law 88-482, approved Au-

gust 22, 1964 (hereInafter referred to asthe Act), provides for limiting thequantity of fresh, chilled, of frozen cattlemeat (TSUS 106.10) and fresh, chilled,or frozen meat of goats and sheep, exceptlamb (TSUS 106.20), which may be im-ported into the United States in any cal-endar year. Such limitations are to beimposed when It is estimated by theSecretary of Agriculture that imports ofsuch articles, in the absence of limita-tions during such calendar year, would

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--hIONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

NOTICES

equal or exceed 110 percent of the esti-mated quantity of such articles pre-scribed by Section 2(a) of the Act.

In accordance with the. requirementsof the Act, the following second quar-terly estimates for 1976 are published.

, 1. The estimated qhantity of sucharticles prescribed by Section 2(a) of thdAct during the calendar year 1976 is.1,120.9 million pounds.

2. The estimated aggregate quantityof such articles which- would, in the ab-sence of limitations under the Act, beimported during calendar year 1976 is1,223 millioh pounds.

Since the estimated quantity of im-ports does not equal or exceed 110 per-cent of the estimated quantity prescribedby Section 2(a) of the Act, limitationsfor the calendar year 1976 on the impor-tation of fresh, chilled, or frozen cattlemeat (TSUS 106.10) and fresh, chilledor frozen meat of goats and sheep (TSUS106.20), are not authorized to be im-posed pursuant to Public Law 88-482 atthis time.

This estimate is based on informationfurnished by the Department of Statethat participating countries have agreedon essential elements of the export re-straint program which will limit importsto 1,223 million pounds. Formal agree-ments with participating countries areexpected to be concluded shortly. Wereit not for the expected voluntary ar-rangements with supplying countries, theestimate of imports would have exceeded110 percent of the estimated quantityprescribed by Section 2 (a) of the Act.

Done at Washington, D.C., this 6th dayof April 1976.

EARL L. BUTz,Secretary.

[FR Doe.76-10424 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEEconomic Development Administration

BRIDGEWATER SHOE CORP.Petition for a Determination Under the

Trade Act of 1974

petition by Bridgewater Shoe Cor-poration, 42 Spring Street, Bridgewater,Massachusetts 02324, a producer of men'swelt shoes, was accepted for filing onApril 5, 1976, under Section 251 of theTrade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618). Conse-quently, the United States Departmentof Commerce has instituted an investi-gation to determine whether increasedimports into the United States of articleslike or directly competitive with thoseproduced by the firm contributed impor-tantly to total or partial separation ofthe firm's workers, or threat thereof, anZto a decrease in sales or production ofthe petitioning firm.

Any party having a substantial interestin the proceedingsmay request a public.hearing on the matter. A reqkiest for ahearing must be received by the Chief,Trade Act Certification Division, Eco-nomic Development Administration, U.S.Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230, no later than the close ofbusiness April 22, 1976.

JACK W. OSBURN, Jr.,Chief, Trade Act Certification

Division, Office of Planningand Program Support.

[FR Doc.76-10411 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

National Bureau of StandardsFIVE COMMERCIAL STANDARDS FOR

JEWELRY MARKINGVoluntary Product Standards

This is notice that the following fiveCommercial Standards are being repub-lished in the current Voluntary ProductStandard format, under the Depart-ment's "Procedures for the Developmentof Voluntary Product Standards" (15CFR Part 10, as -revised; 35 FR 8349dated May 28,1970):

CS 47-34, "Marking of Gold Filled andRolled Gold Plate Articles Other ThanWatchcases" (PS 67-76).

CS 51-35, "Marking Articles Mdde ofSilver in Combination with Gold" (PS68-76).

CS 66-38, "Marking of Articles MadeWholly or in Part of Platinum" (PS 69-76).CS 67-38, "Marking Articles Made of

Karat Gold" (PS 70-76).CS 118-44, "Marking of Jewelry and

Novelties of Silver" (PS 71-76Y.The new Voluntary Product Standard

designations are given in parentheses.Titles remain unchanged.

Dated: April 6, 1976.ERNEST AMBLER,

Acting Director.[FR Doc.76-10414 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSINGSTANDARDS COORDINATING *AND AD-VISORY COMMITTEE

Notice of MeetingPursuant to the Federal Advisory Com-

mittee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I (Supp. IV,1974), notice is hereby given that theFederal Information Processing Stand-ards Coordinating and Advisory Com-mittee (IPSCAC) will hold a meetingfrom 9:00 am. to 1:00 p.m. on Thurs-day, June 3, 1976, in Dining Rooms A-&B, Administration Building, of the Na-tional Bureau of Standards, in Gaithers-burg, Maryland. -

The purpose of the meeting is to re-view the actions-of the Federal Informa-tion Processing Standards (FIPS) TaskGroups and to consider other mattersrelating to Federal Information Process-ing Standards.

The public will be permitted to at-tend, to file written statements, and, tothe extent time permits, to present oralstatements. Persons planning to attendshould notify Robert E. Rountree, Jr.,Institute for Computer Sciences andTechnology, National Bureau of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 tphono301-921-3157).

Dated: April 6, 1976.ERNEST AMBLER,

Acting Director.[FR Doc.76-10415 Filed 4-9r-76:8:45 am]

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

NORTHWEST FISHERIES CENTERNotice of Receipt of Application for a

Scientific Research PermitNotice is hereby given that the follow-

ing Applicant has applied In due form fora permit to take marine mammals forscientific research as authorized by theMarine Mammal Protection Act of 1972(16 U.S.C. 1361-1407).

Northwest Fisheries Center, NationalMarine Fisheries Service, 2725 MontlakeBoulevard East, Seattle, Washington98112, to conduct scientific research onpinnipeds in the North Pacific Ocean and.the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

The proposed research will Involve thefollowing activities to be conductedthroughout the above mentioned areasover a period of five years:

1. Take, by killing, 100 Ice-breedingharbor seals (Phoca vitulina largha),100 Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulinarichardii), 100 ringed seals (Pusa is-Vida), 100 ribbon seals (Histrlophocafasciata), 100 bearded seals (Erlgnathusbarbatus) and 250 northern sea lions(Eumetopias jubatus):

2. Tag and/or mark 2500 Pacific lar--bor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) and2500 northern sea lions (Eumetopias ju-batus);

3. Conduct aerial, vessel and land sur-veys of pinniped populations, breedingrookeries and hauling grounds; and

4. Collect dead marine mammals ofany species which are found dead at sea,washed ashore, or entangled In fishinggear.

The proposed research Is directed to-wards obtaining data on predator-preyrelationships, reproductive condition,food habits, sex and age, and populationdistributions, in order to: (1) Identifythe species of marine mammals in theeastern North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea,Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea; (2) de-termine seasonal distribution patterns:(3) identify breeding and pupping rooke- -ries, and hapling grounds and feedingareas where oil spills may be critical tosurvival of species; and (4) obtain in-formation on numbers and seasonalabundance of animals.

Documents submitted in connectionwith this application are available in thefollowing Offices. Director, National Ma-rine Fisheries Service, Department ofCommerce, Washington, D.C. 20235: Re-gional Director, National Marine Fish-eries Service, Northwest Region, 1700Westlake Avenue North, Seattle, Wash-ington 98109; and Regional Director, Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service, AlaskaRegion, P.O. Box 1668, Juneau, Alaska99801.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO; 71-MONDAY,'APRIL,12, 1976

NOTICES

Concurrent with the publication ofthis notice in the FDERAL RcasrTR, theSecretary of Commerce is sending copiesof the application to the Marine Mfam-real Commission and the Committee ofScientific Advisors.

Written views or data, or requests fora public hearing on these applicationsshould be submitted to the Director, Na-tional, Marine Fisheries Seivice, Depart-ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C.20235, within 30 days of the publicationof this notice. The holding of such hear-ing is at the discretion of the Director.

Dated: April 6,1976.H avE IL HuTcmuas,.

Acting Associate, Director forResource Management, Na-tional Marine Fisheries Serv-ice.

[FR Doc.76-10416 iled-4-9-76;8:45 am]

National Fire Prevention and ControlAdministration

NATIONAL FIRE SAFETY ANDRESEARCH OFFICE

Open MeetingThe Federal Fire Prevention and Con-

trol Act of 1974 established the NationalFire Prevention and Control Administra-tion. Included in the mandated responsi-bilities of this Administration was theresponsibility of conducting a continuingprogram of development, testing andevaluation of equipment for use by theNation's fire, rescue, and civil defenseservices. It was further mandated thatthose activities include the developmentof purchase specifications, standards,and acceptance and validation test pro-cedures for all such equipment. In carry-ing out this responsibility the NationalFire Prevention and Control Administra-tion, in conjunction with the NationalBureau of Standards has conducted aprogram aimed at improving the per-formance criteria of fire fighters' hel-met§ . As a result, the National FireSafety and Research Office of the Na-tional Fire Prevention and Control Ad-ministration will hold an open meetingto discuss the final draft report of astudy entitled: "Performance CriteriaFor Fire Fighters' Helmets".

The first draft of this report was dis-tributed widely, upon request, to mem-bers of the fire-fighting community, in-cluding the fire services, relevant manu-facturers and materials suppliers, asso-ciatio's, and regulatory and standardsmaking bodies for comments. The objectof this meeting will be to present ananalysis of the comments received byNational Fire Prevention -and ControlAdministration and the National Bureauof Standards as a result of the wide dis-tribution of the report.

The meeting will be held in conjunc-tion with the 80th Annual, Meeting ofthe National Fire Protection Associationat Houston, Texas.

ate and Place: -May 18, 1976, Live OaksRoom, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Houston, Texas.

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Attendance and participation shall beon a first-come first-served basis. At-tendance and participation at the openmeeting is not limited to those attendeesof the NFPA's Annual Meeting. Oralpresentations shall be limited to 10 min-utes per comment with additional timebeing allowed by the Chairman as timepermits.

Dated: April 5, 1976.HowAnD D. Tnrox,

Administrator, National FirePrevention and Control Ad-ministration.

[FR Doc.76-10472 Filed 4--70;8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of Education

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON VOCA-TIONAL EDUCATION AND STATE ADVI-SORY, COUNCILS ON VOCATIONALEDUCATION

MeetingNotice of Public Meeting of the Na-

tional Advisory Council on VocationalEducation and a joint meeting with theState Advisory Councils on VocationalEducation.

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to PL-92-463, that the next meeting of the Na-tional Advisory Council on VocationalEducation will be held on May 4, 1976from 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., local timeand on May 5, 1976 from 9:00 A.M. to5:00 P.M., local time; and the jointmeet-Ing with the State Advisory Councils onVocational Education will be held onMay 5, 1976 from 7:30 P.M. to 8:30 P.M.,local time; onlay 6, 1976from 9:00 A.M.to 5:00 P.M., local time and on May 7.1976 from 8:00 ANT- to 12:00 Noon, localtime at the Hyatt Regency, 400 New Jer-*sey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

The National Advisory Council on Vo-cational Education Is established undersection 104 of the Vocational EducationAmendments of 1968 (20 U.S.C. 1244).The Council is directed to advise theCommissioner of Education concerning.the administration of, preparation ofgeneral regulations for, and operation of,vocational education programs, sup-ported with assistance under the act; re-view the administration and operation ofvocational education programs under theact; including the effectiveness of suchprograms in meeting the purposes forwhich they are established and operated.make recommendations with respectthereto, and make annual reports of Itsfindings and recommendations to theSecretary of HEW for transmittal to theCongress; and conduct independentevaluation of programs carried out underthe act and publish and distribute theresults thereof.I The meeting of the National AdvisoryCouncil on Vocational Education and theJoint meeting with the State AdvisoryCouncils on Vocational Education shallbe open to the public. The proposedagenda Includes:

M&Y 4, 19767 P.L--9 P.3.

NACVE Committee Meetings:Interagency CommitteeProgram Review and EvaluationResearch CommitteeLegislation and Appropriations

Each Committee will be briefed bystaff on current activities and will discussItems to be presented at May 5, 1976Council meeting.

MNAY 5, 19769 A--S PML

Report of the Executive Director/'NACVE

Report of the ChairpersonReport from Office of EducationReport from NIEDiscussion of Legislation-Presentation on Military Vocational

EducationCommittee ReportsReport on Articulation Study

7:3o P.AL-a:30 P.MMeeting with SACVE Chairpersons and

Executive DirectorsMAY 6, 19769 A .Z-5 P.-.

NACVE/SACVE Meeting:Keynote Address-Dr. T. H. BellCongressional briefing on status of

Vocational Education LegislationNACVE ReportView of SACVE role from eyes of

other agenciesDiscussion groups on the effective-

nezs of SACVE'sM Y -7, 19768 A.M--12 NOON

Public Information Project presentationDiscussion groups on the effectiveness of

_SACVE'sBriefing and discussion of planning for

Fall Joint Meeting-National Bicen-tennial Conference on Vocational Ed-ucationRecords shall be kept of all Council

proceedings and shall be avalable forpublic inspection at the office of theCouncil's Executive Director, located inSuite 412, 425-13th Street, N.W. Wash-ington, D.C. 20004.

Signed at Washington, D.C. onmarch 7, 1976.

PEGnMALD PE=TY,Executive Director.

[F' DoC.76-10417 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

Food and Drug Administration[Docket No. 76G-00861

THE CLARID CO.

Notice of Filing of Petition for Affirmationof GRAS Status

Pursuant to provisions of the FederalFood. Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sees.201(s), 409, 701(a), 52 Stat. 1055, 72

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--.MONDAY, AP2IL 12, 1976

15357

NOTICES

Stat. 1784-1786 (21 U.S.C. 321(s), 348,371(a))) and the regulations for affir-mation of GRAS status (21 CFR 121.-40), published in the FEDERAL REGISTER ofDecember 2, 1972 (37 FR 25705), noticeis given that a petition (GRASP6G0066) has been filed by The ClaridCo., 9251 Burdine St. Houston, TX 77035and placed on public display at-the officeof the Hearing Clerk, Food and DrugAdministration, proposing affirnmationthat naturally occurring silica glass foruse as a filter aid for cooking oils is gen-erally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Any petition which meets the format-requirements outlined in 21 CPR 121.40

is filed by the Food and Drug Adminis-tration. There is no prefiling review ofthe adequacy of data to support a GRASconclusion. Thus the filing of a petitionfor GRAS affirmation should not be in-terpreted as a preliminary indication ofsuitability for affirmation.

Interested persons may, on or beforeJune 11, 1976, review the petition and/or file comments (preferably in quin-tuplicate) with the Hearing Clerk, Foodand Drug Administration, Rm. 4-65, 5600Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.Comments should include any availableinformation that would be helpful indetermining whether the substance is,or is not, generally recognized as safe.A copy of the petition and received com-ments may be seen in the office of theHearing Clerk, address given above, dur-ing working hours, Monday throughFriday.

Dated: April 5, 1976.HOWARD R. ROBERTS,

Acting Director, Bureau o1 Foods.[FR Doc.76-10413 Filed 4-9-76; 8:45 am]

Office of the SecretaryOFFICE OF REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

REGION JXStatement of Organization, Function, and

Delegati6ns of Authority

Part 1, Chapter 1E89, of the Statementof Organization, Functions, and Delega-tions of Authority for the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare (40 F.R.16120-16123; 4/9/75) is hereby amendedto delete 1.K.3. b., c., d., and 1.K.4. a., b,and c., and to add:

(1) an amended 1.C. "Executive Secre-tariat"

(2) a new 1.K.3.b. "AdministrativeServices Division"

(3) a new 1.K.3.c. "Management Anal-ysis and Systems Division"

(4) a new 1.K.4.a. "Division of Re-gional Operations for Facilities Engi-neering and Construction"

(5) a new 1.K.4.b. "Regional Environ-mental Office"

(6) a new section 1.M. "Office of Fed-eral Property Assistande"

(7) "Office of Federal Property Assist-ance" at the end of Sec. 1E89.10. Theamended statement reads as follows:

SEC. 1E89.10 ORGANIZATION -

The Office of the Regional Director,Region IX, Is under the direction and

control of the Regional Director who re-ports directly to the Secretary and UnderSecretary, and consists of the'following.Deputy Regional Director; Office of theRegional Attorney; Office of Equal Em-ployment Oportunity; Executive Secre-tariat; Office for Civil Rights; Office ofAudit; Office of ARD for Public Affairs;Office of ARD for Planning and Evalua-tion; Office of ARD for Intergovernmen-tal Affairs; Office of ARD for FinancialManagement; Office of ARD for Ad-ministration and Management; Office ofARD for Human Development; Office ofLong Term Care Standards Enforce-ment; and Office of Federal Property As-sistance.

The amended Section 1.C. should readas follows:

C. Executive Secretariat (1E8905). 1.Serves as the principal staff office forthe control of all official matters for theRegional Director.

2. Manages the Regional Director'scorrespondence *control system. Deter-mines the assignment of responsibilityon action correspondence. Reviews pre-pared correspondence for timeliness,technical accuracy, responsiveness, ap-

-propriate clearances, and consistencywith Regional Director's and Depart-ment's objectives.

3. Controls all official matters requir-ing the attention or approval of the Re-gional Director. Assigns responsibilityfor necessary staff work on action re-quests. Reviews and analyzes memo-randa and other documents for adequacyof coordination and clearances, clarityand conciseness of presentation, time-liness, necessary followthrough, andother elements of completed staff action.

4. Operates a comprehensive system fortracking action items to ensure timelyand quality responses from all regionalcomponents. Monitors the document flowand Department activities to analyze,evaluate, advise, and promote manage-ment improvements, and to anticipatepotential problems or inconsistencieswith the views of the Regional Directorand the Department. Works with all ap-

.propriate offices to improve the qualityof decision papers, correspondences anddocuments, and to meet Departmentstandards for timeliness and responsive-ness.

5. Facilitates the internal processes ofcoordination and communication. As-sesses document control and flow to Iden-tify problem areas for communicationsystems improvement. Ensures timelydissemination of key Departmentalpolicy documents. Advises regional com-ponents on the information requirementsof the Regional Director.

6. 'Communicates Regional Directordecisions and clarifies related provisions.Monitors their implementation by ob-taining periodic status reports on select-ed key issues and projects, ensures prop-er compliance with past decisions, andhighlightS problem areas for renewedRe-gional Director attention. Attends signif-icant Regional Director meetings andfollows up on decisions and requests toassure expeditious implementation andresponse.

7. Directs the activities of the RegionalManagement Council. Identifies Issues ofregion-wide interest and concern forCouncil attention and discussion, pre-pares or coordinates the preparation ofposition papers, establishes agenda, andassures necessary follow-through onCouncil decisions and requests.

The new Section iZ. should read asfollows:

K. Office of the Assistant RegionalDirector for Administration and Man-agement (1E8911). 1. Serves as the prin-cipal adviser to the Regional Director onand directs or participates actively inall aspects of administrative manage-ment.

2. Plans, develops, coordinates and im-plements internal regional policy regard-ing administrative services and manage-ment practices with the POCs in theRegional Office. These include policies inthe following areas: Office space alloca-tion, travel, personnel actions, manage-ment surveys, organization, managementinformation, security travel, natural dis-aster, procurement, duplicating services,and a variety of other key administra-tion and management policies.

3. Administers the following opera-tions related to provision of regionaladministration and management servicesto the agencies: (a) Regional PersonnelDivision; (b) Administrative ServicesDivision; (c) Management Analysis andSystems Division.

4. Administers the following opera-tions which provide support to Regionalagencies: (a) Division of Regional Oper-ations for Facilities Engineering andConstruction; (b) Regional Environmen-tal Division.

5. Represents the Regional Director Inlabor-management relations includingcontract negotiations and consultationwith regional labor union representa-tives.

6. Provides advice and counsel to allregional-managers on administration andmanagement concerns in the region.

The new Section I.M. should read asfollows:.

M. Office of Federal Property Assist-ance (1E8906). 1. Serves as principal ad-viser in the region on all matters relat-ing to Federal surplus property, real andpersonal.

2. Allocates Federal surplus personalproperty to State agencies for distribu-tion to eligible institutions and orga-nizations.

3. Transfers Federal surplus real prop-erty to eligible education and healthorganizations.

4. Exercises compliance responsibilityof the donee for both personal and realproperty transfers.

5. Provides technical assistance anddirection to State agencies under theFederal Property Assistance Program,including the approval of State plans ofoperation.

Dated.Aprl 2, 1976.JoiN OTTINA,

Assistant Secretary forAdministration and Management.

[FR Doc.76-10448 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am)


DEPARTMENT OF HOUSINGAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of Interstate Land Sales Registration[Docket No., N-76-514]

DESERT VISTA TRAILSHearing

In -the. matter of Desert Vista Trails,OILSR No. 0-4217-02-794, Doc. No. 76-

"37-IS.-Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1706(e) and 24

CFR 1720.165(b) Notice is hereby giventhat:

1. Desert Vita Trails, Dynamite Part-nership and Howard Lavitt, AuthorizedAgent, hereinafter referred to as "Re-spondent", being subject to the provi-sions of the Interstate Land Sales FullDisclosure Act (Pub. Law 90-448) (15U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) -received a Noticeof Proceedings and Opportunity forHearing issued February 10, 1976, whichwas -sent: to the developer pursuant to15 U.S.C. 1706(d), 24 CFR 1710A45(b) (1)and 1720.125 informing the developer ofinformation obtained by the Office ofInterstate Land Sales Registration al-leging that the Statement-of Record andProperty Report for Desert Vista Trails,Dynamite Partnership located in Mari-copa County which became effective Au-gust 18, 1975 contain untrue statementsof material fact or omit to state materialfacts required to be stated therein ornecessary to make the statements there-in not misleading.

2. The Respondent filed an Answerreceived March 3, 1976, in response tothe Suspension Order.

3. In said Answer the Respondent re-quested a hearing on the allegations con-

--tained in-the Notice of Proceedings andOpportunity, for Hearing.

4. Therefore, pursuant to the povi-sions of 15 U.S.C. 1706(d) and 24 CFR1720.160(d), It is hereby ordered, That apublic hearing for the purpose of-takingevidence on the questions set forth in theNotice of Proceedings and Opportunityfor Hearing'will be held before JudgeJames W. Mast, in Room 7146, Depart-ment of HUD, 451 7th Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C., on May- 12, 1976.

The following- time and procedure isapplicable to such hearing: All affidavitsand alist of all witnesses are requested to,be filed with the Hearing Clerk, HUEDBuilding, Room 10150, Washington, D.C.,20410 on or before May 2, 1976.

6. The Respondent is hereby notifiedthatfailure to appear at the above sched-uled hearing shall be deemed a defaultand the proceedings shall be determinedagainst Respondent, the allegations ofwhich shall be deemed to be true, and anorder Suspending the Statement of Rec-ord, herein identified, shall be issuedpursuant to 24 .CFR 1710.45(b) (1).

This Notice shall be served upon theRespondent forthwith pursuant to 24CFR 1720.440.

Dated: March 12,1976.By t e Secretary.

JA=S W. MAsT,Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc.76710470 Pled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

NOTICES

[Docket No. N-76-5151DESERT FOOTHILLS ESTATES AND THE

FOOTHILLS COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES

Hearing

In the matter of Desert Foothills Es-tates and the Foothills Country ClubEstates, OILSR No. 0-2468-02-500, Doe.No. 76-40-IS.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. r706(d) and 24CFR 1720.160(d) Notice Is hereby giventhat:

1. Desert Foothills Estate, the FoothillsCountry Club Estates, H. & S. Devel-opers, Inc. and Henry H. Schechert,President, hereinafter referred to as"Respondent", being subject to the pro-visions of the Interstate Land Sales FullDisclosure Act (Pub. Law 90-448) (15U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) received a Notice ofProceedings and Opportunity for Hear-ing issued February 9, 1976, which wassent to- the developer pursuant to 15U.S.C. 1706(d), 24 CFR 17.10.45(b) (1)and 1720.125 informingthe developer ofinformation obtained by the Office of In-terstate Land Sales Registration alleg-ing that the Statement of Record andProperty Report for Desert Foothills Es-tates and the Foothills Country Club Es-tates, contain untrue statements f ma-terial fact or omit to state materialfacts required to be stated therein ornecessary to make the statements there-in not misleading.

2. The Respondent filed an Answer re-ceived February 24, 1976, in response tothe Notlce of Proceedings and Opportu-nity for Hearing.

3. In said Answer the Respondent re-quested a hearing on the allegations con-tained in the Notice of Proceedings andOpportunity for Hearing.

4. Therefore, pursuant to the provi-sions of 15 U.S.C. 1706(d) "apd 24 CFR1720.160(d), it is hereby ordered, Thata public hearing for the purpose of tak-ing evidence on the questions set forthin the Notice of Proceedings and Oppor-tunity for Hearing will be held beforeJudge James W. Mast, in Room 7146, De-partment of HUD. 451 7th Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C.,- on May 11, 1976.

The following time and procedure Isapplicable to such hearing: All affidavitsand a list of all witnesses are requested tobe filed with the Hearing Clerk, HUDBuilding, Room 10150. Washington, D.C.,20410 on or before April 28, 1976.

6. The Respondent is hereby notifiedthat failure to appear at the above sched-uled hearing shall be deemed a defaultand the proceedings shall be determinedagainst Respondent, the allegations ofwhich shall be deemed to be true, and anorder Suspending the Statement of Rec-ord, herein Identified, shall be issuedpursuant to 24 CFR 1710.45(b) (1).

This Notice shall be served upon theRespondent forthwith -pursuant to 24CFR 1720.440.

Dated: March 12, 1976.By the Secretary.

JALIs W. MAST,Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc.76-10471 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 anI

i5359

lDocket No. D-46-4141

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIRHOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Delegation of Authorty

Title I of the Housing and CommunityDevelopment Act of 1974 establishes theCommunity Development Block GrantProgram. Section 109 provides that noperson shall be excluded from partici-pation in, be denied the benefits of, or besubjected to discrimination under anyprogram or activity funded in whole orin part with Community DevelopmentBlock Grant funds on the grounds ofrace, color, national origin or sex and -authorizes the Secretary to-take actionwhenever a determination is made thata recipient has failed to comply with thenondiscrimination provisions.

With certain exceptions, the authorityto administer and enforce the nondis-crimination requirements of Title I isbeing delegated to the Assistant Secre-tary for Fair Housing and Equal Oppor-tunity.

Section A. Authority Delegated. TheAssistant Secretary for Fair Housing andEqual Opportunity is authorized to exer-cise the power and authority of the Sec-retary under Title I of the Housing andCommunity Development Act of 1974with respect to the administration andenforcement of the nondiscriminationprovisions contained-in Section 109 ofthe Housing and Community Develop-ment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5309) andany applicable regulations issued there-under. No procedure for effecting com-pliance where there appears to benoncompliance, shall be initiated underSection 109(b) (3) by the Assistant Sec-retary for Fair House and Equal Oppor-tunity without the concurrence of theSecretary, and provided no decision toterminate, reduceor limit the availabilityof payments under Section 111(a) (1),(2) or (3) shall be final until approvedby the Secretary.

Section B. Authority Excepted. Thereis excepted from the authority delegatedunder Section A: (1) The power andauthority of the Secretary with respectto Section 111.of the Housing and Com-munity Development Act of 1974 (42U.S.C. 5311) as It relates to actions otherthan those described in Section 109 ofthe Act; (2) The power to sue and besued.(Sec. 7(d). Department of HUD Act, 42 USC3535(d).)

Effective date. This delegation of au-thority is effective April 12, 1976.

CAwA A. HILrs,Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development.

[FR Doc.76-10433 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 aml

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. D-76-4211

ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND DEPUTY AS-SISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITYPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Delegation of Authority

The delegation of authority of Febru-ary 5, 1975, published at 40 FR 5385, did


NOTICES

not delegate to any Department officialthe power and authority of the 'Secre-tary under Section 109 of the Housingand Community Development Act of1974. It has been determined that theAssistant Secretary for Fair Housing andEqual Opportunity with certain excep-tions should have such authority. Ac-cordingly, the delegation of authority ofFebruary 5, 1975, published at' 40 FR5385, Is amended by deleting the word"such" in the eleventh (11) line of Sec-tion B.4. and by adding after the word"sections" In the same line the phrase"104(d) with respect to the power tomake audits and 111 with respect toremedies for noncompliance * *

Effective date: This delegation of au-thority is effective April 12, 1976.-

CARLA A. HMILLS,Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development.[FR Doc.76-10436 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket No. D-76--420]

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY DE-VELOPMENT AND RESEARCH AND THEASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMU-NITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT


The delegation of authority of July 18,1975, published at 40 FR 30306; did notdelegate to any Department official thepower and authority of the Secretaryunder Section 109 of the Housing andCommunity Development Act of 1974. Ithas been determined that the AssistantSecretary for Fair Housing and EqualOpportunity with certain exceptionsshould have such authority. Accordingly,the delegation-of authority of July 18,1975, published at 40 FR 30306, isamended by deleting the word "such" inthe eleventh (11) line of Section B.3.and by adding after the word "sections"in the same line the phrase "104(d) withrespect to the power to make audits and111 with respect to remedies for non-compliance * * *"l

Effective date: This delegation of au-thority is effective April 12, 1976.'

CARLA A. HILLS,Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development[FR Doc.76-10435 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket No. D-76-419]

NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR-PORATION: ADMINISTRATOR, NEWCOMMUNITIES ADMINISTRATION; ANDASSISTANT SECRETARY AND DEPUTYASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMU-NITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT


The delegation af authority of June-27,1975, published at 40 FR 27286, did notdelegate to any Department official thepower and authority of the Secretaryunder Section 109 of the Housing andCommufity Development Act of 1974. Ithas been determined that the AssistantSecretary for Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity with certain exceptionsshould have such authority. Accordingly,the delegation of authority of June 27,1975, published at 40 PR 27286, isamended by deleting the word "such" inthe eleventh (11) line of Section B.3. andby adding after the word "sections" Inthe same line the phrase "104(d) withrespect to the power to make audits and111 with respect to remedies for non-compliance * * *"

Effective date: This delegation of au-thority is effective April 12, 1976.

CARLA A. HLLS,Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development.[FR Doc.76-10434 Filed 4-9-76:8:45 am]

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard.

[CGD 76-066]CHEMICAL TRANSPORTATION

INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEEOpen Meeting

The Chemical Transportation Indus-try Advisory Committee Task Group onLiquefied Gas Facilities will conduct anopen meeting on 28 and 29 April 1976,in Room 8440 of the Nassif Building, 4007th Street S.W., Washington, D.C. Themeeting is scheduled to begin at 9:30 am.

The purpose of the meeting is to dis-cuss and review the Task Group's work-ing paper on liquefied gas facilities andother appropriate matters that may bebrought before the task group.

The Coast Guard Chemical Transpor-tation Industry Advisory Committee wasestablished to provide the Commandantof the Coast Guard advice and consulta-tion with respect to safe water transpor-tation of hazardous materials.

Members of this committee serve vol-untarily without compensation from theFederal Government for either travel orper diem-

Interested persons may obtain addi-tional information or the summary ofthe minutes of the meeting by writing to:Mr. W. E. McConnaughey, Commandant (G-.

L4.M), U.S. Coast Guard, Washington,D.C. 20590.

or by calling (202') '426-2306.This notice is issued under section 10

(a) of the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct (P.L. 92-463, 96 Stat. 70, 5 U.S.C.App. 1).


W. M. Bm=RT,RAdm, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief,

Office of Merchant MarineSafety.

[FR Doc.76-10453 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

Federal Aviation Administration

RADIO TECHNICAL COMMISSION FORS- AERONAUTICS

Cancellation of Meeting

Notice is hereby given that the meet-ing of Radio Technical Commission for

Aeronautics (RTCA), Special Commlttceo126, scheduled for April 13, 1976, by theRTCA Executive Committee at its publicmeeting on March 19, 1976, "in the eventit was needed," Is cancelled as notneeded. Resolving the Inconsistenciesnoted by the Executive Committee in theSC-126 Final Draft Report were foundnot to involve substantive changes. No-tice of the April 13, 1976, meeting ap-peared In the FEDERAL iloxSTErs onMarch 25, 1976 (41 FR 12332).

Issued In Washington on April 1, 1970.EDGAit A. PosT,

Designated Offlcer.[FR Docl6-10405 Filed 4-9-70;8:45 am]

Federal Railroad AdministrationTRACK SAFETY STANDARDSNotice of Granting of Waivers

Pursuant to 45 U.S.C. 431(c), noticeis hereby given that the following rail-roads have been granted waivers fromcompliance with certain requirementsimposed by the Federal Railroad Admin-istration regulations which establishTrack Safety Standards (49 CFR Part213) and Freight Car Safety Standards(49 CFR Part 215).

' Prior to evaluating these waiver peti-tions, the Federal Railroad Administra-tion provided public notice and opportu-nities for public comment. Investigationswere also conducted in each proceeding,to ascertain the effect of granting therequested exemption. The results of thoseinvestigations and any comments Whichhad been submitted were considered inthe decision making process.

In reaching a decision to grant eachof these waivers from compliance, theFederal Railroad Administration foundthat good cause to grant the relief hadbeen established and, that the exemptionwas in the public interest and coxisistentwith railroad safety.

Waivers were granted to the followingrailroads:

Long Island Railroad Company(LIRR), Waiver Petition RST-74-1.Public notice concerning this proceedingwas published in the FEDERAL REOiSTEa(39 FR 43100). The exemption will allowthe LIRR to substitute a quarterly In-spection by a track geometry measuringcar for one of the weekly trackinspections.- State of Vermont, Waiver PetitionRST-75-2. Public notice concerning theproceeding was published in the FEDERALRiGISTER (40 FR 8983). The waiver wasrequested on'behalf of the Saint Johns-bury & Lamoille, County Railroad, Inc.,a private corporation under contractwith the State to provide freight serviceand to maintain facilities. It exemptspetitioner from certain requirementsprescribed by the Track Safety Stand-ards relating to track geometry, to per-mit operations to continue over thistrackage until a track restoration pro-

- gram is completed.Bhrlington Northern (BN), Waiver

Petition RSFC-74-12, Public notice con-cerning this proceeding was published


15360

NOTICES

in the FEDERA REGISTER (39 FR 39592),The waiver will apply to approximately400 flat cars used exclusively for haulinglogs. The cars are equipped with castiron wheels, a prohibited component,which could not be immediately replaceddue to a shortage of replacement wheels.

Butte, Anaconda and Pacific RailwayCompany (BA&P), Waiver PetitionRSFC-74-20. Public notice concerningthis proceeding was published in theFEDERAL REGISTER (40 FR 3488). Thewaiver will apply to a group of approxi-mately 250 hopper cars which areequipped with prohibited roller bearings.The waiver was granted on terms andconditions' which restrict the operationof these cars to the lines of the BA&P,and require certain unique maintenanceprocedures to ensure the safe operationof the equipment.

