9296 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

estimated annual operating cost

disclosures must be based on the 1995

DOE cost figures published in this

notice. The labels must also disclose,

under the secondary estimated annual

operating cost disclosure, the fact that

the estimated annual operating cost is

based on the appropriate 1995 DOE

energy cost figure. Manufacturers of the

above-mentioned products must make

these disclosures on the labels required

by the amendments and in catalogs

beginning ninety days after the

Commission publishes new energy

consumption ranges of comparability

based on the 1995 submissions required

by § 305.8. They must continue to use

the 1995 DOE cost figures in the manner

just described until the Commission

publishes new ranges of comparability

based on future annual submissions of

estimated annual energy consumption

data. At that time, these manufacturers

must use the then-current DOE energy

cost figures when they prepare new

labels in response to the new energy

consumption ranges of comparability.

When such new ranges are published,

the effective date for labeling new

products will be ninety days after

publication of the ranges in the Federal

Register. As in the past, products that

have been properly labeled prior to the

effective date of any range modification

need not be relabeled.

For Energy Cost Representations

Respecting Products Covered by EPCA

but Not by the Commission’s Rule

Manufacturers of products covered by

section 323(c) of EPCA, but not by the

Appliance Labeling Rule (clothes

dryers, television sets, kitchen ranges

and ovens, and space heaters) must use

the 1995 representative average unit

costs for energy in all operating cost

representations beginning May 18, 1995.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

Advertising, Energy conservation,

Household appliances, Labeling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

PART 305—[AMENDED]

Accordingly, 16 CFR Part 305 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 305

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

2. Section 305.9(a) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 305.9 Representative average unit

energy costs.

(a) Table 1, below, contains the

representative unit energy costs to be

utilized for all requirements of this part.

TABLE 1.—REPRESENTATIVE AVERAGE UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY FOR FIVE RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SOURCES (1995)

Type of energy In common terms As required by DOE

test procedure

Dollars per

million Btu 1

Electricity ............................................................................................................ 8.67¢/kWh 2 3 ................ $0.0867/kWh ................ $25.41

Natural Gas ........................................................................................................ 63.0¢/therm 4 or $6.49/

MCF 5 6.

0.00000630/Btu ............ 6.30

No. 2 heating oil ................................................................................................ 1.008/gallon 7 ................ 0.00000727/Btu ............ 7.27

Propane ............................................................................................................. 0.985/gallon 8 ................ 0.00001079/Btu ............ 10.79

Kerosene ............................................................................................................ 1.094/gallon 9 ................ 0.00000810/Btu ............ 8.10

1Btu stands for British thermal unit.

2 kWh stands for kilowatt hour.

3 1 kWh=3,412 Btu.

4 1 therm=100,000 Btu. Natural gas prices include taxes.

5 MCF stands for 1,000 cubic feet.

6For the purposes of this table, 1 cubic foot of natural gas has an energy equivalence of 1,030 Btu.

7For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of No. 2 heating oil has an energy equivalence of 138,690 Btu.

8For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of liquid propane has an energy equivalance of 91,333 Btu.

9For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of kerosene has an energy equivalence of 135,000 Btu.

* * * * *

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4010 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 14

Advisory Committees; Amendments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

standing advisory committees’

regulations to change the function of the

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory

Committee and to change the name and

the function of the Dermatologic Drugs

Advisory Committee. This action is

being taken due to an administrative

transfer of functions for the committees

in the review of human drug products

for use in the treatment of ophthalmic

disorders.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna M. Combs, Committee

Management Office (HFA–306), Food

and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers

Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–443–

2765.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FDA is revising § 14.100(c)(2) (21 CFR

14.100(c)(2)) to remove the review of

human drug products for use in the

treatment of ophthalmic disorders from

the function of the Anti-Infective Drugs

Advisory Committee. The review of

human drug products for use in the

treatment of ophthalmic disorders has

been transferred to the Dermatologic

and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory

Committee (formerly the Dermatologic

Drugs Advisory Committee). The

function of the Anti-Infective Drugs

Advisory Committee was revised in the

charter renewal dated October 3, 1994.

In this document, FDA is formally

changing the function of the committee.

FDA is also revising § 14.100(c)(6) to

change the name and the function of the

Dermatologic Drugs Advisory

Committee. The function of the

committee has been amended to include

the review of human drug products for

use in the treatment of ophthalmic

disorders. The name was changed to

reflect the committee’s revised function.

In the Federal Register of December 6,

1994 (59 FR 62734), FDA published a

notice of charter renewals dated October

3, 1994, for the Anti-Infective Drugs

Advisory Committee and the

Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs

Advisory Committee. In that notice, the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 9297

agency stated that the name of the

Dermatologic Drugs Advisory

Committee had been changed to the

Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs

Advisory Committee. In this document,

FDA is formally changing the name and

the function of the committee.

