Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 10015

1The policy statement issued in Docket No.

RM93–23–000 (69 FERC ¶ 61,336) was published in

the Federal Register on January 4, 1995 (60 FR 339).

The policy statement issued in Docket No. RM93–

25–000 (69 FERC ¶61,337) was published in the

Federal Register on December 28, 1994 (59 FR

66714).

2 16 U.S.C. 825l (1992).

a VOR/DME RWY 22 SIAP at the

Memphis NAS/Millington Municipal

Airport. This amendment also makes a

technical correction to the name of the

airport, which is now joint use, and a

minor correction to the geographic

position coordinates of the airport.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. It, therefore, (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria for the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1348(a), 1354(a),

1510; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated July 18, 1994, and effective

September 16, 1994, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas

Extending Upward From 700 Feet Above the

Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Memphis NAS/Millington

Municipal, TN [Revised]

Memphis NAS/Millington Municipal

Airport, TN

(Lat. 35°21′20′′ N, Long. 89°52′10′′ W)

Arlington Municipal Airport

(Lat. 35°16′59′′ N, Long. 89°40′22′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius

of Memphis NAS/Millington Municipal

Airport and within a 7-mile radius of

Arlington Municipal Airport.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on

February 10, 1995.

Walter R. Denley,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 95–4434 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. RM93–23–001; Docket No.

RM93–25–001]

Project Decommissioning at

Relicensing; Use of Reserved

Authority in Hydropower Licenses To

Ameliorate Cumulative Impacts; Order

Dismissing Requests for Rehearing

and Denying Requests for

Reconsideration

Issued February 9, 1995.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Policy statements; order

dismissing requests for rehearing and

denying requests for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is issuing an

order that dismisses requests for

rehearing, and denies requests for

reconsideration, of the two policy

statements that were issued on

December 14, 1994. The Commission, in

Docket No. RM93–25–000, adopted a

policy statement with respect to the use

of reserved authority in licenses for

hydropower projects to ameliorate

cumulative impacts of such projects in

the same river basin. In Docket No.

RM93–23–000, the Commission adopted

a policy statement that addressed issues

related to relicensing and

decommissioning of hydropower

projects. The Commission found that,

because there is no aggrievement,

rehearing does not lie and that no

particular circumstances requiring

reconsideration of the policy statements

have been shown.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Smoler, Office of the General

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 N. Capitol Street NE.,

Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208–

1269.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission also provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

inspect or copy the contents of this

documents during normal business

hours in Room 3104, 941 North Capitol

Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing (202) 208–1397. To

access CIPS, set your communications

software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600,

7200, 4800, 2400, 1200 or 300bps, full

duplex, no parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop

bit. The full text of this document will

be available on CIPS for 60 days from

the date of issuance in ASCII and

WordPerfect 5.1 format. After 60 days

the document will be archived, but still

accessible. The complete text on

diskette in Wordperfect format may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation, located in Room 3104, 941

North Capitol Street NE., Washington,

D.C. 20426.

Order Dismissing Requests for

Rehearing and Denying Requests for

Reconsideration

Issued February 9, 1995.

Before Commissioners: Elizabeth Anne

Moler, Chair; Vicky A. Bailey, James J.

Hoecker, William L. Massey, and Donald F.

Santa, Jr.

On December 14, 1994, the

Commission issued policy statements in

each of the two above-captioned

dockets.1

On January 13, 1995, the American

Public Power Association (APPA) filed

a request for reconsideration or

rehearing of both policy statements.

APPA expressed the view that rehearing

does not lie, because the policy

statements do not give rise to

‘‘aggrievement’’ within the meaning of

Section 313 of the Federal Power Act,2

but requested rehearing in the event that

the Commission determined that it was

appropriate.

On January 13, 1995, the National

Hydropower Association filed a

‘‘statement in opposition’’ to the policy

statement on decommissioning issued

in Docket No. RM93–23–000, but did
10016 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3 In the alternative, the Coalition requests

reconsideration or clarification of the policy

statement.

4The pleading filed by the U.S. Departments also

requests rehearing of a companion order issued on

December 14, 1994 (69 FERC ¶ 61,338), that

removed a standard reservation of authority article

from approximately 60 licenses. That portion of the

pleading is not affected by this order.

5The pleading filed by Edwards and Augusta also

requests rehearing of another companion order

issued on December 14, 1994 (69 FERC ¶ 61,335),

which amended their license for the Augusta

Hydroelectric Project (Edwards Dam). That portion

of the pleading is not affected by this order.

6See Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. FERC, 628

F.2d 235, 239 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

not request rehearing, stating (correctly)

that ‘‘its members will have the

opportunity to challenge any

Commission assertion of

decommissioning authority in the

context of actual proceedings where this

becomes an issue.’’ Similarly, on

January 31, 1995, the Edison Electric

Institute filed comments on the policy

statement on reserved authority issued

in Docket No. RM93–25–000, as well as

on the policy statement in Docket No.

