9030 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Notices

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

The Commission in its December 22,

1994 Order, required WNG and

Williams Gas Processing—MidContinent Region Company (WGP–

MCR) to file a ‘‘default contract’’ to

provide a transitional mechanism for

any existing shippers who had not

negotiated an agreement with WGP–

MCR for gathering services. WNG

asserts that WGP–MCR has negotiated

and executed agreements with shippers

representing approximately 80 percent

of the volumes currently being gathered

by WNG on the subject facilities. WNG

states that the default contract will be

offered to shippers representing the

remaining 20 percent of the current

volumes.

WNG asserts that it currently has 88

gathering agreements. WNG states that

WGP–MCR has consolidated the

negotiated agreements so that the same

shipper only needs one agreement to

provide for gas gathered in multiple

gathering areas. Therefore, WNG claims

that WGP–MCR’s 21 negotiated

agreements will replace 28 WNG

agreements. WNG also states that 17

agreements have been terminated

effective January 31, 1995, because they

have been inactive for a year and the

shippers agreed to discontinue these

inactive accounts. Finally, WNG states

that the remaining 43 gathering

agreements, representing 20 percent of

the volumes, could be replaced by the

default contract. WNG states that WGP–

MCR has provided the remaining

customers with drafts of the default

contract for their review, recognizing

that the contract will require the

Commission’s approval before

execution. WNG claims that the

remaining customers will still have the

opportunity to negotiate an agreement

tailored to their needs or, if the desire,

to select the default option.

WNG states that the proposed default

contract is consistent with the form of

gathering agreement filed with the

Commission in WNG’s restructuring

proceedings, Docket No. RS92–12–000,

et al. WNG notes that, while it was not

required to file the form of gathering

agreement in the tariff, in the review

process many of the provisions were

expressly approved by the Commission.

WNG states that the entire default

contract is consistent with the

Commission’s requirements in those

orders. WNG states there was one

oversight, in that the provision that

limits both parties’ liability was not

removed from the gathering agreements

that were sent to potential shippers.

WNG states that the oversight was not

discovered until the recent review of the

agreements in preparation of this default

contract filing. Therefore, WNG states

that it will send to all gathering shippers

offers to amend the current agreements

to remove that provision as soon as

possible. Finally, WNG states that

WGP–MCR has removed the particular

provision from the default contract.

WNG states that the default contract

specifically sets out the applicable

provisions of WNG’s Tariff General

Terms and Conditions. Additionally,

WNG claims that the default contract

contains language clarifications to make

it more applicable to gathering and more

understandable, but results in no

substantive language changes to the

applicable provisions. WNG states that

WGP–MCR proposes to add four

additional provisions to the general

terms and conditions of the default

contract, due to the differences between

traditional interstate pipeline services

and gathering services. WNG states that

the four provisions are: (1) PassThrough of Unforeseen Costs Imposed

by Government, to allow for the pass

through of unforeseen governmentimposed charges in fees or costs; (2)

Capacity Curtailment, curtailment based

on a straight pro rata basis; (3) Other

Pipeline Requirements, because the

gathering systems will be connected to

multiple transmission pipelines,

shippers will be required to comply

with downstream requirements

including bearing the resulting penalties

for failure to comply; (4) Nominations,

provides that the gathering fee and fuel

are based on confirmed nominations

rather than on receipt point volumes

and this is for the convenience of all the

parties.

WNG states that the default contract’s

general terms and conditions contain

WNG’s tariff imbalance penalty

provisions. However, WNG states that

neither it nor WGP–MCR will double

charge penalties for transactions across

separate gathering and transmission

facilities that currently qualify for a

single penalty on WNG’s system.

WNG claims that the default contract

rates have been determined utilizing the

currently effective WNG rate

methodology for WNG’s rate case,

Docket No. RP93–109–000. WNG states

that the rates are a result of applying the

currently effective rate methodology to

the WNG facilities which will be

conveyed to WGP–MCR to provide

gathering service. WNG also notes that

since it has not received a final order in

Docket No. RP93–109–000, the currently

effective gathering rates are subject to

refund and WGP–MCR will refund

amounts to the default contract

customers if the Commission makes

such a requirement in its final order.

WNG states that the rate is subject to

an escalator, which uses the Gross

Domestic Product fixed Weighted Price

Index as published by the U.S.

Department of Commerce. WNG states

that WGP–MCR has not included

discount language in the default

contract because there are no remaining

shippers receiving a discounted

gathering rate from WNG. WNG asserts

that any customers receiving discounted

gathering rates from WNG have

negotiated agreements with WGP–MCR

and will not be using the default

contract.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make a protest with reference to said

application should, on or before March

3, 1995, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (825 North

Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C.

20426) a motion to intervene or a protest

in accordance with the requirements of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211)

and the Regulations under the Natural

Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests

filed with the Commission will be

considered by it in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make the protestants parties

to the proceeding. Any person wishing

to become a party to a proceeding or to

participate as a party in any hearing

therein must file a motion to intervene

in accordance with the Commission’s

Rules.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3846 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License

Applicants

Notice is hereby given that the

following applicants have filed with the

Federal Maritime Commission

applications for licenses as ocean freight

forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app.

1718 and 46 CFR part 510).

