issue-1994-01-04•Federal Register notices — 1994-01-04
Federal Register notices — 1994-01-04
issue-1994-01-04Federal Register notices — 1994-01-04Notice
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 94-97 Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Upgrade Project at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 301-302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-97]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Proposed Sanitary Sewer
System Upgrade Project at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Floodplain statement of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a Floodplain Statement of Findings for the proposed
sanitary sewer project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) prepared
in accordance with 10 CFR 1022. DOE proposes to upgrade the sanitary
sewer system to provide adequate service in the main complex area and
outlying regions of the Oak Ridge Reservation. Only certain sections of
two subprojects would be located in a 100-year floodplain. The East
Area Sewer Main subproject would include installing approximately 2,900
linear feet of new sewer line that would lie within the 100-year
floodplain of White Oak Creek located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This
line would be installed in a trench about 2 feet deep. After
installation, the trench would be backfilled and compacted. Finally,
the area would be graded to original contour and seeded. The Sewer Main
to Outlying Areas subproject would install approximately 8,300 linear
feet of new pipeline. The new pipeline would be located in the 100-year
floodplain of White Oak Creek only where the pipeline crosses White Oak
Creek and an unnamed tributary feeding the creek from the west. At
these crossings, the pipeline would be placed on the existing causeways
and adjacent to the roadway. After installation, the area would be
returned to the original condition.
DOE prepared a floodplain and wetlands assessment describing the
effects, alternatives, and measures designed to avoid or minimize
potential harm to or within the affected floodplain. DOE will endeavor
to allow 15 days of public review after publication of the Statement of
Findings before implementing the proposed action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Information on the proposed action
(including maps of potentially disturbed floodplain areas) is available
from: Mr. Doyle Brown, Waste Management Division (EW-92), Oak Ridge
Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 2001, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8541, or fax comments to (615) 576-5333. For
further information on general DOE floodplain/wetland environmental
review requirements, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Oversight (EH-25), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Floodplain Statement of Findings
for the proposed sanitary sewer upgrade project at ORNL. A Notice of
Floodplain/Wetlands Involvement was published in the Federal Register
on October 4, 1993 (58 FR 51624). DOE proposes to upgrade the sanitary
sewer system to provide adequate service in the main complex area and
outlying regions of the reservation. These upgrades are needed because
of the deterioration in portions of the system, which are approaching
50-years of age; restrictive bends in sections of the piping; excessive
surface and subsurface infiltration during heavy rains; infiltration of
ground water; high cost and potential environmental damage of
collecting, pumping, and hauling sanitary waste from holding tanks in
the outlying areas; and lack of reserve capacity during peak periods of
use. Of the proposed upgrades, only certain sections of two subprojects
would be located in a 100-year floodplain. These subprojects would be
the East Area Sewer Main and the Sewer Main to Outlying Areas.
The East Area Sewer Main subproject would include the installation
of approximately 2,900 linear feet of new sewer line that would lie
within the 100-year floodplain of White Oak Creek. This line would be
installed in a trench about 2 feet deep. After installation, the trench
would be backfilled and compacted. Finally, the area would be graded to
original contour and seeded.
Currently, facilities in the outlying areas of the plant use either
collection tanks or septic systems. The waste in the tanks is routinely
pumped into trucks and taken to the main treatment plant. The cost of
collection and maintenance of the sanitary facilities in the outlying
areas continues to increase. Additionally, this existing system can
negatively affect the environment. The objective of the Sewer Main to
Outlying Areas subproject is to directly connect, via a pipeline, these
facilities to the main sewage treatment plant. Approximately 8,300
linear feet of new pipeline would be installed. The new pipeline would
be located in the 100-year floodplain of White Oak Creek only where the
pipeline crosses White Oak Creek and an unnamed tributary feeding the
creek from the west. At these crossings, the pipeline would be placed
on the existing causeways and adjacent to the roadway. After
installation, the area would be returned to the original condition.
Since the main facilities of ORNL were built along White Oak Creek,
some upgrade projects naturally fall within the floodplain. This is the
case with the new sewer line in the East Area. The only practical route
lies between White Oak Creek and Southside Avenue, an area within the
floodplain. The creek also separates the main complex from the outlying
areas. Thus, the sewer line to the outlying areas must cross over the
existing causeways to avoid the installation of new, separate
crossings.
Several alternatives were evaluated. A no action alternative was
evaluated for both subprojects. Two alternative routes for the new
sewer main in the East Area were examined. An alternative route for the
sewer main to the outlying areas was not evaluated since the only
practical route follows the existing creek crossings.
The proposed upgrades occurring in the floodplain would not have
any long-term effects upon the floodplain or surrounding environment.
Only during construction could the project potentially affect the
floodplain or the aquatic life in White Oak Creek and the impacts, if
any, would be negligible. During construction, sediment could be
introduced into the creek and unnamed tributary. DOE will prepare a
sediment control plan identifying the best management practices to be
employed during construction to minimize potential harm to or within
the affected floodplain. Control measures would include the use of
sediment and erosion control fences to minimize siltation. Procedural
measures would include excavating trenches of the minimum size and
performing construction activities during dry periods. Immediately upon
installation of sections of the sewer line, the trench would be
backfilled and compacted. The area would then be graded to the original
contour and seeded. The upgrade project would conform to all applicable
State and local floodplain protection standards.
DOE will endeavor to allow 15 days of public review after
publication of the Statement of Findings prior to implementing the
proposed action.
Issued at Washington, DC, on December 21, 1993.
Mark W. Frei,
Director, Office of Waste Management Projects, Office of Waste
Management, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.
[FR Doc. 94-97 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-96 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To Import ``Special Purchase Natural Gas'' From Canada
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-96]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Fossil Energy
[FE Docket No. 93-126-NG]
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization
To Import ``Special Purchase Natural Gas'' From Canada
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives
notice that it has issued an order granting Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company authorization to import up to 75,000 Mcf per day of ``special
purchase natural gas'' from its Canadian supplier, Progas Limited, over
a two-year period beginning on the date of the first import after March
11, 1994.
This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of
Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The
docket room is open between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 23, 1993.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Office of Coal & Electricity, Office of Fuels Programs,
Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-96 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-95 Suncor Inc.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To Import Natural Gas From Canada
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-95]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FE Docket No. 93-140-NG]
Suncor Inc.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To Import
Natural Gas From Canada
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives
notice that it has issued an order granting Suncor Inc. authorization
to import up to 127.66 billion cubic feet of natural gas from Canada
over a two-year term beginning on the date of first delivery after
December 31, 1993.
This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of
Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The
docket room is open between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued in Washington, DC, December 23, 1993.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Office of Coal & Electricity, Office of Fuels Programs,
Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-95 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-9484 Notice of Lodging of Partial Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water Act
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 332-333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9484]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Partial Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean
Water Act
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is
hereby given that a partial consent decree resolving the remaining two
of five counts in United States v. Windward Properties, Inc, and Mobil
Land Development (Georgia) Corp., No. 1:91-CV-348-JEC (N.D. Ga.), was
lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on December 13, 1993. The other three counts of the
complaint were previously settled pursuant to a partial consent decree
entered by the Court in May 1993.
The proposed partial consent decree concerns alleged violations of
sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1344, as a
result of the unpermitted construction of a dam in Caney Creek and a
recreation area in wetlands by the defendants at the Windward
development in Alpharetta, Georgia. Under the partial consent decree,
the defendants will pay a $100,000 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury,
and will provide up to $225,000 in funding for projects to improve and
protect wetlands and water quality in the same watershed where the
alleged violations occurred. If entered by the Court, the proposed
partial consent decree, in conjunction with the previously entered
partial consent decree, will fully resolve this litigation.
The Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to
this consent decree for a period of thirty days from the date of
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, Attention: Jon M. Lipshultz, Attorney,
Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, room 7216, 10th & Pennsylvania
Avenues, NW., Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States
v. Windward Properties, Inc., DJ Reference Number 90-5-1-1-3561.
The partial consent decree and accompanying exhibits may be
examined at the Clerk's office, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, 2211 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Spring Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 30335, or a copy may be requested from Jon M.
Lipshultz at the Department of Justice, (202) 514-0461.
Lois J. Schiffer,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment & Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. 94-9484 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-94 St. Clair Pipelines Ltd.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To Import and Export Natural Gas From and To Canada
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-94]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office Of Fossil Energy
[FE Docket No. 93-141-NG]
St. Clair Pipelines Ltd.; Order Granting Blanket Authorization To
Import and Export Natural Gas From and To Canada
AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives
notice that it has issued an order granting St. Clair Pipelines Ltd.
authorization to import and export up to a combined total of 200 Bcf of
natural gas from and to Canada over a two-year term beginning on the
date of first import or export.
This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of
Fuels Programs docket room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The
docket room is open between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued in Washington, DC, December 22, 1993.
Clifford P. Tomaszewski,
Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels Programs, Office of
Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 94-94 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-93 Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Fort Morgan North Tapline Project, Morgan County, CO
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 303-304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-93]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Fort Morgan North
Tapline Project, Morgan County, CO
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Floodplain statement of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a floodplain statement of findings for the Fort Morgan
North Tapline Project prepared in accordance with 10 CFR part 1022.
Western Area Power Administration (Western) proposes to construct 3
miles of new 115-kilovolt (kV) tapline in Morgan County, Colorado. The
tapline would connect Western's existing Beaver Creek-Weld 115-kV
transmission line with Morgan County Rural Electric Association's
(MCREA) new Fort Morgan North Substation. The Fort Morgan North Tapline
would cross the floodplain of the South Platte River in Morgan County,
Colorado. Western prepared a floodplain and wetlands assessment
describing the effects, alternatives, and measures designed to avoid or
minimize potential harm to or within the affected floodplain. This
action is categorically excluded under the DOE's National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). Western
will endeavor to allow 15 days of public review after publication of
the statement of findings before implementing the proposed action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Stephen A. Fausett, Area Manager, Western Area Power
Administration, Loveland Area Office, P.O. Box 3900, Loveland, CO
80539-3003, (303) 490-7200 FAX (303) 490-7213.
For further information on general DOE floodplain/wetlands
environmental review requirements contact: Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Oversight, EH-25, U.S. Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600 or
(800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a floodplain statement of findings
for the Fort Morgan North 115-kV Tapline Project prepared in accordance
with 10 CFR part 1022. A notice of floodplain and wetlands involvement
was published in the Federal Register (FR) on October 4, 1993 (58 FR
51623). Western is proposing to construct 3 miles of 115-kV tapline
between Western's existing Beaver Creek-Weld 115-kV transmission line
and MCREA's proposed new Fort Morgan North Substation. The tapline
would be single circuit and would be constructed on single wood-pole
structures. Approximately 13 wood-pole structures and two span
structures (steel H-frame design) would be located within the
floodplain of the South Platte River. Existing access is available
along most of the proposed tapline right-of-way. New access trails may
be required to access span structures located on either side of the
river crossing. No construction would occur within the river. The
tapline would span the active channel of the South Platte River.
Approximately 600 square feet of riparian woodland would be removed on
either side of the river for the construction of the two span
structures. This would be a direct long-term impact. About 0.8 acre
would be maintained as riparian shrubland as a result of project
maintenance and would also be a direct long-term impact. Approximately
2 acres would be temporarily affected during construction for equipment
and construction material staging and would be a minor short-term
impact. No watercourses or drainage patterns would be altered by the
project. Flood storage volume would not be affected. The action would
conform with applicable State or local floodplain protection standards.
This action is categorically excluded under the DOE's NEPA Implementing
Procedures (10 CFR part 1021).
Western will endeavor to allow 15 days of public review after
publication of the statement of findings prior to implementing the
proposed action.
Issued at Golden, Colorado, December 20, 1993.
William H. Clagett,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-93 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-88 The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., et al.; Haulage and Trackage Rights Over Lines of Union Pacific Railroad Co., et al.
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 330-332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-88]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Decision No. 13; Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-Nos. 1-3)]
The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., et al.; Haulage and
Trackage Rights Over Lines of Union Pacific Railroad Co., et al.
In the matter of [Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 1)], the
Kansas City Southern Railway Company--Haulage Rights Over The Lines
of Union Pacific Railroad Company and Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company; [Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 2)], St.
Louis Southwestern Railway Company and SPCL Corp.--Trackage Rights
Over Lines of Union Pacific Railroad Company and Missouri Pacific
Railroad Company in Wyandotte County, KS, and Jackson County, MO;
and [Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 3)], CCP Holdings, Inc. and
Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Company--Trackage Rights Over
Certain Lines of Union Pacific Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific
Railroad Company, and Chicago and North Western Transportation
Company.
AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Decision No. 13.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is accepting for consideration the applications
of (1) The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), (2) Southern
Pacific Transportation Company (SPT), The Denver and Rio Grande Western
Railroad Company (DRGW) and St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
(SSW), and SPCL Corp., and (3) Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad
Company (CC&P) and CCP Holdings, Inc. (CCP Holdings) for the
establishment of haulage rights, trackage rights, certain local service
rights, and certain other conditions on lines of Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UP), Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MP), and Chicago and
North Western Transportation Company (CNW). These applications are
responsive to the proposed acquisition of control of CNW by Union
Pacific Corporation and its subsidiary railroads, UP and MP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This decision is effective on January 4, 1994. Written
comments and all evidence must be filed with the Interstate Commerce
Commission by February 28, 1994. Rebuttal is due March 29, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas B. Shick (202) 927-5257 or Donald J. Shaw (202) 927-5610; TDD
for hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.
ADDRESSES: An original and 20 copies of all comments referring to
Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 1), Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No.
2), or Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 3), as appropriate, must be
filed with: Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate
Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423. Five copies of all comments
must also be sent to: Room 2118, Office of Proceedings, Interstate
Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423. One copy must be sent to the
Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation,
and the other active parties of record, including the primary
applicants' representatives.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In No. 32133, Union Pacific Corporation, and
its subsidiary railroads Union Pacific Railroad and Missouri Pacific
Railroad (collectively, UP), seek to acquire control of CNW and its
corporate parent, Chicago and North Western Holdings Corp. Notice of
acceptance of the UP application was published in the Federal Register
on February 26, 1993, at 58 FR 11626. On November 29, 1993, pursuant to
the Commission's revised procedural schedule set forth in Union Pacific
Corp., Et Al.--Control--CNW, 9 I.C.C.2d 939 (1993), the following
responsive applications were filed:
Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 1). KCS seeks the imposition of
the following protective conditions designed to ``renovate'' its
current ``north end'' haulage rights over UP between Kansas City and
Omaha, NE/Council Bluffs, IA, Lincoln, NE, Atchison, KS, and Topeka,
KS:1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These rights were negotiated with UP as a result of the
Commission's decisions in Union Pacific--Control--Missouri Pacific,
Western Pacific, 366 I.C.C. 459, 566-572 (1982); and Union Pacific
Corp. et al.--Control--MO-KS-TX Co., et al., 4 I.C.C.2d 409, 452-458
(1988).
(1) A new, cost-based, haulage charge, based upon UP's current,
actual costs, with periodic adjustments;
(2) Elimination of all restrictions as to local service and
interlining at Kansas City of traffic moving pursuant to those
haulage rights;
(3) A guarantee by UP of ``most favored nation'' treatment being
extended to KCS on all UP switching charges and practices at Omaha/
Council Bluffs; and
(4) A guarantee by UP of minimum transit time, between the
receipt or delivery of cars for shipment under the haulage rights,
on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the interchange of those
cars to KCS, with penalty provisions for any default.
KCS also seeks new haulage rights over CNW:
(5) Haulage rights, convertible to trackage rights at KCS's
option, over CNW lines between Council Bluffs and Sheldon, IA;
between Council Bluffs-Fort Dodge, IA, and the surrounding area; and
between Kansas City, MO, and Des Moines, IA; and certain related
conditions.
Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 2). SP seeks denial of the
application, but alternatively, requests the imposition of the
following conditions:
(1) Access by such trackage and haulage rights as would be most
efficient in the circumstances to provide full service to all
shippers served by CNW and its existing affiliates (except those in
Michigan and northeast Wisconsin). SP may hold out service in its
own name, and quote rates and contracts without the concurrence of
CNW; CNW shall furnish the underlying rail transportation as an
independent contractor for mutually agreed upon compensation (or
Commission prescribed compensation in the event of a failure to
agree); and CNW shall give such traffic equal handling and priority
as its own traffic;
(2) Access by such trackage and haulage rights as would be most
efficient in the circumstances (a) to serve origins and destinations
exclusively served by UP via Missouri Pacific Railroad (MP) and
former Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad lines (MKT); and (b) to bridge
between the CNW in the North and the SP in the South. SP may hold
out service in its own name, and quote rates and contracts without
the concurrence of CNW; MP shall furnish the underlying rail
transportation as an independent contractor for mutually agreed upon
compensation (or Commission prescribed compensation in the event of
a failure to agree); and MP shall give such traffic equal handling
and priority as its own traffic;
(3) Such changes in compensation, ownership and responsibility
for maintenance, dispatch and other operations, and terminal rights
and access to certain intermediate points, as will permit efficient
and effective competition by SP utilizing the trackage rights
granted in Finance Docket No. 30,000: (a) to SSW between Kansas
City, MO, and East St. Louis, IL; and (b) to DRGW between Pueblo,
CO, and Kansas City. Such changes include various measures to insure
that SP trains are to be given equal treatment with UP trains;
(4) Provisions designed to provide access to CNW facilities at
the Chicago Switching District that will allow SP to provide service
and competition on terms and conditions no less favorable than those
available to UP today, including reciprocal switching; and
(5) Access to and participation in each of the marketing and
operational coordinations of the type described at pages 372-376 of
Volume 1 of the Application, which are entered into by UP and CNW
with each other subsequent to the effective date of any control
authority granted in this proceeding, on terms and conditions that
are substantially equivalent to the terms and conditions of UP's
access or participation.
Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No. 3). CC&P and CCP Holdings
request:
(1) Overhead trackage rights for CC&P over UP's Council Bluffs
Subdivision between the connection of CC&P's rail line at CC&P
milepost 512.2 (Council Bluffs, IA) and the KCS/Soo Line Joint
Agency Yard and UPRR Neff Yard in Kansas City, MO, and Kansas City,
KS, with the right to interchange with all connecting carriers at
Kansas City, and to handle directly inbound movements of grain to
all existing grain receivers located on UP and CNW at Kansas City;
(2) Overhead trackage rights over CNW's Sioux City Subdivision
between the connection of CC&P's line with CNW's line at CNW
milepost 76.3 (Sioux City, IA) and the connection with CC&P's line
at Council Bluffs, with the right to directly handle inbound
movements of soybeans and outbound movements of soybean meal, oil,
and other soybean products to and from the Ag Processing, Inc.,
plant located on CNW at Sergeant Bluff, IA;
(3) Overhead trackage rights for CC&P over CNW's Fort Dodge
Subdivision between the connection of CC&P's line to CNW's line at
CNW milepost 372.5 (Fort Dodge, IA) and milepost 354.2, at the
private tracks of Ag Processing, Inc., at Eagle Grove, IA, for the
limited purpose of handling inbound shipments of soybeans and coal
and outbound movements of grain products to/from the Ag Processing,
Inc., plant located on CNW at Eagle Grove, IA.
The applications substantially comply with the applicable
regulations.2 The application and exhibits are available for
inspection in the Public Docket Room at the offices of the Interstate
Commerce Commission in Washington, DC. In addition, they may be
obtained upon request from applicant's representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Although SP's application includes pro forma financial
information for the first year of consummation of the transaction,
it has failed to submit pro forma statements covering subsequent
reporting period requirements under the Commission's consolidation
procedures, 49 CFR 1180.9. Given the nature of the conditions that
SP is requesting, the financial information omitted would appear to
be of very limited relevance, at best, and unnecessary to a
decision. Moreover, our regulations will change as of December 30,
1993, and the application would qualify as complete if it had been
filed after that date. See R.R. Consolidation Proced. of Significant
Transactions, 9 I.C.C.2d 1198 (1993). Consequently, we will waive
the requirement on our own motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These applications are consolidated for disposition with the
primary application in Finance Docket No. 32133. Service of an initial
decision will be waived, and determination of the merits of the
applications will be made in the first instance by the entire
Commission. 49 U.S.C. 11345(f).
Interested persons may participate formally by submitting written
comments regarding all or any of the responsive applications. Comments
should indicate the exact proceeding designation, and should be filed
with the correct number of copies and with the Commission offices
specified above no later than February 28, 1994. Comments shall include
the following: The person's position in support of or in opposition to
the proposed transaction; any and all evidence, including verified
statements, in support of or in opposition to the proposed transaction;
and specific reasons why approval would or would not be in the public
interest. See 49 CFR 1180.4(d)(1). Interested persons who do not intend
to participate formally in the proceeding but who desire to comment may
file statements, subject to the filing and service requirements
specified below. Persons must state specifically whether they intend
actively to participate in the proceeding or whether they wish only to
be advised of all decisions issued by the Commission. Failure to state
an intention to participate as an active party will result in the
person being placed in the latter category.
Written comments must be concurrently served by first class mail on
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, on the Attorney
General of the United States, and on all other persons designated as
active parties of record on the Commission's service list, including
primary applicants' representatives.
Rebuttal in support of these responsive applications must be filed
by March 19, 1994.
Because these applications contain proposed conditions to approval
of the application in Finance Docket No. 32133, the Commission will
entertain no requests for affirmative relief related to these
proposals. Parties may only participate in direct support of or direct
opposition to these applications as filed.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or energy conservation.
It is ordered:
1. To the extent that applicants failed to submit certain financial
evidence in the application filed in Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-No.
2) as required by 49 CFR 1180.9, the requirements of that section are
waived.
2. The applications in Finance Docket No. 32133 (Sub-Nos. 1, 2, and
3) are accepted for consideration.
3. The parties shall comply with all provisions as stated above.
Decided: December 21, 1993.
By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Simmons,
Commissioners Phillips and Philbin.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-88 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-87 EASX Railroad CorporationPurchase and Operation ExemptionCSX Transportation, Inc., Line in Pennsylvania
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-87]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32412]
EASX Railroad Corporation--Purchase and Operation Exemption--CSX
Transportation, Inc., Line in Pennsylvania
AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.
ACTION: Notice of exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10505, the Commission exempts from the
regulatory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11343, et seq., the purchase and
operation by EASX Railroad Corporation (EASX) of a line of CSX
Transportation, Inc., and two of its affiliates, Allegheny and Western
Railway Company and Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company,
subject to standard labor protective conditions. The line, known as the
``Sample Spur'', is 0.7 mile long and located in New Castle, PA.
DATES: This exemption is effective on February 3, 1994. Petitions to
stay must be filed January 19, 1994. Petitions to reopen must be filed
by January 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Finance Docket No. 32412 to: (1)
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce
Commission, Washington, DC 20423, and (2) Betty Jo Christian, 1330
Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard B. Felder (202) 927-5610. [TDD
for hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., room 2229,
Interstate Commerce Commission Building, Washington, DC 20423.
Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through TDD services (202) 927-5721].
Decided: December 23, 1993.
By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Simmons,
Commissioners Phillips, and Philbin.
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-87 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-86 Notice of Filing of Plat of Dependent Resurvey
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-86]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-960-4950-10-4600: ES-046621, Group 11, Virginia]
Notice of Filing of Plat of Dependent Resurvey
The plat, in one sheet, of a portion of George Washington Memorial
Parkway, Fairfax County, Virginia, has been officially filed in Eastern
States, Springfield, Virginia, at 7:30 a.m., on December 17, 1993.
The survey was made upon request submitted by the National Park
Service.
Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $4.00 per copy.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Charles E. Bush,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. 94-86 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-85 Use of Helicopters in Wild Horse Roundup Activities; Public Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-85]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[WY-040-04-4370-01]
Use of Helicopters in Wild Horse Roundup Activities; Public
Hearing
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A public hearing on the use of helicopters in wild horse
roundup activities will be held at the White Mountain Library, Grace
Gasson Room.
DATES: February 23, 1994, 7 p.m. until 9 p.m.
ADDRESSES: White Mountain Library, 2935 Sweetwater Drive, Rock Springs,
Wyoming, 82901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marlowe E. Kinch, District Manager, Rock Springs District Office,
Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming, 82901.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will be limited to:
1. Introduction and opening remarks.
2. Review of the Wild Horse Management Plan.
3. Use of helicopters in the Plan.
4. Film presentation of roundup activity.
5. Public comment period.
The meeting is open to the public and interested persons may make
statements on the subject. All statements will be recorded.
Marlowe E. Kinch,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 94-85 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-83 Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Resource Conservation Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-83]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Resource
Conservation Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v.
Environmental Pacific Corp., Civil Action No. 91-771-AS was lodged on
December 17, 1993, with the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon. The Consent Decree settles all claims with the two
defendants, Environmental Pacific Corporation (EPC) and Richard Hill.
The original complaint in this action was brought against EPC
pursuant to Section 3008(h) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6928(h), seeking an order that EPC perform
corrective action at its facility in Amity, Oregon to clean up
hazardous constituents that had been released into the environment. EPC
operated a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility in
Amity, where EPC handled primarily spent batteries, electroplating
wastewater treatment sludge, and other allegedly recyclable materials
containing plastics and metals.
In an amended complaint, the United States added claims against EPC
and Richard Hill, the President of EPC while the company was in
operation, pursuant to 40 CFR 268.50 for improper storage of F006
electroplating wastes and mercury, which are wastes restricted from
land disposal under RCRA. The amended complaint also included a claim
against Richard Hill under section 104(e) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), for failure to timely respond to
information requests that EPA had sent to Mr. Hill.
As set forth in the consent decree, Settling Defendants shall pay
$113,055.30 towards past response costs incurred during a removal
action performed by EPA pursuant to its authority under section 104 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604, at the EPC facility. Settling Defendants shall
also pay $60,163.00 which will be used for performing sampling and
analysis and groundwater monitoring outside of the boundaries of the
EPC facility.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30)
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division,
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United
States v. Environmental Pacific Corp., DOJ Ref. #90-7-1-608.
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the
United States Attorney, 312 U.S. Courthouse, 620 SW Main Street,
Portland, Oregon 97205; the Region 10 Office of EPA, 7th Floor Records
Center, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; and at the Consent Decree
Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202)
624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained in
person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW.,
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy please refer to
the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $6.75 (25
cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree
Library.
John C. Cruden,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 94-83 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-82 Partial Record of Decision (ROD) for the Disposal and Reuse of Norton Air Force Base (AFB), CA
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 298-299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-82]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Partial Record of Decision (ROD) for the Disposal and Reuse of
Norton Air Force Base (AFB), CA
On December 15, 1993, the Air Force signed the Partial ROD for the
Disposal and Reuse of Norton AFB. The decisions included in this
partial ROD have been made in consideration of, but not limited to, the
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of Norton AFB, filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency on June 4, 1993.
Norton AFB will formally close on March 31, 1994, pursuant to the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
(BRAC) (Public Law 100-526) and recommendations of the Defense
Secretary's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure. Pending closure
of Norton AFB, this ROD documents the decisions made by the Air Force
on the division of parcels, the method parcels are to be conveyed or
transferred, and the mitigation measures to be adopted.
The primary decision in this ROD is to dispose of the aviation-
related portion of Norton AFB in a manner that will enable the
development of a regional airport with the capacity for expanding
commercial and industrial development. The portion of the base covered
by this ROD has been divided into ten (10) parcels. The airport parcel,
including four (4) non aviation revenue producing parcels, will be
conveyed at no-cost via public benefit conveyance for airport purposes.
Three (3) parcels are to be offered for negotiated sale, and two (2)
parcels will be reserved for transfer to another Federal Agency. The
Air Force decided to defer decisions on roads, utilities, and portions
of Norton AFB not covered by this ROD pending further analysis and
review. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has jurisdiction by
law regarding reuse of the runways and associated facilities as a
civilian airport. A decision, if any, by the FAA to approve an airport
layout plan (ALP) will be announced by a separate ROD issued by the FAA
based on the analysis in the FEIS and any additional FAA analysis that
may be required.
The implementation of the closure and reuse action and associated
mitigation measures will proceed with minimal adverse impact to the
environment. This action conforms with applicable Federal, State and
local statutes and regulations. All reasonable and practical efforts
have been incorporated to minimize harm to the local public and
environment.
Any questions regarding this matter should be directed to Mr. John
E. B. Smith or Ms. De Carlo Ciccel at (703) 696-5534. Correspondence
should be sent to: AFBCA/SP, 1700 North Moore Street, suite 2300,
Arlington, VA 22209-2802.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-82 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-81 Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual Groups
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-81]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual
Groups
On December 13, 1993, the Secretary of the Air Force determined
that the service of the group known as ``U.S. Civilian Female Employees
of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps While Serving in the Defense of Bataan and
Corregidor During the Period January 2, 1942 to February 3, 1945''
shall be considered ``active duty'' under the provisions of Public Law
95-202 for the purposes of all laws administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
To be eligible for VA benefits, each member of the group must
establish:
1. They were employed as U.S. civilian female employees of the U.S.
Army Nurse Corps (ANC), during the period January 2, 1942 to February
3, 1945, and
2. When their employment began with the ANC, and
3. Continuous employment prior to surrender of Corregidor to the
Japanese on May 6, 1942, to gain recognition for the time spent in the
civilian internment camps, and
4. The date of release/escape from a civilian internment camp or
termination date prior to Japanese internment.
Application Procedures
Before an individual can receive any VA benefits, the person must
first apply for an Armed Forces Discharge Certificate by filling out a
DD Form 2168 and sending it to the following address: US Army Reserve
Personnel Center (DARP-VSE-N), 9700 Page Blvd, St. Louis, MO 6132-520.
Important: Applicants must attach supporting documents to their DD
Form 2168 application. Considered of primary importance will be any
civilian employment records.
Upon confirmation of an applicant's eligibility the DD-214 will be
passed to the Awards and Decorations office to determine which ribbons
the applicant is eligible to receive (campaign ribbons, theater
ribbons, victory medal, etc.). Specific awards (i.e., Silver Star,
Purple Heart, etc.) need separate justification detailing the act,
achievement, or service believed to warrant the appropriate medal/
ribbon.
DD Forms 2168 are available from VA offices or from the U.S. Air
Force offices in this notice.
For further information contact Lt. Col. Robert Dunlap at the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (AFPC), 1535 Command
Drive-3d Floor-EE Wing, Andrews AFB, MD 20331-7002, telephone (301)
981-3504/5750.
Benefit Information
A determination of ``active duty'' under Public Law 95-202 is ``for
the purposes of all laws administered by the Department of Veterans'
Affairs'' (Sec 106, 38 USC). Benefits are not retroactive and do not
include such things as increased military or Federal Civil Service
retirement pay, or a military burial detail, for example. Entitlement
to state veterans benefits vary and are governed by each state.
Therefore, for specific benefits information, contact your nearest
Veterans Affairs Office and your state veterans service office after
you have received your DD Form 214.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-81 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-80 Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual Groups
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 297-298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-80]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual
Groups
On December 13, 1993, the Secretary of the Air Force determined
that the service of the group known as ``U.S. Civilian Flight Crew and
Aviation Ground Support Employees of Northwest Airlines, Who Served
Overseas as a Result of Northwest Airline's Contract with the Air
Transport Command during the Period December 14, 1941 through August
14, 1945,'' shall be considered active duty for purposes of all laws
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
To receive recognition, each applicant must establish they:
1. Were employed by Northwest Air Lines as flight crew personnel
(pilot, co-pilot, navigator, flight engineer, radio operator) or
2. Were employed by Northwest Air Lines as aviation ground support
personnel (aircraft mechanic, station manager, dispatcher), or other
support personnel necessary to sustain flight operations, and
3. Served outside the continental United States in direct support of
Air Transport Command-directed flight operations during the period
December 14, 1941 through August 14, 1945.
Qualifying periods of time are computed from the date of departure
from the continental United States to the date of return to the
continental United States.
Application Procedures
Before an individual can receive any VA benefits, the person must
first apply for an Armed Forces Discharge Certificate by filling out a
DD Form 2168 and sending it to the following address: HQ AFMPC/DPMARS2,
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-6001, ATTN: Sgt White.
Important: Applicants must attach supporting documents to their DD
Form 2168 application. Considered of primary importance will be any
employment records from Northwest Airlines headquarters. Other
supporting documentation might include copies of passports with
appropriate entries, flight log books, Army Air Force Identification
Forms 133, any personal employment records such as commendations
regarding ATC performance, employee expense reports of charges to USAAF
contracts, medical certifications prior to departure from U.S., USAAF
passes to leave the limits of an overseas base, military orders,
miscellaneous USAAF papers, etc. Additionally, the captain of a flight
crew may provide written confirmation for other crew members on the
flight.
