This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

8344

Vol. 60, No. 30

Tuesday, February 14, 1995

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Announcement of Import Restraint

Limits for Certain Cotton, Man-Made

Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable

Fiber Textiles and Textile Products

Produced or Manufactured in India

February 9, 1995.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs establishing

limits for the new agreement year.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Tallarico, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212. For information on the

quota status of these limits, refer to the

Quota Status Reports posted on the

bulletin boards of each Customs port or

call (202) 927–6705. For information on

embargoes and quota re-openings, call

(202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854).

Pursuant to the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

(URATC), the Bilateral Cotton, Wool,

Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other

Vegetable Fiber Textile Agreement of

February 6, 1987, as amended and

extended, and a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) dated December

31, 1994 between the Governments of

the United States and India, establish

limits for the period beginning on

January 1, 1995 and extending through

December 31, 1995.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531,

published on December 20, 1994).

The letter to the Commissioner of

Customs and the actions taken pursuant

to it are not designed to implement all

of the provisions of the bilateral

agreement and the MOU dated

December 31, 1994, but are designed to

assist only in the implementation of

certain of their provisions.

Rita D. Hayes,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

February 9, 1995.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: Under the terms of

section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854), the Uruguary

Round Act, and the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

(URATC); pursuant to the Bilateral Cotton,

Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other

Vegetable Fiber Textile Agreement of

February 6, 1987, as amended and extended,

and the Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) dated December 31, 1994 between the

Governments of the United States and India;

and in accordance with the provisions of

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as

amended, you are directed to prohibit,

effective on February 16, 1995, entry into the

United States for consumption and

withdrawal from warehouse for consumption

of cotton, man-made fiber, silk blend and

other vegetable fiber textiles and textile

products in the following categories,

produced or manufactured in India and

exported during the twelve-month period

beginning on January 1, 1995 and extending

through December 31, 1995, in excess of the

following levels of restraint:

Category Twelve-month restraint

limit 1

Levels in Group I

218 ......................... 11,111,304 square meters.

219 ......................... 53,281,729 square meters.

313 ......................... 29,729,737 square meters.

314 ......................... 6,343,063 square meters.

315 ......................... 10,653,804 square meters.

317 ......................... 34,531,200 square meters.

326 ......................... 7,848,000 square meters.

Category Twelve-month restraint

limit 1

334/634 .................. 113,378 dozen.

335/635 .................. 504,757 dozen.

336/636 .................. 695,255 dozen.

338/339 .................. 3,400,800 dozen.

340/640 .................. 1,662,185 dozen.

341 ......................... 3,650,191 dozen of

which not more than

2,190,114 dozen

shall be in Category

341–Y2.

342/642 .................. 1,022,133 dozen.

345 ......................... 148,544 dozen.

347/348 .................. 477,913 dozen.

351/651 .................. 216,059 dozen.

363 ......................... 34,723,417 numbers.

369–D 3 .................. 1,057,586 kilograms.

369–S4 .................. 576,865 kilograms.

641 ......................... 1,190,025 dozen.

647/648 .................. 691,037 dozen.

Group II

200, 201, 220–229,

237, 239, 300,

301, 330–333,

349, 350, 352,

359–362, 600–

607, 611–629,

630–633, 638,

639, 643–646,

649, 650, 652,

659, 665–O 5,

666, 669, 670,

and 831–859, as

a group.

90,820,800 square meters equivalent.

1The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December

31, 1994. 2 Category 341–Y: only HTS numbers

6204.22.3060, 6206.30.3010, 6206.30.3030

and 6211.42.0054. 3 Category 369–D: only HTS numbers

6302.60.0010, 6302.91.0005 and

6302.91.0045. 4 Category 369–S: only HTS number

6307.10.2005. 5 Category 665–O: all HTS numbers except

5702.10.9030, 5702.42.2020, 5702.92.0010

and 5703.20.1000 (rugs exempt from the bilateral agreement).

Imports charged to these category limits for

the period January 1, 1994 through December

31, 1994 shall be charged against those levels

of restraint to the extent of any unfilled

balances. In the event the limits established

for that period have been exhausted by

previous entries, such goods shall be subject

to the levels set forth in this directive.

The limits set forth above are subject to

adjustment in the future pursuant to the

provisions of the URATC and any

administrative arrangements notified to the

Textiles Monitoring Body.

In carrying out the above directions, the

Commissioner of Customs should construe

entry into the United States for consumption

to include entry for consumption into the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices 8345

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Rita D. Hayes,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 95–3625 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

Cost Comparison Studies

The Air Force is conducting the

following cost comparison studies in

accordance with OMB Circular A–76,

Performance of Commercial Activities.

