67746 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Source of flooding and location

# Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

———

Union Gap (city), Yakima

County (FEMA Docket No.

7218)

Yakima River:

Just upstream of Ahtanum

Road at the corporate limits ....................................... *971

Approximately 3,700 feet upstream of Ahtanum Road

at the corporate limits ........ *982

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Union

Gap Department of Community Development, City Hall,

102 West Ahtanum Road,

Union Gap, Washington.

———

Yakima (city), Yakima County

(FEMA Docket No. 7218)

Yakima River:

Approximately 1.1 miles

downstream of East Nob

Hill Road ............................ *986

Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Burlington Northern Railroad ....................... *1,083

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development, City Hall, 129 North

Second Street, Yakima,

Washington.

———

Yakima County (Unincorporated areas) (FEMA

Docket No. 7218)

Yakima River:

Approximately 2,200 feet

downstream of Interstate

Highway 82 (near Wapato

Dam) .................................. *945

Approximately 600 feet upstream of confluence with

Selah Creek ....................... *1,152

Maps are available for inspection at the Yakima

County Planning Department,

Yakima County Courthouse,

Room 417, 128 North Second Street, Yakima, Washington.

WYOMING

Sheridan County (Unincorporated areas) (FEMA

Docket No. 7222)

Big Goose Creek:

Approximately 1,800 feet

downstream of State Highway 388 ............................. *3,697

Approximately 4 miles upstream of Works Street ..... *3,800

Little Goose Creek:

Approximately 1,250 feet

downstream of Brundage

Lane ................................... *3,782

Just upstream of County

Road 66 ............................. *3,836

Tongue River:

Approximately 2 miles downstream of Wolf Creek

Road, at the north section

line of Section 20 ............... *3,728

Source of flooding and location

# Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

Just upstream of Wolf Creek

Road .................................. *3,761

Approximately 3 miles upstream of Wolf Creek Road *3,776

Fivemile Creek:

At township line between

Townships 85 and 86 West *3,776

Approximately 800 feet upstream of township line between Townships 85 and

86 West ............................. *3,780

Maps are available for inspection at the Sheridan

County Engineering Department, 224 South Main Street,

Sheridan, Wyoming.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: December 18, 1997.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 97–33930 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

45 CFR Part 1643

Restriction on Assisted Suicide,

Euthanasia, and Mercy Killing

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule is intended to

implement a new statutory restriction

that amends the Legal Services

Corporation Act and is applicable to

recipients of grants from the Legal

Services Corporation. The restriction

prohibits the use of LSC funds by

recipients for legal or other assistance

that would cause, assist in, advocate for,

or fund assisted suicide, euthanasia, or

mercy killing.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

January 29, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of the General Counsel, (202)

336–8817.

SUPPLEMENATARY INFORMATION: The

Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction

Act of 1997 (‘‘Assisted Suicide Act’’ or

‘‘Act’’), Pub. L. 105–12, was enacted and

became effective on April 30, 1997.

Several provisions of the Assisted

Suicide Act expressly apply to the Legal

Services Corporation (‘‘LSC’’ or

‘‘Corporation’’), one of which amends

Section 1007(b) of the LSC Act, 42

U.S.C. 2996f(b)(11). This rule is

intended to implement this legislation

as it applies to the Corporation and its

recipients.

On September 19, 1997, the

Corporation’s Operations and

Regulations Committee (‘‘Committee’’)

of the LSC Board of Directors (‘‘Board’’)

held public hearings in Washington, DC,

on a draft proposed rule in Washington,

DC, and, after making revisions to the

draft, adopted a proposed rule for

publication in the Federal Register for

public notice and comment. The

Corporation received two timely

comments, one from the Advocacy

Training/Technical Assistance Center

(‘‘ATTAC’’) and another from the

National Legal Center for the Medically

Dependent & Disabled, Inc. (‘‘Legal

Center’’). Both comments stated that, in

general, the proposed rule fairly and

accurately reflected the intent of

Congress in enacting the Assisted

Suicide Act. ATTAC, however,

recommended including several

clarifying provisions in the final rule

and questioned whether the

recordkeeping provision should be less

burdensome. The comment from the

Legal Center urged that the final rule

address the effect of the rule on free

speech activities in a public forum.