Upon confirmation of an applicant's eligibility the DD-214 will be
passed from HQ AFMPC/DPMARS2 to the Awards and Decorations office (in
the same building) to determine which ribbons the applicant is eligible
to receive (campaign ribbons, theater ribbons, victory medal, etc.).
Specific awards (i.e., Silver Star, Purple Heart, Air Medal, etc.) need
separate justification detailing the act, achievement, or service
believed to warrant the appropriate medal/ribbon.
DD Forms 2168 are available from VA offices or from the U.S. Air
Force offices in this notice.
For further information contact Lt. Col. Robert Dunlap at the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (AFPC), 1535 Command
Drive-3d Floor-EE Wing, Andrews AFB, MD 20331-7002, telephone (301)
981-3504/5750.
Benefit Information
A determination of ``active duty'' under Public Law 95-202 is ``for
the purposes of all laws administered by the Department of Veterans
Affairs'' (Sec. 106, 38 U.S.C.). Benefits are not retroactive and do
not include such things as increased military or Federal Civil Service
retirement pay, or a military burial detail, for example. Entitlement
to state veterans benefits vary and are governed by each state.
Therefore, for specific benefits information, contact your nearest
Veterans Affairs Office and your state veterans service office after
you have received your Armed Forces discharge documents.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-80 Filed 1-03-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-79 White Sand Ecosystem Management Project; Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, ID
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 290-292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-79]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
White Sand Ecosystem Management Project; Clearwater National
Forest, Idaho County, ID
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of vegetation
retention, vegetation treatments, access management, and fish habitat
enhancement in the vicinity of White Sand Creek, Beaver Creek, Savage
Creek, Rabbit Creek, and Colt Creek drainages. The area is located
south and east of the Powell Ranger Station, Powell Ranger District,
Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho. Most of the proposed
project's activities are within the North Fork Spruce - White Sand
(#1309) and Sneakfoot Meadows (#1314) Roadless Areas. The proposal's
actions are being considered together because they represent either
connected or cumulative actions as defined by the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25).
The purposes of the project are to implement the Clearwater Forest
Plan within the context of Ecosystem Management principles; conserve
biological diversity; retain the undeveloped character of White Sand
scenery; restore ecosystem function in fire-dependant forest
communities; reduce the risk of large fires and improve opportunities
for use of prescribed natural fire; create vistas and visually
rehabilitate several existing harvest unit boundaries; produce wood
products and increase timber growth and yield in a way that provides
long-term sustainability of both wood products and other ecosystem
elements; protect water quality, fish populations, wildlife, and
roadless characteristics influenced by access; improve safety of roads
for current public use and expected increases and changes in use;
enhance trail-based recreation; and manage limiting factors that affect
fish populations in White Sand streams.
This project-level EIS will tier to the Clearwater National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final EIS
(September, 1987), which provides overall guidance of all land
management activities on the Clearwater National Forest.
DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received on or before
February 18, 1994, to receive timely consideration in the preparation
of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency in September, 1994. The Final EIS and Record of
Decision are expected to be issued in February, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed
action or requests for a map of the proposed action or to be placed on
the project mailing list to Margaret Gorski, District Ranger, Powell
Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest, Lolo, MT 59847.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pope, EIS Team Leader, Powell
Ranger District, CLearwater National Forest, Phone (208) 942-3113.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is based on the findings
of the White Sand Integrated Resource and Ecosystem Analysis (IRA). The
White Sand IRA is the first analysis on the Powell Ranger District
using policy direction and emerging concepts of Ecosystem Management
(EM). The overriding purpose of EM policy is to better blend the needs
of people and environmental values so that National Forests represent
diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.
The planning area consists of approximately 40,000 acres of
National Forest land located in sections 33-36 of T.37N., R.14E.;
sections 13-15, 20-24 and 26-35 of T.37N., R.15E.; sections 1-3, 10-16
and 22-27 of T.36N., R.14E.; sections 1-11, 13-14 and 25-36 of T.36N.,
R.15E.; sections 1, 2, 11 and 12 of T.35N., R.14E.; sections 2-9, 17
and 18 of T.35N. and R.15E.; Boise Meridian.
The proposed action was designed to meet various ecological and
social needs expressed in the White Sand IRA. Proposed action
activities fall into four broad categories: vegetation retention,
vegetation treatments, access management, and fish habitat enhancement.
The purpose of the proposed action is to:
Vegetation Retention
--Conserve biological diversity
--Retain the undeveloped character of White Sand scenery
Vegetation Treatments
--Restore ecosystem function in fire-dependant forest types
--Reduce the risk of large fires in White Sand landscape and improve
opportunities for use of prescribed natural fire
--Create vistas and visually rehabilitate several existing harvest unit
boundaries
--Implement the Clearwater Forest Plan within the context of Ecosystem
Management
--Produce wood products and increase timber growth and yield in a way
that provides long-term sustainability of both wood products and other
ecosystem elements
Access Management
--Protect water quality, fish populations, and roadless characteristics
influenced by access
--Improve safety of roads for current public use and expected increases
or changes in use
--Enhance trail-based recreation
Fish habitat Enhancement
--manage limiting factors that affect fish populations in White Sand
streams
The proposed action would accomplish the following activities over
the next ten years:
Vegetation Retention and Treatments
--1,314 acres of underburning in fire-dependant vegetation communities,
59 acres of planting understocked seedling stands, 14 acres of
precommercial thinning overstocked sapling stands, create one vista
area for picnicking and viewing scenery, implement the following
prescriptions for managing the forest: 704 acres of uneven-aged
regeneration harvest, 1313 acres of even-aged regeneration harvest, 55
acres of commercial thinning, and 50 acres of uneven-aged regeneration
harvest with underburning. These prescriptions would result in harvest
of about 14,418 thousand board feet (MBF) of timber
Access Management
--2.7 miles of temporary road construction to provide access for
harvesting, 6.0 miles of permanent road construction to provide access
for harvesting, 10.7 miles of road reconstruction to improve safety,
re-align the junction of roads 360 and 359 to improve safety, create 3
temporary helicopter landings for harvesting, manage road access by
closing all new roads with gates or earthen barriers after completion
of management activities, 5.7 miles of new trail construction, and 13.6
miles of existing trail reconstruction
Fish Habitat Enhancement
--5.4 miles of fish habitat improvement by increasing active debris,
developing pools, and modifying debris dams and passage barriers
Possible Forest Plan amendments or site-specific adjustments may be
needed to implement the proposed action. For example, the Powell
District will need to seek approval to exceed the 40 acre opening
limitation, to create openings within the historic range of variation
and minimize fragmentation of large blocks of old growth. Openings
larger than 40 acres would retain remnants of the original tree cover
to provide structural diversity within those stands. Possible Forest
Plan amendments include:
--Management area allocation changes for the Wild and Scenic River
Corridor, to be determined through the concurrent Wild and Scenic River
Suitability Study for White Sand Creek
--Change the Forest Plan standard for Beaver Creek from A channel to B
channel standards
--Change the Forest Plan standard for Crab Creek from Steelhead to
Cutthroat
--Propose a Visual Travel Corridor for Elk Summit Road
--Propose several Visual Travel Corridors including parts of Beaver
Ridge Trail 47 and roads 369, 368, 111, 362, 360, and 359
The decision to be made is what, if anything, should be done in the
White Sand Planning Area to achieve the purpose and need.
The Clearwater Forest Plan provides guidance for management
activities within the potentially affected area through its goals,
objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction.
The area of proposed timber harvest and reforestation would occur
within Management Areas C8S, E1, E3, A4, and M2. Timber harvest would
occur only on suitable timber land, except where needed to facilitate
ecosystem burning. These areas would be harvested only to manage fuel
conditions to prevent crown fires during reintroduction of fire to
fire-dependant ecosystems. Ecosystem burning would occur within
management area C6, Key Fishery Habitat. Below is a brief description
of the applicable management direction.
Management Area E1--Timber Management--Provide optimum, sustained
production of timber products in a cost effective manner while
protecting soil and water quality.
Management Area E3--Aerial Harvesting Systems/Timber Management--
Similar to management area E1, except long-span cable, multi-span
cable, or helicopter harvest systems will be utilized to limit road
development.
Management Area C8S--Big Game Summer Range/Timber Management--
Maintain high quality wildlife and fishery objectives while producing
timber.
Management Area A4--Visual Travel Corridor--Maintain or enhance an
aesthetically pleasing, natural appearing forest setting surrounding
designated roads, trails, and other areas considered important for
recreational travel and use.
Management Area M2--Riparian Lands--Meet watershed and riparian
dependant resource objectives and compatible timber production.
Management Area C6--Key Fishery Habitat--Soil and water will be
protected in these lands encompassing or adjacent to high value fishery
streams. Considered key summer range for elk and moose. This area is
designated unsuitable for timber production.
The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives to the
proposed action. One of these will be the ``no action'' alternative, in
which none of the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional
alternatives will examine varying levels and locations for the proposed
activities to achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to
the issues and other resource values.
The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and projected
activities on both private and National Forest lands will be
considered. The EIS will disclose the analysis of site-specific
mitigation measures and their effectiveness.
Public participation is an important part of the project,
commencing with the initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which
starts with publication of this notice and continues for the next 45
days. In addition, the public is encouraged to visit with Forest
Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the
decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and
assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, the Nez Perce
Tribe, and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in
or affected by the proposed action. Public meetings will be scheduled
between now and publishing of the Draft EIS. Interested individuals and
organizations are encouraged to contact the Powell District Ranger to
be added to the project mailing list to receive future newsletters
related to this project and notification of public meetings.
Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in
preparation of the Draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to:
1. Identify potential issues.
2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a
relevant previous environmental analysis, such as the Clearwater Forest
Plan EIS.
4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action
and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects).
6. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
Some public comments have already been received in conjunction with
the White Sand IRA. Preliminary issues identified so far have been
grouped into seven major categories: Biological Diversity and Ecosystem
Management; Recreation, Wilderness, and Roadless Areas; Water Resources
and Fisheries; Wildlife; Social and Economic; Heritage Resources; and
Scenery. Issues commonly associated with effects of timber harvesting
and road construction are grouped into these seven categories. The
complete list is available upon request from the Powell District
Ranger. This list may be verified, expanded, or modified based on
public scoping for this proposal.
The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in September of
1994. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the Draft
EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability
appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that those
interested in management of the White Sand area participate at that
time. To be most helpful, comments on the Draft EIS should be as site-
specific as possible. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by
February, 1995.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45-day scoping comment period so that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to
them in developing issues and alternatives.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible.
Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
I am the responsible official for this environmental impact
statement. My address is Clearwater National Forest, 12730 Highway 12,
Orofino, ID 83544.
Dated: December 15, 1993.
James L. Caswell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-79 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-78 Realty Action: Conveyance of Public Lands in Alaska for Airport Purposes
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-78]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[AK-080-4230-05; F-85687]
Realty Action: Conveyance of Public Lands in Alaska for Airport
Purposes
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of realty action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities has requested conveyance of certain lands near the Fairbanks
International Airport. The additional lands are necessary for the use,
operation, and maintenance of the existing airport facility.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this Notice should be submitted to the
District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Steese/White Mountains
District Office, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99709.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rodney G. Everett, Realty Specialist, at the address given above or at
telephone (907) 474-2365.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following public lands in Fairbanks,
Alaska are being considered for conveyance to the State of Alaska for
airport purposes pursuant to Section 516 of the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of September 3, 1982 (96 Stat. 692; 49 U.S.C. 2215):
Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska
T.1 S., R.2 W.,
Sec. 13, Tract XIV, Parcel B;
Sec. 23, Tract XIV, Parcel A.
T.1 S., R.1 W.,
Sec. 18, Tract XVIII, Parcels A, B, and C.
Containing 72.79 acres
The above described lands have been, and remain, segregated from
all appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws
but not the mineral leasing laws.
For a period of 45 days from the date of publication of this Notice
in the Federal Register, interested parties may submit written comments
to the District Manager at the above address. Any adverse comments will
be reviewed by the State Director, who may vacate, sustain, or modify
the realty action and issue a final determination. In the absence of
any objection, the final determination of the Department of the
Interior will be made in accordance with this Notice.
Dated: December 16, 1993.
Roger Bolstad,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 94-78 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-77 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 299-301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-77]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, Defense.
ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are made
available for licensing by the Department of the Navy.
Copies of patents cited are available from the Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks, Washington, DC 20231, for $3.00 each. Requests
for copies of patents must include the patent number.
Copies of patent applications cited are available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161 for
$6.95 each ($10.95 outside North American Continent). Requests for
copies of patent applications must include the patent application
serial number. Claims are deleted from the copies of patent
applications sold to avoid premature disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. R. J. Erickson, Staff Patent Attorney, Office of Naval Research
(Code OOCC3), Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 696-4001.
Patent 5,153,597: Acousto-Optical Classifier; filed 13 December 1976;
patented 6 October 1992.
Patent 5,158,173: Weapons Storage Container To Prevent Sympathetic
Detonation of Adjacent Weapons; filed 27 July 1990; patented 27 October
1992.
Patent 5,166,009: Mixed Polymer Electrolyte and Mixed Electrolyte
Battery; filed 28 March 1991; patented 24 November 1992.
Patent 5,182,496: Method and Apparatus for Forming an Agile Plasma
Mirror Effective as a Microwave Reflector; filed 7 April 1992; patented
26 January 1993.
Patent 5,183,779: Method for Doping Gaas with High Vapor Pressure
Elements; filed 3 May 1991, patented 2 February 1993.
Patent 5,183,938: N,N'-BIS (4,4,4-Trinitrobutyryl) Hydrazine: filed 15
June 1992; patented 2 February 1993.
Patent 5,184,331: Transducer Circuit for Removing Reactive Component of
Transducer Signal; filed 1 June 1992; patented 2 February 1993.
Patent 5,186,604: Electro-Rheological Disk Pump; filed 6 June 1991;
patented 16 February 1993.
Patent 5,186,770: BIS (2-Nitro-2-Azapropyl) Ether and Method of
Preparation; filed 29 June 1984; patented 16 February 1993.
Patent 5,193,475: Thrust Expansion Engine; filed 1 June 1992; patented
16 March 1993.
Patent 5,197,993: Lightweight Battery Electrode and Method of Making
It; filed 11 July 1991; patented 30 March 1993.
Patent 5,206,597: Capacitive Moisture Detection Apparatus; filed 27
August 1990; patented 27 April 1993.
Patent 5,207,100: Method and Device for Measuring Underwater Vehicle
Hull Vibration; filed 25 July 1991; patented 4 May 1993.
Patent 5,208,422: Submarine Weapon Launch Control System; filed 26 June
1992; patented 4 May 1993.
Patent 5,208,423: Mechanical Shielding for Electric Primer; filed 27
April 1992; patented 4 May 1993.
Patent 5,208,891: Fiber-Optic Viewgraph Projector; filed 7 October
1991; patented 4 May 1993.
Patent 5,210,219: Bis-Sulfonium Salts of 2,5-Dimethylstilbene; filed 14
July 1992; patented 11 May 1993.
Patent 5,210,369: Self-Actuating Slide Valve System; filed 8 July 1992;
patented 11 May 1993.
Patent 5,210,488: Projectile Velocity Measurement System and Method;
filed 21 October 1991; patented 11 May 1993.
Patent 5,210,807: Variable Wide-Band Fiber Optic Delay Line; filed 29
June 1992; patented 11 May 1993.
Patent 5,211,530: Variable Breadth Impeller That Provides a Specific
Shutoff Head; filed 20 April 1992; patented 18 May 1993.
Patent 5,212,269: Main Chain Chromophoric Polymers With Second Order
Non-Linear Optical Properties; filed 25 March 1991; patented 18 May
1993.
Patent 5,212,670: Flextensional Hydrophone; filed 20 July 1992;
patented 18 May 1993.
Patent 5,212,755: Armored Fiber Optic Cables; filed 10 June 1992;
patented 18 May 1993.
Patent 5,213,503: Team Trainer; filed 5 November 1991; patented 25 May
1993.
Patent 5,213,713: Electrorheological Solids and Processes; filed 21
March 1991; patented 25 May 1993.
Patent 5,214,189: N-(2-Hydroxyethyl Nitrate)-2,4,6-Trinitrobenzamide;
filed 15 June 1992; patented 25 May 1993.
Patent 5,214,525; Extending Bandwidth of Optical Emitters Using Active
Matching Technique; filed 13 September 1991; patented 25 May 1993.
Patent 5,215,024: Vessel-Capturing Berthing Facility Incorporating
Relative Motion-Mitigating Apparatus; filed 15 April 1992; patented 1
June 1993.
Patent 5,216,640: Inverse Beamforming Sonar System and Method; filed 28
September 1992; patented 1 June 1993.
Patent 5,216,815: Method of Passive Range Determination Using Only Two
Bearing Measurements; filed 2 October 1991; patented 8 June 1993.
Patent 5,218,576: Underwater Transducer; filed 33 May 1992; patented 8
June 1993.
Patent 5,218,750: Method of Mounting a Spool Mount in An Opening in the
Hull of a Vessel; filed 5 September 1991; patented 15 June 1993.
Patent 5,220,328: Target Motion Detecting Impulse Doppler Radar System;
filed 25 March 1992; patented 15 June 1993.
Patent 5,220,537: Statistically Calibrated Transducer; filed 13 August
1992; patented 15 June 1993.
Patent 5,220,731: Friction Drive Position Transducer; filed 28 October
1991; patented 22 June 1993.
Patent 5,221,810: Embedded Can Booster; filed 14 May 1992; patented 22
June 1993.
Patent 5,222,455: Ship Wake Vorticity Suppressor; filed 17 April 1992;
patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,222,489: Self Regulating Cooled Air Breathing Apparatus; filed
19 September 1991; patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,222,548: Electrically Controlled Liquid-Crystal Heat Valve;
filed 26 May 1992; patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,222,996: Buoy Launch Container Extender; filed 19 August 1992;
patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,223,666: Apparatus for Clearing Mines; filed 4 June 1992;
patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,223,798: Method for Measuring the Resistive Transition and
Critical Current in Superconductors Using Pulsed Current; filed 31
October 1990; patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,223,866: Small Simple and Cost-Effective Scheiner-Principle
Optometer With Computer Interface for Automated Assessment; filed 30
December 1991; patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,224,074: Sonobuoy for Forming Virtual Vertical Sensing Arrays;
filed 8 July 1992; patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,224,110: Tunable Laser Frequency Stabilizing System; filed 27
May 1992; patented 29 June 1993.
Patent 5,225,124: Method for In-Situ Casting of Fire Barrier Silicone
Sheets Onto Acoustic Tiles; filed 13 August 1992; patented 6 July 1993.
Patent 5,225,285: Polarized Thin Films From Dye-Substituted Polymers
Containing Hydrophobically Terminated Stilbazolium Radicals; filed 5
October 1990; patented 6 July 1993.
Patent 5,225,498: Interpenetrating Polymer Network Acoustic Damping
Material; filed 26 August 1991; patented 6 July 1993.
Patent 5,226,016: Adaptively Former Signal-Free Reference System; filed
16 April 1992; patented 6 July 1993.
Patent 5,226,381: Torpedo Tube Hull Liner Cluster and Method for Making
Same; filed 3 September 1992; patented 13 July 1993.
Patent 5,226,618: Lift Enhancement Device; filed 30 July 1992; patented
13 July 1993.
Patent 5,227,263: Reconfigurable Heavy Duty Battery Holder; filed 22
May 1992; patented 13 July 1993.
Patent 5,227,801: High Resolution Radar Profiling Using Higher-Order
Statistics; filed 26 June 1992; patented 13 July 1993.
Patent 5,227,982: Digital Reverberation Time Measurement System; filed
28 February 1991; patented 13 July 1993.
Patent 5,228,837: High Pressure Pump for Electro-Rheological Fluids;
filed 30 September 1992; patented 20 July 1993.
Patent 5,229,665: Optically Controlled Active Impedance Element and
Filters Employing the Same; filed 11 December 1992; patented 20 July
1993.
Patent 5,231,241: Elastomeric Launcher; filed 29 June 1992; patented 27
July 1993.
Patent 5,231,403: Moving Target Indicator Using Higher Order
Statistics; filed 30 September 1993; patented 27 July 1993.
Patent 5,231,609: Multiplatform Sonar System and Method for Underwater
Surveillance; filed 28 September 1992; patented 27 July 1993.
Patent 5,231,883: Transient Flowmeter Calibration Facility; filed 24
December 1990; patented 3 August 1993.
Patent 5,233,143: High-Power Gas Switch With Hydride Electrodes; filed
6 November 1991; patented 3 August 1993.
Patent 5,233,902: Sliding Breech Block System for Repetitive Electronic
Ignition; filed 11 May 1992; patented 3 August 1993.
Patent 5,233,929: Booster Explosive Rings; filed 14 May 1992; patented
10 August 1993.
Patent 5,235,506: Process Which Aids to the Laying Out of Locations of
a Limited Number of 100, Personnel and Equipments in Functional
Organization; filed 30 August 1991; patented 10 August 1993.
Patent 5,236,646: Process for Preparing Thermoplastic Composites; filed
2 March 1992; patented 17 August 1993.
Patent 5,236,983: Polyurethane Self-Priming Topcoats; filed 20 December
1991; patented 17 August 1993.
Patent 5,247,630: M-Dimensional Computer Memory With M-1 Dimensional
Hyperplane Access; filed 9 July 1990; patented 21 September 1993.
Patent Application 006,544: Technique to Prepare High-Reflectiance
Optical Fiber Bragg Grating With Single Exposure In-Line on Fiber Draw
Tower; filed 21 January 1993.
Patent Application 010,252: Fiber Optic Ladder and Matrix Array
Configurations With Low Crosstalk Using Code-Division Multiplexing;
filed 28 January 1993.
Patent Application 010,948: Microwave Multiplexer With Channels of
Varying Fractional Bandwidths; filed 29 January 1993.
Patent Application 012,837: Self Locking Set Screw; filed 3 February
1993.
Patent Application 016,325: Magnetohydrodynamic Boundary Layer Control
System; filed 11 February 1993.
Patent Application 016,326: Active Turbulence Control Using
Microelectrodes, Permanent Magnets in Microgrooves; filed 11 February
1993.
Patent Application 016,328: Seawater Magnetohydrodynamic Test
Apparatus; filed 11 February 1993.
Patent Application 017,918: Aluminum Based Alkaline Battery; filed 16
February 1993.
Patent Application 020,158: Laser Synchrotron Source (LSS); filed 19
February 1993.
Patent Application 020,940: Corner Vortex Suppressor; filed 22 February
1993.
Patent Application 022,218: Training of Homoscedastic Hidden Markov
Models for Automatic Speech Recognition; filed 24 February 1993.
Patent Application 023,426: Dual Valve Plate Two-Way Pressure Relief
Valve; filed 24 February 1993.
Patent Application 031,251: Method and Apparatus for Polarization-
Maintaining Fiber Optical Amplification With Orthogonal Polarization
Output; filed 15 March 1993.
Patent Application 035,862: External Combustion Engine Having a
Combustion Expansion Chamber; filed 23 March 1993.
Patent Application 035,867: Heat Regenerative External Combustion
Engine; filed 23 March 1993.
Patent Application 037,878: Vibration Isolation Mount With Locking
Means; filed 29 March 1993.
Patent Application 040,944: Thin-Film Edge Field Emitter Device and
Method of Manufacture Therefore; filed 31 March 1993.
Patent Application 043,914: Medical Device With Infection Preventing
Feature; filed 7 April 1993.
Patent Application 045,156: Apparatus for Interconnecting an Underwater
Vehicle and a Free Floating Pod; filed 12 April 1993.
Patent Application 888,083: Interference Photocathode; filed 26 May
1992.
Patent Application 905,705: Variable Wideband Fiber Optic Delay Line;
filed 29 June 1992.
Patent Application 934,221: Fiber Optic Gyroscopes With Depolarized
Light; filed 25 August 1992.
Patent Application 940,151: A Torpedo Tube Hull Liner Cluster and
Method for Making Same; filed 3 September 1992.
Patent Application 948,562: Strum-Suppressant Cable for Towed Arrays;
filed 23 September 1992.
Patent Application 984,111: Continuous-Time Adaptive Learning Circuit;
filed 31 December 1992.
Patent Application 999,629: Electrochemical Process and Product
Therefrom; filed 31 December 1992.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Michael P. Rummel,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-77 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-AE-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-73 Disease Not Associated With Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 341-346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-73]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Disease Not Associated With Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by law, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
hereby gives notice that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, under the
authority granted by the Agent Orange Act of 1991, has determined that
a presumption of service connection based on exposure to herbicides
used in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era is not warranted
for the following conditions: Prostate cancer, peripheral neuropathy,
hepatobiliary cancers, bone cancers, female reproductive cancers, renal
cancers, testicular cancer, leukemia, abnormal sperm parameters and
infertility, cognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders, motor/
coordination dysfunction, metabolic and digestive disorders, immune
system disorders, circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders (other
than lung cancer), nasal/nasopharyngeal cancer, skin cancer,
gastrointestinal tumors, bladder cancer, brain tumors, and any other
condition for which the Secretary has not specifically determined a
presumption of service connection is warranted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bisset, Jr., Consultant,
Regulations Staff, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 233-3005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3 of the Agent Orange Act of 1991,
Public Law 102-4, 105 Stat. 11 (1991), directed the Secretary to enter
into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review
the scientific evidence concerning the association between exposure to
herbicides used in support of military operations in the Republic of
Vietnam during the Vietnam era and each disease suspected to be
associated with such exposure. Congress mandated that NAS determine, to
the extent possible, (1) whether there is a statistical association
between the suspect diseases and herbicide exposure, taking into
account the strength of the scientific evidence and the appropriateness
of the methods used to detect the association; (2) the increased risk
of disease among individuals exposed to herbicides during service in
the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era; and (3) whether there
is a plausible biological mechanism or other evidence of a causal
relationship between herbicide exposure and the suspect disease.
Section 2 of Public Law 102-4 provides that whenever the Secretary
determines, based on sound medical and scientific evidence, that a
positive association (i.e., the credible evidence for the association
is equal to or outweighs the credible evidence against the association)
exists between exposure of humans to an herbicide agent (i.e., a
chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and
allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the
Vietnam era) and a disease, the Secretary will publish regulations
establishing presumptive service connection for that disease. If the
Secretary determines that a presumption of service connection is not
warranted, he will publish a notice of that determination, which
includes an explanation of the scientific basis for that determination.
Although Public Law 102-4 does not define ``credible'', it does
instruct the Secretary to ``take into consideration whether the results
are statistically significant, are capable of replication, and
withstand peer review.'' Simply comparing the number of studies which
report a positive relative risk to the number of studies which report a
negative relative risk for a particular condition is not a valid method
for determining whether the weight of evidence overall supports a
finding that there is or is not a positive association between
herbicide exposure and the subsequent development of the particular
condition. Because of differences in statistical significance,
confidence levels, control for confounding factors, etc., some studies
are clearly more credible than others, and the Secretary has given them
more weight in evaluating the overall credibility of the evidence
concerning specific diseases.
After reviewing approximately 6,420 abstracts of scientific or
medical articles and selecting approximately 230 epidemiologic studies
for detailed analysis, consulting with outside experts, and conducting
public hearings, NAS issued a report, entitled ``Veterans and Agent
Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides Used in Vietnam'', on July 27,
1993. The Secretary announced that same day that he had concluded that
a positive association exists between exposure to herbicides used in
the Republic of Vietnam and the subsequent development of Hodgkin's
disease and porphyria cutanea tarda. Proposed regulations were
published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1993 (See 58 FR
50528-30). The Secretary also announced that VA would review the
remaining findings in the NAS report to determine whether a positive
association exists between herbicide exposure and any other conditions.
That review has been completed and this notice, pursuant to Public Law
102-4, conveys the Secretary's determination that there is no positive
association between herbicide exposure and prostate cancer, peripheral
neuropathy, hepatobiliary cancers, bone cancers, female reproductive
cancers, renal cancers, testicular cancer, leukemia, abnormal sperm
parameters and infertility, cognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders,
motor/coordination dysfunction, metabolic and digestive disorders,
immune system disorders, circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders
(other than lung cancer), nasal/nasopharyngeal cancer, skin cancer,
gastrointestinal tumors, bladder cancer, brain tumors, and any other
condition for which the Secretary has not specifically determined a
presumption of service connection is warranted.
The NAS report assigns prostate cancer to a category labeled
limited/suggestive evidence of an association, which it defined as
meaning there is evidence suggestive of an association between
herbicide exposure and a particular health outcome, but that evidence
is limited because chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out
with confidence. Prostate cancer is a very common male genitourinary
cancer which shows marked increased prevalence with age. There are
statistically significant occupational studies which show no
association between prostate cancer and herbicide exposure (e.g.,
Fingerhut M.A., Halperin W.E., Marlow D.A., Piacitelli L.A., Honchar
P.A., Sweeney M.H., Greife A.L., Dill P.A., Steenland K., Suruda A.J.
1991. Cancer mortality in workers exposed to 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. New England Journal of Medicine 324:212-
218; Manz A., Berger J., Dwyer J.H., Flesch-Janys D., Nagel S.,
Waltsgott H. 1991. Cancer mortality among workers in chemical plant
contaminated with dioxin. Lancet 338:959-964; Saracci R., Kogevinas M.,
Bertazzi P.A., Bueno De Mesquita B.H., Coggon D., Green L.M., Kauppinen
T., L'Abbe K.A., Littorin M., Lynge E., Mathews J.D., Neuberger M.,
Osman J., Pearce N., Winkelman R. 1991. Cancer mortality in workers
exposed to chlorophenoxy herbicides and chlorophenois. Lancet 338:1027-
1032). Some occupational studies have shown a slight elevated risk for
prostate cancer among farm and forestry workers (e.g., Burmeister L.F.,
1981. Cancer mortality in Iowa farmers: 1971-1978. Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 66:461-464; Alavanja M.C., Merkle S., Teske
J. Eaton B., Reed B. 1989. Mortality among forest and soil
conservationists. Archives of Environmental Health 44:94-101); however,
only one study concerning a small sub-set of farmers (Morrison H.,
Savitz, D., Semenciw R., Hulka B., Mao Y., Morison D., Wigle D. 1993.
Farming and prostate cancer mortality. American Journal of Epidemiology
137:270-280) associated the increased risk of prostate cancer among
farmers specifically with herbicide exposure. The Morrison study is so
recent that it it too early to determine whether its results will be
replicated by other research. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that
the credible evidence against an association between prostate cancer
and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for such an
association, and he has determined that a positive association does not
exist.
The NAS report assigns peripheral neuropathy, hepatobiliary
cancers, bone cancers, female reproductive cancers, renal cancers,
testicular cancer, leukemia, abnormal sperm parameters and infertility,
cognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders, motor/coordination
dysfunction, metabolic and digestive disorders, immune system
disorders, circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders (other than
lung cancer), and nasal/nasopharyngeal cancer to a category labeled
inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association
exists, which is defined as meaning that the available studies are of
insufficient quality, consistency, or statistical strength to permit a
conclusion regarding the presence or absence of an association with
herbicide exposure.
Peripheral neuropathy can be induced by many common medical and
environmental disorders unrelated to herbicide exposure, such as aging,
alcoholism, diabetes, and exposure to other toxic chemicals. The last
time VA considered this issue, it determined, after receiving the
advice of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards,
that there was sufficient evidence to meet the requirements for a
``significant statistical association,'' the standard in effect at that
time, between exposure to herbicides containing dioxin and the
subsequent development of peripheral neuropathy under certain
circumstances (See 57 FR 2236-38). That conclusion, however, relied
heavily on case reports, which are anecdotal and have no statistical
significant, and occupational studies such as Singer and colleagues
(1982) (Singer R., Moses M., Valciukas J., Lilis R., Selikoff I.J.,
1982. Nerve conduction velocity studies of workers employed in the
manufacture of phenoxy herbicides. Environmental Research 29:297-311)
whose credibility is compromised because they did not apply consistent
methods to define a comparison group, determine exposure, evaluate
clinical deficits, use standard definitions of peripheral neuropathy,
or eliminate confounding variables. The Singer study, for example,
excluded individuals with excessive alcohol consumption from the
controls but not from the subjects of the study. Other occupational
studies, such as Suskind and Herzberg (1984) (Suskind R.R., Hertzberg
V.S., 1984. Human health effects of 2,4,5-T and its toxic contaminants.
