Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices 38661

Disorders Research, National Institutes of

Health, HHS)

Dated: July 10, 1998.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Committee Management Officer, NIH.

[FR Doc. 98–19069 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and

Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice

of Closed Meetings

Purusant to section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

is hereby given of the following

meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the

public in accordance with the provisons

set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and

552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended.

The grant applications and the

discussions could disclose confidential

trade secrets or commercial property

such as patentable material, and

personal information concerning

individuals associated with the grant

applications, the disclosure of which

would constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of

Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB–8 02.

Date: July 22–24, 1998.

Time: July 22, 1998, 7:00 pm to

Adjournment.

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.

Place: Holiday Inn Hotel, 625 El Camino

Real, Palo Alto, CA 94301–2380.

Contact Person: Robert J. Haber, Phd,

Scientific Review Administrator, Review

Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building,

Room 6AS–37, National Institutes of Health,

Bethesda, MD 20892–6600, (301) 594–8898.

Name of Committee: National Institute of

Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB–D (01).

Date: July 27, 1998.

Time: 10:00 am to adjournment.

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.

Place: Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202.

Contact Person: Ann Hagan, Chief, Review

Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and

Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National

Institutes of Health, Phs, Dhhs, Rm. 6as37,

Bldg. 45, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–

8886.

This notice is being published less than 15

days prior to the meeting due to the timing

limitations imposed by the review and

funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes,

Endocrinology and Metabolic Research;

93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition

Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology

and Hematology Research, National Institute

of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 10, 1998.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Committee Management Officer, NIH.

[FR Doc. 98–19070 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse;

Notice of Closed Meetings

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

is hereby given of the following

meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the

public in accordance with the

provisions set forth in sections

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,

as amended. The grant applications

and/or contract proposals and the

discussions could disclose confidential

trade secrets or commercial property

such as patentable material, and

personal information concerning

individuals associated with the grant

applications and/or contract proposals,

the disclosure of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute on

Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel,

International Drug Abuse Epidemiology Data

Bank.

Date: July 17, 1998.

Time: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.

Agenda: To review and evaluate contract

proposals.

Place: National Institute on Drug Abuse,

5600 Fishers Lane, Room 10–49, Rockville,

MD 20857 (Telephone Conference Call).

Contact Person: Eric Zatman, Contract

Review Specialist, Office of Extramural

Program Review, National Institute on Drug

Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS,

5600 Fishers Lane, 10–42, Rockville, MD

20857, (301) 443–1644.

This notice is being published less than 15

days prior to the meeting due to the timing

limitations imposed by the review and

funding cycle.

Name of Committee: National Institute on

Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel,

Neurological Effects of Drug Addiction

Therapies.

Date: August 3, 1998.

Time: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.

Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City,

1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA

22202.

Contact Person: Kesinee Nimit, MD, Health

Scientist Administrator, Office of Extramural

Program Review, National Institute on Drug

Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS,

5600 Fishers Lane, Room 10–22, Rockville,

MD 20857, (301) 443–9042.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist

Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist

Development Awards, and Research Scientist

Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National

Research Service Awards for Research

Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse Research

Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 10, 1998.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Committee Management Officer, NIH.

[FR Doc. 98–19071 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration

Children With Serious Emotional

Disturbance; Estimation Methodology

AGENCY: Center for Mental Health

Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

SUMMARY: This notice describes the final

methodology to identify and estimate

the number of children with a serious

emotional disturbance (SED) within

each State. This notice is being

published as part of the requirements of

Public Law 102–321, the ADAMHA

Reorganization Act of 1992.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1998.

Background

Public Law 102–321, the ADAMHA

Reorganization Act of 1992, amended

the Public Health Service Act and

created the Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA). The Center for Mental

Health Services (CMHS) was established

within SAMHSA to coordinate Federal

efforts in the prevention and treatment

of mental illness, and the promotion of

mental health. Title II of Public Law

102–321 establishes a Block Grant for

Community Mental Health Services,

administered by CMHS, that permits the

allocation of funds to States for the

provision of community mental health

services for children with a SED and

adults with a serious mental illness

(SMI). Public Law 102–321 stipulates

that States estimate the incidence

(number of new cases) and prevalence

(total number of cases in a year) of

individuals with either SED or SMI in

their applications for block grant funds.
38662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices

As part of the process of

implementing this new block grant,

definitions of the terms ‘‘children with

a serious emotional disturbance’’ and

‘‘adults with a serious mental illness’’

were announced on May 20, 1993, in

Federal Register Notice, Volume 58, No.