These comments are addressed more

specifically in the section-by-section

analysis below.

On November 14, 1997, the

Committee met in Washington, DC, to

consider public comment and act on a

draft final rule. The Committee made

several clarifying changes to the

proposed rule and recommended

adoption of the revised rule to the

Board. The Board adopted the

recommended rule as final on

November 15, 1997.

Background and Summary of Law

The stated purpose of the Assisted

Suicide Act is to maintain current

Federal policy that Federal funds not be

used to support, assist in, or advocate

for assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy

killing. H. Rep. No. 46, 105th Cong., 1st

Sess. at 3 (April 8, 1997). Although

assisted suicide, euthanasia and mercy

killing are illegal in almost all states,

Congress was concerned that pending

litigation might change the status quo

and wanted to make it clear by

legislation that, regardless of a change in

State law, Federal policy would remain

the same. H. Rep. at 3–4. Subsequent to

the passage of the Act, the Supreme

Court upheld as constitutional laws in

the States of New York and Washington

which prohibit assisted suicide and

euthanasia. See Vacco v. Quill, 117 S.

Ct. 2293 (1997); Washington v.

Glucksberg, 117 S. Ct. 2302 (1997). The

State of Oregon, on the other hand,

adopted an initiative in 1996 that

legalized physician-assisted suicide for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67747

1The terms are found in statues from 45 States

and the District of Columbia, which disapprove of

euthanasia, mercy killing, suicide, or assisted

suicide in their natural death/living will statutes, or

in their durable power of attorney for health care

acts. For citations to these statutes, see Relief or

Reproach? Euthanasia Rights in the Wake of

Measure 16, 74 Oregon Law Review, 449, 462 notes

44 and 45 (Summer 1995).

competent, terminally ill adults. H. Rep.

at 4. Court challenges and a recent voter

initiative effort have so far failed to

overturn the law and, absent a

successful legal challenge, the law is

poised to go into effect. See Washington

Post, Nov. 5, 1997 at A–1, col. 4; Lee v.

Oregon, 107 F.3d 1382 (9th Cir. Feb. 27,

1997); Certiorari denied, 1997 WL

274930, lll S. Ct. lll, (Oct. 14,

1997) (No. 96–1824).

The Assisted Suicide Act applies to

numerous Federally funded health care

programs and facilities, such as

Medicare, Medicaid, CHAMPUS and the

veterans and military health care

systems. It also applies to certain legal

aid and advocacy programs, including

the Legal Services Corporation.

Section 9 of the Assisted Suicide Act

amends Section 1007(b) of the LSC Act

to provide that ‘‘No funds made

available by the Corporation under this

title, either by grants or contract, may be

used * * * to provide legal assistance

in a manner inconsistent with the

Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction

Act of 1997.’’ Section 5 of the Assisted

Suicide Act sets out the restrictions as

they apply to LSC funds by generally

prohibiting the use of appropriated

funds for legal or other assistance for the

purpose of (1) securing or funding any

activity or service that would assist in

or cause the suicide, euthanasia, or

mercy killing of an individual; (2)

compelling any person or entity to

provide funding or service for such

purposes; or (3) asserting or advocating

a legal right to assisted suicide,

euthanasia or mercy killing. Finally,

Section 3(b) clarifies what activities are

not included within the restrictions.

This final rule implements those

sections of the Act that apply to the

Corporation. A section-by-section

analysis is set out below.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1643.1 Purpose

The purpose of this rule is to ensure

that LSC recipients do not use any LSC

funds to engage in legal assistance

activities inconsistent with the Assisted

Suicide Act.

