Cost Accounting Standards Board; Revisions to the Cost Accounting Standards Board Disclosure Statement Form (CASB DS-1)

SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Cost Accounting

Standards Board (CASB), is revising its Disclosure Statement Form (CASB

DS-1). Section 26(g)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Act, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)(1), requires that the Board, when promulgating

any new or revised Cost Accounting Standard, publish a final rule. This

final rule incorporates an updated and revised CASB Disclosure

Statement developed by the Board.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rein Abel, Director of Research, Cost

Accounting Standards Board (telephone: 202-395-3254).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory Process

The CASB's rules, regulations and Standards are codified at 48 CFR

Chapter 99. Section 26(g)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement

Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)(1), requires that the Board, prior to the

establishment of any new or revised CAS, complete a prescribed

rulemaking process. The process generally consists of the following

four steps:

1. Consult with interested persons concerning the advantages,

disadvantages and improvements anticipated in the pricing and

administration of Government contracts as a result of the adoption of a

proposed Standard.

2. Promulgate an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

3. Promulgate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

4. Promulgate a final rule.

This promulgation completes the four step process.

B. Background

Prior Promulgations

The original Disclosure Statement Form (CASB DS-1) was developed

and promulgated in the early 1970s. No revisions to the document were

made until the Board was reestablished in 1990. In 1992, some minor

revisions were made. 57 FR 14148, 14159 (April 17, 1992). Subsequently,

a project was initiated to revise and update the Disclosure Statement

(CASB DS-1).

On April 2, 1993, a Staff Discussion Paper incorporating a revised

Disclosure Statement was distributed to certain interested parties who

generally possessed actual field experience in submitting and auditing

these Statements. On the basis of the comments received in response to

this Staff Discussion Paper, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(ANPRM) was developed and published in the Federal Register on April 4,

1994 (59 FR 15695).

The majority of the comments received in response to the ANPRM were

generally supportive of the proposed approach, but at the same time,

numerous revisions were suggested that were intended to improve and

streamline the document. Many of these suggested revisions were

incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was

published in the Federal Register on November 29, 1994 (59 FR 60948).

Public Comments

Nine sets of public comments were received in response to the NPRM

from government contractors, industry associations and Federal

agencies.

Most commenters acknowledged that the NPRM version of the DS-1 was

a significant improvement as compared with the earlier versions of the

Disclosure Statement. Nevertheless, numerous additional revisions were

suggested by commenters in order to further simplify and streamline the

DS-1. Of particular concern to several commenters was the amount and

type of information needed to respond adequately to questions in Part

VII of the Statement.

In general, the Board has tried to be responsive to the suggestions

made by commenters. In particular, a careful reevaluation of Part VII

has been undertaken. In reevaluating this Part, the instructions have

been clarified to make clear that only relevant cost accounting

practices and applicable identifying data need be disclosed. Therefore,

numeric data representing accounting estimates is not required to be

submitted. Also, in most sections of Part VII, the substantive

questions have been limited to items that cover only 80-percent of the

relevant cost groupings.

The commenters overall concerns and suggestions are addressed in

greater detail under Section E., Public Comments.

The Board and the CASB staff express their appreciation for the

constructive suggestions and criticisms provided by the commenters with

regard to the content of the revised Disclosure Statement. Many of the

commenters' suggested improvements have been incorporated into the

final rule being promulgated today.

Benefits

After consideration of the public comments received, the Board

believes that the revised Disclosure Statement, as set forth in this

final rule, will improve the cost accounting practices followed by

contractors when estimating, accumulating and reporting costs deemed

allocable to Federal contracts. Adequate disclosure of cost accounting

practices is essential in order to ensure consistency in cost

measurement as costs are first estimated and then accumulated and

reported. A Disclosure Statement that has not been updated for some two

decades clearly cannot adequately reflect currently prevailing cost

accounting practices and cost elements. Therefore, in order to ensure

that the policies and Standards promulgated by the Board are

implemented in an economical and effective manner, a revised and

updated Disclosure Statement becomes essential. In addition, the Board

has previously expressed the view that an updated Disclosure Statement

should facilitate interaction between contractors and Government

representatives when dealing with contract costing matters.

The introduction of the revised statement should not impose any new

burden on contractors as it merely replaces an existing form which

requires periodic updating of disclosed practices.

To further reduce the possibility of increased costs, the extended

dates for submission of the new Disclosure Statement are designed to

provide an opportunity to delay submission until such time as

contractors would most likely have to file an updated disclosure form

regardless of whether a new Disclosure Statement is introduced or not.