Journal of the American Medical Association 251:2372-2380), which did
not have those methodological problems, showed no difference in the
incidence of peripheral neuropathy for workers exposed to herbicides
and workers not so exposed. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that
the credible evidence against an association between peripheral
neuropathy and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for
such an association, and he has determined that a positive association
does not exist.
Hepatobiliary cancers are cancers of the liver and bile duct. There
are a variety of risk factors that should be considered by a credible
study, including hepatitis B and C, alcohol abuse, cirrhosis, exposure
to polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and smoking. The relevant studies
are few, and have not adequately controlled for these risk factors. A
Swedish case control study (Hardell L., Bengtsson N.O., Jonsson U.,
Eriksson S., Larsson L.G., 1984. Aetiological aspects on primary liver
cancer with special regard to alcohol, organic solvents and acute
intermittent porphyria: an epidemiological investigation. British
Journal of Cancer 50:389-397) showed a relationship between herbicide
exposure and the subsequent development of hepatobiliary cancer;
however, other studies of similar size (Ronco G, Costa G., Lynge E.,
1992. Cancer risk among Danish and Italian farmers. British Journal of
Industrial Medicine 49:220-225; Wiklund K., 1983. Swedish agricultural
workers: a group with a decreased risk of cancer. Cancer 51:566-568)
indicated no relationship. A large occupational study (Fingerhut et
al., 1991) and a study of farmers in Denmark and Italy (Ronco et al.,
1992) found no relationship. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that
the credible evidence against an association between hepatobiliary
cancer and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for such
an association, and he has determined that a positive association does
not exist.
Bone cancers were considered together with joint cancers by NAS.
Because of the rarity of bone cancers, most studies have been too small
to detect a significant risk. There has not been a consistent finding
of bone cancer in exposed groups; the preponderance of studies show no
association, and the few studies that demonstrate a positive
relationship (Fingerhut et al., 1991; Breslin P., Kang H., Lee y., Burt
V., Shepard B.M., 1988. Proportionate mortality study of U.S. Army and
U.S. Marine Corps veterans of the Vietnam War. Journal of Occupational
Medicine 30:412-419) are small and have large confidence intervals
which include one. The small size of the studies and the confidence
limitations compromise their significance. Accordingly, the Secretary
has found that the credible evidence against an association between
bone cancers and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for
such an association, and he has determined that a positive association
does not exist.
Female reproductive cancers reviewed by NAS include those of the
breast, uterus, cervix, ovary, and other genital malignancies. The data
related to women and herbicide exposure is extremely limited because
few of the studies included women. A large number of the breast cancer
studies showed no association. Two studies (Thomas T.L., Kang H.,
Dalager N., 1991. Mortality among women Vietnam veterans, 1973-1987.
American Journal of Epidemiology 134:973-980; Manz et al., 1991) showed
an increased risk for breast cancer which was not significant since
both studies failed to control for reproductive histories and had
methodological problems. Only one small case control study (Donna A.,
Betta P-G., Robutti F., Crosignani P., Berrino F., Bellingeri D., 1984.
Ovarian mesothelial tumors and herbicides: a case control study.
Carcinogenesis 5:941-942) showed an association with ovarian cancer,
but the confidence intervals were very wide. The larger occupational
and farm worker studies all showed significantly lower mortality ratios
than expected. Likewise, studies of exposures generally found less
uterine and cervical cancer than expected. Accordingly, the Secretary
has found that the credible evidence against an association between
female reproductive cancers and herbicide exposure outweighs the
credible evidence for such an association, and he has determined that a
positive association does not exist.
The leather industry, asbestos, cadmium, petroleum products,
analgesics, smoking, and obesity have been associated with renal
cancers. Studies of renal cancer have generally produced inconclusive
results, in some cases because of failure to adequately control for
these confounding factors. Only one study of agricultural and forest
workers (Alavanja et al., 1989) showed a significantly increased risk
of death from renal cancers; however, the preponderance of studies,
including the two largest (Wiklund, 1983; Burmeister, 1981), showed
either no relationship with renal cancers or increased risk which was
not significant. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that the credible
evidence against an association between renal cancers and herbicide
exposure outweighs the credible evidence for such an association, and
he has determined that a positive association does not exist.
Major risk factors for testicular cancer are undescended testis and
other factors, such as genetic abnormalities, infections, etc., which
produce atrophy and dysfunction. In general, occupational studies
(Ronco et al., 1992; Wiklund, 1983) have shown no association between
herbicide exposure and testicular cancer. Occupational and
environmental studies have found either no association or increased
risk which was not significant. Studies concerning Vietnam veterans
were inconsistent, and in those that found increased risk, that risk
was generally not significant. Accordingly, the Secretary has found
that the credible evidence against an association between testicular
cancer and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for such
an association, and he has determined that a positive association does
not exist.
Potential evidence for an association between herbicide exposure
and leukemia comes primarily from studies of farmers (Ronco et al.,
1992; Wigle D.T., Semenciw R.B., Wilkins K., Riedel D., Ritter L.,
Morrison H.I., Mao Y., 1990. Mortality study of Canadian male farm
operators: non-Hodgkin's lymphoma mortality and agricultural practices
in Saskatchewan. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 82:575-582)
and residents of Seveso, Italy (Bertazzi P.A., Zocchetti C., Pesatori
A.C., Guercilena S., Sanarico M., Radice L., 1989b. Ten-year mortality
study of the population involved in the Seveso incident in 1976.
American Journal of Epidemiology 129:1187-1200; Bertazzi P.A.,
Zocchetti C., Pesatori A.C., Guercilena S., Consonni D., Tironi A.,
Landi M.T., 1992. Mortality of a young population after accidental
exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin. International Journal of
Epidemiology 21:118-123). The studies of farmers did not control for
other confounding exposures (Brownson R.C., Reif J.S., Chang J.C.,
Davis J.R., 1989. Cancer risk among Missouri farmers. Cancer 64:2381-
2385.; Brown L.M., Blair A., Gibson R., Everett G.D., Cantor K.P.,
Schuman L.M., Burmeister L.F., Van Lier S.F., Dick F. 1990. Pesticide
exposures and other agricultural risk factors for leukemia among men in
Iowa and Minnesota. Cancer Research 50:6585-6591). When farmers were
stratified by suspected herbicide exposure, the incidence of leukemia
was generally not elevated. Any elevation appeared to be due to factors
other than herbicide exposure, e.g., risk was higher among chicken
farmers than wheat farmers (Alavanja M.C., Blair A, Merkle S., Teske J.
Eaton B., 1988. Mortality among agricultural extension agents. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine 14:167-176). The suggestive evidence of
increased risk concerning Seveso, Italy was not significant because of
the small number of actual cases in which leukemia was found. Since
none of the studies demonstrated a dose-response for any subtype of
leukemia, it is not possible to attribute leukemia to herbicide
exposure. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that the credible
evidence against an association between leukemia and herbicide exposure
outweighs the credible evidence for such an association, and he has
determined that a positive association does not exist.
The common parameters used to evaluate toxic effects to sperm are
number, motility, structure, and morphology. Many chemicals have been
implicated in interfering with motility and sperm structure (Wyrobek
A.J., Gordon L.A., Burkhart J.G., Francis M.W., Kapp R.W., Letz G.,
Malling H.V., Topham J.C., Whorton M.D., 1983. An evaluation of human
sperm as indicators of chemically induced alterations of spermatogenic
function. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox
Program. Mutation Research 115:73-148). One occupational study (Lerda
D., Rizzi R., 1991. Study of reproductive function in persons
occupationally exposed to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).
Mutation Research 262:47-50) and one study of Vietnam veterans (Air
Force Health Study (AFHS), 1992. An Epidemiologic Investigation of
Health Effects in Air Force Personnel Following Exposure to Herbicides.
Reproductive Outcomes. Brooks AFB: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
AL-TR-992-0900 602 pp.) found no association with decreased sperm
count. Another study of Vietnam veterans (Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), 1989. Comparison of Serum Levels of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin with Indirect Estimates of Agent Orange Exposure Among Vietnam
Veterans: Final Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services) found lower sperm concentration and reduced sperm motility,
but suggested these outcomes may be associated with the Vietnam
experience rather than exposure to herbicides. Infertility usually
incorporates two concepts: the inability to conceive and the inability
to produce live children. Most studies do not take into account the
desire for children, contraceptive practices, and other factors
influencing fertility. NAS found no occupational or environmental
studies examining herbicide exposure and infertility, and veteran
studies (Field B., Kerr C., 1988. Reproductive behavior and consistent
patterns of abnormality in offspring of Vietnam veterans. Journal of
Medical Genetics 25:819-826; AFHS, 1992; Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), 1988. Health status of Vietnam veterans. III. Reproductive
outcomes and child health. Journal of the American Medical Association
259:2715-2717) do not support an association between herbicide exposure
and infertility. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that the credible
evidence against an association between abnormal sperm parameters and
infertility and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for
such an association, and he has determined that a positive association
does not exist.
Studies of cognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders are beset by a
number of methodologic problems, including exposure measures, the wide
variety of ``standardized'' test instruments used, and the inability to
detect or correct for other influences on test results such as
emotional state, non-neurologic disease, metabolic conditions, fatigue,
medications, or style of the examiner. Because of their failure to
adequately control for these confounding factors, these studies lack
credibility in assessing the relationship of herbicide exposure to
these conditions. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that there is no
credible evidence for an association between cognitive and
neuropsychiatric disorders and herbicide exposure, and he has
determined that a positive association does not exist.
There were no significant studies available to analyze whether an
association exists between herbicide exposure and motor/coordination
dysfunction. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that there is no
credible evidence for an association between motor/coordination
dysfunction and herbicide exposure, and he has determined that a
positive association does not exist.
Metabolic and digestive disorders (diabetes mellitus, hepatic
enzyme abnormality, lipid abnormalities, and ulcers) were also
categorized by NAS as health outcomes with inadequate/insufficient
evidence to determine whether an association exists. Although NAS found
no biologic basis to suspect an association between herbicide exposure
and diabetes, abnormal glucose tolerance tests have been reported in
three studies (Sweeney M.H., Fingerhut M.A., Arezzo J.C., Hornung R.W.,
Connally L.B. In press. Peripheral neuropathy after occupational
exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).; Air Force
Health Study. 1991. An Epidemiologic Investigation of Health Effects in
Air Force Personnel Following Exposure to Herbicides. Serum Dioxin
Analysis of 1987 Examination Results. Brooks AFB, TX: USAF School of
Aerospace Medicine. 9 vols.; Pazderova-Vejlupkova J., Lukas E., Nemcova
M., Pickova J., Jirasek L., 1991. The development and prognosis of
chronic intoxication by tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in men. Archives of
Environmental Health 36:5-11). While this suggests such an association,
the evidence is inconclusive and its credibility is questionable
because an abnormal glucose tolerance test is not an absolute indicator
of diabetes and none of these studies allowed for the confounding role
of obesity. Two other studies found no association (Moses M., Lilis R.,
Crow K.D., Thornton J., Fischbein A., Anderson H.A., Selikoff I.J.,
1984. Health status of workers with past exposure to 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the manufacture of 2,4,5-
trichlorophenoxyacetic acid: Comparison of findings with and without
chloracne. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 5:161-182; Suskind
and Hertzberg, 1984), and a number of studies have shown no increased
death rates from diabetes (Bertazzi et al., 1989; Cook R.R., Bond G.G.,
Olson R.A., Ott M.G., 1987. Update of the mortality experience of
workers exposed to chlorinated dioxins. Chemosphere 16:2111-2116;
Henneberger P.K., Ferris B.G. Jr., Monson R.R., 1989. Mortality among
pulp and paper workers in Berlin, New Hampshire. British Journal of
Industrial Medicine 46:658-664). Accordingly, the Secretary has found
that the credible evidence against an association between diabetes and
herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for such an
association, and he has determined that a positive associations does
not exist.
The studies related to hepatic enzyme abnormality did not
demonstrate an association with liver disease, and confounding factors
(alcohol abuse, cirrhosis, hepatitis, and other toxic chemicals) were
not ruled out. Studies showing lipid abnormalities do not control for
the confounding variables of obesity and genetic factors, and no
medical significance of the modest and variable increases has been
demonstrated. The risk of gastric ulcers in exposed populations has not
been sufficiently studied to establish an association with herbicide
exposure. Only one study (Suskind and Hertzberg, 1984) indicates any
increase, and in that study it is difficult to rule out the many
factors (e.g., alcoholism, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and
H. pylori infection) known to be associated with ulcers. Accordingly,
the Secretary has found that there is no credible evidence for an
association between metabolic and digestive disorders (other than
diabetes) and herbicide exposure, and he has determined that a positive
association does not exist.
The available data deal with two categories of immune system
disorders: immune modulation and autoimmunity. Many immune parameters
have been studied; however, few show a relationship to herbicide
exposure. Most studies address such a wide range of immune parameters
that it is likely that at least some of the positive results are due to
chance alone, which undermines the credibility of those studies.
Furthermore, the clinical meaning, i.e., the relationship of immune
disorders to disease, is unclear. Other studies (e.g., Pocchiari F.,
Silano V., Zampieri A., 1979. Human health effects from accidental
release of tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at Seveso, Italy. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 320:311-320; Ghezzi I., Cannatelli
P., Assennato G., Merlo F., Mocarelli P., Brambilla P., Sicurello F.,
1982. Potential 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin exposure of Seveso
decontamination workers. A controlled prospective study. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment, and Health 8:176-179) found no
relationship between immune system disorders and herbicide exposure.
Accordingly, the Secretary has found that the credible evidence against
an association between immune system disorders and herbicide exposure
outweighs the credible evidence for such an association, and he has
determined that a positive association does not exist.
Most occupational studies concerning circulatory disorders (e.g.,
Moses et al., 1984; Suskind and Hertzberg, 1984) showed no increased
mortality or morbidity from circulatory disorders after herbicide
exposure. The studies of the residents of Seveso, Italy (Bertazzi,
P.A., Zocchetti C., Pesatori A.C., Guercilena S., Sanarico M., Radice
L., 1989a. Mortality in an area contaminated by TCDD following an
industrial incident. Medicina Del Lavoro 80:316-329; Bertazzi et al.,
1989b) showed some increased risk of mortality in the first five year
follow-up; however, these studies had a number of technical problems:
they were not specific to circulatory disease and did not control for
the confounding variables of smoking, diabetes, and hypertension.
Veteran studies (e.g., CDC, 1988) have suggested that any increase in
heart disease may be associated with the Vietnam experience rather than
herbicide exposure, and most of these studies did not adjust for
confounding variables. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that the
credible evidence against an association between circulatory diseases
and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for such an
association, and he has determined that a positive association does not
exist.
NAS examined studies that covered a wide variety of respiratory
disorders (e.g., chronic bronchitis, asthma, pleurisy, pneumonia, and
tuberculosis), other than respiratory cancer. Studies of individuals
exposed in occupational settings revealed no increase in mortality from
respiratory disease (Coggon D., Pannett B., Winter P., 1991. Mortality
and incidence of cancer at four factories making phenoxy herbicides.
British Journal of Industrial Medicine 48:173-178; Blair A., 1983. Lung
cancer and other causes of death among licensed pesticide applicators.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 71:31-37; Alavanja et al.,
1989; Coggon D., Pannett B., Winter P.D., Acheson E.D., Bonsall J.,
1986. Mortality of workers exposed to 2-methyl--chlorophenoxyacetic
acid. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health 12:448-
454). Environmental exposure studies similarly showed no significant
differences in mortality due to respiratory disease (Bertazzi et al.,
1989a,b). Also, mortality studies of Vietnam veterans generally found
no increased risk.
Morbidity data are generally difficult to evaluate because of
methodological problems and because studies focused on symptoms, lung
function tests and x-ray interpretation rather than disease (e.g.,
Calvert et al., 1991; Pollei S., Mettler F.A. Jr., Kelsey C.A., Walters
M.R., White R.E., 1986. Follow-up chest radiographs in Vietnam
veterans: Are they useful? Radiology 161:101-102). One occupational
study (Calvert G.M., Sweeney M.H., Morris J.A., Fingerhut M.A., Hornung
R.W., Halperin W.E., 1991. Evaluation of chronic bronchitis, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, and ventilatory function among workers
exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. American Review of
Respiratory Disease 144:1302-1306) showed no excess morbidity; another
occupational study (Suskind and Hertzberg, 1984) found increased
symptomatology of respiratory disease, but did not adequately control
for the confounding factor of age. Accordingly, the Secretary has found
that the credible evidence against an association between respiratory
disorders and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible evidence for
such an association, and he has determined that a positive association
does not exist.
NAS noted an association between nasal cancers and occupational
exposure to nickel and to chromates. Exposure to wood dust is also a
risk factor for nasal cancers; smoking and exposure to formaldehyde may
increase the risk associated with wood dust. There is also evidence
that leather workers have an increased risk for nasal cancers, and that
there is an association between chronic nasal diseases and consumption
of salt-preserved foods. Most studies (e.g., Wiklund, 1983; Ronco et
al., 1992) showed inconclusive results, and often did not control for
confounding variables. Two other epidemiological studies based on the
same three cases (Saracci et al., 1991; Coggon D., Pannett B., Winter
P.D., Acheson E.D., Bonsall J., 1986. Mortality of workers exposed to 2
methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment, and Health 12:448-454) and one case-control study (Hardell
L., Johansson B., Axelson O., 1982. Epidemiological study of nasal and
nasopharyngeal cancer and their relation to phenoxy acid or
chlorophenol exposure. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 3:247-
257) showed increased risk associated with herbicide exposure; however,
that risk was not statistically significant, which diminishes the
importance of these studies. Accordingly, the Secretary has found that
the credible evidence against an association between nasal/
nasopharyngeal cancers and herbicide exposure outweighs the credible
evidence for such an association, and he has determined that a positive
association does not exist.
NAS also reviewed the literature with respect to possible
associations between herbicide exposure and various reproductive
effects, i.e., spontaneous abortion, birth defects, neonatal infant
deaths and stillbirths, low birth weight, and childhood cancers in
offspring. These reproductive effects were categorized by NAS as health
outcomes with inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an
association exists because the studies were of inadequate statistical
power for specific birth defects, contained a limited sample size, and/
or failed to exclude bias and chance. It should be noted that to
compensate a veteran for these conditions is beyond VA's authority (See
title 38, U.S.C.) and would require enabling legislation.
NAS assigns four diseases or categories of diseases to a category
labeled limited/suggestive evidence of no association with herbicide
exposure which it defined as meaning that several adequate studies,
covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to
encounter, are mutually consistent in not showing a positive
association between herbicide exposure and the particular health
outcome at any level of exposure. The conditions include skin cancer,
gastrointestinal tumors (stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, colon
cancer, and rectal cancer), bladder cancer, and brain tumors. There
were many credible studies (See NAS Report, Chapter 8) concerning all
of these conditions that showed no association or a negative
association with herbicide exposure. Accordingly, the Secretary has
found that there is no credible evidence for an association between
skin cancer, gastrointestinal tumors (stomach cancer, pancreatic
cancer, colon cancer, and rectal cancer), bladder cancer, and brain
tumors and herbicide exposure, and he has determined that a positive
association does not exist.
NAS reviewed approximately 6,420 abstracts of scientific or medical
articles as an integral part of the process that resulted in its
report, entitled ``Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of
Herbicides Used in Vietnam.'' From these articles, approximately 230
epidemiologic studies, including studies of people exposed to
herbicides in occupational and environmental settings as well as
studies of Vietnam veterans, were chosen for detailed review and
analysis. In our judgment, the comprehensive review and evaluation of
the available literature which NAS conducted in conjunction with its
report has permitted us to identify all conditions for which the
current body of knowledge supports a finding of an association with
herbicide exposure. Accordingly, the Secretary has determined that
there is no positive association between exposure to herbicides and any
other condition for which he has not specifically determined that a
presumption of service connection is warranted.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 94-73 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-71 Notice of Meetings
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-71]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
Notice of Meetings
AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.
SUMMARY: On September 21, 1993, President Clinton signed the National
and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, that merged the Commission on
National and Community Service, ACTION, and the newly established
Civilian Community Corps, to create the Corporation for National and
Community Service. The Corporation is presenting a series of regional
workshops in Washington, DC, Atlanta, Kansas City, and Los Angeles, to
provide application assistance to organizations applying for national
and community service program grants.
Functioning as a service ``venture capitalist'', the Corporation
will provide funding on a population-based formula and competitive
basis for national and community service programs, and as a
clearinghouse of information and technical expertise for service
initiatives nationwide.
To encourage broad participation in national service, the
Corporation is conducting this series of workshops to support the
application of high quality, national service programs and service-
learning K-12 and higher education programs. Approximately $189 million
will be available to these programs, to assist in the planning,
operating and replicating of national and community service programs.
The primary audience for these workshops will be those applying
directly to the Corporation, including State Commissions or alternative
entities, State educational agencies, higher education institutions,
Indian Tribes, territories, Federal agencies, professional corps,
national nonprofits, and multi-State organizations. State Commissions
will be responsible for providing technical assistance to local
applicants applying to their States.
In addition, those local nonprofits organizations, government
agencies, Indian Tribes, and higher education institutions interested
in applying for Summer of Safety should attend.
For those who are unable to attend the workshops, the corporation
will be sponsoring other assistance programs, including tele/video-
conferences and printed material. Please contact the Corporation at
(202) 606-5000, or FAX (202) 606-4845, for additional information on
national service programs.
DATES: The meetings in Washington, DC will be held on January 10-11,
1994; the meetings in Atlanta will be held on January 12-13, 1994; the
meetings in Kansas City will be held on January 18-19, 1994; and the
meetings in Los Angeles will be held on January 20-21, 1994. All
meetings will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at approximately 5 p.m.
The first day of each session will include additional evening sessions.
ADDRESSES: The Washington meetings will be held at the Ramada Hotel at
901 Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 223114. Phone: (703) 683-
6000. The Atlanta meetings will be held at the Westin, Peach Tree
Plaza, at 210 Peach Tree Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303. Phone: (404)
659-1400. The Kansas City meetings will be held at the Kansas City
Airport Marriot, at 775 Brasilia Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64153. Phone:
(816) 464-2200. The meetings in Los Angeles will be held at the
Biltmore Hotel, at 506 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90071.
Phone: (213) 624-1011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:The Corporation for National and
Community Service, Office of Public Liaison, 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20525. Phone: (202) 606-5000; FAX (202)606-4854.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Terry Russell,
Acting General Counsel, Corporation for National and Community Service.
[FR Doc. 94-71 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-BA-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-70 Opportunity To Join a Cooperative Research and Development Consortium To Develop Virtual Library and Document Interchange Technology
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 294-295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-70]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
[Docket No. 931218-3318]
Opportunity To Join a Cooperative Research and Development
Consortium To Develop Virtual Library and Document Interchange
Technology
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity to join a cooperative research and
development consortium .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
seeks industrial and academic parties interested in entering into a
cooperative research consortium on the development of open systems
technology for virtual libraries and electronic document interchange.
This program will be undertaken within the scope and confines of The
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 3710a), which
provides federal laboratories including NIST, with the authority to
enter into cooperative research agreements with qualified parties.
Under this law, NIST may contribute personnel, equipment, and
facilities--but no funds--to the cooperative research program. Members
will be expected to make contribution to the consortium's efforts in
the form of materials, equipment, personnel, and/or funds. The research
program is expected to last two to three years. This is not a grant
program.
DATES: Interested parties should contact NIST at the address or
telephone number shown below no later than (please insert date which is
sixty (60) days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register).
ADDRESSES: Dr. Lawrence A. Welsch, Manager Office Systems Engineering
Group, Building 225, room B-254, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Lawrence A. Welsch, (301) 975-3345, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Institute of Standards and
Technology seeks industrial and academic parties interested in entering
into a cooperative research consortium on the development of open
systems technology for virtual libraries and electronic document
interchange. NIST wishes to pursue interoperable and portable open
systems that will improve the use of information technology in
conducting government programs and in providing services to the public,
and, in particular, improve the use and exchange of electronic
documents in many forms as an aid to the performance of daily business
activities and research activities.
The open information systems movement is gaining momentum because
many researchers and users realize that no single vendor can supply all
the needs for an information-based society. Open systems are needed to
provide for interoperability of software, hardware, and communications
systems products, and for portability of data and applications across
heterogeneous computing environments. While there is a strong movement
to standards for interconnecting hardware, software and network
systems, there are many proprietary products and systems in use. NIST
has developed the application Portability Profile (APP), the U.S.
Government's Open system Environment Profile, which integrates
standards and other specifications to address a broad range of
information technology requirements.
The purpose of this consortium is to develop technology that will
promote the exchange of electronic documents and improve user access to
information in various forms and locations. This technology will fit
into the APP framework.
This program is being undertaken within the scope and confines of
the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-502, 15 U.S.C.
3710a) which authorizes government owned and operated federal
laboratories, including NIST, to enter into cooperative research and
development agreements (CRADAs) with qualified parties. Under the law,
a CRADA may provide for contributions from the federal laboratory of
personnel, facilities, and equipment, but not direct funding.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
Samuel Kramer,
Associate Director.
[FR Doc. 94-70 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-CN-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-7 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Midwest Clearing Corp. and Midwest Securities Trust Co.; Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes to Add Certain File Transmission Fees
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 335-336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33382; File Nos. SR-MCC-93-8 and SR-MSTC-93-12]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Midwest Clearing Corp. and Midwest
Securities Trust Co.; Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Changes to Add Certain File Transmission Fees
December 23, 1993.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 8, 1993, the
Midwest Clearing Corporation (``MCC'') and the Midwest Securities Trust
Company (``MSTC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by MCC and
MSTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule changes from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Terms of
Substance of the Proposed Rule Changes
MCC and MSTC propose to amend a portion of their Services and
Schedule of Charges by adding certain fees for their File Transmission
and Tape Input/Output Service.
The text of the proposed rule changes are underlined:
File Transmission and Tape Input/Output Services
[Reports Received]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon
File Daily Weekly* Monthly Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R--Activity................. $165.00 N/A N/A $75.00
R--Net Position............. 165.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
R--Net Position/Activity.... 275.00 N/AN/A 75.00
B--Net Position/Activity.... 275.00 200.00 75.00 75.00
R/B Merged Net Position
(special format: depository
data only)................. 165.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
Purchase & Sales............ 165.00 N/A N/A 75.00
ACATS Activity.............. 165.00 N/A N/A 75.00
Security Masterfile Updates. 165.00 N/A N/A 75.00
Complete Security Masterfile N/A 200.00 75.00 75.00
NIDS Activity............... 165.00 N/A N/A 75.00
Dividend Announcements...... 165.00 N/A N/A 75.00
Accommodation Transfer...... 165.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
Bond Comparison Activity.... 165.00 N/A N/A 75.00
Valid Trades................ 300.00 N/A N/A 75.00
MCC/MSTC Account Masterfile. N/A 125.00 75.00 75.00
OTC T Contracts............. 165.00 N/A N/A 75.00
Activity/Transfers.......... 225.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
Activity/Deposits........... 225.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
Activity/Transfers/Deposits. 285.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
Activity/Position/Transfers/
Deposits................... 350.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
Deposit Records Only........ 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
Transfer records Only....... 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
Pledgee Bank Net Position... 165.00 125.00 75.00 75.00
Pledgee Bank Activity....... 165.00 125.00 175.00 75.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes settlement month end or calendar month end.
II. Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes
In their filings with the Commission, MCC and MSTC included
statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule
changes and discussed any comments received on the proposed rule
changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. MCC and MSTC prepared summaries, set forth
in section (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of
such statements.
(A) Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes
The purpose of the proposed changes is to establish fees for
reports produced from individual files and new combinations of files in
the MCC/MSTC File Transmission Service. MCC/MSTC's File Transmission
Service (``FTS'') (File Nos. SR-MCC-87-6 and SR-MSTC-87-7)\2\ provides
a computer-to-computer interface for the transmission of data between
MCC/MSTC and their participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25718 (May 19, 1988), 53
FR 19074 [order approving proposal to develop and implement the File
Transmission Service to link MCC's and MSTC's computer systems with
those of their participants].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule changes are consistent with section 17A of the
Act in that they provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
fees and other charges among participants using MCC and MSTC
facilities.
(B) Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement on burden on Competition
MCC and MSTC do not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the proposes of the Act.
(C) Self-Regulatory Organizations' Statement of Comments on the
Proposed Rule Changes Received from Members, Participants, or Others
Comments were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Changes and Timing
for Commission Action
The foregoing rule changes became effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(e)(2) thereunder because they
establish or change a due, fee, or other charge of the self-regulatory
organizations. At any time within sixty days of the filing of such
proposed rule changes, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
changes if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors,
or otherwise in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Persons making written submissions
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Copies of the submissions, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communication relating to the
proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street
NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of MCC and MSTC.
All submissions should refer to File Nos. SR-MCC-93-8 and SR-MSTC-93-12
and should be submitted by January 25, 1994.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-7 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-67 Fort Ord, California Disposal and Reuse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-67]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Fort Ord, California Disposal and Reuse Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)
AGENCY: Department of the Army, Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Record of Decision (ROD) states the Army's intention to
dispose of Fort Ord property, establish a Presidio of Monterey Annex,
and retain the existing reserve center at Fort Ord. Because the local
communities' reuse plan has not been finalized, the Army does not adopt
a specific plan in this ROD. Rather, in this document the Army
certifies that it has adequately analyzed the environmental impacts of
its decision to dispose of property at Fort Ord.
Consistent with the President's Five-Point Initiative to Revitalize
Base Closure Communities, the Army will dispose of property in
accordance with the local communities' reuse plan to the maximum extent
possible. The Army will develop, if necessary, additional environmental
analysis following this ROD to address the impacts of those uses in the
local communities' reuse plan not already addressed in the
Environmental Impact Statement.
Based on this ROD, the Army will initiate the property disposal
process at Fort Ord consistent with the analysis in the EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For more information or to obtain a copy of the ROD, contact Mr. Bob
Verkade, Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1325 J
Street, Sacramento, CA or call (916) 557-7423.
Dated: December 9, 1993.
Lewis D. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety &
Occupational Health OASA (I, L&E)).
[FR Doc. 94-67 Filed 1-3-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-59 Science Advisory Board; Executive Committee Open Meeting, January 27-28, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-59]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4821-8]
Science Advisory Board; Executive Committee Open Meeting, January
27-28, 1994
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
notice is hereby given that the Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
Executive Committee will conduct a meeting on Thursday and Friday,
January 27-28, 1994. The meeting will be held in the Administrator's
Conference Room 1103 West Tower at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. It will begin at 8:30
a.m. and adjourn not later than 5 p.m. on each day.
At this meeting the Executive Committee plans to review reports
from its Committees, including the following: Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee [Review of Global Climate Effects Research; Review of
Testing Manual for Sediment in Inland Waters; Review of MASTER
program]; Indoor Air Quality Committee [Review of Indoor Air Quality
Research Program; Review of Indirect Exposure Methodology]; and
Radiation Advisory Committee [Radon Measurement Protocol].
The Executive Committee (EC) will be briefed on the status of the
Board's Environmental Futures Project and the Agency's study of EPA
laboratories. The EC will also consider the feasibility and
advisability of conducting a ``self-study'' of the Board during
calendar year 1994.
Representatives from the Committee for the National Institute of
the Environment will discuss their proposal with the EC.
Additional topics on the agenda include public discussions with
leaders in the Administration and Congress on environmental issues and
the Board's appropriate role in advising the Agency and the Congress
about these matters.
The meeting is open to the public. Any member of the public wishing
further information concerning the meeting or who wishes to submit
comments should contact Dr. Donald G. Barnes, Designated Federal
Official for the Executive Committee (A-101), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington DC 20460 at 202-260-4126; FAX 202-260-
9232; and INTERNET [email protected]@IN. Limited unreserved
seating will be available at the meeting.