Section 1643.2 Definitions

The definitions in this section are all

based primarily on the House Report for

the Assisted Suicide Act and the

common dictionary definitions of the

terms. H. Rep. at 12; Random House

Webster’s College Dictionary (1997)

(‘‘Webster’s’’).

Assisted suicide is defined as

providing any means to another person

to enable or assist that person to commit

suicide. See Webster’s at 80 (suicide

aided by a person, esp. a physician, who

organizes the logistics of the suicide).

For example, if a doctor provided a

person with a lethal drug overdose so

that the person could commit suicide by

ingesting the lethal overdose, the action

of providing the drug overdose would

constitute assisted suicide.

Euthanasia and mercy killing have the

same meaning. The consistent use of

both terms throughout the Act might

suggest that they are two different

activities. However, both the House

Report and Webster’s Dictionary give

them the same meaning. Apparently,

State laws commonly use the terms

together or use one term or the other to

mean the same activity.1 Euthanasia

and mercy killing are defined as the use

of active means by one person to cause

the death of another person for reasons

assumed to be merciful, regardless of

whether the person who is killed

consents to be killed. According to the

House Report, such a death is often

considered merciful because the person

is deemed to be dying or suffering or the

person is considered to be a burden on

family, community or society. H. Rep. at

12.

Suicide is defined as the taking of

one’s own life voluntarily and

intentionally and is included in this

rule to clarify its meaning within the

term assisted suicide.

Section 1643.3 Prohibition

This section prohibits the use of LSC

funds by recipients for legal or other

assistance for those activities delineated

therein.

Paragraph (a) prohibits a recipient

from using LSC funds for any action that

would cause or assist in causing the

suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing of

an individual. This would include, for

example, providing a client with

assistance to obtain the means of death

or providing a client the financial means

for death by suicide or euthanasia.

Paragraph (b) prohibits the use of LSC

funds for compelling any person or

private or governmental entity to engage

in the activities prohibited in paragraph

(a). For example, a recipient could not

provide legal assistance to a client for

the purpose of suing a public or private

hospital to permit the client to receive

assistance in committing suicide in its

facilities.

Paragraph (c) implements Section

5(a)(3) of the Assisted Suicide Act and

prohibits asserting or advocating a legal

right to cause or assist in causing the

suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of

an individual. This means, for example,

that legal assistance may not be

provided to assert that a law or

regulation prohibiting or regulating

assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy

killing is unconstitutional or otherwise

in violation of the law. It also prohibits

any lobbying efforts to promote or

advocate for passage of legislation that

would legalize assisted suicide,

euthanasia, or mercy killing.

The comment from the Legal Center

urged the Corporation to clarify that

paragraph (c) should not be construed in

a way that is inconsistent with

constitutional protections for free

speech in the context of a public forum

as set out in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S.

173(1991) and Rosenberger v. Rectors

and Visitors of the University of

Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995), because

a failure to do so might jeopardize the

entire regulation. The Legal Center

pointed out that when President Clinton

signed the Assisted Suicide Act, he

issued a statement on Section 5(a)(3) of

the Act that directed executive agencies

to implement the legislation in a way

that would protect the free exchange of

ideas in public forums. The President’s

statement provided that:

The Department of Justice has advised

* * * that a broad construction of this

section would raise serious First Amendment

concerns. I am therefore instructing the

Federal agencies that they should construe

section 5(a)(3) only to prohibit Federal

funding for activities and services that

provide legal assistance for the purpose of

advocating a right to assisted suicide, or that

have as their purpose the advocacy of

assisted suicide, and not to restrict Federal

funding for other activities, such as those that

provide forums for the free exchange of ideas.

In addition, I emphasize that section 5(a)(3)

imposes no restriction on the use of

nonfederal funds.