RM93–23–000.

Also on January 13, 1995, three

requests for rehearing of the policy

statement on decommissioning, in

Docket No. RM93–23–000, were filed:

(1) By the Hydropower Reform

Coalition;3 (2) by (jointly) the U.S.

Department of Commerce and the U.S.

Department of the Interior (the U.S.

Departments);4 and by (jointly) Edwards

Manufacturing Co., Inc. and the City of

Augusta, Maine (Edwards and

Augusta).5 The pleading filed by the

U.S. Departments is styled as a petition

for ‘‘clarification, reconsideration and

rehearing.’’

The above-captioned policy

statements issued on December 14,

1994, provide only notice of the

Commission’s general views and

intentions with respect to a broad range

of potential issues that may come before

it in future cases. The policy statements

do not apply those views and intentions

to the specific facts of any particular

case, nor do they purport to resolve any

specific case or controversy. They do

not impose an obligation, deny a right,

or fix some legal relationship as a

consummation of the administrative

process. Therefore, as there is no

aggrievement, rehearing does not lie.

Nor have the petitioners shown any

particular circumstances requiring that

we reconsider our positions taken in

these policy statements.6 Accordingly,

the above-described requests for

rehearing of the policy statements

issued on December 14, 1994, in the

above-captioned dockets are dismissed

to the extent that they seek rehearing of

either or both of those two policy

statements, and are denied to the extent

that they seek reconsideration of either

of both of those policy statements.

The Commission Orders

The request for reconsideration and

rehearing filed by the American Public

Power Association in Docket Nos.

RM93–23–001 and RM93–25–001, and

the requests for rehearing,

reconsideration and/or clarification

filed by the Hydropower Reform

Coalition, by the U.S. Departments of

Commerce and the Interior, and by

Edwards Manufacturing Company, Inc.

and the City of Augusta, Maine, in

Docket No. RM93–23–001, are rejected

as requests for rehearing and are denied

as requests for reconsideration or

clarification.

By the Commission. Commissioner Bailey

dissented in part with a separate statement

attached.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

Bailey, Commissioner, dissenting in part.

For the reasons discussed in my earlier

dissent, I would grant reconsideration of the

Decommissioning Policy Statement (Docket

No. RM93–23–001).

Vicky A. Bailey,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–4354 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner

24 CFR Part 207

[Docket No. R–95–1768; FR–3753–I–01]

RIN 2502–AG34

Multifamily Cooperative Refinancing

and Conversion Program

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: HUD’s multifamily mortgage

insurance regulations are being

amended to revise the occupancy

requirements for rental projects

converted to cooperative ownership.

The amended regulations replace the

strict 70 percent owner-occupant

subscription requirement with one that

varies according to the loan-to-value

ratio. This flexibility will allow the

Federal Housing Commissioner to

expand affordable housing

opportunities.

DATES: Effective date: March 27, 1995.

Expiration date: Section 207.32a(h)(2)

will expire on September 23, 1996.

Comments due date: April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this interim rule to the Office of the

General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk,

Room 10276, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410–

0500. Communications should refer to

the above docket number and title.

Facsimile (FAX) comments are not

acceptable. A copy of each

communication submitted will be

available for public inspection and

copying during regular business hours

(7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time) at

the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda D. Cheatham, Director, Office of

Multifamily Housing Development,

Room 6134, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, DC 20410–0500,

telephone (202) 708–3000. Hearing or

speech-impaired individuals may call

HUD’s TDD number (202) 708–4594.

(These are not toll-free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Title II of the National Housing Act of

1934, specifically section 223(f) (12

U.S.C. 1715n(f)), authorizes HUD to

insure mortgages for multifamily rental

units through the Federal Housing

Administration (FHA). The regulations

implementing section 223(f) are codified

at 24 CFR 207.32a. The section 223(f)

regulations were amended June 24, 1985

(50 FR 25940), to include cooperative

mortgagors. The regulations, as

amended in 1985, expand section 223(f)

to provide mortgage insurance for the

refinancing of existing cooperative

projects and the purchase/conversion of

existing rental projects by cooperative

sponsors.

Paragraph (h)(2) of § 207.32a sets forth

the occupancy requirements for rental

projects converted to cooperative

ownership. At least 70 percent of the

total units in the project must be

subscribed to on a cooperative basis

before endorsement of the mortgage for

insurance by the Federal Housing

Commissioner. This interim rule

replaces the strict 70 percent

subscription requirement of

§ 207.32a(h)(2) with one that varies

according to the loan-to-value ratio.

The amended regulation provides that

with respect to a cooperative project, the

following pre-sale and loan-to-value

ratios apply: (1) A 70 percent loan-tovalue ratio loan will require that 51