Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3785

9 5 CFR 1320.13.

1See 59 FR 39020 (Part II) (Aug. 1, 1994).

2 IDs concerning temporary relief are processed

differently from other types of IDs and thus are not

Continued

and analysis of final rules that will have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Since the proposed regulations do not

increase the burdens on any companies

or entities, they will not have a

significant impact on small entities.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,

the Commission hereby certifies that the

regulations proposed herein will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

VI. Information Collection Requirement

OMB regulations require approval of

certain information collection

requirements imposed by agency rules.9

The information requirements affected

by this proposed rule are in FERC–549B,

‘‘Gas Pipeline Rates: Capacity Release

Information’’ (1902–0169). The

Commission is issuing the proposed

rulemaking including the information

requirements to carry out its regulatory

responsibilities under the Natural Gas

Act (NGA) and Natural Gas Policy Act

(NGPA) to promote a more effective

capacity release market as instituted by

the Commission’s Order No. 636. The

Commission’s Office of Pipeline

Regulation uses the data to review/

monitor capacity release transactions as

well as firm and interruptible capacity

made available by pipelines and to take

appropriate action, where and when

necessary. The collection of information

is intended to be the minimum needed

for posting on EBBs to provide

information about the availability of

service on interstate pipelines.

The Commission is submitting to the

Office of Management and the Budget a

notification of the proposed revision to

the collection of information. Interested

persons may obtain information on

these reporting requirements by

contacting the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 941 North

Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC

20426 [Attention: Michael Miller,

Information Services Division, (202)

208–1415], FAX (202) 208–2425.

Comments on the requirements of this

rule can be sent to OMB’s Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk

Officer for Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (202) 395–6880, FAX (202)

395–5167].

VII. Comment Procedures

The Commission invites interested

persons to submit written comments on

the matters proposed in this notice,

including any related matters or

alternative proposals that commenters

may wish to discuss. An original and 14

copies of comments to this notice must

be filed with the Commission no later

than February 21, 1995. Comments

should be submitted to the Office of the

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol Street

NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should

refer to Docket No. RM95–5–000.

All written comments will be placed

in the Commission’s public files and

will be available for inspection in the

Commission’s Public Reference Room at

941 North Capitol Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, during regular

business hours.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

Continental shelf, Natural gas,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

By direction of the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission proposes to amend Part

284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 284—CERTAIN SALES AND

TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS

UNDER THE NATURAL GAS POLICY

ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED

AUTHORITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 284

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w, 3301–

3432; 42 U.S.C 7101–7532; 43 U.S.C 1331–

1356.

2. In § 284.243, the first sentence of

paragraph (h)(1) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 284.243 Release of firm capacity on

interstate pipelines.

* * * * *

(h)(1) A release of capacity by a firm

shipper to a replacement shipper for a

period of one calendar month or less

need not comply with the notification

and bidding requirements of paragraphs

(c) through (e) of this section. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–1295 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

International Trade Commission

19 CFR Part 210

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking Concerning Commission

Voting Procedures in Investigations

and Related Proceedings on Unfair

Practices in Import Trade.

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking and request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Commission is

considering revision of its recently

effective final rules for investigations

and related proceedings under section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

§ 1337) to do the following: increase the

number of votes required for the

Commission to either review an initial

determination (ID) on a matter other

than temporary relief or grant a request

for oral argument in connection with

such a review; and prescribe the effect

of a tie vote concerning post-review

disposition of an ID on a matter other

than temporary relief.

The Commission hereby solicits

written comments from interested

persons to aid the Commission in

determining whether it should revise

the final rules in the manner specified

below.

DATES: Comments will be considered if

received on or before March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: A signed original and 18

copies of each set of comments, along

with a cover letter stating the nature of

the commenter’s interest in the

proposed rulemaking, should be

submitted to Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room

112, Washington, DC 20436.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P.