96, p. 29422. Subsequently, a group of

technical experts was convened by

CMHS to develop an estimation

methodology to ‘‘operationalize’’ the

key concepts in the definition of

children with SED. A similar group

prepared an estimation methodology for

adults with a SMI (March 28, 1997,

Federal Register Notice, Volume 62, No.

60 p.14928).

Summary of Comments

This document reflects a thorough

review and analysis of comments

received in response to an earlier notice

published in the Federal Register, on

October 6, 1997. Ten letters expressing

either support or concern regarding the

proposed methodology were received by

the close of the public comment period.

Those expressing support praised the

effort of the CMHS team of technical

experts to develop reliable State

estimates for the number of children

with SED. Comments expressing

concern generally noted limitations

similar to those identified by the team

of technical experts in the original

October 6, 1997, Federal Register

notice. These limitations included the

exclusion of children from birth to age

8 and the exclusion of variables such as

ethnicity and geographical location.

Additionally, concerns were raised

about whether the proposed

methodology represented prevalence

rates more precisely than State surveys

or local data collection efforts.

Before addressing the comments,

CMHS extends appreciation to

representatives from Atlantic County,

New Jersey, and the University of Texas

Medical Branch at Galveston for

directing attention to errors made in

Table 3—1995 Estimates of Children

and Adolescents with SED by State. The

New Jersey upper limit for less-impaired

children should read 102,594, and the

Utah upper limit estimate should read

38,399. These corrections to Table 3

have been made and will be reflected in

all subsequent publications.

Purpose of the Methodology

Although several comments indicated

satisfaction with the estimation

methodology, several others requested

that CMHS clarify appropriate use of the

methodology. In response, CMHS

emphasizes that the methodology for

children and adolescents with SED was

developed specifically for States to use

in the areas of planning and program

development. Since it is obvious that

resources for this population of children

are inadequate in relation to need,

States should continue to set priorities

to assure the most cost-effective use of

all available resources. Inclusion or

exclusion of any individual based on

this methodology is not intended to

either confer or deny eligibility for any

other service or benefit at the Federal,

State, or local level.

Estimation Methods

Some comments suggested that

surveys and other State-specific or local

data would provide more precise

estimations than the proposed

methodology. CMHS understands this

concern. However, a group of technical

experts established by CMHS

determined that the most valid method

to estimate the prevalence of SED was

to examine findings from extant

community epidemiological studies that

used a structured diagnostic interview

connected to the DSM–III or DMS–III–

R system. The group of technical experts

thoroughly searched for studies that met

this criteria and incorporated findings

from all of the studies in its report.

CMHS recognizes the value of local or

statewide surveys but continues to

support the view that the most valid

estimates can be derived from

community epidemiological studies that

have used a structured diagnostic

interview. CMHS will support the use of

State data if they are based on

community epidemiological studies that

include a standardized diagnostic

interview that is linked with the DSM

system and that also includes a

measurement of functional impairment.

Concerns were also raised that the

singular use of poverty as an adjustment

to prevalence rates was based on

convenience. This is not the case and

the October 6, 1997, Federal Register

Notice summarizes the fastidious efforts

taken to examine other potential

variables. For each of the other variables

considered, either insufficient evidence

existed to determine if an adjustment

should be made (e.g., for variables such

as race and ethnic background, and

population density) or the available

evidence suggested that adjustment

should not be made (i.e., gender). The

findings from these efforts indicated

that the prevalence of SED is greater in

children from low socio-economic

backgrounds than in children from

middle-class or upper-class

backgrounds. As a result, the decision

was made to include percent-in-poverty

as an adjustment factor. While the data

were clear about an overall relationship,

in the absence of any national studies,

the quantitative adjustment that should

be made could not be determined with

precision. It therefore was decided that

since the report could offer only general

estimates of prevalence, given the

shortcomings of the available data, the

simplest and perhaps clearest way to

adjust for percent-in-poverty would be

to divide the States into groups based on

the percent-in-poverty. Although this

‘‘grouping’’ method may potentially

exaggerate the differences between

States that fall in different categories,

the percent-in-poverty measures differ

in a relatively minor way. Because the

estimates are not to be used to

determine funding levels, the decision

was made to use this grouping method

despite minor problems. It is hoped that

additional research will permit more

precise estimations in the future.