Dated: December 15, 1993.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 94-59 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-57 Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-57]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS)
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of the TRICARE Demonstration Project in California and
Hawaii.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice was previously given in the Federal Register (53 FR
23783-23784) of June 24, 1988, that a demonstration project, called the
CHAMPUS Reform Initiative (CRI), would be conducted by contract under
the provisions of chapter 55, title 10, section 1092, to test a
different method for financing and delivering health services under the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS). Delivery of services under that contract began August 1,
1988, for all beneficiaries who reside in the states of California and
Hawaii, and is scheduled to end January 31, 1994. The TRICARE
demonstration project in California and Hawaii is a continuation of the
CRI demonstration project and includes five option periods, the
execution of which would result in five years of service delivery under
the new contract. An evaluation of the significant new features of the
demonstration will be conducted. The objectives of the demonstration
are to enhance beneficiary access and continuity of care, contain
health care costs, and improve coordination between the military and
civilian components of the Military Health Services System (MHSS).
DATES: February 1, 1994, for CHAMPUS beneficiaries in California and
Hawaii.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard E. Bellamy, Chief, Coordinated Care Branch, OCHAMPUS, Aurora,
CO, 80045-6900, telephone (303) 361-1336.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Register Notice referenced above
described in detail the CRI demonstration project, which includes a
choice for beneficiaries of three benefit options; CHAMPUS Prime, a
health maintenance organization (HMO) benefit; CHAMPUS Extra, a
preferred provider organization (PPO) benefit; and standard CHAMPUS, an
indemnity benefit. The benefit options under this TRICARE demonstration
(called TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Extra, and TRICARE Standard) are the
same as those described in the Federal Register Notice for the CRI
demonstration. There are only five significant differences for
beneficiaries and providers between the CRI demonstration project and
the TRICARE demonstration project in California and Hawaii:
--The new contractor is Aetna Government Health Plans. Aetna
subcontracts with Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA) for the
provision of health care in Hawaii, and with Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of South Carolina (operating under the name of Palmetto Government
Benefits Administrators) for claims processing services.
--Beneficiaries with a civilian Primary Care Manager (PCM) will need a
referral in order to obtain covered services at a Military Treatment
Facility (MTF) or a PRIMUS/NAVCARE clinic (except for emergency
services, or for pharmacy services obtained at an MTF).
--MTF Commanders may consider the availability of health care from
civilian network providers, in addition to availability from MTF
providers, in determining whether to issue a Nonavailability Statement
(NAS) to beneficiaries. Standard NAS procedures for beneficiaries
apply.
--The CHAMPUS home health care demonstration (as outlined in the
CHAMPUS Operations Manual, Part Two, Chapter 20, Addendum B) is
included in this demonstration.
--Beneficiaries who receive care from network providers in the states
of California and Hawaii, but who are not residents of those states,
obtain the TRICARE Extra benefits (payments based on discounted
provider rates and reduced coinsurance).
Duration
It is expected that the demonstration status of this program will
end upon promulgation of final regulations, expected in 1994, which
will provide permanent authority for implementation of managed care
enrollment programs by the Department. In any event, the effect of this
Notice shall expire September 30, 1994.
Dated: December 27, 1993.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 94-57 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-51 National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-51]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending
Nominations
Nominations for the following properties being considered for
listing in the National Register were received by the National Park
Service before December 25, 1993. Pursuant to Sec. 60.13 of 36 CFR part
60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties
under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded to
the National Register, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127,
Washington, DC 20013-7127. Written comments should be submitted by
January 19, 1994.
Patrick Andrus,
Acting Chief of Registration, National Register.
COLORADO
Morgan County
Fort Morgan Power Plant Building, N. Main St. E side, N of jct. with
US 6, Fort Morgan, 93001553
FLORIDA
Palm Beach County
Palm Beach Mercantile Company, 206 Clematis St., West Palm Beach,
93001552
GEORGIA
Clay County
Sutton, Warren, House, US 27 1000 ft. S of jct. with GA 37 at
Sutton's Corners, Edison vicinity, 93001571
HAWAII
Hawaii County
Hind, James M., House, Skilled Camp, House J, Hawi, 93001557
Honolulu County
Smyth, Mabel, Memorial Building, 501 Punchbowl St., Honolulu,
93001558
MARYLAND
Washington County
Hagerstown Historic District, Roughly bounded by Prospect and Canon
Aves., Memorial Blvd. and the CSX RR tracks, Hagerstown, 93001551
NEW YORK
Suffolk County
St. Johns Episcopal Church and Cemetery, Montauk Hwy. NE side, about
300' NW of the jct. with Locust Ave., Town of Islip.
OREGON
Lane County
Cottage Grove Downtown Commercial Historic District, Area
surrounding Main St. between Coast Fork Willamette R. and Ninth St.,
Cottage Grove, 93001568
Stewart, LaSells D., House, 1807 E. Main St., Cottage Grove,
93001569
Multnomah County
Buyers Building, 317 SW. Alder St., Portland, 93001567
Frances Building and Echo Theater, 3628-3646 SE. Hawthorne Blvd.,
Portland, 93001566
Haycock, Ernest, Estate, 4700 SW. Humphrey Blvd., Portland, 93001565
O'Donnell, E.J., House, 5535 SW. Hewett Blvd., Portland, 93001564
Packard Service Building, 121 NW. Twenty-Third Ave., Portland,
93001570
Salerno Apartments, 2325 NE. Flanders St., Portland, 93001563
Telegram Building, 1101 SW. Washington St., Portland, 93001560
Tudor Arms Apartments, 1811 NW. Couch St., Portland, 93001562
United States Steel Corporation Office and Warehouse, 2345 NW.
Nicolai St., Portland, 93001561
PUERTO RICO
Vieques Municipality
Casa Augusto Delerme, 7 Benitez Guzman St., Isabel Segunda, 93001555
Delerme-Anduze House, 361 Antonio Mellado St., Isabel Segunda,
93001556
Smaine-Oritz House, 341 Antonio Mellado St., Isabel Segunda,
93001554
[FR Doc. 94-51 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-50 Issuer Delisting; Application To Withdraw From Listing and Registration; (VISX, Inc., Common Stock, $.01 Par Value) File No. 1- 10694
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 340-341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-50]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Issuer Delisting; Application To Withdraw From Listing and
Registration; (VISX, Inc., Common Stock, $.01 Par Value) File No. 1-
10694
December 28, 1993.
VISX, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an application with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule
12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified
security from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``Amex'')
The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing this
security from listing and registration include the following:
According to the Company, its Board of Directors (the ``Board'')
unanimously approved resolutions on October 13, 1993, to withdraw the
Company's Common Stock from listing on the Amex and, instead, list such
Common Stock on the National Association of Securities Dealers
Automated Quotations/National Market System (``NASDAQ/NMS''). According
to the Company, the decision of the Board followed a lengthy study of
the matter, and was based upon the belief that listing of the Common
Stock on NASDAQ/NMS will be more beneficial to its stockholders than
the present listing on the Amex because:
(1) The Company believes that the NASDAQ/NMS system of competing
market-makers will result in increased visibility and sponsorship for
the Common Stock than is presently the case with the single specialist
assigned to the stock on the Amex;
(2) The Company believes that the NASDAQ/NMS system will offer the
Company's stockholders more liquidity than is presently available on
the Amex and less volatility in quoted prices per share when trading
volume is slight;
(3) The Company believes that the NASDAQ/NMS system will offer the
opportunity for the Company to secure its own group of market-makers
and, in doing so, expand the capital base available for trading in its
Common Stock; and
(4) The Company believes that firms making a market in the
Company's Common Stock on the NASDAQ/NMS system will be inclined to
issue research reports concerning the Company, thereby increasing the
number of firms providing institutional research and advisory reports.
Any interested person may, on or before January 20, 1994, submit by
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549, facts bearing upon whether the
application has been made in accordance with the rules of the exchanges
and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the
protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information
submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the
date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a
hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-50 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-48 NBD Bank, N.A. et al.; Application
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 338-340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-48]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Rel. No. IC-19983; 812-8726]
NBD Bank, N.A. et al.; Application
December 27, 1993.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or
``Commission'').
ACTION: Notice of application for permanent order under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANTS: NBD Bank, N.A. (``NBD''), NBD Bank, and NBD Bancorp, Inc.
RELEVANT ACT SECTIONS: Permanent order requested under 9(c) for an
exemption from the provisions of section 9(a).
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: On December 17, 1993, the Commission issued a
conditional temporary order and notice of application for permanent
order under section 9(c) of the Act exempting applicants from the
disqualification provisions of section 9(a) solely with respect to a
securities-related injunction entered against NBD.\1\ Applicants have
discovered that the application, and consequently the notice, contains
a factual misstatement with respect to the composition of the board of
trustees of the Woodward Funds and Renaissance Assets Trust. Applicants
have filed an amended application to correct the misstatement.
\1\Investment Company Act Release No. 19961 (Dec. 17, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILING DATE: The application was filed on December 17, 1993, and
amended on December 23, 1993.
HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: Interested persons may request a
hearing on the application by writing to the SEC's Secretary and
serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on January
18, 1994, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
SEC's Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549;
Applicants, NBD and NBD Bancorp, Inc., 611 Woodward Avenue, Detroit,
Michigan 48266. NBD Bank, 211 South Wheaton Avenue, Wheaton, Illinois
60189.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John V. O'Hanlon, Senior Attorney, at (202) 272-3922, or Elizabeth G.
Osterman, Branch Chief, at (202) 272-3016 (Division of Investment
Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from
the SEC's Public Reference Branch.
Applicants' Representations
1. NBD is a national banking association and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NBD Bancorp, Inc. NBD serves as investment adviser to The
Woodward Funds and Renaissance Assets Trust (the ``Funds''). The Funds
are open-end management investment companies registered under the Act.
The Woodward Funds consist of thirteen separate portfolios: Woodward
Growth/Value Fund; Woodward Opportunity Fund; Woodward Intrinsic Value
Fund; Woodward Equity Index Fund; Woodward Intermediate Bond Fund;
Woodward Bond Fund; Woodward Money Market Fund; Woodward Government
Fund; Woodward Treasury Money Market Fund; Woodward Tax-Exempt Money
Market Fund; Woodward Michigan Tax-Exempt Money Market Fund; Woodward
Municipal Bond Fund; and Woodward Michigan Municipal Bond Fund. It is
anticipated that additional portfolios will commence operation at
calendar year-end 1993 or shortly thereafter. Renaissance Assets Trust
consists of two separate portfolios: the Renaissance Government Fund
and the Renaissance Money Market Fund.
2. NBD Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NBD Illinois, Inc.,
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NBD Bancorp. NBD Bank is not
currently an investment adviser to any registered investment company.
NBD Bank has entered into an agreement to act as sub-investment adviser
to the Separate Account I (the ``Separate Account'') of the Washington
National Life Insurance Company (``Washington National'').
3. NBD Bancorp, Inc. is a bank holding company incorporated under
Delaware law.
4. On December 17, 1993, the Commission filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a
civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Comerica
Bank (the ``SEC'' Action''). The complaint alleged that NBD violated
Regulation U, as promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System under section 7(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, in connection with extensions of credit in a custodial trust
account maintained for an individual named Mark Sendo.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The Commission brought an action against Sendo and two of his
associates for ``free-riding''--paying for purchases of securities
with anticipated proceeds from offsetting sales of the same
securities--in violation of the antifraud and margin provisions of
the federal securities laws in June 1991. SEC v. Sendo, Burman and
Tringale, 91 Civ. 4408 (S.D.N.Y.), Litigation Release No. 12894
(Jun. 27, 1991). Summary judgment was rendered in favor of the
Commission in October 1992. Litigation Release No. 13475 (Dec. 17,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. On the same day, NBD consented to the entry of a Final Judgment
of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief (the ``Final Judgment''),
without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the Commission's
complaint except as to jurisdiction. The Final Judgment enjoins NBD
from further violations of Regulation U. The Final Judgment requires
that NBD disgorge $2,500, which represents its gross custodian services
fees earned on Sendo's accounts. In addition, the Final Judgment
requires NBD to pay a civil money penalty of $100,000. The Final
Judgment also requires NBD to adopt internal procedures designed to
prevent a recurrence of the violative conduct.
6. Applicants have been advised by the trustees of the Funds and by
Washington National that (a) the trustees of the Funds and the
directors of Washington National have reviewed the circumstances
pertinent to the Final Judgment, and, in the case of the Funds, have
considered the prior services rendered to the Funds by NBD; and (b)
after review and consideration of such factors as they deemed
appropriate, a majority of the trustees of the Woodward Funds who are
not interested persons with respect to applicants, a majority of the
trustees of Renaissance Assets Trust who are not interested persons
with respect to applicants, and the directors of Washington National
have determined that the retention of NBD in the case of the Funds and
of NBD Bank in the case of Washington National as investment adviser is
in the best interests of the Funds' shareholders and the account
holders of the Separate Account.
7. In making the application, applicants acknowledge, understand,
and agree that the application and any temporary exemption issued by
the Commission shall be without prejudice to the Commission's
consideration of any application for exemptions from statutory
requirements, including the consideration of the instant application
for a permanent exemption pursuant to section 9(c) or the revocation or
removal of any temporary exemption granted in connection with the
application.
Applicants' Legal Analysis
1. Applicants seek a permanent order exempting applicants and their
affiliates from the provisions of section 9(a) of the Act solely with
respect to the Final Judgment.
2. Section 9(a) of the Act, in pertinent part, disqualifies any
person or company from serving or acting in the capacity of employee,
officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser, or
depositor of any registered investment company, or principal
underwriter for any registered open-end company, registered unit
investment trust, or registered face amount certificate company if such
person, or an affiliated person of such person, has, by reason of
misconduct, been permanently or temporarily enjoined by an order,
judgment, or decree from any court of competent jurisdiction from
acting as an underwriter, broker, dealer, or investment adviser, or
from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection
with any such activity or in connection with the purchase or sale of
any security.
3. Section 9(c) provides that the Commission shall grant an
application for an exemption from the disqualification provisions of
section 9(a), either unconditionally or on an appropriate temporary or
other conditional basis, if it is established that these provisions, as
applied to the applicant, are unduly or disproportionately severe or
that the conduct of the applicant has been such as not to make it
against the public interest or protection of investors to grant such
application.
4. As a result of the Final Judgment, NBD and its affiliated
persons are subject to the disqualification provisions of section 9(a).
Applicants assert that the application of such provisions to applicants
is unduly and disproportionately severe. Applicants further assert that
NBD's conduct has been such as not to make it against the public
interest or protection of investors to grant the requested relief.
5. Applicants state that the conduct that gave rise to the Final
Judgment was not in any way related to activities of applicants as
investment advisers. Applicants further state that neither applicants'
senior management nor anyone involved in the management of investment
advisory services on applicants' behalf were involved in the activities
giving rise to the SEC Action.
6. Applicants assert that denial of the requested order would cause
irreparable injury to applicants and to the Funds' investors because
the investors would no longer have the services of their investment
adviser. In addition, investors could be harmed by the uncertainty
caused by applicants being prohibited from serving as investment
advisers to the Funds.
7. NBD has implemented policies and procedures designed to prevent
a recurrence by other account holders of the type of conduct that gave
rise to the SEC Action. In addition, pursuant to the Final Judgment,
NBD has taken or will take the following steps to remedy its conduct
and prevent the recurrence of violations:
a. NBD will maintain policies and procedures to ensure that it
complies with Regulation U, including policies to ensure that purchases
of securities in custodial accounts are not paid for with proceeds from
sales of the same securities in the accounts.
b. Within thirty days after the entry of the Final Judgment, NBD
will retain an independent consultant who will review NBD's custodial
securities clearing operations and who will make such recommendations
as are necessary with respect to NBD's policies and procedures to
ensure that NBD complies with Regulation U.
c. The consultant will issue a report within sixty days of its
retention setting forth its findings and recommendations and will
forward the report to the New York Regional Office.\3\ Unless the
Commission objects to the consultant's recommendations within thirty
days, applicants will implement the consultant's recommendations by no
later than forty days after the end of the period for the Commission to
object.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Applicants state that in a report dated July 12, 1993, an
independent consultant concluded that, based on its review, the
policies and procedures of the custodian securities clearing
operations for non-investment adviser accounts of NBD are reasonably
designed to ensure compliance with the requirements of Regulation U.
Applicants state that the recommendations of the independent
consultant have been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Applicants state that they have not been the subject of prior
Commission enforcement proceedings, and have not previously filed an
application for relief pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act.
Applicants' Condition
Applicants agree that any order granted by the Commission pursuant
to the application will be subject to the condition that NBD will
comply with the Final Judgment.
For the SEC, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant
to delegated authority.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-48 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-47 Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing and Registration; (Continental Homes Holding Corp., Common Stock, $.01 Par Value) File No. 1-10700
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-47]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing
and Registration; (Continental Homes Holding Corp., Common Stock, $.01
Par Value) File No. 1-10700
December 28, 1993.
Continental Homes Holding Corp. (``Company'') has filed an
application with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to
withdraw the above specified security from listing and registration on
the American Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'').
The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing this
security from listing and registration include the following:
According to the Company, in addition to being listed on the Amex,
its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NYSE''). The Company's common stock commenced trading on the NYSE at
the opening of business on December 15, 1993 and concurrently therewith
such stock was suspended from trading on the Amex.
In making the decision to withdraw its common stock from listing on
the Amex, the Company considered the direct and indirect costs and
expenses attendant on maintaining the dual listing of its common stock
on the NYSE and on the Amex. The Company does not see any particular
advantage in the dual trading of its common stock and believes that
dual listing would fragment the market for its common stock.
Any interested person may, on or before January 20, 1994, submit by
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549, facts bearing upon whether the
application has been made in accordance with the rules of the exchanges
and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the
protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information
submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the
date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a
hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-47 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-46 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change Relating to Method for Execution of Cross Transactions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 336-338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-46]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-33391; File No. SR-PSE-91-11]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 to Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Method for Execution of Cross Transactions
December 28, 1993.
I. Introduction
On August 26, 1991, the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PSE'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to the method for the
execution of cross transactions on the PSE. On June 7, 1993, the PSE
submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change in order to
clarify certain terms used in the original filing.\3\ On August 18,
1993, the PSE submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change in
order to clarify its interpretation of certain provisions regarding
specialist participation in cross transactions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
\2\17 CFR 240.19b-4 (1991).
\3\See letter from Kenneth, J. Marcus, Director, Equity
Surveillance/Compliance, PSE, to Diana Luka-Hopson, Branch Chief,
Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated June 3, 1993 (``Amendment
No. 1'').
\4\See letter from Kenneth J. Marcus, Director, Equity
Surveillance/Compliance, PSE, to Beth Stekler, Attorney, Division of
Market Regulation, SEC, dated August 9, 1993 (``Amendment No. 2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change was published for comment in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 29712 (September 20, 1991), 56 FR 49217
(September 27, 1991). No comments were received on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change, including both amendments on
an accelerated basis.
II. Description of the Proposal
Exchange Rule 5.14(b) outlines the traditional method for the
execution of cross transactions on the PSE.\5\ Under that rule, a
member effecting a cross transaction must first assure that all
existing bids or offers by the specialists, in the books or at the
posts, at or better than the cross price, are filled at their
limits.\6\ Thereafter the member must publicly announce both sides of
the cross; the member's offer must be higher than his or her bid by the
minimum trading differential permitted for that security.\7\ Rule
5.14(b) then allows the member to execute the cross transaction at his
or her bid or offer. Under this method, however, another member can
``break up'' the cross by trading with either the bid or the offer side
of the transaction when it is presented to the crowd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\In a cross transaction, a member who holds an order to buy
and an order to sell an equivalent amount of the same security
wishes to execute the orders against each other. See PSE Rule
5.14(a). Because he or she already holds both sides of the trade,
the member does not want the orders to interact with other market
interest.
\6\As a general matter, the bid/offer entered at the best price
(i.e., the highest bid or the lowest offer) is entitled to priority
over bids/offers at inferior prices; similarly, the first bid/offer
clearly established at a given price is entitled to priority over
other bids/offers at that same price. See PSE Rule 5.8(c).
\7\PSE Rule 5.3(b) sets forth the minimum trading differential
for securities listed on the PSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to formalize several policies that its Equity
Floor Trading Committee previously developed to encourage the execution
of cross transactions on the PSE. Specifically, the proposed commentary
to Rule 5.14(b) will codify the PSE's policy that all efforts should be
made to facilitate the execution of crosses; and will clarify which
orders a member must satisfy before he or she can execute such a
transaction.\8\ The proposed commentary also will interpret Rule
5.14(b), together with the PSE's priority rule,\9\ to prohibit the
specialist from participating in a cross to establish or increase his
or her position,\10\ unless the member effecting the transactions gives
the specialist permission to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Among other things, see supra note 6 and accompanying text, a
member effecting a cross first must satisfy the interest the
specialist ``publicly displayed and verbally stated'' at the time of
the cross.
\9\See PSE Rule 5.8(e). Under this rule, an order originated on
the floor to establish or increase a proprietary position must yield
to any order originated off the floor.
\10\According to the PSE, this policy initially was established
on May 2, 1984. In conjunction with this filing, the Exchange has
clarified that the specialist will be able to participate in a cross
transaction in order to decrease his or her position. See Amendment
No. 1, supra, note 3. Under those circumstances, the specialist's
participation will be subject to the additional restrictions
discussed below. See infra, notes 11-13 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Exchange proposes to place additional restrictions
on when a specialist can break up a cross transaction.\11\Thus under
the proposed commentary to Rule 5.14(b), the specialist will be
prohibited from participating, for the benefit of his or her own
account, on (1) either side of a customer-to-customer cross,\12\or (2)
the customer side of a cross with the principal account of a member,
where the cross is at a price inside the disseminated PSE market. The
PSE, however, will interpret this provision to allow a specialist who
is willing to better the price to participate in a cross
transaction.\13\Finally, for purposes of Rule 5.14(b), the Exchange
will define a ``customer order'' as an order that a broker represents
in an agency capacity, including a professional order that is not for
an account associated with the executing broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\As discussed below, see infra, notes 16-17, the proposed
restrictions are based on recent amendments to Philadelphia Stock
Exchange (``Phlx'') Rule 126.
\12\This restriction will apply whether the customer orders are
represented by the same broker or ``by separate agents,'' as defined
in Amendment No. 1, supra, note 3.
\13\See Amendment No. 2, supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSE believes that the proposed rule change maintains the
auction at market principles of price improvement and priority to
existing orders, while at the same facilitating the execution of
crosses on the PSE. In addition, the PSE believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with policies recently adopted by other
exchanges.\14\ The PSE states that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that these changes will
promote just and equitable principles of trade and will protect
investors and the public interest by continuing the effort to remove
impediments to a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See infra, note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in
particular, with the requirements of sections 6(b) and 11(a).\15\In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest; and with the section 6(b)(8)
requirement that the rules of an exchange not impose any unnecessary
burden on competition. The Commission also believes that the proposed
rule change does not operate in a manner inconsistent with the
traditional auction market principle of customer priority, as embodied
in section 11(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\15 U.S.C. 78f(b) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful review, the Commission has concluded that the
proposed rule change should further competition among the exchanges, as
well as between exchanges and other markets, and should increase the
opportunities for the efficient execution of cross transactions. In the
past, the Commission has recognized the competition that exists between
various markets for order flow, and especially for block business.
Several exchanges recently have sought Commission approval to amend
their rules, on the grounds that exchange rules may hinder members'
ability to execute a cross transaction without interference and thus
may place an exchange at a competitive disadvantage. Despite serious
reservations, the Commission has approved those proposals which are
consistent with traditional auction market principles.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 27205
(August 31, 1989), 54 FR 37180 (September 7, 1989) (File No. SR-
Phlx-89-17) (approving Phlx proposal to prohibit members from
interfering, with either side of an agency cross or the customer
side of a facilitation cross, by buying or selling for their own
account at the cross price; except that a specialist can participate
to the extent of a publicly disseminated bid or offer at that
price); and 31343 (October 21, 1992), 57 FR 48645 (October 27, 1992)
(File No. SR-NYSE-90-39) (approving New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') ``clean cross'' proposal to allow members to execute
agency crosses of 25,000 shares or more, at a price at or within the
prevailing quotation, without interference, irrespective of any pre-
existing bids or offers at the cross price; however, the cross could
be broken up at a better price).
Several other proposals to facilitate the execution of crosses
on a given exchange are pending with the Commission, including File
Nos. SR-Amex-92-41 (American Stock Exchange ``clean cross''
proposal) and SR-MSE-93-05 (Chicago Stock Exchange proposal to
encourage specialists to refrain from interfering in cross
transactions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to today's competitive market environment, the PSE has
proposed to codify its policy that members should make their best
efforts not to interfere in another member's cross transaction and, in
particular, that the specialist should not participate unless he or she
is liquidating a position. The PSE also has proposed to add a new
requirement, based on a comparable rule on the Phlx, that the
specialist's proprietary bid or offer yield to the customer side of a
cross transaction at the cross price.\17\ Looking at the proposal as
whole, the Commission believes that it will clarify the roles of
various market participants and assure that, under routine
circumstances, crosses are executed in a fair and orderly manner. In
sum, the Commission finds that this proposed rule change should improve
the PSE's ability to compete for block business and should enhance the
depth and liquidity of the Exchange market.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\As noted above, this part of the PSE proposal is based on
recent amendments to Phlx Rule 126. See supra, note 16. Briefly, the
Phlx requires that a member's proprietary bid or offer yield to the
customer side of a cross transaction at the cross price. In
approving the Phlx proposal, the Commission took note of the fact
that most principal trading activity on the floor of that regional
stock exchange, other than facilitation crosses, is undertaken by
the specialist.
\18\The Commission appreciates all the exchanges' competitive
concerns with respect to the facilitation of cross transactions and,
at the same time, continues to emphasize the importance of adherence
with traditional auction market principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of auction market principles, the Commission believes that
the proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance between the
competing needs of various customer orders represented for execution on
the PSE and the proprietary trading operations of Exchange members and
member organizations, including specialists. The Commission notes that
Rule 5.14(b) will continue to require that a member effecting a cross
transaction first assure that all existing bids or offers on the
specialist's book or represented in the trading crowd, at or better
than the cross price, are filled at their limits.\19\ On that basis,
the Commission has concluded that the PSE proposal adheres to the
auction market principles of time and price priority and that this
method for the execution of crosses (and, in particular, the priority
granted to the customer side of the transaction) will not disadvantage
existing orders.\20\ In fact, limit orders on the PSE which coincide
with the cross price could benefit from being assured of receiving an
execution at that price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\See supra, note 6.
\20\In this regard, the PSE proposal contrasts favorably with
other rule changes approved by the Commission, such as the NYSE's
clean cross proposal, see supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Commission finds that the PSE proposal does not
restrict the opportunity for customer orders to receive price
improvement. To this end, the Commission interprets the proposed
commentary to Rule 5.14(b), and the Exchange agrees with that
interpretation,\21\ to allow the specialist to participate in a cross
transaction to provide one side with a better price, notwithstanding
the other provisions of this rule.\22\ In addition, under the PSE's
method, it is possible for interest in the trading crowd, including an
order for the principal account of a member, to break up the cross and
to improve the price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See Amendment No. 2, supra, note 4.
\22\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Commission believes that the PSE proposal would not
grant priority, parity or precedence to the order of a member in a
manner inconsistent with section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act or SEC Rule
11a1-1(T)(a)(3) thereunder.\23\ For purposes of its proposed rule
change, the PSE has defined the term ``customer order'' as an order
that a broker represents in an agency capacity, including a
professional order that is not for an account associated with the
executing broker. Because this definition of ``customer order''
excludes (and, thus, does not grant priority to) an order for an
account over which the broker or an associated person of the broker
exercises investment discretion, the Commission is satisfied that the
proposed rule change complies with section 11(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T)(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendments No. 1 and
No. 2 prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice of filing thereof. Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 merely clarify
certain language used in the original filing and make no substantive
changes to the proposed rule. Finally, the Commission did not receive
any comments on the original proposal, which was noticed for the full
statutory period.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 to the proposed rule
change. Persons making written submissions should file six copies
thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rules change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 between
the Commission and any persons, other than those that may be withheld
from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will
be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies
of such filing will also be available at the principal office of the
PSE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-PSE-91-11 and should
be submitted by January 25, 1994.
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PSE-91-11), including
Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 on an accelerated basis, is approved.
\24\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-46 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-44 NOFA for Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC)
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 488-492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-44]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC): Notice of Funding
Availability
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of Community Planning and Development
[Docket No. N-93-3693; FR-3532-N-01]
NOFA for Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC)
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year 1994.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the availability of $7.0 million to
implement the first year of a demonstration program to make grants to
public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education to assist
in establishing or carrying out research and outreach activities
addressing the problems of urban areas. These funds shall be used to
establish and operate Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC).
In the body of this NOFA is information concerning:
(1) The principal objectives of the competition, the funding
available, eligible applicants and activities and factors for award;
(2) The application process, including how to apply and how
selections will be made; and
(3) A checklist of application submission requirements.
DATES: Applications may be requested on or after January 18, 1994. The
application due date will be 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time no later
than April 8, 1994. The above-stated application deadline is firm as to
date, hour and place. In the interest of fairness to all competing
applicants, the Department will treat as ineligible for consideration
any application that is received after the deadline. Applicants should
take this practice into account and make early submission of their
materials to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility brought about by
unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems.
ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the application kit, contact: Processing
and Control Branch, Office of Community Planning and Development,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,
room 7255, Washington, DC 20410. Requests for application kits must be
in writing, but requests may be faxed to: (202) 708-3363 (this is not a
toll-free number). Requests for application kits must include the
applicant's name, mailing address (including zip code), telephone
number (including area code), and must refer to ``document FR-3532''.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerome B. Friedman, Office of
Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., room 7218, Washington, DC 20410.
Telephone Number (202) 708-3176; TDD Number: (202) 708-2565. (These are
not toll-free numbers.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The information collection requirements contained in this notice
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), and assigned OMB control number 2535-0084.
I. Purpose and Substantive Description
A. Authority
This competition is authorized under the Community Outreach
Partnership Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 5307 note; hereafter referred to as
the ``COPC Act''). The COPC Act is contained in section 851 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550,
approved October 28, 1992). Section 801(c) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 provides for a $7.5 million set-aside for each
year of the 5-year demonstration authorized in the COPC Act. (The funds
appropriated by Congress for FY 1993 were rescinded by the 1993
Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 103-50, approved July 2,
1993.)
B. Allocation and Form of Award
The competition in this NOFA is for $7.0 million to fund the first
year of the Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) Program
authorized as indicated above. An additional $500,000 will be used to
fund the first year of the National Clearinghouse mandated by section
851(j) of the COPC Act. A separate announcement will be issued at a
later date for the National Clearinghouse.
Each grant made under the COPC program will be for a maximum two
year period of performance. The maximum size of any grant will be
$750,000, while the minimum will be $250,000. Each applicant must
submit an application within this range. In future years, successful
applicants will have to compete for funds with all other applicants.
C. Description of Competition
The Congress has mandated that the Department carry out ``a 5-year
demonstration to determine the feasibility of facilitating partnerships
between institutions of higher education and communities to solve urban
problems through research, outreach and the exchange of information.''
The COPC Act stipulates that grants are to go to public and private
institutions of higher education to establish and operate Community
Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC). These centers shall: ``(a) Conduct
competent and qualified research and investigation on theoretical or
practical problems in large and small cities; and (B) Facilitate
partnerships and outreach activities between institutions of higher
education, local communities, and local governments to address urban
problems.''
The specific problems that grants under the COPC program must focus
on are ``problems associated with housing, economic development,
neighborhood revitalization, infrastructure, health care, job training,
education, crime prevention, planning, community organizing, and other
areas deemed appropriate by the Secretary.''
Furthermore, the COPC Act states: ``The Secretary shall give
preference to institutions of higher education that undertake research
and outreach activities by bringing together knowledge and expertise in
the various social science and technical disciplines that relate to
urban problems.''
It is clear from the statutory language quoted above, and the
program requirements and selection criteria detailed below, that
Congress intended that COPC be multi-disciplined, combine research with
outreach, work with communities and local governments and address the
multi-dimensional problems that beset urban areas. To be most effective
during the term of the demonstration, the assisted research must have a
clear near-term potential for solving specific significant urban
problems. The selected institutions must have the capacity to apply
their research results and to work with communities and local
institutions, including neighborhood groups, in applying research
results to specific real-life urban problems, including design of
comprehensive strategies and consolidated housing and community
development plans to resolve these problems.
D. Eligible Applicants
Applicants for this competition must be public or private nonprofit
institutions of higher education granting four year degrees and
accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by
the Department of Education.
A consortium of institutions may be part of any application, but
one institution must be designated as the legal applicant. Finally,
each institution may be part of only one consortium or submit only one
application, although the application can include various schools
within the institution.
