62608 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 1997 / Notices

The Complaint proposes a penalty of

Thirty-five Thousand Nine Hundred

Five Dollars ($35,905) for the discharge

of crude oil into or upon the navigable

waters of the United States or adjoining

shorelines in violation of Section

311(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act.

DATES: In order to provide opportunity

for public comment, EPA will issue no

final order assessing a penalty in this

proceeding prior to December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons wishing to receive a copy of

EPA’s Consolidated Rules, review the

Complaint or other documents filed in

this proceeding, comment upon the

proposed penalty assessment, or

otherwise participate in the proceeding

should contact Venessa Cobbs, Regional

Hearing Clerk at (913) 551–7630.

The administrative record for the

proceeding is located in the EPA

Regional Office at the address stated

above, and the file will be open for

public inspection during normal

business hours. All information

submitted by Glacier Petroleum, Inc. is

available as part of the administrative

record, subject to provisions of law

restricting public disclosure of

confidential information.

Dated: November 13, 1997.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30815 Filed 11–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5926–8]

Clean Water Act Class II: Proposed

Administrative Penalty Assessment

and Opportunity to Comment

Regarding OXY USA, Inc., Tulsa, OK

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’).

ACTION: Notice of proposed

administrative penalty assessment and

opportunity to comment regarding OXY

USA, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma.

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notice of

opportunity to comment on the

proposed assessment.

Under 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), EPA is

authorized to issue orders assessing

civil penalties for various violations of

the Act. EPA may issue such orders after

filing a Complaint commencing either a

Class I or Class II penalty proceeding.

EPA provides public notice of the

proposed assessment pursuant to 33

U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C).

Class II proceedings are conducted

under EPA’s Consolidated Rules of

Practice Governing the Administrative

Assessment of Civil Penalties and the

Revocation or Suspension of Permits, 40

CFR part 22. The procedures by which

the public may submit written comment

on a proposed Class II order or

participate in a Class II proceeding, and

the procedures by which a respondent

may request a hearing, are set forth in

the Consolidated Rules. The deadline

for submitting public comment on a

proposed Class II order is thirty (30)

days after issuance of public notice.

On September 25, 1997, EPA

commenced the following Class II

proceeding for the assessment of

penalties by filing with the Regional

Hearing Clerk, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VII, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101, (913) 551–7630, the following

Complaint:

In the Matter of, OXY USA, Inc., Tulsa,

Oklahoma; EPCRA Docket No. VII–97–W–

0036.

The Complaint proposes a penalty of

Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) for

the discharges of hazardous substances

in violation of Section 311(b)(3) of the

Clean Water Act.

DATES: In order to provide opportunity

for public comment, EPA will issue no

final order assessing a penalty in this

proceeding prior to December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons wishing to receive a copy of

EPA’s Consolidated Rules, review the

Complaint or other documents filed in

this proceeding, comment upon the

proposed penalty assessment, or

otherwise participate in the proceeding

should contact the Regional Hearing

Clerk identified above.

The administrative record for the

proceeding is located in the EPA

Regional Office at the address stated

above, and the file will be open for

public inspection during normal

business hours. All information

submitted by OXY USA, Inc. is available

as part of the administrative record,

subject to provisions of law restricting

public disclosure of confidential

information.

Dated: November 14, 1997.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30817 Filed 11–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collections

Approved by Office of Management

and Budget

November 18, 1997.

The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) has received Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approval for the following public

information collections pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13. An agency may not conduct

or sponsor and a person is not required

to respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid

control number. For further information

contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal

Communications Commission, (202)

418–1379.

Federal Communications Commission

OMB Control No.: 3060–0802.

Expiration Date: 05/31/1998.

Title: Administration of the North

American Numbering Plan, Order on

Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 92–237

(Message Intercept Requirement).