Texas, Oklahoma and Eastern Rail-road Company (TO&E), Waiver Petition

- RSFC-74-24. Public notice concerningthis proceeding was published in theFEDERAL REGISTER (40 FR 30734). Thewaiver will apply to approximately 200freight cars equipped with-one or morepairs of cast iron wheels, a prohibitedcomponent. The cars are used in lowspeed lumber operations, over short dis-tances, and the waiver is conditionedupon the cars remaining in this service.

Chehalis Western Railroad Company,Waiver Petition RSFC-74-27. Public no-tice concerning this proceeding waspublished in the FEDERAL REGISTER (40

MR 30734). The waiver will apply to ap-proximately 300 freight cars, which areequipped with one or more prohibitedcomponents. These cars are used exclu-sively in low speed logging operations,over short distances. A program to re-place either the* cars or the prohibitedcomponents is to be completed by De-cember 31, 1976, when the waiver willexpire. '

Persons interested 'in obtaining de-tailed or technical information concern-ing these decisions should write to theFederal Railroad Administration. Allcommunications concerning these peti-tions should identify the appropriatedocket number and should be submittedto the Docket. Clerk, Office of the- ChiefCounsel, Federal Railroad Administra-tion, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. °

Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 6,1976.

DONALD W. BENNETT,Chief Counsel,

Federal Railroad Administration.[FR Doc.76-10438 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY

REVIEW COMMISSION

NOTICE OF HEARINGSNotice is hereby given pursuant to the

provisions of the Joint Resolution estab-lishing the American Indian Policy Re-view- Commission (Pub. L. 93-580), asamended, that hearings related to itsproceedings will be held in conjunctionwith Commission Task Forces, #2, #3,

and #4's investigation of Tribal Govern-ment, Federal Administration, and Fed-eral, State, and Tribal Jurisdiction.

These hearings are concerning Issuesrelating to trlbes'and others in the statesof Montana and Idaho and are sched-uled on April 19, 1976 from 9:30 a.m. to6:00 pm., at the Edgewater, 100 Madi-son, Missoula, Montana.

The American Indian Policy ReviewCommission has been authorized by Con-gress to conduct a comprehensive reviewof the historical and legal developmentsunderlying the unique relationship ofIndians to the Federal Government inorder to determine the nature and scope.of necessary revision in the formulationof policies and programs for the benefitof Indians. The Commission is composedof eleven members, three of whom wereappointed from the Senate, three fromthe House of Representatives and fivemembers of the Indian communityelected by the Congressional members.

The actual investigations are con-ducted by eleven task forces in desig-nated subject areas. These hearings willfocus on Issues related to the studies ofTask Force #2, #3, and #4's investi-gations of Tribal Government, FederalAdministration, and Federal, State, andTribal Jurisdiction.

Dated: April 8, 1976.Knus KxzckicaGnw,

General Counsel.[FR Doc.76-10947 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

NOTICE OF HEARINGSNotice Is hereby given pursuant to the

provisions of the Joint Resolution estab-lishing the American Indian Policy Re-view Commission (Pub. L. 93-580), asamended, that hearings related to Itsproceedings will be held in conjunctionwith Commission Task Forces, #2, #T3'and #,4's Investigations of Tribal Govern-ment, Federal Administration, and Fed-eral, State, and Tribal Jurisdiction.

These hearings are concerning Issuesrelating to tribes and others in the statesof North Dakota, South Dakota, Ne-braska, Kansas and Wyoming and arescheduled on April 15 and 16, from 9:30am. to 6:00 p.m., at the Sheraton Inn,1400 8th Avenue NW, Aberdeen, SouthDakota.

The American Indian Policy ReviewCommission has been authorized by Con-grass to conduct a comprehensive reviewof the historical and legal developmentsunderlying the unique relationship ofIndians to the Federal Government inorder to determine the nature and scopeof necessary revision n the formulationof policies and programs for the benefitof Indians. The Commission Is composedof eleven members, three of whom wereappointed from the Senate, three fromthe House of Representatives and fivemembers of the Indian communityelected by the Congressional members.

The actual investigations are con-ducted by eleven task forces in desig-nated subject areas. These hearings willfocus on issues related to the studies of

Task Force #-2, #3, and #4s investi-gations of Tribal Government, FederalAdministration, and Federal, State, andTribal Jurisdiction.

Dated: April 6, 1976.KvinN KCICNGBIRD,

General Counsel.IFR Doc.76-10548 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARDlOrder 76-4-25; Docket 20826. et a; Docket

20326 et all .

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. ANDWIEN AIR ALASKA, INC.

Amendment of Certificate of PublicConvenience

Adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Boardat its office in Washington, D.C. on the7th day of April 1976.

Motion of Alaska Airlines, Inc. foramendment of Its certificate of 15ublicconvenience and necessity for Route 124.

Motion of Wien Air Alaska, Inc. foramendment of Its certificate of publicconvenience and necessity for Route 126.

By Order 74-6-21, June 4, 1974, theBoard directed Alaska Airlines and Wien.Air Alaska to file motions for issuance ofan order to show cause wl)y their au-thority at points no longer receiving cer-tificated service, either directly orthrough subcontracting arrangements,should not be permanently deleted fromthe carriers' certificates, pursuant to sec-tion 401(g) of the Act. Motions in re-sponse to that order were filed by thecarriers and, by Order 75-11-54, Novem-ber 14,1975, the Board directed all inter-ested persons to show cause why it shouldnot amend the certificates of Alaska andWien so as to delete a number of pointsfrom Alaska's Route 124 and Wien'sRoute 126. Order 76-2-79, February 23,1976, made final the tentative findingsand conclusions of Order 75-11-54 andamended the carriers' certificates in linewith those findings and conclusions,'effective April 8,1976.

It has now come to our attention that,through inadvertence, the order to showcause, Order 75-11-54, was not servedupon the Alaskan communities involved,even though ordering paragraph (5) ofthe order directed that it be served uponall parties of record in the Alaska ServiceInvestigation, Docket 20826. Consequent-ly, in the interests of procedural fairness,we have decided to (a) rescind Order76-2-79, as amended, which made final,the findings and conclusions of Order75-11-54, (b) cancel the certificates, theIssuance of which was directed by Order76-2-792 and (c) give all interested per-sons who were not served with Order 75-11-54 and have not already filed objec-tions thereto, 60 days, to run from thedate of adoption of this order,- to filesuch responses.

, Order 76-2-79 was amended by Order76-3-73, March 11, 1976.

=ThuZ, the presently effectire certificatesof Wien and Alaska, issued pursuant toOrders 75-10-35 and 74-11-91, respectively.will remain In effect.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15361

NOTICES'

Accordingly, it is ordered, That:1. Order 76-2-79, February 23, 1976,

as amended by Order 76-3-73, March 11,1976, be and It herdby is rescinded; _

2. The certificates of public conveni-ence and necessity issued pursuant toOrder 76-2-79 to Alaska Airlines, Inc.,and Wien Air Alaska, Inc., be and theyhereby are canceled;

3. Any interested person having ob-jections to the issuance of an order mak-ing final the tentative findings and con-clusions contained in Order 75-11-54,November 14,.1975, and amending thecertificates of Alaska Airlines and WienAir Alaska for Routes 124 and 126, re-spectively, who was not served with acopy of Order 75-11-54, and has notpreviously filed such objections, shall,within 60 days of the date of adoptlonof this order, file with the Board andserve on Alaska Airlines, Wien Air Alaskaand the Alaska Transportation Commis-sion a statement of objections;

4. In the event no further objectionsare filed to Order 75-11-54, all furtherprocedural steps will be deemed to havebeen waived and the Board may proceed-to enter an order in accordance with thetentative findings and conclusionstherein; and

5. This order shall be served upon allparties of record of the Alaska ServiceInvestigation, Docket 20826, and thosesame parties will also be served -withcopies of Order 75-11-54 if they have-notpreviously been so served.

This order. shall be published in theFEDERAL REGISTER.

By the Civil Aeronautics Board.[SEAL] PHYLLIS T. KAyLOR,

Acting Secretary.IFR DoC.76-10468 Filed 4-9--76;8:45 am]

[Docket 98194]o

EASTERN AIR LINES, INC. ANDPIEDMONT AVIATION, INC.

Reassignment of Proceeding of RouteExchange Agreement

This proceeding is hereby reassignedfrom Adminstrative Law Judge RonnieA. Yoder to Administrative Law JudgeArthur S, Present. Future communica-tions should be- addressed to JudgePresent.

The prehearing conference heretoforeset for 9:30 a.m., May 18, 1976, in Room1003, Hearing Room B, Universal NorthBuilding, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,"Washington, D.C., (41 P.R. 14575, April6, 1976), will be conducted by Judge Pre-sent and proceed as scheduled.

Dated at Washington, D.C., April. 6,1976.

[SEAL3 ROBERT L. PARK,Chief Administrative Law Judge.

[FU Doc.76-10466 Filed 4-9-76:8:45 am]

[Docket 287381

EUGENE HORBACH AND GAC CORP.Modem Air Transport Purchase Agreement

Hearing'Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the

provisions of the Federal Aviatloi Act of1958, as amended, that a hearing in theabove-entitled proceeding will be heldon May 25, 1976, at 9:30 -am. (localtime), n Room 1003, Hearing Room A,North Universal Building, 1875 Connecti-cut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C., be-fore the undersigned.

For information concerning the issuesinvolved and other details in this pro-ceeding, interested persons are referredto the prehearing conference -reportserved on March 22, 1976, and other doc-uments which are in the docket of thisproceeding on file in the Docket Sectionof the Civil Aeronautics Board.

Dated at Washington, D.C., April 7,1976.

[SEAL] RICHARD V. BACKLEY,'Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc.76-10465 Piled 4-9-76; 8:45 am]

[Docket 27631]

FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL TOURS, INC.AND QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD.

Enforcement'Proceeding HearingNotice is hereby given pursuant to the

provisions of the Federal Aviation Actof 1958, as amended, that a public hear-ing in the above-entitled proceeding Isassigned to be held on May 17, 1976, at10:00 am (local time) In the hearingroom of the Hawaii Public Employees'Relations Board located, at 550 Halekau-wila Street (2nd floor), Honolulu, Hawaii96813, before the undersigned.

Dated at Washington, D.C.,; April 7,1976.

[sEAL] ALEXANDER N. ARGERA KIS,Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc.'76-10467 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket 28970]

TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC.Enforcement Pioceeding Hearing

Notice id hereby given, pursuant to theprovisions of the Federal Aviation Act of1958, as amended, that hearing In theabove-entitled matter is assigned to beheld on May 18, 1976, at 9:30 a.m. (localtime), in Room 1003, Hearing Room D,Universal Building, 1875 ConnecticutAvenue,_ NW., Washington, D.C., beforeAdministrative Law Judge Ronnie A.Yoder.

Dated at Washington, D.C., April 6,1976.

[SEAL] ROBERT L. PAim,Chief Administrative Law Judge.

[ FE Doc.76-10461 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

COMPTROLLER OF THECURRENCY

INSURED BANKSJoint Call for Report of Condition

CROSS REFERENCEP: For a document Is-suing a "Joint Call for Report of Condi-tion of Insured Banks" see PR Doc, 70-10480, Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-poration appearing in the notices sectionof this issue of the FEDERAL REOIST1fn,

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADINGCOMMISSION

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DEFINITIONAND REGULATION OF MARKET INSTRU,MENTS

Advisory Committee MeetingNotice is hereby given, pursuant to

Section 10(a) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I., § 10(a),that the Commodity Futures TradingCommission Advisory Committee on Def-inition and Regulation of Market Instru-ments ("Advisory Committee on MarketInstruments") will conduct an advisolcommitee meeting on April 21 and 28,1976, at the New Executive Ofice Build-ing, 17th Street and Pennsylvania Ave-nue, N.W., Washington, D.C., in Room2008, beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day.The Advisory Committee on Market In-struments was chartered to consider andsubmit reports and recommendations tothe Commission on the following sub-jects:

(1) Appropriate standards to be uti-lized by the Commission in regulatingforms of transactions that are subjectto the Commodity Exchange Act, asamended, including consideration of suchmatters as: (I) Appropriate standardsto be utilized by the Commodity FuturesTrading Commission regarding the defi-nition of commodity futures contracts,and (it) Appropriate restrictions or pro-hibitions for options relating to commod-ity transactions and margin or leverage-transactions subject to Section 217 of theCFTC Act.

(2) Responsibilities of the Commissionover cash commodity markets. This willinclude consideration of such mattersas: (I) Contracts for forward delivery:(i) Cash market manipulations: and(iii) Data and reporting needs for cashmarkets.

The summarized agenda for the meet-ing is as follows: The Committee willseek to approve its recommendations tothe Commission will respect to com-modity options trading.

The meeting is open to the public, TheChairman of the Committee is em-powered to conduct the meeting in afashion that will, in his Judgment, facU-itate the orderly conduct of business.Any member of the public that wishes tofile a written statement with the Com-mittee should mail a copy of the state-ment to Mrs. Harrison, The AdvisoryCommittee on Market Instruments,Commodity Futures Trading Commis-


sion, 2093 K Street, N.W., Washington,D.C. 20581, by April 20, 1976.

The Commission is maintaining a listof persons interested in the operations ofthis advisory committee and will mailnotice of the meetings to those persons.Interested persons may have their namesplaced on this list by writing DeVan L.Shumway, Director, Office of Public In-formation, Commodity Futures TradingCommission, 2033 K Street, N.W., Wash-ington, D.C. 20581.


WnrAr T. BAGLEY,Chairman, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission.[FR Doc.76-1042 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY[FRL 521-81

AMBIENT AIR MONITORING REFERENCE'AND EQUIVALENT METHODS

Notice of Receipt of Application for Refer-ence-or Equivalent Method Determination

Notice is hereby given that onMarch 22, 1976, the Environmental Pro-tection Agency received an applicationfrom Monitor Labs, Incorporated, SanDiego, California, to determine if itsModel 8410A Ozone Analyzer should bedesignated by the Administrator of theEPA as a reference method under 40 CFRPart 53, promulgated February 18, 1975(40 FR 7044). If, after appropriate tech-nical study, the Administrator deter-mines that this method should be sodesignated, notice thereof will be givenin a subsequent issue of the FEDERALREGISTER. --

WILsoN K. TALLEY,Assistant Administrator for

-Research and Development.

APRIL 6, 1976.[FR Doc.76-10484 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[FRL 521-7]

AMBIENT -AIR MONITORING REFERENCEAND EQUIVALENT METHODS

Correction

In a Notice of Equivalent Method Des-ignation published in the FEDERAL REG-.ISTER (Vol. 41, page 8531, February 27,1976), the method identification number

*given was incorrect. The method desig-nation should have read as follows:

EQSA-0276-009, "Thermo ElectronModel 43 Pulsed Fluorescent SO. Ana-lyzer," operated on the 0-0.5 range, withor without any of the following options:

001-Rack jMounting for standard 19inch relay rack

002-Automatic actuation of zero andspan solenoid valves.

WILSON K. TALLEY,Assistant Administrator for

Research and Development.ApRIL 6, 1976.

[FR Doc.10485 Filed 49-76; 8:45 am]

NOTICES

IFn 522-11

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD ENVIRON-MENTAL MEASUREMENTS ADVISORYCOMMITTEE

MeetingPursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice

is hereby given that a two-day meetingof the Environmental Measurement Ad-visory Committee will be held on April29 and 30, 1976. The sessions will beginat 9:00 axm in Conference Room 1101 ofthe West Tower, Waterside Mall. Thebuilding address is 401 A Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C.

The purpose of the meeting will be tobrief the members of the Committee onthe programs and activities of variousgroups within the Environmental Pro-tection Agency and to plan future activi-ties of the Committee.

The meeting will be open to the public.Persons not possessing building passes toWaterside Mal must register at the WestTower Entrance and receive a visitor'spass. Any member of the public wishingto attend the meeting, submit a paper,or both; should contact the Secretariatof the Science Advisory Board (A-101),U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, D.C. 20460, by close of busi-ness (c.o.b.) on April 26, 1976. Pleaseask'for the Executive Secretary of theCommittee, Dr. A. F. Forzlatl. This dateis especially Important for those personswho wish to submit statements or papersto the Committee to assure sufficient timefor reproduction and distilbution of thestatements or papers. It is further re-quested that statements not exceed two(2) typewritten pages, 8% x. 11 inches,single spaced typing, and that bulky en-closures and references be avoided. Ifmuch longer statements are necessary,or if detailed reference materials are in-volved, please contact the Executive Sec-retary as early as possible to work outsuitable distribution and handling pro-cedures. The telephone numbers are(703) 557-7710 or (703) 557-7720.

THOMAS D. BATH,Staff Director,

Science Advisory Board.

APRIL 7, 1976.[FR Doc.76-10486 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am)

[FRL 521-3; PP6G1718/T43]

ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMPORARYTOLERANCE

N'.(2,4-Dimethylphenyl).N-[[(2,4-dlmethyl-phenyi)imino]methyl] - N-methylmethan-imidamide

Upjohn Co., Agricultural Div., Kala-mazoo MI 49001, has submitted a pesti-cide petition (PP 6G1718) to the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA). Thispetition requests that temporary toler-ances be established for combined resi-dues of the insecticide N'-(2,4-dlmethyl-phenyl) -N-[[.(2,4 - dimethylphenyl) iml-no] methyl] -N-methylmethanimidamldeand its metabolites containing the 2,4-di-methylaniline moiety (calculated as theparent compound) in or on the raw agri-

15363

cultural commodities pears at 3 partsper million (ppm), apples at 1 ppm, inthe meat, fat, and meat byproducts ofcattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at0.05 ppm, and in milk at 0.01 ppm. Es-tablishment of these temporary toler-ances will permit the marketing of theabove raw agricultural commoditiestreated in accordance with two experi-mental use permits that are being issuedconcurrently under the Federal Insecti-cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

An evaluation of the scientific datareported has shown that the requesetdtolerances are adequate to cover residuesresulting from the proposed experimen-tal use, and It has been determined thatthe temporary tolerances will protect thepublic health. The temporary tolerancesare established for the insecticide, there-fore, with the following provisions:

(1) The total amount of the insecti-cide to be used must not exceed thequantity authorized by the experimentaluse permits.

(2) The Upjohn Co. must immediatelynotify the EPA of any findings from theexperimental use that have a bearingon safety. The firm must also keep rec-ords of production, distribution, andperformance and on request make therecords available to any authorized of-ficer or employee of the EPA or-the Food.and Drug Administration.

These temporary tolerances expireApril 5, 1977. Residues not in excess of 5ppm in or on pears, 1 ppm in or on ap-ples, 0.05 ppm In the meat, fat, and meatbyproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horsesand sheep, and 0.01 ppm in milk remain-ing after this expiration date will not beconsidered to be actionable if the insec-ticide has been legally applied during theterm of and in accordance with the pro-visions of the experimental use permitsand temporary tolerances. These tem-porary tolerances may be revoked if theexperimental use permits are revoked orif any scientific data or experience withthis insecticide indicate such revocationis necessary to protect the public health.

(Sec. 408(J) Federal Food. Drug, and Cos-metic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a(j)).)


JoHN B. Rrrcar, Jr.,Director, Registration Division.

IFR DOC.76-10400 Filed 4-9--76;8:45 am1

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCECORPORATIONINSURED BANKS

Joint Call for Report of Condition

Pursuant to the provisions of section7(a) (3) of the Federal Deposit InsuranceAct, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1817(a) (3)),each insured bank is required to makea Report of Condition as of the close ofbusiness March 31, 1976, previouslyselected as the date for the Report 9fCondition by the Chairman of the Boardof Directors of the Federal Deposit In-surance Corporation, the Comptroller ofthe Currency and the Chairman of the


15364

Board of Governors of the Federal Re-serve System, to the appropriate agencydesignated herein, within the times pre-scribed by applicable instructions re-ferred to herein, and furnished to eachInsured bank: Provided, That if such re-porting date is a nonbusiness day for anybank, the preceding business day shallbe its reporting date.

Each national bank and each bank inthe District of Columbia shall make itsoriginal Report of Condition on Office ofthe Comptroller Form CC-8022-05 (ReY.3/76)0 1, and shall send the same to theComptroller of the Currency and shallsend a signed and attested copy thereofto the Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-poration. Each insured State bank whichis a member of the Federal Reserve Sys-tem, except a bank in the District ofColumbia, shall make its original Reportof Condition on Federal Reterve Form105-Call No. 219 ' and shall send thesame to the Federal Reserve Bank of theDistrict wherein the bank is located andshall send a signed and attested copythereof to the Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation. Each insured State banknot a member of the Federal ReserveSystem, except a bank in the District ofColumbia and a mutual savings bank,shall make its original Report of Condi-tion and one copy thereof on FDIC Form64-Call No. 1152 and shall send thesame to the Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation.

The original Report of Condition re-quired to be furnished hereunder to theComptroller of the Currency and thecopy thereof required to be furnished tothe Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora-tion shall be prepared in accordance with"Instructions for Preparation of Consol-idated Reports of Condition and Reports"of Income by National Banking Associa-tions," dated March 19761. The orig-inal Report of Condition required to befurnished hereunder to the Federal Re-serve Bank of the District wherein thebank is located and the copy thereof re-quired to be furnished to the Federal De-posit Insurance Corporation shall be pre-pared in accordance with "Instructionsfor the Preparation of-Reports of Condi-tion by State Member Banks of the Fed-eral Reserve System," dated March19761 . The original Report of Conditionand the copy thereof required to be fur-nished hereunder to the Federal DepositInsurance Corporation shall be preparedin accordance with "Instructions for thePreparation of Reports of Condition byInsured State Banks. Not Members ofthe Federal Reserve System," dated Feb-ruary 1976 1.

Each insured mutual savings bank nota member of the Federal Reserve Systemshall make its original Report of Condi-tion and one copy thereof on FDIC Form64 (Savings) 1, prepared in accordancewith "Instructions for the Preparationof Report of Condition on Form 64 (Sav-ings), and Report of Income on Form 73(Savings) by Insured Mutual Savings

: Filed aS part of original document.

NOTICES

Banks," dated*December 1971, and anyamendments thereto 2, and shall send thesame to the Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation.

ROBERT E. BARNETT,Chairman, Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation.JAMS E. SMn,

Comptroller of the Currency.STEPH S. GARDNER,

Vice Chairman, Board of Gov-ernors of the Federal ReserveSystem.

[FIR Doo.76-10480 Filed 4-9-'76;8:45 am]

INSURED COMMERCIAL STATE BANKSNOT MEMBERS OF THEFEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, EXCEPT BANKS IN

-THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITHTOTAL ASSETS OF $300 MILLION ORMORE AS OF YEAR-END 1975

Call for Quarterly Report of Income? ursuant to the provisions of section

7(a) of the Federal Deposit InsuranceAct each insured State bank not a mem-ber of the Federal Reserve System withtotal assets of $300,000,000 or more as ofyear-end 1975, except a bank in the Dis-trict of Columbia, is required to make aReport of Income for the frst quarterof 1976 on FDIC Form 73 (revised March1976)1 to the Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation by May 15, 1976. Said Re-port of Income shall be prepared in ac-cordance with "Instructions for the Prep-aration. of Reports of Income" datedFebruary 1976.1

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCECORPORATION,

[SEAL] ALAN R. MILLER,Executive Secretary.

FR Dod.'76-10481 Filed 4-9-'76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION[No. '76-201

FOSS ALASKA LINE, INC., ANDNORTHLAND MARINE LINES, INC.

Filing of ComplaintNotice Is hereby given that a complaint

filed by Foss Alaska Line against North-land Marine Lines, Inc. -was served April6, 1976. The complaint alleges thatrespondent has or is about to enter intoa volume shipment tying arrangementwith certain shippers, under which cer-tain claims of these shippers againstrespondent would be deferred and paidoff by providing free ocean freight. Sucharrangements are alleged to violate sec-tion 14 First, Third and Fourth, 14b, 16,16 First and Second, 17, and 18(a) ofthe Shipping Act, 1916.

Hearing in this matter shall com-mence on or before October 6, 1976.

FRAN Is C. HuPE.Y,Secretary.

[Fa Doc,76-10455 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

'Filed as part of original document.

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSIONNATIONAL GAS SURVEY EXECUTIVE

ADVISORY COMMITTEEOrder Designating New Members and

Changes in FPC RepresentationAPnIL 5, 1976.

The Federal Power Commission byOrder issued September 15, 1975, an-nounced a new program for the NationalGas Survey Executive Advisory Commit-tee and Initial membership for this Com-mittee.

1. Membershf'p. New members to theExecutive Advisory Committee asselected by the Chairman of the Com-mission with the approval of the Com-mission, are as follows:Richard C. Gallop, Afilbanh, Tweed, 11adloy

& 1lcCloy, New York, New vork.H. Zinder, H. Zinder Associates, Washington,

D.C.Ellen Winchester, Sierra Club, Tallahasseo,

Florida.

2. FPC Repiresertaton New FPC Rep-resentatives to the Executive AdvisoryCommittee as selected by the Chairmanof the Commission with the approval ofthe Commission, are as follows:Allan n. Rexinger, Staff Attorney-OIC.Thomas Jennings, Petroleum Engineer-

NGS.Mr. RexInger replaces Mr. Don Shepler

and Mr. Jennings replaces Edwin D.Goebel as a FPC Representative.

By the Commission.[SEAL] IENNETH 1. PLUMB,

Secretary.[FR Doc.76-I0488 Filed 4--7618:45 am]

[Docket No. C176-437]AMOCO PRODUCTION CO.

ApplicationAPRIL 5, 1970.

Take notice that on March 29, 1970,Amoco Production Company (Appli-cant), P.O. Box 3092, Houston, Texas77001, filed in Docket No. C17G-437 anapplication pursuant to Section 7(b) ofthe Natural Gas Act for permission andapproval to abandon the sale of naturalgas in interstate commerce to Skelly OilCompany (Skelly) from the BlinebryGas Field, Lea County, New Mexico, allas more fully set forth in the applicationon file with the Commission and open topublic Inspection.

Applicant states that the gas-oil ratioof the Lockhart A-21, WVells 5 and 11,Lockhart 3-13, Well A-i, and LockhartB-14, Well A-i, has reached the point atwhich, under the rules anlI regulationsof the Oil Conservation Commission ofthe State of New Mexico, said wells areclassified as gas wells rather than oilwells. Applicant states further that oilwell gas production from said wells isdedicated to Skelly under a percentageof proceeds arrangement' and that gas

1 F CFn 154.01 (e).


NOTICES

well gas production from said wells isdedicated to El Paso Natural Gas Com-panmy 'El Paso) under Applcant's FPCGas Rate Schedule No. 110. It is notedthat Skelly reLells'lhe gas purchasedfrom Applicant to EL Paso under Skelly'sFPC- Gas Rate Schedule No. 263 and toNorthern under Skelly's F C Gas RateSchedule No. 262.

Any person desiring to be heard or tomake any-protest with reference to saidapplication should on or before April 26.1976- file with the Federal Power Conl-mission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a peti-tion to intervene or a protest in accord-ance with-the requirements of th& Com-mission's Rules of Practice and Proce-dure (18 CFm 1.8 or 1.10). All protestsfiled with the Comission will be con-siderid by it in determining the appro-priate actidn to be taken but owill notserve to make the-protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any. person wishing tobecome a party to a proceeding or toparticipate as a party in any hearingtherein must file a petition to intervene,In accordance with the Commision'sRules.

Take further notice that, pursuant tothe authority contained in and subjectto the jurisdiction conferred upon theFederal Power Commission by Sections7 and.15 of the Natural Gas Act and theCommission's Rules of-Practice and Pro-cedure, a hearing will be held withoutfurth-er notice before the Commission onthis application if no petition to inter-vene -I filed within the time reduiredherein, if the Comnssion on its own re-view. of the -matt& finds that permis-sion and approval for the proposedabandonment are required by the pub-lic- convenience and necessity. If a peti-tionfor leave to intervene is timely fled,or if the Commission on its own motionbelieves- that a formal hearing Is re-quired, further notice of such hearingwill be. duly given.

Under the procedure herein providedfor, unless otherwise advised, It will beunnecessary for Applicant to appear orbe represented at the hearing.

KENNETH F. P rUs,Secretary.

[FR Doc.6-10495 F1ed 4-9-76;8:45 am)

[Docket No. ER76-496]BANGOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO.

Extension of-TimeArnr 5, 1976.

On March 31, 1976, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company filed a motion to ex-tend the time for filing responses to thePetition to Intervene and'motions incor-porated therein, filed by Eastern MaineElectric Co-operative on March 15, 1976in the above-entitled proceeding.

Notice is hereby given that the timefor filing responses to the above Petitionto Intervene and motions Incorporatedtherein is extended from March 30, 1976to and including April 12, 1976.

KENNETH F. PLrUr,Secretary.

[FR Doc.76-10496 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket No. ER76-581]

THE DETROIT EDISON CO.Tariff Change

Arniz 5, 1976.Take notice that The Detroit Edison

Company (Edison) on March 29, 19.76tendered for filing a letter agreementdated December 9. 1975, which con-stitutes an amendment to the "Agree-ment for Sale of Portion of GeneratingCapability of Ludington Pumped Stor-age Plant by The Detroit Edison Com-pany to Commonwealth Edison Com-pany," dated June 1, 1971, as amendedby an aendment dated August 15, 1971(hereinafter termed "Agreement asamended"), according to Edison. Edisonstates that the- letter agreement, pur-suant to the terms of the Agreement asamended, 'constitutes a redetermintionof the fixed charge factor established bythe Agreement as amended. Edisonstates that effective for transactions onor after August 7, 1973, the letter agree-ment reduces the.fixed charge factorfrom 0.15770 to 0.15351 reflectingchanges In the state income tax rates,the federal investment tax credit, cost ofbond financing, and depreciation deduc-tions. Edison states that, based on thereduction in the fixed charge factor Willbe to reduce annual payments by Com-monwealth Edison to The Detroit EdisonCompany by approximately $218,000.

Edison requests waiver of the noticerequirements to permit an effective dateof August 7, 1973.

Edison states that copies of the filingwere served on Commonwelth EdisonCompany, Consumers Power Company,and on the Michigan Public ServiceCommission.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petition.to intervene or protest with the F'ederalPower Commission, 825 North CapitolNE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accord-.ance with Sections 1.8 and 1.10 of theCommission's Rules of Practice and Pro-cedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All such peti-tions or protests should beflled on or be-fore April 20, 1976. Protests will be con-sidered by the Commission in determin-ing the appropriate action tor be taken,but will not serve to make protestantsparties to the proceeding. Any personwishing to become a party must file apetition to intervene. Copies of this filingare on file with the Commission and areavailable for public inspection.

KENNETH.F. PLui4w,a Secretary.

[FR Doc.7-10501 Filed 4-9-76:8:46 am]

[Docket NTO. iER70-M8l

GEORGIA POWER CO.Tariff Change

AR 5,1976.Take notice that Georgia Power Com-

pany, on March 31, 1976, tendered forfiling proposed changes In its FPC Elec-tric Tariff, Original Volume No. 2. Theproopsal changes would Increase reve-nues from Jurisdictional partial require-

ments sales and service by $14,215,000,based on the twelve-month period end-ing December 31, 1976. The filing cn-talns a proposed Rate Schedule PR-2which would replace Rate Schedule PR-L

The Company asserts that its costshave escalated steadily since the filing ofits PR-i rate, rpsuIting in a large in-crease in the revenue requirement frompartial requirements wholesale service.The data submitted with the Company'sfiling allegedly demonstrates that ratePR-1; as presently in effect subject torefund, does not provide a fair rate ofreturn on the Company's partial require-ments wholesale service. An effective dateof May 1, 1976 Isrequested.

The Company states that copies of thefiling were served upon all of the Com-pany's Jurisdictional customers, whetherfull requirements or partial require-ments customers, and on the GeorgiaPublic Service Commission.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petitionto Intervene or protest with the FederalPower Commission, 825 North CapitolStreet NE., Washington, D.C.-20426, inaccordance with Sections 1.8 and 1.10 ofthe Commission's Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All suchpetitions or protests should be filed on orbefore April19,1976. Protests willbe con-sidered by the Commission in determin-Ing the appropriate action to be taken.but will not serve to make protestantsparties to the proceeding. Any- personwishing to become a party must file apetition to intervene. Copies of this appli-cation are on file with the Commissionand are available for public inspection.

KENNETrH P. PLuMB.Secretary.

[FR Doc.CG-1048 Filed 4-9-76.8:45 aml

[Docket No. E1176-2106

IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHr AND, POWER CO.Filing of Revisions to Case in Chief

Awrm 5,1976.Take notice that on March 25, 1976,

Iowa Electric Idght and Power Company(owa) tendered for filing certain revisedsheets of its letter of transmittal andof certain testimony and exhibits in itscase in chief in the above-captioneddocket.

Iowa states that the revisions are ten-dered pursuant to the Commission's Or-der Issued February 20, 1976f in the in-stant docket which provided that theAmana Society Service Company becharged the proposed RES-l rate (forpartial requirements customers) filedherein rather than the RES-2 rate (forfull requirements customers) as pro-videdin the originalfiling, and thatIowarevise Its case in chief so as to properlyreflect cost allocation and revenues basedon the status of Amana as a partial re-quirements customer.

Iowa further states that the revisionshave reduced anticipated operating rev-enues by $25,843, thereby reducing theachievable rate of return in Period Ir by0.28%, and that copies of the revisions

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

153G.

have been served on all parties and allcustomers.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petition tointervene or protest with the FederalPower Commission, 825 North.-CapitolStreet NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, inaccordance with Sections 1.8 and 1.10 ofthe Commission's Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). All suchpetitions or protests should be filed on orefore April 20, 1976. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in deter-mining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to make protes-tants parties to the proceeding. Any per-son wishing to become a party must filea petition to intervene. Copies of this fl-ing are on file with the Commission andare available for public inspection.

KENNETH F. PLUMB,Secretary.

[FR Doc.76-10493 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket No. ER7046]MONTAUP ELECTRIC CO.

Further Extension of Procedural DatesAPRIL 5, 1976.

On April 1, 1976, Staff Counsel fileda motion to extend the procedural dates

-fixed by order issued August 29, 1975, asmost recently modified by notice issuedFebruary 18, 1976, in the above-desig-nated proceeding.

Staff Counsel states that he has con-tacted all the interested parties in theproceeding and there is no opposition tothe requested extension.