Summary of Amendments

The primary purpose of this revision of the Disclosure Statement is

to bring it up to date and to improve it in light of two decades of

field experience that the government procurement community has had with

this document. The basic characteristics of the Disclosure Statement

have not been changed. However, a multitude of specific changes are

incorporated in the revised Statement. It would be impractical to list

here all the specific

[[Page 7617]]

changes. However, most of these changes can be summarized as follows:

1. The current Disclosure Statement specifies that Parts I through

VII be prepared at the segment or business unit level, while Part VIII

should be prepared at the corporate or group headquarters level. This

revised Statement provides that although Parts V, VI and VII still have

to be submitted by segments, they may be completed either at the

segment or headquarters level depending on where the applicable

practices or procedures are established or where the cost is actually

incurred.

2. In general, various legal references have been updated.

3. As the original Disclosure Statement was in essence prepared

before any Cost Accounting Standards were issued, the revised format

includes references to subsequently issued Standards where appropriate.

In this context, some cost accounting practices described in the

original Disclosure Statement may not be in compliance with the

relevant provisions of a Cost Accounting Standard. The purpose of the

Disclosure Statement is not to elicit noncompliant answers, and

therefore, any references to potentially non-compliant practices have

been eliminated.

4. Requests for certain statistical data have been eliminated as

this information is no longer used.

5. Certain new topical areas have been added to the Disclosure

Statement. These cover items that have become important from a cost

measurement perspective over the last two decades. The topical areas

include cost-of-money, post-retirement health benefits and employee

stock ownership plans. Most of these new topical areas are incorporated

in a significantly revised Part VII.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection aspects of this rule have been approved

by the Office of Management and Budget, and assigned Control Number

0348-0051.

D. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The economic impact of this final rule on contractors and

subcontractors is expected to be minor. As a result, the Board has

determined that this final rule does not result in the promulgation of

a ``major rule'' under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, and

that a regulatory impact analysis will not be required. Furthermore,

this final rule does not have a significant effect on a substantial

number of small entities because small businesses are exempt from the

application of the Cost Accounting Standards. Therefore, this rule does

not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980.

E. Public Comments

This final rule is based upon the NPRM published in the Federal

Register on November 29, 1994 (59 FR 60948), wherein public comments

were invited. Nine sets of comments were received from government

contractors, industry associations and Federal agencies. The more

significant comments received, and the Board's actions taken in

response thereto, are summarized below. Many other comments that were

more of an editorial nature have been incorporated in the document

where appropriate.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that compliant as well as non-

compliant cost accounting practices should be described in the

Disclosure Statement.

Response: The Board agrees that the actual cost accounting

practices being followed must be described. However, where the

Disclosure Statement provides a list of alternative practices, only

compliant alternatives will be listed. If the contractor's practice is

not one of the listed alternatives, the actual practice must be

described on a continuation sheet. This will not be tantamount to

conceding that the practice is non-compliant since such a determination

can only be made after appropriate analysis and review.

Comment: Several commenters indicated that although the NPRM has

been significantly improved and streamlined, the draft still contains

too many questions of a detailed nature that may, in the future,

increase rather than decrease the opportunities for disputes.

Response: The Board has, once more, consulted with the respondents

to the NPRM and all the concerns have been subjected to additional

review. As a result, some changes have been made to the version

incorporated in the NPRM that should contribute to further streamlining

and clarification of the final document. This comment applies in

particular to Part VII of the Disclosure Statement.

Comment: At least two commenters indicated that, in their opinion

the revised document still contains too many pages.

Response: In the final format there is no substantial difference in

the length of the original and the final Disclosure Statement.

Comment: One commenter stressed that whenever possible, existing

CAS wording or definitions should be used.

Response: The Board agrees with this suggestion and, wherever

appropriate, the Disclosure Statement has accordingly been changed.

Comment: Several contractors indicated that throughout the document

the term ``CAS-covered contracts'' rather than ``Federal contracts''

should be used.

Response: The Disclosure Statement deals with the cost accounting

practices of an entity such as a segment or home office and it is

presumed that cost accounting practices are applied consistently to all

the applicable final cost objectives. Although the dollar amount of

CAS-covered contracts received is crucial in determining whether a

Disclosure Statement has to be filed, once the requirement to file has

been met, the disclosure will cover all of the entity's policies and

practices as they affect cost measurement and allocation to all

contracts. Therefore, a broader term, such as ``Federal contracts'',

seems preferable to a narrower term such as ``CAS-covered contracts''.

Comment: Two commenters suggested a shorter implementation period

than the one proposed in the NPRM.