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1400

respondents; 9 hours per response

(avg.); 12,600 total annual burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: In response to concern

expressed in the reconsideration record

that LECs should develop intercept

messages to inform dial-around

customers that they need to dial

additional digits, the Order on

Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 92–

237, titled, ‘‘Administration of the North

American Numbering Plan,’’ requires

that LECs offer a standard intercept

message beginning on or before June 30,

1998, explaining that a dialing pattern

change has occurred and instructing the

caller to contact its IXC for further

information. In developing an intercept

message, LECs must consult with IXCs

and reach agreement on the content of

the message and on the period of time

during which the message will be

provided. The Commission leaves to

resolution by the parties decisions about

who should have the ultimate

responsibility for determining the

content of the intercept message and the

period of time during which the

message must be offered. The

Commission states that it will resolve

any disputes arising from parties’

inability to reach agreement on such

matters. Finally, the Commission
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 1997 / Notices 62609

concludes that the determination of how

best to cover the costs of providing the

intercept message should be left to

individual LECs, including whether

their access customers should be

charged a reasonable fee to cover those

costs. The Commission has imposed

these third party disclosure

requirements to educate end users about

their inability to reach carriers using

five-digit access codes, and the need to

dial seven-digit access codes instead.

Compliance obligation is required.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0760.

Expiration Date: 05/31/1998.

Title: Access Charge Reform—CC

Docket No. 96–262, First Report and

Order; Second Order on

Reconsideration and Memorandum

Opinion and Order.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 14

respondents; 128,906 hours per

response (avg.); 1,804,690 total annual

burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $31,200.

Frequency of Response: On occasion

and one-time.

Description: In the First Report and

Order (Order), CC Docket No. 96–262,

Access Charge Reform and the Second

Order on Reconsideration and

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the

FCC adopts, that, consistent with

principles of cost-causation and

economic efficiency, non-traffic

sensitive (NTS) costs associated with

local switching should be recovered on

an NTS basis, through flat-rated, per

month charges. The information

collections are as follows: a. Showings

Under the Market-Based Approach: As

competition develops in the market, the

FCC will gradually relax and ultimately

remove existing Part 69 federal access

rate structure requirements and Part 61

price caps restrictions on rate level

changes. Regulatory reform will take

place in two phases. The first phase of

regulatory reform will take place when

an incumbent Local Exchange Carrier’s

(LEC) network has been opened to

competition for interstate access

services. The second phase of rate

structure reforms will take place when

an actual competitive presence has

developed in the marketplace.

Detariffing will take place when

substantial competition has developed

for the access charge elements. In our

initial statement, we proposed that in

order for LECs to meet this standard,

they have to demonstrate that: (1)

Unbundled network element prices are

based on geographically deaveraged,

forward-looking economic costs in a

manner that reflects the way costs are

incurred; (2) transport and termination

charges are based on the additional cost

of transporting and terminating another

carrier’s traffic; (3) wholesale prices for

retail services are based on reasonably

avoidable costs; (4) network elements

and services are capable of being

provisioned rapidly and consistent with

a significant level of demand; (5) dialing

parity is provided by the incumbent

LEC to competitors; (6) number

portability is provided by the incumbent

LEC to competitors; (7) access to

incumbent LEC rights-of-way is

provided to competitors; and (8) open

and non-discriminatory network

standards and protocols are put into

effect. We propose that the second

phase of rate structure reforms would

take place when an actual competitive

presence has developed in the

marketplace. LECs would have to show

the following to indicate that actual

competition has developed in the

marketplace by: (1) Demonstrated

presence of competition; (2) full

implementation of competitively neutral

universal service support mechanisms;

and (3) credible and timely enforcement

of pro-competitive rules. In the NPRM,

we sought comment on four options for

a prescriptive approach: reinitializing

price cap indices (PCIs) to economic

cost-based levels; reinitializing PCIs to

levels targeted to yield no more than an

11.25 percent rate of return, or some

other rate of return; adding a policybased mechanism similar to the CPD to

the X-Factor; or prescribing economic

cost-based rates. We have decided above

to rely primarily on a market-based

approach, and impose prescriptive

requirements only when market forces

are inadequate to ensure just and

reasonable rates for particular services

or areas. We will determine the details

of our market-based approach in a

future Order. In that Order, we will also

discuss in more detail what prescriptive

requirements we will use as a backstop

to our market-based access charge

reform. Because we are not adopting the

prescriptive approach at this time, we

are removing the collections associated

with the prescriptive approach from our

statement. If the collections are adopted

at a later date, we will request that OMB

reinstates them at that time. (No. of

respondents: 13; hour burden per

respondent: 137,986 hours; total annual

burden: 1,793,818). b. Cost Study of

Local Switching Costs: The FCC does

not establish a fixed percentage of local

switching costs that incumbent LECs

must reassign to the Common Line

basket or newly created Trunk Cards

and Ports service category as NTS costs.

