25872 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices

acting as an employer but instead was

acting as GSA’s ‘‘building manager’’

when it denied NTEU’s request for a

permit, then what, if any, would be the

effect of Authority precedent holding

that a non-employer agency can be

found to have interfered with protected

rights on the issue of whether SSA

violated the Statute? See Headquarters,

Defense Logistics Agency, Washington,

D.C., 22 FLRA 875, 883–84 (1986).

2. Is it relevant and, if so, how is it

relevant whether non-labor

organizations have been granted access

to the areas for which NTEU sought the

permit?

3. Is it relevant and, if so, how is it

relevant that the ‘‘facilities’’ to which

NTEU sought access were external,

quasi-public areas?

4. If GSA were the employing agency

at the Woodlawn complex and NTEU

were seeking a permit for purposes of

organizing GSA employees, how would

the Constitutional concerns identified

by the court be avoided by the

‘‘facilities’’ analysis it suggested?

5. The Authority, relying on the ruling

announced in Department of the Army,

United States Army Natick Laboratories,

Natick, Mass., 3 A/SLMR 193 (1973)

(Natick), has interpreted section

7116(a)(3) as prohibiting an agency from

allowing a rival union, lacking

equivalent status to an incumbent labor

organization, access to the agency’s

facilities and services. How and why

would such access always constitute

unlawful sponsorship, control, or

assistance under section 7116(a)(3)?

6. Is the approach used by the

predecessor to the Authority, the

Federal Labor Relations Council, to

resolve similar issues under Executive

Order 11491, as amended, more

consistent with the Statute than the

approach set forth in Natick? The

Council’s approach analyzed whether

the agency conduct constituted control

of, or interference with a union’s

independence. See Grissom AFB, 6

FLRC 406 (1978).

7. Is the portion of section 7116(a)(3)

that refers to furnishing customary and

routine services and facilities an

exception to the prohibition on

sponsorship, control, or assistance of a

labor organization or are there any

situations where it creates a requirement

that such services and facilities be

furnished? For example, in order to

avoid ‘‘sponsoring’’ an incumbent labor

organization, would an agency be

required under any circumstances to

furnish ordinary facilities and services

to a rival?

8. What meaning should be attributed

to the phrase ‘‘having equivalent status’’

in section 7116(a)(3)?

a. Should this term be applied

differently depending upon whether the

employees in the agency from whom

assistance is sought are represented by

a labor organization?

b. Does an agency violate section

7116(a)(3) by furnishing, or failing to

furnish, facilities and services to all

nonincumbent labor organizations on an

impartial basis?

c. Should the Authority reconsider its

precedent that ‘‘a petitioning union

acquires equivalent status for the

purposes of section 7116(a)(3) when an

appropriate Regional Director

determines, and notifies the parties, that

the petition includes a prima facie

showing of interest and merits further

processing[]’’? U.S. Department of

Defense Dependents School, Panama

Region, 44 FLRA 419, 425 (1992).

9. If the Authority were to conclude

on remand that section 7116(a)(3) did

not require SSA to reject NTEU’s

request for a permit, would:

a. Section 7116(a)(3) require that SSA

grant NTEU’s permit request?

b. SSA’s denial of the permit to

NTEU’s non-employee organizers

violate 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1)?

c. it result in manifest injustice to

hold SSA liable for a violation of either

section 7116(a)(3) or section 7116(a)(1)

based on approaches not previously

articulated?

Dated: May 20, 1996.

For the Authority.

James H. Adams,

Acting Director, Case Control Office.

[FR Doc. 96–13043 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6727–01–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 96–11]

Haewoo Air & Shipping Co., Ltd. (d/b/

a Haewoo Shipping Co., Ltd.); Possible

Violations of Section 10(b)(1) of the

Shipping Act of 1984; Order of

Investigation

Haewoo Air & Shipping Co., Ltd.

d/b/a Haewoo Shipping Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Haewoo’’) is a non-vessel-operating

common carrier located in Seoul, Korea.

Haewoo maintains a tariff on file with

the Commission which provides for

service between various Asian countries

and the United States.

A review of Haewoo’s tariff showed

that it contained only one commodity

rate in addition to Cargo, N.O.S. rates.

A review of invoices and freight

payments for shipments moving under

Haewoo bills of lading from June 5,

1994, to January 19, 1995, indicated that

Haewoo did not charge the rates

contained in its tariff. On February 3,

1995, additional commodity rates were

filed by Haewoo in its tariff.

Section 10(b)(1) of the Shipping Act

of 1984 (‘‘1984 Act’’), 46 U.S.C. app.

1709(b)(1), provides that no common

carrier may charge, demand, collect, or

receive greater, less, or different

compensation for the transportation of

property or for any service in

connection therewith than the rates and

charges in its tariffs. In regard to the

activities of Haewoo, it appears that

Haewoo charged less than its applicable

tariff rates for the transportation of at

least 36 shipments between June 5,

1994, and January 19, 1995, in violation

of section 10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act.

Section 11 of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C.

app. 1710, sets forth the Commission’s

authority to investigate violations of the

1984 Act. In the event violations are

found, section 13 of the 1984 Act, 46

U.S.C. app. 1712, provides that the

Commission may assess civil penalties

and suspend tariffs as remedies for

violations of section 10(b)(1). Section

14(a) of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app.