E. Program Requirements
Grantees must meet the following program requirements:
1. Responsibilities. Each Center shall:
(a) Employ the research and outreach resources of its sponsoring
institution of higher education to solve specific urban problems
identified by communities served by the Center;
(b) Establish outreach activities in areas identified in the grant
application as the communities to be served;
(c) Establish a community advisory committee comprised of
representatives of local institutions and residents of the communities
to be served to assist in identifying local needs and advise on the
development and implementation of strategies to address those issues;
(d) Coordinate outreach activities in communities to be served by
the Center;
(e) Facilitate public service projects in the communities served by
the Center;
(f) Act as a clearinghouse for dissemination of information;
(g) Develop instructional programs, convene conferences, and
provide training for local community leaders, when appropriate; and
(h) Exchange information with other Centers.
The clearinghouse function in (f) above refers to a local or
regional clearinghouse for dissemination of information, including
empowerment zone and enterprise communities information and
consolidated housing and community development plans information, to
local governments and neighborhood groups. This clearinghouse must deal
with the problems being addressed at the local level. It is separate
and distinct from the functions in (h) above, which relate to the
provision of information to the National Clearinghouse which will serve
all funded centers.
Grantees serving areas which include or are near Federally-
designated empowerment zones or enterprise communities will have to
assist such zones and communities in developing the required strategic
plans and helping implement them.
In addition, grantees serving areas which include or are near
colonias, as defined in section 916(d) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act, must provide clearinghouse services to
help improve living conditions and standards within colonias.
2. Match. Grantees must meet the following match requirements:
(a) Research Activities. 50 percent of the project costs of
establishing and operating research activities.
(b) Outreach Activities. 25 percent of the project costs of
establishing and operating outreach activities.
This non-Federal share may include cash or the value of non-cash
contributions, equipment and other allowable in-kind contributions as
detailed in Attachment E of OMB Circular No. A-110, Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of High Education, Hospitals, and other
Nonprofit organizations.
3. Statement of Work. Each applicant must develop and submit a
Statement of Work which incorporates all eligible activities proposed
in its application and details how the proposed work will be
accomplished. Following a task-by-task format, the Statement of Work
must:
(a) Delineate the tasks and sub-tasks involved in each of the areas
for which the Center is responsible, including research activities,
outreach/technical assistance activities, community advisory committee
activities, local/regional clearinghouse activities, and other
activities necessary to carry out the responsibilities delineated under
Program Requirement #1 outlined above.
(b) Indicate the sequence in which the tasks are to be performed,
noting areas of work which must be performed simultaneously.
(c) State the intermediate and end products to be developed by task
and sub-task.
(d) Provide a framework for, and be consistent with, the Project
Management Work Plan requirements (to be provided in the Application
Kit).
Note: Where an application is prepared prior to the designation
of empowerment zones or enterprise communities, then the affected
applicants selected for awards will be required, when necessary, to
revise their statement of work to incorporate the activities needed
to assist such zones and communities.
4. Administrative. The grant will be governed by the provision of
OMB Circulars A-110 (Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher
Education, Hospitals and other Nonprofit Organizations), A-122 (Cost
Principles for Nonprofit Organizations), and A-133 (Audits of
Institutions of Higher Education and other Nonprofit Institutions), as
implemented at 24 CFR part 45.
F. Eligible Activities
Eligible activities include:
1. Research activities which have practical application for solving
specific problems in designated communities and neighborhoods. Such
activities may not total more than one-quarter of the total project
costs contained in any grant made under this NOFA (including the
required 50 percent match).
2. Outreach, technical assistance and information exchange
activities which are designed to address specific problems in
designated communities and neighborhoods. Such activities must total no
less than three-quarters of the total project costs contained in any
grant made under this NOFA (including the required 25 percent match).
Examples of outreach activities include, but are not limited to:
(a) Assistance to communities to improve consolidated housing and
community development plans and remove impediments to design and
implementation of such plans.
(b) Job training and other training projects, such as workshops,
seminars and one-on-one and on-the-job training;
(c) Design of community strategies to resolve urban problems of
communities and neighborhoods;
(d) Innovative use of funds to provide direct technical expertise
and assistance to local community groups and residents to help them
resolve local problems such as homelessness and housing discrimination;
and
(e) Assistance in business start-up activities for low- and
moderate-income individuals and organizations, including business
start-up training and technical expertise and assistance, mentor
programs, assistance in developing small loan funds, business
incubators, etc.
3. Activities to carry out the ``Responsibilities'' listed under
Section I.E.1.
G. Ineligible Activities
Ineligible activities are:
1. Research activities which have no clear and immediate practical
application for solving urban problems or do not address specific
problems in designated communities and neighborhoods.
2. Any type of construction, rehabilitation, or other physical
development costs.
3. Costs used for day-to-day administration of regular programs of
institutions of higher education, local governments or neighborhood
groups.
II. Selection Criteria/Rating Factors
A. Rating Factors
HUD will use the following criteria to rate and rank applications
received in response to this NOFA. The factors and maximum points for
each factor are provided below. The maximum number of points is 100.
Rating of the ``applicant'' or the ``applicant's organization and
staff'', unless otherwise specified, will include any sub-contractors,
consultants and sub-recipients which are firmly committed to the
project.
(1) (10 points) The demonstrated research resources available to
the applicant for carrying out the purposes of the COPC Act. In rating
this factor, HUD will consider the extent to which the applicant's
organization and staff have recent, relevant and successful experience
in undertaking research activities in specific communities which have
clear near-term potential for practical application to significant
urban problems associated with housing, economic development,
neighborhood revitalization, infrastructure, health care, job training,
education, crime prevention, planning and community organizing.
(2) (10 points) The demonstrated outreach resources available to
the applicant for carrying out the purposes of the COPC Act. In rating
this factor, HUD will consider the extent to which the applicant's
organization and staff have recent, relevant and successful experience
in applying research results through outreach activities, including the
provision of technical expertise and assistance, to solve or ameliorate
the impact of significant urban problems associated with the areas
listed in factor #1 above.
(3) (5 points) The demonstrated commitment of the applicant to
supporting research and outreach programs by providing matching
contributions for the Federal assistance received. In rating this
factor, HUD will provide an increasing number of points for increasing
amounts of contributions beyond the statutory 50 percent for research
and 25 percent for outreach.
(4) (10 points) The capability of the applicant to provide
leadership in solving community problems and in making national
contributions to solving long-term and immediate urban problems. HUD
will evaluate the two parts of this factor separately, giving them
equal weight. In rating the first sub-factor, HUD will consider the
extent to which the institution of higher education can demonstrate
that it has taken a leadership position in solving specific community
problems in the past. In rating the second sub-factor, HUD will
consider the extent to which the applicant can demonstrate that its
published research and other activities place it in a leadership
position toward making a national contribution to solving longer-term
and immediate urban problems.
(5) (15 points) The extent of need in the communities to be served
by the applicant. HUD will consider the extent to which the proposal
clearly delineates a need or needs in the affected communities that can
be resolved through the activities of a COPC. The applicant must
demonstrate how these needs were determined and how the COPC will help
resolve these needs.
(6) (7 points) The demonstrated ability of the applicant to
disseminate results of research and successful strategies developed
through outreach activities to other COPC and communities served
through this demonstration program. In rating this factor, HUD will
evaluate the past experience of the applicant's staff and the scope and
potential of the applicant's proposal to serve as a local/regional
clearinghouse or use other means to disseminate information on its own
and other COPC research results and strategies to: (a) Local
communities in its area and (b) other communities and COPC through the
National Clearinghouse.
(7) (15 points) The projects and activities that the applicant
proposes to carry out under the grant. In rating this factor, HUD will
consider the extent to which the applicant's proposal effectively
addresses the following: (a) Identifies specific communities (including
colonias, where appropriate), neighborhoods within communities, local
institutions and neighborhood groups to be assisted by the Center; (b)
demonstrates that one or more effective community advisory committees
comprised of representatives of local institutions and a balance of
racial/ethnic, gender and income mix of residents of the communities
(and, where appropriate, colonias) to be served has been or will be
formed to participate in identifying local needs to be addressed by the
Center and to form a partnership with the Center to develop and
implement strategies to address those needs; (c) outlines a clear
research agenda related to local needs that can be successfully carried
out within the period of this grant and plan for involving the
community advisory committee(s) in the execution of that agenda; (d)
demonstrates how it will design a comprehensive strategy to resolve
community and neighborhood problems; and (e) demonstrates how it will
assist communities to improve consolidated housing and community
development plans and remove impediments to design and implementation
of such plans. (Other projects and activities required of a COPC, being
evaluated under other factors, include: Providing outreach activities
to communities; acting as a clearinghouse for disseminating
information; facilitating public service projects and coordinating
outreach activities in communities to be served by the Center, and
exchanging information with other centers.)
(8) (18 points) The effectiveness of the applicant's strategy to
provide outreach activities to communities. In rating this factor, HUD
will consider the extent to which: (a) The application identifies a
clear outreach agenda related to locally-identified needs that can be
successfully carried out within the period of this grant and a plan for
involving the community advisory committee(s) in the execution of that
agenda; (b) the outreach agenda includes design of a community strategy
to resolve community and neighborhood problems; (c) the outreach agenda
includes training projects for local community leaders, when
appropriate; (d) the outreach program provides for on-site or a
frequent presence in the communities and neighborhoods to be assisted
through outreach activities; and (e) the outreach agenda includes
assistance to communities for the design of consolidated housing and
community development plans and removal of impediments to design and
implementation of such plans.
(9) (10 points) The effectiveness of the applicant's strategy to
provide assistance to Federally-designated empowerment zones and
enterprise communities. In rating this factor, HUD will consider the
extent to which the applicant's proposal addresses the following: (a)
Identifies the empowerment zone or zones and enterprise communities it
will serve; (b) delineates how it will help such zones and communities
develop the required strategic plans; (c) outlines a clear program to
help implement such plans; and (d) outlines an agenda to review
effectiveness of such plans and their implementation and provides
methods to overcome impediments.
B. Selection Process
Applications for funding under this NOFA will be evaluated
competitively and points will be awarded as specified in the Rating
Factors section described above.
After assigning points based upon the factors all applications will
be listed in rank order. Applications will then be funded in rank order
until all available funds have been expended. However, in order to be
funded, an applicant must receive a minimum score of 70. HUD reserves
the right to fund all or portions of the proposed activities identified
in each application, based upon the eligibility of the proposed
activities.
If two or more applications have the same number of points, the
application with the most points for rating factor (8) shall be
selected. If there is still a tie, the application with the most points
for rating factor (7) shall be selected.
If the amount of funds remaining after funding as many of the
highest ranking applications as possible is insufficient for the next
highest ranking application, HUD shall determine (based upon the
proposed activities) if it is feasible to fund part of the application
and offer a smaller grant to the applicant. If HUD determines that
given the proposed activities a smaller grant amount would make the
activities infeasible, or if the applicant turns down the reduced grant
amount, HUD shall make the same determination for the next highest
ranking application until all applications within the competitive range
have been exhausted or available funds have been expended.
If HUD receives an insufficient number of applications to expend
all funds, or if funds remain after HUD approves all approvable
applications, HUD may negotiate increased amounts of grant awards up to
an additional $250,000. Increased grants will be offered in rank order
to applicants in the competitive range.
C. Geographic Distribution
HUD reserves the right to make selections out of rank order to
provide for a geographic distribution of funded centers. The geographic
balance that HUD will use, if it decides to implement this option, will
be based on a combination of two adjacent standard Federal regions
(e.g., Southwest and Southeast Regions, Great Plains and Midwest
Regions, etc.) If the rank order does not yield at least one fundable
center within each two region combination, then HUD may select the
highest ranking application from such a combination, as long as the
minimum score of 70 is achieved.
It is HUD's intent to fund at least one COPC that serves the
colonias, as defined by section 916(d) of the Cranston-Gonzales
National Affordable Housing Act, as long as the applicant receives a
minimum score of 70.
It is HUD's intent to give preference to COPCs that serve
Federally-designated empowerment zones or enterprise communities, as
long as the applicant receives a minimum score of 70.
III. Application Process
A. Obtaining Applications
Requests for an application kit (Request for Grant Application,
RFGA), must be in writing to the Processing and Control Branch, Office
of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., room 7255, Washington, DC 20410.
Requests may also be faxed to (202) 708-3363. (This is not a toll free
number.) We strongly recommend the use of the fax transmission option
to promote accuracy and expedite HUD response time. Requests for
application kits must include the applicant's name, mailing address,
zip code, area code and telephone number and must refer to document FR-
3532.
B. Application Deadline
To be considered for funding, the application package must be
physically received by the Processing and Control Branch, Office of
Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, room 7255, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410
by 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on April 8, 1994. The application
deadline is firm as to date, hour and place. In the interest of
fairness to all competing applicants, the Department will treat as
ineligible for consideration any application that is received after the
deadline. Applicants should take this practice into account and make
early submission of their materials to avoid any risk of loss of
eligibility brought about by unanticipated delays or other delivery-
related problems.
IV. Checklist of Application Submission Requirements
A. Application Content
Applicants must complete and submit applications in accordance with
instructions contained in the application kit. The following is a
checklist of the application contents that will be specified in RFGA:
(1) Transmittal letter,
(2) OMB Standard Forms 424 (Application for Federal Assistance),
Form 424A (Budget), Form 424B (Non-Construction Assurances) and Budget
Summary;
(3) Statement of Work and Project Management System Baseline Plan
(HUD 441.1 and accompanying narrative);
(4) A description of how the ``Responsibilities'' in Section I.E.1.
will be met.
(5) Evidence of how the matching requirement in section I.E.2. will
be met.
(6) Narrative statement addressing each of the rating factors in
section II.
B. Certifications and Exhibits
Applications must also include the following:
(1) Drug-Free Workplace Certification.
(2) Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, if applicable.
(3) Form HUD-2280, Applicant/Recipient Disclosure/Update Report.
V. Corrections to Deficient Applications
After the submission deadline date, HUD will screen each
application to determine whether it is complete. If an application
lacks certain technical items or contains a technical error, such as an
incorrect signatory, HUD will notify the applicant in writing that it
has 14 calendar days from the date of HUD's written notification to
cure the technical deficiency. If the applicant fails to submit the
missing material within the 14-day cure period, HUD will disqualify the
application.
This 14-day cure period applies only to non-substantive
deficiencies or errors. Any deficiency capable of cure will involve
only items not necessary for HUD to assess the merits of an application
against the factors specified in this NOFA.
VI. Other Matters
A. Environmental Review
In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 50.20(b) of the HUD regulations,
the policies and procedures in this document relate only to the
provision of research, training and technical assistance which do not
result in physical change and therefore are categorically excluded from
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
B. Federalism Impact
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies
and procedures contained in this notice will not have substantial
direct effects on States or their political subdivisions, or the
relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. As a result, the notice is not subject to review under the
Order. Specifically, the notice solicits participation in an effort to
provide assistance to institutions of higher education for establishing
and carrying out research and outreach activities addressing the
problems of urban areas. The Centers established under this notice will
work with local communities to help resolve urban problems. The notice
does not impinge upon the relationships between the Federal government
and State or local governments.
C. Impact on the Family
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive
Order 12606, The Family, has determined that this notice will likely
have a beneficial impact on family formation, maintenance, and general
well-being. The assistance to be provided by the funding under this
NOFA is expected to help local residents to become self-sufficient by
improving living conditions and standards. Accordingly, since the
impact on the family is beneficial, no further review is considered
necessary.
D. Documentation and Public Access Requirements: HUD Reform Act
HUD will ensure that documentation and other information regarding
each application submitted pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to
indicate the basis upon which assistance was provided or denied. This
material, including any letters of support, will be made available for
public inspection for a five-year period beginning not less than 30
days after the award of the assistance. Material will be made available
in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and
HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In addition, HUD will
include the recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its
quarterly Federal Register notice of all recipients of HUD assistance
awarded on a competitive basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b), and
the notice published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR
1942), for further information on these requirements.)
E. Prohibition Against Advance Information on Funding Decisions
HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the HUD Reform Act was
published on May 13, 1991 (56 FR 22088) and became effective on June
12, 1991. That regulation, codified as 24 CFR part 4, applies to the
funding competition announced today. The requirements of the rule
continue to apply until the announcement of the selection of successful
applicants.
HUD employees involved in the review of applications and in the
making of funding decisions are restrained by part 4 from providing
advance information to any person (other than an authorized employee of
HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from otherwise giving any
applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons who apply for
assistance in this competition should confine their inquiries to the
subject areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.
Applicants who have questions should contact the HUD Office of
Ethics (202) 708-3815. (This is not a toll-free number.) The Office of
Ethics can provide information of a general nature to HUD employees, as
well. However, a HUD employee who has specific program questions, such
as whether particular subject matter can be discussed with persons
outside the Department, should contact his or her Regional or Field
Office Counsel, or Headquarters counsel for the program to which the
question pertains.
F. Prohibition Against Lobbying of HUD Personnel
Section 13 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
(42 U.S.C. 3537b) contains two provisions dealing with efforts to
influence HUD's decisions with respect to financial assistance. The
first imposes disclosure requirements on those who are typically
involved in these efforts--those who pay others to influence the award
of assistance or the taking of a management action by the Department
and those who are paid to provide the influence. The second restricts
the payment of fees to those who are paid to influence the award of HUD
assistance, if the fees are tied to the number of housing units
received or are based on the amount of assistance received, or if they
are contingent upon the receipt of assistance.
Section 13 was implemented by final rule published in the Federal
Register on May 17, 1991 (56 FR 22912). The final rule is codified at
24 CFR part 86. If readers are involved in any efforts to influence the
Department in these ways, they are urged to read part 86, particularly
the examples contained in Appendix A of the regulation.
Any questions about the rule should be directed to the Office of
Ethics, Room 2158, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-3000. Telephone: (202) 708-
3815 TDD: (202) 708-1112 These are not toll-free numbers. Forms
necessary for compliance with the rule may be obtained from the local
HUD office.
G. Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities
The use of funds awarded under this NOFA is subject to the
disclosure requirements and prohibitions of Section 319 of the
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the implementing regulations at
24 CFR part 87. These authorities prohibit recipients of federal
contracts, grants, or loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying
the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in
connection with a specific contract, grant, or loan. The prohibition
also covers the awarding of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements,
or loans unless the recipient has made an acceptable certification
regarding lobbying. Under 24 CFR part 87, applicants, recipients, and
subrecipients of assistance exceeding $100,000 must certify that no
federal funds have been or will be spent on lobbying activities in
connection with the assistance.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5307 note
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Andrew Cuomo,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 94-44 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-43 Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 311-325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-43]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of Community Planning and Development
[Docket No. N-93-3697]
Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
AGENCY: Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described
below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department
is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and should
be sent to: Joseph L. Lackey, Jr., OMB Desk Officer, Office of
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kay F. Weaver, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone
(202) 708-0050. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of the proposed
forms and other available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained
from Mrs. Weaver.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department has submitted the proposal
for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for
review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter
35). It is also requested that OMB complete its review within five
days.
The Notice lists the following information:
(1) The title of the information collection proposal;
(2) The office of the agency to collect the information;
(3) The description of the need for the information and its
purpose;
(4) The agency form number, if applicable;
(5) What members of the public will be affected by the proposal;
(6) How frequently information submissions will be required;
(7) An estimate of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the
information submission including number of respondents, frequency of
response, and hours of response;
(8) Whether the proposal is new or an extension, reinstatement, or
revision of an information collection requirement; and
(9) The names and telephone numbers of an agency official familiar
with the proposal and of the OMB desk Officer for the Department.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction ACT, 44
U.S.C. 3507; Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Dated: December 27, 1993.
Mark C. Gordon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Proposal: Application approval.
Office: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
and Development.
Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:
The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Program is authorized by
Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The
statute requires the Secretaries of HUD and Agriculture to make
designations of empowerment zones and enterprise communities from among
eligible areas based on a Strategic Plan which addresses the human,
physical, economic and community development problems in the area. HUD
has prepared an application form HUD-40003 to allow applicants to apply
for designation. We are asking the OMB for expedited clearance of the
application form to allow the maximum time possible for eligible
applications to prepare their applications.
Respondents: Units of general local government together with their
appropriate State and State Certified Economic Development Corporations
may apply.
Frequency of response: This is a one time application process. The
Secretaries of HUD and Agriculture are authorized to make a maximum
number of designations each, as specified by the statute in urban and
rural areas.
Reporting burden:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of x x Estimated Total hours
respondents Frequency hours =
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 94/ one time nomination............. 300 1 50 15,000
Annually for designees reports......... 104 1 16 1,664
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: This is a new collection for a one-time appropriation.
Contact: Michael Savage, HUD, (202) 708-2290; or Joseph F. Lackey,
Jr., OMB (202) 395-6880.
Dated: December 27, 1993.
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Program Attachment to SF 83--
Supporting Statement
A. Justification
1. The statute requires that data demonstrating eligibility must be
submitted as part of the nomination for Empowerment Zone/Enterprise
Community designation, as well as the Strategic Plan addressing
problems in the nominated area which will serve as the basis for
designation by the appropriate Secretary. In addition the statute
requires that the nomination for designation include benchmarks
established by the nominee for measuring the success of the nominees
plan implementation. Modification of the boundaries of the zone or lack
of progress in achieving the benchmarks set forth in the strategic plan
is indicated in the statute as grounds for a revokation by the
appropriate Secretary of the designation. Therefore, we will ask for
periodic (annual) reports from the designated Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities in which they indicate how they are progressing
against the benchmarks they established. We do not have a specific form
which must be used to make this report.
a. Nomination.
(A) Eligibility factors include documentation of specific levels of
poverty by census tract, pervasive poverty and general distress. In
addition, parameters of geographic size and population are included.
(B) The statute provides that in making designations, the Secretary
will consider the effectiveness of the strategic plan, the
effectiveness of the assurances provided and the other criteria which
may be specified by the appropriate Secretary.
b. Periodic (annual) performance reports. As indicated above this
report will be submitted by the designated Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities to show their progress in achieving the
benchmarks set forth in their strategic plans. The appropriate
Secretary will use the information submitted to evaluate the success of
the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities as indicated in the
statute.
2. Purpose and use of the information.
The nominations will be used by HUD and USDA to evaluate the
eligibility of the nominated areas and make designations of Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities in accordance with the designation
criteria set forth in the statute.
The period reports will be used as required by the statute to
determine the success of each designee in meeting its established
benchmarks and in evaluating the program as a whole.
3. Use of information technology to reduce burden--not applicable.
4. Effort to identify duplication.
These requirements are the minimum necessary to meet the
requirements of the statute and put the Program into effect.
5. Availability of similar information.
While available information can be used to prepare the nomination
and develop the strategic plan, the statute requires that the nominee
develop this information for an area it selects.
6. Small business involvement--not applicable.
7. Consequence of less frequent information collection.
We judge periodic reports to be the minimum needed to administer
the program in conformance with the statute.
8. Inconsistency with 5 CFR 1320.6--not applicable.
9. Persons consulted.
HUD and USDA have worked together to prepare joint applications for
the Program. The following agencies were consulted during the
preparation and development of the program:
Commerce Department--Larry Parks
Education Department--Mike Smith
Housing and Human Services--David Ellwood
Justice--Eleanor Acheson
Labor--Larry Katz
OMB--Chris Edley
ONDCP--Ed Jurith
SBA--Erskine Bolles
Transportation--Ann Bormolini
Treasury--Maurice Foley
CEA--Joe Stiglitz
DPC--Bruce Reed
NEC--Paul Dimond
V.P.--Kumiki Gibson
10. Assurance of confidentiality--not applicable.
11. Questions of a sensitive nature--not applicable.
12. Cost estimates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Number of x Estimated x hourly = Cost
respondents hours rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantees (state & local governments):
Nomination......................... 300 50 $10.00 $150,000
Reports............................ 104 16 10.00 16,640
------------
Total cost to nominees & .............. .............. ........... 166,640
designees.
Federal Government:
Nomination......................... 300 80 $18.00 $432,000
Reports............................ 104 40 18.00 74,880
------------
Total cost to federal government. .............. .............. ........... 506,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures are based on an estimate of the number of
applications expected and the assumption that HUD and USDA will
designate the full EZs and ECs authorized in the statute. These figures
were then multiplied by the number of hours estimated for preparation
or review for each requirement.
13. Estimate of Burden of Information Collection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Estimated
respondents x Frequency x hours = Total hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 94/one time nomination.............. 300 1 50 15,000
Annually for Designees reports......... 104 1 16 1,664
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Changes in burden--not applicable.
15. Publication for statistical use--not applicable.
16. The publication of this information does not employ statistical
methods.
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
TN04JA94.004
TN04JA94.005
TN04JA94.006
TN04JA94.007
TN04JA94.008
TN04JA94.009
TN04JA94.010
TN04JA94.011
TN04JA94.012
TN04JA94.013
TN04JA94.014
TN04JA94.015
[FR Doc. 94-43 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-42 Establishment of and Invitation for Nominations for the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 304-305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-42]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Establishment of and Invitation for Nominations for the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee
AGENCIES: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of
Health and Human Services, and Food and Consumer Services, Department
of Agriculture.
ACTION: Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Invitation for
Nominations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related
Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-445), the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), announce
the establishment by the Secretaries of HHS and USDA of the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee and invite nominations for the Committee.
The Committee shall review the 1990 edition of Nutrition and Your
Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans and determine if, on the basis
of current scientific and medical knowledge, revision is warranted at
this time. If so, the Committee will proceed to develop recommendations
for revisions in a report to the Secretaries of HHS and USDA. The
Committee shall be terminated upon delivery of its final report or at
the end of two years, whichever is first.
The Departments invite nominations for committee membership of
individuals qualified to carry out the above-mentioned tasks.
Nominations should describe and document the nominee's qualifications
in the relevant subject areas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elena T. Carbone, M.S., R.D., Co-executive Secretary from HHS to the
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Office of Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, room 2132 Switzer Building, 330 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, (202) 205-9007; or Debra Reed, M.S., L.N., Co-
executive Secretary from USDA to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee, Human Nutrition Information Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, room 366, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782,
(301) 436-8457.
ADDRESSES: Nominations may be submitted either to Elena T. Carbone or
Debra Reed at the addresses above for up to 15 days after publication
of this notice.
Philip R. Lee,
Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Ellen Haas,
Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 94-42 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-41 Medicare Program; Withdrawal of Coverage of Diagnostic Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Testing (Impotence Testing)
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 308-311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-41]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
[BPD-780-PN]
RIN 0938-AG43
Medicare Program; Withdrawal of Coverage of Diagnostic Nocturnal
Penile Tumescence Testing (Impotence Testing)
AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the Medicare program's proposal to
revise its national policy by withdrawing coverage for diagnostic
nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT) testing in the sleep disorder clinic.
For all other settings, we are proposing to exclude rather than
withdraw coverage because the Medicare program does not have a national
policy that provides for coverage of NPT testing by plethysmography and
other monitoring devices in settings other than sleep disorder clinics.
Public Health Service studies show that NPT testing is not a reliable
index for evaluating impotence. Therefore, it does not meet HCFA's
criteria for effectiveness.
DATES: Comments will be considered if we receive them at the
appropriate address, as provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March
7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (1 original and 3 copies) to the
following address:
Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services, Attention: BPD-780-PN, P.O. Box 26688, Baltimore, MD 21207.
If you prefer, you may deliver your written comments (1 original
and 3 copies) to one of the following addresses:
Room 309-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, or
Room 132, East High Rise Building, 6325 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
MD 21207.
Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept
comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer
to file code BPD-780-PN. Comments received timely will be available for
public inspection as they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in room 309-G of
the Department's offices at 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
(phone: (202) 690-7890).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Marie Hummel, (410) 966-4637.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Introduction
Administration of the Medicare program is governed by the Medicare
statute, title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). The Congress
intended, at the time Medicare was enacted in 1965, that Medicare
provide health insurance to protect the elderly (and later, the
disabled) from the substantial costs of health care services. The
Medicare law provides coverage for broad categories of benefits,
including inpatient and outpatient hospital care, skilled nursing
facility (SNF) care, home health care, and physicians' services.
The Medicare program consists of two separate but complementary
health insurance programs, a Hospital Insurance (HI) program (known as
Part A) and a Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) program (known as
Part B). Although Part A is called Hospital Insurance, covered benefits
also include medical services furnished in SNFs or by home health
agencies (HHAs) and hospices. For purposes of the Medicare program, we
refer to these entities as ``providers.'' These providers must be
certified as qualified providers of services and must sign an agreement
to participate in the program. Part B covers a wide range of medical
services and supplies such as those furnished by physicians, providers,
or others in connection with physicians' services, outpatient hospital
services, outpatient physical therapy and occupational therapy
services, and home health services. Physicians' services covered under
Part B include visits to patients in the home, office, hospital, and
other institutions. Part B also covers certain drugs and biologicals,
diagnostic x-ray and laboratory tests, purchase or rental of durable
medical equipment (DME), ambulance services, prosthetic devices, and
certain medical supplies.
While the Medicare law provides coverage for the broad categories
of benefits described above, it also places categorical limitations on
the coverage of the services furnished by certain health care
practitioners, such as dentists, chiropractors, and podiatrists, and it
specifically excludes some categories of services from coverage, such
as cosmetic surgery, personal comfort items, custodial care, and
routine physical checkups. The statute also provides direction as to
the manner in which payment is made for Medicare services, the rules
governing eligibility for services, and the health, safety, and quality
standards to be met by providers and some types of suppliers that
furnish services to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Medicare law does not, however, provide an all-inclusive list
of specific items, services, treatments, procedures, or technologies
covered by Medicare. Thus, except for the examples of DME in section
1861(n) of the Act, some of the medical and other health services
listed in section 1861(s) of the Act, and exclusions from coverage
listed in section 1862(a) of the Act, the statute does not specify
medical devices, surgical procedures, or diagnostic and therapeutic
services that should be covered or excluded from coverage.
The Congress understood that questions about coverage for specific
services would arise and would require us to make specific decisions
about coverage. Thus, it gave the Secretary the authority to make those
decisions. Section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits payment for items
or services that ``are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis
or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a
malformed body member.''
We have interpreted this statutory provision to exclude from
Medicare coverage those medical and other health care services that are
not demonstrated to be safe or effective. Effectiveness in this context
is the probability of benefit to individuals from a medical item,
service, or procedure for a given medical problem under average
conditions of use; that is, day-to-day medical practice. In day-to-day
medical practice, physicians diagnose and treat clinical conditions
following inquiry into an individual's medical history, performance of
a physical examination, and interpretations of a variety of diagnostic
tests and procedures. To be of value to the physician, the information
obtained from any diagnostic test or procedure must be sufficiently
accurate to provide a reasonably reliable measure for establishing or
ruling out the presence of a given disease. Payment may not be made
under Medicare for any diagnostic test or procedure that does not
produce accurate results when properly performed, since that test
cannot be considered ``reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or
treatment of illness or injury.''
B. Medicare Coverage of Diagnostic Nocturnal Penile Tumescence Testing
(Testing for Impotence)
Impotence is the inability to attain and maintain an erection
sufficient to permit satisfactory intercourse and is considered by
Medicare to be the failure of a body part when the diagnosis, and
frequently the treatment, require medical expertise. Impotence can be
organic or psychogenic in origin. The focus of diagnostic tests is to
determine the origin of impotence to establish the appropriate
treatment.
Currently, Medicare covers diagnostic NPT testing by
plethysmography (for example, mercury strain gauges) and other
monitoring devices in a sleep disorder clinic to determine whether
erectile impotence is organic or psychogenic. Although impotence is not
a sleep disorder, the nature of the testing requires that it be
performed while the patient sleeps. In the past, it was believed that
patients with predominantly psychogenic impotence would regularly
attain normal erections during rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep, while
patients with organic impotence would not demonstrate significant
sleep-associated normal erections.
During NPT testing, mercury strain gauges placed on the shaft of
the penis can detect and measure changes in penile circumference during
sleep. A normal result of NPT, measured with strain gauges, is two or
more periods of sustained erections lasting more than 20 minutes and
associated with at least a 25-mm increase in penile circumference.
Normal NPT in a person with sexual dysfunction implies intact
neurovascular structures and suggests psychogenic impotence. An
abnormal recording, however, is not definitive and only suggests
organic impotence and will require further testing for a more definite
diagnosis. In addition, NPT testing has a high incidence (15 to 20
percent) of false-positive and, although not as common, false-negative
findings.