In light of the widely varying estimates

in the record, we conclude that the

portion of costs that is NTS costs likely

varies among LEC switches.

Accordingly, we require each price cap

LEC to conduct a cost study to

determine the geographically-averaged

portion of local switching costs that is

attributable to the line-side ports, as

defined above, and to dedicated trunk

side cards and ports. These amounts,

including cost support, should be

reflected in the access charge elements

filed in the LEC’s access tariff effective

January 1, 1998. (No. of respondents: 13;

hours per respondent: 400; total annual

burden: 5200 hours). c. Cost Study of

Interstate Access Service That Remain

Subject to Price Cap Regulation: The

1996 Act has created an unprecedented

opportunity for competition to develop

in local telephone markets. We

recognize, however, that competition is

unlikely to develop at the same rate in

different locations, and that some

services will be subject to increasing

competition more rapidly than others.

We also recognize, however, that there

will be areas and services for which

competition may not develop. We will

adopt a prescriptive ‘‘backstop’’ to our

market-based approach that will serve to

ensure that all interstate access

customers receive the benefits of more

efficient prices, even in those places and

for those services where competition

does not develop quickly. To implement

our backstop to market-based access

charge reform, we require each

incumbent price cap LEC to file a cost

study no later than February 8, 2001,

demonstrating the cost of providing

those interstate access services that

remain subject to price cap regulation

because they do not face substantial

competition. (No. of respondents: 13;

hours per respondent: 8; total annual

burden: 104 hours). d. Tariff Filings: In

the First Report and Order, the

Commission requires the filing of

various tariffs, with modifications. For

example, the FCC directs incumbent

LECs to establish separate rate elements

for the multiplexing equipment on each

side of the tandem switch. LECs must

establish a flat-rated charge for the

multiplexers on the SWC side of the

tandem, imposed pro-rata on the

purchasers of the dedicated trunks on

the SWC side of the tandem.

Multiplexing equipment on the EO side

of the tandem shall be charged to users

of common EO-to-tandem transport on a

per-minute-of-use basis. These

multiplexer rate elements must be

included in the LEC access tariff filings

to be effective January 1, 1998. In the
62610 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 1997 / Notices

Second Order on Reconsideration, the

FCC clarifies that the TIC exemption for

access customers using competitive

transport providers only applies to that

portion of the residual per-minute TIC

that is related to transport facilities, and

directs incumbent local exchange

carriers to include, in their access tariff

filing, the amount of per-minute

transport interconnection charge (TIC)

they anticipate will be allocated to

facilities-based rate elements in the

future. (No. of respondents: 13; hours

per respondent: 256 hours; total annual

burden: 3328 hours). e. Third-Party

Disclosure: In the Second Order on

Reconsideration, the Commission

requires LECs to provide IXCs with

customer-specific information about

how many and what type of

presubscribed interexchange carrier

charges (PICCs) they are assessing for

each of the IXC’s presubscribed

customers. One of the primary goals of

our First Report and Order was to

develop a cost-recovery mechanism that

permits carriers to recover their costs in

a manner that reflects the way in which

those costs are incurred. Without access

to information that indicates whether

the LEC is assessing a primary or nonprimary residential PICC, or about how

many local business lines are

presubscribed to a particular IXC, the

IXC will be unable to develop rates that

accurately reflect the underlying costs.

(No. of respondents: 14; hours per

respondent: 160 hours; total annual

burden: 2240 hours). Our authority to

collect this information is provided

under 47 U.S.C. 201–205 and 303(r).

The information collected under these

Orders would be submitted to the FCC

by incumbent LECs for use in

determining whether the incumbent

LECs should receive the regulatory relief

proposed in the Orders. The information

collected under the Second Order on

Reconsideration and Memorandum

Opinion and Order would be submitted

by the LECs to the interexchange

carriers (IXCs) for use in developing the

most cost-efficient rates and rate

structures. Obligation to respond:

mandatory.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0787.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2000.

Title: Implementation of the

Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes

Provisions of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 4275

respondents; 2.34 hours per response

(avg.); 10,044 total annual burden hours

for all collections.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Description: Section 258 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended by the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, makes it unlawful for any

telecommunications carrier to ‘‘submit

or execute a change in a subscriber’s

selection of a provider of telephone

exchange service or telephone toll

service except in accordance with such

verification procedures as the

Commission shall prescribe.’’ The

section further provides that any

telecommunications carrier that violates

the Commission’s verification

procedures and that collects charges for

telecommunications service from a

subscriber must pay to the carrier

previously selected by the subscriber an

amount equal to all charges paid by the

subscriber after the violation occurred.