Upon consideration, notice is herebygiven that the procedural dates in theabove matter are modified as follows:Service of Staff Testimony;, May 4, 1976.Service of Intervenor Testimony, May 18,

1976.Service of Company Rebuttal, June 1, 1976.Hearing, June 16, 1976 (10:00 a.m., e.d.t.).


(FR Doc.76-10500 Filed 4-9-76; 8:45 am]

[Docket No. nP74--75]

NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO.Certification of Settlement Agreement

APRIL 5, 1976.Take notice that on February .6, 1976

the Presiding Administrative Law Judgecertified to the Commission a settlementagreement together with the record aslater supplemented in the above refer-enced prQceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said settlement agreement shouldfile comments with the Federal PowerCommission, 825 North Capitol StreetNE., Washington, D.C. 20426, on or.be-fore April 23, 1976. Comments will beconsidered by the Commisslonjin deter-

NOTICES

mining the appropriate action to betaken. Copies of this agreement are onfile with the Commission and are avail-able for public inspection.


[FR Doc.76-10494 Filed 4-9-76; 8:45 am]

[Docket No. RP74-1001

NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORP.Extension of Time

APRIL 5, 1976.-On March 29, 1976, National 'Fuel Gas

Supply Corporation (National) filed amotion to extend the time for filing briefson exceptions to the initial decision is-sued on March 15, 1976 in the above-entitled proceeding. National states thatno party objects to the requestedextension.

Notice is hereby given 'that the timefor filing briefs on exceptions in the aboveproceeding is extended from April 14,1976 to and including April 30, 1976. Thetime for filing briefs opposing exceptionsis extended from April 26, 1976 to andincluding May 20, 1976. "


[FR Doc,76-10491 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket No. RP71-107; (PGA76-2)]

NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO.Purchased Gas Cost Adjustment Rate

,ChangeAPRIL 5, 1976.

Take notice that on March 25, 1976,Northern Natural Gas Company (North-ern) tendered for filing, as part of North-ern's F.P.C. Gas Tariff, Third Revised.Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2,the following tariff sheets:Third Revised Volume No. 1Tenth Revised Sheet No. 4a .Original Volume No. 2Eleventh Revised Sheet No. lc

Northern states that these tariff sheetsprovide for an increase of 10.10c per Mcfin the commodity portion of all jurisdic-tional rates to be effective July 1, 1976.Northern states that this will result in anincrease in annual jurisdictional marketarea gas sales revenues of approximately$24,195,000 for the Year 1976 and $1,066,-000 for field area sales. Northern statesthat these additional revenues will per-mit Northern to recover its increasedgas purchased costs occasioned by Opin-ion No. 749 for the entire year 1976.

Northern states that this rate increaseis being filed pursuant to Section 154.38(d) (4) of the Regulations Under theNatural Gas Act and Opinion Nos. 749and 749-A issued December 31, 1975 andFebruary 27, 1976, respectively. Northernstates that Ordering Paragraph (D) of

Opinion No. 749-A permits jurisdictionalpipeline companies having a purchasogas adjustment clause in effect on Janu-ary 1, 1976 to make special rate increasofilings to track their Increases in gaspurchase ,costs occasioned by rate In-creases estimated to be filed by naturalgas producers reflecting the nationwiderates prescribed by Opinion No. 749 and749-A.

Northern states that copies of the filinghave been mailed to each of the GasUtility customers and interested StateCommissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petitionto intervene or protest with the FederalPower Commission, 825 North CapitolStreet NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, inaccordance with Sections 1.8 and 1.10of the Commission's Rules of Practiceand Procedure (18 CFR 1.8, 1.10). Allsuch petitions or protests should be filedon or before April 20, 1976. Protests willbe considered by the Commission in do-termining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to make protes-tants parties to the proceeding. Any per-son wishing to become a party must filea petition to intervene. Copies of this iI- 'ing are on file with the Commission andare available for public inspection,

KENNETH P. PLUMB,Secretary.

[FR Doc.76-10492 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket No. RP71-107; (PGA'76-1)]

NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO.Submittal of Data

APRIL 5, 1976.Take notice that, on March 25, 1976,

Northern Natural Gas Company (North-ern) submitted in response to Commis-sion order Issued February 27, 19706, datawith respect to 60-day emergenoy pur-chases. Northern states that it served theinformation upon Northern's customeraand interested state commissions, whichinformation consist& of (1) the North-ern's need for the gas, (2) the availabilityof other gas supplies, (3) the amount ofgas purchased under each 60 day trans-action, (4) a'comparlson of each emer-gency price with appropriate marketprices in the same or nearby areas, and(5) the relationship between Northernand the sellers.

Copies of Northern's response are onfile with the Commission and are avail-able for public inspection. Any persondesiring to comment on matters con-cerned therein should file comments withthe Federal Power Commission, 825North Capitol Street NE., Washington,D.C. 20426, on or before June 4, 1976.

KENNETH F. PLUMD,Secretary.

[FR Doc.76-10503 Flied 4-0-76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGIVER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

[Docket No. F-9039]

NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.(MINNESOTA)

Compliance Filing ofCapacity ExchangeAgreement

APrIL 5, 1976.Take notice that on March 25, 1976,

Northern States Power Company (NSP)tendered for filing copies of the CapacityExchange Agreement, dated January 16,1976, between NSP and Dairyland Pow-er Cooperative. This filing was made incompliance with the Comnission's Or-der Approving Settlement Agreement, is-sued. March 15, 1976, which accepted theStipulation and Agreement, includingthe Capacity Exchang& Agreement, filedIn Docket No. E-9039 by NSP on Janu-ary 16, 1976. -

- tT.F.LKmmnm~ F. PLUISE,

Secretary.IFR Doc.76-10502 Piled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

lDocket No. 3.76-577]

PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT CO.Initial Rate Filing

APR. 5, 1976.- Take notice that Pacific Power & Light

Company (Pacific), on March 26, 1976,tendered for filing a new rate schedulefor transmis slon of electric power andenergy for Tri-State Generation andTransmission. Association, Inc. (Tri-State).

Pacific states that the proposed rateschedule provides for the transfer ofelectric power and energy by Pacific ojerits transmission facilities between Pa-cific's interconnections with the UnitedStates Bureau of Reclamation and Tri-States members on Pacific's transmissionsystem in- Wyoming. Pacific estimates-revenues for the twelve month periodending in March of 1977 to be $63,870based on Tri-State's estimated demandOf 10,645 kilowatts.

Pacific requests waiver of the-Com-mission's notice requirements to permitthe rate schedule to become effective

'%March 26, 1976, which It claims Is thedate of commencement of service.

Pacific states that a copy of the filingwas supplied to Tri-State. -

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said application soud file a pe-tition to intervene or protest with theFederal Power Commission, 825 NorthCapitol Street NE., Washington, D.C.20426, in accordance with Sections 1.8and 1.10 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and. Procedure (19 CER 1.8,1.10). All such petitions or protestsshould be filed on or before April 19,1976. Protests-will be considered by theCommission in determining the appro-priate action to be taken, but will notserve to make protestants parties to theproceeding. Any person-wishing to be-come aparty must file apetition to inter-vene. Copies of this application are onle with the Commission and are avail-

ableforiublic inspection.MnfKETH P. PLUM,

Secretary.[FR Doc.76-10487 Mled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

NOTICES

IDocket No. RP1-701

TENNESSEE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMIS-SION AND EAST TENNESSEE NATURALGAS CO.

Filing of ComplaintAPnn 5, 1976:

Take- notice that Tennessee PublicService Commission (Tennessee PSC),on March 11, 1976, Med a complaint inthis docket against the East TennesseeNatural Gas Company (East Tennessee).Tennessee PSC alleges that East Tennes-see has received certain demand chargecredits from its pipeline supplier and hasnot flowed these reductions in demandcharges through to its customers whileflowing through resulting commodity in-creases designed to allow the pipelinesupplier to recover the demand chargecredit theretofore given. Tennessee PSCstates that the purpose of Its complaint Isto cause East Tennessee to refund toits customers a full amount of all reduc-tions and demand charges, with Interestwhich it has received subsequent to Jan-uary 1.1974.

We have forwarded a copy of the com-plaint to East Tennessee who shall an-swer it Is writing within thirty days.

We shal direct the Secretary to pub-lish a copy of this complaint togetherwith this notice in the FizuzL REzisT.

Any person wishing to do so may sub-mit written comments concerning theabove-referenced complaint on or beforeApril 22,1976, to the Federal Power Com-mission, 825 Worth Capitol Street NE.,Washington, D.C. 20426. All commentssubmitted will be considered by the Com-mission In determining the appropriateaction to be taken.

KEmMTn F. PLts,Secretary.

IFR Doc.16-10498 Flied 4-9-76;8:45 aml

[Docket No. RPn7-71]

ITENNESSEE PUBLIC -SERVICE COMMIS-SION AND TENNESSEE NATURAL GASLINES

Filing of ComplaintAr~ai 5, 1976.

Take notice that Tennessee PublicService Commission (Tennessee PSC), onMarch 11, 1976, filed a complaint in thisdocket against Tennessee Natural GasLines, Inc. (Tennessee Natural). Tennes-see PSC alleges that Tennessee Naturalhas received certain demand chargecredits from its pipeline supplier and hasnot flowed these reductions in demandcharges through to its customers whileflowing through resulting commodity in-creases designed to allow the pipelinesupplier to recover the demand chargecredit theretofore given. Tennessee PSCstates that the purpose of its complaintIs to cause Tennessee Natural to re-fund to its customers a full amount ofall reductions and demand charges, withInterest which it has received subsequentto January 1, 1974.

We have forwarded a copy of the com-plaint to Tennessee Natural who shalanswer it in writing within thirty days.

13367-

We shall direct the Secretary to'pub-lish & copy of this complaint togetherwith this notice in the Fmanm. R=S=.

Any peron wishing to do so may sub-mit written comments concerning theabove-referenced complaint on or be-fore April 22, 1976, to the Federal PowerCommission, 825 North Capitol StreetNE., Washington, D.C. 20426. All com-ments submitted will be considered bythe Commission in determining the ap-propriate action to be taken.

KXM==T P. PL=uM,Secretary.

[PR Doc.7C-104R7 Flied 4-9-76;8:45 ami

[Dacket 1o. CP7G-304lTRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE

CORP.Application

APRIL 5, 1976.Take notice that on March 16, 1976,

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corpo-ration (Applicant), P.O. Box 1396, Hous-ton. Texas 77001, filed in Docket No.CP76-304 an application pursuant toSection 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for acertificate of public convenience andnecessity authorizing the constructionand operation of facilities for the NorthRih TIsld Systemn, to be located off-shore and onshore Texas and onshoreLouisiana, all as more fully set forh inthe application which is on file with theCommission and open to public inspec-tion.

Applicant proposes to construct andoperate approximately 63 miles of 24-inch pipeline, Y2 mile o: 16-inch pipeline,'29 miles of 8-inch pipeline and 11 milesof 6-inch pipeline to be located offshoreand onshore Texas and onshore Louisi-ana. Additionally, It Is proposed to con-struct and operate five purchase meterstations, a manifold platform andappurtenant liquid handling facilities atHigh Island Block 110 and separation,.dehydration and appurtenant connectingand measuring facilities in CameronParish, Louisiana. The proposed facilitieswould connect to Applicant's existingSouthwest Louisiana Gathering Systemnear Johnson's Bayou, Cameron Parish,Loulsiana.

Applicant states that the proposed fa-cilitles would be utilized to attach newgas supply sources to its system fromthe northern portion of the High IslandArea and Galveston Area, offshore Texas,and that said facilities could be utilizedto transport gas onshore for others fromthe same general vicinity. The applica-tion indicates that the initial designcapacity of the proposed North HighIsland System Is 230,000 Mcf per day andthat the facilities involved are estimatedto cost $56,000,000. Applicant asserts thatIt would finance said cost initUalythrough short-term loans, and availablecash with permanent financing to beundertaken as part of an overall long-term financing program at a later date.

Applicant states tht it; has executedgas purchase contracts with CoastalStates Gas Producing -Com-pany andSamedan Offshore Corporation covering


NOTICES

their iespective interests in the Galves-ton Block 255 field and with C & K Pe-troleum, Inc., et al., covering its interestIn the Galveston Block 189 Field. Fur-ther, Applicant states that Transco GasSupply Company (Gasco) has executeda gas purchase contract with Texaco Inc.covering the High Island Block 206 Fieldand that Gasco would resell such gas toApplicant, subject to favorable Commis-slon action on Gasco's pending applica-tion In Docket No. CP76-3. Applicantasserts that, absent such action, Gascohas the ability to assign its gas purchasecontract with Texaco to Applicant andthat Applicant and/or Gasco are in theprocess of consummating contracts forthe purchase of gas from other producersin the High Island Block 110 and 154Fields. -

Any person desiring-to be heard or tomake any protest with reference to saidapplication should on or before April 27,1976,file with the Federal Power Commis-sion, Washington, D.C. 20426, a petitionto intervene or a protest in- accordancewith the requirements of the Commis-sion's Rules of Practice and Procedur((18 CFR 1.8 or 1.10) and' the Regu-lations under the Natural Gas Act (18CFR 157.10). All protests filed with. theCommission will be considered by it indetermining the appropriate action to betaken but will not serve to make the pro-testanti parties to the proceeding. Anperson wishing to become a party to aproceeding or to participate as a party inany hearing therein must file a petitionto intervene in accordance with the Com-mission's Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant t(the authority contained in and subjecito the jurisdiction conferred upon th(Federal Power Commission by Sectionsand 15 of the Natural Gas Act and thCommission's Rules of Practice and Pro-cedure, -a hearing will be held withouifurther notice before the Commissioion this application if no petition to in.tervene is filed within the time requirecherein, if the Commission on its ow'review of the matter finds that a granof the certificate is required by the pub.lic convenience and necessity. If- a peti.tion for leave to intervene is timely fiedor if the Commission on its own motiobelieves that a formal hearing is re-quired, further notice of such heariniwill be duly given.

Under the procedure herein providecfor, unless otherwise advised, it will b,unnecessary for Applicant to appear o:be represented at the hearing.

KENNETH F. PL MB,Secretary.

[FR Doc.76-10499 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docke No. CS76-459, et al.]

ALBERT THORNBROUGH, ET ALApplicants for Small Producer Certificates,

/ " CorrectionAPRi 5, 1976.

Issued Februarf 26, 1976.Tabulation, Page 3, Docket No. CS76

475: Change Applicant's name fror

"Nola.Mae Sheldon" to "Charles F. Shel-* don and wife Nola Mae Sheldon".

KENNETH F. PLUM,Secretary.

[FR Doc.76-10490 Filed 4-0-76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

INSURED BANKSJoint Call for Report of Condition

CRoss REFERENCE: For a document is-suing a "Joint Call for Report of Condi-tion of Insured Banks" see FR Doc. 76-10480, Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-poration.appearing in the notices sectionof this issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER.

AMERICAN AFFILIATES, INC., LAcquisition of Bank

American Affiliates, Inc., South Bend,Indiana, has applied for the Board's ap-prdval under § 3(a) (3) of the BankHolding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1 1842

- (a) (3. to retain approximately 3.8 per-cent and to acquire an additional 3.7

- percent of the voting shares of AmericanNational Bank and Trust Company ofSouth Bend, South Bend, Indiana. The

L factors that are considered in acting onthe application are set forth in § 3(c) of

r the Act (12 U.S.C. § 1842(W)).The application may be inspected at

the office of the Board of Governors orL at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.- Any person wishing to comment on the

application should submit views in writ-ing to the Secretary, Board of Governorsof the Federal Reserve System, Wash-ington, D.C. 20551, to be received notlater than April 30, 1976.

" Board of Governors of the Federal Re-serve,System, April 1, 1976.

. [SEAL] GRIFFITH Is. GARWOOD,Assistant Secretary of the Board.

1 [FR Doc.76-10456 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

- ELGIN BANCSHARES, INC.

Formation of Bank Holding Companyn

- Elgin Bancshares, Inc., Elgin, Okla-g homa, has applied for the Board's ap-

proval under §3(a)(1) of the Bankd Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842 (a)

r (1)) to become a bank holding companythrough acquisition of 100 per cent (lessdirectors' qualifying shares) of the vot-ing shares of The Bank of Elgin, Elgin,Oklahoma. The factors that are consid-ered in acting on the application are setforth in § 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C.1842(c)).

* The application may be inspected atthe office of the Board of Governors orat the Federal Reserve Bank of KansasCity.-Any person wishing to comment onthe application should submit views In

_ writing to the Reserve Bank, to be re-a ceived not later than April 29, 1976.

Board of Governors of the Federal R c-serve System, March 31, 1976,

[SEAL] GRIFFITH L. GARWOOD,Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.76-10458 Filed 4-9-16;8:46 am]

FAM FINANCIAL INC.Formation of Bank Holding Company

PAM Financial Incorporated, Macks-ville, Kansas, has applied for the Board'sapproval under § 3(a) (1) of the BankHolding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842 (a)(1)) to become a bank holding companythrough acquisition of 70 per cent of thovoting shares of The Farmers and Mer-chants State Bank, Macksvile, Kansas.The factors that are considered in actingon the application are set forth in § 3(c)of therAct (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

The application may be inspected atthe office of the Board of Governors orat the Federal Reserve Bank of KansasCity. Any person wishing to comment onthe application should submit viewers Inwriting to the Secretary, Board of Gov-ernors of the Federal Reserve System,Washington, D.C. 20551 to be received nolater than April 29,1976.

Board of Governors of the Federal Re-serve System, March 31, 1976.

[SEAL] . GpnriFi L. GARWOOD,Assistant Secretary o1 the Board,

[FR Doc.76-10457 Filed 4-9-7'6;8:45 am]

NATIONAL CITY CORP.Acquisition of Bank

National City Corporation, Cleveland,Ohio, .has applied for the Board's ap-proval under § 3(a) (3) of the BankHolding Company Act (12 U.S.C. § 1842(a) (3) to acquire 80 per cent or more ofthe voting shares of First National Bankof Elyria, Elyria, Ohio. The factors thatare considered in acting on the applica-tion are set forth in § 3(c) of the Act(12 U.S.C. § 1842(c) ).

The application may be inspected atthe office of the Board of Governors orat- the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleve-land. Any person wishing to comment onthe application should submit views Inwriting to the Secretary, Board of Clov-ernors of the Federal Reserve System,Washington, D.C. 20551, to be receivednot later than May 3, 1976.

Board of Governors of the Federal Re-serve System, April 2, 1976.,

[SEAL] GRIFFITH L. GARWOOD,Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.76-10460 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 amI

NATIONAL DETROIT CORP.Acquisition of Bank

National Detroit Corporation, Detroit,Michigan, has applied for the Board'sapproval under § 3(a) (3) of the BankHolding Company Act (12 U.S.C. § 1842(a) (3) to acquire 100 per cent of the vot-ing shares (less directors' qualifyingshares) of National Bank of Port Huron,


15368

NOTICES

Port Huron, Michigan, a proposed newbank. The factors that are considered Inacting on the application are set forth in§ 3(c) -of the Act (12 U.S.C. § 1842(c)).

'The application may.. be inspected atthe office of the Board of Governors orat the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.Any person wishing to comment on theapplication should submit views in writ-ing to the Secretary, Board of Governorsof the Federal Reserve System, Wash-ington, D.C. 20551, to be received notlater than April 30, 1976.

Board of Governors of the Federal Re-serve System, April 1, 1976.

-SEALI GRPFTH L. GARWOOD,Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.76-10459 Pled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

- GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICEREGULATORY REPORTS REVIEW

-Receipt and Approval of a Proposed ReportThe following re~iuest for clearance of

a proposed report intended for use Incollecting information from the publicwas received by the Regulatory ReportsReview Staff, GAO, on March 15, 1976.Se- 44 U.S.C. 3512(c) and (d),The pur-pose of publishing this notice in theFEDERAL REGISTER is to inform the publicof such receipt and the action taken byGAO.

FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION

Request for clearance of a new BEAform, PEA P124-M-O, Domestic CrudeOil Purchaser's Monthly Report. Thisnew report will provide the means bywhich purchasers of crude oil will reporttheir purchases of domestic crude oil andthus enable adjustments to the first saleprice of crude oil to-meet the.require-ments of the Energy Policy and Con-servation Act. The reporters on this re-port include most refiners, some gather-ing systems, and resellers of crude oil. Atthe present time there are 350 identifiedrespondents. Reporting burden, accord-ing to PEA, is minimal once the account-ing records of the firm areQclosed for thereporting- month.

GAO granted emergency clearance ofthe P124-M-O in order to preclude PEAfrom requesting this information via atelegram. The form consists of a shadedand unshaded portion-the unshadedportion represents the information

- being cleared by GAO at the presenttime and-the shaded portion representsinformation which PEA anticipates itneeds in the future. Respondents are re-quested to comment to PEA on theshaded portion of the form, and GAOclearance was provided so that respond-ents would have this opportunity to do soas soon as possible.

NORMAN F. HEYL,

Regulatory Reports, Review Officer.[FR Doc.78-10505 Fled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

REGULATORY REPORTS REVIEWNotice of Receipt and Approval of a- Proposed Report

The following request for clearance ofa proposed report intended for use In

collecting information from tle -publicwas received by the Regulatory ReportsReview Staff, GAO, on March 26, -1976.See 44 U.S.C. 3512 (c) and (d). The pur-pose of publishing this notice n the Fm-ERAL REGISTER s to inform the public ofsuch receipt and the action taken byGAO.

FEDERAL ENERGY A marsrn zzo

Request clearance of PEA U518-S-0,State Energy Conservation FeasibilityReport Form. This form is justified underthe Energy Policy and Conservation Actof 1975, Title 333 Part C, which requiresthe Administrator of the Federal EnergyAdministration to prescribe guidelinesfor the preparation of a State energyconservation feasibility report and to in-vite the Governor of each State to submitsuch a report. Approximately 55 Statesare expected to participate in the survey.

GAO granted emergency clearance ofthis form because all data Items re-quested have already been approved byGAO when approval was granted onfoi m PEA U516-S-0, Application Formfor Financial Assistance to States for De-velopment of a State Energy Conserva-tion Plan.

NoRMAN F. HEYL,Regulatory Reports Revfew Officer.

[IFR Doc.76--0500 Piled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

REGULATORY REPORTS REVIEWReceipt of Report Proposals

The following requests for clearanceof reports intended for use In collectinginfofmatlon from the public were re-ceived by the Regulatory Reports Re-view Staff, GAO, on April 5, 1976. See 44U.S.C. 3512 (c) and (d). The purpose ofpublishing this notice in the FEDERALREGISTER s to inform the public of suchreceipt.

The notice includes the title of the re-quest received; the name of the agencysponsoring the proposed collection ofinformation; the agency form number, Ifapplicable; and the frequency withwhich the information is proposed to becollected.

Written comments on the proposedFCC and FPC forms are invited fromall interested persons, organizations,public interest groups, and affected busi-nesses. Because of the limited amountof time GAO has to review the proposedforms, comments (n triplicate) must bereceived on or before April 30, 1976,and should be addressed to Mr. Carl F.Bogar, Assistant Director, Office of Spe-cial Programs, United States GeneralAccounting Office, Room 5216, 425 IStreet NW., Washington, D.C. 20548.

Further information may be obtainedfrom Patsy J. Stuart of the RegulatoryReports Review Staff, 202-376-5425.

FE3ErA POWER CoT.s-SoThe Federal Power Commisslon re-

quests clearance of a revision to amendits existing Form 67, Steam-ElectricPlant Air and Water Quality ControlData, by adding a new Part 4 thereto.

The proposed mew part would requirethe reporting of detailed informationon the generating and emissions con-trol equipment at steam-electric plants25 megawatts and greater, the presentand future cost and operation of suchequipment, the present and future dis-position of waste materials from theplants, and general Information onfuel quality. Data relating to plantand equipment Is required every fifthyear (see general instruction No. 5),with the following exception: PartI, Schedule E, Section 1A shall bereported for 1975 If It was not reportedIn 1974, again in 1979 and then everyfifth year thereafter, unless equipment isaltered, or retired prior to the expirationof such periods. Part IV shall be reportedfor 1975 and for every year thereafter.The initial ffling for calendar year 1975Is due four months from the date of ap-proval. In the future, Part IV will bemade an integral part of Form 67. Thereport will be filled out by approximately294 utilities reporting for about 830 pow-er plants; It Is estimated that an averageof 80 hours will be required initially perresponse per plant and 30 hours will berequired annually per response per plantthereafter. The burden range accordingto FPC will be from 80 to 800 hours perrespondent initially and 30 to 300 hoursper respondent thereafter because thenumber of plants per respondent rangesfrom one to ten.

FEDERAL COMNIArCATIONS COUMnSsIOxThe Federal Communications Com-

mison requests clearance of revisionsto Form M, Annual Report. FCC amend-ed Part 31 and Part 33 of its Rules andRegulations to permit normalization ac-counting for income tax differentials oc-casioned by the use of depreciation basedon Class Lives and Asset DepreciationRanges for income tax purposes. In sodoing, FCC established two new ac-counts and revised three existing ac-counts. Form M has been revised to beconsistent with changes in the account-ing rules and a new schedule pertainingto property held for future use has beenadded to the form. The form s requiredto be filed annually by Class A telephonecompanies with operating revenues inexcess of $1,000,000 pursuant to Sections1.785 and 43.21 of the Commission'sRules and Regulations. The reportingburden per response is estimated to aver-age 1.5 hours per million dollars of plantinvestment.

FCC requests clearance of a revisionto Form 901, Monthly Report of Reve-nues, Expenses, and Other Items-Tele-phone Companies. Form 901 is requiredto be fled monthly by Class A telephonecompanies with operating revenues inexcess of $1,000,000 pursuant to Sections1.786 and 43.31 of the Commlssion'sRuesand Regulations. The reporting burdenIs estimated to average two hours perresponse.

NoRMAN F. HLYL,Regulatory Reports Review Officer.[FR Doc.10607Fled 4.G-76;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--LONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15369

15370

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANDI BUDGET

CLEARANCE OF REPORTSList of Requests

The following is a list of requests forclearance of reports intended for use Incollecting information from the publicreceived by the Office of Managementand Budget on April 6, 1976 (44 U.S.C.3509). The purpose of publishing this listin the FEDERAL REGisrE is to inform thepublic.

The list includes the title of each re-quest received; the name of the agencysponsoring the proposed collection of in-formation; the agency form number(s),if applicable; the frequency with whichthe information is proposed to be col-lected; the name of the reviewer or re-viewing division within OMB, and anindication of who will be the respondentsto the proposed collection.

Requests for extension which appear toraise no significant issues are to be ap-proved after brief notice through thisrelease.

Further information about the itemson this daily list may be obtained fromthe clearance office, Office of Manage-ment and Budget, Washington, D.C.20503 (202-395-4529), or from the re-viewer listed.

REVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Statistical Reporting Service, SugarbeetAcreage and Production (factories), semi-annually, sugarbeet processors, Hulett, D.T. 395-4730.

DEPARTMENT OF IIEALTN, EDUCATION, AND-WELFARZ

Food and Drug Administration:An Investigation of Features of Prescrip-

tion Drug Advertising Using PhysicianPerception, FDABD 1227, on occasion,physicians in Philadelphia SMSA,Richard Elsinger, 395-6140. "

Center for Disease Control, National Dis-ease Surveillance Progranm-L Case Re-ports, CDC 4.439, on occasion, individ-uals, Richard Eisinger, 395-6140.

DEPARTIENT OF AGRICULTURE

Statistical Reporting Service, Mlonthly Live-stock Slaughter Report, SRS-1.S-149,Mlonthly, livestock slaughters, HuIlett. D.T.. 395-4730.

PHILLn D. LAnsmr,Budget'anZ Management Officer.

[Fr Doc.76-10599 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ONNATIONAL GROWTH POLICYPROCESSES

MEETING

Notice is hereby given, pursuant toSection 10(a) of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. § 10(a),that the Advisory Committee on NationalGrowth Policy Processes to the NationalCommission on Supplies and ShortageswIll conduct a public meeting on April 30,1976, in the 6th Floor Hearing Room ofthe Consumer Product-Safety Commis-

NOTICES

sion, 1750 K Street NW., Washington, to Duke Power Company (the licensee)D.C. The meeting will begin at 9:30 AM. for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Sta-The objectives and scope of activities of tion, Unit 2 (the facility), located Inthe Advisory Committee on National Oconee County, South Carolina.Growth Policy Processes is " * * to The amendment would modify operat-develop recommendations as to the es- Ing limits in the Technical Specificationstablishment of a policy-making process based on analyses conducted for theand structure within the Executive and Oconee Unit 2 Cycle 2 core reload.Legislative branches of the Federal Gov- Prior to issuance of the proposed li-ernment as a means to integrate the cense amendment, the Commission willstudy of supplies and shortages of re- have made the findings required by thesources and commodities into the total Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amendedproblem of balanced national growth and (the Act), and the Commission's rulesdevelopment, and a system for coordinat- and regulations.ing these efforts with appropriate multi- By May 12, 1976, the licensee may file astate, regional and state governmental - request for a hearing and any personjurisdictions." whose Interest may be affected by this

The summarized agenda for the meet- proceeding may file a request for aing is as follows: hearing in the form of a petition for

1. Reports by Executive Director and leave to intervene with respect to theStudy Group Leaders. issuance of the amendment to the sub-

2. Discussion and review of Committee Ject facility operating license. PetitionsMembers proposals, ideas and concepts for leave to intervene must be filed under-relating to improvements in the Federal oath or affirmation in accordance withpolicy-making process and structure, the provisions of Section 2.714 of 10 CFR

In the' event the Committee does not Part 2 of the Commission's regulations.complete its consideration of the items A petition for leave to Intervene muston -the agenda on April 30, 1976, the set forth the interest of the petitionermeeting may be continued on the follow- in-the proceeding, how that interest may-Ing day or until the agenda is completed. be affected by the results of the pro-

The meeting is open to the public. The ceeding, and the petitioner's contentionsChairman of the Committee will conduct with respect to the proposed licensingthe meeting in a fashion that will, in his action. Such petitions must be filed injudgenient, facilitate the orderly conduct accordance with the provisions of thisof business. Any member of the public FEDERAL REGxSTER Notice and Sectionthat wishes to file a written statement ,2.714, and must be filed with the Sec-with the Committee should mail a copy retary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclearof the statement to the Advisory Coin- Regulatory Commission, Washington,mittee on National Growth Policy Proc- D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing andesses, 1750 K Street NW., 8th Floor, Service Section, by the above date. AWashington, D.C. 20006, at least five copy of the petition and/or request fordays before the meeting. Members of the a hearing should be sent to the Execu-public that wish to make oral statements tive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regu-should Inform Katherine Soaper, tele- latory Commission, Washington, D.C,phone (202) 254-6836, at least five days 20555 and to Mr. Troy B. Conner, Con-before the meeting, and reasonable pro- ner & Knotts, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenuevisions will be made for their appearance NW., Washington, D.C. 20006, the at-on the agenda. torney for the licensee.

The Advisory Committee is maintain- A petition for leave to Intervene musting a list of persons interested in the op- be accompanied by a supporting affidaviterations of the Committee and will mail which identifies the specific aspect or as-notice of its meetings to those persons. pects of the proceeding as to which in-Interested persons may have their names tervention is desired and specifies withplaced on this list by writing James E. particularity the facts on which the peti-Thornton, Executive Director, The Ad- tioner relies as to both his interest andvisory Committee on National Growth fil s contentions with regard to each as-Policy Processes, 1750 K Street NW., 8th pect on which intervention is requested,Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006. Petitions stating contentions relating

only to matters outside the Commission'sDated: April 8,1976. jurisdiction will be denied.

" ARNOLD A. SALTZML, All petitions will be acted upon by theChairman, The Advisory Corn- Commission or licensing board desig-

mittee on National Growth nated by the Commission or by thePolicy Processes. Chairman of the Atomic Safety and iA-

[FR Doc.76-10504 Filed 4-9--76;8:45 am] censing Board Panel. Timely petitionswill be considered to determine whethera hearing should be noticed or another

NUCLEAR REGULATORY appropriate order issued regarding theCOMMISSION disposition of the petitions.

[Docket No. 50-2701 In the event that a hearing is held andDUKE POWER CO. a person Is permitted to intervene, ho

becomes a party to the proceeding andProposed Issuance of Amendmentto has a right to participate fully in the

Facility Operating License conduct of the hearing. For example, he

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may present evidence and examine and(the Commission) is considering the is- cross-examine witnesses.suance of an amendment to Facility For further details with.respect to thisOperating License No. DPR---.... , Issued action, see the application for amend'


NOTICES

ment dated February 25, 1976 which Isavalable for public inspection at theCommission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.,and at the Oconee County Library, 201South Spring Street, Walhalla, SouthCarolina. The license amendment andthe Safety Evaluation, ivhen issued, maybe inspected at the above locations, anda copy may be obtained upon request ad-dressed to the U.S. Nucear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, D.C. 20555,Attention: Director, Division of Oper-ating Reactors.. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 2ndday of April 1976. •

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion.

ROBERT A. PuRFLE,Chief, Operating Reactors

Branch No. 1, Division of Op-erating Reactors. -

[FR Doc.76-10524 Flled 4-9-76;8:45 am)

[Docket No. PIGI-20-51-NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCILDenial of Petition for Rule Making

Notice is hereby given that the NuclearRegulatory Commission has denied apetition for rule making submitted byletter dated February 14, 1974, by theNatural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,1710 N Street NW., Washington,. D.C. Anotice of filing of petition, Docket No.PRM-20-5, was published in the FED-ERAL REGISTER on March 28, 1974 (39 FR11450). Interested persons were invitedto comment on the petition. Six letterswere -received opposing the petition, andtwo letters were received which supportedit. The supporting letters, from the WestMichigan Enivornmental Action Council,Inc. and from the Citizens' Action Groupfor Safe Energy Sources, petitioned theNuclear Regulatory Commission to takethe same action-as requested by the Nat-ural Resources Defense Council. Thesepetitions have also been denied.

The Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC) petitioned -the Atomic EnergyCommission (AEC) to establish specifichealth protection standards for "hotparticles," defined by NRDC as particlescontaining 0.07 picocuries or more ofalpha radioactivity and yet sufficientlysmall to be inhaled and deposited in thelung. The petition contained the follow-Ing requests:

1. Stay approvals for new constructionor operation of facilities involving "hotparticle" materials, and stay approvalsfor increase in quantity of "hot particle"materials for previously approved oper-ations, uhtil the petitioner's requests formodification of associated standards areresolved.