Currently, diagnostic NPT testing in a sleep disorder clinic is
listed as covered under ``Sleep Disorder Clinics'' in section 3112.5 of
the Medicare Intermediary Manual (HCFA Pub. 13-3) and section 2055 of
the Medicare Carriers Manual (HCFA Pub. 14-3), under limited
circumstances, for example, to confirm appropriate treatment and for a
maximum of 2 nights of testing. Section 35-24, ``Diagnosis and
Treatment of Impotence,'' of the Medicare Coverage Issues Manual (HCFA
Pub. 6), does not address the use of plethysmography, a non-specific
test for vascular competence, which may include monitoring devices,
rigidometers, strain gauges, and stamp tests. However, we are revising
this manual section to state that plethysmography is noncovered for use
in the diagnosis of impotence because it does not indicate the rigidity
and the duration of tumescence, both of which are necessary components
in the evaluation of impotence. (Before publication, RS will confirm
the status of this manual instruction.)
C. Recommendations to Withdraw Coverage for Diagnostic Nocturnal
Penile Tumescence Testing in a Sleep Disorder Clinic
In 1986, a Medicare contractor requested advice about paying for
items and services related to impotence testing. Medicare coverage
instructions on the diagnosis and treatment of impotence did not
specifically address the issues of plethysmography and in-home
impotence testing devices. At that time, two monitoring devices had
been developed for in-home testing under a physician's direction: the
Snap-gauge, which measures the tumescence of the penis during sleep,
and Rigiscan, which measures the duration and frequency of erections as
well as the degree of rigidity and tumescence during sleep.
As a result, we consulted the HCFA Physicians Panel, a group of
staff physicians and other health professionals in HCFA's central
office and their counterparts in the Public Health Service (PHS). They
advised us to ask PHS, through the Office of Health Technology
Assessment (OHTA), to assess the safety and effectiveness of the
principal diagnostic tests for impotence currently in use. (Our current
process for making coverage decisions is discussed in the January 30,
1989, proposed rule entitled ``Medicare Program Criteria and Procedures
for Making Medical Services Coverage Decisions that Relate to Health
Care Technology'' (54 FR 4305)).
In September 1986, we asked OHTA to conduct a full assessment of
the safety and effectiveness of diagnostic tests for impotence and the
methods for treating impotence. To conduct this assessment, OHTA
solicited information from manufacturers, researchers, other government
agencies, other components of PHS, and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH). OHTA also evaluated the latest scientific studies,
medical literature, information from medical specialty groups, and
respondents to the March 19, 1987, notice entitled ``National Center
for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Assessment;
Assessment of Medical Technology'' (54 FR 8648). In that notice, OHTA
announced that it was assessing the safety and effectiveness of
diagnostic tests and treatment methods for impotence. OHTA researched
and analyzed published medical and scientific literature and relevant
studies and reports.
At the time we received the OHTA assessment on the diagnosis and
treatment for impotence dated October 31, 1989, we asked for an
assessment on sleep disorders. (Since December 1989, OHTA has been a
part of PHS' Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.) The OHTA
assessment, ``Sleep Disorders,'' dated February 3, 1992, did not raise
issues that would result in further coverage changes. Although OHTA's
assessment on the diagnosis and treatment of impotence was issued 3
years ago, we have determined that the medical evidence and conclusions
of the assessment are still accurate based on our own medical expertise
and a thorough review of all the medical literature on the subject
since 1989.
The OHTA assessment, ``Public Health Service Assessment--The
Diagnosis and Treatment of Impotence'' includes a bibliography of
studies evaluating the effectiveness of various types of impotence
testing and treatment. (Copies of this assessment may be obtained from
the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Publications
Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 8547, Silver Spring, MD 20907; Toll Free: 1-
800-358-9295.) In the assessment, OHTA concluded that reliable tests
for evaluating impotence include Doppler ultrasound, arteriography,
cavernosography, cavernosometry, hormonal assays, and
electrophysiological testing. NPT testing by plethysmography and other
monitoring devices in the clinical setting or in the home is determined
to be unreliable.
According to OHTA, there are no accepted standards for NPT test
results. Results cannot be compared among laboratories because each
laboratory has its own set of standards by which to evaluate NPT.
False-positive and false-negative results occur frequently indicating
that NPT testing is not a reliable index for differentiating organic
from psychogenic impotence, thereby making it impossible to choose the
appropriate treatment. Also, OHTA does not consider other in-home
monitoring devices to be reliable for diagnosing impotence.
II. Provisions of This Proposed Notice
Based on the conclusion of the OHTA technology assessment that
scientific evidence indicates that NPT testing is not a reliable index
for evaluating impotence, we have concluded that NPT testing does not
meet our criteria for effectiveness. Therefore, we propose to revise
our national policy by withdrawing coverage for NPT testing in the
sleep disorder clinic. We do not have a national policy regarding NPT
testing in other settings. Therefore, we propose to exclude coverage
for NPT testing, rather than withdraw coverage, in all other settings.
Because NPT test results are not standardized and are frequently
inaccurate and have a high rate of false-positive and false-negative
results, the appropriate treatment cannot be determined.
The provisions of this notice would not affect existing Medicare
regulations. However, they would affect the following manual
instructions:
Section 2055 of the Medicare Carriers Manual (HCFA Pub.
14-3).
Section 3112.5 of the Medicare Intermediary Manual (HCFA
Pub. 13-3).
Section 35-24 of the Medicare Coverage Issues Manual (HCFA
Pub. 6).
III. Regulatory Impact Statement
A. Executive Order 12291
Executive Order 12291 (E.O. 12291) requires us to prepare and
publish a regulatory impact analysis for any notice that meets one of
the E.O. 12291 criteria for a ``major rule''; that is, that would be
likely to result in--
An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
A major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or
Significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic or export markets.
We propose to revise our national policy and to withdraw Medicare
program coverage for NPT testing in the sleep disorder clinic. Because
we do not have a national policy regarding NPT testing in other
settings, we propose to exclude coverage, rather than withdraw
coverage, for NPT testing by plethysmography and other monitoring
devices in all other settings. In calendar year 1992, Medicare payment
for NPT testing totaled approximately $840,000 for 13,000 allowed
services. This is an increase of approximately 26 percent in
expenditures and a 3 percent increase in the number of services over
the previous year. We anticipate that future costs or savings as a
result of this notice would be negligible. This notice would not meet
the $100 million criterion nor would it meet the other E.O. 12291
criteria. Therefore, this notice is not a major rule under E.O. 12291,
and an initial regulatory impact analysis is not required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We generally prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that is
consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
through 612) unless the Secretary certifies that a notice would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, all physicians, sleep disorder
clinics, and manufacturers of devices for performing the NPT test are
considered to be small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires the Secretary to
prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a notice may have a significant
impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural
hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603
of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a
small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a
Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 50 beds.
Currently, Medicare covers diagnostic NPT testing. Although
impotence is not a sleep disorder, the nature of the testing requires
that it be performed while a patient sleeps. As discussed in detail in
section I.C. of this notice, the OHTA technology assessment has
concluded that NPT testing in the sleep disorder clinic is not a
reliable index for evaluating impotence. False-positive and false-
negative results occur frequently indicating that NPT testing is not a
reliable indicator for choosing the appropriate treatment. Based on
scientific evidence that indicates that NPT testing is not a reliable
index for evaluating impotence, we have concluded that NPT testing does
not meet our criteria for effectiveness, a primary requirement for
Medicare program coverage. We believe the test has not been performed
often by medical practitioners because of the test's limited value.
Therefore, we propose to withdraw Medicare coverage of NPT testing in
the sleep disorder clinic and exclude coverage of NPT testing by
plethysmography and other monitoring devices in all other settings. Our
decision to withdraw coverage should have only a minimal effect on
small entities.
Therefore, we are not preparing analyses for either the RFA or
section 1102(b) of the Act since we have determined, and the Secretary
certifies, that this notice would not result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities and would not have a
significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small
rural hospitals.
IV. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally
receive on FR documents published for comment, we are not able to
acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all
comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section
of this preamble, and, if we proceed with a subsequent document, we
will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.
V. Collection of Information Requirements
This document does not impose information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Authority: Secs. 1861 and 1862 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x and 1395y.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 13.774, Medicare
Supplementary Medical Insurance)
Dated: July 14, 1993.
Bruce C. Vladeck,
Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration.
Dated: November 28, 1993.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-41 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-4 Murphy Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 292-294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Murphy Timber Sales and Associated Activities; Kootenai National
Forest, Lincoln County, MT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of timber
harvest, reforestation, wildlife habitat enhancement (prescribed
burning), construction of low standard haul roads, and restriction of
existing roads within the lower portion of the Fortine Creek drainage.
The Fortine Creek drainage is located approximately 40 air miles
northeast of Libby, Montana near the town of Fortine, Montana.
The proposal's actions to harvest and reforest timber stands,
construct and reconstruct roads, prescribed burning, and restricting
roads are being considered together because they represent either
connected or cumulative actions as defined by the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.25). The purposes of the project are
to maintain and enhance winter thermal habitat requirements for
whitetailed and mule deer, improve grizzly bear habitat by providing
security, cover, and forage, and maintain a healthy forest while
providing timber to the local economy.
The EIS will tier to the Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan and Final EIS of September 1987, which provides overall
guidance for achieving the desired forest condition of the area. All
activities associated with the proposal will be designed to maintain
high quality wildlife, fisheries, and watershed objectives.
DATES: Written comments and suggestions should be received within 45
days following publication of this notice.
ADDRESSES: The Responsible Official is Jane P. Kollmeyer, District
Ranger, Fortine Ranger District, P.O. Box 116, Fortine, Montana 59918.
Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis
may be sent to her at that address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joleen Dunham, ID Team Leader, Fortine Ranger District. Phone: (406)
882-4451.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision area contains approximately
15,000 acres within the Kootenai National Forest in Lincoln County,
Montana. All of the proposed projects are located in the Fortine Creek
drainage with sub-drainages of Deep, Brimstone, and Murphy Creeks
included. The legal location of the decision area is as follows:
Sections 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, and 34 of Township 35 North, Range 25 West; Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, and 29 of Township 34 North, Range 25 West; Sections 25 and 36
of Township 35 North, Range 26 West; and Sections 1 and 12 of Township
34 North, Range 26 West; Principal Montana Meridian.
Some timber management and prescribed wildlife burning activities
under consideration would occur within the Marston Face Roadless Area
X172 and the Thompson-Seton Roadless Area 483. No proposed activities
are located in areas considered for inclusion to the National
Wilderness System as recommended by the Kootenai National Forest Plan
or by any past or present legislative wilderness proposals. Both even-
aged and uneven-aged management would be used in implementing the
proposed actions. Logging systems consist of tractor harvest only.
The Forest Service proposes to harvest approximately 3.3 million
board feet of timber through application of a variety of harvest
methods on approximately 1063 acres of forest land. The proposal also
includes prescribed burning of 117 acres to enhance wildlife habitat.
The Forest Service proposal also includes approximately 2.1 miles of
new road construction (0.9 miles of temporary road and 1.2 miles of low
standard specified road) and approximately 1.0 mile of road re-
construction to access the specific harvest units. Approximately 15-18
miles of existing road is also proposed for additional road use
restrictions to improve wildlife habitat security.
The Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
provides overall management objectives in individual delineated
management areas (MA's). The proposed projects encompass three
predominant MA's; 11, 13, and 14. Briefly described, MA 11 is managed
to maintain or enhance the winter-range habitat effectiveness for big-
game species and produce a programmed yield of timber. MA 14 focuses on
maintaining or enhancing grizzly bear habitat, reducing grizzly/human
conflicts, assisting in the recovery of the grizzly bear, realizing a
programmed yield of timber production, and providing for the
maintenance or enhancement of other wildlife species, especially big-
game. MA 13 is designated to provide the special habitat necessary for
old growth dependent wildlife. Timber harvest is proposed only in MA
11. Prescribed burning for wildlife is the only activity proposed in MA
14. No activity is proposed in MA 13.
Issues
Tentatively, several issues of concern have been identified through
the scoping process. These issues are briefly described below:
Whitetailed and Mule Deer Winter Thermal Cover--How would
the proposed action maintain and enhance winter thermal cover?
Visuals--What effects would the proposed action have on
naturally appearing views seen from trails, private land, Dickey Lake
and Highway 93?
Timber Supply--How would the proposed action help satisfy
local and national needs?
Activity in Roadless Area--What effect would the proposal
have on the roadless character of Marston Face and Thompson-Seton
Roadless Areas.
Grizzly Bear--How would the proposal maintain and enhance
grizzly bear habitat?
Old Growth--What effect would the proposed action have on
old growth habitat?
Forest Health--Some stands are not growing at their full
potential and some have sustained heavy mortality due to the mountain
pine beetle. What effect would the proposed action have to reduce
susceptibility to bark beetles and improve stand conditions?
Water Quality--What effects would the proposed action have
on riparian areas, lakes, and private water developments?
Public Involvement and Scoping
Public participation to this point has been extensive. On August
15, 1991 an initial scoping meeting was held with the local community
and interested individuals for the development of a timber sale
proposal. On May 28, 1992 we held another open house to present a
revised proposal. In addition, a field trip to the Murphy Decision Area
was conducted on June 26, 1992 with seven individuals attending.
Comments were requested in writing during all of these public
involvement efforts. Consultation with appropriate State and Federal
agencies has been initiated. Preliminary effects analysis indicated
that the proposed action may significantly affect quality of the human
environment and may substantially alter the undeveloped character of
the Marston Face Roadless Area. These potential effects prompted the
decision to prepare an EIS for the Murphy Timber Sales.
This environmental analysis and decision making process will unable
additional interested and affected people to participate and contribute
to the final decision. Public participation will be requested at
several points during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local
agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested
in or affected by the proposed projects. This input will be used in
preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process will
include:
Identifying potential issues.
Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
Exploring additional alternatives which will be derived
from issues recognized during scoping activities.
Identifying potential environmental effects of this
project and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects
and connected actions).
The analysis will consider a range of alternatives, including the
proposed action, no action, and other reasonable action alternatives.
Estimated Dates for Filing
The draft Murphy EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by
September, 1994. At that time EPA will publish a Notice of Availability
of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the
draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register.
The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by December, 1994. In
the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments
and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the
environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision
regarding the proposal.
Reviewer's Obligations
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. versus NRDC, 435 U.S.
519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at
the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or
dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon versus Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016,
1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. versus Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider and respond to them
in the final EIS.
To be most helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific
as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merit
of the alternatives discussed. Reviewers may wish to refer to the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Responsible Official
Jane P. Kollmeyer, District Ranger, Fortine Ranger District,
Kootenai National Forest, P.O. Box 116, Fortine, Montana, 59918, is the
Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official I will decide which,
if any, of the proposed projects will be implemented. I will document
the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision.
That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations.
Dated: December 16, 1993.
Jane P. Kollmeyer,
District Ranger, Fortine Ranger District.
[FR Doc. 94-4 Filed 1-3-94 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-39 MEDWATCH Conference on Drug and Device-induced Disease: Developing a Blueprint for the Future; Notice of Public Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-39]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
MEDWATCH Conference on Drug and Device-induced Disease:
Developing a Blueprint for the Future; Notice of Public Meeting
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
Commissioner's MEDWATCH Conference on Drug and Device-Induced Disease:
Developing a Blueprint for the Future. The conference is co-sponsored
by FDA and the American Medical Association (AMA) in cooperation with
the following organizations: American Association of Colleges of
Nursing, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American
Association of Dental Schools, American Dental Association, American
Hospital Association, American Nursing Association, American Society of
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, American Society of Hospital
Pharmacists, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Council
on Education in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
DATES: The conference will be held on January 21, 1994, from 8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m., and January 22, 1994, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The conference will be held at the Stouffer Mayflower Hotel,
1127 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036. Registration is
required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Pat Couig, Office of Health
Affairs (HFY-40), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-5470. For registration call the American
Medical Association at 1-800-621-8335.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Drug and device-induced diseases are serious
health problems. It is estimated that 2 to 10 percent of all
hospitalizations are a result of serious adverse events. The purpose of
this conference is to develop recommendations on ways to heighten
health professionals' awareness of the extent and spectrum of drug and
device-induced disease and to break down barriers to the discovery and
reporting of important adverse events to FDA and manufacturers by: (1)
Strengthening undergraduate curricula, (2) enhancing postgraduate
training, and (3) building user-friendly reporting mechanisms for
health professionals.
David A. Kessler, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and James S.
Todd, Executive Vice President of the AMA, will be the keynote
speakers.
The conference should be of interest to the following groups:
Practicing health professionals, health professional organizations,
health professions educators (undergraduate and graduate), health
professionals of State health departments, regulatory and safety
surveillance professionals, and hospital personnel (e.g, risk managers/
quality assurance personnel and members of Pharmacy and Therapeutics
Committees).
This is a participatory conference. Recommendations from the
breakout sessions will be presented on the second day of the conference
and their implementation discussed at the final panel discussion.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
David A. Kessler,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 94-39 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-38 New Monographs and Revisions of Certain Food Chemicals Codex Monographs; Opportunity for Public Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 307-308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-38]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 93N-0405]
New Monographs and Revisions of Certain Food Chemicals Codex
Monographs; Opportunity for Public Comment
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on pending changes to certain Food
Chemicals Codex monographs from the third edition and its supplements
and is also soliciting public review of specifications for proposed new
monographs. For certain substances used as food ingredients,
specifications consisting of new monographs and additions, revisions,
and corrections to current monographs are being prepared by the
National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine (NAS/IOM) Committee
on Food Chemicals Codex. This material will be presented in the next
publication of the Food Chemicals Codex (fourth edition). Upon
completion of the review of the comments by the Committee on Food
Chemicals Codex, an announcement will be made in the Federal Register
that copies of the new and revised monographs, as they will appear in
the fourth edition of the Food Chemicals Codex, are available on
request to NAS/IOM. FDA also is giving notice that the fourth
supplement to the third edition has been published and is available
from the National Academy Press.
DATES: Submit written comments by March 7, 1994. The NAS/IOM Committee
on Food Chemicals Codex advises that comments not received by this date
cannot be considered for the next publication but will be considered
for later supplements.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the NAS/IOM Committee on Food
Chemicals Codex, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20418.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fatima N. Johnson, Committee on Food Chemicals Codex, Food and
Nutrition Board, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20418, 202-334-2580;
or
Paul M. Kuznesof, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-
247), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC
20204, 202-254-9537.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA provides research contracts to the NAS/
IOM to support the preparation of the Food Chemicals Codex, a
compendium of specifications for substances used as food ingredients.
Before the inclusion of any specifications in a Food Chemicals Codex
publication, public announcement will be made in the Federal Register.
All interested parties are invited to comment and to make suggestions
for consideration. Suggestions should be accompanied by supporting data
or documentation to facilitate and expedite review by the Committee on
Food Chemicals Codex.
In the Federal Registers of January 11, 1991 (56 FR 1198), and
April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14382), FDA announced that the NAS/IOM Committee
on Food Chemicals Codex was considering new monographs and monograph
revisions for inclusion in the third supplement to the Food Chemicals
Codex, third edition, which has since been published. In the Federal
Register of November 22, 1991 (56 FR 58910), FDA announced that the
NAS/IOM Committee on Food Chemicals Codex was considering new
monographs and monograph revisions for inclusion in the fourth
supplement to the Food Chemicals Codex, third edition, which also has
been published. Both supplements are available from the National
Academy Press at the address given above for NAS.
FDA now gives notice that the NAS/IOM Committee on Food Chemicals
Codex is soliciting comments and information on proposed new monographs
and proposed changes to certain current monographs. These new
monographs and changes will be published in the fourth edition of the
Food Chemicals Codex. Copies of the proposed new monographs and
revisions to current monographs may be obtained from NAS at the address
listed above.
FDA emphasizes, however, that it will not consider adopting new
monographs and monograph revisions until the public has had ample
opportunity to comment on the changes and the new monographs. Such
opportunity for public comment will be announced in a subsequent notice
published in the Federal Register.
The NAS/IOM Committee on Food Chemicals Codex invites comments and
suggestions of specifications by all interested parties on the proposed
new monographs and revisions of current monographs, which follow:
I. Proposed New Monographs
Acesulfame potassium
Glyceryl monooleate
II. Current Monographs to which the Committee Proposes to Make
Revisions
Calcium carbonate (lead and heavy metals)
Caramel (numerous revisions)
Calcium disodium EDTA (arsenic, nitrilotriacetic acid)
Disodium EDTA (arsenic, assay, identification, calcium and
nitrilotriacetic acid)
Ethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl
cellulose,
methylcellulose, methyl ethyl cellulose, and sodium carboxymethyl
cellulose (add synonym)
Fumaric acid (assay, identification, maleic acid)
Glutamine (identification)
Hexanes (heavy metals, nonvolatile residue)
Malic Acid (identification, maleic acid)
Methylene chloride (foreign odor)
Sodium stearyl fumarate (sodium stearyl maleate and stearyl alcohol)
Two copies of written comments regarding the monographs listed in
this notice are to be submitted to NAS (address above). Each submission
should include the statement that it is in response to this Federal
Register notice. NAS will forward a copy of each comment to the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23,
12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, to be placed under Docket No.
93N-0405 for public review.
Dated: December 21,1993.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 94-38 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-37 AVRE Inc.; Revocation of U.S. License No. 1074-003
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 306-307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-37]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 93N-0416]
AVRE Inc.; Revocation of U.S. License No. 1074-003
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
revocation of the establishment license (U.S. License No. 1074-003) and
the product license issued to AVRE Inc., (AVRE) for the manufacture of
Source Plasma. AVRE has several locations. Only the Tacoma location is
affected by this revocation. In a letter to FDA dated June 30, 1993,
AVRE requested that its establishment and product licenses at the
Tacoma location be revoked and thereby waived its opportunity for a
hearing.
DATES: The revocation of the establishment license (U.S. License No.
1074-003) and the product license became effective November 8, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean M. Olson, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (HFM-635), Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-594-3074.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA announces the revocation of the
establishment license (U.S. License No. 1074-003) and the product
license issued to AVRE Inc., 10506 Bridgeport Way SW., Tacoma, WA
98499, for the manufacture of Source Plasma. Other locations under the
AVRE license are not affected by this revocation. The licenses were
revoked for the Tacoma location of AVRE only.
FDA inspected the Tacoma location of AVRE on April 7 through 21,
1993. During that inspection, FDA observed numerous deviations from the
standards established in the license as well as the applicable Federal
regulations. The inspection documented serious deviations from the
applicable Federal regulations and standards established in the
license. These deviations included, but were not limited to, the
following:
1. Failure to follow adequate written standard operating procedures
(SOP's) for determining donor suitability (21 CFR 606.100(b)), in that
four donors were allowed to donate Source Plasma more than twice during
a 7-day period; five donors were allowed to donate Source Plasma who
had experienced a weight loss of greater than 10 pounds within a 2-
month period without first being referred to a physician or physician
substitute; and educational information provided to donors did not
reference a temperature greater than 100.5 deg.F for more than 10 days
as a symptom of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
2. Failure to follow adequate written SOP's for the collection,
processing, storage, and distribution of blood and blood components for
further manufacturing (21 CFR 606.100(b)), in that AVRE collected an
amount of plasma from at least three donors that exceeded the maximum
volume allowed by AVRE's plasma volume nomogram, AVRE's donor record
files for at least 20 donors, 6 with multiple donations, did not
contain photographs; and AVRE did not have its physician or physician
substitute evaluate one donor who exhibited a temperature below 97.0
deg.F.
3. Failure to maintain complete, accurate, and concurrent records
that clearly traced the steps of each significant procedure in the
collection, processing, and storage of the blood products so as to
provide a complete history of work performed (21 CFR 606.160), in that
AVRE was unable to trace two unit numbers to the donors, AVRE
misspelled the last name of at least one donor in the deferral file,
and AVRE had no unit number in its donor record file for at least one
donation.
4. Failure to observe, standardize, and calibrate equipment (21 CFR
606.60(a)), in that during October 1992, AVRE failed to clean the air
filters on four Autopheresis-C machines.
FDA determined that the nature of the deficiencies found at AVRE
showed a pattern of careless disregard for the standards established in
the license and the Federal regulations that are designed to ensure the
continued safety, purity, and potency of the manufactured product and
that willfulness existed. The recent inspection showed that corrective
actions promised in response to a March through April 1992 inspection,
which resulted in suspension of AVRE's license, were not implemented or
were not effective in achieving long-term compliance. In a letter to
AVRE dated May 27, 1993, FDA delineated the observations listed above,
provided notice that FDA intended to institute proceedings to revoke
U.S. License 1074-003 issued to AVRE pursuant to 21 CFR 601.5(b). In
accordance with 21 CFR 601.5(b), the letter advised AVRE that no
additional time would be provided to achieve compliance with the
regulations before FDA would institute proceedings to revoke the
licenses of AVRE. The letter further announced its intent to offer an
opportunity for a hearing. In a letter to FDA dated June 30, 1993, AVRE
voluntarily requested that its licenses for the Tacoma location be
revoked and thereby waived its opportunity for a hearing. In a letter
dated November 8, 1993, FDA acknowledged voluntary revocation of the
establishment license (U.S. License No. 1074-003) and the
aforementioned product license of AVRE at the Tacoma location only.
FDA has placed copies of letters relevant to the license
revocations on file under the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville,
MD 20857. These documents are available for public examination in the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Accordingly, under 21 CFR 601.5 and section 351 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), and under authority delegated to
the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (21 CFR 5.10) and redelegated to the
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (21 CFR 5.68),
the establishment license (U.S. License No. 1074-003) and the product
license issued to the Tacoma location of AVRE Inc., for the manufacture
of Source Plasma were revoked, effective November 8, 1993.
This notice is issued and published under 21 CFR 601.8 and under
authority delegated to the Director of the Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (21 CFR 5.67).
Dated: December 16, 1993.
Kathryn C. Zoon,
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 94-37 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-36 Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BetaseronRegister
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 305-306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-36]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 93E-0353]
Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; Betaseron
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for Betaseron and is publishing this
notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human biologic product.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and petitions should be directed to the
Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm.
1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian J. Malkin, Office of Health
Affairs (HFY-20), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-1382.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the human biologic product
Betaseron (Interferon beta-1b). Betaseron is
indicated for use in ambulatory patients with relapsing-remitting
multiple sclerosis to reduce the frequency of clinical exacerbations.
Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a
patent term restoration application for Betaseron (U.S.
Patent No. 4,588,585) from the Cetus Oncology Corp., and the Patent and
Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining the patent's
eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 26,
1993, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human
biologic product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of Betaseron represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the
Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's
regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
Betaseron is 3,720 days. Of this time, 3,319 days occurred
during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 401
days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were
derived from the following dates:
1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act became effective: May 19, 1983. The applicant
claims April 4, 1986, as the date the investigational new drug
application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that
the IND effective date was May 19, 1983, which was 30 days after FDA
receipt of the IND.
2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 351 of the Public Health Service
Act: June 18, 1992. The applicant claims June 16, 1992, as the date the
product license application (PLA) for Betaseron (PLA 92-0495)
was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that PLA 92-0495
was initially submitted on June 18, 1992.
3. The date the application was approved: July 23, 1993. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that PLA 92-0495 was approved on July
23, 1993.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,500 days of
patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published is
incorrect may, on or before March 7, 1994, submit to the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) written comments and ask for a
redetermination. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA,
on or before July 5, 1994, for a determination regarding whether the
applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory
review period. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient
facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th
Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format
specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) in three copies (except that
individuals may submit single copies) and identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and
petitions may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Dated: December 17, 1993.
Allen B. Duncan,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Health Affairs.
[FR Doc. 94-36 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-33 South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and Duke Power Co.; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment and Conduct Public Scoping Meetings and Site Visit
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 302-303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-33]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project Nos. 2315, 2331, 2332]
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and Duke Power Co.; Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment and Conduct Public
Scoping Meetings and Site Visit
December 28, 1993.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has received
applications for relicensing of the existing Gaston Shoals Project,
Project No. 2332, Ninety-nine Islands Project, Project No. 2331, and
Neal Shoals Project, Project No. 2315. All the projects are located on
the Broad River. Gaston Shoals and Ninety-nine Islands are located near
Gaffney, South Carolina. Neal Shoals is located near Carlisle, South
Carolina.
The FERC staff intends to prepare a Multiple Environmental
Assessment (MEA) on the hydroelectric projects in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act.
The MEA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts of the projects and reasonable alternatives, and
will include an economic and engineering analysis.
A draft MEA will be issued and circulated for review by all
interested parties. All comments filed on the draft MEA will be
analyzed by the staff and considered in the final MEA. The staff's
conclusions and recommendations will then be presented for the
consideration of the Commission in reaching its final licensing
decision.
Scoping Meetings
Two scoping meetings will be conducted:
February 2, 1994, 10 a.m., U.S. Forest Service, 3557 Whitmire Highway
Union, South Carolina
February 2, 1994, 7 p.m., the theater at Chester Park Elementary,
School Complex Highway Number 9, Chester, South Carolina.
Interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to
attend either or both meetings and assist the staff in identifying the
scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the MEA. The
morning meeting is oriented toward the resource agencies and the
evening meeting toward the public.
To help focus discussions at the meetings, a scoping document
outlining subject areas to be addressed in the MEA will be mailed to
agencies, organizations, and interested individuals on the FERC mailing
list. Copies of the scoping document will also be available at the
scoping meetings.
Objectives
At the scoping meeting, the FERC staff will: (1) identify
preliminary environmental issues related to the proposed projects; (2)
identify preliminary resource issues that are not important and do not
require detailed analysis; (3) identify reasonable alternatives to be
addressed in the MEA; (4) solicit from the meeting participants all
available information, especially quantified data, on the resource
issues; and (5) encourage statements from experts and the public on
issues that should be analyzed in the MEA, including points of view in
opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views.
Procedures
Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and assist
the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the
MEA.
Persons choosing not to speak at the meetings but who have views on
issues or information relevant to the issues may submit written
statements for inclusion in the public record at the meeting. In
addition, written comments may be filed with the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, until March 4, 1994.
All written correspondence should clearly show the following
caption on the first page: Gaston Shoals Project, FERC No. 2332,
Ninety-nine Islands Project, FERC No. 2331, and Neal Shoals Project,
FERC No. 2315.
Intervenors--those on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding (parties)--are reminded of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, requiring parties filing documents with the
Commission to serve a copy of the document on each person whose name
appears on the official service list. Further, if a party or interceder
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency.
Site Visit
A site visit to the Gaston Shoals, Ninety-nine Islands and Neal
Shoals Projects is planned for February 1, 1994. Those who wish to
attend should plan to meet at the Gaston Shoals Powerhouse at 9:30 A.M.
Any questions regarding the site visit or this notice should be
directed to Tim Looney at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of Hydropower Licensing, 825 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 219-2852.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-33 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-27 Public Telecommunications Facilities Program: Availability of Funds
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 452-455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program: Availability of Funds;
Notice
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
[Docket No. 931228-3328]
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program: Availability of
Funds
AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, announces that applications are
available for planning and construction grants for public
telecommunications facilities under the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program (PTFP), which is administered by NTIA.
Applicants for grants under the PTFP must file their applications
on or before March 17, 1994. NTIA anticipates making grant awards by
September 30, 1994.
Approximately $21.3 million is available in fiscal year 1994 for
grants. The amount of a grant award will vary depending on the project
of the applicant. NTIA awarded $20.8 million in funds to 105 projects
for fiscal year 1993. The awards ranged from $1,898 to $968,989.
Final Rules and Policy Statement for the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program were published on November 22, 1991 (56 FR 59168-
59192, No. 226). These rules, codified at 15 CFR part 2301, will be in
effect for 1994 applications.
Prospective PTFP applicants should be aware that NTIA is in the
process of establishing a new National Information Infrastructure grant
program to be called the Information Infrastructure Grants Program
(IIGP). The IIGP's funds may be used for the planning and construction
of telecommunications networks or the purchase of telecommunications
services and facilities for the provision of educational, cultural,
health care, public information, public safety or other social
services. The Congress appropriated $26 million dollars for the IIGP in
FY 1994. Formal announcement of the IIGP will be made at a later date.
The new IIGP is separate from the already-existing grant program, the
PTFP, which is the subject of this Notice. The PTFP or its predecessor-
agencies have been in operation since 1962; the present PTFP program
has been in place since 1978.