Installation Cost comparison

study

Maxwell AFB, Alabama Fuels Management.

Maxwell AFB, Alabama Grounds Maintenance.

Maxwell AFB, Alabama Refuse Collection.

Little Rock AFB, Arkansas.Transient Aircraft

Maintenance.

Davis Monthan AFB,

Arizona.

Military Family

Housing Maintenance.

Tyndall AFB, Florida .... Grounds Maintenance.

Tyndall AFB, Florida .... Multi-Function

Study: Base Operating Support &

Backshop Aircraft

Maintenance.

Moody AFB, Georgia ... Military Family

Housing Maintenance.

Andersen AFB, Guam .. Grounds Maintenance.

Andersen AFB, Guam .. Military Family

Housing Maintenance.

Andersen AFB, Guam .. Mess Attendants.

Andersen AFB, Guam .. Refuse Collection.

Columbus AFB, Mississippi.Base Operating

Support.

Keesler AFB, Mississippi.Grounds Maintenance.

Nellis AFB, Nevada ...... Military Family

Housing Maintenance.

Wright Patterson AFB,

Ohio.

Audiovisual.

Altus AFB, Oklahoma ... Aircraft Maintenance.

Tinker AFB, Oklahoma . Grounds Maintenance.

Lackland AFB, Texas ... Trainer Fabrication.

Laughlin AFB, Texas .... Base Operating

Support.

Reese AFB, Texas ....... Base Operating

Support.

Installation Cost comparison

study

Hill AFB, Utah .............. Child Care Center.

Bolling AFB, Washington, DC.Military Family

Housing Maintenance.

Patsy J. Conner,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–3654 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3910–01–M

Department of the Army

Availability of the Record of Decision

(ROD) for the Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for Closure and

Disposal of Sacramento Army Depot,

California

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public

Law 101–510, the Defense Base Closure

and Realignment Act of 1990, the 1991

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Commission recommended the closure

of Sacramento Army Depot and transfer

of depot missions to other installations/

agencies. Maintenance missions would

be competed to determine location of

transfer. In accordance with the Act, the

Secretary of Defense must implement all

recommendations for closure or

realignment. The EIS focuses on the

environmental and socioeconomic

impacts and mitigations associated with

the disposal and reuse of Sacramento

Army Depot.

No long-term adverse ecological or

environmental health effects are

expected due to this action. The

increase in population anticipated by

the reuse and disposal activities is

expected to have a net positive impact

on the local economy. The preferred

alternative, prepared with the

cooperation of the local community, is

not expected to significantly impact

environmental resources.

DATES: Written public comments and

suggestions can be submitted on or

before March 16, 1995 to the address

shown below.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD can be

obtained by writing to the United States

Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento

District, ATTN: CESPK–ED–M (ISS),

1325 J Street, Sacramento, California

95814–2922.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Wandell Carlton (916) 557–7424.

Dated: February 3, 1995.

Lewis D. Walker,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,

(Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health) OASA (IL&E).

[FR Doc. 95–3592 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

Department of the Navy

Notice of Public Hearings for the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for

Disposal and Reuse of Naval Hospital

Long Beach, Long Beach, CA.

Pursuant to Council on

Environmental Quality regulations (40

CFR Parts 1500–1508) implementing

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act, the

Department of the Navy has prepared

and filed with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

for disposal and reuse of Naval Hospital

Long Beach.

In accordance with legislative

requirements in the 1990 Base Closure

and Realignment Act (Public Law 101–

510) and the results of the 1991 Defense

Base Closure and Realignment process,

Naval Hospital Long Beach, California

was directed to be closed and made

available for reuse. Navy has analyzed

the environmental effects of reasonably

forseeable reuse alternatives of existing

buildings and for redevelopment of the

site. Five alternatives for potential reuse

have been identified by the City of Long

Beach and through an extensive scoping

process: (1) The Los Angeles County

Office of Education (LACOE); (2) a

Senior Health Care facility; (3) an

industrial park; (4) retail use; and (5)

residential use. Alternatives (1) and (2)

would rehabilitate existing structures

and facilities; alternatives (3) (4) and (5)

would require demolition of existing

structures and subsequent site

redevelopment.

The DEIS has been distributed to

various federal, state, and local

agencies, elected officials, and special

interest groups. Copies of the DEIS have

also been placed in local libraries. A

limited number of copies are available

at the address listed at the end of this

notice.

No implementation of the proposed

action will occur until the National

Environmental Policy Act process has

been completed and the Navy releases a

Record of Decision.

The Department of the Navy will hold

two public hearings to inform the public

of the DEIS findings and to solicit

comments. The first meeting will be

held on Wednesday, March 1, 1995