Under the Administrative Procedure

Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3) and (d)) and

under 21 CFR 10.40(c)(4), (d), and (e),

notice and public procedure and

delayed effective date on this regulation

are unnecessary and not in the public

interest. The regulation relates to agency

organization and procedure.

Furthermore, the agency finds good

cause to proceed to an immediately

effective rule. It would be contrary to

the public interest to delay notice to the

public and embodiment in the

regulations of the administrative change

regarding review of information on

ophthalmic disorders by the

appropriately constituted advisory

committee.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 14

Administrative practice and

procedure, Advisory committees, Color

additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 14 is

amended as follows:

PART 14—PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE

A PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 14 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201–903 of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.

321–394; 21 U.S.C. 41–50, 141–149, 467f,

679, 821, 1034; secs. 2, 351, 354, 361 of the

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201,

262, 263b, 264); secs. 2–12 of the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451–

1461); 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 28 U.S.C. 2112.

2. Section 14.100 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii), the heading

of paragraph (c)(6), and paragraph

(c)(6)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 14.100 List of standing advisory

committees.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Function: Reviews and evaluates

available data concerning the safety and

effectiveness of marketed and

investigational human drug products for

use in the treatment of infectious

diseases and disorders.

* * * * *

(6) Dermatologic and Ophthalmic

Drugs Advisory Committee.

* * * * *

(ii) Function: Reviews and evaluates

available data concerning the safety and

effectiveness of marketed and

investigational human drug products for

use in the treatment of dermatologic and

ophthalmic disorders.

* * * * *

Dated: February 14, 1995.

Linda A. Suydam,

Interim Deputy Commissioner for Operations.

[FR Doc. 95–4196 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner

24 CFR Parts 207, 213, 221, and 236

[Docket No. R–95–1660; FR–3342–F–03]

RIN 2502–AG04

Deletion of Value Criterion in Section

223(a)(7) Refinancing

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Section 223(a)(7) of the

National Housing Act authorizes HUD

to insure mortgages given to refinance

existing HUD-insured mortgages. In the

past, HUD’s implementing regulations

have prohibited the refinanced mortgage

amount from exceeding a stated

percentage of the value of the property.

This value criterion precluded some

troubled projects from lowering their

debt service payments and gaining a

more sound financial footing. On

October 26, 1993, HUD published an

interim rule in the Federal Register

deleting the value criterion from the

HUD regulations implementing Section

223(a)(7), which was extended by a

notice published on October 26, 1994.

This rule makes final the policies

contained in the October 26, 1993,

interim rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane

Luton, Acting Director, Policies and

Procedures Division, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 451

Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142,

Washington, DC 20410. Telephone

number (202) 708–2556; and TDD (202)

708–4594. (These are not toll-free

numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 223(a)(7) of the National

Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715n(a)(7)) (the

Act) authorizes HUD to insure

mortgages given to refinance existing

HUD-insured mortgages under any

section or title of the Act. Due to

requirements of the Act, the HUD

regulations implementing Section

223(a)(7) limit the principal amount of

the refinanced mortgage to the amount

of the original insured mortgage.

Additionally, HUD’s implementing

regulations had prohibited the

refinanced mortgage amount from

exceeding a stated percentage of the

Federal Housing Commissioner’s

estimate of value of the project after

completion of any repairs or

improvements to the property. Unlike

the original-value limitation noted

above, this value criterion was not a

statutory requirement.

The value criterion precluded many

troubled projects from refinancing their

HUD-insured mortgages, thus

preventing them from lowering their

debt service payments and gaining a

sounder financial footing. Because

Section 223(a)(7) mortgages are already

limited by the amount of the original

insured mortgage, HUD felt the public

interest and HUD’s Insurance Fund

would be better served by allowing

these loans to be refinanced to take

advantage of lower interest rates.

Therefore, on October 26, 1993, HUD

published an interim rule (58 FR 57558)

removing the value criterion from its

regulations implementing Section

223(a)(7). The effect of the interim rule

was extended by a notice published on

October 26, 1994 (59 FR 53731). This

rule makes final the policies contained

in the October 26, 1993, interim rule.

Comments on the October 26, 1993,

Interim Rule

By the expiration of the comment

period on the October 26, 1993, interim

rule, HUD had received only two

comments, both from the same

commenter.

The first comment addressed the

backlog of applications languishing in

some HUD offices and requested that

HUD Field Offices be notified that

Section 223(a)(7) refinancing

applications already in process should

be given priority over those received

after the effective date of the interim

rule. The preamble to the interim rule

established processing priorities, in

order to better manage the increased

workload anticipated as a result of the

rule change. Supplemental instructions

were provided to HUD Field Office staff

and mortgagees through issuance of

HUD Notice H93–89 and Mortgagee

Letter 93–39, both dated November 24,

1993, addressing processing priorities

and other issues. Inasmuch as the