With regard to estimation methods,

concerns were also raised that the

selection of poverty as the only variable

to ‘‘correct’’ the estimated prevalence of

SED would produce data that

underestimated the State prevalence

rates of SED. Several States emphasized

that additional factors, including

geographical data (urban/rural), would

provide more representative data.

CMHS recognizes the importance of this

data. However, presently, the data in

this area is not precise enough to draw

estimates; in the absence of a national

study, CMHS chose to utilize and

analyze the most precise data available.

In this instance, percent-in-poverty rates

proved to be the most precise data

available. As new data become

available, these issues will be revisited.

One comment raised specific

questions about the comparability of the

prevalence estimates for children with

SED with estimates from other studies.

For example, Knitzer, in ‘‘At the

Schoolhouse Door,’’ estimates that 3 to

5 percent of children are ‘‘judged to be

seriously emotionally disturbed’’ (p.

xii). However, this book was published

in 1990, before CMHS developed the

definition of SED on which the present

estimate is based and before the results

of most of the studies included in the

present report were available. Similarly,

the 1969 Joint Commission on the

Mental Health of Children indicates that

2 to 3 percent suffered from severe

disorders. The present report is based

not only on more recent data but also on

new instruments and a revised

diagnostic system.

Finally, concerns were raised that

prevalence estimates for children/

adolescent with SED in individual

States are not uniformly consistent with

estimates for adults with SMI published

by CMHS. In comparing data for

children and adults, it should be
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices 38663

remembered that the data for children

cover a restricted period of nine years

(from ages nine through 17) while the

adult estimates are for the adult lifetime,

beginning at age 18 and over. Therefore,

it is not surprising that within the same

State estimates for children may be

lower or higher than adults. Further, the

group of technical experts that

developed estimates for SMI found

substantially higher prevalence rates in

young adults than in older adults.

Consequently, States with a high

percentage of elderly will have lower

overall prevalence rates of SMI than will

States with a high percentage of young

adults. When comparing adult

prevalence rates with those for children,

it is important to remember that the

children’s data are based on a relatively

short developmental stage in relation to

the adult rates.

Exclusion of Children Age Birth to 8

Several comments acknowledged the

paucity of research on children from

birth to 8 years and inquired about

future research efforts by CMHS to

address this population. CMHS

acknowledges the need to develop

estimation methodology for this very

important population of young children.

Current plans for developing this

methodology include an updated

literature review of prevalence data for

children with a SED in the birth to 8 age

group. CMHS will make these data

available when obtained.

Exclusion of Puerto Rico

It was brought to the attention of

CMHS that there was significant interest

in obtaining prevalence estimates for

children with SED in Puerto Rico.

Estimates of children with SED,

published on Monday, October 6, 1997,

in Federal Register, Notice Volume 62,

No 193, p. 52139, were based on 1995

U.S. Census Bureau population and

poverty rate data. These Census Bureau

estimates are not available for Puerto

Rico and other U.S. territories. CMHS

responds to these comments by

obtaining SED estimates for Puerto Rico

derived from 1990 census data (the most

recent year for which data are available).

According to the Census Bureau, the

poverty rate for Puerto Rico in 1990 was

66.8 percent for persons under 18 years.

Using the steps outlined on page 52141

of the above Federal Register Notice,

Puerto Rico with a poverty rate of 66.8

percent will be included in group C (the

group with poverty rates in excess of 22

percent). At a level of functioning of 50

(LOF=50), the number of children and

adolescents with SED is estimated to be

between 7–9 percent of youth 9–17

years of age. At a level of functioning of

60 (LOF=60), the number of children

and adolescents with SED is estimated

to be between 11–13 percent of youth 9–

17 years of age.

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATES OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE; STATE ESTIMATES

ALGORITHMS

Territory Number of

youth 9–17

Percent in

poverty

LOF*=50 LOF*=60

Lower limit Upper limit Lower limit Upper limit

Puerto Rico ....................................................................... 602,309 66.8 42,162 54,208 66,254 78,300

* LOF=Level of functioning from Children’s Global Assessment Scale.

