10018 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(v) This paragraph (h)(2) expires on

September 23, 1996, unless a Federal

Register notice extending its

effectiveness is published prior to this

expiration date.

* * * * *

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal

Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–4366 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Community Planning and

Development

24 CFR Part 597

[Docket No. R–95–1702; FR–3580–N–06]

RIN 2506–AB65

Notice of Designation of Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Community Planning and

Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of designation of

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities.

SUMMARY: On January 18, 1994, HUD

published an interim rule that

implemented that portion of Subchapter

C, Part I (Empowerment Zones,

Enterprise Communities and Rural

Development Investment Areas) of Title

XIII of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 dealing with

the designation of urban Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities. On

January 18, 1994, HUD also published a

notice inviting applications for

designation of Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities.

This notice announces the

jurisdictions that were designated urban

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities by HUD. This notice also

announces the designation of two

Supplemental Empowerment Zones and

four Enhanced Enterprise Communities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Savage, Deputy Director,

Office of Economic Development, Room

7136, Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202)

708–2290; TDD (202) 708–2565. (These

are not toll-free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2790), HUD

published an interim rule that

implemented that portion of Subchapter

C, Part I (Empowerment Zones,

Enterprise Communities and Rural

Development Investment Areas) of Title

XIII of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 which

addresses the designation of urban

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities. This interim rule was

made final by a final rule published on

January 12, 1995 (60 FR 3034).

Title XIII also provides for the

designation of rural Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities. As

noted in the January 18, 1994 interim

rule, the urban part of the program is

administered by HUD as a Federal-Statelocal partnership. The rural part of the

program is administered by the

Department of Agriculture, which also

published an interim rule on January 18,

1994 (59 FR 2686).

On January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2711), in

addition to publication of the interim

rule, HUD published a notice inviting

applications from States and local

governments for nomination of urban

areas as Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities. The January

18, 1994 notice provided for an

application deadline of June 30, 1994.

HUD carefully considered all

applications, and on December 21, 1994,

President Clinton announced the urban

areas that were designated by HUD as

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities, and the rural areas that

were designated by the Department of

Agriculture as rural Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities.

On that date, President Clinton

announced the designation of two

Supplemental Empowerment Zones and

four Enhanced Enterprise Communities

that will receive HUD economic

development grants. The Supplemental

Empowerment Zone and Enhanced

Enterprise Community grants are

provided under HUD’s economic

development initiative (EDI), which

enables communities to provide

financing for economic development,

housing rehabilitation, and essential

development projects.

Appendix A to this notice announces

the urban areas that were designated

urban Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities by HUD.

Appendix A to this notice also

announces the two Supplemental

Empowerment Zones and the four

Enhanced Enterprise Communities.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

Andrew Cuomo,

Assistant Secretary for Community Planning

and Development.

EMPOWERMENT ZONE, SUPPLEMENTAL

EMPOWERMENT ZONE, ENHANCED

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY DESIGNEES

State City

Alabama EC .............. Birmingham.

Arizona EC ................ Phoenix.

Arkansas EC ............. Pulaski County.

California SEZ ........... Los Angeles City &

County.

California EEC .......... Oakland.

California EC ............. Los Angeles/Huntington Park.

Do ...................... San Diego.

Do ...................... San Francisco/

Bayview/Hunters

Point.

Colorado EC ............. Denver City & County.

Connecticut EC ......... Bridgeport.

Do ...................... New Haven.

Delaware EC ............. Wilmington, New

Castle Co.

District EC ................. District of Columbia.

Florida EC ................. Dade County, Miami.

Do ...................... Tampa.

Georgia EZ ............... Atlanta.

Georgia EC ............... Albany.

Illinois EZ .................. Chicago.

Illinois EC .................. East St. Louis.

Do ...................... Springfield.

Indiana EC ................ Indianapolis.

Iowa EC .................... Des Moines.

Kentucky EC ............. Louisville.

Louisiana EC ............ New Orleans.

Do ...................... Ouachita Parish.

Maryland EZ ............. Baltimore.

Massachusetts EEC . Boston.

Massachusetts EC .... Lowell.

Do ...................... Springfield.

Michigan EZ .............. Detroit.

Michigan EC ............. Flint.

Do ...................... Muskegon.

Minnesota EC ........... Minneapolis.

Do ...................... St. Paul.

Mississippi EC .......... Jackson.

Missouri EEC ............ Kansas City (Mo and

Kans).

Missouri EC .............. St. Louis, St. Louis

County, Wellston.

Nebraska EC ............ Omaha.

Nevada EC ............... Clarke County/Las

Vegas.

New Hampshire EC .. Manchester.

New Jersey EC ......... Newark.

New Mexico EC ........ Albuquerque.

New York EZ ............ New York, Bronx

County.

New York EC ............ Albany.

Do ...................... Buffalo.

Do ...................... Newburgh/Kingston.

Do ...................... Rochester.

No. Carolina EC ........ Charlotte.

Ohio SEZ .................. Cleveland.

Ohio EC .................... Akron.