Response: While the Board encourages early adoption of the new

form, it does not believe that it can adequately envision all the

circumstances that might arise necessitating a delay in the

introduction of the new form. It believes that any deadline imposed for

the introduction of the new form should make ample provision for any

unexpected difficulties that may arise at the implementation stage.

Therefore, the final filing date for existing contractors has not been

changed, although the Board hopes that an earlier adoption is possible

in most cases.

Comment: Several commenters expressed some criticism of the

procedure outlined in General Instructions that allows parts of

contractors' accounting manuals to be incorporated by reference in the

Disclosure Statement.

Response: The wording in the Instructions has been changed to make

it clear that the procedure in question is an optional one--

particularly from the perspective of the contractor.

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the language be

clarified to indicate the appropriate circumstances in which home

offices may be able to complete Parts V, VI, or VII to be filed by

segments reporting to the home office.

Response: The language in the General Instructions has been

clarified. In particular, it has been made clear that where the home

office establishes the applicable cost accounting policies and

[[Page 7618]]

procedures, it may also complete the relevant Parts of the Disclosure

Statement to be submitted by its subordinate segments.

Comment: Several commenters offered suggestions for clarifying the

layout and terminology used on the Cover Sheet.

Response: Certain changes have been made to the Cover Sheet, in

particular to item 0.2, Reporting Unit Classification, in order to

introduce standard CAS terminology and definitions whenever

appropriate.

Comment: Several commenters pointed out that in Part I, General

Information, the wording of several items could be improved in order to

ensure that the questions are more clearly focused and take into

account current practices.

Response: Some changes have been made to Part I to reflect the

suggestions made by several commenters. In particular, the question

dealing with unallowable costs has been reformatted so as to reflect

the basic structure of CAS 9904.405, Accounting for Unallowable Costs.

Comment: A number of comments were received concerning the

formulation of questions in Part II, Direct Costs, dealing with direct

material, direct labor and other direct costs. Some commenters

suggested that the questions included in this part might be more

appropriate elsewhere, such as in Part III, Direct vs. Indirect Costs,

of the Disclosure Statement.

Response: The basic characteristic of Part II, as a section dealing

with direct material, direct labor and other direct costs has been

retained. The purpose here is to obtain information on how certain

elements of cost are treated once it has been determined that they

represent direct costs for government contract costing purposes.

Therefore, items such as the question dealing with employee travel

expenses that are directly charged to contracts have been retained.

On the other hand, as suggested by several commenters, the question

dealing with interorganizational transfers has been eliminated

primarily because it requested information about the cost accounting

practices of the transferor and not of the transferee who is preparing

the Disclosure Statement. It cannot be assumed that such information is

always readily available to the transferee. The transferee's practices

in this area are covered in Part IV, Indirect Costs.

Comment: A few commenters suggested that Part III should be

drastically recast--including a suggestion that instead of long lists

of functions, elements of cost and transactions, the equivalent

information should be described on a continuation sheet.

Response: The existing format has been retained as it seems to be

the most effective way to obtain the relevant information on whether an

item of cost is being treated as a direct cost, as an indirect cost or

as a sometimes direct/sometimes indirect cost. The lists of functions,

elements of cost and transactions have been somewhat modified on the

basis of comments received.

Comment: In Part IV, several commenters pointed out that the

subtitles used to describe various methods of allocating General and

Administrative (G&A) expense did not properly reflect the requirements

of CAS 9904.410, Allocation of Business Unit General and Administrative

Expenses to Final Cost Objectives.

Response: The subtitles in question have been modified to conform

more closely to the requirements of CAS 9904.410.

Comment: A number of commenters were concerned about the amount of

detail required in Part IV dealing with modified allocations from

indirect cost pools using a modified allocation base or a rate that is

either more or less than the normal ``full rate''. Some commenters

indicated that too much detail was requested regarding those modified

allocations whereas others expressed the view that more information

should be made available.

Response: Certain parts of Part IV, in particular the question

dealing with the application of overhead and G&A rates to specified

transactions or costs, have been restated in an attempt to present a

more effective and balanced data gathering instrument. It should, once

more, be remembered that the aim has been to provide a vehicle for a

contractor to disclose its CAS compliant cost accounting practices.

Therefore, the Disclosure Statement should not be regarded as a

substitute for an audit check list. It is for this reason that non-

compliant practices have been expressly excluded from the Disclosure

Statement.

Comment: Several commenters suggested changes in the format in

which questions regarding Independent Research and Development (IR&D)

and Bid and Proposal (B&P) costs were presented in Part IV.