The Commission’s current rules

pertaining to changes in subscriber

carrier selections are contained in

Sections 64.1100 and 64.1150 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 64.1100,

64.1150. These rules apply only to

interexchange carriers (IXCs). Section

64.1100 requires that IXCs verify orders

for long distance service generated by

telemarketing, and Section 64.1150

prescribes the proper content and form

for letters of agency (or, written

authorization of subscriber carrier

changes). The proposed modifications

and additions to the rules are necessary

to accommodate the Commission’s

expanded scope of authority to require

all telecommunication carriers to verify

change orders for telephone exchange

and telephone toll service, and to

provide that unauthorized carriers

forfeit to the subscriber’s authorized

carrier, all charges collected as a result

of their unlawful action. (Burden

estimate for proposed Section 64.1100 is

as follows: No. of respondents: 675;

hours per respondent: 1.25; total annual

burden: 844. Burden estimate for

proposed 64.1150 is as follows: No. of

respondents: 1800; hours per

respondent: 2 hours; total annual

burden: 3600 hours). Proposed Section

47 CFR § 64.1160 mirrors Section 258 of

the 1996 Act by providing that no

telecommunications carrier shall submit

or execute a carrier change except in

accordance with the Commission’s

verification procedures, and that a

carrier that violates the verification

procedures shall be liable to the

subscriber’s properly authorized carrier

in an amount equal to all charges paid

by the subscriber after the violation

occurs. Under proposed Section 47 CFR

Section 64.1170, a subscriber’s properly

authorized carrier must, within 10 days

of receiving notification that the

subscriber’s carrier selection was

changed without authorization, request

from the unauthorized carrier the

amount of charges paid by the

subscriber to the unauthorized carrier,

and the value of any premiums to which

the subscriber would have been entitled

had the subscriber’s carrier selection not

been changed. Upon notification that

the subscriber’s carrier selection was

changed without authorization, the

unauthorized carrier must remit these

amounts to the subscriber’s properly

authorized carrier. The subscriber’s

properly authorized carrier must, upon

receiving the value of lost premiums

from the unauthorized carrier, restore

any lost premiums (or an equivalent

premium or dollar amount where the

premium cannot be restored) to the

subscriber. This section also provides

that carriers disputing liability under

this section must pursue private

settlement negotiations prior to

petitioning the Commission to resolve

any dispute regarding the transfer of

charges and the value of lost premiums

from the unauthorized carrier to the

properly authorized carrier. (No. of

respondents: 1800; hours per

respondent: 3 hours; total annual

burden: 5400 hours). The information

will be used to promulgate regulations

to implement Section 258 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, and to

determine what additional measures

should be taken to deter unauthorized

switching of subscriber’s carrier

selections in light of the Act’s new

provisions. Specifically, we are

proposing to expand the scope of our

current verification rules to be

applicable to all telecommunications

carriers. Also, new proposed Sections

64.1160 and 64.1170 are intended to

ensure that carriers that violate our

verification rules do not retain any

revenue gained from their unlawful

activity, and that subscribers receive

prompt and full reparation for harm

suffered as a consequence of

unauthorized carrier changes. We also

seek comment on whether the

verification rules should apply when

carriers solicit preferred carrier freezes;

whether the ‘‘welcome package’’

described in Section 64.1100(d)

continues to be a necessary and viable

verification alternative; whether we

should exempt in-bound (or customerinitiated) calls from the verification

rules; what the liability among carriers

and subscribers should be; and whether

to establish a ‘‘bright-line’’ evidentiary

standard for determining whether a

subscriber has relied on a resale carrier’s

identity of its underlying facilities-based
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 1997 / Notices 62611

network provider, hence requiring that

the resale carrier notify the subscriber if

the underlying network provider is

changed.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0106.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2000.

Title: Reports of Overseas

Telecommunications Traffic—Section

43.61.

Form No.: FCC 43–61.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 248

respondents; 30.45 hours per response

(avg); 7,554 total annual burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $96,000.

Frequency of Response: Annually,

semi-annually.

Description: The telecommunications

traffic data report is an annual reporting

requirement imposed on common

carriers engaged in the provision of

overseas telecommunications services.

