15868 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Interested parties were invited to

participate in the rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal. No

comments were received. This action is

the same as the proposal except for a

typographical error discovered and

offered herein in the airspace

description with regard to V–365. The

coordinates for this airspace docket are

based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas extending upward

from 700 feet or more above the surface

of the earth are published in Paragraph

6005 of FAA Order 7400.9B dated July

18, 1994, and effective September 16,

1994, which is incorporated by

reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E

airspace designation listed in this

document will be published

subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to part 71 of Federal

Aviation Regulations amends Class E

airspace at Arco, Idaho. 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 of 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

FAA 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; E.O. 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 the 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 or More

Above the Surface of the Earth

* * * * *

ANM ID E5 Arco, ID [New]

Arco, Arco-Butte County Airport, ID

(Lat. 43°36′19′′ N, long. 113°19′54′′ W)

Arco-Butte County NDB

(Lat. 43°35′57′′ N, long. 113°20′32′′ W)

Pocatello VORTAC

(Lat. 42°52′13′′ N, long. 112°39′08′′ W)

Burley VOR/DME

(Lat. 42°34′49′′ N, long. 113°51′57′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile

radius of the Arco-Butte County Airport, and

within 2.5 miles each side of the 166° bearing

from the Arco-Butte County NDB extending

from the 6.6-mile radius to 7 miles southeast

of the NDB; that airspace extending upward

from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by

a line beginning at 68.5 NM northwest of the

PIH VORTAC on V–269, thence southeast

along V–269 to 53 NM northwest of the PIH

VORTAC on V–269, thence to 29 NM south

of the DBS VORTAC on V–257, thence south

along V–257 to V–365, thence southwest

along V–365 to the BYI VOR/DME, thence

northwest along V–231 to 29 NM northwest

of the BYI VOR/DME on V–231, to the point

of beginning.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March

10, 1995.

Richard E. Prang,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 95–7622 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 141, 375 and 385

[Docket No. RM93–20–001; Order No. 574–

A]

Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 1

and Delegation to Chief Accountant;

Order Denying Reconsideration and

Extending Deadline for Filing

Issued March 23, 1995.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; Order Denying

Reconsideration and Extending

Deadline for Filing.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is denying

reconsideration of Order No. 574,

requiring electronic filing of FERC Form

No. 1, Annual Report of Major electric

utilities, licensees and others. The

Commission will continue to require

electronic filing for the 1994 reporting

year, but will extend the deadline for

filing FERC Form No. 1 by one month

to May 31, 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This order is effective

on March 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Mattingly, Office of General

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol St.,

N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, (202)

208–2070.

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

document during normal business hours

in Room 3104, at 941 North Capitol

Street, N.E., 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 300 bps, 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 is 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, also located in Room 3104,

941 North Capitol Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

On February 3 and 6, 1995, Union

Electric Company (Union Electric) and

Edison Electric Institute (EEI),

respectively, filed requests for

reconsideration of the Commission’s

Order No. 574, issued in this proceeding

on December 29, 1994. Electronic Filing

of FERC Form No. 1 and Delegation to

Chief Accountant, Order No. 574, 60 FR

1716 (Jan. 6, 1995), III FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶31,013 (1995). In Order No. 574,

the Commission amended its

regulations to require the electronic

filing of FERC Form No. 1, Annual

Report of Major electric utilities,

licensees and others, beginning with the

1994 reporting year, due on or before

April 30, 1995.

EEI argues that requiring electronic

filing for the 1994 reporting year

imposes excessive and unnecessary
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15869

1The Commission provides a user’s manual and

additional written information as well as support to

assist respondents. Additionally, the Commission

has established an electric bulletin board system to

share information on software matters and user

issues.

burdens on reporting companies. EEI

states that additional time is needed to

correct some remaining problems with

the No. 1 software program, and that

additional time is also needed for the

respondents to familiarize themselves

with the requirements of the software.

EEI describes various aspects of the

software program which it believes

require improvement and notes that the

software fails to incorporate certain

features anticipated by the Commission

in its notice issued in this proceeding

on December 30, 1993. Electronic Filing

of FERC Form No. 1 and Delegation to

Chief Accountant, Intent to Act and

Response to Comments, 59 FR 1687

(Jan. 12, 1994). EEI argues that in light

of the software problems, the

Commission should make electronic

filing of Form No. 1 voluntary for the

1994 reporting year, with mandatory

reporting to commence for the 1995

reporting year after further refinement of

the software. Alternatively, EEI requests

an extension of the filing deadline from

April 30, 1995 to July 31, 1995. Union

Electric’s comments are largely to the

same effect as EEI’s comments.

Commission Response

Having reviewed the software

program and the field test results, we

are of the opinion that the software

achieves the Commission’s goal—

namely, the electronic reporting of Form

No. 1.1 The parties have not shown that

electronic reporting of Form No. 1 at

this time would be either unduly

burdensome or unreasonable. The

Commission therefore finds that the

requests to make the filing voluntary for

the 1994 reporting year do not warrant

such an across-the-board delay in

implementing the electronic reporting

requirement.