Statement by the President, April 30,

1997; see also 143 Cong. Rec. S3264–65

(daily ed. April 16, 1997) (letter of

Andrew Fois, Asst. Attorney General,

Department of Justice). Although the

Legal Center recognized that the

Corporation is not subject to executive

orders, it suggested three possible

actions to be taken by the Corporation

depending on the applicability of the

law on public forums to LSC-funded

legal aid programs. If it is possible for

LSC recipients to use LSC funds to

create a public forum, the Legal Center

recommended that the rule should

include an express public forum

exception. However, if LSC funds may
67748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

2This restriction was recently upheld against

constitutional challenge in Legal Aid Society of

Hawaii v. Legal Services Corporation, Civ. No. 97–

00032 (D. Hawaii, Aug. 1, 1997).

not be used to create public forums, the

Legal Center suggested that this

limitation should be made clear in the

commentary to the final rule. Finally,

the Legal Center suggested that, even if

public forums may not be financed with

LSC funds under current law, perhaps

the rule should include an exception in

case the law should change in the

future.

Because LSC programs are not public

forums and LSC funds may not be used

to create public forums, the Board

adopted the second suggestion made by

the Legal Center. The Board did not

adopt the third suggestion because an

express public forum exception might

inadvertently suggest to recipients that

LSC funds may be used for public forum

activities.

The cases cited in the Legal Center’s

comment dealt with traditional public

forums, such as universities, parks, and

public streets, which are forums

‘‘created by government designation as

a place or channel of communication for

use by the public at large for assembly

and speech.’’ Cornelius v. NAACP Legal

Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473

U.S. 788, 802 (1985). Rosenberger

involved a state university’s efforts to

exclude religious groups from a general

funding program intended to foster a

diverse range of student publications.

Rust, by contrast, involved government

support for a limited range of family

planning services; although those

services did involve speech, the purpose

of the program was to provide the

services to clients rather than promote

a diversity of views.

The LSC program is a nonpublic

forum much like the Title X program in

Rust. LSC’s enabling statute and its

regulations sharply limit advocacy

activities and define LSC’s purpose as

meeting the basic legal needs of the poor

rather than facilitation of expression.

Nor do LSC grantees create public

forums when they conduct training

sessions or develop training manuals on

end-of-life issues relating to advance

directives or powers of attorney for

health care; indeed, LSC’s training

restriction prohibits recipients from

using any funds to advocate particular

public policies or to train participants to

engage in restricted activities.2 These

limitations on the scope of the LSC

program bar any inference that, in

funding that program, Congress has

attempted to create a public forum.

Section 1643.4 Applicability

Paragraph (a) of this section is based

on Section 3(b) of the Assisted Suicide

Act, which clarifies that the Act’s

restrictions do not apply to or affect any

limitation relating to certain activities.

Subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3)

clarify that the restrictions are intended

to include the use of active means of

causing death, such as by lethal

injection or the provision of a lethal oral

drug overdose, but do not apply to or

affect any limitation relating to

decisions to withhold or withdraw

medical care, medical treatment,

nutrition, or hydration. Nor do the

restrictions apply to or affect limitations

relating to abortion activities. This

means that the Corporation’s current

restrictions on abortion activities are

unaffected by this rule and are still in

full force and effect in their current

status, see 45 CFR § 1610.2(a)(7) and

(b)(10). To clarify the meaning of the

phrase ‘‘or affect any limitation relating

to’’ included in the introductory

language of paragraph (a) in the

proposed rule, the Board deleted the

phrase from the beginning of the

paragraph and instead added a sentence

at the end of the paragraph, which now

provides that § 1643.3 shall not be

interpreted as limiting or interfering

with the operation of any other statute

or regulation governing the activities

listed in § 1643.3(a)

LSC recipients traditionally do not

become involved in legal assistance in

the area of assisted suicide or

euthanasia, but they do provide legal

assistance to clients in preparing

advance directives, such as living wills

and powers of attorney. The preparation

of such documents will generally be

unaffected by this rule, because the

rule’s restriction applies only to active

means of causing death. Advance

directives normally apply to passive

actions, such as withholding or

withdrawing nutrition or medical care.