N. Smithey, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, telephone 202–205–3061.

Hearing-impaired individuals can

obtain information concerning the

proposed rulemaking by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal at 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 1, 1994, the Commission

published final rules for 19 CFR part

210 to replace the interim rules

currently found in 19 CFR parts 210 and

211.1 Final rule 210.43(d)(3) indicates

that the Commission will review an

initial determination (ID) concerning a

matter other than temporary relief when

at least one of the participating

Commissioners votes in favor of a

review. Final rule 210.45(a) similarly

provides that the Commission must

grant a request for oral argument in

connection with such a review when at

least one of the participating

Commissioners votes in favor of such

argument.2
3786 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

subject to the one-vote-triggers-review-or-oralargument rules. See final rule 210.66.

3See 19 U.S.C. § 1330(d)(5).

4See Report No. IG–03–94 at pages 12–13.

5 Id. at pages 13–14.

6 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c).

7 5 U.S.C. § 557(b).

8 Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corp., 39 F.2d 247,

254–55 (C.C.P.A.), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 852 (1930).

Bakelite rejected the argument that the Commission

could not render a section 337 determination on a

3–2 vote because three Commissioners did not

constitute a majority of the full six-member

Commission. The ‘‘majority of a quorum’’ rule of

Bakelite was subsequently adopted by the Supreme

Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Flotill

Products, Inc., 389 U.S. 179 (1967).

9Under 19 U.S.C. § 1330(c)(6), ‘‘[a] majority of the

commissioners in office shall constitute a quorum.

* * * ’’

10See Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corp., 39 F.2d at

254–55.

Final rule 210.45(c), which relates to

review of IDs on matters other than

temporary relief, describes the specific

kinds of action that may be taken as a

result of a review (viz., that the ID may

be affirmed, reversed, remanded for

further proceedings, modified, or set

aside, in whole or in part). Final rule

210.45(c) says nothing, however, about

what happens in the event that there is

a tie vote on the disposition of the ID.

The relevant statutes—i.e., section 330

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

§ 1330), section 337, and the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5

U.S.C. § 551 et seq.)—are similarly silent

on that specific issue.

On August 19, 1994, the

Commission’s Inspector General (IG)

issued Audit Report No. IG–03–94,

Review of Ways to Increase the Economy

and Efficiency of the Process for

Conducting Section 337 Investigations,

which recommended that the

Commission amend its section 337 rules

to provide that in order for a review to

be conducted or a request for oral

argument to be granted, one-half of the

participating Commissioners must vote

in favor of the review or oral argument.

The IG further recommended that the

Commission amend the rules to ‘‘clarify

a tie vote situation,’’ e.g., to provide that

a tie vote on the disposition of an ID

will have the effect of affirming the ID.

The IG cited several reasons for

recommending that the Commission

abolish the one-vote-triggers-review-ororal argument rules. She noted first that

section 330 of the Tariff Act provides

that an investigation may be instituted

and a hearing may be conducted only if

one-half of the participating

Commissioners vote in favor of the

investigation or hearing.3 The IG went

on to say that, in her opinion,

Commission decisions on whether to

review an ID and whether to grant a

request for oral argument are

comparable to the statutory decisions on

whether to institute an investigation and

whether to conduct a hearing and, thus,

should be subject to the same

requirements as those imposed

statutorily on institution and hearing

decisions. The IG added that requiring

one-half of the participating

Commissioners to vote in favor of

review or oral argument in order for

such review or argument to be

conducted would aid in accomplishing

the Commission’s goal of streamlining

its operations and reducing the burden

on its ‘‘customers.’’ 4

In support of her recommendation

that the Commission ‘‘clarify a tie vote

situation,’’ the IG noted that the

Commission had successfully avoided

tie votes in the past, but that it would

not feel the need to do so in the future

if there were a Commission rule stating

the effect of such votes. She also

expressed the opinion that the existence

of such a rule would be beneficial to the

parties to section 337 investigations.5

The Commission notes that there is a

question as to whether the Commission

has the authority to promulgate a

regulation stating that a tie vote would

have the effect of affirming an ID under

the current law. Section 337(c) requires

that the Commission’s section 337

determinations ‘‘shall be made on the

record after notice and opportunity for

a hearing in conformity with the

provisions of [the APA].’’ 6 The APA

provision concerning hearings requires

that, when the agency itself does not

preside at the reception of evidence, a

qualified ‘‘presiding employee,’’ such as

an administrative law judge (ALJ),

preside at the reception of evidence and

render an ID. The APA further provides

that:

When the presiding employee makes an

initial decision, that decision then becomes

the decision of the agency without further

proceedings unless there is an appeal to, or

review on motion of, the agency within time

provided by rule. On appeal from or review

of the initial decision, the agency has all the

powers which it would have in making the

initial decision except as it may limit the

issues on notice or by rule.7

The limited applicable case law suggests

that this provision may be given either

of two conflicting interpretations.

The first interpretation would be that

an ID becomes the agency decision

unless the agency decides to review it.

If, however, the agency decides to

review an ID, the agency must take some

affirmative action to issue its decision.

The common law rule for multiplemember administrative agencies,

articulated in the frequently-cited 1930

Bakelite decision arising from a

Commission section 337 determination,

is that a majority of a quorum is

necessary to act for the agency.8 Under

this view, once the Commission

determines to review an ID, a tie vote

would not constitute Commission

action. Instead, a majority of a

Commission quorum would be required

to take some affirmative action with

respect to the reviewed ID.9

The second possible interpretation of

the APA provision is that an ID becomes

the agency decision unless the agency

takes affirmative action to render

another decision in its place.

Interested persons should also note

that a tie-breaker rule would not

necessarily succeed in resolving all

questions arising from Commission tie

votes in section 337 investigations. A tie

vote resulting in adoption of an

affirmative ID would not be sufficient

for issuance of an agency remedial

order; majority action would be

required.10 Consequently, a tie-breaker

rule concerning IDs on violation of

section 337 which provided that a tievote should constitute an affirmative

determination would not solve a

potential deadlock among the

Commissioners as to whether a remedy

should be issued on a tie-vote

affirmative.

In order to aid the Commission in

determining whether to proceed with

the proposed rulemaking, the

Commission would like to have all

commenters address the following

issues:

1. Whether the Commission should

revise final rule 210.43(d)(3) to provide

that the Commission will review an ID

on a matter other than temporary relief

when at least one-half of the

participating Commissioners vote in

favor of a review.

2. Whether the Commission should

revise final rule 210.45(a) to provide

that the Commission will grant a request

for oral argument in connection with

review of an ID on a matter other than

temporary relief when at least one-half

of the participating Commissioners vote

in favor of such argument.

3. Whether the Commission should

revise final rule 210.45(c) to state what

effect a tie-vote will have on the

Commission’s disposition of an ID on a

matter other than temporary relief—e.g.,

that a tie-vote on the disposition of an

ID after a review will constitute an

affirmance of the ID. The Commission is

especially interested in receiving

comments on the question of whether

this change could be effected without

statutory changes.

If the Commission decides to proceed

with this rulemaking after reviewing the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3787

comments filed in response to this

notice, the rule changes will be

promulgated in accordance with the

APA (see 5 U.S.C. § 553), and will be

codified in 19 CFR part 210.

Dated: January 11, 1995.

By Order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–1332 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Social Security Administration

20 CFR Parts 404 and 422

RIN 0960–AD74

Statement of Earnings and Benefit

Estimates

AGENCY: Social Security Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to revise

our rules on sending statements of

earnings and benefit information to

individuals. Under our current rules,

which implement section 1143(a) of the

Social Security Act (the Act), we are

required to send a statement to an

eligible individual who requests it.

Under these proposed rules, we will

provide the statement without a request

to an eligible individual, as required by

section 1143(c) of the Act.

DATES: Your comments will be

considered if we receive them no later

than March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in writing to the

Commissioner of Social Security,

Department of Health and Human

Services, P.O. Box 1585, Baltimore, MD

21235, sent by telefax to (410) 966–

0869, or delivered to the Office of

Regulations, Social Security

Administration, 3–B–1 Operations

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,

Baltimore, MD 21235, between 8:00 a.m.

and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days.

Comments received may be inspected

during these same hours by making

arrangements with the contact person

shown below.