The Commission believes that the

benefits of electronic filing are

substantial and include (1) timely

analysis and publication of data, (2)

increased data analysis capability, (3)

reduced cost of data entry and retrieval,

(4) simplification of form design, and (5)

overall reduction in filing burden. In the

Commission’s judgment these benefits

are such that electronic filing should not

be delayed except for reasons of

necessity or demonstrated good cause.

The Commission realizes that there will

be additional expense and

inconvenience required to effect this

major change in reporting procedure

and format. However, the Commission

believes these costs will be one-time

costs and are outweighed by the

potential benefits.

Additionally, with regard to EEI’s

assertion that the software program fails

to incorporate all features anticipated in

the December 30, 1993 notice, the

Commission has attempted, insofar as

practicable, to incorporate the features

listed in the December 30, 1993 notice.

For the most part, in fact, the listed

features have been incorporated into the

1994 version of the software program.

That certain features that were

anticipated in the December 30, 1993

notice have not been included in the

1994 version of the software program

does not mean that the Commission will

not consider including these features in

future versions of the software. Rather,

it is the Commission’s intention to

continue to modify and enhance the

software by incorporating in future

versions additional features as well as

improvements to existing features as

appropriate.

Having responded more generally, we

now turn to specific objections. The

parties contend data entry is very

cumbersome and time-consuming. They

also note users should not have to lose

all data and re-key an entire page when

changes or mistakes are made. In our

view, the software data entry process is

no more cumbersome or timeconsuming than any other data entry

software. Data have to be manually

entered into each data field or imported

using one of several available import

features. Also, the software includes

several features that make the process of

data entry less cumbersome and timeconsuming:

• The data entry screens are virtually

identical to the Form No. 1 schedules

and therefore provide a familiar

environment in which to enter data;

• There is a ‘‘hot-key’’ that provides

immediate on screen access to the

instructions for completing a particular

Form No. 1 schedule page;

• The bottom of the data-entry

screens provide key stroke information

for operating the software;

• In order to ensure that data are not

lost, as a user exits from any schedule

page, there is a prompt to ‘‘save’’ the

data;

• Many schedules have automatic

subtotaling and totaling features; and

• The software includes a feature that

permits a user to cross-check and

compare data between schedules (i.e.,

automated edit checking).

In particular, the last two features

relieve users of the burden of manually

verifying the accuracy of entered data.

As to concerns over lost data when

mistakes are made, this appears to relate

to schedule pages with the ‘’floating

subtotal/total’’ feature. Thirteen of the

72 Form No. 1 schedule pages have the

‘‘floating subtotal/total’’ feature. For

schedule pages with the ‘‘floating

subtotal/total’’ feature, it is true that

once the feature is used, changes to the

schedule pages cannot be made except

by deleting all data entered up to point

of the error. This limitation has been

explained in the users’ manual and

emphasized in the ‘‘helpful hints’’

information that was distributed with

the software.

The parties contend text fields have

very limited word processing features

and lack a spell-check feature. This is

true. However, the ‘‘text editor’’ feature

was not developed as a substitute for a

word processor. Since the text will be

loaded into a database field, very

limited word processing capabilities

have been provided. As an alternative,

a user may use a software import feature

that allows it to create a text file, with

any personal computer word processing

software, and to import the text into a

Form No. 1 schedule. The import

feature of the software are explained in

the users’s manual, and helpful hints

have been provided for the import

feature.

The parties contend there is a lack of

flexibility in producing a computerprinted Form No. 1 (i.e., page margins

and character print size cannot be

changed and binding of paper copies

may result in text or numbers being

lost). This is true; it results from the

software design. We are unable,

however, to anticipate each

respondent’s desired printing

preferences. In addition, we anticipate

that, due to the time involved in

printing a complete Form No. 1 from the

software, respondents will produce a

‘‘master’’ and, consistent with current

practice, print from that ‘‘master’’ using

efficient reproduction procedures. In the

reproduction process, respondents have

the capability to collate, shift, reduce,

etc. the ‘‘master’’ to accommodate their

binding preferences.

The parties contend footnote text is

quite small, making it difficult to read

unless a blank line is inserted between

each line of text. The print of a footnote

is quite small as it uses compressed

print. However, the primary objective of

the software is to get the data entered

and a data diskette produced for

submission to the Commission for

loading into its Form No. 1 database. We

plan to improve the readability of

footnote text in future versions of the

software.

The parties contend the software is

very inefficient. In our view, this is not

a correct assessment of the software.
15870 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2The one-month extension in the Form No. 1

filing deadline applies both to the electronic filing

requirement and the paper copy filing requirement.

The software was designed to collect

Form No. 1 data, perform an edit-check

of the entered data, print the Form No.

1, and produce a data diskette to file

with the Commission. The software

fulfills these design objectives.

The parties contend the software is

not compatible with different types of

printers. The software is compatible

with all Hewlett Packard (HP) Laser Jet

printers and those printers which

emulate the HP standards. We were not

able to anticipate all printer and printer

configurations preferred by respondents.

