This is going to be put in the record. I have just read part of the description. The minutes continue:

The committee considered this request for scope amendment, and after reviewing the draft of recommendation submitted by the Certificate of Necessity Section, suggested certain insertions, changes and alterations for the purpose of elaborating on significant features of the application.

It was agreed that the changes recommended would be made by the Certificate of Necessity Section and submitted to the Director of the Iron and Steel Division for his signature without any further committee action.

The committee, therefore, recommended approval of this scope amendment in its entirety and emphasized that unless the most favorable base for financing be considered by ODM for the applicant the whole project could collapse, resulting in a further loss of ingots and the finished products of this mill to the New England area.

My question is not as to the advisability of this recommendation but is this. Was this a situation where a WOC from United States Steel was passing upon the recommendations made with respect to the tax amortization application of New England Steel Development Co. ?

Mr. HONEYWELL. That is a scope amendment which is an increase or an adjustment of a formerly granted TA and in answer to your question it would appear that he was.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

MINUTES OF MEETING, NOVEMBER 15, 1954

A Steel TA Committee Meeting was held on November 15, 1954 at 2 p. m. in the office of the Director, Iron and Steel Division, which was attended by the following:

Howard J. Mullin, Director, Iron and Steel Division, BDSA
Charles Halcomb, Deputy Director, Iron and Steel Division, BDSA

A. Oram, Chief, Business Research and Analysis Branch, Iron and Steel Division,
BDSA

F. H. Crockard, Chief, Facilities, Raw Materials and Refractories Branch Iron and Steel

R. E. Curran, Analyst, Certificate of Necessity Section, Iron and Steel Division,¦ BDSA

James Farrell, Expansion Program Coordinator, Finance Division, Production Area, ODM

The attached application was reviewed. The committee's recommendation and reason therefor is shown in this case. The meeting adjourned at 3 p. m.

H. J. MULLIN,

Director, Iron and Steel Division, BDSA.

TA-26729 New England Steel Development Corp., scope amendment.

NOVEMBER 15, 1954.

26729 $7,750,000. New England Steel Development Corp., 780 Windsor Street, Hartford, Conn.

SCOPE AMENDMENT

EG-6, Steel Ingots.

X

The committee considered this request for scope amendment, and after re viewing the draft of recommendation submitted by the Certificate of Necessity Section, suggested certain insertions, changes, and alterations for the purpose of elaborating on significant features of the application. It was agreed that the changes recommended would be made by the Certificate of Necessity Section and

submitted to the Director of the Iron and Steel Division for his signature without any further committee action.

The committee, therefore, recommended approval of this scope amendment in its entirety and emphasized that unless the most favorable base for financing be considered by ODM for the applicant the whole project could collapse, resulting in a further loss of ingots and the finished products of this mill to the New England area.

Mr. WALDEN. Now does United States Steel Corp. do a large amount of business in New England?

Mr. HONEYWELL. I would assume so. I don't know.

Mr. WALDEN. I would like to introduce into the record at this time exhibit S-308B of the steel hearings conducted by this subcommittee in the 81st Congress indicating the extent of business in hot-rolled sheets, cold-rolled sheets, hot-rolled bars, but-weld pipe, seamless pipe and other steel products of United States Steel Corp. in the New England area.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT S-308B

TABLE 1B.—Combined shipments, 14 steel companies, and United States Steel Corp. shipments of selected carbon steel products, by geographic areas, 1940 and 1947

1-4

[Net tons]

TABLE 1B.-Combined shipments, 14 steel companies, and United States Steel Corp. shipments of selected carbon steel products, by geographic areas, 1940 and 1947—Continued

! Eastern territory: (a) Atlantic: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York City, Philadelphia, Rhode Island, Virginia, District of Columbia; (b) Inland: Kentucky, New York (except New York City), Pennsylvania (except Philadelphia), Ohio, Vermont, West Virginia.

? Midwest territory: (a) Central West: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin; (b) West and Mountain: Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming.

Southern territory: (a) Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; (b) Southwest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas.

Pacific Western territory: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington.

Percent of 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 85.2 percent, 1948, 87.9 percent. Total United States production: 1940, 11,706,000; 1947, 16,450,800. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 21.8 percent; 1947, 20.5 percent.

Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 86.6 percent; 1948, 94.9 percent. Total United States production: 1940, 3,630,500; 1947, 6,463,400. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 15.8 percent; 1947, 13.3 percent.

7 Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 77.9 percent; 1948, 77 percent. Total United States production: Merchant bars, 1940, 6,459,300; 1947, 9,314,800; concrete reinforcement bars, 1940, 1,426,000; 1947, 1,466,800. Percent, United States Steel production: Merchant bars, 1940, 18.8; 1947, 22.2; concrete reinforcement bars, 1940, 26.5; 1947, 20.2.

Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 66.7 percent; 1948, 69.0 percent. Total United States production: 1940, 1,374,500; 1947, 1,863,600. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 22.1 percent; 1947, 18.1 percent.

Percent 14 companies' capacity of total capacity: 1938, 71.8; 1948, 73.4. Total United States production: 1940, 1,960,300; 1947, 2,894,800. Percent United States Steel production: 1940, 49.3; 1947, 43.7.

NOTE. When metropolitan areas are included, as above, they include such counties as designated in S. Rept. 44, Feb. 10, 1949. Data used here are from Form I and do not include shipments to affiliated fabri cating companies and divisions of the reporting company.

Source: Combined Shipments From the Special Report of the Special Committee To Study Problems of American Small Business, U. S. Senate, 80th Cong., 2d sess., pursuant to S. Res. 20, S. Rep. No. 44, Feb. 10, 1949. (See appendix A.) U. S. Steel Corp. shipment data provided by U. S. Steel Corp. on the same basis.

The CHAIRMAN. That will conclude your testimony, Mr. Honeywell. However, on the basis of whatever additional information and data and memoranda we have, we may want to recall you. I don't know when. It may not be necessary but you will hold yourself on call, will you not?

Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, sir, it is only fair, I believe, to advise the committee that I have a speaking engagement next Wednesday.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we will make it at your convenience. Mr. HONEYWELL. I have a long-time standing responsibility to go aboard next Saturday a week. I am going to the atomic energy meeting in Geneva.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be done after you come back from abroad and entirely at your convenience.

Mr. HONEYWELL. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearings will now adjourn until someday next week, when we shall hear at their convenience the head of the United States Civil Service Commission and Judge Barnes of the Antitrust Division and one or two other witnesses. An announcement will be forthcoming later as to when they will appear.

Thank you very much, Mr. Honeywell.

(Whereupon at 12: 50 p. m. the committee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chairman.)