Only if an advance directive seeks to

secure death by active means, that is, by

assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy

killing, would it be restricted by this

rule. Although this is unlikely, because

such actions are illegal in most States,

it may now be permissible in Oregon,

where the law permits assisted suicide.

Recipients in Oregon, therefore, should

take special care to ensure that any legal

assistance they provide regarding

advance directives is consistent with

this rule.

ATTAC urged the Corporation to

include language in the rule itself to

reflect the preamble discussion of

advance directives. The Board did not

agree. Advance directives constitute one

example of activity already implicated

by the language of paragraph (a) and a

separate reference to advance directives

in unnecessary and might cause

confusion. The preamble discussion is

intended to state how the corporation

will interpret paragraph (a) as to

advance directives and provides

sufficient guidance to recipients. The

Corporation routinely provides the

preamble along with the text of final

published rules to recipients as a matter

of practice.

Subparagraph (a)(4) clarifies that the

restriction does not include treatment

aimed solely at alleviating suffering,

even if the treatment has the unintended

consequence of risking or shortening

life. Thus, The restriction would not

include the administration of morphine

for the purpose of alleviating pain, even

if its use might risk causing death or risk

shortening life because it might also

have the side effect of suppressing

respiratory functions. The restriction,

however, would include treatment that

has a two-fold purpose of alleviating

pain or discomfort and causing death.

Paragraph (a)(5) was added in

response to a comment from ATTAC

which urged the Corporation to clarify

that the prohibition in § 1643.4 does not

prohibit recipients from providing

information on applicable law on

assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy

killing, or from counseling clients about

other forms of health care, such as

hospice care. The Board agreed that

permitting recipients to provide factual

information regarding the law in these

areas is consistent with the Assisted

Suicide Act. The House Report makes

this clear by explaining:

An advocacy program could provide

factual answers to a client’s questions about

State law on assisting suicide, since that

alone would not be providing assistance for

such purposes. Similarly, these provisions do

not prohibit such programs from counseling

clients about alternatives to assisted suicide,

such as pain management, mental health care

and community-based services for people

with disabilities.

H. Rep. at 18–19. The Board decided not

to include a reference in paragraph (5)

to counseling activities, as suggested by

ATTAC, because it is already implied by

the terms of the rule that recipients are

not prohibited from providing legal

counsel in such areas as hospice care,

mental health care or services for the

disabled, as long as such assistance does

not include activities prohibited by

§ 1643.3 of this part.

Paragraph (b) clarifies that the

prohibition on LSC funds does not

apply to a recipient’s non-LSC funds.

Section 5 of the Assisted Suicide Act

expressly applies the restriction only to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67749

‘‘funds appropriated by Congress.’’ This

is also reflected in the House Report,

which provides:

Section 5 is not intended to have the effect

of de-funding an entire program, such as a

Legal Services program or other legal or

advocacy program, simply because some

State or privately funded portion of that

program may advocate for or file suit to

compel funding or services for assisted

suicide. This section is intended only to

restrict Federal funds from being used for

such activities.

House Report at 19–20. This distinction

is particularly important for recipients

in the State of Oregon, where the law

now permits assisted suicide. If

recipients in Oregon undertake any of

the activities prohibited by this part,

they must be able to demonstrate that no

LSC funds supported the activities.

In addition, recipients may have other

Federal grants restricted by various

provisions of the Assisted Suicide Act.

This paragraph does not affect the

recipient’s obligation to comply with all

the terms of such a grant. Although this

rule restricts only the use of LSC grant

funds, a recipient’s other funds are still

subject to any restrictions that are

included in other grant agreements.

Section 1643.5 Recipient Policies and

Recordkeeping

The proposed rule required recipients

to establish written policies and

procedures to guide the recipient’s staff

to ensure compliance with this rule and

to maintain sufficient documentation to

demonstrate compliance with this part.