Exclusion of Substance Use Disorders

The decision to exclude substance use

disorders from this estimation

methodology was addressed in the 1993

Federal Register Notice that provided a

national definition of SED. Because

substance use disorders are not

included in the definition of serious

emotional disorder, they are not

included in the current estimation

methodology. Please see the Federal

Register Notice (1993, 58(96), p. 29424)

for a more detailed explanation.

Instrumentation

CMHS stresses that the methodology

is based on the Children’s Global

Assessment Scale (CGAS) because the

CGAS was the most commonly used

instrument found in the communitybased epidemiology literature received

by the group of technical experts. When

other instruments were used, the

findings were taken into consideration.

CMHS recognizes that a number of

States use the Children’s Adolescent

Functional Assessment Scale-MiniScale and, consequently, does not

discourage the use of this instrument.

Definition of Serious Emotional

Disturbance

Some States expressed concern that

the definition of SED used to estimate

prevalence may result in an overestimate of prevalence by counting

children who had a diagnosis and

functional impairment over a 2-year

period rather than a 1-year period.

The definition used to estimate

prevalence is ‘‘total number of cases in

a year.’’ None of the studies cited in the

report gathered prevalence information

of a duration of greater than a year. In

fact, most of the studies used to

formulate the prevalence estimates

utilized the Diagnostic Interview

Schedule for Children, which derives

prevalence information for a 6-month

time period. Therefore, not only does

the definition ensure against an over

estimate of prevalence but also there is

a possibility of a slight under estimate,

based on the methods used.

Estimation Procedures

The following steps were taken to

adjust for differences in State socioeconomic circumstances. The 1995

State-by-State estimates of children and

adolescents with SED are provided in

Table 3.

Step 1

States were sorted by poverty rates

(1995), in ascending order. Using this

sort order, States were initially

classified into three groups of equal

proportions, i.e., the first 17 States were

put into Group A; the next 17 States,

into Group B; the remaining 17 States,

into Group C. However, in reviewing the

results, we noted that observations 17

and 18 differed by .01 percent.

Observation number 18 was included in

group A. For this reason, Group A has

18 cases, Group B has 16 cases, and

Group C has 17 cases. Group A is the

lowest percentage of children in

poverty; Group B represents a midpoint; and Group C includes the highest

percentage of children in poverty.

Step 2

At a level of functioning of 50

(LOF=50), the number of children and

adolescents with SED is calculated to be

between 5–7 percent of the number of

youth between 9–17 years for Group A.

For Group B, the estimate is between 6–

8 percent of the number of youth 9–17

years. The estimated SED population for
38664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices

Group C is calculated to be between 7–

9 percent of the number of youth 9–17

years.

Step 3

At a level of functioning of 60

(LOF=60), the number of children and

adolescents with SED is calculated to be

between 9–11 percent of the number of

youth 9–17 years for Group A. For

Group B, the estimate is between 10–12

percent of the number of youth 9–17

years. The estimated SED population for

Group C is calculated to be between 11–

13 percent of the number of youth 9–17

years.

TABLE 2.—1995 ESTIMATES OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE; STATE

ESTIMATES ALGORITHMS

States

Estimated population

LOF*=50 LOF*=60

Lower limit Upper limit Lower limit Upper limit

Group A Lowest percent in poverty ................................................................................. 5% 7% 9% 11%

Group B Medium percent in poverty ................................................................................ 6% 8% 10% 12%

Group C Highest percent in poverty ................................................................................ 7% 9% 11% 13%

* LOF=Level of functioning from the Children’s Global Assessment Scale.

TABLE 3.—1995 ESTIMATES OF CHILDREN & ADOLESCENTS WITH SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE BY STATE

State Number of

youth 9–17

Percent in

poverty

LOF*=50 LOF*=60

Lower limit Upper limit Lower limit Upper limit

Total ....................................................................... 33,706,204 .................... 2,118,269 2,792,391 3,466,516 4,140,636

1 New Hampshire .......................................................... 147,695 4.07 7,385 10,339 13,293 16,246

2 Alaska ......................................................................... 90,955 8.96 4,548 6,367 8,186 10,005

3 New Jersey ................................................................ 932,671 9.60 46,634 65,287 83,940 102,594

4 Utah ............................................................................ 349,086 9.76 17,454 24,436 31,418 38,399