Response: The two questions that previously dealt separately with

IR&D and B&P respectively have been combined to provide a more compact

approach to the topic. In particular, the new approach, unlike the one

in the NPRM, does not presuppose that every contractor who incurs B&P

expense also has incurred IR&D expense--a supposition that does not

necessarily hold for civilian agencies.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the headings in the question

in Part VI, Other Costs and Credits, dealing with charging and

crediting vacation, holiday and sick pay be rearranged.

Response: The column headings have been changed to reflect the fact

that salaried exempt and non-exempt employees (as defined by the Fair

Labor Standards Act) are generally treated differently in this area.

Comment: Regarding Part VII, Deferred Compensation and Insurance

Costs, most commenters representing contractors expressed the view that

too much detailed and possibly superfluous and ambiguous information

was required with respect to the various pension, post-retirement

health, deferred compensation and insurance plans. One commenter had

actually tested the proposed NPRM requirements by using actual plan

data in completing selected parts of the various sections in Part VII.

The estimated time to complete these various sections were clearly

significant and possibly burdensome when extrapolated to cover the

whole of Part VII. Even though the data submitted was not verified on

an overall basis, it did provide valuable insight into the relative

amount of time required to complete the various individual questions.

The data also distinguished between time required on a ``recurring''

basis to keep the Disclosure Statement current, as contrasted with the

initial effort of ``non-recurring'' time required to prepare the

original submission. The general comments regarding time required to

complete Part VII were frequently supplemented by specific suggestions

regarding individual sections or questions.

Response: The Board is grateful to those commenters who spent

significant amounts of time to prepare constructive comments on this

part of the Disclosure Statement. In particular, the Board would like

to express its gratitude to the commenter who actually completed

sections of Part VII and made the relevant data available to the Board.

As a result of the input received from commenters, Part VII has

been substantially redesigned in order to make it more ``user

friendly''. When dealing with pension plans, post-retirement health

benefits, employee group insurance, deferred compensation, and worker's

compensation and property insurance, the amount of detailed information

related to various aspects of cost measurement has been substantially

[[Page 7619]]

reduced. The detailed data is required only for those plans or policies

that account for 80-percent of the relevant category of costs--provided

data on at least three plans is disclosed. Only a limited amount of

general plan information is sought for all the other plans. By

excluding the less significant plans from the more detailed disclosure

requirements, it is anticipated that the paperwork burden will be

significantly eased.

Some commenters also inferred that in certain instances actual

numeric data was requested that would have to be updated annually. It

has been made clear in the final document that when dealing with such

items as actuarial assumptions, only the basis used to determine

numeric values need be disclosed and not the actual values themselves.

This clarification should ensure that no regular annual updates of the

Disclosure Statement are prepared and submitted merely to reflect

changes in the relevant numeric values.

Other, more specific changes to the various sections of Part VII

are summarized below:

Pension Plans. The number of General Plan Information questions has

been reduced from nine in the NPRM to six in the final document.

In the NPRM, the information requested for Defined Contribution

Plans applied to all plans of this type. In the final version, if there

are more than three plans, this information has to be supplied only for

plans that account for 80-percent of the defined contribution plan

costs.

Defined Benefit Plans. The number of questions asked in this area

has not been changed. However, the topics covered and the manner of

presentation have been somewhat changed. In particular, it has been

made clear that regarding actuarial assumptions, no disclosure of

actual numeric values is required. Only the basis for determining these

numeric values need be described.

Post-Retirement Benefits (PRBs). This section has been rearranged

to conform with the pattern established for pension plans in the

previous section. In the NPRM, the questions posed were applicable to

all PRB plans. In the final rule, questions dealing with general plan

information have been separated from questions dealing with more

specific aspects of PRB cost determination. The latter group consists

of five questions and they have to be completed only for those plans

that, in the aggregate, account for at least 80-percent of the total

PRB costs. However, if there are three plans or less, then data on all

the plans must be disclosed.

Employee Group Insurance Programs. Responses to this section of

Part VII of the NPRM indicated that it was the most time consuming

section to complete. Therefore, some significant changes have been made

to the amount of information to be disclosed. First, if there are more

than three policies or self-insurance plans, the applicable information

should be provided only for those policies and self-insurance plans

that, in the aggregate, account for at least 80-percent of the costs of

the program for each category of insured risk. Second, the information

previously requested under three separate questions has been recast as

a single question in a tabular form. Third, a number of specific

questions dealing with treatment of dividends, earned refunds, and

employee contributions have been dropped as these items are largely

covered by the provision of CAS 9904.416, Accounting for Insurance

Costs. It is anticipated that the time needed to complete this section

of Part VII will be significantly reduced as a result of the changes

listed above.