ATTAC urged the Corporation to revise

this section to minimize the

recordkeeping burden of recipients and

noted that the preamble to the proposed

rule stated that ‘‘the type of

recordkeeping necessary to demonstrate

compliance with this rule would be

documentation that only non-LSC funds

were used for any activities prohibited

by this rule.’’ ATTAC interpreted this

statement as requiring recipients to

create new records to ensure

compliance. The Board did not revise

the recordkeeping requirement because

it is not new to recipients. To comply

with this requirement, recipients need

only follow their normal accounting

standards and procedures.

The Board did, however, delete the

requirement that recipients adopt

procedures because no procedures

should be necessary for an activity in

which the recipients must not engage. It

is sufficient for recipients to establish a

policy prohibiting engagement in the

prohibited activities.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1643

Grants, Lobbying, Health care, Legal

Services.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

LSC amends CS Chapter XVI of Title 45

by adding part 1643 as follows:

PART 1643—RESTRICTION ON

ASSISTED SUICIDE, EUTHANASIA,

AND MERCY KILLING

Sec.

1643.1 Purpose.

1643.2 Definitions.

1643.3 Prohibition.

1643.4 Applicability.

1643.5 Recipient policies and

recordkeeping.

Authority: Pub. L. 105–12; 42 U.S.C.

2996f(b)(11).

§ 1643.1 Purpose.

This part is intended to ensure that

recipients do not use any LSC funds for

any assisted suicide, euthanasia or

mercy killing activities prohibited by

this part.

§ 1643.2 Definitions.

(a) Assisted suicide means the

provision of any means to another

person with the intent of enabling or

assisting that person to commit suicide.

(b) Euthanasia (or mercy killing) is the

use of active means by one person to

cause the death of another person for

reasons assumed to be merciful,

regardless of whether the person killed

consents to be killed.

(c) Suicide means the act or instance

of taking one’s own life voluntarily and

intentionally.

§ 1643.3 Prohibition.

No recipient may use LSC funds to

assist in, support, or fund any activity

or service which has a purpose of

assisting in, or to bring suit or provide

any other form of legal assistance for the

purpose of:

(a) Securing or funding any item,

benefit, program, or service furnished

for the purpose of causing, or the

purpose of assisting in causing, the

suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of

any individual;

(b) Compelling any person,

institution, or governmental entity to

provide or fund any item, benefit,

program, or service for such purpose; or

(c) Asserting or advocating a legal

right to cause, or to assist in causing, the

suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of

any individual.

§ 1643.4 Applicability.

(a) Nothing in § 1643.3 shall be

interpreted to apply to:

(1) The withholding or withdrawing

of medical treatment or medical care;

(2) The withholding or withdrawing

of nutrition or hydration;

(3) Abortion;

(4) The use of items, goods, benefits,

or services furnished for purposes

relating to the alleviation of pain or

discomfort even if they may increase the

risk of death, unless they are furnished

for the purpose of causing or assisting

in causing death; or

(5) The provision of factual

information regarding applicable law on

assisted suicide, euthanasia and mercy

killing. Nor shall § 1643.3 be interpreted

as limiting or interfering with the

operation of any other statute or

regulation governing the activities listed

in this paragraph.

(b) This part does not apply to

activities funded with a recipient’s nonLSC funds.

§ 1643.5 Recipient policies and

recordkeeping.

The recipient shall adopt written

policies to guide its staff in complying

with this part and shall maintain

records sufficient to document the

recipient’s compliance with this part.

Dated: December 23, 1997.

Victor M. Fortuno,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–33875 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7050–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

48 CFR Parts 1201, 1202, 1203, 1205,

1206, 1209, 1214, 1216, 1217, 1222,

1224, 1225, 1236, 1237, 1246, and 1252

Amendment of Department of

Transportation Acquisition

Regulations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

Transportation Acquisition Regulation

(TAR) to reflect the changes to the

Federal Acquisition Regulation through

the Federal Acquisition Circular 90–46

and to delete certification requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective January 29,

1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charlotte Hackley, Office of Acquisition

and Grant Management, M–60, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590: (202) 366–4267.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Department of Transportation has

determined that changes to the