2. Establish, for occupational exposure,a maximum permissible lung particleburden of two "hot particles." and fornon-occupational exposure a maximumpermissible lung particle burden of 0.2(average) "hot particles;" add concen-tration-values to 10 CFR Part 20 for allalpha-emitting radionuelides which could

form "hot particles," as defined byNRDC, each value to be a factor of 115,-000 smaller than the value given for theradionuclide when not In "hot particle"form.

"3. Establish, for unrestricted areas, amaximum permissible surface contami-nation level of one "hot particle" persquare meter.

4. Amend 10 CFR Part 100 by addinga site criterion guide of 10 "hot particles"deposited in the lung during a two-hourexposure under accident conditions.

5. Convene public hearings to deter-mine as-low-as-practicable regulationsfor materials in "hot particle" form.In denying the petition the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) -deniesall five of these requests. This followsfrom the fact that the NRC finds thatscientific evidence does not support thetechnical position upon which the NRDCpetition is based. This .technical positionis stated by the NRDC in the corollaryto the "hot particle" hypothesis, as dis-cussed below.

By letter dated March 27, 1975, theNRDC requested that the NRC conductquasi-adjudicatory hearings in connec-tion with the NRDC petition. However,public hearings were conducted by theEnvironmental Protection Agency on De-cember 10-11,1974, and January 10,1975,which included the subject of standardsfor protection against plutonium andother transuranic elements. The "hotparticle" question was addressed duringthose hearings, and very little pertinentinformation was presented beyond thatpresently available In the open literature.The Commission also had the benefit ofmeetings with the petitioner's consult-ants and others knowledgeable In thefield. The Commission believes that thesupporting information cited in the peti-tion, and the large body of available in-formation in the open scientific litera-ture, provide an adequate basis for athorough examination of the merits ofthe petition. n the light of this, and inthe light of the fact that examinationand cross examination as .in a formalhearing are not likely to produce addi-tional useful scientific information inthis complex, scientific field, the Com-mission does not believe that holding offormal hearings would be in the publicinterest.

The sections which follow contain: (A)background information concerning thequestion at Issue, (B) a discussion of theformulation of the NRDC hypothesis andits corollary, (C) a critical analysis ofthe hypothesis and its corollary, (D)the conclusions of the NRC, (E) a dis-cussion of the basis for existing stand-ards for insoluble plutonium, and (F)a summary of ongoing work which willbe important to the NRC in Its futureconsiderations of radiological protectionstandards for insoluble plutonium.

A. BAcxcnouzw1. Spatial Distribution of Dose. An Im-

portant Issue involved in this petition isthe spatial distribution within the lungof radiation dose due to deposted alpha-emitting particles. Such particles Irradl-

ate Immediately surrounding tissues in-tensely, butmay leave other more distanttissues unirradlated. The radiobiological"issue is whether, for a given quantity ofradioactive material in the lung, the riskof cancer is greater for discrete particlesdistributed nonuniformly in the lung tis-sues or for material that is distributeduniformly throughout the lung. Presentrecommendations of the National Councilon Radiation Protection and Measure-ments (NCRP) and the InternationalCommission on Radiological Protection(CRP), present guidance to Federalagencies Issued by the Federal RadiationCouncil (now incorporated in the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency), and pres-ent NRC standards, are based upon thepremise that nonuniform distribution isnot more hazardous that uniform dis-tribution. The petitioner takes the posi-tion that nonuniform distribution can bemuch more hazardous and that special,extremely restrictive standards are need-ed to limit exposure to alpha-emittingparticles such as those containing pl(-tonium-239.

2. Current NRC Standards. The NRC's-current standards for protection againstradioactive material, implicitly includingmaterials in "hot particle" form, arespecified in 10 CPR Part 20, "Standardsfor Protection Against Radiation" Theparticular standards to which the peti-tion is addressed are given in 10 CFRPart 20 as limiting concentrations ofradioactive materials in air for occupa-tional exposure and limiting concentra-tions for radioactive materials in effluentsto unrestricted areas, and provisions forlimiting quantities of radioactive mate-rial in air or water.

In Its first memorandum to the Presi-dent (25 FR 4402, May 18, 1960) theFederal Radiation Council (FRC), pur-suant to Section 274h of the AtomicEnergy Act, reconimended that Federalagencies use radioactivity concentra-tion guides cpnsistent with the Radia-tion Protection Guides given in the samememorandum. The Radiation ProtectionGuide for the lung was 15 reins per year,occupational. The concentration valuesfor Insoluble nuclides listed in 10 CFRPart 20 were at that time, and are still,based 6n a dose rate of 15 reins per yearto the lung. With regard to nonoccupa-tional exposure, the FRC recommendedIn the memorandum that protectionguides in use by the Federal agencies becontinued. These recommendations wereapproved by the President as guidanceto Federal agencies (25 FR 4402, May i,1960). The occupational and nonoccupa-tional concentration values in- 10 CFRPart 20 were consistent with this guid-ance when It was issued. Subsequently,all functions of the FRC were trans-ferred to the Administrator of the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) byReorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (35FR 15623, October 6, 1970). EPA hasnot altered the guidance issued n theFRC's first memorandum to the Presi-dent, and therefore the NRCs regula-tions remain consistent with guidanceto Federal agencies pursuant to Section274h of the Atomic Energy Act.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12; 1976

15371

NOTICES

3. Action Taken Due to Petition. Al-though the standards in 10 CFR Part 20are consistent with PRC guidance, uponreceipt of the NRDC petition it was de-termined by the AEC that the results ofpertinent research programs and thestatus of scientific evidence should be re-evaluated. Sclen tflc personnel mostclosely associated with relevant researchprograms were requested by the AEC toperform a study of current radiobiologi-cal evidence. The results of this stud.yhave been published in a report entitled,"A Radlobiological Assessment of theSpatial Distribution of Radiation Dosefrom Inhaled Plutonium," by W. J. Bair,C. R. Richmond and B. W. -Wachholz,WASH-1320,-dated September 1974 (seeSection C-4 below). Copies of this reportmay be obtained from the Superintend-.ent of Doduments, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402(price $1.10).

Because the AEC had for many yearslooked to the NCRP for authoritativeguidance dn radiation protection stand-ards, upon receipt of the petition theAEC joined the EPA, which had receivedan Identical petition, in requesting the'NCRP to provide its views on the ade-quacy of existing radiation protectionstandards as related to radioactive par-ticles deposited In the lungs, with par-ticular emphasis given to the technicalquestions raised in the petition. EPA andthe AEC made a similar reqfiest to theNational Academy of Sciences (NAS).The resulting NCRP Report No. 46,"Alpha-Emitting Particles in the Lung,"was Issued July 1, 1975 (see Section C-5below). A report from the NAS is ex-pected in 1976.

After the AEC was abolished and itsregulatory functions vested in the NRC,the NRC staff completed a review ofavailable information and data bearingon the petition. This review includedWASH-1320, many of the referencescited in that report, and other references'cited in this denial. The following docu-ment was also reviewed:

Tamplin, A. n. and Cochran, T. B., "ACritique on the Biophysical Society's DraftComments on 'Radiation Standards for HotParticles'," NRDC, December 1974.

This document is available for inspectionin the NRC's public "document room, filePRM-20-5.

With regard to two instances of hu-man hand exposure to plutonium dis-cussed in the NRDC petition, Dr. C. C.Lushbaugh and Dr. Neil Wald were askedfor their medical opinions. Their replieshave been placed in the public docu-ment room and are discussed below.

On January 9, 1975, members of, theAEC (now NRC) staff met with ThomasB. Cochran of NRDC to discuss the peti-tion, and on January 30, 19.75, the staffmet with the authors of WASH-1320 forthe same purpose. Minutes of these meet-ings, which were useful in elucidating theissue of the petition but which did notadd substantive new information areavailable in the public document room.

B. NRDC Posrriol1. Hy lothesis and Corollary. In reports

written In connection with the petition I I

the authors provide a hypothesis for can-cer induction as caused by the irradiationof tissue. According to this hypothesis, ithe dose to a critical tissue mass is suf-ficiently large, there is a high probabilityof tumor production. Thus the hypothe-sis restates a generalized, widely acceptedconclusion on the biological effects ofradiation. Also developed is a corollaryto the hypothesis. According to this cor-ollary, if the human lung is irradiated byan immobile, alpha-emitting particle ofsufficient activity, a lesion will develop;if the lesion develops in a particularly-susceptible type of tissue, the carcino-genic risk is high. Thus the corollary, onwhich the petition is based, is concerneddirectly with cancer as caused by lesionsin critical lung tissues and is concernedonlywith radiation doses sufficiently highto cause such lesions. The corollary doesnot deal with particles of insufficientactivity to cause a lesion, and the authorsmake no recommendations regardingsuch particles. Similarly, no distinctionis made between lesion-forming particlesof varying activity. The corollary as-sumes that the same probability of caus-ing cancer is associated with all particlesthat can be deposited in the lung andthat can cause a lesion.

The existence of a particularly -sus-ceptible type of tissue in the lung Is notaddressed in the NRDC report; the au-thors assume that such tissues are pres-ent. It appears to the NRC from theNRDC supporting documents that thesecritical tissues would be located in thedeep lung. For small particles within thesize range' given in NRDC's "hot par-ticle" definition, the deep lung tissues aremuch more heavily irradiated than tis-sues in upper xespiraitory passages whereparticle removal is relatively rapid.

2. Quantification of Corollary. In orderto quantify this corollary, as is necessaryin the development 6f a standard forpersonnel protection, the threshold dose6r dose rateto form a lesion in the criticaltissue Would have to be determined, andan estimate of the cancer risk peZ lesionwould have to bemade. A large portionof the NRDC report is devoted to suchquantification. For the threshold dose,1000 rems was adopted by NRDC, basedprimarily on experiments involving ir-radiation of rat skin " In these experl-

I'.Radiaton Standards for Hot Particles,"by A. R. Tamplin and T. B. Cochran, Febru-ury 14, 1974.2 Tamplin, A. R. and Cochran, T. B., "NEDOSupplemental Submission to, the Environ-mental Protection Agency Public Hearings on.Plutonium and Trinsuranium Elements,"February 27, 1975.

z Albert, R. E, Burns, F. J., and Heimbach,R. D., "The Association Between ChronicRadiation Damage of the Hair Follicles andTumor Formation in the Rat," RadiationResearch, 30, 1967.' A Albert, R. E., Burns, F. J., and Heimbach,R. D., "The Effect of Penetratin Depth ofElectron Radiation on Skin Tumor Forma-tion in the Rat," Radiation" Research, 30,1967.

'Albert, R. E., Burns, F. J., and Heimbach,R. D., "Skin Damage and Tumor Formationfrom Grid and Sieve Patterns of Electronand Beta Radiation in the Rat)' RadiationResearch, 30, 1967..

ments there was little carcinogenic re-sponse below doses of 1000 rems. Withrespect to the rate of dose administra-tion, NRDC selected 1000 reins in oneyear and justified the one-year periodby estimating that the epithelial cellturnover time ini the lung is about oneyear.

This selection of a threshold dose andtime period permitted the NRDC to esti-mate the minimum quantity of activitynecessary to cause a leslon-0.07 picocu-ries. Thus a "hot particle" was initiallydefined as containing 0.07 plcocuries ormore of alpha radioactivity and yet suf-ficiently small to be, inhaled and de-posited in the lung. (The definition waslater changed to 0.14 picocurles as dis-cussed subsequently under Subtitle 9,Human Inhalation Exposure.) This defi-nition presumes the particle to be Im-mobile for one year.

3. Risk Estimate and Proposed Stavd-ards. Quantification of the corollary alsorequired a risk estimate, I.e., the cancerrisk per lesion. For this estimate theNRDC again used data from the rat skinirradiation experiment mentioned pre-viously. D. P. Geesaman,0 in his studyof the rat skin data, concluded that therisk probability Is 10'3 to 10-. The NRDCselected the approximate midpoint ofthis range, viz, 5X10-4, or one tumor per2000 lesions. Since the only particles un-der consideration are those which causelesions, this risk can also be expressedas n(1/2000) cancers per n particles, Todetermine an appropriate occupationalvalue for n, i.e., the permissible numberof particles in a worker's lungs, theNRDC concluded that the risk from nparticles should be no greater than therisk from the occupational external doselimit of five reins per year to the wholebody. This risk can be estimated fromrisk factors reported by the NAS to beapproximately 1/1000.7 The NRDCequated these risks

n(1/2000) =1/1000to obtain two particles as the appropri-ate value for n.

Since a "hot particle," as defined bythe NRDC,, must contain at least 0.07picocurles, the minimum activity permis-sible in the lung in "hot particle" formwould be 0.14 plcocurles The present oc-cupational limit is 16,000 picocurles forall forms of alpha-emitters. The NRDCconcludes that new standards for ma-terials in "hot particle" form should beestablished, and that these new stand-ards should be a factor of 16,000/0.14 (orabout 115,000) lower than the currentstandards for such materials in Insolubleform.

'Geesaman, D. P., "An Analysis of tileCarcinogenic Risk from an Insoluble Alpha-Emitting Aerosol Deposited in Deep Respira-tory Tissue," UCRL-50387 and Addendum,,1968.- T'1 "Ie Effects on Populations of Exposuroto Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," Ad-visory Committee on Blologicil Effects ofIonizing Radiations, National Academy ofSciences--National Research Council, 1972.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12, .1976

NOTICES

4., Extrapoation of Risk Factor to Hu--man Lungs. 'The basis for the corollaryis the..postulate that lung cancer can becaused by lesions located within sensi-tive, or critical, human lung tissues. Thefoundation for this postulate is the seriesof Tat skin irradiation experiments re-ferred t above. These experiments in-volved electron.irradiation of relativelylarge areas of skin on a large number ofrats.-"

These irradiations resulted in a highincidence of skin tumors. It was notedby the experimenters 'that -the tumorsformed primarily within hair follicles,andthat the tumors were correlated withthe disruption of the hair follicles in arough pioporti6n of one-tumor per 2000atrophied tollieles. The NRDC corollary,as mentioned previously, suggests thatthe human lung also has a particularlysensitive tissue that can be disrupted byan alpha-emitting particle, and that thecancer risk due to such disruption is -also1/2000.

C. Analysis of the vRDC "Hot ParticZe"Corollary. The NRDC petition to establishspecific health protection standards for"hot particles" raises the issue of thehealth effects of certain radioactive ma-terials in-the human lung. The issue asviewed by NRC relates to the effects ofthese materials in the lung as discrete,insoluble and immobile partietilates onthe one hand, or as materials distributeduniformly within the organ on the otherhand. Central to the issue is whether thebiological evidence presently available.supports continued- use of the NRC'spresent standardsfor insoluble, alpha-emitting nuclides in particulate form, orwhether the "hot particle" corollary, asprovided by the petitioners, can be sup-ported sufficiently by thIs evidence toform the basis for new health protectionstandards in the NRC regulations. Thehypothesis as most recently stated byTamplin and-Cochran is: '

When a critical tissue mass is irradiatedat :a sufficientlyliigh dose, the probability oftumor-production Is high.

The corolary Is: ''Men a critical tissue mass In the lung Is

irradiated by an immobile particle of sdif-clent alpha -activity the probability of aleslon developing approaches unity, and theprobability of this lesion developing Into'atumor is-high.

Evidence supporting the plausibility ofthe hypothesis can be obtained fromstudies of tumor incidence of rat skinsubjected to ionizing radiation. A discus-sion of this experimental work is pro-vided in the following paragraphs.

1. Irradiated Rat Skin Experiments.Albert and co-workers" irradiated de-fined areas of rat skin of the Sprague-Dawley strain with single exposures of-electrons having maximum penetrationof 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 millmeters. They ob-served that in the non-ulcerogenic doserange the ratio of the number of tumorst -atrophic hair follicles was between l/2000 to 114000. When tumor Incidencesand atrophic hair follicles were related

to dose -as a function of depth below theskin surface, coincident incidence-dosecurves were found at depths of 0.27 mIlli-meters It was noted by the investiga-tors,' who observed that atrophic hairfollicles diminished near the margin ofthe Irradiated areas, that:

-these observations strongly suggest thatthe pathogenic mechanisms for the develop-ment of both irreparable hair follicle damngoand skin tmors depend on bothlthe doseand the amount of akin Irradiated.

-Radiation experiments were also car-ried out on rat skin using grid and sievepatterns" of dose delivery. It was con-cluded for the non-uniform radiationpatterns that both chronic hair follicledamage and tumor formation were re-duced by these patterns of dose deliverywithin a limited dose range.

In the experiments described above, atumor response curve was observed thatwas closely proportional to a hair follicleatrophyresponse curve. These curves ap-peared to exhibit a threshold (i.e., thebiological response appears to begin) atabout 1000 rads delivered at 0.27 mIll!-meters beneath the skin surface. A max-imum resionse was observed at about2000 xads delivered at this depth, fol-lowed by a rapidly decreasing responseat doses greater than 2000 rads.'On the basis of the above, it can be

inferred that enhanced tumor Incidencefor the skin of the Sprague-Dawley ratstrain results from hair follicle damage(atrophy) caused by the irradiation ofrelatively large areas of the skin. Theevidence suggests that a dose thresholdfor enhanced adnexal (ie., follicle orsebaceous) cancer Incidence may existat about 1000 rads when measured at adepth below the skin of 0.27 millimetersand that the Incidence curve passesthrough a maximum at about 2000 radsand then diminishes with increasing en-ergy deposition. The experiments furthersuggest that tumor formation occurs inthe ratio of 1/2000 to 1/4000 to hair fol-licle atrophy and Is dependent upon theamount of skin irradiated in addition tothe number of atrophied follicles.

A study was conducted by Passonneau,et al.," in which the tumor Incidence ofrat skin was measured versus the activityof Sr-90/Y-90 sources in the form ofbeads or plates. The results of this study,as summarized by Bair, et aLt, clearlyindicate that the eflciency for tumorproduction, in tumors per microcurle, in-creased with increasing uniformity ofIrradiation (i.e., fromhigh activity beadsto filat plate sources).

However, the data provided by Passon-neau, et al., haye been analyzed by the

8Passonneau, J. V. Brues.A. 2., Emiton,X. A., and KIsleleski, W. 3, "CarcinogenicEffects of Diffuse and Point Source Beta Ir-radiation On Rat Skin: rainl Summary,"ANI-4932:31, 2952.

Bair W. i. Richmond, C. 3., and Wach-holz, B. W, "A Radloblological Asscsmentof the Spatial Distribution of Radiation fDoefrom. Inhaled Plutonium," U.. Atomi Mo-ergy Commlrnson, WASH-1320, September,1974.

NRC in another manner. Based upon es-timates of those actual areas subject todoses exceeding 1000 rads by both par-ticles containing Sr-90/Y-90 or by flatplates with uniform Sr-90/Y-90 activitydistribution, the number of tumors pro-duced per unit area of rat skin actuallyirradiated to 1000 rads ormore is nearlyconstant, indicating that nonmmiform ir-radiation was as hazardous -as uniforanIrradiation. Although no estimates wereobtained of hair follicle damage as aconsequence of these studies, -the workof Pas onneau, et al., appears to be con-sistent with the work of Albert, et al,referenced earlier. These data contributethe only evidence for the existence of a"critical tlssue mass in animals or mancontained In submittals to the-NRC bythe NRDC.

2. Critical Tissues in Human Lung.Critical tissues from the standpoint ofcancer origination have also been indi-cated to exist n human lungsF Thesecritical tissues constitute the basal celllayer of the bronchial-epithelixn. In thebronchial region of the lung, the resi-dence time of particles is short becausethey are trapped In mucus, moved tothePharynx by action of the epithetla cilia,.and are then swallowed. The deep lungregions of interest to the "hot particle"question (e., regions of lower particlemobility) are the respiratory bronchioles,the alveolar ducts and alveolar sacs.-TheNRC has no evidence that indicates theexistence of tssue that might be de-scribed as "critical" or of '5citlcal tissuemass" within these regions of the lung.

The corollary of the NRDC is appar-ently provided support only by experi-ments conducted on rat skin. The postu-late by the NRflC of the existence of"critical tissue niassCes) ," located In thedeep lung, is not supported by availableinformation and is considered to behighly speculative. Experience with ura-niun miners Indicates that critical tis-sues probably do exist in the respiratoryepithelium of the human bronchus (anupper region of the lung) in which tu-mors may originate more probably thanin other cells In the lung following Irra-diationby the short-lived daughter prod-ucts of Rn-222. However, the NRDC peti-tion deals with particles lodged immobilein the deep region bf the lung in whichthere Is no evidence of critical tissuenasses. o

3. Difference in Response Between RatStrains. In the initial experiments con-ducted byAlbert and his co-workers con--cerning the Irradiation of rat skin" and -

discussed by Healy, et al. a Y-91 was thesource of Irradiation and two stains ofrats, the Holzman and the Sprague-Daw-

Albert. n. IL, Newman, W. and Altshuler.B, "'he Dose-Rneponse RelationshIp -,.,Beta-Ray-Induced Skin Tumors in Uc.Rat, Radlation Research 15, 1961.

u Irealy, X. W, Richmond. QR., and Ander-son, - 0., "A Ravie of the Natural Re-soure. Defense Council Petition Concernin-Itmit for Insoluble Alpha Emtte2-. L,-5WO-IM, r" Alo Scentific 1&bortc2-ovember, 1Q74.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--MONDAY, AMlL ,M 1976

15373

15374

ley, were used. The Holzman strain isconsidered to be similar to the Sprague-Dawley strain, but the Holzman rats inthese experiments were considerablyolder than the Sprague-Dawley rats.The dose-response curves of the twostrains, were observed to differ quitemarkedly for the principal type of tu-mor that resulted. In the case of theSprague-Dawley strain, the onset of tu-mor response appears to be well-definedand begins at about 2000 rads dose deliv-ered to the skin surface. For the Holz-man strain, a less well-defined but dis-cernible threshold appears near the samedose delivery value as the Sprague-Daw-ley strain. However, the response at themaximum for the Sprague-Dawley strainIs greater- than that of the Holzmanstrain by about a factor of five. It is notevident that this striking difference inresponse is related'to strain or. age atIrradiation. Such differences suggest,however, that the extrapolation of ir-radiation response characteristics tosimilar tissue-within an animal species ishighly uncertain. The validity of the ex-trapolation of irradiation response char-hcteristics of a particular tissue andspecies to a dissimilar tissue of a differentspecies greatly compounds the uncer-tainties.

4. Difference in Response Between Ro-dent Species. Further evidence of differ-ences that can occur between, species isprovided in the work of Albert, et al.,"and discussed by Healy, et al.," in exam-ining the tumor response of mouse skinto irradiation. The authors confirmedthat while* under certain conditions therats exhibited adnexal tumors in re-sponse to skin doses, this outcome wasrare in mice. Furthermore, the totalnumber of tumors produced in mice un-der these conditions was only 15% to20% of the-total produced in rats. Thedecreased frequency of adnexal tumorsand atrophied hair follicles in mouse skinrelative to rat skin can be attributed toa greater lethal sensitivity of mouse hairfollicles to radiation than rat hair folli-cles. (It appears that the mouse hairfolliees may have been destroyed In thisexperiment.) This conclusion indicatesthe difficulties that can be encounteredby attempting to impose the character-Istics of one species onto another. Thecharacteristic behavior of' the skin ofSprague-DawleY rats to radiation has noknown relevance to the behavior of thehuman lung other than the general ob-servation that cancer can be induced in*either type of tissue as a consequence ofIrradiation.

5. Partial Irradiation of "Critical Tis-sme Mass". A further element of theNRDC corollary is that it could be as-sumed that irradiation at high levels ofdose of only a portion of a "critical tissuemass" would result in a high probability"for tumor production. However, as re-Ported by Albert, et al.,a

12Albert, n. E, Burns, F. J., and Dermott,P. "Radiation-Induced Hair Follicle Damageand Tumor Formation in Mouse and RatSkin," J. Nat'l ancer Inst., 49(4), 1972.

NOTICES

the development of both irreparable hairfollicle damage and skin tumors depend uponboth the dose and the amount of skinirradiated.

Further studies of rat skin tumor induc-tion with ionizing radiation" indicatedthat upon using alpha particles and pro-tons, no tumors were produced where theranges of the particles extended to about0.15 millimeters below the skin surface.The investigators found that no tumorsor atrophied hair follicles were observedfor irradiation depths of 0.3 millimetersunder alpha particle irradiation unlessthe entire hair follicle was substantiallyirradiated The significance of these find-ings, according to Albert is: I

This observation suggests that everi thoughthe critical cell population is located at0.3 mm, that there are recovery mechanismsthat block tumorogenesis when only parts ofthe 'critical architectural unit of tissue' isIrradiated. What these recovery processesmight be is not understood. Nevertheless, thisresult does not support the contention thata single plutonium particle positioned nextto a 'critical architectural unit' such as thehair follicle, will produce a tumorogenic riskof the magnitude assumed by Tamplin andCochran.

On the basis of the above, "critical tis-sue mass (es)" in rat skin for which thereis evidence, requires substantial Irradia-tion of the entire structure before hairfollicle ("critical tissue mass") tumorsare induced. Thus, experimental support-for the corollary of the NRDC is re-stricted to conditions where a "criticaltissue mass" is entirely irradiated. Itshould be noted that Tamplin and Coch-ran, in their development of the 1/2000risk factor, apparently did not take therecovery mechanisms reported by Al-bert " into account.

(NoTE: As ;pointed out earlier, the evidencefor a "critical tissue mass" is supported onlyby radiation experiments Involving rat skin.The corollary presumes the existence of "acritical tissue mass in the lung," sufficientlysmall to be entirely irradiated, but not de-stroyed, by a "'hot particle." The NRC knowsof no evidentiary support for this specula-tive assertion. However, in the discussion ofthe corollary which follows, the existence ofsuch a "critical tissue mass in the lung" ishypothetically assumed.)

-6. Particle Immobility. As provided inthe corollary given by the NRDC, thesource of radiation for "critical tissuesmass in the lung" must be an immobileparticle to satisfy -the requirements ofthe corollary. Although this may be anecessary condition to aid in establish-ing the validity of the corollary, its rele-vance to inhaled particulates of insolubleplutonium in the lungs does not appearto be substantial. As provided in the re-port of Bair, et al.,9 in the upper lungparticles are efficiently and rapidly re-moved, principally by mucociliary mech-

Heimbach, R. D., Burns, F. J., and Albert,n. E., "An Evaluation by Alpha-Particle BraggPeak Radiation of the Critical Depth In theRat Skin for Tumor Induction," RadiationResearch, 39. 1960.

" -In "Plutonium and Other TransuranlumElements: Sources, Environmental Distribu-tion and Biomedical Effects," U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission -WASH-1359, December1974.

anisms. In the lower lung, particles aresubjected to gradual dissolution, followedby absorption into the blood or removalby macrophages; these appear to be theprime-mechanisms for plutonium trans-port. Evidence is available, however, toindicate that some plutonium particlescan be immobilized In scar tissue In thelung. Hair, et al.,9 summarize the knowl-edge of particle mobility in the ling Inthe following statements:

Although the kinetics are untknown andeven a qualitative description Is still ratherprimitive, there is ample evidence that plu-tonlum deposited in lung Is subjected tobiological and physical forces. This arguesagainst either particles or aggregates ofplutonium remaining static indefinitely, ex-cept for the plutonium' that becomes Im-mobilized in scar tissue. To the contrary,while the rates may be low, movement ofplutonium within lung tissues, by severalmechanisms, certainly occurs, as the lungattempts to expel the plutonium and otherforeign material. The migration of depositedplutonium particles in lung Is recognized inthe USSR as at least partially Compensat-ing for the nonuniformity of the radiationexposure from plutonium particles and jtls-tifying acceptance of the concept of aver-aging the radiation dose over the entirelung mass. (A reference of Bair, et al., isdeleted here.)

Since all particles are not Immobile Inthe lung, the probability of particle Im-mbollty should be considered in the esti-mate of risk.

7. Alpha Induced Lesions in Rat andHamster. Lungs. The corollary to thehypothesis of the NRDC states thatunder specific lung irradiation and tissueconditions "the probability of a lesiondeveloping approaches unity, and theprobability of this lesion developing Intoa tumor is high." As applied to alpha-emitting particles in the lung, the NRDCstates: '-'

If a particle deposited In the deep respi-ratory tissue is of such activity as to exposethe surrounding lung tissue to a dose ofat least 1000 rems in 1 year, this particlerepresents a unique carcinogenic risl, Thebiological data suggest that such a particlemay have a cancer risk equal to 1/2000.

The petitioners do not explicitly definea lesion, but they assumeI that lungtissue with a mass of 65 micrograms sur-rounding an alpha-emitting particle, thatreceives an average dose of 1000 rem ormore per year, will have a probability ofessentially unity for the development ofa lesion, and that such a lesion wouldconstitute a cancer risk of 1/2000.

Lesions have been observed surround-ing plutonium-238 oxide particles withdiameters ranging from 122 to 207 mi-crometers lodged in the blood vessels ofrat lungs by Intravenous Injection." The

GTamplin, A. R., and Cochran, T. B., "TheHot Particle Issue: A Critique of WASH-1320as It Relates to the Hot Particle Hypothesis,"Report of the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc., Washington, 1.0.,' November,1974.

51 Richmond, C. R., Langham, J., and Stone,R. S., "Biological Response to Small DiscreteHighly Radioactive Sources, II. Morphogeno-sis of Microleslons in Rat Lungs from Intra-venously Injected =PuO, Microspheres,"Health Physics, Vol. 18, 1970.


alpha dose rate to tissue within 40 mi-crometers of a 180-micrometer particle.(the average diameter of these particleswas 178 micrometers) was about 6 X 101reins per hour and the photon dose deliv-ered to-a distance of 300 micrometers wasestimated to be about 830 Tads per day.The authors described a lesion found inone rat lung as similar to that reported,by Lushbaugh, et al.," describing, a plu-tonium lesion found in the palmar, der-

- mis of a plutonium worker. Richmond,et al., " have- described the experimen-tal results further. They state:

icrolesions caused by exposure of ratlung tissue to high specific-activity =PuO_microspheres for 1-211 days were examinedhistologically. The huge radiation dose rates(~lo

s rad/hr for alpha particles and,10

rad/hr for photons) caused surprisinglylittle change In the lung structure exceptin the Immediate area of the particle. Thelesion progresses from a highly cellular to anacellulr, collagen surrounded state and ap-pears to be limited in size alter severalmonths.In the experiment; no cancers developedin the animals Of-the,38 animals understudy,-32 were sacrificed 120 to 400 daysafter particle Implantation, and six diedof natural causes. . -

- A significant study iith hamsters hasbeen conducted at Los Alamos ScientificLaboratory which allows direct testingof thecorollary of the NRDC hypothesis.In this experiment, implantation of plu-tonium particles was caxried out by in-travenous injections, as in the previouslydescribed -experiments with rats." In thecourse of this study lesions were ob-served. This work has been summarizedby Healy et al.,n as follows:-In an experiment currently in progress,*

uniform-sized mlcrosphera (10-gm-darn-eter) of ZrO, are used with intermixed PuO,to provideparticles of differing activities, andthese re introduced into the lungs of ham-sters by the above technique. In the firststudy In this experiment, 8 groups of 60 ant-mal each -were injected with 2000 -such par-ticles, with the plutonium content of eachparticle ranging from 0.07 to 59A pC1.

Essentially all of the aimals have nowdied, with only two lung cancers observed.(Three other cancers in the exposed animalsoccurred in organs other than the lung.)The dose ates to the lungs of those ani-mals, when calculated as the average doserate to the lung, ranged from "13 rads peryear (130 reins per Tear) to 12,000 rads peryear (120,000 reins per year). This is a range-over which one would expect high tumor in-cidence and, in fact, premature death frompulmonary inefficiency if the material hadbeen distributed homogeneously. Since thesurvival curves of the individual groups didnot differ from those of the controls and thetotal tumor incidence was low, one canonly conclude that the DP (DistributionFactor) for plutonium in particulate formmust be less than one. In the continuationof this study, some 1900 hamsters have re-ceived 1.6X108 mlcrospheres.- As of October1974, the minimum time of exposure has been50 weeks, which is comparable to or longerthan the tumor induction times observed byLittle, et al, in their experiments with more

2 7lushbaugh, D. C. and Langham, .,-,,&Dermal Lesion from Implanted Plutonium,"Aralives of Dermatology, 86, October, 19862.

*Refer to original document for referencesgiven.

NOTICES

unif6rmly distributed 210r.. In fact, onlythree lung tumors (including the two ob-served in the first study) have, as yet de-veloped from the. microphero exposures.While this study Is as yet Incomplete, thevery low tumor Incidence again Indicates alow effectiveness of the particles in induc-ing lung cancers as compared to morehomogeneously distributed alpha. emitterz,as well as the failure of the Geesaman hy-pothesis to correctly forecast the reulis ofthis experiment.

In describing some of the effects ob-served in their experiments, Richmondand Sullivan" discuss changes in lungtissues surrounding the Immobile parti-cles with the statement:

There has been no increase in frank tumorsobserved within the past year; however, theepithellal changes described above could beconsidered as precursors of peripheraladenomas

These observations are interpreted byTamplin and Cochran 2 In their state-ments: "These experiments stronglysupport the proposal that a single par-ticle Imbedded In tissue is capable ofeliciting a carcinogenic response. Thekilling of cells and the development of alesion surrounding the particle is thesuggested mechanism of carcinogenesis(an injury mediated mechanism) :" Theystate further:

Although no tumors appeared In a3ocla-tion ,ith the microspheres in the animal ex-periments, the description of the lesions issuggestive of an Incipient tumorogenic re-sponse. Richmond, at al, stato that theycould be considered as precursors of periph-eral adenomas and their description is con-sistent with that of developing bronchlolo-alveolar carcinoma. It Is reasonable to pro-pose that the induction period for a franktumor by this mechanism Is longer than thelife span of rats and hamsters.

Tumors have been induced duringnumerous experiments In the rat byplutonium through a variety of exposuremeans (see, for example, Table M-A, p.14, reference 9), and in the Syrian ham-stern high tumor Incidences have beenobserved with short Induction times forexposures to particulate and more uI-formly distributed Po-210. If It is as-sumed on the basis of this limited evi-dence that the period of tumor nduc-tion In the hamster does not exceed thelife span of the animal and that theestimates of probability for tumor In-duction by Cochran and Tamplin werecorrect (Me., the probability for lesionproduction approaches unity and theprobability of cancer induction per le-sion Is 1/2000), the number of tumorsto be expected in the 1150 hnmsters hav-ing lived their lives or sacrificed * wouldbe about 2900. In reality, three primarylung tumors were observed In all of theexposed animals. Thus, the-relation be-tween lesions and assumed cancer In-duction as proposed by the NRDC is notsupported by this evidence. There are

=Ricm ond, . ... and Sullivan, m. 2m!.,(eds.), "Annual Report of the Biomedicaland Environmental Research program of theLASL Health Division for 1973," Los AlamosScientific Laboratory Report L&-33-PR,May, 1974.