The reported data is useful for

international planning, facility

authorization, monitoring emerging

developments in communications

services, analyzing market structures,

tracking the balance of payments in

international communications services,

and market analysis purposes. The

reported data enables the Commission

to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

In addition to the annual filing

requirement, private line resellers must

report their U.S. outbound and inbound

traffic originating or terminating over

resold U.S. private lines on a semiannual basis. This requirement applies

for three years following a Commission

finding that a particular country offers

U.S. carriers ‘‘equivalent’’ opportunities

for resale. The information is collected

so that the Commission can closely

monitor the equivalency decision’s

impact on the amount of IMTS traffic

diverted from the settlements process.

Sections 211, 214, 218, 219, 220 and 403

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, accord the Commission broad

authority to obtain information from

common carriers. Part 43 of the

Commission’s rules establishes the

procedures for filing periodic reports

and certain other information, including

annual traffic and revenue reports.

Obligation to respond: mandatory.

Public reporting burden for the

collections of information is as noted

above. Send comments regarding the

burden estimate or any other aspect of

the collections of information, including

suggestions for reducing the burden to

Performance Evaluation and Records

Management, Washington, D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–30798 Filed 11–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1190–DR]

Nebraska; Amendment to Notice of a

Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Nebraska, (FEMA–1190–DR), dated

November 1, 1997, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Nebraska, is hereby amended to include

the following areas among those areas

determined to have been adversely

affected by the catastrophe declared a

major disaster by the President in his

declaration of November 1, 1997:

Dodge County for Categories A and B

under the Public Assistance program.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.516, Disaster Assistance)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and

Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–30807 Filed 11–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Security for the Protection of the

Public Financial Responsibility To

Meet Liability Incurred for Death or

Injury to Passengers or Other Persons

on Voyages; Notice of Issuance of

Certificate (Casualty)

Notice is hereby given that the

following have been issued a Certificate

of Financial Responsibility to Meet

Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to

Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages

pursuant to the provisions of Section 2,

Pub. L. 89–777 (46 U.S.C. § 817(d)) and

the Federal Maritime Commission’s

implementing regulations at 46 CFR part

540, as amended:

Carnival Corporation, 3655 N.W. 87th

Avenue, Miami, Florida 33178–2193

Vessel: Tropicale

Fred. Olsen Travel Limited, Fred. Olsen

Cruise Lines, Ltd., Fred. Olsen & Co.,

Fred. Olsen Shipping A/S and Fred.

Olsen Shipping II A/S, White House

Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IPI 5LL,

United Kingdom

Vessel: Black Watch

Hapag-Lloyd Tours GmbH, Hapag-Lloyd

Cruiseship Management GmbH,

Hapag-Lloyd (Bahamas) Ltd. and

Conti 1. Kreuzfahrt GmbH & Co. KG

MS ‘‘Columbus’’, Ballindamm 25, D–

20095, Hamburg, Germany

Vessel: c. Columbus

Holland America Line-Westours Inc.,

(d/b/a/ Holland America Line),

Holland America Line N.V. and HAL

Nederland N.V., 300 Elliott Avenue

West, Seattle, Washington 98119

Vessel: Rotterdam

Ivaran Agencies, Inc. and Ivarans Rederi

ASA, Newport Financial Center, 111

Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, N.J.

07310–1755

Vessel: Americana

Norwegian Cruise Line Limited and,

Norwegian Majesty Ltd., 7665

Corporate Center Drive, Miami,

Florida 33126

Vessel: Norwegian Majesty

Norwegian Cruise Line Limited, 7665

Corporate Center Drive, Miami,

Florida 33126

Vessel: Norwegian Sea

Dated: November 18, 1997.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–30757 Filed 11–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Security for the Protection of the

Public Indemnification of Passengers

for Nonperformance of Transportation;

Notice of Issuance of Certificate

(Performance)

Notice is hereby given that the

following have been issued a Certificate

of Financial Responsibility for

Indemnification of Passengers for

Nonperformance of Transportation

pursuant to the provisions of Section 3,

Public Law 89–777 (46 U.S.C. 817(e))

and the Federal Maritime Commission’s

implementing regulations at 46 CFR part

540, as amended:

Fred. Olsen Travel Limited, Fred. Olsen

Cruise Lines Ltd., and Fred. Olsen &

Co., White House Road, Ipswich,

Suffolk IP1 5LL, United Kingdom

Vessel: Black Watch