5 Minnesota ................................................................... 643,892 11.30 32,195 45,072 57,950 70,828

6 Colorado ..................................................................... 491,930 11.34 24,597 34,435 44,274 54,112

7 Nebraska .................................................................... 231,037 11.62 11,552 16,173 20,793 25,414

8 Missouri ...................................................................... 709,439 11.74 35,472 49,661 63,850 78,038

9 Kansas ....................................................................... 354,722 12.55 17,736 24,831 31,925 39,019

10 Wisconsin .................................................................. 706,004 12.56 35,300 49,420 63,540 77,660

11 Hawaii ........................................................................ 143,901 13.97 7,195 10,073 12,951 15,829

12 North Dakota ............................................................. 91,443 14.13 4,572 6,401 8,230 10,059

13 Virginia ....................................................................... 790,359 14.38 39,518 55,325 71,132 86,939

14 Nevada ...................................................................... 186,695 14.41 9,335 13,069 16,803 20,536

15 Indiana ....................................................................... 758,633 15.24 37,932 53,104 68,277 83,450

16 Rhode Island ............................................................. 115,176 15.36 5,759 8,062 10,366 12,669

17 Delaware ................................................................... 85,396 15.56 4,270 5,978 7,686 9,394

18 Maine ......................................................................... 160,434 15.57 8,022 11,230 14,439 17,648

19 Vermont ..................................................................... 76,500 15.79 4,590 6,120 7,650 9,180

20 Maryland .................................................................... 608,209 15.80 36,493 48,657 60,821 72,985

21 Wyoming .................................................................... 75,106 16.21 4,506 6,008 7,511 9,013

22 Georgia ...................................................................... 942,161 16.30 56,530 75,373 94,216 113,059

23 Massachusetts ........................................................... 680,101 17.12 40,806 54,408 68,010 81,612

24 Iowa ........................................................................... 385,583 17.39 23,135 30,847 38,558 46,270

25 Washington ................................................................ 714,567 17.81 42,874 57,165 71,457 85,748

26 Connecticut ................................................................ 378,473 18.03 22,708 30,278 37,847 45,417

27 Pennsylvania ............................................................. 1,462,731 18.07 87,764 117,018 146,273 175,528

28 Oregon ....................................................................... 411,543 18.22 24,693 32,923 41,154 49,385

29 Michigan .................................................................... 1,275,452 18.36 76,527 102,036 127,545 153,054

30 Ohio ........................................................................... 1,451,220 19.33 87,073 116,098 145,122 174,146

31 Idaho .......................................................................... 183,829 20.57 11,030 14,706 18,383 22,059

32 South Dakota ............................................................. 108,855 20.74 6,531 8,708 10,886 13,063

33 North Carolina ........................................................... 879,091 21.06 52,745 70,327 87,909 105,491

34 Kentucky .................................................................... 504,373 21.25 30,262 40,350 50,437 60,525

35 Illinois ......................................................................... 1,517,182 22.14 106,203 136,546 166,890 197,234

36 Tennessee ................................................................. 658,573 22.23 46,100 59,272 72,443 85,614

37 Montana ..................................................................... 126,834 22.39 8,878 11,415 13,952 16,488

38 Arkansas .................................................................... 337,718 22.44 23,640 30,395 37,149 43,903

39 Texas ......................................................................... 2,623,654 24.53 183,656 236,129 288,602 341,075

40 California ................................................................... 3,968,950 24.97 277,827 357,206 436,585 515,964

41 Oklahoma .................................................................. 457,496 24.98 32,025 41,175 50,325 59,474

42 Arizona ...................................................................... 542,019 25.31 37,941 48,782 59,622 70,462

43 Florida ........................................................................ 1,623,697 25.50 113,659 146,133 178,607 211,081

44 New York ................................................................... 2,141,435 25.51 149,900 192,729 235,558 278,387

45 West Virginia ............................................................. 231,390 26.93 16,197 20,825 25,453 30,081

46 Alabama .................................................................... 547,671 27.50 38,337 49,290 60,244 71,197

47 Louisiana ................................................................... 639,158 29.69 44,741 57,524 70,307 83,091
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices 38665

TABLE 3.—1995 ESTIMATES OF CHILDREN & ADOLESCENTS WITH SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE BY STATE—

Continued

State Number of

youth 9–17

Percent in

poverty

LOF*=50 LOF*=60

Lower limit Upper limit Lower limit Upper limit

48 South Carolina ........................................................... 470,875 32.11 32,961 42,379 51,796 61,214

49 Washington, DC ........................................................ 48,365 35.33 3,386 4,353 5,320 6,287

50 New Mexico ............................................................... 251,231 36.59 17,586 22,611 27,635 32,660

51 Mississippi ................................................................. 392,694 37.03 27,489 35,342 43,196 51,050

Dated: June 29, 1998.