15375

no data on the period of tumor induc-tion by the specific mechanism proposedby Cochran and Tamplin for radioactiveparticlea. However, as stated above, ex-periments reported In reference 19demonstrated that exposure to alpharadiation produces pulmonary neoplasmsin Syrian hamster lungs with high effi-ciency and short induction times.

8. Human Hand Exposure. In terms ofthe risk of cancer induction in man fromexposure to particulate plutonium, Coch-ran and Tamplin cite two instances ofhuman hand exposure to plutonium asbeing potential or actual causes of can-cer. The first, a report of Lushbaugh andlangham, describes the results of exam-inations of a lesion that developed fromplutonium imbedded in the palm of amachinist. Lushbaugh and Langbamstate in their report: I

The autoradlograpbs showed precise con-finement of alpha-tracks tj the area of max-Imum damage and their penetration into thebasal areas of the epidermis, where epithelialchanges typical of Ionizing radiation expo-ure were present. The cause and effect

relationship of these findings, therefore,Ceemed obvious. Although the -lesion Wasminute, the changes in it were severe. Theirsimilarity to known precancerous epidermalcytologic changes, of course, raised the ques-tion of the ultimate fate of such a lesionJShould It be allowed to exist without sur-glcalintervention * a

The information containedin this quo-tation and an estimate of puncturewounds Involving plutonium that bad oc-curred at approximately the time of pub-lication of the Lushbaugh and Langhamreport led Tamplin and Cochran to con-dude: I

Therefore, ths wound data would sug-ge t that Insoluble plutonium particles couldoffer a risk of cancer induction in man thatis even greater than 1/1000 per particle.

This conclusion Is not sustained by theinformation cited. The AEC contactedDr. Lushbaugh" requesting his vlews asto whether his report supported theNRDC's conclusions that: (1) a singlePu-239 particle Is capable of inducingcancer; and (2) a risk of cancer may'begreater than 1/1000 per particle. The-en-tire response of Dr. Lushbaugh to thisinquiry dated September 10, 1974, is re-produced below: -

In reference to your letter of August 16,1974. 1 should point out that earlier this yearI worked with Dr. Bruce Wachholz of Bio-Medical PZograms, DBER, GermantovnHeadquarters On the initial stages of adocument recently numbered WASH-1320;entitled, A Radiobologcal ASmment of theSpatial Distribution of Radiation Dose fromInhaleZd Plutonium Particles; and authored-by W. Bafr, C. Rcbmand, and B. Wachholz.Although I have not seen this paper in itsfinal form as it Is at this moment still being

n2Little, ,. G., Grossman, B i andO'Tool,. W. P. "Factors Influencing TheInduction of Lung Cancer in Hamrsem byIntratracheal Administration of roPe," in:Radionuclide -CarclnogeneLs, (C. L. San-ders. R. H. Busch. 3. B Ballou, and D. D.

2.Lahlum, eds.). CONP-720505:119, AC Syim-pocium Series 21o. 29, USAEC, 19=

2Letter from L. Roger to C. C. Lus- -baugbh M.D. dated August 1g, 1974.


15376

printed, I am certain that it contains anattempt to answer the question of whetheror not Mrs. Langham's and my article inArchives of Dermatology (1962) supports thecontention of Dr. Tamplin and. Mr. Cochranthat a single particle of Pu-239 Is capable ofinducing cancer and that the risk of cancerfrom such a particle Is 1 per 1000. We be-lieve that these conclusions cannot be de-rived from the histopathologic observationswe reported in this- case report nor in theother cases we subsequently published alongwith it in the Annals of the New York Acad-emy of Science.

In the petition from the Natural ResourcesDefense Council to which you refer, one cansee that the authors apparently do not knowthe difference between a precancerous cellu-lar change and a cancer. While it is truethat the term "precancerous change" con-tains the implication that a cancer followsit, this is not always the case because pre-cancerous changes are reversible and repar-able. In fact when a lesion showing pre-cancerous changes Is removed surgically, thesurgeon knows from this diagnostic impres-sion given him by the pathologist that thelesion he-removed is not a cancer and thathe does not have to worry about it further.My object in using the term "precancerous"to describe the cytologic appearance of someof the epithellal cel nuclei around the plu-tonium particles in the skin of the case inArch. Dermatol. was to point out that inspite of the amazingly huge dose of alpharadiation over a period longer than 4 yearsa cancer had not developed and that onecould at most only call the changes pre-cancerous.

In reviewing this case in the Annals of theN ew York Academy article, we attempted toshow that the strictly localized injury causedby the plutonium particles was developingin such a fashion (like a pimple) that theparticles would have been shed in time alongwith a small amount of pus-like materialasthe pimple "ripened" and drained spon-taneously. Dr. Tamplin In his argumentsassumes that flbrosarcomas in rat skin areequateable with the minimal changes wedescribed in the skin of this man. Of course,they are not. The statement that it is "clear"on the basis of this one human case thatplutonium can cause skin cancer n man Isfalse. If this case and others like it showsomething of radiobiologic importance, theyshow only that the development of cancerfrom plutonium exposures of human tissuesmust be much more difficult to obtain thancancers in rodent tissues, since no humancancers have ever been seen or reported fol-lowing plutonium exposure of human beings.Logically, if there is no observed plutonium-induced human cancer case, the one perthousand per particle level of cancer riskfor plutonium exposure has no basis in factand amounts to only a conjecture on the partof the authors of the NRDC petition.

The interpretation of his use of theiterm "precancerous" provided by Dr.-Lushbaugh is shared by Peterson,- whoicautions with regard to precancerousichanges in the alimentary -tract:such entities have been called "premalig-nant" or "precancerous" but these terms con-vey a precursor relationship that is not provedin most cases.and is not understood in others.For Instance, adenomas of the colgn arethought to be "precancerous" but that theyactually develop from benign into malignant

Peterson, M. L., "Neoplastic Diseases ofthe Alimentary Tract," in Textbook o1 Meda-uine, eleventh edition, Cecil-Loeb Publishers,Philadelphia and London, 1963.

NOTICES

tumors Is unproved; Plummer-Vinson syn-drome is known to be followed frequently bycarcinoma of the esophagus, but the "pre-cancerous" relationship of. this lesion is notunderstood. Unfortunately, these terms stemfrom post hoc observations, and their usemay be misleading.

On the basis of the foregoing, the asso-ciation of risk of cancer induction basedupon observations of lesions describedas "precancerous" is speculative, andsuch observations should not be used inquantitative estimates of risk.

The second instance of human handexposure to plutonium cited by Cochranand' Tamplin involves the case of a

-freight handler who "developed an In-filtrating soft tissue sarcoma on the leftpalm which eventually resulted in hisdeath."'- The AEC contacted Dr. NeilWald, who was a consulting physicianin the case, to obtain his medical opinionas to whether "there is an overwhelmingmedical probability that his cancer wasinduced by plutonium" as stated byCochran and Tamplin. Dr. Wald advisedthe AEC that he remains in agreementwith the data and conclusions drawn Inhis consultation report concerning theabsence of any evidence to support theclaim of a relationship between the ex-posure incident and the subsequent de-velopment of neoplastic disease. Dr.Wald's letter and consultation report areon file in the NRC public document rbom.

9. Human Inhalation Exposure. Thereis limited human experience which is rel-evant to the "hot particle" question. Per-haps the most relevant case of human ex-posure to plutonium inhalation as wellas the best documented study relating tothe "hot particle" issue has been reportedby Mclnroy, et al. 2 Investigators whoexamined pulmonary. lymph nodes of aplutonium worker (case 7-138) killed inan automobile accident, determined theplutonium particle size distribution inthe lymph nodes by emulsion track tech-niques, and estimated the'number of plu-tonium particles associated with sizeclasses contained within the observedparticle size distribution.

Cochran and Tamplin n have exam-ined these results. Using the parametersfor. plutonium oxide and the calcula-tional methods for inhalation providedby the ICRP,

2 they estimated that at the

time of the worker's death the numberof "hot particles" of

2PuO with activi-

ties greater than 0.07 or 0.14 picocurieswas 20,000 and 1600 "hot particles" re-spectively. There was no evidence of can-cer in the lungs of the deceased worker.In the event that 29,000 particles werepresent in the lungs for over one year,and allowing sufficient time for cancerinduction (26 years since first exposure),the probability of one or more lung tu-mors being present at death would beessentially unity using the tumor proba-bilities proposed by the NRDC. Cochranand Tamplin

2 ' then suggest that the

Mclnroy, J. F., Stewart, M, W., and Moss,W. D., "Studies of Plutonium in HumanTracheobronchial Lymph Nodes," LA-UR-74-1454 (Preprint), Los Alamos Scientific Labo-ratory, undated,

minimum activity of a "hot.particlo"should be adjusted upward from 0,07 to0.14 pCi.

The NRC has also reviewed the workof McInroy, et al. = Based on the tabu-lated number of particles estimated bythe authors to exist in the lymph nodeunder discussion, the total number ofparticles was calculated by the NRC staffto be 306,000.

McInroy, et al., suggest that the de-ceased worker (Case 7-138) suffered hisprincipal exposure during his first eightyears of work (1947-1955). Assumingthis, further assuming that he experi-enced plutonium dioxide inhalation at auniform rate during this period, andusing the parameters and models of theICRP,2 ' the NRC staff calculates thatabout 52,000 "hot particles" containing0.07 picocuries or more were present inthe lungs at the end of the eight-yearexposure period, and about 14,000 re-mained in his lungs at death. The num-ber of "hot particles" defined to be rep-resented by activities of 0.14 picocurles ormore in the lung a'e calculated to be9300 at the end of the exposure periodand 2500 at death. The residence half-time in the pulmonary region given bythe ICRP for plutonium dioxide is 500days". Under this assumption, in thecase of "hot particles" defined to contain0.07 picocurles or more activity it Is esti-mated that 32,000 particles remained inthe lung for more than one year. In thecase of "hot particles" defined to contain0.14 picocurles or more activity the esti-mate is 5700 particles remaining over oneyear. Using the tumor probability esti-mates of Cochran and Tamplin 15, theprobabilities for cancer for the two caseswould be 99.99999% and 94.2%, respec-tively. In either case, the NRC finds thatevidence provided by the study of thisworker provides support for the adequacyof present standards but no support forthe corollary as advanced by the NRDC.

Additional studies of relevance to hu-man exposure to plutonium have beenreported by Hempelmann and co-work-ers; '-" and reviewed by Blair, et al.? andby Healy, et al." The studies summarizethe results of 27 years of observations of24 individuals exposed to plutonium Inseveral chemical forms during Manhat-tan Project operations. No lung cancershad been observed In these personsthrough the latest examinations re-ported. It has been estimated 1- " that tile

2Letter from T. B. Cochran and A. R.Tamplin to R. B. Mlnogue, Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, dated February 4, 1975.2,',The Metabolism of Compounds of Plu-tonium and Other Actinides," ICRP Publica-tion 19, International Commission on Radio-logical Protection, Pergamon Press, adoptedMay, 1972,

z Hempelmann, L. H., Richmond, 0. R.,and Voelz, G. L., "A Twenty-Seven Year Studyof Selected Los Alamos Plutonium Workers,"LA-5148-MS, Los Alamos Scientific Labora-tory, January, 1973.24Hempelmann, L. H., Langham, W. H.,Richmond, C. R. and Voelz, 0. L., "ManhattanProject Plutonium Workers: A Twenty-SevenYear Follow-Up Study of Selected Cmes,"Health PhysiCs, 25, November, 1973.


NOTICES

total initial plutonium burden was about10 microcuries summed-over the lungsof all these men. The burden of "hot par-ticles" (plutonium activity per particle of0.07 picocuries or greater) was estimatedat 4.0 X 10 5 particles per man. Basedupon -the lung cancer probability esti-mates of Cochran and Tamplin, ap-proximately 5000 lung tumors shouldhave been observed in these men. Underthe later assumption of Cochran andTamplin' that "hot particles" must ex-hibit an activity of 0.14 picocuries orgreater, the estimated minimum numberof "hot particles" in the lungs of eachof the Manhattan workers is 8.4 X 10.'The expected number of lung tumors,based upon the NRDC cancer indubtionestimates, would then be approximately1100. As noted earlier, no lung cancershave been observed inthese men and theNRC considers this human experience asisupporting evidence that its presentstandards for insoluble plutonium have aradiobiologically sound basis.

The NRDC has examined2 the Man-hattan Project worker data from a some-what different view than Healy, et al. ':The NRDC assumes that the distributionof plutonium particles in *the lungs ofthe Manhattan Project workers may be

-inferred to be the same as that reportedby MeInroy, et al. The particle sizeclasses that NRDC provides (Table I,

--Reference 2) do not strictly conform tothe distribution reported by McInroy, etal. However, using this distribution and

- the tumor probability estimate of Coch-ran and Tamplin, the NRC staff has es-timated that the number of lung tumorswould exceed 2800 for "hot particles"defined as containing 0.07 picocuries ofplutonium activity or more, and wouldexceed 250'for "hot particles" defined ascontaining 0.14 picocuries of plutoniumactivity or more.- These values may becompared with the observation that nolung tumors have been observed in the24 Manhattan Project workers.

A study has been conducted-' to evalu-ate lung burdens of plutonium dioxide Inpersons exposed at an AEC contractorfacility, Dow Chemical, Rocky FlatsDivision, in 1965. The NRDC observes 2that while no lung cancers have ap-'peard in the 25 persons exposed, thetime required for the induction of cancermight exceed 10 years. Thus there do notyet appear to be any definitive conclu-sions that can be drawn from the RockyFlats results from the standpoint of theirproviding support or refutation, of thecorollary of the NRDC hypothesis.

D. CoNcLusIoNThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission

deniis the petition of the Natural Re-sources Defense Council to establishspecific health protection standards for'"hot particles." The denial is based onthe NRC's finding that its presentstandards for long-lived, alpha-emittingradionuclides in insoluable form are,

Mann, J. R. and Xirchner, A. R., "Evaluka-tion of Lung Burden Following Acute Inhala-tions of RIgbly Insoluble PuO,' HealthPhysics, 13, 1967.

with respect to the spatial distributionof dose, radioblologlcally sound and thatthe NRDC corollary to the hypothesis de-scribing an injury-mediated mechanismof carcinogenic response to alpha-emit-ting particles is speculative and not sup-ported by the body of scientific data andknowledge on this subject. Consequently,the NEfC position does not provide asufficient scientific basis for changing orsupplementing existing radiation protec-tion standards.

In Section C above, the NRC has out-lined its examination of the carcinogenicresponse mechanism which was hy-pothesized by the NEDO from a plausi-bility argument which the NRDC basedon selected portions of the considerablebody of knowledge on this subject. Thatis, the corollary to the hypothesis isshown in this analysis to be based on apattern-of arbitrary interpretations ofselective portions of the available Infor-mation.

The tests which the NRC has appliedin evaluating the NRDC petition are: (a)whether existing radoblological evidenceindicates that present standards In ques-tion should be modified as requested; (b)whether the corollary to the NRDC hy-pothesis is supported by the body of rele-vant knowledge: and (c) whether thecorollary is a valid interpretation of thesupporting data cited by Its authors. TheNRC finds that the corollary fails tosatisfy any of these tests.

The NRDC has stated" that given twohypotheses--(1) the Cochran and Tajllnmodel, (2) and the uniform dose model-the responsible regulatory agency mustmake the prudent choice and select themore conservative of the two as the basisfor radiological protection standards.The NRC agrees In principle, if the twohypotheses are generally supported bythe body of knowledge. That is not thecase in this instance.

The uniform dose model is examinedin Section E, below. The NRC concludeson the basis of its examination of thebody of knowledge that the uniformmodel remains an acceptable basis forradiological protection standards for in-soluble plutonium.

E. DisCusSIoN or Enxrs STA.DAMDsThe preceding discussion has dealt

specifically with the question of specialstandards for protection against the In-halation of insoluble, alpha-emittingparticles of specified physical charac-teristics, which may be capable of form-ing lesions in the lung which may in turninduce cancer. In this section the ques-tion of the adequacy of existing, NRCstandards for protection against all In-soluble, alpha-emitting particles is con-sidered, irrespective of the mechanismsfor adverse biological effects.

1. Present NRC Standards. The pres-ent NRC standards for protectionagainst insoluble, alpha-emitting radio-nuclides are given In 10 CFM Part 20. Forplutonium-239 these standards specifythat no occupationally exposed Individ-ual may be exposed to concentrations ex-ceeding 4X10"1 microcurles per milliliter-of air, averaged over a 40-hour week.

15377

Under equilibrium conditions, this levelof exposure will deliver about 15 reins peryear averaged over the entire lung mass.The 15 reins per year limit has been rec-ommended by the ICR, the NCRP, andthe FRC. The regulations further specifythat Insoluble plutonium-239 in effluentsto unrestricted areas cannot exceed1X10-" nicrocurles per milliliter of airwhen averaged over one year. This levelof exposure could deliver about 1.5 remper year to the lung, i.e., the limit recom-mended by the ICRP. Similar standardsare given for other insoluble, alpha-emitting radionuclides. In the develop-ment of these standards it was assumedthat the dose Is uniformly distributedthroughout the entire lung mass; thusuniform and nonuniform dose aretreated in the same manner.

2. Position Talhen By Other Organiz4a-tlons. Organizations such as the ICR?,NCRP, FRC. NAS, National RadiologicalProtection Board (11K), the BiophysicalSociety, and the Medical Research Coun-cil (UM) have considered the question ofwhether nonuniform dose Is more haz-ardous than uniform dose. Their con-clusions are that the uniform dose as-suniption Is adequately conservative.Below are'statements to this effect fromthese organizations:

The general opinion which emerged fromthe discusdon was that the carcinogeniceffect per unit volume is probably consider-ably le . for the Irradiation of small Tmssesof tlaiue than for large.'

On the basis of general considerations andof Come experimental data and clinical ex-perience the Task Group were of the opinionthat, for late effects, the same radiation en-ergy absorption might well be less- effectivewhen distributed as a series of hot spots,than when uniformly distributed. Thus, withparticulate radioactive sources within a tis-sue, a mean tissue doze would probably In-troduce a factor of safety. - * -'

It is therefore concluded that the currentNCRP practice of averaging over the lungthe abcorbed dose from particulate alpha-emitting radionuclides Is a defensible pro-ceduro when employed In conjunction withappropriate dose limits.

* 0 it may be Inferred, that a higherlocalized doze from-alpha particles was notmore cancerozenlc than the same mean tis-ue doze delivered more uniformly to critical

cels.It is noted that the basis of ICRP recom-

mendations is the average radiation dose toan organ and not the number of radioactivepsrticlS in the Organ. This dosimetric basisof radlological protection has been estab-lished for many years by observations of hu-mans and experimental work with animals.A better evaluation than that offered byCochran and Tamplin would be needed for

2'3XcM urtrie, G. E. (Secretary), "Pernsssi-

ble DoZes Conference held at Chalk River,Ontario (Sept. 1949)." Report R-lo, may,1950.

' " Vadio-ensitivity and Spatial Distribu-tion of Dozes, Reports Prepared by Two TaskGroup3 of Committee 1, of the InternationalCommilson of Radiological Protection,"ICRP Publication 14, Pergamon Press, Ox-ford, 1969.

0"Alpha-EmItting Particles in the Lung-XOEP Report No. 40, Washington, D.C., 1975.


NOTICES

this system to be set aside in favor of thehot particle concept.n

The use of the data of Albert et al. on ratakin tumors Induced by fast electrons toestimate the risk from hot particles seemsunjustified on four grounds. (i) The ratdata involved a single dose, whereas the lungirradiation being considered Is chronic. (i)Cochran and Tamplin do not cite data show-Ing that nonuniform irradiation by betaand alpha particles is less effective than uni-form radiation. (iii) Prevlous experiments,cited by the Albert group showed no tumorproduction by 0.3 MeV electrons, externalalpha particles and protons. (vi) The hairfolicle seems to be the sensitive structure forradiation' induced cancer in the 'skin. osimilar structure has been identified in thelung, nor is there any estimate of the proba-bility of a hot particle being close to sucha structure.P

In summary, therefore, there is at presentno evidence to suggest that irradiation of thelung by particles of plutonium is lkely tobe markedly more carcinogenic than whenthe same activity is uniformly distributed.P

The organizations which have recom-mended the use of the uniform dose as-sumption have reviewed considerabTedata in their decision-making process.The studies considered most Importantby the NRC staff are discussed below asthey relate to the uniform dose assump-tion.

3. Hamster Experiments. Richmondand Sulllvan l andRichmond and Voelzhave reported the partially completedresults of experiments, previously dis-cussed, in which large numbers of plu-tonium particles were implanted in thelungs of hamsters by intravenous injec-tions. According to the summary of theseexperiments reported by Bair, et al.,approximately 560 hamsters each re-ceived 2000 particles (0.07 to 59.4 pico-curies), 485 received 6000 to 1,000,000particles, and a large number of addi-tional hamsters received 50,000 to 900,-000 particles (some containing as littleas 0.015 'picocuries). About 2000 animalswere involved In these experiments.Bair, et al.,* report that 1150 of 'heseanimals have lived their full life spansor have been sacrificed, with only threeprimary lung tumors observed. These re-sults indicate a very low risk for non-uniform lung dose due to plutonium inparticulate form.

Little, et al.," exposed hamster lungsto alpha radiation from Po-210. The sizeof the particles was varied, thus resultingin a range In the degree of dose uniform-ity. The Incidence of lung cancer was

el Dolphin, G. W., "Hot Particles," NationalRadiological Protection Board, Harwell, UJ,1974.

n Science and Technology Advice and In-.formation Service Committee, "Report oilRadiation Protection Standards for Hot Par-ticles of Plutonium and Other Antinides."Biophysical Society, draft dated November,1074.

s Committee on Protection Against Ionis-ng Radiation, "The Toxicity of Plutonium,"Medical Research Council, 1975.

atRichmond, C. R. and Voelz, G. L, (eds.),"Annual Report of the Biological and Medi-cal Research Group (H-4) to the USAEC,"Division of Biology and Medicine, Los AlamosScientific Laboratory Report, LA-4923-PR,1972.

lower for the less uniform dose. The au-thors concluded:

* * * in the dose range studied, alpharadiation is cancerogenic when a lower butrelatively uniform dose is delivered to a largevolume of lung tissue than when a similaramount of radioactivity is -distributed non-uniformly such that the primary effect is todeliver much higher radiation doses to relL-tively ;small tissue volumes.

These results indicate that plutoniumstandards based on uniform dose distri-bution would be conservative for particlesin the lung. This experiment also re-vealed that hamster lungs develop can-cer in a relatively short period, as com-pared with their life span, followingalpha irradiation. This information lendssupport to the usefulness of the data re-ported in references 18 and 34.

4. Special Study on the Spatial Distri-bution of Lung Dose (Bair,- et al., Refer-ence 9). As previously mentioned, a studywas recently conducted relative to thequestion as to whether, for a given quan-tity "of radioactive material in the lung,the risk of cancer Is more properly char-acterized by assuming that the materialis concentrated nonuniformly in discreteparticles or by assuming that the mate-rial is distributed uniformly throughoutthe lung. This study was conducted bypersonnel most closely associated withpertinent research programs. The resultswere published in reference 9. Two of theconclusions from reference 9 are repro-duced below:

Available experimental data indicate thataveraging the absorbed alpha radiation dosefrom plutonium particles in lung is radio-biologically sound.

After thirty years experience with pluto-nium in laboratory and production facilities,there is no evidence that the mean dose lungmodel on which occupational radiation pro-tection standards for plutonium are basedis grossly in error or leads to hazardouspractices. Currently available data from oc-cupationally exposed persons indicate thatthe nonhomogeneous dose distribution fromInhaled plutonium does not result in demon-strably greater risk than that assumed for auniform dose distflbution. Thus, empiricalconsiderations lead to the conclusion thatthe nonuniform dose distribution of pluto-nium particles in the lung is not more haz-ardous and may be less hazardous than ifthe plutonium were uniformly distributedand that the mean dose lung model is aradloblological -ound basis for eptablishmentof plutonium standards.

5. NCRP Report No. 46. The NCRP re-port on this subject, quoted above, con-cludes that the dose-averaging procedurethat was used to derive current standardsis defensible. This conclusion is based onobservations In experimental animals, onobservations in man, and on a theoreticalanalysis showing that thenumber of cellsat risk is much greater per unit quantityof activity when the -activity is distrib-uted uniformly in the lung. -

6. Hunar Experience. Hempelmann,et al., - discuss several workers whowere exposed to insoluble plutoniunmpar-tidces about 0 years ago during the Man-hattan Project. It is estimated that theywere exposed to levels of plutonium con-siderably exceeding the present NRCstandards: Several of these persons still

retain body burdens In excess bf the pres-ently permissible level. None of the work-ers have suffered any Illness attributableto the exposures, which can be taken toindicate a low risk associated with thelevels of exposure permitted by the NRCstandards.

7. Summary. In summary, the uniformdose model Is generally recognized by thescientific community and supported byexperimental evidence as a conservativebasis for standards for personnel protec-tion. The NRC finds, in agreement withthe recommendations of the organiza-tions quoted, that avalable data supportthe use of the uniform dos6 assumptionas an appropriately conservative ap-proach. That Is, the available data indi-cate that while the biological risk from auniform lung dose of 15 reis per yearis low, an equivalent dose delivered In anonuniform manner is at least as low.Therefore, standards for Insoluble,alpha-emitting radionuclides, as basedon a uniform dose assumption, are be-lieved to be adequately conservative.

F. FURTHER CONSIDERilATIONS

The NRC conclusions cited In SectionD do not obviate the need for continuingreview of developments in the field. TheCommission will reconsider its determi-nation if warranted by any of severalconsiderations. These may include newguidance to Federal agencies from EPA,new recommendations from the NCRP,ICRP or 1XAS, or new data from observa-tions of exposed personnel or from theresults of ongoing or future animal ex-periments. The Commission vill con-tinue to follow closely any new Informa-tion that becomes available, and consid-eration will be given to the modificationof standards as necessary to reflect ad-vances in radioblologIcal knowledge.

Extensive studies on inhalation haz-ards are being continued by the EnergyResearch and Development Agency. Themost relevant ongoing studies in thisprogram are discussed below.

1. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Pa-cii; Northwest Laboratory is conduct-ing polydisperse aerosol studies withtransuranium radionuclides in doga androdents which range from short-termexperiments to determine the kineticsand dosimetry aspects to long-term (life-time) experiments to help define therisks associated with Inhalationi of radio-nuclides.

Of major interest are the long-termbeagle experiments in which animals aregiven an exposure to polydisperse pluto-nium oxide aerosols at various levels,from levels that overlap previous beagleexperiments down to lower levels whichprovide an initial overall average lungdose of 15 rems per year. Experiments arebeing performed with both 'rPu and'Pu to define quantitative differencesbetween the two plutonium Isotopes. TherPu exposures were administered in 1971

and 1972 and the rsPu exposures were ad-mlnltered in 1973 and 1974. There are130 animals including 20 controls In the2Pu studies and the same number in thezuPu studies.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 71-hONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

J15378

2. Lovelace Foundation. LovelaceFoundation is conducting monodisperseaerosol studies with transuranium radio-nuclides in hamsters and dogs and pre-liminary studies with shetland ponies.Experiments are designed to determinedeposition, retention, mobility, dosimetryand correlation to pathological observa-tions 'of various physical and chemicalforms of monodisperse particulates inanimal lungs.

Of particular interest to the "hot par-ticle" question are beagle experimentswith monodisperse 2 PuO, particles simi-lar to the PNL studies of beagles withpolydisperse particles. The exposuresinitiated in 1973 are scheduldd to becompleted in 1975.

Experiments are also being conductedwith other alpha and beta emitting radi-onuclides'mi various chemical and phys-ical forms.

3. Los Aldmos Scientific Laboratory.Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory is con-tinuing studies in which particulatematerials are transported by the circula-tory system and lodged-in hamster lungsfollowing intravenous injection. Resultsto date 2 after three years of exposure in-dicate minimal to no effects. Experi-ments are being extended to larger num-bers of particulates in an attempt to pro-Vide some experimental overlap withthe results of Little 1 who obtained lungtumor incidence in hamsters after polo-nium exposures. A collaborative programinvolving experiments by Little with plu-tonium particles and Los Alamos experi-ments with polonium is being initiated.

4. Human Exposures. Studies 2 of tis-sud of the Los Alamos worker whoselymph nodes contained particulate plu-tonium are being extended to includeother portions of the lung.

A number of personnel have been ex-posed to insoluble particles of plutoniumand bther transuranic elements in con-nection with the operation of the AEC'snational laboratories. The results ofmedical examinations for these person-nel are considered by the NRC to be thebest possible source of direct informa-tion regarding the adequacy of its stand-ards for the protection of personnelagainst such particles These results arebeing closely followed.

Copies of the petitions for rulemak-ing and of the Commission's letters ofdenial are available for public inspectionin the Commission's Public DocumentRoom at 1717 H Street NW., Wasling-ton, D.C.-Dated at Washington, D.C. this 7th

day of April 1976.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-

sion.SAMUEL J. CHLx,

Secretary of the Commission.[FRDoc.76-10523 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Docket Nos. 50-528A, 50-529A, 50-530A]

ARIZONA-PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,ET AL I

Receipt of Attorney General's Advice andTime for Filing of Petitions To Interveneon Antitrust Matters

The Commission has received, pursu-ant to section 105c of the Atomic Energy

- NOTICES

Act of 1954, as amended, the followingadvice from the Attorney General of theUnited States, dated April 6, 1976:

"You have requested our advice pursuantto the provisions of section 105c. of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Inregard to amendments to the applicationsin the above-cited dockets which would sub-stitute Southern California Edison Companyfor Tucson Gas and Electric Company as theowner of an undivided- 15.4 per cent Interestin the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Sta-tion (PVNGS), Units 1, 2 and 3.

"The Department of Justice initiallyrendered antitrust advice to your Comms-slon on the PVNGS license applications byletter of April 8, 1975. We described thePVNGS facility-three nuclear units of 1270megawatts each, scheduled for operation in1981, 1982 and 1984, respectively-the sixthen-applicant electric utilities, their Inter-connection and coordination arranginments,and their relationships with smaller neigh-boring systems. We noted that certain re-strIctive provisions In an agreement betweentwo of the applicants. Arizona Public ServiceCompany (APSC) and the Salt Rxiver Project(SRP), and In agreementq of those systemswith third parties, had been removed by theapplicants of their own volition, and. fur-ther, that the posslbleantlcompetitve effectof provisions In the power supply agree-ments between APSC and certain wholesalecustomers and In agreements between SRPand certain wholesale customers had beensatisfactorily eliminated by APSC's andSRP's agreement to license conditions. TheDepartment accordingly recommended thatno antitrust hearing appeared to be neces-sary on the PVNGS applications.

"The new license applicant, SouthernCalifornia Edison Company (SCE). was proviously the subject of antitrust review underSection 105c. in connection with its applica-tion (along with San Diego Gas & ElectricCompany) to construct the San OnofroNuclear Generating Station. Units 2 and 3,AEC Docket Nos. 50-361A and 50-302A. OurInitial advice to the Atomic Energy Commis-sion, rendered by letter of July 12, 1971,recommended an antitrust hearing concern-ing the alleged anticompetitive activities ofSCE toward smaller electric utilities in theSouthern California area. Subsequently.however, SCE agreed to accept license con-ditions which enable the Department toadvise your predecessor Comm'sson that anantitrust hearing would no longer be re-quired on the San Onofre applications. Let-ter of June 23,1974, from Thomas E. Enuper.Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Divi-sion, to Howard X. Shapar, Assistant Gen-eral Counsel, Atomic Energy Commission.These license conditions commit SCE topermit participation In new nuclear gen-erating units Initiated by It to neighboringentities lacking access to an alternative,comparably-priced power supply source and.with respect to nuclear units not initiatedby It in which it is a joint participant withothers, to cooperate In facilitating the par-tlclpation of such entitles upon their timelyapplication. Interconnection and reserve co-ordination, emergency service, coordinatingpower sales and purchases, transmissionservices, and coordination of new transas-sion construction are also provided for inthese license conditions.

"Given the present applicability of theprocompetitivo San Onofro license condi-tions, and the absence-of any informationto the contrary of which we have becomeaware in the course of this antitrust review.the Department believes no antitrust hear-ing will be necessary as a result of the addi-tion of Southern California Edison Companyas a 15.4 percent owner in the propoced PaloVerde Nuclear Generating Station."

1 15379

Any person whose interest may be af-fected by this proceeding may, pursu-ant to section 2.714 of the Commission's"Rules of Practice!, 10 CFA Part 2, filea petition for leave to intervene and re-quest'a hearing on the antitrust aspectsof the application. Petitions for leave tointervene and requests for hearing shallbe filed by May 12, 1976, either (1) bydelivery to the NRC Docketing andService Section at 1717 H Street, N.W,Washington, DC. or (2) by mall or tele-gram addressed to the Secretary,- U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash-ington, DC 20555, Attn: Docketing andService Section.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion.

JEROME S. =rZ=A-,Chief, Antitrust & Indemnity

Group, Nuclear ReactorRegulation.

[FR Doc.76-10689 Piled 4--9-76;9:26 aml

IDocket Nos. 50-440,50-4411CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING

CO.. ET AL, (PERRY NUCLEAR POWERPLANT, UNITS I AND 2)

Rescheduled Hearing

The hearing previously scheduled onthe issue as set down in the March 25,1976, Notice of Hearing, to consider an-amendment to a Previously-issued Lim-ited Work Authorization for the place-mer t of reinforcing steel for the reactorbuilding in the reactor building excava-tion, by stipulation of the parties for the9th of April 1976, is now rescheduled toApril 13, 1976, to commence at 9:30 a.m.,in Room 2069, Federal Building, 1240East 9th Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44119.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th-day of April 1976.

For the Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard.

JOHNI M. FRYSIAn,Chairman.

[FR DCc.76-10687 Piled 4-9-76;9:26 am]

[Docket No. P-531A]

PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA,(BLACK FOX GENERATING STATION,UNITS 1 AND 2)

Order Cancelling Oral Arguments onAmended Petition To Intervene

The Staff has advised the Board thatthe Grand River Dam Authority intends

to withdraw unconditionally its petitionto intervene. Therefore oral arguments

scheduled for 1:00 p.m. April 12, 1976 inthe Commisslon's hearing room of theEast/West Towers Building, Bethesda,Maryland have been cancelled.