DATES: Pursuant to Sec. 2301.5(c) of the PTFP Final Rules (56 FR 59176
(1991), codified at 15 CFR part 2301), the Administrator of NTIA hereby
establishes the closing date for the filing of applications for grants
under the PTFP. The closing date selected for the submission of
applications for 1994 is March 17, 1994. Applications delivered by mail
or by hand must be delivered to the address referenced below by 5 p.m.
on or before March 17, 1994. Applicants whose applications are not
received by the deadline will be notified that their applications will
not be considered in the current grant cycle and will be returned.
ADDRESSES: To obtain an application package, submit completed
applications, or send any other correspondence, write to: Office of
Telecommunications and Information Applications, NTIA/DOC, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW., room H-4625, Washington, DC 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Charles Rush, Acting Associate Administrator, telephone: (202) 482-
5802.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Eligibility
A. To be eligible to apply for and receive a construction grant, an
applicant must be:
(1) A public or noncommercial educational broadcast station;
(2) A noncommercial telecommunications entity;
(3) A system of public telecommunications entities;
(4) A nonprofit foundation, corporation, institution, or
association organized primarily for educational or cultural purposes;
or,
(5) A state or local government or agency, or a political or
special purpose subdivision of a state.
B. To be eligible to apply for and receive a planning grant, an
applicant must be:
(1) Any of the organizations described in paragraph A of this
section; or,
(2) A nonprofit foundation, corporation, institution, or
association organized for any purpose except primarily religious.
C. An applicant that is eligible under paragraphs A or B of this
section may file an application with the Agency for a planning or
construction grant to achieve the following:
(1) The provision of new public telecommunications facilities to
extend service to areas currently not receiving public
telecommunications services;
(2) The expansion of the service areas of existing public
telecommunications entities;
(3) The establishment of new public telecommunications entities
serving areas currently receiving public telecommunications services;
or,
(4) The improvement of the capabilities of existing licensed public
broadcast stations to provide public telecommunications services.
D. Applicants must certify whether they are delinquent on any
Federal debt. No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant
who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either:
(1) The delinquent account is paid in full,
(2) A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one
payment is received, or
(3) Other arrangements satisfactory to the Department of Commerce
are made. Delinquent accounts include debts incurred by sub-units of
the applicant other than the sub-unit that is applying to NTIA, and
includes debts owed to any agency of the Federal government, not just
to the Department or NTIA.
E. An applicant whose proposal requires an authorization from the
FCC must be eligible to receive such authorization.
II. Program Goals and Priorities
The Goals of this program as stated in section 390 of the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 390) are:
``To assist through matching grants, in the planning and
construction of public telecommunications facilities in order to
achieve the following objectives:
(1) Extend delivery of public telecommunications services to as
many citizens of the United States as possible by the most efficient
and economical means, including the use of broadcast and nonbroadcast
technologies;
(2) Increase public telecommunications services and facilities
available to, operated by, and owned by minorities and women; and
(3) Strengthen the capability of existing public television and
radio stations to provide public telecommunications services to the
public.''
The Agency has established the following priorities for the PTFP:
Special Applications
NTIA possesses the discretionary authority to recommend awarding
grants to eligible broadcast and nonbroadcast applicants whose
proposals are so unique or innovative that they do not clearly fall
within the priorities listed below. Innovative projects submitted under
this category must address demonstrated and substantial community needs
(e.g., service to identifiable ethnic or linguistic minority audiences,
service to the blind or deaf, electronic text, and nonbroadcast
projects offering educational or instructional services).
Priority 1--Provision of Public Telecommunications Facilities for First
Radio and Television Signals to a Geographic Area
There are three subcategories:
A. Projects that include local origination capacity. This
subcategory includes the planning or construction of new facilities
that can provide a full range of radio and/or television programs
including material that is locally produced.
B. Projects that do not include local origination capacity. This
subcategory includes projects such as increases in tower height and/or
power of existing stations and construction of translators, cable
networks, and repeater transmitters that will result in providing
public telecommunications services to previously unserved areas.
C. Projects that provide first nationally distributed programming.
This subcategory includes projects that provide satellite downlink
facilities to noncommercial radio and television stations that would
bring nationally distributed programming to a geographic area for the
first time.
Priority 1 and its subcategories apply only to grant applicants
proposing to plan or construct new facilities to bring public
telecommunications services to geographic areas that are presently
unserved.
Priority 2--Replacement of Basic Equipment of Existing Essential
Broadcast Stations
Projects eligible for consideration under this category include the
urgent replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment in existing
broadcast stations that provide either the only public
telecommunications signal or the only locally originated public
telecommunications signal to a geographical area.
Priority 3--Establishment of a First Local Origination Capacity in a
Geographical Area
Projects in this category include the planning or construction of
facilities to bring the first local origination capacity to an area
already receiving public telecommunications services.
Priority 4--Replacement and Improvement of Basic Equipment for Existing
Broadcast Stations
Projects eligible for consideration under this category include the
replacement of obsolete or worn-out equipment and the upgrading of
existing origination or delivery capacity to current industry
performance standards. There are two subcategories:
A. Under Priority 4A, NTIA will consider applications to replace
urgently needed equipment from public broadcasting stations that do not
meet the Priority 2 criteria because they do not provide either the
only public telecommunications signal or the only locally originated
public telecommunications signal to a geographic area. NTIA will also
consider applications that improve as well as replace urgently needed
production-related equipment at public radio and television stations
that do not qualify for Priority 2 consideration but that produce, on a
continuing basis, significant amounts of programming distributed
nationally to public radio or television stations.
This subcategory will also enable the acquisition of satellite
downlinks for public radio stations in areas already served by one or
more full-service public radio stations. The applicant must demonstrate
that it will broadcast a program schedule that does not merely
duplicate what is already available in its service area.
The final projects included in this subcategory would enable the
acquisition of the necessary items of equipment to bring the inventory
of an already-operating station to the basic level of equipment
requirements established by PTFP.
B. This subcategory includes the improvement and non-urgent
replacement of equipment at any public broadcasting station.
Priority 5--Augmentation of Existing Broadcast Stations
Projects in this category would equip an existing station beyond a
basic capacity to broadcast programming from distant sources and to
originate local programming.
A. Projects to equip auxiliary studios at remote locations, or to
provide mobile origination facilities. An applicant must demonstrate
that significant expansion in public participation in programming will
result.
B. Projects to augment production capacity beyond basic level in
order to provide programming or related materials for other than local
distribution. This subcategory would provide equipment for the
production of programming for regional or national use.
III. Application Forms and Regulations
To apply for a PTFP grant, an applicant must file a timely and
complete application on a current form approved by the Agency. No
previous versions of the PTFP Application Form may be used. (In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the current application
form has been cleared under OMB control no. 0660-0003.)
All persons and organizations on the PTFP's mailing list will be
sent a copy of the current application form and the Final Rules. Those
not on the mailing list may obtain copies by contacting the PTFP at the
address above. Prospective applicants should read the Final Rules
carefully before submitting applications. Applicants whose applications
were deferred will be mailed pertinent PTFP materials and instructions
for requesting reactivation.
Applicants should note that they must comply with the provisions of
Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs.'' The Executive Order requires applicants for financial
assistance under this program to file a copy of their application with
the Single Points of Contact (SPOC) of all states relevant to the
project. Applicants are required to serve a copy of their completed
application on the appropriate SPOC on or before March 17, 1994.
Applicants are encouraged to contact the appropriate SPOC well before
the NTIA closing date.
NTIA requires that all applicants whose proposed projects need
authorization from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must
tender an application to the FCC for such authority on or before March
17, 1994. (An application is tendered to the FCC when it has been
received by the Secretary of the FCC.) However, applicants are urged to
submit it with as much lead time before the PTFP closing date as
possible. The greater the lead time, the better the chance the FCC
application will be processed to coincide with NTIA's grant cycle. NTIA
may return the application of any applicant which fails to tender an
application to the FCC for any necessary authority on or before March
17, 1994.
Effective October 1, 1988, OMB Circular A-102, as it applies to
grant recipients, has been superseded by Department of Commerce
regulations, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments (53 FR 8034,
codified at 15 CFR 24 (1988)). Applicants should note that PTFP grant
recipients, depending on their type of organization, are subject to the
provisions of diverse Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars;
i.e., A-87 ``Cost Principles for State and Local Governments,'' A-21
``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' A-110, A-122, A-128,
as implemented by 15 CFR part 29a, and A-133, as implemented by 15 CFR
part 29b.
Indirect costs for construction applications are not supported by
this program. The total dollar amount of the indirect costs proposed in
a planning application under this program must not exceed the indirect
cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal agency prior
to the proposed effective date of the award or 100 percent of the total
proposed direct costs dollar amount in the application, whichever is
less.
All non-profit applicants are subject to a name check review
process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any key individuals
associated with the applicant have been convicted of or are presently
facing criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters
which significantly reflect on the applicant's management honesty or
financial integrity. Potential grant recipient organizations may also
be subject to reviews of Dun and Bradstreet data or other similar
credit checks.
All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511,
``Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other
Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and
Lobbying.'' Applicants are further advised that:
(1) Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension
Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR part 26, section
105) are subject to 15 CFR part 26, ``Nonprocurement Debarment and
Suspension'' and the related section of the certification form;
(2) Drug-Free Workplace
Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR part 26, section 605) are subject to
15 CFR part 26, subpart F, ``Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free
Workplace (Grants)'' and the related section of the certification form;
(3) Anti-Lobbying
Persons (as defined at 15 CFR part 28, section 105) are subject to
the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352, ``Limitation on use of
appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and
financial transactions,'' and the lobbying section of the certification
form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans
and loan guarantees for more than $150,000, or the single family
maximum mortgage limit for affected programs, whichever is greater; and
(4) Anti-Lobbying Disclosures
Any applicant that has paid or will pay for lobbying using any
funds must submit an SF-LLL, ``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,'' as
required under 15 CFR part 28, Appendix B.
For awards granted by NTIA, the recipient shall require applicants/
bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier
covered transactions at any tier under the grant award to submit, if
applicable, a completed Form CD-512, ``Certifications Regarding
Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower
Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying'' and disclosure form, SF-LLL,
``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.'' Form CD-512 is intended for the
use of recipients and should not be transmitted to the Department. SF-
LLL completed by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted
to the Department in accordance with the instructions contained in the
award document.
If an application is selected for funding, the Department of
Commerce has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in
connection with that award. Renewal or amendment of an award to
increase funding or to extend the period of performance is at the total
discretion of the Department.
Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and
Federal and DOC policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to
Federal financial assistance awards. In addition, unsatisfactory
performance by the applicant under prior Federal awards may result in
the application not being considered for funding.
Applicants are reminded that a false statement on the application
is grounds for denial or termination of funds and grounds for possible
punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
If applicants incure any costs prior to an award being made, they
do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the
Government. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that may
have been received, there is no obligation on the part of DOC to cover
preaward costs.
IV. Funding Criteria
All PTFP funding criteria are equal in weight. In determining
whether to approve or defer a construction grant application, in whole
or in part, and the amount of such grant, the Agency will evaluate all
the information in the application file and consider, in no order of
priority, the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the project meets the program purposes set
forth in the Final Rules, 15 CFR 2301.2, as well as the specific
program priorities set forth in the Appendix of those Rules;
(b) The adequacy and continuity of financial resources for long-
term operational support;
(c) The extent to which non-Federal funds will be used to meet the
total cost of the project;
(d) The extent to which the applicant has:
(1) Assessed specific educational, informational, and cultural
needs of the community(-ies) to be served, and the extent to which the
proposed service will not duplicate service already available;
(2) Evaluated alternative technologies and the bases upon which the
technology was selected;
(3) Provided significant documentation of its equipment
requirements, and the urgency of acquisition or replacement;
(4) Provided documentation of an increasing pattern of substantial
non-Federal financial support;
(5) Provided other evidence of community support, such as letters
from elected or appointed policy-making officials, and from agencies
for which the applicant produces or will produce programs or other
materials;
(e) The extent to which the evidence supplied in the application
reasonably assures an increase in public telecommunications services
and facilities available to, operated by, and owned or controlled by
minorities and women;
(f) The extent to which various items of eligible apparatus
proposed are necessary to, and capable of, achieving the objectives of
the project and will permit the most efficient use of the grant funds;
(g) The extent to which the eligible equipment requested meets
current broadcast industry performance standards;
(h) The extent to which the applicant will have available
sufficient qualified staff to operate and maintain the facility and
provide services of professional quality;
(i) The extent to which the applicant has planned and coordinated
the proposed services with other telecommunications entities in the
service area;
(j) The extent to which the project implements local, statewide or
regional public telecommunications systems plans, if any; and,
(k) The readiness of the FCC to grant any necessary authorization.
In determining whether to approve or defer a planning grant
application, in whole or in part, and the amount of such grant, the
Agency will evaluate all the information in the application file and
consider, in no order of priority, the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant's interests and purposes are
consistent with the purposes of the Act and the priorities of the
Agency;
(b) The qualifications of the proposed project planner;
(c) The extent to which the project's proposed procedural design
assures that the applicant would adequately:
(1) Obtain financial, human and support resources necessary to
conduct the plan;
(2) Coordinate with other telecommunications entities at the local,
state, regional and national levels;
(3) Evaluate alternative technologies and existing services; and
(4) Receive participation by the public to be served (and by
minorities and women in particular) in the project planning;
(d) Any pre-planning studies conducted by the applicant showing the
technical feasibility of the proposed planning project (such as the
availability of a frequency assignment, if necessary, for the project);
and,
(e) The feasibility of the proposed procedure and timetable for
achieving the expected results.
V. Matching Requirements
(a) Planning grants. A Federal grant for the planning of a public
telecommunications facility shall be in an amount determined by the
Agency and set forth in the award document and the attachments thereto.
The Agency may provide up to 100 percent of the funds necessary for the
planning of a public telecommunications construction project.
(b) Construction grants.
(1) A Federal grant award for the construction of a public
telecommunications facility shall be an amount determined by the Agency
and set forth in the award document. Such amount may not exceed 75
percent of the amount determined by the Agency to be the reasonable and
necessary cost of such project.
Special Note: As originally stated in the August 20, 1987, PTFP
Final Rules, and as reaffirmed and clarified in a November 22, 1991,
PTFP Policy Statement, NTIA has established a policy which is
intended to encourage stations to increase from 25% to 50% the
matching percentage in their proposals for equipment replacement,
improvement, and augmentation. The Agency has emphasized that
applicants proposing to provide first service to a geographic area
encounter considerable ineligible costs, including construction or
renovation of buildings or other similar expenses. NTIA, therefore,
expects to continue funding projects to extend service at up to 75%
of the total project cost. Applicants from small community-licensed
stations, or those who can show that a station licensed to a large
institution cannot obtain direct or in-kind support from the larger
institution, also will not be subject to this preference. Otherwise,
a showing of extraordinary need or an emergency situation will be
taken into consideration as justification for grants of up to 75% of
the project cost, but the presumption of 50% funding will be the
general rule for applications calling for the replacement,
improvement, or augmentation of equipment.
(2) No part of the grantee's matching share of the eligible project
costs may be met with funds paid by the Federal government, except
where the use of such funds to meet a Federal matching requirement is
specifically and expressly authorized by Federal statute.
(3) Funds supplied to an applicant by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting may not be used for the required non-Federal matching
purposes, except upon a clear and compelling showing of need.
(4) The expenditure of any local matching funds prior to the
Closing Date will be disallowed.
(5) The Applicants should note that expenditure of local matching
funds prior to the award of a grant is at the applicant's own risk. The
exact amount of the match will not be known with certainty until the
final award agreement is negotiated. Therefore, should the applicant's
expenditure of non-Federal funds exceed the non-Federal share which
will be established in the final award agreement, then either the
Federal share of the total project cost may be reduced by a
corresponding amount, or no Federal award may be offered.
VI. Selection Process and Project Period
PTFP grants are awarded on the basis of a competitive review
process. This includes several grant review panels, which apply the
Funding Criteria listed in section V above. The Agency determines the
selection of grantees according to the Priorities listed in section III
above and the evaluation of the applications by the various review
panels.
Planning grant award periods customarily do not exceed one year,
whereas construction grant award periods commonly range up to two
years. Although these time frames are generally applied to the award of
all PTFP grants, variances in project periods may be based on specific
circumstances of an individual proposal.
Authority: The Public Telecommunications Financing Act of 1978,
Pub. L. 95-567, 92 Stat. 2405 (as amended), 47 U.S.C. 390-394, 397-
399b (1988).
Dr. Charles Rush,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and
Information Applications.
[FR Doc. 94-27 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-26 Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission Notice of Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 329-330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National
Seashore Advisory Commission Notice of Meeting
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act that a meeting of the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held
at 1 p.m. (PST) on Saturday, January 22, 1994, at West Marin School in
Point Reyes Station, California to hear presentations on issues related
to management of the Point Reyes National Seashore and adjoining Golden
Gate National Recreation lands.
The Advisory Commission was established by Public Law 92-589 to
provide for the free exchange of ideas between the National Park
Service and the public and to facilitate the solicitation of advice or
other counsel from members of the public on problems pertinent to the
National Park Service systems in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo
Counties. Members of the Commission are as follows:
Mr. Richard Bartke, Chairman
Ms. Amy Meyer, Vice Chair
Mr. Ernest Ayala
Dr. Howard Cogswell
Brig. Gen. John Crowley, USA (ret)
Mr. Margot Patterson Doss
Mr. Neil D. Eisenberg
Mr. Jerry Friedman
Mr. Steve Jeong
Ms. Daphne Greene
Ms. Gimmy Park Li
Mr. Gary Pinkston
Mr. Merritt Robinson
Mr. R. H. Sciaroni
Mr. John J. Spring
Dr. Edgar Wayburn
Mr. Joseph Williams
Mr. Mel Lane
Included on the agenda for this public meeting will be:
1. Presentation of Giocomini Ranch Wetlands Feasibility Study.
2. Status report on tule elk assessment.
3. Report on range conditions at Point Reyes National Seashore.
4. Report on the proposed Education Center Annex at Point Reyes
National Seashore.
Interested individuals, representatives of organizations, and
public officials are invited to express their views in person at the
January 22 public meeting. No action is anticipated on these issues by
the Advisory Commission.
This meeting will be recorded for documentation and transcribed for
dissemination. Minutes of the meeting will be available to the public
after approval of the full Advisory Commission. A transcript for this
meeting will be available after February 11, 1994. For copies of the
minutes contact the Office of the Staff Assistant, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, Building 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, California
94123.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Western Region.
[FR Doc. 94-26 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-25 Marine Mammals
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Marine Mammals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA, Commerce.
ACTION: Receipt of application for a scientific research permit (P559).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Mr. Hiroyuki Suganuma, Ogasawara
Marine Center, Byobudani, Chichijima Ogasawaramura, Tokyo, 100-21,
Japan, has applied in due form for a permit to take humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae) for purposes of scientific research.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 3, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for
review upon written request or by appointment in the following
office(s):
Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289);
Director, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite
4200, Long Beach, CA 90802, (310/980-4016); and
Marine Mammal Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, NMFS, 2570 Dole
Street, room 106, Honolulu, HI 96822 (808/955-8831).
Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this
request should be submitted to the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, within 30 days of the publication of
this notice. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth
the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be
appropriate.
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register, the Secretary of Commerce is forwarding copies of this
application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations
governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered fish and
wildlife (50 CFR part 222).
The applicant is requesting authority to conduct scientific
research on Pacific humpback whales in the Northern Mariana Islands.
The proposed research entails the approach of up to 400 humpback whales
up to 4 times each, annually, for purposes of photo-identification,
behavioral observations, acoustic recordings, and the collection of
sloughed skin samples and fecal materials. These samples would be
exported to Japan for analysis.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
William W. Fox, Jr.,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-25 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-2 Intent To Amend Resource Management Plan; Realty Action, Grant County, Oregon
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 326-328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[OR-050-4410-10:GP3-286]
Intent To Amend Resource Management Plan; Realty Action, Grant
County, Oregon
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior, Prineville District.
ACTION: Notice of intent to amend the John Day Resource Management
Plan; notice of realty action--exchange of public land in Grant County,
Oregon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 43 CFR 1601.3, notice is hereby given that the
Bureau of Land Management in the State of Oregon, Prineville District,
intends to amend that portion of the John Day Resource Management Plan
(RMP) within the Prineville District. The existing RMP was approved in
August 1985 and provides management direction and resource allocations
for all BLM-managed lands in Grant County located in central and
northeastern Oregon.
The amendment is to specifically identify public lands in the
Central Oregon Resource Area located in Grant County for retention or
disposal and to identify, generally, private land that may be suitable
for acquisition through exchange, purchase or donation. All
acquisitions will be on a ``willing buyer--willing seller'' basis.
Presently, there are over 180,000 acres of public land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management in Grant County, which contains a total of
approximately 3,000,000 acres of land. While the John Day RMP does
identify public land suitable for sale, it does not specifically
identify public lands suitable for exchange or other realty actions. It
also does not identify which of the BLM-managed public lands should be
retained for multiple use or what privately-owned lands may be suitable
for acquisition.
Additionally, this notice serves as the Notice of Realty Action as
required by 43 CFR part 2200. The Prineville District is considering
five exchange proposals affecting 8,340 acres of public land described
as follows:
Exchange 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 10 S., R. 27 E.,
Sec. 21: W\1/2\NW\1/4\....................................... 80
22: S\1/2\SW\1/4\............................................ 80
26: NW\1/4\SW\1/4\........................................... 40
27: SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, W\1/2\SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\............ 160
28: NW\1/4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................... 80
29: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\........................................... 40
30: NW\1/4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\........................... 80
32: NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, NW\1/
4\SE\1/4\................................................... 200
33: E\1/2\SE\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\............................ 120
34: W\1/2\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\............ 160
T. 11 S., R. 27 E.,
Sec. 4: NE\1/4\, W\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\ SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/
4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\........................... 440
5: SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\............. 160
6: SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\,SW\1/4\........... 120
7: S\1/2\NE\1/4\............................................. 80
8: E\1/2\SE\1/4\............................................. 80
11: N\1/2\NE\1/4\............................................ 80
21: NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\................... 280
22: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\............................. 160
23: NE\1/4\.................................................. 160
25: NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\............ 160
27: NW\1/4\NW\1/4\........................................... 40
34: E\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\............................ 120
36: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/4\............................ 120
T. 11 S., R. 28 E.,
Sec. 5: SE\1/4\SW\1/4\....................................... 40
6: E\1/2\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\............................. 120
17: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\........................................... 40
18: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/4\, N\1/2\SE\1/
4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\.......................................... 280
20: W\1/2\NW\1/4\............................................ 80
21: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
30: S\1/2\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\............................ 120
31: N\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\............................ 120
32: N\1/2\NE\1/4\............................................ 80
T. 12 S., R. 27 E.,
Sec. 1: NW\1/4\NW\1/4\....................................... 40
2: N\1/2\.................................................... 320
--------
Approximately.............................................. 4,220
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 7 S., R. 27 E.,
Sec. 13: SE\1/4\NW\1/4\...................................... 40
21: SE\1/4\.................................................. 160
22: S\1/2\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\............................ 120
23: N\1/2\NW\1/4\............................................ 80
24: NW\1/4\SE\1/4\........................................... 40
26: SW\1/4\NW\1/4\........................................... 40
28: E\1/2\NE\1/4\............................................ 80
T. 7 S., R. 28 E.,
Sec. 1: NE\1/4\SW\1/4\....................................... 40
7: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\SE\1/4\............. 160
8: NW\1/4\SW\1/4\............................................ 40
10: SW\1/4\SE\1/4\........................................... 40
12: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
15: SE\1/4\SE\1/4\........................................... 40
17: SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, E\1/2\SE\1/4\............. 200
26: SE\1/4\NW\1/4\........................................... 40
29: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\........................................... 40
30: NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\........................... 80
--------
Approximately.............................................. 1,280
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 7 S., R. 29 E.,
Sec. 3: W\1/2\NW\1/4\........................................ 40
9: SW\1/4\NW\1/4\............................................ 40
10: W\1/2\SE\1/4\............................................ 80
14: S\1/2\NW\1/4\............................................ 80
15: SE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
T. 7 S., R. 30 E.,
Sec. 1: NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\SE\1/4\........ 160
2: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\NE\1/4\............................. 120
5: SE\1/4\SE\1/4\............................................ 40
8: NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/4\................................... 200
9: NE\1/4\NW\1/4\............................................ 40
12: NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/4\.................................. 200
15: NW\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
23: SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\........................... 80
24: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
--------
Approximately.............................................. 1,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 14 S., R. 31 E.,
Sec. 28: SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, SE\1/4\............................. 200
--------
Approximately.............................................. 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 5
The adjoining landowner would like to acquire the tracts noted
below and various proposals have been discussed. Although specific
tracts have not been offered in exchange for the public land, the BLM
would consider trading these tracts for private land along the North or
South Forks of the John Day River.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 13 S., R. 28 E.,
Sec. 17: SE\1/4\............................................. 160
18: Lots 3 and 4............................................. 80
19: Lot 1, E\1/2\NE\1/4\..................................... 120
20: N\1/2\N\1/2\, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\............. 240
22: S\1/2\SE\1/4\............................................ 80
24: NE\1/4\SE\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\........................... 80
29: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/2\........................... 80
30: Lots 3 and 4, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\............. 160
31: Lot 4.................................................... 40
32: SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, E\1/2\SE\1/4\............................ 120
33: W\1/2\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/
4\.......................................................... 240
34: NW\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
--------
Approximately.............................................. 1,440
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In exchange for these lands, the Federal Government may acquire the
following:
Exchange 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 9 S., R. 26 E.,
Sec. 34: S\1/2\SW\1/4\....................................... 80
T. 10 S., R. 26 E.,
Sec. 3: W\1/2\............................................... 320
4: NW\1/4\SE\1/4\, S\1/2\S\1/2\.............................. 200
5: SW\1/4\, S\1/2\SE\1/4\.................................... 240
8: S\1/2\NE\1/4\............................................. 80
9: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\.............. 200
10: W\1/2\E\1/2\, E\1/2\W\1/2\............................... 320
14: S\1/2\NE\1/4\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\............. 200
15: E\1/2\................................................... 320
16: All...................................................... 640
21: NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\................................... 240
22: W\1/2\, N\1/2\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\........... 600
23: E\1/2\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\NW\1/4\, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, S\1/2\..... 520
24: W\1/2\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\............................ 120
25: W\1/2\E\1/2\, W\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/
4\.......................................................... 320
26: E\1/2\, E\1/2\W\1/2\, W\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\...... 600
27: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
33: NW\1/4\SW\1/4\........................................... 40
35: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/
4\, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\............ 440
36: NW\1/4\NE\1/4\, N\1/2\NW\1/4\............................ 120
T. 11 S., R. 26 E.,
Sec. 1: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SE\1/
4\.......................................................... 320
2: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\.............. 200
10: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
11: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\........................................... 40
12: W\1/2\NW\1/4\............................................ 80
T. 11 S., R. 27 E.,
Sec. 7: SE\1/4\SE\1/4\....................................... 40
8: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\SE\1/4\............................. 120
17: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\NW\1/4\, S\1/2\..... 520
18:NE\1/4\NE\1/4\............................................ 40
20: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/4\............................ 120
--------
Approximately.............................................. 7,160
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 8 S., R. 31 E.,
Sec. 31: NE\1/4\ south of the country road................... .......
32: N\1/2\ west and south of the county road................. .......
32: E\1/2\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/4\ west and south of the county
road........................................................ .......
T. 9 S., R. 31 E.,
Sec. 4: Lot 4, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\NW\1/
4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\ west and south of the county
road........................................................ .......
5: Lots 1 and 2, SE\1/4\NE\1/4\ west and south of the county
road........................................................ .......
9: N\1/2\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NE\1/4\ west and south of the county
road........................................................ .......
9: NE\1/4\NW\1/4\............................................ .......
10: NW\1/4\ south of the road................................ .......
10: E\1/2\SW\1/4\ west and south of the county rd............ .......
Approximately.............................................. 850
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 7 S., R. 29 E.,
Sec. 1: SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/
4\.......................................................... 280
2: SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, E\1/2\SE\1/4\............. 160
3: S\1/2\SE\1/4\............................................. 80
4: S\1/2\E\1/4\.............................................. 80
9: N\1/2\N\1/2\.............................................. 160
10: N\1/2\N\1/2\............................................. 160
11: N\1/2\N\1/2\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\.............................. 200
T. 7 S., R. 30 E.,
Sec. 2: N\1/2\NW\1/4\........................................ 80
3: SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\............................ 80
4: S\1/2\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\.................................... 240
5: S\1/2\N\1/2\, N\1/2\SW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SE\1/4\............... 280
6: S\1/2\N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\................................ 320
--------
Approximately.............................................. 2,120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 14 S., R. 26 E.,
Sec. 36: W\1/2\ (or other property of equal value, along the
South Fork fo the John Day River)........................... 320
--------
Approximately.............................................. 320
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange 5
Tracts to be acquired have not yet been identified, but the
proponent has offered to purchase land along the North or South Forks
of the John Day River.
Appraisals for these exchanges have not yet been completed.
Therefore, the amount of land traded may be different than that shown
after values are equalized.
The purpose of the exchanges are to acquire and block up lands in
Grant County, particularly along the forks of the John Day River. These
lands have high public value for riparian, fisheries, wildlife,
recreation and scenic quality. Acquisition of this land would be
consistent with the Bureau's planning system after the plan is amended.
The value of the lands has not been determined; however, upon
completion of the final appraisal, the acreage will be adjusted or
money will be used to equalize values. The public lands will be
transferred subject to: (1) A reservation to the United States of a
rights-of-way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the
United States, Act of Aug. 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); (2) All valid
existing rights-of-way, leases, permits or licenses in effect at the
time of exchange. The mineral estate is expected to be included in the
exchange.
Interest has also been expressed in a tract of public land
described as:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. 13 S., R. 31 E.,
Sec. 26: SW\1/4\SW\1/4\...................................... 40
35: NW\1/4\NW\1/4\........................................... 40
Approximately.............................................. 80
--------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This land would be retained for use associated specifically with
the airport and allow for expansion of airport activities. If not used
in conjunction with the airport, the tract will become available for
exchange.
The publication of this notice in the Federal Register segregates
the public lands described above from appropriation under the public
land laws, including the mining laws, but not from exchange pursuant to
Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
This segregative effect shall terminate upon issuance of a patent
to such lands, upon publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of
Termination of the segregation or 18 months from date of this
publication, whichever occurs first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the scoping document, as well as
detailed information concerning the proposed exchanges and land use
plan amendment, are available for review at the Prineville District
Office, 185 East Fourth St., Prineville, OR 97754, (503) 447-4115 and
the Central Oregon Resource Area, 2321 E. Third St., (503) 447-7003.
Contact Dick Cosgriffe, Area Manager or Ron Lane, Realty Specialist.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT: Major issues involved in
the plan amendment are the identification of public lands in the
Central Oregon Resource Area located in Grant County for retention for
multiple use management, the identification of public lands suitable
for disposal by sale, exchange or public purpose lease, the general
identification of areas of private land suitable for acquisition and
access to the public lands by people of the United States.
Disciplines to be represented on the interdisciplinary team
preparing the plan amendment and associated Environmental Assessment
(EA) are: Wildlife, fisheries, recreation, watershed, lands and realty,
cultural, forestry, economics and land use planning. Copies of the
scoping document, as well as more detailed information are available at
the Prineville District Office or the Central Oregon Resource Area
Office, both located in Prineville, Oregon.
A 45-day period for public review and comment is provided to meet
the requirements for both the Notice of Intent and Notice of Realty
Action. Scoping of issues and management alternatives which have been
identified will also be refined through this process. The 45-day
comment period will begin with the publication of this Notice in the
Federal Register. There will be an open house in Prineville on February
2, 1994, in the BLM office at 2321 E. Third Street from 10 a.m. to 3
p.m. to provide information and answer questions regarding the
proposals in this plan. A public meeting will also be held in John Day
on February 3, 1994 at 7 p.m. in the Grant County Senior Center,
located at 142 NE Dayton Street. Additional meetings and a 60-day
public comment opportunity will be provided upon completion of the
draft management plan amendment and environmental assessment in the
spring of 1994. Dates, times and locations of those meetings and public
comment opportunities will be published in the Federal Register, as
well as in local newspapers. Notices will also be mailed to all known
interested parties.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
James L. Hancock,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 94-2 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-33-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-15 Proposed Posting of Stockyards
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Packers and Stockyards Administration
Proposed Posting of Stockyards
The Packers and Stockyards Administration, United States Department
of Agriculture, has information that the livestock markets named below
are stockyards as defined in section 302 of the Packers and Stockyards
Act (7 U.S.C. 202), and should be made subject to the provisions of the
Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
IL-173 Wyoming Livestock Auction, Wyoming, Illinois
MO-276 Barry County Livestock Auction, Exeter, Missouri
MO-277 Callaway Livestock Center, Inc., Fulton, Missouri
NM-122 Pecos Valley Dairy Sales, Inc., Dexter, New Mexico
Pursuant to the authority under section 302 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act, notice is hereby given that it is proposed to designate
the stockyards named above as posted stockyards subject to the
provisions of said Act.