Joseph Faha,

Director, Legislation & External Affairs.

[FR Doc. 98–19039 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–20–U

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4341–N–19]

Federal Property Suitable as Facilities

to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Community Planning and

Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies

unutilized, underutilized, excess, and

surplus Federal property reviewed by

HUD for suitability for possible use to

assist the homeless.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Johnston, room 7256, Department

of Housing and Urban Development,

451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC

20410; telephone (202) 708–1226: TTY

number for the hearing- and speechimpaired (202) 708–2565 (these

telephone numbers are not toll-free), or

call the toll-free Title V information line

at 1–800–927–7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and

section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

11411), as amended, HUD is publishing

this Notice to identify Federal buildings

and other real property that HUD has

reviewed for suitability for use to assist

the homeless. The properties were

reviewed using information provided to

HUD by Federal landholding agencies

regarding unutilized and underutilized

buildings and real property controlled

by such agencies or by GSA regarding

its inventory of excess or surplus

Federal property. This Notice is also

published in order to comply with the

December 15, 1988 Court Order in

National Coalition for the Homeless v.

Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503–

OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this

Notice according to the following

categories: Suitable/available, suitable/

unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and

unsuitable. The properties listed in the

three suitable categories have been

reviewed by the landholding agencies,

and each agency has transmitted to

HUD: (1) Its intention to make the

property available for use to assist the

homeless, (2) its intention to declare the

property excess to the agency’s needs, or

(3) a statement of the reasons that the

property cannot be declared excess or

made available for use as facilities to

assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available

will be available exclusively for

homeless use for a period of 60 days

from the date of this Notice. Homeless

assistance providers interested in any

such property should send a written

expression of interest to HHS, addressed

to Brian Rooney, Division of Property

Management, Program Support Center,

HHS, room 5B–41, 5600 Fishers Lane,

Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–2265.

(This is not a toll-free number.) HHS

will mail to the interested provider an

application packet, which will include

instructions for completing the

application. In order to maximize the

opportunity to utilize a suitable

property, providers should submit their

written expressions of interest as soon

as possible. For complete details

concerning the processing of

applications, the reader is encouraged to

refer to the interim rule governing this

program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be

excess, that property may, if

subsequently accepted as excess by

GSA, made available for use by the

homeless in accordance with applicable

law, subject to screening for other

Federal use. At the appropriate time,

HUD will publish the property in a

Notice showing it as either suitable/

available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/

unavailable, the landholding agency has

decided that the property cannot be

declared excess or made available for

use to assist the homeless, and the

property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will

not be made available for any other

purpose for 20 days from the date of this

Notice. Homeless assistance providers

interested in a review by HUD of the

determination of unsuitability should

call the toll free information line at 1–

800–927–7588 for detailed instructions

or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the

address listed at the beginning of this

Notice. Included in the request for

review should be the property address

(including zip code), the date of

publication in the Federal Register, the

landholding agency, and the property

number.

For more information regarding

particular properties identified in this

Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing

sanitary facilities, exact street address),

providers should contact the

appropriate landholding agencies at the

following addresses: INTERIOR: Ms.

Lola D. Knight, Department of Interior,

1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 5512–

MIB, Washington, DC 20240; (202) 208–

4080; GSA: Mr. Brian K. Polly, Assistant

Commissioner, General Services

Administration, Office of Property

Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW,

Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501–2059;

NAVY: Mr. Charles C. Cocks,

Department of the Navy, Director, Real

Estate Policy Division, Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, Code 241A, 200

Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332–

2300; (703) 325–6342;

TRANSPORTATION: Mr. Rugene

Spruill, Principal, Space Management,

SVC–140, Transportation

Administrative Service Center,

Department of Transportation, 400 7th

Street, SW, Room 2310, Washington, DC

20590; (202) 366–4246; (These are not

toll-free numbers).