It Is so ordered.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8thday of April 1976.

For the Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard.

IIvAN W. SM=,Chairman.

[PR Doc.76-106a8 Filed 4-13-76;9:28 am]


15380

iDocket Nos. 50-3; 50-247; 50-2861

CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO.Public Hearing on Seismic Issues

The three units of the Indian PointNuclear Generating Station are locatedon the east bank of the Hudson River inWestchester County, New York, in theVillage of Buchanan. By notice datedAugust 5, 1975, the public was informedthat the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionhad called for a special hearing to in-quire further into the seismic character-istics of the Indian Point (Units 1, 2 and3) site. The Commission designated theAppeal Board which was then involvedin an Indian Point operating license pro-ceeding to preside at the hearing. ThatBoard consists of Michael C. Farrar, alawyer; Dr. John H. Buck, a nuclearphysicist; and Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles,a nuclkar engineer.

The original request for the seismichearing came from the New York StateAtomic Energy Council. The CitizensCommittee for Protection of the Environ-ment (CCPE) has also raised mattersthat will be considered. The other partiesto the proceeding are the ConsolidatedEdisopn Company of New York and theNuclear Regulatory Commission staff.

Previous orders we have issued duringthe lengthy -re-hearing phase of thisproceeding have indicated that the hear-ing itself would commence on Wednes-day, April 21, 1976, in the general vicinityof White Plains, New York. That facthas been widely publicized. The precisetime and location are now' settled: thehearing will start at 9:30 a.m. onApril 21st in the' Ceremonial Courtroomof the Westchester County Courthouse,which Is located at 111 Grove Street inWhite Plains. Members of the public arewelcome to attend all sessions of hearing,subjedt of course to limitations imposedby the seating capacity of the hearingroom. ,

The present schedule calls for the hear-ing to continue in White Plains for threedays, from April 21st through April 23rd.The hearing will resume on the follow-ing Monday, April 26th, in the Commis-sion'a public hearing room in Bethesda,Maryland (that hearing room is locatedon the 5th floor of the East-West TowerBuilding, 4350 East-West Highway). Inorder that the parties may have suffclenttime to analyze the significance of theseismic disturbance which occurred onMarch 11, 1976, one of the issues will notbe heard until May, 1976. Accordingly,the hearing will recess after Thursday,April 29th; under current plans, It willresume on Tuesday, May 18, 1976. In alllikelihood, the May session of -the hear-Ing will also be held In Bethesda.

Three issues will be considered at thehearing:

1. Does the Cape Ann earthquake of1755, or any other historic event, requirethe assumption, in accordance with 10CFR Part 100, Appendix A, of a SafeShutdown Earthquake for the IndianPoint site greater than a Modified Mer-call! Intensity VII?

NOTICES

2. Should the ground accelerationvalue-used for the design of Indian PointUnit 1, 2 or 3 be increased?

3. -Is the Ramapo fault a capable faultwithin the meaning of Appendix A, 10CPR Part 100? Those issues are framedin technical language. Accordingly, atthe outset of the hearing, the lawyers foreach of the parties will make brief open-ing statements explaining in layman'sterms both their perception of the issuesand their expectations of what the evi-dence will establish.

In order' to accommodate one ofCCPE's principal witnesses, issue No. 2will be heard first; whatever time is leftduring the first seven hearing days willbe devoted to issue No. 1. Issue No. 3will not be considered until the Maysession; that session will also be usedtocomplete any matters left unfinish~dearlier.

In accordance with customary Com-mission practice, members of the publicwho -wish to make oral or written state-ments setting forth their position or con-cerns with respect to the issues may re-quest permission to make a "limited ap-'pearance" under Section .2.715 of the.Commission's Rules of Practice. TheAugust 5, 1975 notice indicated thatsuch requests had to be filed byAugust 29, 1975. In view, however, of therecent increase in public interest in thismatter, we will *entertain additional re-quests to make limited appearances. Per-sons wishing to request such permissionshould either send a letter to this Boardby Thursday, April 15, or sign up at theentrance to the Courtroom between 9:00and 9:30 axm. on the first day of thehearing. Limited appearance statementswill be heard only on that same morning.

In this connection, we wish to stressthat the issues in this proceeding arerelatively narrow ones. A person makinga limited appearance may state his posi-.ton, and any questions he would like tohave answered, only to the extent rele-vant to the matter at hand. We will notentertain statements dealing with themerits or demerits of nuclear power ingeneral or with other aspects of the In-dian Point Station, for such matters arenot before us for inquiry or decision.

We also note that, because only threedays of hearing will be held in WhitePlains, we have toration the time al-located to limited appearances. To de-vote an inordinate amount of time tothat purpose would be unfair to thosemembers of the public who come to thehearing tolearn what the evidence showsabout the seismic matters in issue. More-over, it is important that there be ampleopportunity during the first three daysfor both the direct testimony and thecross-examination of-one of CCPE's wit-nesses, whose availability to testify isquite limited.

With these facts in mind, we requestthat the members of any organizedgroups wisiing to be heard select aspokesman to present their views to theBoard. This will enable us to be apprisedof the views of a greater number of peo-ple in the time available. In any event,

we will have to consider the constraintsof time in passing upon requests to matkolimited appearances and in determininghow much time each person will beallotted.

All documents filed In this proceedingare available and may be inspected atthe Hendrick Hudson Free Library, 31Albany Post Road, Montrose, New York,as well as at the Commission's PublicDocument Room, 1717 H Street NW,Washington, D.C. Copies of the tran-script of each day's hearing will also bemade available at those locatloi.

It Is so ORDERED.For the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Appeal Board.

MIAIIGAET E. DU FLO,Secretary to the

Appeal Board.A riL 9, 1976,[FR Doc.76-10726 Filed 4-9-70;12:0 pm]

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONALAN T. WATERMAN AWARD

COMMITTEENotice of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal Ad-visory Committee Act, P.L. 92-463, theNational Science Foundation announcesthe following meeting:

Name: Alan T. Waterman AwardCommittee.

Date and time: April 25, 1976; 8:30a.m.

Place: Rm. 543, National ScienceFoundation, 1800 G St. NW., Washing-ton, D.C.

Type of meeting: Closed.Contact person: Dr. Jack T. Sander-

son, Acting Director, Office of Planningand Resources Management, NationalScience Foundation, Washington, D.C.20550, tel: (202) 632-4364.

Purpose of award committee: To pro-vide recommendations concerning therecipient of the Alan T. WatermanAward.

Agenda: To review nominations aspart of the selection process for theaward.

Reason for closing: The nominhtlonsbeing reviewed include Information of apersonal and confidential nature. Thesematters are within exemption (6) of,5 U.S.C. 552(b), Freedom of InformationAct.

Authority to close meeting: The deter-mination made by the Director of theNational Science Foundation, pursuantto provisions of Section 10(d) of PublicLaw 92-463.

Reason for late notice: The Award isto be presented at the annual meetingof the National Science Board In earlyMay. April 25 is the only available dateon which the Committee members couldbe assembled and still meet the schedulefor presentation of the Award.

PMLE K. MURAXAM1,Committee Management OMcnr

Apnm 7, 1976.[r Doc.70-10510 Filed 4-9-70;8:45 amI


NOTICES

POSTAL SERVICEDOMESTIC SPECIAL MAIL SERVICES AND

OTHER NONPOSTAL SERVICESTemporary Increase In Fees

1. On January 5, 1976, the UnitedStates Postal Service requested the Pos-tal Rate Commnsslon to submit to thegovernxys o the Postal Service a recom-mended decision on changes in fees fordomestic special mail services. This Milngwas made in accordance with the De-cember 16, 1975, oplmon of the UnitedStates District Court for the District ofColumbia (Sinca, J.) in the case of As-_socusted Third-Class 2fal Users, et al. v.The United States Postal Service, et al.(Civ. Action No. 75-1809) but withoutprejudice to the Postal Service's appealfrom the decision In that case.

2. The specific changes in fees forspecial services proposed by the Postal

Service are shown In column (3) of thetables set out In paragraph 4 below.

3. Since the Postal Rate Commissionhas not transmitted Its recommended de-cision to the, Governors of the PostalService 90 days after submission of thePostal Service's request of January 5,1976, the Postal Service intends to placeinto effect at 12:01 am., April 18, 1976,temporary fees for special services asshown in column (4) of the tables setout In pamgph 4 below, under au-thorlty of 39 U.S.C. § 3641.

4. The following tables show the Post-al Service's changes In special servicefees for which It has requested a recom-mended decision.

*RasunP. CnAIG,Deputy General Counsel.

(39 U.S.C. 401.404. 38621,341.)

TABLE .- Registercd mail

Fm¢s On addltloa to rostae)

For artildes not covered by commaclnl For art[f.c! abo cov.d b commels.Value up to or other Insurono cr otlnsun

Currtnt Ptpore Tcm .rnr- Current Pos Tempraryfee( f ) oc) f)os V1. (4)-7

()(2) (3) (4) (2) (3) (4)

00 ..........................M -0 ......................

$600........................

$1,0-0.........................$2000 --.S3,000 -........ .....$4,000 . ................

$6,000 .......................$7,000 ....................- .$8,000 .................S,003 .----- - ---.--

*Al0 P 1.0 3LO SL5 WS. $too0 $1.25L5 2.10 LC5 1.5 2.10 LC5L 55 2.40 2.0 LZ5 2.40 2.51.85 2.790 2.45 L85 2.70 2.452.15 3.00 2.65 2.15 3.00 .852.45 &W1 &.2z 2.45 3.30 3.252.75 2. 0 &W33.05 3.00 3. 00 2.45 3.30 3.253.35 4.23 4.23 plus halngnU cb=o oS-2.G5 4.M 4.50 .4o .25 .253.5 4.80 4.10 pWr $1,000 or frwztlon over fRrt $1,4M0,.25 5.10 .104.55 &.40 5.1W4.85 5.70 .70515 600 6.0

$1 milion. .................... 5.15 6.00 6.0plus hsndft nrgo of --

per $1,000 or frctlon over first $10,00

$I ni-lion.-.................... . 15 2 50 =53.10 02.25 2,.05 2=C.00$15 m lon. ........... plus band chnh of- p= lndar_ cbarp 0,-

.15 .0 .20 .15 .20 .20.$1,O or fetlon ova first $1 mllion p $1.00 or btWn over flit $I m~aOver $1n5 ... ... A c iv cblce rosy bo =ad* bam von -4d r=U~r olveght, s,.am, =d. vlus

TABLE TI.-Pegtercd c.o.d. charge

Current lw Proposed =lu Taorary fr.ms2) ) (2) (4)

C.o.d. oUllectoneb arge (mmumsmutm ....... $.70 S3S $.85

TAmx IL-Certified mail

Type Cucnutx"e 1'ropoad tal Ts nporesa Lu

inaddtioton poetas_ $.30 &

FDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, 'NO. 71--MOlDAY, APt 12, 1976

15381

15382


NOTICES

Tmsr IV -Insured mail

In addition to postageLlabllty

Current fee Proposed full Temporary foesfees

() (2) (3) (4)

$0.01 to $15.00 ........ ----- --- - ------ $0.20 $0.35 $0.25$15.01 to $W.00 ...................... . .30 .55- .40$50.01 to $100.O t --------.-.------.-................. ........ .40 .75 .50$100.01 to $160.00 .............................................. 60 .95 .65$150.01 to $200.00 --------------------------------------------- .60 1.15 .80

TA33r V.-O.o.d. mall

In addition to postage

Anount to be collected or insurance coverage desired Current fees Proposed Temporary feefull fees

(1) (2) (3) (4)

$.01 to $10.00 ------------------------------------------------ $.70 S.85 $. 85$10.01 to $25.00 ---------------------------------------------- .80 1.05 1.05$2Z.Ol to $50.00 -------------------------------------------- .00 1.25 1.20$50.01 to $100.6 0-------------------------------------------- 1.00 1.45 1.20$100.01 to $200.00 -------------------------------------------- 1.10 1.65 1.45$200.o1 to $300.00 ------------------------------------------- 1.25 1.85 1.05

TABLE VI.-S2peciaZ delivery

Weight

Not more than 2 lb More than 2 lb but More than 10 lbnot morethan 10 lb

Class of malCurrent Pro- Tom- Current Pro- Tern- Current Pro- Tern-

fees posed porary fees posed porary fees posed poayfull fees fees full fees fee full fees fes

(1) (2) (3) (4) (2) (3) (4) (2) (3) (4)

First class and airmail,and priority mail ------ $0.60 $L20 0.80 0.75 $1.45 $100 0.0 $1.70 $1.20

All other cla es ----------. 80 L70 L05 .90 L80 1.20 L05 2.10 1.40

TABLE VII.-peciaZ handling

Not more than 2 lb -More than 2 lb but not More than 10 lbmore than 10 lb

Pro- Tom- Pro. To-Current posed po Pro- Tern- Current posed porry

Clas of mall fees full fee Current posed or fees full fefees fees full lees lees

fees

(1) (2) (3) (4) (2) (3) (4) (2) (3) (4)

Third cls, fourth class, $.25 $.50 $.30 $.35 $.70 $.45 S.50 $1.00 $.65

and internationaL

TABLE VIII.-Money orders

Anount Fee (domestic)Current Proposed full Tempora7

fe03 fme le03(1) (2) (8) (4)

$0.01 to $10.00 ----- ----------------- $0.25 $0,45 $0. $

W1.01 to $50.00 .............................................. .35 .60 .45.01 to $300.00 -------------------------------------------- .40 .s0 .50

APO-FPO$0.01 to $300.00 . .. ..- 15 .15 .1

TABIZ IX-Pem imprintfee

Current fe Prpsed Temporary feoc

(-) $1(2) 151) ( 2

------------.=. -..... ---.-----== ..--- .. $15 $20-$2

NOTICES

T.,umLE X.-Rdurn rccezp!3

CuMetf" Prop TolhprZ-7

1 (1) 2) (3) (4)

R ted t time ofm .lllng1Showng to whom (,signauro) nnd date dellvr. - 1115 .25 V1.Showing to whom (sgnature) and date and addr= nro"delv rd -------.- .-- .-.--.-.----------------------..... 3, .45 .45

Requsted after mailing:Showing to whom nd dato dellvcz ----- . .. 5 .

TABLE X4a-Rc.rzdcd ddircr,3

Current ke= Propx ,-d fuil Temporary N3e

( (2) (3) (4)

Restrlcted delivery ----- 11.310W0 0. c0

TABLE XIL-Corrclion of inailizig liz&

Curet fe Proped fall Tempcr=r N3orkza)300-~ol-)

(1) (0 () (4)

3,nimum ------------------...---- .......... $1.00 $1.00 31.30Pe nme--- -- ---------- M.10 .06

TABLE XUL-Dad-ller-rclurn feo

Curret fees Prord Tcinpozry

TABLE fIV.-CrfLfw41c of mailing

In od'ltlon to pcaZoItem

Current Propoaed Temporaryboe futu foes

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Individual pfeces:Orin c-ti to of mallin for Individually listed pil, of oil S.05 MaO S.06clase of ordinary =all (ea.ch plwe).Each additional copy of original certificato of =ailing or orfginal .02 .10 .

maillng receipt for registe d, insured, certfed, and c.o.d. nailBUIleces

Identical plec of first- mid third-els nail paid ,ith ordinarystamps, precancled stamp-, or meter stomps am vubloat to thefollowingl ees:

Up to 1,00 plcs (1 certflato for tot3l number) .. .50 .Z0For ea h additonal 1,0pleo frlx on- .. .10 .06.Duplicate copy_ -------- --.. .10 .06

TABLE XV -Arotics of iwnddrcr of ao..

Cout fe Propmed Temp=ory ffull fMe

(1) 2) (3) (4

'Notice of nondelivery of c.o.S... 3.10 S.:3 " L13

TABLE XI.-lcraion of c.o.d. charges

Current fo Prpoeed TemIprry f(ew

(1) (2 (ro]

Alteraton of co.d. chrges ordsgation of nw 4drzeem 36 1.5 1.4

[FR Doo.76-10430 Plied 4-7-76;2:O1 pm]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--4.ONDAY, APR11 12. 1976

NOTICEST. B I X.--Rc!ttrrt rccezp.r3

153

15384

RENEGOTIATION BOARDPERSONS HOLDING PRIME CONTRACTS

OR SUBCONTRACTS FOR TRANSPOR-TATION BY WATER AS COMMONCARRIERExtension of Time for Filing Financial

Statements

Every person who held a prime con-tract or subcontract for transportationby water as a common carrier at anytime during the calendar year 1975 ishereby granted an extension of time un-til November 1, 1976 for filing a fiancialstatement.for such year pursuant to sec-tion 105(e) of the Renegotiation Act of1951, as amended.


R. C. HOLMrQUIST,Chairman.

[FR Doc.76-10444 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

,SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION[File No. 500-1]

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCECO.

Notice of Suspension of TradingAPRIL 6, 1976.

It appearing to the Securities and Ex-change Commission that the summarysuspension of trading in the common*stock of Government Employees Insur-ance Company being traded otherwisethan on a national securities exchange isrequired in the public interest and forthe protection of investors;

Therefore, Pursuant to Section 12(k)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,trading in such securities otherwise thanon a national securities exchange is sus-pended, for the period from April 7, 1976through April 16, 1976.

By the Commission.

[SEAL] GEORGE A. FrrzsiMMoNs,Secretary.

!FR Doc.76-10440 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Rel. No. 19467 (70-5828)]

OHIO POWER CO. AND AMERICANELECTRIC POWER CO., INC.

Notice of Proposed Issuance and Sale ofFirst Mortgage Bonds at CompetitiveBidding and Issuance and Sale of Com-mon Stock by Subsidiary to HoldingCompany

APRIL 6, 1976.Notice is hereby given that American

Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP")2 Broadway, New York, New York 10004,a registered holding company, and OhioPower Company ("Ohio") 301 ClevelandAvenue SW., Canton, Ohio 44701, its elec-tric utility subsidiary company, have filedan application-declaration with thisCommission pursuant to the Public Hold-ng Company Act of 1935 ("Act") desig-

nating Sections 6(b) and 10 of the Actand Rule 50 promulgated thereunder asapplicable to the proposed transactions.All interested persons are referred to the

NOTICES

application-declaration, which is sum-marized below, for a complete statementof the proposed transactions.

Ohio proposes to issue and sell, subjectt the competitive bidding requirementsof Rule 50 under the Act, up to $80,000,000principal amount of First MortgageBonds, to mature in not less than 5 andnot more than 30 years. The interest rate(which :will be expressed in a multipleof -/8 of 1%) and the price to be paidto Ohio for the Bonds (which shall notbe less than 100% unless Ohio shall au-thorize a lower percentage not less than99%, and shall not exceed 102.75%) willbe determined by competitive bidding.The terms of the Bonds preclude Ohiofrom redeeming any such Bonds prior toMay 1, 1981, if such redemption is for.thepurpose of refunding such Bonds withproceeds of funds borrowed at a lowereffective interest cost. The Bonds will beissued-under and secured by the Mort-gage and Deed of Trust, dated as of Oc-tober 1, 1938, to Manufacturers HanoverTrust.Company and Donald B. Herterich,Trustees, and a new Indenture Supple-mental thereto which will be dated as ofthe first day of the month in which theBonds are to be issued. Ohio will notifyprospective bidders, not less than 72hours prior to the time for receivingbids, of the maturity date of the Bonds.

Ohio also proposes to issue and sell toAEP, its parent, and AEP proposes topurchase from Ohio, 1,666,667 shares ofOhio common stock, no par value, at aprice per share of $15, for a total.consid-eration of $25,000,005. It is proposed thatAEP purchase the said 1,666,667 shares_upon the receipt of the required author-ization and prior to the issuance and de-livery of the Bonds.

The proceeds realized from the saleof the Bonds and common stock are tobe used to retire unsecured short-termdebt of Ohio, including the financing ofpart of its construction program. As ofMarch 11, 1976, there were notes payableto banks and commercial paper out-standing in the amount of $158,000,000;and it is expected that Ohio will haveshort-term debt outstanding not to ex-ceed $190,000,000 at the time of the Issueand sale of the Bonds and common stock.The estimated cost of Ohio's construc-tion program for 1976 is approximately*$165,000,000, exclusive of constructioncosts in connection with the completionof the General James M. Gavin Plant byOhio's wholly owned subsidiary, OhioElectric Company.

Expenses of Ohio in connection withthe proposed transactions will be fied byamendment. It is stated that the pro-posed issuance and sale of the Bondsand common stock is subject to the juris-diction of the Public Utilities Commis-sion of Ohio and that no other state com-mission and no federal commission, .otherthan this Commission, has jurisdictionover the proposed transactions.

Notice is further given, That any In-terested person may, not later thanApril 30, 1976, request in writing that ahearing be held on such matter, statingthe nature of his interest, tae reasons for

such request, and the issues of fact orlaw raised by said application-declara-tion which he desires to controvert; or hemay request that he be notified If theCommission should order a hearingthereon. Any such request should be ad-dressed: Secretary, Securifles and Ex-change Commission, Washington, D.C.20549. A copy of such request should beserved personally or by mail (air mail ifthe person being served Is located morethan 500 miles from the point of mail-ing) upon the applicants-declarants atthe above stated addresses, and proof ofservice (by aftldavlt or, In case of an at-torney at law) by certificate) should befiled with the request. At any time aftersaid date, the application-declaration, as-filed or as it may be amended, may begranted and permitted to become effec-tive s provided in Rule 23 of the GeneralRules adn Regulations promulgatedunder the Act, or the Commission maygrant exemption from such rules as pro-vided in Rules 20(a) and 100 thereof ortake such other action as it may deemappropriate. Persons who request a hear-ing or advice as to whether a hearing is

-ordered will receive any notices and or-ders issued in this matter including thedate of the hearing (If ordered) and anypostponements thereof.

For the Commission, by the Division ofCorporate Regulation, pursuant to dele-gated authority.

[SEAL] GEORGE A. ITZSIMMONS,Secretary.

[F Doc.76-10439 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 nml

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL REPRE-SENTATIVE FOR TRADE NEGOTI-ATIONS

[Doc. No, 301-81NATIONAL SOYBEAN PROCESSORS AS-

SOCIATION AND AMERICAN SOYBEAN'ASSOCIATION

ComplaintOn March 30, 1976, the Chairman of

the Section 301 Committee received fromJulian B. Heron, Jr., Counsel for theNational Soybean Processors Associationand the American Soybean Association,a petition alleging unfair trade prac-tices by the European Community, in theform of restrictions on the American soY-bean trade. Relief is requested underSection 301 of the Trade Act of 1974(P.L. 93-618; 88 Stat. 1978). The textof the petition is as follows:Chairman, Section 301 Committee, Officc of

the Special Representativo for Trade No-gotiations, Room 725, 1800 C Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20506.

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SECTION 301 orTHE TRADE ACT Or 1974

1. The complainants are National Soy-bean Processors Association and Amer-.can Soybean Association. The NationalSoybean Processors Association membersare American soybean processors whoprocess and market more than 95% of all


the soybeans crushed in the UnitedStates. The American Soybean Associa-tion is the non-profit organization de-voted to the interests of soybean growersand handlers of the nation. Exports ofsoybeans, soybean meal, and soybeanoil-to the European Economic Commu-nity and to the rest of the world areadversely affected by the imposition ofa charge on imports of soybean meal intothe EEC.- 2. The EEC has levied a charge of 30units of account per metric ton, effectiveMarch 19, 1976, on imports and effectiveApril 1, 1976, on domestic production ofvegetable protein -products, includingsoybeans and soybean meal. The chargeis characterized as a deposit, because animporter or producer can obtain a refundby buying 50 kilos of surplus European

- nonfat dry milk for each 1,000 kilos ofsoybean meal. This practice falls withinSection 301(a), 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a).

3. The-charge, or deposit, applicable toimports of soybean meal, was effectiveMarch 19, 1976, and-results from action-of the European Economic Community.

4. The complaint concerns restrictionson American soybean trade imposed bythe European Economic Community.

5. The products restricted are soybeanmeal, TSUS 131.45 and 131.80, and BTN11.01 and 11.02, and soybeans, TSUS175.49 and BTN 12.01. The restrictionsare causing adverse effects on Americanexports of soybean oil, TSUS 176.52 andBTN 15.07.

6. (i) The charge on imported soybeanmeal and soybeans will reduce such im-ports from the United States. Indeed, thedeposit is specifically-designed to cause asubstitution of powdered milk for someof the-protein meals used in animal feed,including soybean meal. The EEC is thelargest market for United States exportsof soybeans and meal. In 1974-75, 70% ofAmerican soybean -exports went there.

(ii) Since the feed displacement effect.. of nonfat dry milk is estimated to nearly

equal an equivalent amount of soybeanmeal, United States trade in soybeanmeal will be reduced. The impact will fallmainly on imports from the UnitedStates, since the EEC imports about 85%of its vegetable protein consiinption.Further, there will be distortions ad-versely affecting U.S. exports of soybeansand soybean oil. The adverse effects onimports into the EEC will affect theUnited States and its major competitor,Brazil, and will surely intensify the com-petitive pressures between them in otherimporting markets of the world.

(iii) The EEC's action violates ArticleII of the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade, which prohibits the impair-ment of benefits under trade agreements;.krticle MI, which prohibits the applica-tibn of mixture requireinents to importsas a protectionist device; -and ArticleVmi which prohibits fees on imports inexcess of the costs of services rendered.In previous negotiations, the EEC hasmgreed with the United States to hold

Ats tariff at zero. The soybean deposit isclearly-a protectionist device having theefect of a tariff, since it is redeemable

NOTICES

only with the purchase of a quantity ofa competing domestic commodity. Fur-ther, the EEC's action Is within the pur-yiew of Section 301(a) of the Trade Actof 1974.

7. Complainants have not filed for anyother form of relief under the TradeAct or any other act, believing that theUnited States has sufficient authorityunder Section 301 and under Its treatyrights to cause the EEC to terminate Itsrestrictive charge on soybean meal.

Respectfully submitted,Julian B. Heron. Jr., Pope Ballard

& Loos, 888 17th Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20006, Attorneyfor National Soybean ProcessorsAssociation and American Soy-bean Association.

H Rt csI. The complainant has requested that

hearings be held on this matter. Suchhearings will be held at 10:00 aam. onTuesday, May 11. 1976, at the Office ofthe Special Representative for Trade Ne-gotiations. 1800 G Street, N.W., Washing-ton, D.C., Room 730.

IL Requests to present oral testimonyand accompanying briefs must be re-ceived on or before May 4. 1976. Inter-ested persons are advised to refer to theregulations promulgated by the Office ofthe Special Representative for TradeNegotiations covering procedures to befollowed in all Section 301 proceedings(40 F.R. 39497-August 28, 1975).

A. Submission of Briefs and Requeststo Present Oral Testimony. Requests fororal testimony and submission of writtenbriefs should conform to the proceduresset7 forth in 15 CFR Part 2006.6 and2006.7 (40 F.R. 39497-August 28, 1975).

B. Rebuttal Briefs. In order to assureparties the opportunity to contest infor-mation provided by other interestedparties, rebuttal briefs may be filed with-in 15 days after the close of the hear-ings. The requirement that written briefsbe submitted in 20 copies Is waived withregard to rebuttal briefs.

C. Attendance at Hearings. The hear-ings will be open to the public.

MORTON PoUMz,Chairman, Section 301 Commit-

tee, Office of the SpecialRepresentative for TradeNegotiations.

[FR Dc.76-10174 Flied 4-9-76;8:45 aml

NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION[Doe. No. 301-71

Notice of ComplaintOn March 30, 1976, the Chairman of

the Section 301 Committee received fromLeonard K. Lobred, Director of Inter-national Trade, National Canners Asso-ciation, a petition alleging unfair tradepractices by the European Community.The complaint alleges that the variablelevy, on calculated added sugars which Isassessed on canned fruits Imported intothe Community, constitutes an unjusti-flable and unreasonable mport restric-

15385

tion, which impairs the value of- tradecommitments made to the United Statesand burdens, restricts and discriminatesagainst United States commerce. Relief isrequested under Section 301 of the TradeAct of 1974 (P.L. 93-618Z 88 Stat. 1978).The text of the petition is as follows:

Chairman,Section 301 Committee,Office of the Special Representative for

Trade Negotiations1800 G Street, N.W., Room 725Washington, D.C. 20506

Re: Petition Filed on Behalf of the Na-tional Canners Association for Section301 Relief from the EC Variable Levy onCalculated Added Sugars in CannedFruit.

IDnRODUCTI"0N

Pursuant to Section 301 of the TradeAct of 1974,19 US.C. § 2411 and the Reg-ulations promulgated pursuant thereto.19 C.F.R. §§ 2006.0-2006.10, the NationalCanners Association hereby petitions thePresident of the United States, throughthe Office of the Special Representativefor Trade Negotiations, to act pursuantto Section 301, to~obtain the eliminationof the variable levy on calculated addedsugars which is assessed on canned fruitimported into the European Community(EC) pursuant to EC Regulation No. 865/68, as amended by EC Regulation No.2275/70.

This variable levy, imposed by the ECcountries, constitutes an unjustifiableand unreasonable import restriction,which impairs the value of trade com-mitments made to the United States, andburdens, restricts add discriminatesagainst United States commerce withinthe meaning of Section 301(a) (1) of theTrade Act of 1974;- this levy is also anunjustifiable aid unreasonable trade poI-Icy which burdens and restricts UnitedStates commerce within the meaning ofSection 301(a) (2) of the Trade Act of1974.

The stated purpose of this variablelevyis to harmonize EC import charges onthe sugars used in the manufacture ofprocessed fruit with the import chargeson pure sugar. The method utilized is toimpose a levy upon the calculated addedsugars iontent of canned fruit contain-ing added sugars in addition to the fixedrate of duty charged upon imports of thecanned fruit. The amount of the variablelevy per 100 kg of sugar is determinedquarterly by the EC by computing thedifference between the world price ofsugar and the EC threshold (gate) pricewhich s a-price determined by the ECItself.

Because of the complexities, uncer,tainties and delays arising out of theEC variable levy on calculated addedsugars in canned fruits, importers in theEC member states may never be certain,in advance, of the amount of addedcharges which must be paid on imported

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-IMONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

15386

canned fruit containing added sugars.Nor can EG importers calculate howmuch time will be required to completethe complex Import procedure and to re-ceive a final assessment -of the amountof variable sugar levy due. Importerswishing to be"free of such import re-straints may do so by purchasing cannedfruit originating in an EC member stateor in an associated EC state or territorywhich Is exempt from the variable sugarlevy, Thus the variable levy on calculatedadded sugars in canned fruits is clearlyunjustifiable, unreasonable, and discrim-inatory against United States commerce.

NOTICES

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The National Canners Association issupported voluntarily by approximately47& canners of processed foods, a sub-stantial number of whom are engaged inthe production and sale of canned fruitwhich Is imported into the EC under CCTheading Nos. 20.06B.IIa and 20.06BIband are subject to the variable levy oncalculated added sugars.

United States exports of canned fruitto the EC member states during the mostrecent fiscal years are substantial, as re-ported by the Economic Research Serv-ice, U.S. Department of Agriculture:

[Thownads of dollars:]

1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-7

Canned fruit, total ----------............. 23,830 16,936 22 P99 25,282 16,84-P h . . . . . . 9,853 5,692 8,431 7,79M 3,740

F'rult cocktail....... 3,756 2,942 3,967 ,940 2,32Pneppl .......... . 8,572 0.176 6,719 8,777 5, 469Ot-------------- 1,649 2,120 6,853 4,767 5,33

Source: "Forelgn Agricultural Trade of the United State

As the trade association representingU.S. producers of canned fruit exportedto, the EC member states, the NationalCanners Association represent& a signifi-cant economic interest affected by therestrictive acts and practices which arethe subject of this petition, as requiredby the Regulations, 19 C.F.R. §2006.0 (a).

HISTORY OF THE EC VARIABLE LEVY ONCALcULATED ADDED SUGARS

Prior to formation of the EC, therewas an import charge on added sugarsIn canned fruits only in the Beneluxcountries. The Benelux sugar chargewas called a duty, and the amount to bepaid was a fixed rate which was boundby Belgium to the United States. Thepertinent portion of the binding read asfollows:

"No additional duty if added sugar Is10 percent or less; otherwise, if addedsugar is 11 percent to 30 percent, theadditional duty is equal to 30 percent ofthe duty for sugar applied to the amountof added sugar * * *."

Pursuant to the binding with Belgium,there was no additional duty if the addedsugar was 10 percent or less. In fact,almost all canned fruit entering intoBelgium contained less than 10 percentadded sugar and thus entered into Bel-gium without the payment of any addedsugar duty. The volume of imports withadded sugar in excess of 10 percent wasnegligible, and the over-all ad valoremeffect of the Belgian sugar added dutywas virtually a nullity.I Following the formation of the EC,and during the GATT Article XV:6negotiations of 1960-61, the EuropeanCommunity reserved the right to assessan additional duty on the quantity ofsugars contained in certain processedfruit products in excess of certain"allowances" and "tolerances."

The pertinent wording in French,which was the. language of the agree-ment, 'Is as follows:

"La Communaut4 se reservele droit depercevoir, en sus du drolt consolidd, un

s (FATUS),'" ERS-USDA, December1975.

droit additionnel sur le sucre, corres-pendant & la charge supportde a l'impor-tation par le sucre, et applicable 6. laquantitd de sucres divers (calcuIe en'saceharose), contenue dans ce produit,au-del&, d'une teneur de X% in polds."(Emphasis added.)

Simultaneously the EU agreed in theDillon Round to reduce and bind its com-mon fixed external tariff on canned fruitcontaining added sugars in containershaving a net content of I kg or less, cov-ered by CCT No. 20.06B.n'b; this reduc-tion comprehended all canned fruit inretail-sized containers. The EC agreed toreduce the CXT from 27 percent and tobind It, at 25 percent.I Thus, at the same time that It agreedto the 2-point reduction in its cannedfruit tariff, the EC obtained, in the GATTArticle XXIV:6 negotiations, the right toenlarge the geographic scope of the In-cidental sugar duty that.had previouslybeen exacted only in Benelux. The rightto assess the duty ("nin drolt addition-nel") on calculated added sugars was anacknowledged impairment of the tariffconcession applicable to the same arti-cles. It was foreseen by negotiators atthe close of the Dillon Round that theEC would impose an import chargd cor-responding to the CXT on sugar (therewas then a fixed EC tariff on sugar, at80 percent ad valorem) on the volume ofsugar, by weight, which exceeded the "al-lowances" and was not exempted follow-ing the "tolerances." Although detailedplans for' implementating this supple-mentary charge were not then developed,it was anticipated that the geographicenlargement of the Benelux sugar dutywould have only an incidental effect onthe total EC sugar duty and would cer-tainly be no more burdensome than theBenelux sugar duty.