The electronic file of this document is

available on the Federal Bulletin Board

(FBB) at 9 a.m. on the date of

publication in the Federal Register. To

download the file, modem dial (202)

512–1387. The FBB instructions will

explain how to download the file and

the fee. This file is in Wordperfect and

will remain on the FBB during the

comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

Schanberger, Legal Assistant, 3–B–1

Operations Building, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–8471.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

1143 of the Act requires the Secretary of

Health and Human Services (the

Secretary) to provide to eligible

individuals ‘‘a social security account

statement’’ (statement). We must fulfill

this requirement in three phases. In the

first phase, we were required, by

October 1, 1990, to provide, upon the

request of an ‘‘eligible individual,’’ a

statement that contains certain

information described below. Section

1143 defines an ‘‘eligible individual’’ as

one who has a social security account

number, has attained age 25 or over, and

has wages or net earnings from selfemployment.

The statement we provide under

section 1143 of the Act must contain the

following information as of the date of

the request:

1. The amount of wages paid to and

self-employment income derived by the

individual;

2. An estimate of the aggregate of the

employee and self-employment

contributions of the individual for oldage, survivors’, and disability insurance

benefits;

3. A separate estimate of the aggregate

of the employee and self-employment

contributions of the individual for

medicare hospital insurance coverage;

and

4. An estimate of the potential

monthly retirement (old-age), disability,

dependents’, and survivors’ insurance

benefits payable on the individual’s

earnings record and a description of

medicare hospital insurance coverage.

We are carrying out this first phase,

which is required by section 1143(a) of

the Act and which we explained in the

final rules published November 23,

1992, in the Federal Register (57 FR

54917). In these proposed rules, we

explain how we will fulfill our

obligations in the second and third

phases of section 1143.

The second phase of providing

statements, as stated in section

1143(c)(1) of the Act, requires that by

not later than September 30, 1995, we

must furnish this statement to each

‘‘eligible individual’’ who has attained

age 60 by October 1, 1994 (i.e., by the

beginning of fiscal year 1995), is not

receiving benefits under title II of the

Act, and for whom we can determine a

current mailing address by methods we

consider appropriate. We must also

send this statement to each ‘‘eligible

individual’’ who attains age 60 in fiscal

years 1995 through 1999, i.e., October 1,

1994 through September 30, 1999, if the

individual is not receiving benefits

under title II of the Act, and if we can

determine a current mailing address by

methods we consider appropriate. In the

case of an individual who attains age 60

in fiscal years 1995 through 1999, we

will mail a statement to the individual

in the fiscal year in which he or she

attains age 60. We will mail the

statement without requiring a request

from the individual. We will also advise

individuals receiving these statements

that the information in our records will

be updated annually and is available

upon request.

The third phase of providing

statements, as stated in section

1143(c)(2) of the Act, requires that

beginning not later than October 1,

1999, we must provide this statement on

an annual basis to each ‘‘eligible

individual’’ who is not receiving

benefits under title II and for whom we

can determine a current mailing address

by methods we consider appropriate.

We must provide a statement without a

request from the individual and, unlike

the second phase, regardless of whether

the eligible individual has attained age

60.

To implement the second phase of

section 1143, we will use our records of

assigned social security account

numbers to identify eligible individuals

who will attain age 60 by the

appropriate times and who are not

receiving benefits under title II of the

Act. We have decided that the

appropriate method now for

determining an individual’s current

mailing address is to obtain it from the

individual taxpayer files of the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS is

authorized by section 6103(m)(7) of the

Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.

6103(m)(7)), as added by section 5111 of

Public Law 101–508 (the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990), to

disclose this information to us for our

use in mailing the statements required

by section 1143 of the Act. This source

of address information is readily

available to us, i.e., electronically

accessible, using social security

numbers as identifiers, and was clearly

contemplated by Congress in the

enactment of section 6103(m)(7) of the

Internal Revenue Code.

Because individuals who live in

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and

Guam generally are not required to pay

Federal income taxes, the IRS does not

have their addresses. We have arranged

to use the addresses from their local