Do ...................... Columbus.

Oklahoma EC ........... Oklahoma City.

Oregon EC ................ Portland.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 10019

EMPOWERMENT ZONE, SUPPLEMENTAL

EMPOWERMENT ZONE, ENHANCED

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY DESIGNEES—

Continued

State City

Pennsylvania EZ ....... Philadelphia, Camden

N.J.

Pennsylvania EC ...... Harrisburg.

Do ...................... Pittsburgh & Allegheny Co.

Rhode Island EC ...... Providence.

So. Carolina EC ........ Charleston.

Tennessee EC .......... Memphis.

Do ...................... Nashville.

Texas EEC ................ Houston.

Texas EC .................. Dallas.

Do ...................... El Paso.

Do ...................... San Antonio.

Do ...................... Waco.

Utah EC .................... Ogden.

Vermont EC .............. Burlington.

Virginia EC ................ Norfolk.

Washington EC ......... Seattle.

Do ...................... Tacoma.

West Virginia EC ...... Huntington.

Wisconsin EC ........... Milwaukee.

[FR Doc. 95–4365 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–29–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

31 CFR Part 351

Offering of United States Savings

Bonds, Series EE

CFR Correction

In title 31 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, part 200 to end, revised as

of July 1, 1994, on page 265, § 351.2

(e)(1) is corrected to read as follows:

§ 351.2 Description of bonds.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) Guaranteed minimum investment

yield. The guaranteed minimum

investment yield of a bond from its

issue date to each semiannual interest

accrual date occurring on or after 5

years from issue up to original maturity

will be 7.5 percent per annum,

compounded semiannually, for a bond

bearing an issue date of November 1,

1982, through October 1, 1986, and 6

percent per annum, compounded

semiannually, for a bond bearing an

issue date of November 1, 1986, through

February 1, 1993; and, 4 percent per

annum, compounded semiannually, for

a bond bearing an issue date of March

1, 1993, or thereafter. Interest that

accrues on a Series EE bond becomes

part of its redemption value and is paid,

as set out in § 351.2 (h).

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD05–94–088]

RIN 2115–AA98

Anchorage Regulations Anchorage 7

off Marcus Hook; Delaware River,

Southeast Side of the Channel Along

Marcus Hook Range

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the

boundaries of Anchorage 7 off Marcus

Hook on the southeast side of the

channel along the Marcus Hook Range

of the Delaware River. It corrects the

published coordinates to reflect those

coordinates of the Army Corps of

Engineers maintained anchorage, and

clearly designates an area large enough

to accommodate modern, large vessels

requiring examination by public health,

customs or immigration authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR Tom Flynn, Assistant Chief,

Planning and Waterways Management

Section, Fifth Coast Guard District, 431

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA

23704–5004, (804) 398–6285.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are LCDR

Tom Flynn, project officer, Aids to

Navigation and Waterways Management

Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District and

LT Andy Norris, project attorney, Fifth

Coast Guard District Legal Staff.

Regulatory History

On November 8, 1994, the Coast

Guard published a notice of proposed

rulemaking entitled Anchorage

Regulations; Anchorage Grounds:

Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook; Delaware

River, Southeast Side of the Channel

Along Marcus Hook Range in the

Federal Register (59 FR 55598). The

comment period expired on January 9,

1995. The Coast Guard received no

letters commenting on the proposal. A

public hearing was not requested and

one was not held.

Background and Purpose

Section 7 of the Act of March 4, 1915,

as amended (33 U.S.C. 471), authorizes

the establishment of anchorage grounds

for vessels in the navigable waters of the

United States whenever it is apparent

that such grounds are required by the

maritime or commercial interests of the

United States for safe navigation. A

Coast Guard initiated Waterways

Analysis and Management System

Study (WAMS) of the Delaware River,

conducted in 1989, determined that a

discrepancy existed between the charted

anchorage, the Army Corps of Engineers

maintained anchorage, and the

anchorage coordinates published in 33

CFR 110.157(a)(8). WAMS was

developed to serve as the basis for a

systematic analysis and management of

the aids to navigation in our nation’s

waterways. WAMS is intended to

identify the navigational needs of the

users of a particular waterway, the

present adequacy of the aids system in

terms of those needs, and what is

required in those cases where the users’

needs are not being met. The WAMS

process also looks into the resources—

physical, financial, and personnel—

needed to carry out the Aids to

Navigation program responsibilities.

The analyses of each waterway and the

attendant resources are then integrated

to provide documentation for both day

to day management and future planning

within the Aids to Navigation program.

Anchorage 7, off Marcus Hook, as

defined in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8), does

not correctly delineate the anchorage as

currently maintained by the Army Corps

of Engineers nor as charted by the

National Ocean Service. The

preferential area in this anchorage

designated for the use of vessels

awaiting quarantine inspection is

vaguely defined and may not provide

adequate room for modern, large

vessels. This rule will correct those

discrepancies.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

No comments were received

concerning the notice of proposed

rulemaking. There are no substantive

differences between the proposed rule

and this final rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this