Any person who wishes to submit written data, views or arguments
concerning the proposed designation may do so by filing them with the
Director, Livestock Marketing Division, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, room 3408--South Building, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250 by January 11, 1994. All written
submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made available for
public inspection in the office of the Director of the Livestock
Marketing Division during normal business hours.
Done at Washington, DC this 27th day of December 1993.
Harold W. Davis,
Director, Livestock Marketing Division.
[FR Doc. 94-15 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-13 Notice of Availability of a Draft Recovery Plan for Lesser Long- Nosed Bat for Review and Comment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 328-329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Availability of a Draft Recovery Plan for Lesser Long-
Nosed Bat for Review and Comment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of document availability and public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the
availability for public review of a draft recovery plan for the lesser
long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) which the Service
listed as an endangered species in 1988 (FR 38460; September 30, 1988).
The lesser long-nosed bat occurs in southern Arizona, southwest New
Mexico and the western and southern portions of Mexico. This species is
migratory and is found in the United States during the summer. The
Service solicits review and comment from the public on this draft plan.
DATES: Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or
before March 7, 1994, to receive consideration by the Service.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the draft recovery plan may obtain
a copy by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616 West
Thomas Road, suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. Written comments and
material regarding the plan should be addressed to the State Supervisor
at the above address. Comments and materials received are available on
request for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Please phone Lesley Fitzpatrick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service Biologist; at telephone 602/379-4720 (see
ADDRESSES).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Restoring an endangered or threatened plant or animal to the point
where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is
a primary goal of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered
species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is
working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native
to the United States. Recovery plans describe the site specific
management actions considered necessary for conservation and survival
of the species, establish objectives, and measurable criteria for the
recovery levels for downlisting or delisting species, and estimate time
and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (act), as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires the development of recovery plans for listed
species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a
particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in 1988,
requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and
comment be provided during recovery plan development. The Service, and
other affected Federal agencies, will take these comments into account
in the course of implementing approved recovery plans.
The lesser long-nosed bat occurs in caves and mines in southern
Arizona from approximately May through September. Both maternity
colonies and night roosts are found in the state. Wintering areas for
bats that summer in the United States are not defined. Maternity
colonies and other types of roosts are found in western and southern
Mexico. Management issues and concerns include mining activities,
disturbance of foraging areas, animal control actions, and human
disturbance of roost sites.
The lesser long-nosed bat recovery plan has been reviewed by the
appropriate Service staff in Region 2 and was developed with input from
selected experts on the biology of the species. The plan will be
finalized and approved following incorporation of comments and material
received during this comment period.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service solicits written comments on the recovery plan
described. All biological comments received by the date specified above
will be considered prior to the approval of the plan.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Dated: December 16, 1993.
John G. Rogers,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 94-13 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-12 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, As Amended by Public Law 99-591; Information Collection Under Review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, As Amended by Public Law 99-591;
Information Collection Under Review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)
AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.
ACTION: Information collections under review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has sent to OMB the
following proposal for the collection of information under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. chapter
35), as amended by Public Law 99-591.
Requests for information, including copies of the information
collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to
the Agency Clearance Officer whose name, address, and telephone number
appear below. Questions or comments should be made within 30 days
directly to the Agency Clearance Officer and also to the Desk Officer
for the Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503; Telephone: (202) 395-3084.
Agency Clearance Officer: Mark R. Winter, Tennessee Valley
Authority, 1101 Market Street (BR 6B), Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801;
(615) 751-2523.
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Title of Information Collection: TVA Aquatic Plant Management.
Frequency of Use: On occasion.
Type of Affected Public: Individuals or households.
Small Businesses or Organization Affected: No.
Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 452.
Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,000.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 400.
Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: .2.
Need For and Use of Information: TVA committed to involving the
public in developing plans for managing aquatic plants in individual
TVA lakes under a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement completed
in August 1993. This proposed survey will provide a mechanism for
obtaining input into this planning process from a representative sample
of people living near each lake. The information obtained from the
survey will be factored into the development of aquatic plant
management plans for Chickamauga, Kentucky, Wheeler, Nickajack and
Guntersville Lakes.
John J. O'Donnell,
Vice President, Facilities Services.
[FR Doc. 94-12 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-108 Controlled Substances; Established 1993 Aggregate Production Quotas
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-108]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Controlled Substances; Established 1993 Aggregate Production
Quotas
AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule establishing 1993 aggregate production quotas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The interim rule (58 FR 51382, October 1, 1993) which
established 1993 revised aggregate production quotas for some
controlled substances in Schedules I and II, as required under the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) is adopted without
change.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard McClain, Jr., Chief, Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug
Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, telephone: (202) 307-
7183.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 306 of the Controlled Substances
Act, (21 U.S.C. 826), requires the Attorney General to establish
aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in Schedules I
and II each year. This responsibility has been delegated to the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration pursuant to
Sec. 0.100 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
On October 1, 1993, an interim rule establishing revised 1993
aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in Schedules I
and II was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 51382). One comment
was received from a company supporting the use of the interim rule in
establishing aggregate production quotas under certain circumstances.
The interim rule is adopted without change.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action and therefore has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to
Executive Order 12866.
These actions have been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been
determined that this matter does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Administrator hereby certifies that this action will have no
significant impact upon small entities whose interests must be
considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
The establishment of annual aggregate production quotas for Schedules I
and II controlled substances is mandated by law and by international
commitments of the United States. Such quotas impact predominantly upon
major manufacturers of the affected controlled substance.
Therefore, under the authority vested in the Attorney General by
section 306 of the CSA of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 826) and delegated to the
Administrator by Sec. 0.100 of title 28 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, the Administrator of the DEA hereby establishes the
following revised 1993 aggregate production quotas for the listed
controlled substances, expressed in grams of anhydrous base:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established
Basic class 1993 quotas
(in grams)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule I:
Methaqualone............................................ 12
3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine........................... 12
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine....................... 12
Schedule II:
Dextropropoxyphene...................................... 115,162,000
Methadone (for sale).................................... 3,675,000
Methadone Intermediate (for conv)....................... 4,598,000
Oxycodone (for sale).................................... 3,520,000
Phencyclidine........................................... 54
Thebaine................................................ 7,795,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Stephen H. Greene,
Acting Administrator of Drug Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-108 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-10 Technology Transfer Act of 1986
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey
Technology Transfer Act of 1986
AGENCY: United States Geological Survey, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed cooperative research and development
agreement (CRADA) negotiations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has entered into a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with CQ Inc. The
purpose of the CRADA is to develop models for predicting the fate of
potentially toxic trace elements in commercial coal cleaning
procedures. Any other organization interested in pursuing the
possibility of a CRADA for similar kinds of activities should contact
the USGS.
ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be addressed to the Chief, Branch of Coal
Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 972, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225; telephone 303-236-7726, FAX 303-236-7738.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Robert B. Finkelman of the U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Coal
Geology, Mail Stop 956, Reston, VA 22092, telephone (703) 648-6412, FAX
(703) 648-6419.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is to meet the USGS requirement
stipulated in the Survey Manual.
Dated: December 21, 1993.
Benjamin A. Morgan,
Chief, Geologic Division.
[FR Doc. 94-10 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-54 Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2)
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 333-335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-54]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339]
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station,
Units No. 1 and No. 2)
Exemption
I
Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) is the holder of
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 which authorize
operation of North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2 (NA-1&2,
the facility) at steady-state power levels not in excess of 2893
megawatts thermal. The licenses provide, among other things, that the
facility is subject to all the rules, regulations, and orders of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) now or hereafter in
effect.
The facility employs pressurized water reactors (PWRs) located at
the licensee's site in Louisa County, Virginia.
The licensee is implementing a refurbishment and restoration
program for the NA-1&2 service water system (SWS). The program is being
conducted in several stages. The subject Phase 1, Stage 4 is to be
conducted for a period of time beginning January 3, 1994 and ending
October 13, 1994, and will be performed during dual unit operating
conditions. The scope of Stage 4 involves restoration of the two 24-
inch auxiliary supply lines from Lake Anna to the main SW headers. This
consists of approximately 900 linear feet of piping (450 feet per
line). Each 450-foot line consists of approximately 185 feet of direct
buried piping, 230 feet of concrete-encased piping and 35 feet of
exposed piping. To support the Phase 1, Stage 4 SWS restoration
program, the licensee has identified one temporary exemption required
at this time. The exemption is specified below.
II
The Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A,
General Design Criterion-2 (GDC-2) requires that: Structures, systems,
and components important to safety shall be designed to withstand the
effects of natural phenomena such as * * * tornadoes, * * * without
loss of capability to perform their safety functions.
The licensee has requested the temporary exemption from GDC-2
because of planned maintenance which will expose portions of the SWS
piping to the potential effects of postulated missiles generated by
natural phenomena. Earth and concrete protect the piping systems from
the effects of severe weather events at the NA-1&2 site, such as
tornadoes, for conformance with the requirements of GDC-2. The
excavation of the auxiliary service water lines will affect only the
missile shield protection aspects of GDC-2, with seismic qualification
being retained. While producing a minimal increase in missile
interaction risk, excavation of the piping does not result in total
vulnerability to missiles. In the area of the planned excavation, the
lines are substantially below grade and are adjacent to the turbine
building structure. This will prevent some lateral aspects of missile
vulnerability.
The licensee is providing contingency measures with compensatory
actions to provide added assurance of safe operation of the facility
during the exemption period. Although the exemption is requested only
for missile protection, the risk to the plant due to construction
mishaps is more significant than the risk due to natural phenomena.
Therefore, the compensatory measures are geared toward preventing such
mishaps in addition to minimizing the potential for missiles generated
by severe weather. As stated in the staff's Safety Evaluation dated
December 27, 1993, these compensatory actions include but are not
limited to the following:
Electronic scanning and nondestructive locating methods
will be used to accurately determine underground locations of piping,
duct banks, and other buried utilities prior to excavation.
Machine excavation will be limited to an elevation that
does not pose a threat to the auxiliary service water (ASW) lines. The
remaining excavation will be performed by hand operated power and
manual tools.
Physical barriers will be used to keep vehicles a safe
distance from the excavation site.
Loose materials in and around the excavation will be
limited to only those absolutely necessary for activities in progress.
Lifting and rigging components will be inspected and load
tested. Lifting of equipment or construction materials over the
excavation will be performed with adequate precautions in accordance
with approved procedures.
Direct verbal communication (using dedicated radios if
necessary) will be maintained between equipment operators and
supervisors/observers.
Operable ASW lines will retain their seismic
qualification.
Engineering reviews will be performed for shoring and
temporary supports (if required) in the excavation area.
Gasoline powered equipment will be refilled using small
containers and the number of containers within the excavation area will
be restricted. This is in accordance with the existing station
procedures.
Worker training and shift briefings will be conducted for
all aspects of the project.
Severe weather procedures will be used to provide
notification to clear the area of vehicles and loose materials in the
event of a tornado watch or other high wind conditions.
Adequate wind protection and heating will be provided
during freezing weather conditions.
Considering the existing design features and compensatory measures
proposed by the licensee, the likelihood of damage to the exposed
auxiliary SWS lines from postulated missiles generated by natural
phenomena is minimal. Also, based on the compensatory measures
provided, assurance exists that the ability to bring the plant to a
safe shutdown will be maintained following any natural phenomena,
including tornadoes or other severe weather which could result in
airborne missiles. Therefore, there is reasonable assurance that the
proposed GDC-2 exemption will present no undue risk to public health
and safety.
III
The Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), that
special circumstances as set forth in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v). The
exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable
regulation (GDC-2). The exemption is requested for a specific time
period after which the facility would again be in conformance with all
the requirements of GDC-2. The licensee has made good faith efforts in
considering alternatives to the exemption requests and has concluded
that the Phase 1, Stage 4 SWS refurbishment and restoration program can
only be conducted without the subject exemption during a period when
both NA-1&2 are shut down and defueled. The impact of scheduling such a
dual-unit outage would have significant consequences in terms of power
supply, fuel storage, capacity, and replacement power costs. Finally,
the exemption will indirectly result in benefits to the public from
increased reliability of the upgraded safety-related SWS.
Based on the above and on review of the licensee's submittal, as
summarized in the Safety Evaluation dated December 27, 1993, the NRC
staff concludes that the likelihood of unacceptable damage to the
exposed auxiliary SW lines due to tornadoe-borne missiles during the
exemption period is low.
Based on the low probability of unacceptable events, coupled with
the comprehensive compensatory measures which the licensee has
committed to, the NRC staff finds the proposed exemption from GEDC-2
acceptable.
IV
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12, the subject exemption is authorized by law, will not present an
undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the
common defense and security. The Commission further determines that
special circumstances, as provided in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), are
present justifying the exemption; namely, that the exemption would
provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulations and that
the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the
regulations.
Therefore, the Commission hereby approves the following exemption:
NA-1&2 may operate without conforming to the requirements of GDC-2 as
they apply to the buried portions of the auxiliary SWS lines from Lake
Anna to the main SWS header providing that compensatory measures as
described herein are continued for the period of the exemption.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that
granting the above exemption will have no significant impact on the
quality of the human environment (October 7, 1993, 58 FR 52332).
The subject Phase 1, Stage 4 SWS GDC-2 exemption is effective from
its date of issuance through October 14, 1994.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gus C. Lainas,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 93-54 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32111 U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32111]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
Sunshine Act Meetings
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 6, 1994.
LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland.
STATUS: Closed to the Public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance Status Report.
The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various
compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information,
call (301) 504-0709.
CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sheldon D. Butts, Office of
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-
0800.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Sheldon D. Butts,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32111 Filed 12-30-93; 2:20 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32109 BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32109]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Monday, January 10, 1994.
PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
STATUS: Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments,
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal
Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced
meeting.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications
scheduled for the meeting.
Dated: December 30, 1993.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 93-32109 Filed 12-30-93; 11:53 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P--M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32108 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32108]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
DATE: Weeks of January 3, 10, 17, and 24, 1994.
PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
Week of January 3--Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 3.
Week of January 10--Tentative
Monday, January 10
10:30 a.m.
Briefing on Status of NRC's Agreement States Program (Public
Meeting)
(Contact: Richard Bangart, 301-504-3340)
2:00 p.m.
Briefing on NRC Research Program on Low level Waste (Public
Meeting)
(Contact: Nick Costanzi, 302-492-3760)
3:30 p.m.
Affirmation/Discussion and Vote (Public Meeting) (if needed)
Week of January 17--Tentative
Wednesday, January 19
11:30 a.m.
Affirmation/Discussion and Vote (Public Meeting) (if needed)
Week of January 24--Tentative
Monday, January 24
9:30 a.m.
Briefing on Final Report of Regulatory Review Task Force (Public
Meeting)
(Contact: Frank Gillespie, 301-504-1275)
2:00 p.m.
Briefing on Options for Agreement States Compatibility Policy
(Public Meeting)
(Contact: Cardelia Maupin, 301-504-2312)
Tuesday, January 25
10:00 a.m.
Briefing on Status of TVA Nuclear Programs (Public Meeting)
1:00 p.m.
Briefing on Activities of the Center For Nuclear Waste
Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) and Systematic Regulatory Analyses of
the HLW Program (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Malcolm Knapp, 301-504-3324)
Wednesday, January 26
10:00 a.m.
Briefing by GE on Status of ABWR Application for Design
Certification (Public Meeting)
11:30
Affirmation/Discussion and Vote (Public Meeting) (if needed)
2:00 p.m.
Briefing by NARUC Nuclear Waste Program Office (Public Meeting)
Thursday, January 27
1:30 p.m.
Periodic Briefing on Operating Reactors and Fuel Facilities
(Public Meeting)
(Contact: Bill Bateman, 301-504-1711)
Friday, January 28
10:00 a.m.
Briefing on Progress of Design Certification Review and
Implementation (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Dennis Crutchfield, 301-504-1199 or Richard Borchardt,
301-504-1118)
Note: Affirmation are initially scheduled and announced to the
public on a time-reserved basis. Supplementary notice is provided in
accordance with the Sunshine Act as specific items are identified
and added to the meeting agenda. If there is no specific subject
listed for affirmation, this means that no item has as yet been
identified as requiring any Commission vote on this date.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (Recording)--(301) 504-
1292.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: William Hill (301) 504-1661.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
William M. Hill, Jr.,
SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 93-32108 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32103 Food Stamp Program; Notice of Public Hearing To Discuss Implementation of New Food Stamp Act Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Page 290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32103]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 2
Tuesday, January 4, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Stamp Program; Notice of Public Hearing To Discuss
Implementation of New Food Stamp Act Provisions
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE AND TIME: January 20, 1994, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
LOCATION: Fourth Floor Conference Room, 3101 Park Center Drive,
Alexandria, VA 22302.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith M. Seymour, Supervisor,
Eligibility and Certification Rulemaking Section, Certification Policy
Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA,
3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302, (703) 305-2496.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is not a rule as defined by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is
exempt from the provisions of that Act. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping
or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to
approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final
rule and related Notice(s) to 7 CFR part 3105, subpart V (48 FR 29115,
June 24, 1983; or 48 FR 54317, December 1, 1983, as appropriate), this
Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
PURPOSE OF HEARING: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
Public Law No. 103-66 (Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act)
(August 10, 1993) (the Leland Act), contained numerous provisions
requiring the possible amendment of Food Stamp Program regulations. The
Department is holding a public hearing to offer State agencies,
advocacy groups, and other interested parties an opportunity for public
dialogue on issues concerning the regulatory provisions that are to be
published in connection with the Food Stamp Act amendments made by the
Leland Act.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
George A. Braley,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 93-32103 Filed 12-29-93; 2:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32090 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 295-296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32090]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 122793A]
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management
plan; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this notice that the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 32 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) for
Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the public. There is
no proposed rule accompanying this amendment. Therefore, this is the
final opportunity to comment on this amendment.
Copies of the amendment may be obtained from the Council (see
ADDRESSES).
DATES: Comments on the FMP amendment should be submitted on or before
March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the FMP amendment should be submitted to Ronald
J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802 (Attn: Lori Gravel), or delivered
to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska.
Copies of Amendment 32 and the environmental assessment (EA) and
economic analysis prepared for the amendment are available from the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, P.O. Box 103136, Anchorage,
Alaska 99510 (telephone 907-271-2809).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica A. Gharrett, NMFS, Alaska Region, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson Act) requires that each Regional Fishery
Management Council submit any fishery management plan or plan amendment
it prepares to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and
approval, disapproval, or partial disapproval. The Magnuson Act also
requires that the Secretary, upon receiving a fishery management plan
or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the fishery management
plan or amendment is available for public review and comment. The
Secretary will consider the public comments received during the comment
period in determining public comments received during the comment
period in determining whether to approve the FMP or amendment.
Amendment 32 would establish a plan to rebuild stocks of the
rockfish Pacific ocean perch (POP) (Sebastes alutus) in the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA). POP is a highly valued groundfish. It was heavily
exploited by a foreign trawl fleet from the early 1960's until the mid-
1980's. Thereafter, a domestic at-sea processing fleet harvested POP at
a substantially lower rate. Catches of POP peaked in 1965 when an
estimated 350,000 metric tons (mt) were harvested by the foreign fleet;
catches declined sharply in the late 1960's. From 1961-1977, annual POP
landings averaged over 40,000 mt; after 1977, landings averaged 6,000
mt. In the domestic fishery, POP was managed as part of a larger slope
rockfish assemblage of about 20 species until 1991, when POP was
established as a separate target species category to prevent possible
overfishing.
As a result of increased concern about the status of POP stocks,
biomass assessment methodology has been improved and domestic harvest
levels have been reduced. The 1993 total allowable catch (TAC) of 2,560
mt was available only as incidental catch in other groundfish
fisheries. In recent years POP has been managed as a single species,
harvest levels have been reduced, and directed fisheries have been
restricted or eliminated. In spite of this conservative management in
recent years, POP biomass has increased only slightly and remains
depressed from historic levels. The current spawner biomass of about
71,000 mt is estimated to be 15-20 percent of the level observed during
the 1960's.
The Council believes that increasing the biomass of POP to a level
closer to historical amounts is necessary to achieve optimum yield in
the POP fishery. Factors other than fishing mortality contribute to the
continued depressed state of the POP resource. Ecosystem changes or
other biological factors may preclude rebuilding success. Nevertheless,
the Council considers minimizing POP mortality necessary to maximize
the probability of rebuilding success in a realistic time period.
Additionally, decreasing POP mortality should minimize resource waste
associated with low TACs that do not fully accommodate incidental catch
needs of existing fisheries.
After a review of alternatives analyzed in the EA, the Council
selected Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. This alternative
is projected in modeling simulations to rebuild POP biomass to a target
level (BMSY) in about 14 years by harvesting POP at a fishing
mortality rate lower than the optimum rate. The target biomass
BMSY is the total biomass of mature females that would produce the
maximum sustainable yield, on average; this number is currently
estimated at 150,000 mt. The optimal fishing mortality rate is the rate
that maximizes expected biological and economic yields over a range of
plausible stock-recruitment relationships.
The Council considered Alternative 3 superior to Alternative 1,
which no longer represents the best scientific information about POP
biomass and population dynamics. The Council also considered
Alternative 3 superior to Alternative 2, which would harvest POP at the
higher optimal fishing mortality rate. The Council believed that lower
POP harvests and additional economic costs of Alternative 3 were
justified because Alternative 2 would achieve the target biomass in a
longer time (about 18 years) and with a lower probability of rebuilding
success. Alternative 4 would harvest POP at a lower rate equivalent
needed for unavoidable POP bycatch in remaining groundfish fisheries,
at 1992 bycatch rates. The TACs resulting from Alternative 4 were
considered too restrictive in relation to existing POP bycatch needs,
causing unnecessary discards of POP that are killed in fishing
operations after POP TACs are reached.
Under Alternative 3, the FMP would establish the procedure for
deriving the annual GOA TACs for POP. POP stocks are considered to be
rebuilt when the total biomass of mature females is equal to, or
greater than, BMSY. Annual TACs would be established as follows:
(a) Determine the current biomass, BMSY, and the optimal
fishing mortality rate;
(b) Determine the fishing mortality rate halfway between the
optimal fishing mortality rate and the fishing mortality rate estimated
to be sufficient to supply unavoidable bycatch of POP based on 1992
bycatch rates;
(c) When the current biomass of mature females is less than
BMSY, adjust the resultant fishing mortality rate in (b) by the
ratio of current biomass to BMSY so that when BMSY is
attained, the fishing mortality rate will be the optimal fishing
mortality rate;
(d) The GOA TAC of POP is the amount of fish resulting from the
adjusted fishing mortality rate in (c); and
(e) The TAC is apportioned among regulatory areas in proportion to
POP biomass distribution.
In addition to restricting the annual fishing mortality rate of
POP, the Council seeks to reduce the total mortality of POP in other
target fisheries. In the past, overfishing has been defined GOA-wide.
Under Amendment 32, the overfishing level would be distributed among
the eastern, central, and western areas in the same proportions as POP
biomass occurs in those areas. This measure would avoid localized
depletion of POP and would rebuild POP at equal rates in all regulatory
areas of the GOA. The Council considers this management option
necessary because, although POP biomass is greatest in the Eastern
Regulatory Area, most trawl fishing activity and incidental catch of
POP is greatest in the Central Regulatory Area. With an acceptable
biological catch as low as the current, 3,378 mt in 1993, fishing
mortality of POP can be expected to exceed the TAC available in the
central GOA.
Amendment 32 is necessary to improve conservation and management of
POP and is intended to further the goals and objectives of the FMP. No
regulatory changes are necessary to implement this FMP amendment
because the FMP would provide the procedure for deriving TACs for POP,
which are specified annually under existing regulations at
Sec. 672.20(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 672
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 28, 1993.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director of Office of Fisheries, Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 93-32090 Filed 12-9-93; 11:01 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-31818 Food Labeling; Health Claims for Dietary Supplements
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 433-437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-31818]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food Labeling; Health Claims for Dietary Supplements
[Docket Nos. 93N-480F, 93N-480C, 93N-480O, 93N-480A, and 93N-480Z]
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that, in
accordance with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (the
1990 amendments), as amended by the Dietary Supplement Act of 1992 (the
DS act), the change in its regulations that it proposed on October 14,
1993 (58 FR 53296 through 53305), to reflect its tentative decision not
to authorize health claims relating an association between dietary
fiber and cancer; dietary fiber and cardiovascular disease (CVD);
antioxidant vitamins and cancer; omega-3 fatty acids and coronary heart
disease (CHD); and zinc and immune deficiency in the elderly on the
labels and in the labeling of dietary supplements of vitamins,
minerals, herbs, and other similar nutritional substances (dietary
supplements) is now considered a final regulation.
DATES: The final regulation will become effective on July 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith W. Riggins, Office of Policy
(HF-23), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20857, 301-443-2831,
or
John N. Hathcock, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-
465), Food and Drug Administration, 8301 Muirkirk Rd., Laurel, MD
20708, 301-594-6006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
FDA is announcing that, in accordance with section 3(b)(1)(A)(ii),
(b)(1)(A)(vi), (b)(1)(A)(x), and (b)(2) of the 1990 amendments (Pub. L.
101-535), as amended by the DS act (Pub. L. 102-571), the change in its
regulations that it proposed on October 14, 1993 (58 FR 53296 through
53305), to reflect its tentative decision not to authorize health
claims relating an association between dietary fiber and cancer (Docket
No. 93N-480F); dietary fiber and CVD (Docket No. 93N-480C); antioxidant
vitamins and cancer (Docket No. 93N-480A); omega-3 fatty acids and CHD
(Docket No. 93N-480O); and zinc and immune deficiency in the elderly
(Docket No. 93N-480Z) on the labels and in the labeling of dietary
supplements is now considered a final regulation.
II. Passage of 1990 Amendments
The 1990 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the act) gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the
Secretary), and by delegation FDA, the authority to issue regulations
authorizing health claims on the labels and in the labeling of foods.
Section 403(r)(1)(B) of the act (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(1)(B)) provides that
a product is misbranded if it bears a claim that characterizes the
relationship of a nutrient to a disease or health-related condition,
unless the claim is made in accordance with procedures and standards
established under section 403(r)(3) and (r)(5)(D) of the act (21 U.S.C.
343(r)(3) and (r)(5)(D)).
The 1990 amendments also directed the Secretary to determine
through rulemaking whether claims regarding 10 nutrient-disease
relationships meet the requirements of the act. Dietary fiber and
cancer, dietary fiber and CVD, antioxidant vitamins and cancer, zinc
and immune function in the elderly, and omega-3 fatty acids and CHD
were among the topics that FDA was directed to evaluate under section
3(b)(1)(A)(vi) and (b)(1)(A)(x) of the 1990 amendments.
III. The 1991 Health Claims Proposals
In the Federal Register of November 27, 1991, FDA proposed not to
authorize health claims on dietary fiber and CVD (56 FR 60582); dietary
fiber and cancer (56 FR 60566); antioxidant vitamins and cancer (56 FR
60624); zinc and immune function in the elderly (56 FR 60652); and
omega-3 fatty acids and CHD (56 FR 60663). The agency tentatively
concluded that the available evidence did not establish that the
standard that FDA had proposed for health claims for dietary
supplements under section 403(r)(5)(D) of the act was met, that is, the
agency tentatively concluded that there was not significant scientific
agreement, based on the totality of publicly available scientific
evidence that these claims are valid.
IV. The Dietary Supplement Act of 1992
In October 1992, the DS act was enacted. This statute imposed a
moratorium on FDA's implementation of the 1990 amendments with respect
to dietary supplements until December 15, 1993 (although the DS act did
provide that FDA could authorize claims for dietary supplements before
that date). The DS act directed FDA to issue proposed rules to
implement the 1990 amendments with respect to dietary supplements by
June 15, 1993, and to issue final rules based on these proposals by
December 31, 1993. The DS act also amended the so-called ``hammer''
provision of the 1990 amendments, section 3(b)(2) of the 1990
amendments, to provide that if the agency did not meet the established
December 31, 1993, timeframe for issuance of final rules, the proposed
regulations would be considered final regulations.
V. The 1993 Final Rules For Health Claims For Foods in Conventional
Food Form
On January 6, 1993, FDA published final rules on the general
requirements for health claims on the labels and in the labeling of
foods in conventional food form (58 FR 2478), and final rules
authorizing health claims on seven nutrient-disease relationships
(calcium and osteoporosis; fat and cancer; saturated fat and
cholesterol and CHD; fiber-containing grain products, fruits, and
vegetables and cancer; fruits, vegetables, and grain products that
contain fiber and risk of CHD; and fruits and vegetables and cancer).
Three of the health claims that FDA authorized were for fresh fruits
and vegetables and grains, and thus these claims were not authorized
for dietary supplements. Because of the DS act, FDA took no final
action with respect to the use on dietary supplements of health claims
on dietary fiber and cancer; dietary fiber and CVD; omega-3 fatty acids
and CHD; zinc and immune function in the elderly; and antioxidant
vitamins and cancer. (The agency's actions with respect to health
claims involving folic acid and neural tube defects are described in a
notice published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.)
VI. The 1993 Proposal to Not Authorize Health Claims For Dietary
Supplements
On October 14, 1993, FDA published a proposal to not authorize
health claims on the labels of dietary supplements on five nutrient-
disease relationships: Dietary fiber and cancer; dietary fiber and CVD;
antioxidant vitamins and cancer; omega-3 fatty acids and CHD; and zinc
and immune function in the elderly (58 FR 53296). FDA provided 60 days
for comment on this proposed action. Thus, the comment period closed on
December 13, 1993.
Section 3(b)(2) of the 1990 amendments, as amended by section
202(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the DS act, provides that if the Secretary does not
promulgate final regulations on any of the health claims applicable to
dietary supplements in a timely manner, the proposed regulations shall
be considered final regulations but not until after December 31, 1993.
FDA did not issue final regulations on the use of health claims on
dietary supplements on dietary fiber and cancer; dietary fiber and CVD;
antioxidant vitamins and cancer; omega-3 fatty acids and CHD; and zinc
and immune function in the elderly by December 31, 1993. Therefore, FDA
is issuing this document announcing that by operation of law, the
change in its regulations that FDA proposed to reflect a decision not
to authorize health claims about the relationships of dietary fiber and
cancer; dietary fiber and CVD; antioxidant vitamins and cancer; omega-3
fatty acids and CHD; and zinc and immune function in the elderly,
published in the October 14, 1993, Federal Register, is now considered
a final regulation by operation of law. The agency proposed that 21 CFR
part 101 be amended as follows:
PART 101--FOOD LABELING
2. Section 101.71 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 101.71 Health claims: claims not authorized.
Health claims not authorized for foods in conventional food form or
for dietary supplements of vitamins, minerals, herbs, or other similar
substances:
* * * * *
The 1990 amendments state that FDA is to promptly publish notice of
the new status of the proposed change in its regulations in the Federal
Register. This notice is issued in response to that requirement.
The agency notes that this rulemaking constitutes a separate
rulemaking from that instituted with respect to the five nutrient-
disease relationships on October 14, 1993. This separate rulemaking was
contemplated by Congress if a final rule was not issued by December 31,
1993. The agency notes, however, that the October 14, 1993, rulemaking
remains ongoing.
In particular, with regard to antioxidant vitamins and cancer, on
November 1 through 3, 1993, FDA held a public conference on this
nutrient-disease relationship. (The conference also covered antioxidant
vitamins and CVD.) The transcript of that meeting has been submitted to
the Docket as a comment, and other comments were solicited in the
announcement of the conference (58 FR 54595, October 22, 1993). FDA
intends to consider all comments and data received at this conference.
FDA intends to take any actions that it concludes are warranted by this
information either in the ongoing rulemaking on an antioxidant vitamins
and cancer claim for dietary supplements or, if the agency concludes
that it is appropriate, in a separate rulemaking.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
David A. Kessler,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 93-31818 Filed 12-29-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.