The European Community did not im-mediately exercise its reserved right toimpose a duty on sugar added, delaying.until the. close of the Kennedy Roundnegotiations. If then. Instituted, not aduty, as the reserved right permitted and

as was foreseen and understood as a bastsfor the Dillon and Kennedy Rounds, buta, variable levy. The variable levy on cal-culated added sugars in canned fruit wasintroduced July 1, 1967, pursuant to EdRegulation No. 220/67, which was super-seded November 1, 1967, by EC Regu-lation No. 789/67. In these interimregulations the variable sugar levy variedaccording to the price levels for sugarin each of the member states.

The permanent system of variable lev-ies on calculated added sugars in cannedfruit was instituted July 1, 1968, pursu-ant to EC Regulation 868/68, which pro-rides that the levy Is an amount of moneywhich s the result of multiplying (1)the figure which represents the calcu-lated added sugars in the canned fruitby (2) the EC levy for sugar.

With, enlargement of the EC In 1973,the geographic scope of the variablesugar levy was enlarged from six to ninemember states. The variable sugar levyis assessed currently in all of the Eamember states-Belgium, Denmark,France, Ireland. Italy, Germany, Luxem-bourg, The Netherlands, and the UnitedKingdom.OPERATION Or THz EC VARrADLr tmv oi

CALc LATED ADDED Sud nsThe sugars in canned fruit are a com-

bination of sugar occurring naturally inthe fruit and those which are added inthe form of syrup during canning. Thereis wide variation in the natural sugarcontent of fruit; the variation may bedue to differences in variety, maturity, orgrowing conditions.

After canning, the natural sugar andthe added sugar come to equilibrium bothin the pieces of fruit and In the liquidsyrup. The result for each fruit is nat-ural can-to-can variation In total sugarcontent that is unavoidable in good man-ufacturing practice. The total combinedsugars in the canned fruit are measuredin terms of degrees Brix, an-st, imato ofthe sugar content based on the specifiogravity of the syrup. The Brix Is measur-able by refractometer.

Because It is not practical to distin-guish accurately between the addedsugars and those that are present due tonatural occurrence in a single can offruit, the EC assessment Is based on cal-cuated added sugars, with an "allow-ance" for natural sugars.

The volume of calculated added sugartsin each shipment of canned fruit intothe, EC is determined according to thefollowing procedure. When a shipmentof canned fruit is presented for customsclearance, one can from that entire ship-ment is selected at random for a govern-ment laboratory analysis. This determi-nation of calculated added sugars sub-ject to the variable levy Is based onlaboratory analysis of only one can ineach shipment, regardless of the size ofthe shipment, It, is, in effect, a "lottery"in which the volume of leviable addedsugars, the most significant factor In thecomputation of the levy due on the ship-ment, is based on the Brix of one samplecan drawn at random out of thousandsof cans.


NOTICES

The Brix of that samplecan is meas--ured by refractometer. The, Brix of the

sample can is then reducedby 0.93, to ac-count for soluile solids other than sugar.The "allowance" for natural sugar, pro-vided for in Appendix I of the Regula-tion, is then subtracted, and the result-ing figure is the calculated added sugarssubject to-the variable levy.

In the unlikely event that the "cal-culated added sugars" is within the com-bined "allowance" and "tolerance," nolevy is "due.

The second factor in the computation-- of the levy on the canned fruit shipment

is the amount of the levy per levialeunit, which is officially declared by theEC, pursuant to EC Regulation No. 1009/67, ona quarterly basis.

(As originally issued, EC RegulationNo. 865/68 had provided for recalcula-tion'of the levy with great frequency, andduring 1969, for example, the levy wasadjusted-a total of 25 times. EC Regfla-tion No. 2275/70 changed the frequincyof the variable levy determination toonce every three months, effective Janu-ary 1, 1971. This change was of only mi-nor consequence, ab it did not affect the-complex procedure by which the volume.of calculated-added sugars in each ship-ment is determined.)

The combination of these two variablefactors, the sample laboratory analysisand the changing quarterly amount dueper leviable unit, virtually guarantees.that the actual import process will beprocedurally complex and-time consum-ing, and that the outcome of that pro-cedure will be wholly unpredictable.

An importer of canned fruit into theEC member states must follow a complexprocedure: Prior to the importation, theimporter must obtain" an import license.In the application, the importer mustmake an estimate of -what the calculated-added sugars in the shipment will be, andthe license is issued accordingly at theprevailing quarterly leviable rate. Thisimport license is virtually useless as apredictor of the import charges due onthe shipment because, upon actual im-portation, the amount of the levy due onthe shipment will reflect the calculatedadded sugars in the sample can and anyquarterly change in the leviable rate.

Importers in the BC member stateshave had the opportunity, under EC Reg-ulation No. 865/68, to obtain an advancefixing of the levy per leviable unit. How-ever, importers have not utilized this pro-cedure because the bigger variable andmajor uncertainty in computing importcharges due on the shipment--the deter-mination of calculated added sugars-is,absolutely unpredictable.

Thus, neither the United States ex-porter -of canned fruit, nor the EC im-porter can ever be certain, in advance, ofthe amount of the variable levy on cal-culated added sugars which will be as-sessed on a particular shipment ofcanned fruit, and they are thus unableto ascertain, in advance, the landedduty-paid cost of the 6anned fruit. More-over, the delivered cost of Importedcanned fruit subject to the variable sugar

levy may not be ascertained by the im-porter until he receives an assessmentfrom the authorities, a matter of weeksor months during which the importedmerchandise has already moved into thechannels of distribution.

It is impossible to quantify the restric.tive effect of this EC variable sugar levybecause some of its major effects are un-certainty as to what the level of importprotection will be, delays in calculatingthe amount of import protection due,and discouragement for EC importersfrom handling non-EC origin cannedfruit.

The ad valorem effect of the variablesugar levy is reduced as the cif. priceof canned fruit Is increased. The advalorem effect of the variable sugar levyalso reflects the calculated differenceeach calendar quarter between theworld sugar price and the EC threashold(gate) price which is a price determinedby the EC Itself.

The ad valorem effect of the EC vari-able sugar levy Is not ascertainable fromBC Import statistics.

THE VA BLE LEVY Is UxzusnILE

The variable levy on calculated addedsugars is an unjustifiable import restric-tion which impairs the value of tradecommitments made to the United Statesand which burdens, restricts, and dis-criminates against United States com-merce within the meaning of Section 301(a) (1) of the Trade Act of 1974, 19U.S.C. § 2411(a) (1), and is a discrlmina-tory act which is unjustifiable as a bur-den or restriction on United States com-merce as provided in Section 301(a) (2)of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a) (2).

According to the Senate Finance Com-mittee Report on the Trade Act, an un-justifiable restriction is one which Is"illegal under international law or in-consistent with international obliga-tions." (Trade Act of 1974, S. Rept. No.93-1298, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., page 163(November 26, 1974)). The variable levyon calculated added sugars is clearly in-compatible, inconsistent and in viola-tion of the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade (GATT) in a number ofrespects:

GATT Art. I: The variable sugar levyis applied in a discriminatory manner inthat canned fruit originating in some ofthe EC's associated states and territoriesis exempt from the levy.

GATT Art. 1T(3) : With the Implemen-tation of the variable levy. on calculatedadded sugars, the EC altered its methodof determining dutiable value, thus tin-pairing .the value of trade concessionsmade to the United States in the Dillonand Kennedy Rounds. Although duringthe Dillon Round of tariff negotiations,the EC had reserved the right to imposean additional duty ("n drolt addi-tionel") on calculated added sugars tovarious canned fruits, it had not re-served the right to Impose a variablelevy. Thus, trade concessions made andreceived on the basis of an expected dutyon added sugars have been substantially

eroded by the Imposition, instead, of a-variable levy on added sugars.

GATT Art. m(i): Despite the claimsthat the variable levy-affords protectionto the domestic sugar Industry, in whosename the levy was Invoked, It Is clearthat the levy in fact Is intended to pro-vide further protection to the EC fruitcanning Industry, which Is already pro-tected by a bound, fixed tariff on in-portation of canned fruit, as well as anunjustifiable, unreasonable and dis-criminatory system of Import licensesmade effective on October 1, 1975.

GATT Art. VIE2): The EC variablesugar levy Is in direct conflict with theGATT principle that customs valuationbe based on actual value rather than onfictitious value. This variable levy bearsno relationship to the actual value of thecanned fruit or to the actual value of thesugars added to the canned fruit. Rather,the levy is based upon the difference be -tween the world price of sugar and theEC threshold (gate) price (which is self-determined by the EC. The levy, thus, isbased on a fictitious value, having norelationship to the actual value of thesugar in the imported products.

GATT Art. V3I(5): Contrary to theGATT requirement that import protec-tion be stable and predictable, the twoelements determinative of the amountof the variable sugar levy are subject toconstant change. The amount of the levyper 100 kg of caldulated added sugars issubject to change quarterly, and the vol-ume of leviable sugar In each shipmentis unpredictable because it is based upona sample can drawn at random fromthe cans in each shipment.

GATT Art. VI[I(l c) : The WC vari-able levy regulations embody complexcalculations, uncertainties and delays,and are clearly contrary to the prin-ciples of "minimizIng the incidence andcomplexity of import and export-for-malities," and "decreasing and simpli-fying import and export documentationrequirements."

GATT Art XI(1): The EC variablelevy on calculated added sugars s in-compatible with the basic principle ofthe GAiT which calls for import pro-tection exclusively by the customs tariff.The variable levy violates the proscrip-tion that "no prohibitions or restrictionsother than duties, taxes or othercharges * * shall be instituted ormaintained."

Clearly the EC variable levy on addedsugars is inconsistent with internationallaw and the obligations of signatories ofthe GATT. As such, It is clearly an un-Justiflable trade restriction within themeaning of Section 301 of the Trade Actof 1974, 'and an appropriate target forrelief under that Section.

Tn V~nr z Lzvr Is UxAmsoxAiz-The variable levy on calculated added

sugars is an unreasonable import restric-tion which impairs the value of tradecommitments made to the United States.The Senate Finance Committee Reportdefined an unreasonable trade restric-tion within the meaning of the Trade-Act


15.387

NOTICES

of 1974 as a restrictionwhich is notnec-essarily Illegal, but whichnullifies or im-pairs benefits accruing to the UnitedStates under trade agreements, orwhich otherwise discriminates against orburdens U.S. commerce. (Trade ReformAct of 1974, S. Rept. No. 93-1298, 93rdCong., 2d Sess., page 163 (November 26,1974)).

The EC variable levy on calculatectadded sugars clearly impairs the valueof trade commitments made to theUnited States in the Dillon and Ken-nedy Rounds of tariff negotiations, and:the levy was imposed unilaterally by theEC without compensation to the UnitedStates.

It cannot be argued that such a.var-lable levy on added sugars was foreseen.during the Dillon Round of tariff nego-tiations. The EC expressly reserved theright to impose, not a variable levy, buta fixed duty on sugars. added to canned:fruit, modeled upon the exaxgple of theBenelux sugars added duty, a dutywhich had a virtually insignificant effectupon canned fruit imports. The substan-tial effect of this variable levy imposed.instead of the fixed duty-the delays,the uncertainties-could not have beenand were not foreseen by reason of thereservation of a right to impose an addi-tional fixed rate duty. Benefits accra-ng to the United States under the tradeagreements obtained in the Kennedy andDillon Rounds have bee= substantiallyimpaired by reason of, the imposition ofthis unreasonable levy.

Furthermore,,the variable levy ofi cal-culated added sugars Imposed by the EU'Is within that group of restraints which.the Senate Finance Committee expresslystated should be deemed to be discrimi-natory against U.S. commerce within themeaning of the Act's definition of "un-reasonable." The Committee clearly in-cluded "variable levies" and "licensingsystems"' as discriminatory restraintswhich justify Section 301 relief. (TradeReform Act of 1974, S. Rept. No. 93-1298,93rd Coihg.,. 2d Sess., page 164 (Novem-ber 26, 1974)J

The uncertainties with respect tocost and timing which are inherent byreason of import licensing coupled witha variable levy discourages importersn the EC countries from purchasing

United States canned fruit. Importers donot experience the same reticence whenImporting canned fruit from associatedstates and territories of the EC whichare exempt from the levy.

In an unclassified State Departmentaide memoire conveyed to a member ofthe EC delegation in the State Depart-ment on November 2, 1971, It was statedthat:

"The variable levy on added sugarIn canned fruits is detrimental to U.S.trade in canned fruits for at least tworeasons (1) it causes uncertainty forthe trade because of the methods ofcalculation and assessment- and (2)this protection is excessive and unrea-sonable In terms of protection whichthe United States would have- antici-pated on the basis of Its megotiations inthe Dillon and Kennedy Rounds oftrade negotiations."

CONCLUSION .

On, September 1. 1970, the NationalCanners Association fled a- petition andrequested a publie hearing pursuant toSection 252(d of the Trade ExpansionAct of 1962, on the effects on, UnitedStates trade of the EC variable levy oncalculated added sugars In cannedfruit, The Trade Information Commit-tee- held a public hearing on this peti-tion, on November 12, 1970.. For the rea-sons set. forth in that, prior petition, forthe reasons set forth during the publichearing before the Trade InformationCommittee, and for the reasons setforth n this further petition under theTrade Act of 1974, the National Can-ners Association requests that the Presi-dent of the United States, through the.Special. Representative for Trade Ne-gotiations, vigorously exercise the. powersset forth in Section 301 of the TradeAct-of 1974 "to insure fair and equitableconditions for U.S. commerce."

R&spectifully submitted,LEONARD K IOSax;

Director of International Trade,National Canners-Association.

The petitioner has not requested ahearing on this complaint.

Interested parties are Invited to pre-sent their views. on this matter to theSection 301 Committee, Office oftherSpe-cial Representative for Trade Negotia-tions, Room '725, 1800 G Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20506'. It, is requestedthat views be submitted by April 16,1976.Interested parties should follow proce-dures outlined in Section 2006.6.and en-deavor to include in their submissionsthe kind& of information delineated InSection 2006.1 of the regulations promul-gated by the Office of the Special Repre-sentative for Trade Negotiations cover-ing procedures: to be followed in all Sea-tion 301 'proceedings (40, FR. 39497-August 28, 1975).

MoRoN POMERANZ,Chairman, S~ction 301 Commit-

tee Office of the Special Rep-resentative for Trade 2Vego-tfations.

[FR Doc.76-10475 Filed 4.--76;8:45 aml

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY[ontract TV-194.70A; Supp. No. 21

WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGELANDS

Notice of Agreement Eliminating CertainLands From Wheeler National WildlifeRefugeNotice Is hereby given that, 15ursuant

to Contract TV-19470A dated February6, 1959, between the Tennessee ValleyAuthority and the United States De-partment of the Interior, Fish and Wild-life- Service, the following second supple-mentary agreement to that contract hasbeen executed by these parties eliminat-Ing certa i lands described In such sup-plementary agreement from WheelerNational Wildlife Refuge and returningall rights of possession, control, and use

11538

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71-MONDAY, APRIL 12,. 1976

of such lands to the Tennessee ValleyAuthority:AGREa Nr BET vEEN TENNrSsrz VA.Lr

AUTHoR= AND UInTrED STATS DErARx-MENT Or INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFUSERVIC

Thi agreement, made and enteredintor as of the 14th day of March 1975,by and between the TENNESSEX VAL-IEY AUTHORITY (hereinafter calledTVA), and the UNITED STATES DE-PARTMENT OF INTERIOR, FUISH ANDWILDLIFE SERVICE (hereinafter calledDepartment-,W rNSSETH:

Whereas, Department and TVA desireto exclude from the Wheeler NationalWildlife Refuge certain land and Im-provements,

Now therefore, the parties heretoagree as follows:

1. There are hereby eliminated fromthe Wheeler National Wildlife Refugesixteen (16 parcels of land, containingin the aggregate 65.40 acres, more orless, all as described on Exhibit "'A"I anddelineated on plats marked Exhibits "B",attached to and made a part of this Sup-plement No. I to Contract TV-19470A.

2. TVA and Department certify thatthe exclusion from the refuge of theabove-described land and improvementsis- in the public interest and consistentwith the Tennessee Valley Authority Actof 1933, as amended, and the MigratoryBird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1222),

3. This agreement, following formalexecution by the parties, shall bepublished In the, FEDERAL REGIsTER,whereupon the Department releases allrights to the use, possession and controlof theabove-described land and im-provements to TVA for the purposes ofthe Tennessee Valley Authority Act of1933, asamended.

In witness whereof, the parties havecaused this agreement to be executed bytheir duly authorized officers as of theday and year first above written.

TENNESSEE VALLEYAuTHOir

LyNN GEEDEn,General Manager.

Kmm=.~ E. BLSmn,Regional Director, United States

Department of Interior F ishand Wildlife Service.

Attest:M&DGn EVANS.

Assistant Secretary.Effective date., Under the provisions of

Contract TV-19470A and the foregoingsupplement, all rights of possession, con-trol and use of the lands described arereturned to TVA effective April 12, 1976.

Dated: April 5, 1976.LYNN SEEDER,

General Manager.,[FR Dc.7-1042& Ped 1-70;8:4 am)

~xhblter filed sw part of the original doou-manlts.

153S9

INTERSTATE COMMERCEI COMMISSION

MOTOR CARRIER BOARD TRANSFERPROCEEDINGS[Notice io. 2161 -

Correction NoticeNotice No. 216 published Monda

April 5, 1976, (41 FR 14457), coritainean incorrect heading. The correct heaing is as setforth above.

The following publicatioins inclucmiotor carrier, water carrier, broker, anfreight forwarder transfer applicatiozfiled under Section 212(b), 206(a), 21312(b), and.410(g) of the °InterstalCommerce Act.

Each application (except as otherwiispecifically noted) contains a statemerby applicants that there Vill be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment resulting from approval of-the application.

Protests against approval of the application, which may include a requst fooral hearing, must be filed with thCommission within 30-days after thdate of 'this publication. Failure seasonably -to file a protest will be construed as a waiver, of opposition anparticipation in the proceeding. A protest must be served upon applicant,representative(s), or applicants (if nsuch representative is named), and thprotestant must certify that such servichasbeen made.

Unless otherwise specified, the signeoriginal and six copiLs of the protesshall be filed with the Commission. AJprotests must specify with particularit,-the factual basis, the section of the Ador the applicable rule governing the proposed transfer which protestant believewould preclude approval-of the application. g the protest contains a requesfor oral bearing,- the request shall bsupported by an explanation as to wh:the evidence sought to be presented cannot reasonably be submitted through th,use of amidavits.

The operating rights set forth belovare in synopses form, but are deemeisufficient to place interested persons oznotice of the proposed transfer.

Protests against approval of applica.tions No. MC-FC-76454; MC-F -76459MC-FrC-76460, MC-7C--76465, and MC.-FC]76469 must be filed by May 5, 1976

[SEAL ROBE a L.- OswALD.[FR Doc.76-10508 riled 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Notice No. 221]MOTOR- CARRIER BOARD TRANSFER

PROCEEDINGSThe following publications includ,

motor carrier, water carrier, broker,' anfreight forwarder transfer applicationfiled- under, Section 212(b), 206(a), 211312(b), and 410(g) of the InterstaCommerce Act.

Each application (except as otherwis,spectiflcally noted) contains a statemenby applicants that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the hu

man environment resulting from ap-proval of the application.

Protests against approval of the ap-plication, which may include a requestfor oral hearing, must be filed with theCommission within 30 days after thedate of this publication. Failure season-ably to file a protest will be construed as

,, a waiver of opposition and participation,d In the proceeding. A protest must beI- served upon applicants' representa-

tive(s), or applicants (If no such repre-1e sentative is named), and the protestantd must certify that such service has beenis made.I, Unlezs otherwise specified, the signedte original and six copies of the protest

shall be filed with the Commission. All;e 'protests must specify with particularityit the factual basis, the section of the Act,

or the applicable rule governing the pro-L- posed transfer which protestant believes

would preclude approval of the applica-tion. If the protest contains a request

i- for oral hearing, the request shall beir supported by tin explanation as to whye the evidence sought to be presented can-.e not reasonably be submitted through the

use of affidavits.The operating rights set forth below

d are in synopses form, but are deemed- sufficient to place Interested persons ons' notice of the proposed transfer.o No. MC-FC-76474, fled April 5, 1976.e Transferee; R. S. ALBRIGHT, INC., do-e Ing business as R. S. ALBRIGHT, INC.,

2212 1st Ave. So., Seattle, Washingtond 98134. Transferor: ROBERT AL-*t BRIGHT, 2212 1st Ave. So., Seattle,II Washington 98134. Applicants' repre-' sentative: Robert Albright, 2212 1st Ave.

So., Seattle, Washington 98134. Authority- sought for purchase by transferee of thes operating rights of transferor as set forthin Permit No. MC 134820 (Sub-No. 1) andt Permit No. MC 134820, (Sub-No. 3), Is-e sued November 13, 1972, and May 30,Y 1974, respectively authorizing the trans-" portation of various commodities frome specified points In Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,

Arkansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, NewJersey, and New York, to specifiedd points in Washington, Idaho, and Ore-

1 gon. Transferee presently holds., no au-thority from this Commission. Appl-

- cation has not been filed for temporary, aithority under Section 210a(b)."

No. MC-FC-76486, filed April 0, 1976.Transferee: MILLER-MoRm Taucx-Nco, Iwc., 730 N. Euclid, Suite 317, Ana-helm, Calif. 92801. Transferor: NATnmMORRELL AND VICTOR MORRELL, a part-nership, doing business as M xr & Mon-BELL TRUCKIG Co., 730 N. Euclid, Suite317, Anaheim, Calif. 92801. Applicants'representative: James McGrew, 730 No.

e Euclid St, Anaheim, Calif. 92801. Au-d thority sought for purchase by transferee

of the operating rights of transferor, asset forth in Certificate No. MC 33438,

' issued September 4, 1973, as follows:General commodities, with the usual

e exceptions, between Los Angeles, CaliL,t and points in Los Angeles County, Calif.,. within 5 miles of the Intersection of- Indiana and the 95h Streets, Lo An-

geles, and Vernon, Huntington Park,and Compton, Cai., on the one hand,and, on the other, Los Angeles Harborand Long Beach, Calif. Transferee pres-ently holds no authority from this Corn-mision. Application has not been filedfor temporary authority under Section210a(bi.

[(saLl ROBRT I OSWALD,Secretary.

[PR D c.T-iO03 Filed 4-9-76;8345 an]

[Notice No. 221

ASSIGNMENT OF HEARINGSAprm 7,197G.

Cases assigned for hearing, postpone-ment, cancellation, or oral argument ap-pear below and will be published onlyonce. This list contains prospective as-signments only and does not include casespreviously assigned hearing dates. Thehearings will be on the issues as presentlyreflected In the Official Docket of theCommission. An attempt will be made topublish notices of cancellation of hear-ings as promptly aa possible, but inter-ested parties should take appropriatesteps to insure that they are notified ofcancellation or postponements of hear-inUs In which they are interested.MC 119789 (Sub 270), Caravan Herigerated

Cargo. Inc., bearing now assigned April 6.1976, at Atlanta, Ga., is poponed in-definitely.

AB U, Sub 15, Burlington Northern, Inc.Abandonment betw.een Joliette & Pembina,in Pombina County, North Dakota. no.

Iza gned April 22, 1976, at Pembina, ND..is canceled and application dlsmlssed.

MC 124917 (Sub 45). Mchinery TransportsInc. now being azigned July 13, 1976 (Lday), at Denver, Colorado in a hearing roomto be later de.ignated.

MC 110777 (Sub 323), Llgon SpecializedHauler, Inc. now being asined July 14.197 (3 days), at Denver, Colorado in ahearing room to be later designated.

MC 141497, Beattie & Sangpr, Inc. now being-slgned July 19, 1976 (2 days). at Seattle.

Washington In a hearing room to be laterdesIgnated.

MC-F-12623, Anderson Trucking Service, Inc.-Purchaze (Portlon)-JenkinsTrnckidneIn= and MC ^95870 (Sub 179). AndersonTrucklng Service, Inc. now being assignedJuly 21, 197G (3 days)-, at Seattle, Wash-ington In a hearing room to be later desig-nated.

MO 139405 (Sub 119), National Carriers, Inc.now being aslgned July 26,1976 (1 week),at Seattle. Washington in a hearing roomto be later designated.

MC 1C6920 Sub 59, Riggs Food Express, Inc.now a=1gned April 28, 1976, at Washing-ton, D.C. Is canceled.

MC 123502 Sub-Nos. 20, 21, 27, 28. 29,30, 34,38, and 41, Free State Truck Service, Inc.now assAgned June 7, 1976, at Washington,D.C.. is canceled and petition Is withdrawn.

MC 139871 (Sub 2), Chl-Ru Leasing & Truck-ing; Ix- now asigned Mlay 25, 1976 (2days), at Chicago, Illinois and wil be heldin Room 3037-A, Federal Buildlng, 230South Dearborn Street

751C 37398 (Sub 4), Jobn J. Boyce Transporta-tion, Inc. now assigned May 17, 1976 (1week), at Phil-delPhia, Pennsylvania andwill be held in Room 3240, William J.Green Jr. Federal Building. 80 Arch Street.


NOTICES

NOTICES

MC! 140688 (Sub 1), Nicoll Trucking (Medl-cine Rat) Ltd. now assigned May 12, 1976(3 days), at Billings, Montana and will beheld In Room 605, Yellow Stone CountyCourthouse, 3rd Avenue, N. & 27th.

MC 114273 (Sub 235), CRZT, Inc. and MCMC-V-12498, CRST, Inc.-Purchase (Portion)-Lee Bros. Inc. now assigned May 10, 1976(1 week), at Chicago, Illinois and will beheld in Room 1086-A, Everett McKinleyDirksen Building, 219 South DearbornStreet.

MC 69405 (Sub 2), Jim Corbett now assignedMay 10, 1976-(1 week), at Topeka, Kansasand will be held in Room X-2, Second Floor,Federal Building, 424 Kansas Avenue.

MC-C-861, A. & H. Truck Line, Inc., et al.v. Schaller Trucking Corporation, et al. nowassigned May 10, 1976 (1 day), at In-dianapolis, Indiana and will be held inConference Room 402, Old Federal Build-Ing, 46 East Ohio Avenue.

MC 14252 (Sub 26), Commercial MotorFreight, Inc. now assigned May 10, 1976(1 week), at Columbus, Ohio and will beheld in Hearing Room No. 2, Public UtilitiesCommission, 111 North High Street.

[SEAL] ROBERT L. OSWALD,Secretary.

[FR Doc.76-10510 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

COMMON CARRIERS

Fourth Section Application for ReliefAPRIL 7, 1976.

An application, as summarized below,has been filed requesting relief from therequirements of Section 4 of the Inter-state Commerce Act to permit commoncarriers named or described in the ap-pilcation to maintain higher rates andcharges at intermediate points thanthose sought to be established at moredistant points.-

Protests to the granting of an applica-tion must be prepared In accordancewith Rule 40 of. the General. Rules ofPractice (49 CFR 1100.40) and filedwithin 16 days from the date of publi-cation of this notice in the FEDERAL REG-ISTER.

FSA No. 43148-Rubber to Points inEastern Territory. Filed by Southwest-ern Freight Bureau, Agent, (No. S-593).for interested rail carriers. Rates on rub-ber and related articles, in carloads, asdescribed in the application, from pointsIn Louisiana and Texas; to points in east-,ern territory.

Grounds for rellef-Rate relationshipand water competition;

Tariff-Supplement 14 to Southwest-ern Freight Bureau, Agent, tariff 13-F,I.C.C. No. 5209. Rates are published tobecome effective on May 13, 1976,

By the Commission.[SEAL] ROBERT L. OSWALD,

Secretary.[FR Doc.76-10512 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Exemption No. 122]

THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROADCO. ET AL

Exemption Under Provision of Rule 19 ofthe Mandatory Car Service Rules Or-dered In Ex Parte No. 241It appearing, That The Baltimore and

Ohio Railroad Company (BO), The

Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company(CO), Consolidated Rail Corporation(ConRail), and the Western MarylandRailway Company (WM) have eachagreed to the unrestricted use by theother of Iti plain gondola cars less than61 ft. in length; and that such mutualuse of gondola cars will increase carutilization by reductions in switchingand movements of empty gondola cars.

It is ordered, That, pursuant to theauth6rity vested in me by Car Service,Rule 19, plain gondola cars -escribed inthe Official Railway Equipment Register,I.C.C.-R.E.R. No. 398, Issued by W. J.Ti~ezise, or successive issues thereof, ashaving mechanical designations "GA","GB", "GD", "G I IGS"' 4fGT", and"GW", which are less than 61 ft. 0 in.long, and which bear the reportingmarks listed herein, may be used by theBO, CO,-ConRail, and WM without re-gard to the requirements of Car ServiceRules 1 and 2.

'Reporting tarks

BO CO. ConRail WM

BO CO AA DLW NH P&E WM- BA EL NYC PRRBWO -ERIE PC RDGCASO LHR PeA TOOONI LV PCB

Effective April 2, 1976.

Expires May 31, 1976.

Issued at Washington, D.C., April 2,1976.

[SEALI

INTERSTATE COMMERCECOMMISSION,

LEwvIs R. TEEPLE,Agent.

[FR Doc.76-10513 Filed 4-9-76;8:45 am]

[Notice No. 45]-

MOTOR CARRIER TEMPORARYAUTHORITYApplications

APRI 6, 1976.Important notice: The following are

notices of filing of applications fortemporary authority under Section210a(a) of tife Interstate Commerce Actprovided for under the provisions of 49C.F.R. §4131.3. These rules provide thatan original and six (6) copies of proteststo an application may be filed with thefield official named in the FEDERAL REGIS-zza publication no later than the 15thcalendar day after the date the notice ofthe filing of the application is publishedin the FEDERAL REGISTER. One copy of theprotest must be served on the applicant,or its authorized representative, if any,and the protestant must certify thatsuch service has been made. The protestmust identify the operating authorityupon which it is predicated, specifyingthe "MC" docket and "Sub" number andquoting the particular portion of author-ity upon which It relies. Also, the pro-testant shall specify the service It canand will provide and the amount andtype of equipment it will make availablefor use n connection with the servicecontemplated by the TA application. The

weight accorded a protest shall be gov-erned by the completeness and pertl-nence of the protestant's Information,

Except as otherwise specifically noted,each applicant states that there will beno significant effect on the quality of thehuman environment resulting from ap-proval of Its application.

A copy of the application Is on file, andcan be examined at the Office of the Sec-retary, Interstate Commerce Commis-sion, Washington, D.C., and also In theI.C.C. Field Office to which protests areto be transmitted. -

MOTOR CARRIERS or PROPERTYNo. MC 52704 (Sub-No. 126TA), filed

March 26, 1976. Applicant: GIENNMcCLENDON TRUCKING COMPANY,INC., P.O. Drawer H, LaFayette, Ala.36862. Applicant's representative: ArchieB. Culbreth, Suite 246, 1252 W. PeachtreeSt. NW., Atlanta, Ga. 30309. Authoritysought to operate as a common carrier,by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,transporting: Sugar (except in bulk),from Gramercy, La., to points in Ala-bama, Georgia, Virginia, and West Vir-ginia, for 180 days. Applicant has alsofiled an underlying ETA seeking up to90 days of operating authority. Support-ing shipper: Colonial Sugars Company,Division of Borden, Inc., Gramercy, La.70052. Send protests to: Clifford W.White, District Supervisor, InterstateCommerce Commission, Bureau of Op-erations, Room 1616, 2121 Bldg., Birm-ingham, Ala. 35203.

No. MC 106398 (Sub-No. '38TA), filedMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: NATIONALTRAILER CONVOY, INC., 525 SouthMain, P.O. Box 3329, Tulsa, Okla. 74103,Applicant's representative: Irvin Tull(same address as applicant). Authoritysought to operate as a common carrier,by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,transporting: Trailers, designed to bedrawn by passenger automobiles andbuildings In sections mounted on wheeledundercarriage, from the plant site ofSioux Falls Structures, Inc., at or nearSioux Falls, S. Dak., to points In theUnited States west of the MississippiRiver and the state of Minnesota, for 180days. Applicant has also filed an under-lying ETA seeking up to 90 days of oper-ating authority. Supporting shipper:Sioux Falls Structures, Inc., Rt. 4, Box43D, Sioux Falls, S. Dak. 57101. Sendprotests to: Joe Green, District Super-visor, Interstate Commerce Commission,Bureau of Operations, Room 240 LId,P.O. Bldg., 215 NW. 3rd St., OklahomaCity, Okla. 73102.

No. MC 111401 (Sub-No, 462TA) I filedMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: GROEN-DYKE TRANSPORT, INC., 2510 RockIsland Blvd., Enid, Okla, 73701. Appli-cant's representative: Victor R. Comn-stock, P.O. Box 632, Enid, Okla. 73701.Authority sought to operate as a commoncarrier, by motor vehicle, over irregularroutes, transporting: Solvent, naptha,in bulk, from Cyril, Okla., to Offutt AirForce Base, Nebr., and to Hill Air ForceBase, Utah, for 180 days. Supportingshipper: Hyde Naphtha Co., P.O. Box837, Marshall, Tex. 75670. Send protests


15390

NOTICES

to: Joe Green, District Supervisor, In-terstate Commerce Commission, Bureauof Operations, Room 240, Old P.O. Bldg,215 INW. 3rd St., Oklahoma City, Okla.73102.

No. MC 112520 (Sub-No. 316TA), filedMarch 26, 1976. Applicant: MCKENZIETANK LINES, INC, P.O. Box 1200, Tal-lahassee, Fla. 32304. Applicant's repre-sentative: Sol H. Proctor, 1107 Black-stone Bldg., Jacksonville, Fla. 32202. Au-thority sought to operateas a commoncarrier, by motor vehicle, over irregularroutes, transporting: Molten sulphur, in,bulk, in tankvehicles, from Chatom, Ala.,

- to Pascagoula, Miss., for 180 days.-Appli-cant has also filed an underlying ETAseeking up to 90 days of operating au-thority.,1 Supporting shipper: LloydChemical Sales, Inc., P.O. Box 2393, Mid-land, Tex. 79701. Send protests to: G. H.Fauss, Jr., District Supervisor, InterstateCommerce Commission, Bureau of Oper-ations, Box 35008, 400 West Bay St.,Jacksonville, Fl. 32202.