Deferred Compensation Plans. This section has been recast to

conform to the format used in the sections dealing with pension plans

and PRBs. Therefore, the first five questions dealing with general plan

information are applicable to all the plans. Two other questions, of a

more substantive nature, should be completed for all the plans if there

are no more than three plans. If there are more than three plans, the

information should be provided for those plans that in the aggregate

account for at least 80-percent of these deferred compensation costs.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). Questions in this section

have been reformulated, and, as a result, the total number of these

general plan information questions has been increased by two as

compared with the NPRM. These questions must be completed for all

ESOPs.

Worker's Compensation Liability and Property Insurance. This

section has been rearranged to conform to the format used in dealing

with employee group insurance plans. In addition, the term ``line of

insurance'' has been introduced in an attempt to clarify the nature of

the aggregation of costs for which the relevant cost data has to be

disclosed. In this context, for the purpose of guidance, ``line of

insurance'' has the meaning attributed to it in Generally Accepted

Auditing Standards (GAAS) literature (see AICPA Audit and Accounting

Guide, Audits of Property and Liability Insurance Companies) and

includes groupings such as fire and similar perils, general liability,

marine perils, automobile liability and property damage, worker's

compensation, theft, etc. If there are more than three policies or

self-insurance plans, the applicable information should be provided

only for those policies and plans that in the aggregate account for at

least 80-percent of the applicable costs for a line of insurance. Also,

two separate questions have been combined into a single question in a

tabular form.

Comment: Several comments relating to Part VIII, Corporate or Group

Expenses, dealt with the requirement in the NPRM to ``list all active

segments and groups that are material in size reporting to the home . .

. office''. Suggestions received included deletion of the words

``all'', ``active'', and ``that are material in size'' in the above

quote from the first question in this part. At least one commenter

suggested that if the term ``material'' is used, criteria for

materiality should be developed.

Response: The suggestions regarding deletions have been accepted by

the Board. The restated sentence reads: ``list segments and other

intermediate level home offices reporting to this home office.''

The Board believes that this is an area where the individuals

implementing the Standards and other regulations necessarily must

exercise their own judgment in carrying out their tasks. The objective

of this provision in the Disclosure Statement is to obtain a listing of

segments and other entities to which home office expenses may be

allocated. This allocation is part of the cost determination process

for government contract costing purposes. Furthermore, this cost

determination process, which includes all the relevant pronouncements

of the Board, is subject to the materiality provisions of 9903.305.

Specific reiteration of the materiality provision in each instance is

not needed. Therefore, the requirement in the present instance is to

list all the segments or other entities reporting to the home office

that may have other than immaterial impact on the cost allocation

process from the home office to its subordinate entities.

Comment: Several suggestions were received to improve and

streamline the main section of Part VIII that deals with the pooling

and allocation of home office expenses.

Response: Several of the suggestions received have been adopted. An

addition has been made to the list of allocation base codes used and

one question in the NPRM has been eliminated and its substance combined

with another question.

[[Page 7620]]

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 9903

Cost accounting standards, Government procurement.

Richard C. Loeb,

Executive Secretary, Cost Accounting Standards Board.

For the reasons set forth in this preamble, chapter 99 of title 48

of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for Part 9903 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Public Law 100-679, 102 Stat. 4056, 41 U.S.C. 422.

PART 9903--CONTRACT COVERAGE

Subpart 9903.2--CAS Program Requirements

2. Section 9903.202 is amended by deleting the illustrated CASB DS-

1 and inserting a revised CASB DS-1.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 7621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.000

[[Page 7622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.001

[[Page 7623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.002

[[Page 7624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.003

[[Page 7625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.004

[[Page 7626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.005

[[Page 7627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.006

[[Page 7628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.007

[[Page 7629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.008

[[Page 7630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.009

[[Page 7631]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.010

[[Page 7632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.011

[[Page 7633]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.012

[[Page 7634]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.013

[[Page 7635]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.014

[[Page 7636]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.015

[[Page 7637]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.016

[[Page 7638]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.017

[[Page 7639]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.018

[[Page 7640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.019

[[Page 7641]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.020

[[Page 7642]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.021

[[Page 7643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.022

[[Page 7644]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.023

[[Page 7645]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.024

[[Page 7646]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.025

[[Page 7647]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.026

[[Page 7648]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.027

[[Page 7649]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.028

[[Page 7650]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.029

[[Page 7651]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.030

[[Page 7652]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.031

[[Page 7653]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.032

[[Page 7654]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.033

[[Page 7655]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.034

[[Page 7656]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.035

[[Page 7657]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.036

[[Page 7658]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.037

[[Page 7659]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.038

[[Page 7660]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.039

[[Page 7661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28FE96.040

[FR Doc. 96-4472 Filed 2-27-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C