However, by using the HP standards, we

were able to cover most of the

respondents’ printer requirements.

The parties contend the software is

not designed to operate in a local area

network (LAN) environment and,

because it is not LAN-compatible, many

companies will have to enter data twice.

The software was not specifically

designed to operate in a LAN

environment because some respondents

do not have LAN capability. Also, for

those respondents that do have LANs,

there are a variety of LANs in use.

Ultimately, if a LAN version of the

software were developed, it would

require reprogramming of the software

so that it would operate on any LAN.

This does not mean that the software is

not LAN compatible; in fact, the

Commission has successfully loaded the

software on the Commission’s LAN and

used it without problems. Also, several

respondents have reported that they

have been successful in operating the

software on their LANs. Further, a lack

of LAN compatibility does not mean

that data must be entered twice by

respondents. The software can be

loaded on any number of personal

computers where the data can be

entered and stored in data files and

subsequently transferred to one central

personal computer.

The parties contend creation of ASCII

files to import data is difficult and

tedious. The creation of properly

delimited ASCII files for the importing

of data is difficult until a user becomes

familiar with the procedure. The users’

manual addresses this issue and

recognizes that the necessary steps are

complex. Users should consult with or

seek assistance from their data

processing or computer departments.

Additionally, the general import feature

was designed as an alternative data

entry process (i.e., there is no

requirement that it be used).

The parties contend prior year data

cannot be accessed for beginning

balances, requiring re-keying of data

each year. This is a correct statement,

and this is one of the software changes

that we are considering for future

software versions. This is not a problem

for the 1994 reporting year, however,

since this is the first year the software

is being used and there is no prior year

data to be accessed.

The parties contend state schedules

identical to Form No. 1 cannot be

copied with a name change, forcing

complete data re-keying. This is a

correct statement. However, the

software is designed to not allow

changes to the schedule pages. Some of

the biggest problems with Form No. 1

reporting compliance have been where

respondents have changed schedule

formats and not reported consistent

with the Form No. 1 reporting

requirements. In some cases, in fact,

required data were omitted or the

modified formats made the reported

data of limited or no use.

The parties contend there are no page

up/page down keys, forcing numerous

key strokes to get to the top or bottom

of a page. This is a correct statement.

The software was designed for data

collection and if data entry is done one

data field at a time, the page up/down

keys are extraneous to the function.

Finally, the parties contend footnotes

cannot reference multiple lines, only

one field of data. This is a correct

statement. The software was

intentionally designed so that each

individual data element could be

footnoted separately and each footnote

could be ‘‘linked’’ with the respective

data element in the Commission’s Form

No. 1 database.

Nevertheless, while the Commission

will continue to require the electronic

reporting of Form No. 1 for the 1994

reporting year, the Commission

recognizes that this will be the first year

for such filings and additional time may

be necessary to prepare such filings.

Accordingly, the Commission will

extend the deadline for filing Form No.

1 for the 1994 reporting year by one

month, to on or before May 31, 1995.2

The Commission Orders

The requests for reconsideration of

Order No. 574 are hereby denied.

However, the deadline for the

submission of Form No. 1 (both

electronic and paper copies) for the

1994 reporting year is hereby extended

from on or before April 30, 1995, to on

or before May 31, 1995.

By the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7588 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 5

Delegations of Authority and

Organization

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

regulations for delegations of authority

from the Commissioner of Food and

Drugs to reflect recent changes to

organizational structures within FDA; to

update the titles of certain officials; and

to reflect changes in the location and

numbering of certain statutory

provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edna Morgan, Division of Management

Systems and Policy (HFA–340), Food

and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers

Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–443–

4976.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is

amending certain regulations for

delegations of authority in 21 CFR part

5 to reflect recent changes to

organizational structures within FDA.

This document removes obsolete titles

and adds new titles of certain officials

in various regions, districts, etc., as well

as the Center for Veterinary Medicine

(CVM) under the new organizational

structure. The document also reflects

the changes in the location and

numbering of certain statutory

provisions. The sections affected are as

follows:

Section 5.36 Certification following

inspections (21 CFR 5.36); § 5.37

Issuance of reports of minor violations

(21 CFR 5.37); and § 5.63 Detention of

meat, poultry, eggs, and related

products (21 CFR 5.63).

In § 5.36, FDA is deleting the Director,

St. Louis Branch from those FDA

officials authorized to issue certificates

of sanitation. In § 5.37(a)(4)(iii), FDA is

deleting the Deputy Director, Division of

Compliance, Office of Surveillance and

Compliance, Center for Veterinary

Medicine, from the list of officials

authorized to issue certain written

notices or warnings. In § 5.37(a)(6) and

(b)(5), FDA is adding the Directors of the

Northeast Regional Laboratory,

Southeast Regional Laboratory,

Winchester Engineering and Analytical

Center, and National Forensic

Chemistry Center to authorize these

officials to issue certain written notices