No. MC 113459 (Sub-No. 104TA), fledMarch 25, 1976. Applicant: H. J. JEF-FRIES TRUCK LINE, INC., P.O. Box94850, Oklahoma City, Ok1a. 73109. Ap-plicant's representative: James W. High-tower, 136 Wynnewood ProfessionalBldg, Dallas, Tex. 75224. Authoritysought to operate as a -common carrier,by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,transporting: Lumber from Bonner,Mont, to Albuquerque, N. Mex, -for 180days. Supporting shipper: Duke CityLumber Co., Inc-, Norman Reich, T. LI,P.O. Box 25807, Albuquerque, N. Mex.Send protests to: Joe Green, District Su-pervisor, Interstate Commerce Commis-sion, Bureau of Operations, Room 240,Old P.O. Bldg., 215 NW. Third; OklahomaCity, Okla. 73102.

No. MC 116519 (Sub-No. 32TA), fledMarch 22, 1976. Applicant: FRED-ERICK TRANSPORT I, TIED, RPR. 6,Chatham, Ontario, Canada. Applicant'srepresentative: Jeremy Kahn, 733 In-vestment Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20005.Authority sought to operate as a com-mon carrier, by -motor vehicle, over Ir-regular routes, transporting: Containers,compactors, truck bodies, and trailersequipped specifically for the collectionand/or compaction of waste materials,from Ports of Entry on the Interna-tional Boundary line between the UnitedStates and Canada, located in Michiganand New York, to Birmingham, Ala.;Bridgeport, Conn.; Washington, D.C.;Fort Wayne, Ind.; Lexington and Louis-ville, Ky.; Boston, Mass.; Troy, Micl;Cinmanmonson, N.J.; Buffalo, N.Y.;Akron, Canton, Cleveland, Toledo, andYoungstown, Ohio; and Beaver Falls,Erie, New Castle, Pittsburg, Wilkes-Barre, and Williamsportk Pa. Restric-tions: (1) The authority granted hereinis restricted to traffic in foreign com-merce. (2) The authority granted hereinis restricted to traffic originating at theplantsite and facilities of UniversalHandling Equipment Company, at Ham-lton Ontario, Canada, and destined tocustomers of Universal Handling Equip-

ment Company, located at the Indicatedpoints, for 180 days. Applicant has alsofiled an underlying ETA seeking up to90 days of operating authority. Support-ing shipper: Universal Handling Equip-ment Company, 100 Burland Crescent,Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Send pro-tests to: Melvin F. Kirsch, District Su-pervisor, Interstate Commerce Commis-sion, Bureau of Operations, 1110Broderick Tower, 10 Wltherell, Detroit,Mich. 48226, -

No. MC 117119 (Sub-No.,577TA), filedMarch 25, 1976. Applicant: WILLISSHAW FROZEN EXPRESS, INC., P.O.Box 188, Elm Springs, Ark. 72723. Appli-cant's representative: L. LI. McLean(same address as applicant). Authoritysought to operate as a common carrier.by motor iehicle, over Irregular routes,transporting: Chemical products, in-cluding but not limited to cleaning anddefoaming compounds, textile solteners,sizing, from the plantsltes of DiamondShamrock Chemical Corporation atCharlotte, N.C., and Cedartown, Ga, topoints in California, restricted to trafficoriginating at named plantsites, for 180days. Applicant has also filed an under-lying ETA seeking up to 90 days ofoperating authority. Supporting ship-per: Diamond Shamrock Chemical Cor-poration, Process Chemicals Division, 350Mt. Kemble Ave., Morristown, N.T. 07960.Send. protests to: William H. Land, Jr.,District Supervisor, 3108 'Federal OfficoBldg, 700 West Capitol, Little Rock, Ark.72201.

No. MC 118159 (Sub-No. 170TA), fliedMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: NATIONALREFRIGERATED TRANSPORT, INC,P.O. Box 51366, fawson Station, Tulsa,Okla. 74151. Applicant's representative:Nell A. DuJardin, P.O. Box 2298, GreenBay, Wis. 54306. Authority sought to op-erate as a common carrier, by motor ve-hicle, over irregular routes, transporting:Meats, meat products, and meat by-products and articles distributed bj meatpackinghouses, as described in SectionsA and C of Appendix I to the report inDescriptions in Motor Carrier Certifi-cates, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (exceptcommodities in bulk), from the plantiateand/or storage facilities utilized by IowaBeef Processors, Inc, at or near Ama-rillo, Tex., to points in Illinois, Indiana,Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky,Louisiana, Mississippi, and Memphis,Tenn., restricted to traffil rginating atand destined to the nnmdd points, for180 days. Supporting shipper: Iowa BeefProcessors, Inc., Dakota City, Nebr.68731. Send protests to: Joe Green, Dls-trict Supervisor, Interstate CommerceCommission, Bureau of Operations,Room 240, Old P.O. Bldg., 215 NW. 3rdSt., Oklahoma City, Okla. 73102.

No. MC 118806 (Sub-No. 48TA), fledMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: ARNOLDBROS6 TRANSPORT, LTD., 730 Lgl-modiere Blvd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Can-ada R2J 0T8. Applicant's representative:Daniel C. Sullivan, 327 South LaSalle St,Chicago, Ill. 60604. Authority sought tooperate as a common carrier, by motor

vehicle, over irregular routes, transport-Ing: Lumber and lumber products, fromWaterloo, Booneville, Crocketts, DeerRiver, and Smyrna, N.Y, and Titusvlle,Pa., to the ports of entry on the Inter-national Boundary line between theUnited States and Canada, at or nearPembina, N. Dak., and Noyes, Minn-, for180 days. Applicant has also filed anunderlying ETA seeking up to 90 days ofoperating authority. Supporting shipper:Theo A. Burrows Lumber Company, Ltd.,1007-211 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, Mani-toba. Canada R3B 2A2. Send protests to:J. H. Ambs, District Supervisor, Inter-state Commerce Commission, Bureau ofOperations, P.O. Box 2340, Fargo, N. Daik.58102.

No. MC 119789 (Sub-No. 285 TA), filedMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: CARAVANREFRIGERATED CARGO, INC., P.O.Box 6188, Dallas, Tex. 75222. Applicant'srepresentative: James K. Newbold, Jr.-(same address as applicant). Authoritysought to operate as a common carrier,by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,transporting: .Meats, meat products.meat byproducts, and articles distributedby meat paclkinghousew, as described inSections A and C of Appendix I to thereport In Descriptions in Motor CarrierCertlficutes, 61 M.C.C. 209 and 766 (ex-cept hides and commodities in bulk),from Ellensburg, Wash, to points inMaryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,-New York. Peinsylvanla, and the Dis-trict of Columbia, for 180 days. Support-ing shipper: Superior Packing Co., Inc.,P.O. Box 277, Ellensburg, Wash. 98926.Send protests to: Opal ML Jones, Trans-portation Assistant, Interstate Com-merce Commission, 1100 Commerce St.,Room 13C12, Dallas, Tex. 75242.

No. MC 123407 (Sub-No. 296TA), filedMarch 19, 1976. Applicant: SAWYERTRANSPORT, INC, South HavenSquare, U.S. HIghway 6, Valparaiso, Ind.46383. Applicant's representative: Rice &Rice (same address as applicant). Au-thority sought to operate as a commoncarrier, by motor vehicle, over irregularroutes, transporting: Wooden trusses,prefabricated stairs, prefabricated doors,pallets, and bloclaing, from Lafayette,Colo., to points lnWyoming, Kansas, Ne-braska, Missouri, and South Dakota, for180 slays. Applicant has also filed anunderlying ETA seeking up to 90 days ofoperating authority. Supporting shipper:Lafayette Material Fabricators, Inc.,P.O,Box 188, Lafayette, Colo. 80026. Sendprotests to: J. H. Gray, District Super-visor, Interstate Commerce Commission,Bureau of Operations, 345 West WayneS., Room 204, Fort Wayne, Ind. 46802.

. No. MC 126436 (Sub-No. I2TA), fliedMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: REFRIGER-ATED TRANSPORT CO., INC, P.O. Box308, Forest Park, Ga. 30050. Applicant'srepresentative: Richard M. Tettelbaum,Suite 375, 3379 Peachtree Road NE., At-lanta, G- 30326. Authority sought to op-erate as a contract carrier, by motor ve-hicle, over Irregular routes, transporting:Stee shot (except ammunition), fromBedford, Va., to points In Texas, under a

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 71--IONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

153H1

No. MC 129068 (Sub-No. 28TA); filedMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: GRIFFIN'TRANSPORTATION, INC., 3002 S.Douglas Blvd., Oklahoma City, Okla.73150. Applicant's representative: JackL. Griffin (same address as applicant).Authority sought, to operate as a com-

Supporting shipper: -Futorian Corpo-ration, Highway 78 West, New Albany,Miss. 38652. Send protests to: E. E.Strotheid, District Supervisor, InterstateCommerce Commission, Room 302, 1400Pickens St., Columbia, S.C. 29201. Thepurpose of this republication is to cor-

continuing contract with Wheelabrator- mon carrier, by motor vehicle, over ir-Frye, Inc., for 180 days. Applicant has regular routes, transporting: Mobilealso fmed an underlying ETA seeking up - homes-trailers designed to be drawn byto 90 days of operating authority. Sup- passenger automobile and buildings,porting shipper: Wheelabrator-Frye, complete or in sections mounted onInc., 400 S. Bryket Ave., Mishawaka, Ind. wheeled undercarriages with hitchball46544. Send protests to: William L. connector in initial movements, fromScroggs, District Supervisor, Interstate points in Grady County, Okla., to pointsCommerce Commission, 1252 W. Peach- in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,tree St. NW., Room 546, Atlanta, Ga. Louisiana, MissOuri, Nebraska, New30309. Mexico, and Texas, for 90 days. Applicant

No. MC 128235 (Sub-No. 17TA), filed has also filed an underlying ETA seekingMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: AL JOHN- up to 90 days of operating authority.SON TRUCKING, INC., 1516 Marshall Supporting shipper: Chickasha MobileAve. NE., Minneapolis, Minn. 55413. Ap- Homes, Inc., Box 405, Chickasha, Okla.plicant's representative: Earl Hacking 73108. Send protests to: Joe Green,'Dis-1700 New Brighton Blvd., Minneapolis, trict Supervisor, Interstate CommerceMinn. 55413. Authority sought to op- Commission, Bureau of Operations, 240erate as41. A utnhariey o tor oe Old P.O. -and Courthouse, 215 N.W. 3rderate as a comrdon carrier, by motor ve- igCtOd.712hidle, over irregular routes, transport- St., Oklahonm City, Okla. 73102.ing: Malt beverages and related adver- No. MC 133708 (Sub-No. 22TA), filedtising equipment, premiums, materials March 26, 1976. Applicant: FIKSEand supplies when shipped. therewith, BROS., INC., 12647 East South St., Ar-from La Crosse, Wis., to Bemidji, tesia, Calif. 90701. Applicant's represent-Crookston, Duluth, Fairmont, Farminig- ative: Carl H. Fritze, 1545 Wilshire Blvd.,ton, Fergus Falls, Gaylord, Grand Los Angeles, Calif. 90017. AuthorityRapids, Granite Falls, Hinckley, Mar- sought to operate as a common carrier,shall, New Prague, Ortonville, Rogers, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,Royalton, St. Michael, Sauk Centre, transporting: Cement, in bulk, (1) fromSlayton, Sleepy Eye, Stillwater, Thief Cushenbury, Calif., to points in San JuanRiver Falls, Victoria, and Wayzata, County, N. Mex.; and (2) from points inMinn., for 90 days. Applicant has also McKinley County; N. Mex., to points inIled an underlying ETA seeking up to San Juan County, N. Mex., restricted to90 days of operating authority. Sup- the transportation of shipments havingporting shipper: 'G. Heileman Brewing an immediately prior movement by rail,Company, Inc., 925 South Third St., La for 180 days. Applicant has also filed anCrosse, Wis. 54601. Send protests to: underlying ETA seeking up to 90 days ofA. N. Spath, District Supervisor, Inter-. operating authority: Supporting ship-state Commerce Commission, Bureau of per: Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 600Operations, Room 414 Federal Bldg., and South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles,U.S. Courthduse, 110 South Fourth St., Calif. 90005. Send protests to: MildredMinneapolis, Minn. 55401. I. Price, Transportation Assistant, In-

No. MC 128343 (Sub-No. 32TA), fmed terstate Commerce Commission, RoomMarch 24, 1976. Applicant: C-LINE, INC, 1321 Federal Bldg., 300 North Los An-Tourtellot Hill Road, Chepachet, R.I. geles St., Los Angeles, Calif. 90012.02814. Applicant's represdntative: Ron- No. MC, 133757 (Sub-No. 2TA) (Cor-aid N. Cobert, 1730 M St. NW., Wash- rection), filed February 20, 1976, pub-ington, D.C. 20036. Authority sought to lished in the FEDERAL. REGISTER issue ofoperate as a contract carrier, by motor March 4, 1976, republished as correctedvehicle, over irregular routes, transport- this issue. Applicant; CAROLINA EASTing: Plastic materials, plastic products, FURNITURE TRANSPORT, INC. P.O.and supplies, used in the manufacture Box 906, Sumter, S.C. 29150. Applicant'sand distribution of plastic materials and representative': David Homer Cressonplastic products (except in bulk), be- (same address as applicant). Authoritytween Hemingway, S.C., on the one hand, sought to operate as a common carrier,and, on the other, Jerome, Idaho; Halls, by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,Tenn.; North Smithfield, R.I.; and ports transporting: New furniture, (1) fromof entry on the International Boundary Rocky Mount and Turkey, N.C., to Sum-line between the United States and ter, S.C.; (2) from oGuntown, New Al-Canada, in Michigan, New York, and bany, Okolona, and Tupelo, Miss., toVermont, under a continuing contract North Carolina and South Carolina.with The Tupperware Co., for 180 days. No.-Applicant proposes to tack the au-Applicant has also filed an underlying thority applied for with that presently held,ETA seeking up to 90 days of operating at Sumter, S.C. It also proposes to inter-authority. Supporting shipper: The Tup- lne shipments moving under the authorityperware Co., Woonsocket, R.I. 02895. applied for with other motor carriers atSend protests to: Gerald H. Curry, Dis- Wemphis, Tenn.; Fort Smith, Ark.; Char-trict Supervtsor,24 Weybosset St., Prov- lotte, High Point, Statesville, and Ashe-Idene. lR.IT 02903. boro, N.C., for 180 days.


d.5392 NOTICES

rect the territorial description in thisproceeding.

No. MC 135082 (Sub-No, 26TA), filedMarch 25, 1976. Applicant: BUISCHTRUCKING, INC., doing business asROADRUNNER TRUCKING, INC., P.O.Box 26748, Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87125.Applicant's representative: D. F. Jones(same address as applicant). Authoritysought to operate as a common carrier,by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,transporting: Gypsum, gypsum wall-board, gypsum joint cement and relatedcommodities (except commodities inbulk), from Hardeman County, Tex., topoints in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho,Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, andWashington, for 180 days. Applicant hasalso filed an underlying ETA seekingup to 90 days of operating authority.Supporting shipper: Geoqgia-PaoifloCorporation, 900 SW. Fifth Ave., Port-land, Oreg. 97204. Send protests to: JohnH. Kirkemo, District Supervisor, Inter-state Commerce Commission, Bureau ofOperations, 1106 Federal Office Bldg,, 517Gold Ave. SW., Albuquerque, N, Mex.87101.

No. MC 135839 (Sub-No. STA), filedMarch 26, 1976, Applicant: B LINESERVICES, INC., P.O. Box 24, Green.-burg, La. 70441. Applicant's representa-tive: W. Hugh Sibley, P.O. Box 399,Greensburg, La. 70441. Authority soughtto operate as a contract carrier, by mo-tor vehicle, over Irregular routes, trans-porting: Iron and steel ball valves andvalve parts, on the one hand, and roughiron or steel castings and lorgings on theother hand, from Houston, San Antonio,Lufkin, and Beaumont, Tex., to Ham-mond, La., 'with commodities describedon the one hand, and from Hammond,La., to Houston, San Antonio, Lufkin,and Beaumont, Tex., for commoditiesdescribed on the other, under a continu-ing contract with T K Valve Manufac-turing Co., Inc., for 180 days. Applicanthas also filed an underlying ETA seek-Ing up to 90 days of operating authority,Supporting shipper: T K Valve Manu-facturing Co., Inc., P.O. Box 308, Ham-mond, La. 70401. Send protests to: PayC. Armstrong, Jr., District Supervisor,9038 Federal Bldg., 701 Loyola Ave., NewOrleans, La. 70113.

No. MC 136876 (Sub-No. 7TA), filedMarch 26, 1976. Applicant: PAULIEBRAZIER, doing business as PAULIVBRAZIER COMPANY, 203 Helton Drive,Lawrenceburg, Tenn. 38464. Applicant'srepresentative: Robert L. Estes, 14thFloor, Third National Bank Bldg,, Nash-ville, Tenn. 37219. Authority sought tooperate as a contract carrier, by motorvehicle, over Irregular routes, transport-ing: Dry fertilizer, in bulk and bag asfollows: Removal of restrictions to ship-ments of fertilizer In bulk moving Inhopper type vehicles equipped with beltunloading systems for the_ account ofFederal Chemical Company, from pointsin Davidson County, Tenn., to Points InColbert, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Madison,Limestone, and Jackson Counties, Ala.;and from points In Davidson County,

NOTICES

Tenn., and Humboldt, Tenn., to points in

Kentucky south and west of a line begin-ning at junction UAS. Highway 25E andthe Kentucky State line east of Middles-boro, Ky.- thence along U.S. Highway25E to Corbin, thence along U.S. High-way 25 to Mt. Vernon, thence along U.S.Highway 150 through Danville, to junc-tion U.S. Highway 68 at or near Perry-villeithence along U.S. Highway 68 toLebanon, thence along Kentucky High-way 84 to Hodgenville, thence alongKentucky Highway 61 to Elizabethtown,thence along U.S. Highway 62 to Leitch-field, thence along Kentucky Highway259 to junction U.S. Highway 60 at ornear Harmed, thence along U.S. Highway60 to Cloverport, thence north along aline from Cloverport to the Ohio River;

(2) Dry fertilizer, in bags for the ac-count of Federal Chemical Company,from points in Davidson County, Tenn.,to points in Colbert, Lauderdale, Law-rence, Madison, Limestone and JacksonCounties, Ala.; and from points inDavidson County, Tenn., and Humboldt,Tenn., to points in Kentucky south andwest of a line beginning at junction U.S.Highway 25E and the Kentucky Stateline east of Middlesboro, Ky., thencealong U.S. Highway 25E to Corbin,thence along U.S. Highway 25 to Mt.Vernon, thence along U.S. Highway 150through Danville, to junction 1.S. High-way 68 at or. near Perryville, thencealongU-S. Highway 68 to Lebanon, thence.along Kentucky Highway 84 to Hodgen-ville, thence along Kentucky Highway 61to Elizabethtown, thence along U.S.Highway 62 to Leitchfield, thence alongKentucky Highway 259 to junction U.S.Highway 60 at or near Harned, thencealong U.S. Highway 60 to Cloverport,thence north -along a line from Clover-port to the Ohio River; (3) Dry fertilizer,in bulk and bag for the account of Fed-eral Chemical Company, from points inDavidson County, Tenn., and Humboldt,Tenn., to points in Morgan, Franklin,and Marion Counties, Ala., and frompoints in Humboldt, Tenn., to points inColbert, Lauderddle, Lawrence, Madison,Limestone, and Jackson Counties, Ala,,under a continuing contract.with Fed-eral Chemical Company, for 180 days.Supporting shipper: Federal ChemicalCompany, 4900 Centennial Blvd., Box90205, Nashvfille; Tenn. 37209. Send pro-tests to: Joe J. Tate, District Super-visor, Interstate Commerce Commission,Bureau of Operations, Suite A-422, U.S.Court House, 801- Broadway, Nashville,Tenn. 37219.

No. MC 140612 (Sub-No. 6TA), filedMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: ROBERT F.KAZIMOUR, 1200 Norwood Drive, SE.,.Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52403. Applicant'srepresentative: Robert F. Kazimour(same address as applicant). Authoritysought to operate as a common carrier,by motor vehicle, over irregular routes,transporting: Malt beverages, frompoints in Houston County, Ga., to pointsin Iowa and Minnesota, for 180 days.Applicant has also filed an underlyingETA seeking up to 90 days of operatingauthority.-- Supporting shipper: Pabst

Brewing Company, 917 West JuneauAve., Milwaukee, Wis. 53201. Send pro-tests to: Herbert W. Allen, District Su-pervisor, Interstate Commerce Com-mission, Bureau of Operations, 518 Fed-eral Bldg., Des Moines, Iowa 50309.

No. MC 140615 (Sub-No. IlTA), filed,march 25,1976. Applicant: DA3RYLANDTRANSPORT, INC., P.O. Box 1064, Wis-consin Rapids, Wis. 54494. Applicant'srepresentative: Dennis C.-Brown (sameaddress as applicant). Authority soughtto operate as a common carrier, by motorvehicle, over Irregular routes, transport-ing: (1) Dairy products, dairy by-prod-.ucts, and gilt paks, from Bongards,Minn., and Hopkinton, Iowa, to Wiscon-sin Rapids, Wis.; (2) Dairy products,dairy by-products, and gift palss, fromArpin and Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., topoints in Connecticut, Delaware, Illi-nois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia,and Washington, D.C.; and (3) Materi-als, supplies and equipment used In thepreparation, packaging and sale of dairyproducts, dairy by-products and giftpaks, from points in Connecticut, Dela-ware; Ilinos, Indiana, Maryland, Mas-sachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, NewYork, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,Virginia, Washington. D.C., and Wiscon-sin, to Arpin and Wisconsin Rapids,Wis., for 180 days. Applicant has alsofiled an underlying ETA seeking up to 90days of operating authority. Supportingshippers: Arpin Dairy, Inc., Arpin, Wis.54410: Cheez Co., Inc., Wisconsin Rapids,Wis. 54494. Send protests to: Richard K.Shullaw, District Supervisor, IntersthteCommerce Commission, Bureau of Oper-ations, 139 W. Wilson St., Room 202,Madison, Wis. 53703.

No. MC 141171 (Sub-No. 2TA), filedMarch 26, 1976. Applicant: J. & G.SWARTZ, INC., 3755 Fenwlck Drive,Spring Valley, Calif. 92077. Applicant'srepresentative: David P. Christianson,606 South Olive St., Suite 825, LosAngeles, Calif. 90014. Authority soughtto operate as a contract carrier, by motorvehicle, over irregular routes, transport-ing: Synthetic sponges cellulose, fromTonawanda, N.Y., to points in California,under a continuing contract withO-Cel-O of General Mills, Inc., for 180days. Supporting shipper: O-Cel-O ofGeneral Mills, Inc., 305 Sawyer Ave.,Tonawanda, N.Y. 14150. Send proteststo: Mildred I. Price, Transportation As-sistant, Interstate Commerce Commis-sion, Room 1321 Federal Bldg., 300 NorthLos Angeles St., Los Angeles, Calif. 90012.

No. MC 141297 (Sub-No. ITA), ledMarch 29, 1976. Applicant: UNITD IN-DUSTRIES, INC., 487 Parish St.,Houston, Miss. 38851. Applicant's repre-sentative: W. DeWaune Griffin (same ad-dress as applicant). Authority sought tooperate as a contract carrier, by motorvehicle, over irregular routes, transport-ing: Furniture, from the plantsites ofShannon Chair Co., Shannon, Miss., andMaben Manufacturing Co., Maben, Miss.,to points in Alabama, Georgia, Florida,

South Carolina, North Carolina, Vir-ginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, NewYork, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louis-iana, New Mexico, Arizona, California,Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut,the District of Columbia, Missouri, andWest Virginia, under a continuing con-tract with Shannon Chair Company, andMabea Manufacturing Company, for 180days. Supporting shippers: ShannonChair Company, 1st Ave. North, Houston,MIss. 38851. Maben Manufacturing Com-pany, 375 Oswalt Drive, Maben, Miss.39750. Send protests to: Alan C. Tarrant,District Supervisor, Interstate CommerceCommission, Room 212, 145 East AmiteBldg., Jackson, Miss. 39201.

No. MC 141744 (Sub-No. ITA) (Cor-rection), filed February 24, 1976, pub-lished in the FmtAL REGIsTER issue ofMarch ;.7, 1976, republished as correctedthis issue. Applicant: DAVID L. FILES,doing business as DAVID 1.. FILES LIME& ERTILIZER SPREADING, Darling-ton Trailer Court, Lot 1, Martinsburg,W. Va. 25401. Applicant's representative:David 1. Files (same address as appll-cant). Authority sought to operate as acontract carrier, by motor vehicle, overirregular routes, transporting: Com-mercial fertilizer spreading, In bulk form,between the plantsite of Miller Chemical& Fertilizer Corporation, located atRanson, W. Va, on the one hand, and,on the other, points in Jefferson, Berke-ley, Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral,and Grant Counties, W. Va.; Frederick,Shenandoah, Page, Loudoun, ClarkeFauquler, Rappahannock Orange, Rock-ingham, Spotsylvania, Madison, Warren,Fairfax, and Prince William Counties,Va.; and Garrett. Allegheny, Washing-ton, Frederick, Carroll, Howard, Mont-gomery, and Baltimore Counties, Md.,under a continuing contract with MillerChemical & Fertilizer Corporation, for180 days. Applicant has also filed anunderlying ETA seeking up to 90 days ofoperating authority. Supporting shipper:Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Corporation,300 North Preston St., Ranson, W. Va.25438. Send protests to: nterstate Com-merce Commsslon, 12th & ConstitutionAve. NW., Room B-317. W. C. Hersman,District Supervisor, Washington, D.C.20423. The purpose of this republicationis to correct the territorial description inthis proceeding.

No. MC 147887TA, filedMarch 25,1976.Applicant: INLAND DISTRIBUTORS,INC., 810 Columbia St., Sunnyside, Wash.98944. Applicant's representative: JamesC. Chilson, E. 6911 Marietta, Spokane,Wash. 99206. Authority sought to operateas a common carrier, by motor vehicle,over irregular routes, transporting:Lumber, milwork, lumber products andPlywood, from points in Wallowa, Union,and Umatilla Counties, Oreg.; - thosepoints in Lincoln, Flathead, Glacier, Mis-soula, Sanders, Mineral, Rivalli, and LakeCounties, Mont.; those points In Bound-ary, Bonner, Kootena, Benewah, Sho-shone, Latah, Clearwater, Nez Perce,Lewis, and Idaho Counties, Idaho; thosepoints in Okanogan, Lincoln, Stevens,Spokane, Pend Oreille, and Cheln Coun-


15393

NOTICES

ties, Wash., to points in Washington,Idaho, Oregon, and the Ports of Entryon the International Boundary line be-tween the United States and Canada ator near Blame, Summas, and Lynden,Washington, Eastport, Idaho, and Roos-ville, Mont., service to British Columbia,Canada destined to Vancouver area andSuquamish, B.C., Canada, for 180 days.Applicant has also filed an underlyingETA seeking up to 90 days of operatingauthority Supporting shippers: P H.Barnett International, Inc., P.O. Box1803, Tacoma, Wash. 98401. St. RegisPaper Co., 1203 East D St., Tacoma,Wash. Send protests to: L. D. Boone,Transportation Specialist, InterstateCommerce Commission, Bureau of Op-erations, 858 Federal Bldg., #Seattle,Wash. 98174.

No. MC 141888TA, filed March 25, 1976.Applicant: MOORE TRUCKING, INC.,RD. #1, Bath, Pa. 18014. Applicant'srepresentative: Joseph F Hoary, 121South Main St., Taylor, Pa. 18517. Au-thority sought to operate as a contractcarrier, by motor vehicle, over irregularroutes, transporting: Gypsum, crude, indump vehicles, from Deanco, N.J, toStockertown, Pa., under a continuingcontract with Hercules Cement Com-pany, for 180 days. Applicant has alsoMed an underlying ETA seeking up to 90days of operating authority. Supportingshipper: Hercules Cement Company,1770 Bathgate Road, Bethlehem, Pa.18018. Send protests to: Monica A. Blod-Zett, Transportation Assistant, Inter-state Commerce Commission, 600 ArchSt., Room 3238, Philaaelphia, Pa. 19106.

No. MC 141889TA, filed March 25, 1976.Applicant: RONALD DE BOER, Route 1Sherry Station, Milladore, Wis. 54454.Applicant's representative: Richard A.Westley, 4506 Regent St., Suite 100,Madison, Wis. 53705. Authority sought tooperate as a common carner by motorvehicle, over irregular routes, transport-ing: Brick, from Canton and Wadsworth,Ohio, to Marshfield, Wis., for 180 days.Supporting shipper: Sternweis and Sons,Inc., 400 E. Arnold St., Marshfield, Wis.54449. Send protests to: Richard K. Shul-law, District Supervisor, Interstate Com-merce Commission, Bureau of Opera-tions, 139 W Wilson St., Room 202, Madi-son, Wis. 53703.

No.*MC 141890TA, filed March 26,1976.Applicant: LEE ROY MORRISON ANDFRANCES MORRISON, doing businessas MORRISON TRANSFER CO., 11023rd St., Newport News, Va. 23607. Ap-plicant's representative: Richard J. Lee,4070 Falstone Road, Richmond, Va.

23234. Authority sought to operate as a-common carner by motor vehicle, overirregular routes, transporting: Exhibitsand exhibit paraphernalia, between Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration, at or near Hampton, Va., on theone hand, and, on the other, points inVirgima, North Carolina, South Carolina,Georgia, Florida, West Virgila, Ten-nessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,Delaware, Maryland, California, Texas,Alabama, and Washngton, D.C., for 180days. Supporting shipper: National Aero-nautics and Space Administration, Lang--ley Research Center, W_ R. Wiley, Jr.,Transportation Motor Vehicle Opera-tions, Officer, Bldg., 1199, M/S 485,Hampton, Va. 23365.-Send protests to:Paul D. Collins, District Supervisor, In-terstate Commerce Commission, Bureauof Operations, Room 10-502 FederalBldg., 400 North 8th St., Richmond,Va. 23240.

No. MC 141891TA, filed March26, 1976. Applicant: LEPRECHAUNTRANSPORT, LTD., 6027 LakeviewDrive SW., Calgary, Alberta, Canada,E3E 5S9. Applicant's representative:Richard E. Hart (same address as "ap-plicant) Authority sought to operate asa contract earner by motor vehicle,over irregular routes, transporting: Ma-chrnery and parts thereof used in theconstruction and maintenance of roads'and mines, -cranes, cement mixers, andforklift trucks; treated fence posts, di-mensional lumber, plywood, and cedarshakes (shingles), from San Antonioand Pampa, Tex., Cleveland, Tenn., Ce-dar Rapids and Ida Grove, Iowa, To-peka, Kans., Yankton, S. Dak., Chicago,II., Milwaukee, Wis., Escanaba, Mich.,Jacksonville, Ill., Madison, Ind., LosAngeles and Sacramento, Calif., Sparks,Ney., Portland and Eugene, Oreg., andSeattle, Wash., to the InternationalBoundary line- between the UnitedStates and Canada, at or near Sweet-grass, Mont., for furtherance to Calgaryand Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and tothe International Boundary line betweenthe United States and Canada, at ornear Portal, N. Dak., for furtheranceto various construction jobsites withinthe Province of Saskatchewan, Canada,under a continuing contract with CedarConstruction Equipment (Alta) Ltd.,Percival Machinery & Supply Ltd: & P &S Mining Equipment, Ltd., LeprechaunSales and Services, Ltd., for 180 days.Supporting- shippers: B. 0. Malcolm,Secretary Treasurer, Cedar Construction-Equipment (Alta) Ltd., 8240 30th St.SE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. J. PPercival, President, Percival Machinery& Supply Ltd., & P & S Mining Equip-

ment, Ltd., 9735 62 Ave., Edmonton, Al-berta & P.O. Box 1020, Hinton, Alberta,Canada. Richard E. Hart, President,Leprechaun Sales and Services, Ltd.,6027 Lakeview Drive SW., Calgary, Al-berta, Canada. T3E 5S9. Send proteststo: Paul J. Labane, District Supervisor,Interstate Commerce Commission, 2602First Ave., North, Billings, Mont. 59101.

PASSENGER APrLmcATioNs

No. MC 141892TA, filed March 24, 1976.Applicant: FRANK'S BUS SERVICE, 101Cleveland Ave., Mt. Ephraim, N.J. 08059.Applicant's representative: Frank B.Harker (same address as applicant) Au-thority sought to operate as a commonearner by motor vehicle, over Irregularroutes, transporting: Passengers andtheir baggage, restricted to traffic origi-nating at the points indicated, in char-ter operations, from the commercial zoneof Bellmawr, N.J., to points in the Phila-delphia, Pa., commercial zone, and re-turn, for 180 days. Supporting shippers:There are approximately 9 statements ofsupport attached to the application,which may be examined at the InterstateCommerce Commission In Washington,D.C., or copies thereof which may be ex-amined at the field office named below.Send protests to: Dieter H. Harper, Dis-trict Supervisor, Interstate CommerceCommission, 428 East State St., Room204, Trenton, N.J. 08608.

No. MC 141886TA, filed March 24, 1970.Applicant: ACADEMY TOURS &TRAVEL CENTER, INC., 50 Highway 30,Leonardo, N.J. 07737. Applicant's repre-sentative, Edward F Bowes, 744 BroadSt., Newark, N.J. 07102. Authority soughtto operate as a contract carrier by motorvehicle, over Irregular routes, transport-ing: Passengers and their baggage In thesame vehicle with passengers, betweenNew York-New Jersey Port AuthorityBus Terminal, 40th St., and 8th Ave.,New York, N.Y., and executive offices,warehouse and plant of Hudson Pharma-ceutical Corp., 21 Henderson Drive, WestCaldwell, N.J. Restriction: The servicedescribed above is restricted to the trans-portation of employees of HudsonPharmaceutical Corp. and operations un-der a continuing with Hudson Pharma-ceutical Corp., for 180 days. Supportingshipper: Hudson Pharmaceutical Corp,,21 Henderson Drive, West Caldwell, N.J.07006. Send protests to: Dieter H. Har-per, District Supervisor, Interstate Com-merce Commission, 428 East State St.,Room 204, Trenton, N.J. 08008.

By the Commission.[SEAL] RoBERT L. OSWALD,

Secretary.[Fn Doc.76-10511 Plied 4-9-70;8:45 am]


15394

*1934,* w highlightsdomestiq special mail services and other nonpostal services: temporary increase...

Documents

1934, w highlightsdomestiq special mail services and other nonpostal services: temporary increase...