17790 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

(Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 104

Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303:

1. Banco de Sabadell, S.A., Sabadell,

Spain; to retain 50 percent of the voting

shares of PRS International Investment

Advisory Services, Inc., and PRS

International Brokerage, Inc., both of

Miami, Florida, and thereby continue to

engage in providing institutional and

retail customers portfolio investment

advice general economic information

and advice, and general economical

statistical forecasting services and

industry studies, pursuant to §

225.25(b)(4) of the Board’s Regulation Y;

providing to institutional and real

customers securities services, related

securities credit activities, pursuant to

Regulation T, and incidental activities

such as custodial services, individual

retirement accounts, and cash

management services, pursuant to §

225.25(b)(15) of the Board’s Regulation

Y; and acting as an introducing broker

for institutional and retail customers in

the execution and clearance on major

commodity exchanges of futures

contracts and options on futures

contracts for bullion, foreign exchange,

government securities, certificates of

deposit, other money market

instruments, pursuant to § 225.25(b)(18)

of the Board’s Regulation Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, April 3, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-8580 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-F

Commonwealth Holdings, LLC, et al.;

Formations of; Acquisitions by; and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied for the Board’s approval

under section 3 of the Bank Holding

Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and §

225.14 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding

company or to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the applications

are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act

(12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Each application is available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

application has been accepted for

processing, it will also be available for

inspection at the offices of the Board of

Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank or to the offices of the

Board of Governors. Any comment on

an application that requests a hearing

must include a statement of why a

written presentation would not suffice

in lieu of a hearing, identifying

specifically any questions of fact that

are in dispute and summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received not later than May 1,

1995.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

(John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice President) 1455

East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio

44101:

1. Commonwealth Holdings, LLC,

Burlington, Kentucky; to become a bank

holding company by acquiring 31.75

percent of the voting shares of Heritage

Bancorp, Inc., Burlington, Kentucky,

and thereby indirectly acquire Heritage

Bank, Inc., Burlington, Kentucky.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

(Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 104

Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303:

1. SouthTrust Corporation,

Birmingham, Alabama, and SouthTrust

of Georgia, Inc., Roswell, Georgia; to

merge with Southern Bank Group, Inc.,

Roswell, Georgia, and thereby indirectly

acquire Northside Bank & Trust

Company, Roswell, Georgia.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, April 3, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–8581 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Steven L. Ohs, et al.; Change in Bank

Control Notices; Acquisitions of

Shares of Banks or Bank Holding

Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

notices have been accepted for

processing, they will also be available

for inspection at the offices of the Board

of Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank indicated for that notice

or to the offices of the Board of

Governors. Comments must be received

not later than April 21, 1995.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice

President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:

1. Steven L. Ohs, Glendive, Montana;

to acquire 20 percent of the voting

shares of Community First Bancorp,

Glendive, Montana, and thereby

indirectly acquire Community First

Bancorp, Glendive, Montana, Glendive

Bancorporation, Inc., Glendive,

Montana, and First Fidelity Bank,

Glendive, Montana.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of San

Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning,

Director, Bank Holding Company) 101

Market Street, San Francisco, California

94105:

1. Dr. Joel W. Kovner, Malibu,

California; to retain up to 27.93 percent

of the voting shares of Professional

Bancorp, Inc., Santa Monica, California,

and thereby indirectly retain First

Professional Bank, N.A., Santa Monica,

California.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, April 3, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–8582 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Health Care Policy and

Research

Health Care Policy and Research

Special Emphasis Panel; Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

U.S.C., Appendix 2) announcement is

made of the following special emphasis

panel scheduled to meet during the

month of May 1995:

Name: Health Care Policy and Research

Special Emphasis Panel.

Date and Time: May 5, 1995, 8:30 a.m.

Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520

Wisconsin Avenue, Conference Room TBA,

Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

Open May 5, 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

Closed for remainder of meeting.

Purpose: This Panel is charged with

conducting review of competing continuation

of grant applications for MEDTEP Research

Centers on Minority Populations.

Agenda: The open session of the meeting

on May 5 from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. will be

devoted to a business meeting covering

administrative matters. During the closed

session, the committee will be reviewing

competing continuation of grant applications

for MEDTEP Research Centers on Minority

Populations. In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5

U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C., 552b(c)(6),

the Administrator, AHCPR, has made a

formal determination that this latter session

will be closed because the discussions are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices 17791

likely to reveal personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

grant applications. This information is

exempt from mandatory disclosure.

Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of

members or other relevant information

should contact Linda Blankenbaker, Agency

for Health Care Policy and Research, Suite

602, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville,

Maryland 20852, telephone (301) 594–1438.

Agenda items for this meeting are subject

to change as priorities dictate.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Clifton R. Gaus,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8577 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–90–M

Health Care Financing Administration

Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of

Disapproval of Utah State Plan

Amendment (SPA)

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Notice of hearing.