1713(a), empowers the Commission to

issue orders relating to violations of the

1984 Act.

Now therefore it is ordered, that

pursuant to sections 10, 11, 13 and 14

of the 1984 Act, an investigation is

hereby instituted to determine:

1. Whether Haewoo violated section

10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act by charging,

demanding, collecting, or receiving

greater, lesser, or different

compensation for the transportation of

property or for any service in

connection therewith than the rates and

charges that are shown in its tariffs;

2. Whether, in the event Haewoo

violated the 1984 Act, civil penalties

should be assessed against Haewoo and,

if so, the amount of such penalties;

3. Whether, in the event violations are

found, an appropriate cease and desist

order should be issued; and

4. Whether, in the event violations are

found, Haewoo’s tariff should be

suspended for a period of time not to

exceed 12 months.

It is further ordered, That a public

hearing be held in this proceeding and

that this matter be assigned for hearing

before an Administrative Law Judge

(‘‘Presiding Officer’’) of the

Commission’s Office of Administrative

Law Judges in compliance with Rule 61

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure, 46 CFR 502.61. The

Hearing shall include oral testimony

and cross-examination at the discretion

of the Presiding Officer only after

consideration has been given by the

parties and the Presiding Officer to the

use of alternative forms of dispute
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices 25873

resolution, and upon proper showing

that there are genuine issues of material

fact that cannot be resolved on the basis

of sworn statements, affidavits,

depositions, or other documents or that

the nature of the matter in issue is such

that an oral hearing and crossexamination are necessary for the

development of an adequate record.

It is further ordered, That Haewoo Air

& Shipping Co., Ltd. d/b/a Haewoo

Shipping Co., Ltd. is designated

Respondent in this proceeding;

It is further ordered, That the

Commission’s Bureau of Enforcement is

designated a party to this proceeding;

It is further ordered, That notice of

this Order be published in the Federal

Register, and a copy be served on

parties of record;

It is further ordered, That other

persons having an interest in

participating in this proceeding may file

petitions for leave to intervene in

accordance with Rule 72 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.72;

It is further ordered, That all further

notices, orders, and/or decisions issued

by or on behalf of the Commission in

this proceeding, including notice of the

time and place of hearing or prehearing

conference, shall be served on parties of

record;

It is further ordered, That all

documents submitted by any party of

record in this proceeding shall be

directed to the Secretary, Federal

Maritime Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20573, and comply with Subpart H

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure, 46 CFR 502.111–119,

and shall be served on parties of record;

and

It is further ordered, That in

accordance with Rule 61 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.61, the initial

decision of the Administrative Law

Judge shall be issued by January 20,

1997, and the final decision of the

Commission shall be issued by May 20,

1997.

By the Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13056 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board; Meeting

AGENCY: General Accounting Office.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. No. 92–463), as amended,

notice is hereby given that the Federal

Accounting Standards Advisory Board

will meet on Thursday, May 30, 1996,

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in room 7C13 of

the General Accounting Office, 441 G

St., NW., Washington, DC.

The purpose of the meeting is to

discuss and review the (1) Accounting

for Natural Resources document, (2)

JFMIP Cost Accounting Systems and

Reporting project, (3) Invitation for

Views: Accounting for the cost of

Capital document, and (4) Rule 203 of

the AICPA’s Code of Ethics.

Any interested person may attend the

meeting as an observer. Board

discussions and reviews are open to the

public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald S. Young, Executive Staff

Director, 750 First St., NE., Room 1001,

Washington, DC. 20002, or call (202)

512–7350.

Authority: Federal Advisory Committee

Act. Pub. L. No. 92–463, section 10(a)(2), 86

Stat. 770, 774 (1972) (current version at 5

U.S.C. app. section 10(a)(2) (1988); 41 CFR

101–6.1015 (1990).

Dated: May 20, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–13040 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

[HCFA 317]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

In compliance with the requirement

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Health and Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), Department of

Health and Human Services, has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) the following

proposals for the collection of

information. Interested persons are

invited to send comments regarding this

burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

any of the following subjects: (1) The

necessity and utility of the proposed

information collection for the proper

performance of the agency’s functions;

(2) the accuracy of the estimated

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (4) the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology to

minimize the information collection

burden.

1. Type of Request: Reinstatement,

without change, of a previously

approved collection for which approval

has expired; Title of Information

Collection: State Medicaid Eligibility

Quality Control Sampling Plan; Form

No.: HCFA–317; Use: The State MEQC

sampling plan is necessary for HCFA to

monitor the States’ operation of the

MEQC system. The sampling plan

includes all data involved in the States’

sample selection process—population

sizes and sample frame lists, sample

sizes, sample selection procedures, and

claims collection procedures;

Frequency: Annually; Affected Public:

State, local, or tribal government;

Number of Respondents: 55; Total

Annual Responses: 110; Total Annual

Hours: 2,640.

To request copies of the proposed

paperwork collection referenced above,

E-mail your request, including your

address, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call

the Reports Clearance Office on (410)

786–1326. Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collections should be sent

within 60 days of this notice directly to

the HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officer

designated at the following address:

OMB Human Resources and Housing

Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New

Executive Office Building, Room 10235,

Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Kathleen B. Larson,

Director, Management Planning and Analysis

Staff, Office of Financial and Human

Resources, Health Care Financing

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12962 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–03–P

Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry

[ATSDR–110]

Minimal Risk Levels for Priority

Substances and Guidance for

Derivation

AGENCY: Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry (ATSDR),

Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9604 et seq.), as

amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA) (Pub. L. 99–499), requires that