Persons knowing of any reason why

any of the following applicants should

not receive a license are requested to

contact the Office of Freight Forwarders,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, DC 20573.

Oregon Pacific Hay Company, 720 NE

Flanders Street, #200, Portland, OR 97232,

Officers: George Joseph Spada, President;

Marietta Lucia Spada, Vice President

Natural Freight, Ltd., 53 Park Place, Suite

1002, New York, NY 10007, Officers: Willy

Burkhardt, President; Alfons Strub, Exec.

Vice President
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Notices 9031

J.F.A. Cargo Express Corporation, 505 West

211th Street, New York, NY 10034,

Officers: Froilan Nunez, President;

Federico Nunez, Secretary

Singh Universal Networks, Inc., 605 Country

Club Drive, Unit H, Bensenville, IL 60106,

Officers: Maninder Singh Birk, President;

Harbinder Kaur Birk, Corporate Secretary.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

By the Federal Maritime Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3868 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Progressive Growth Corp.; Notice of

Application to Engage de novo in

Permissible Nonbanking Activities

The company listed in this notice has

filed an application under § 225.23 of

the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR

225.23) for the Board’s approval under

section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding

Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and

§ 225.21(a) of Regulation Y (12 CFR

225.21(a)) to commence or to engage

either directly or through a subsidiary,

in a nonbanking activity that is listed in

§ 225.25 of Regulation Y as closely

related to banking and permissible for

bank holding companies. Unless

otherwise noted, such activities will be

conducted throughout the United States.

The application is available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

application has been accepted for

processing, it will also be available for

inspection at the offices of the Board of

Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing on the

question whether consummation of the

proposal can ‘‘reasonably be expected to

produce benefits to the public, such as

greater convenience, increased

competition, or gains in efficiency, that

outweigh possible adverse effects, such

as undue concentration of resources,

decreased or unfair competition,

conflicts of interests, or unsound

banking practices.’’ Any request for a

hearing on this question must be

accompanied by a statement of the

reasons a written presentation would

not suffice in lieu of a hearing,

identifying specifically any questions of

fact that are in dispute, summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing, and indicating how the party

commenting would be aggrieved by

approval of the proposal.

Comments regarding the application

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than March 2, 1995.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice

President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:

1. Progressive Growth Corp., Gaylord,

Minnesota; previously known as

Gaylord Bancorporation, Ltd., to expand

the geographic scope of the activities of

its subsidiary corporation, Sterling

Capital Advisors, Inc., Gaylord,

Minnesota to a nationwide basis.

Sterling Capital Advisors engages in:

1. The appraisal of real and personal

property pursuant to § 225.25(b)(13) of

the Board’s Regulation Y;

2. Management Consulting pursuant

to § 225.25(b)(11) of the Board’s

Regulation Y; and

3. Providing investment and financial

advise pursuant to §§ 225.25(b)(4)(iii),

225.25(b)(4)(iv), and 225.25(b)(4)(v) of

the Board’s Regulation Y.

Progressive Growth Corp. also

proposes to engage in providing

consumer financial counseling pursuant

to § 225.25(b)(20) of the Board’s

Regulation Y. This activity will be

conducted only in the state of

Minnesota.

Progressive Growth Corp. also

proposes to establish a wholly-owned

subsidiary, Progressive Financial

Services, Inc., Gaylord, Minnesota,

which will acquire Citizens Insurance

Agency, Gaylord, Minnesota, and

thereby engage in the sale of insurance

in towns of less than 5,000 pursuant to

§ 225.25(b)(8)(iii) of the Board’s

Regulation Y. This activity will be

conducted only in the cities of Gaylord

and Nicollet, Minnesota.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, February 10, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–3871 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Marvin R. Selden, et al.; Change in

Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of

Shares of Banks or Bank Holding

Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

notices have been accepted for

processing, they will also be available

for inspection at the offices of the Board

of Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank indicated for that notice

or to the offices of the Board of

Governors. Comments must be received

not later than March 8, 1995.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

(James A. Bluemle, Vice President) 230

South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois

60690:

1. Marvin R. Selden, Jr., Melvin H.

Nielsen, Dennis L. Gallagher, Robert

McLaughlin, and Carl Selden, all of Des

Moines, Iowa; to acquire 55.86 percent

of the voting shares of Iowa State Bank

Holding Company, Des Moines, Iowa,

and thereby indirectly acquire Iowa

State Bank, Des Moines, Iowa.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, February 10, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–3872 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Logistic Data Management Division;

Revision and Stocking Change of a

Standard Form

AGENCY: General Services

Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The General Services

Administration is changing the stocking

requirement of SF 1303, Request for

Federal Cataloging/Supply Support

Action. This form is now authorized for

local reproduction. You can request

camera copy of SF 1303 from General

Services Administration (CARM), Attn.:

Barbara Williams, (202) 501–0581. Also,

the general instructions on the back of

the form are revised to delete how to get

supplies of SF 1303 and how to submit

EAM cards. FPMR 101–30.3 is being

revised to eliminate the use of EAM

cards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Chuck Long, Logistics Data

Management Division, (703) 305–7511.

DATES: Effective February 16, 1995.

Dated: January 5, 1995.

Chuck Long,

Director, Logistics Data Management

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–3899 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–24–M