SUMMARY: This notice announces an

administrative hearing on May 17, 1995

in Room 578, 1961 Stout Street, Denver,

Colorado to reconsider our decision to

disapprove Utah SPA 93–033.

CLOSING DATE: Requests to participate in

the hearing as a party must be received

by the presiding officer by April 24,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Katz, Presiding Officer, Groundfloor,

Meadowwood East Building, 1849

Gwynn Oak Avenue, Baltimore,

Maryland 21207, telephone: (410) 597–

3013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice announces an administrative

hearing to reconsider our decision to

disapprove Utah State plan amendment

(SPA) number 93–033.

Section 1116 of the Social Security

Act (the Act) and 42 CFR part 430

establish Department procedures that

provide an administrative hearing for

reconsideration of a disapproval of a

State plan or plan amendment. The

Health Care Financing Administration

(HCFA) is required to publish a copy of

the notice to a State Medicaid agency

that informs the agency of the time and

place of the hearing and the issues to be

considered. If we subsequently notify

the agency of additional issues that will

be considered at the hearing, we will

also publish that notice.

Any individual or group that wants to

participate in the hearing as a party

must petition the presiding officer

within 15 days after publication of this

notice, in accordance with the

requirements contained at 42 CFR

430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or

organization that wants to participate as

amicus curiae must petition the

presiding officer before the hearing

begins in accordance with the

requirements contained at 42 CFR

430.76(c). If the hearing is later

rescheduled, the presiding officer will

notify all participants.

The State of Utah submitted SPA 93–

033 which proposed changes in an asset

test for poverty level pregnant women.

Specifically, Utah’s amendment

required certain poverty level pregnant

women who did not meet the resource

test to make a one-time payment equal

to 4 percent of the individual’s total

non-exempt resources. In addition,

Utah’s amendment would waive this

requirement for high risk pregnant

women.

The issues in this matter are whether

Utah SPA 93–033 adheres to the Federal

law at section 1902(a)(14) of the Act

(referencing section 1916 of the Act)

section 1902(l) and section 1902(a)(17).

Section 1902(a)(14) of the Act

specifies that enrollment fees,

premiums, deductions, cost sharing, or

similar charges may be imposed only as

provided in section 1916. Section

1916(a)(1) prohibits the application of

any enrollment fee with respect to the

categorically needy. It restricts States

from charging a premium for Medicaid

for the categorically needy. An

exception is made regarding poverty

level pregnant women with income at or

above 150 percent of the Federal

Poverty Level. For these women, the

amount of that premium is restricted to

10 percent of the amount by which the

family income (less expense for care of

a dependent child) exceeds 150 percent

of the poverty level. In addition, section

1916(a)(2)(B) prohibits States from

imposing any deduction, cost sharing or

similar charge with respect to services

furnished to pregnant women, provided

the services relate to the pregnancy or

a complicating condition. HCFA

disapproved Utah’s amendment finding

contrary to the statute’s prohibition on

imposing premiums (other than those

authorized in section 1916(c) of the Act)

enrollment fees, or similar charges on

categorically needy individuals.

Utah believes its proposed policy to

waive the resource spenddown for

pregnant women determined to be in

the high risk category is supported by

section 1902(1)(3) of the Act. Utah

believes this is the only statutory

authority over resource standards and

methodologies for poverty level

pregnant women. Utah also claims that

section 1902(a)(17) explicitly exempts

pregnant women from all requirements

in that section. HCFA did not agree with

Utah’s interpretation of the statute that

section 1902(l) exempts this group from

the comparability requirements in

section 1902(a)(17).

While HCFA acknowledges that

subsection (l)(3) exempts the States from

using a resource test for high-risk

pregnant women, this exemption does

not override the remainder of section

1902 (a)(17) which requires

comparability of services to all such

women. Utah cites the phrase, ‘‘except

as provided in subsections (l)(3), (m)(3),

and (m)(4) include reasonable standards

(which shall be comparable for all

groups * * *)’’ as a rationale for this

assertion. However, section 1902(1)(3)

applies only in cases in which its

application would be inconsistent with

the requirements of subsection (a)(17).

HCFA believed that subsection (l)(3)

authorizes States to establish a more

liberal resource standard or to drop the

resource test for all section 1902(l)(A)

pregnant women, but not to adopt either

of these approaches for a specific

segment of that group. While the goal of

removing barriers to ensure positive

birth outcomes is a shared one, HCFA

did not approve foregoing a resource

test exclusively for high-risk pregnant

women because they are not a separate

group described in section 1902(l).

Utah points out that subsection (l)(3)

prescribes that a resource standard or

methodology may not be more

restrictive than applied under Title XVI.

Utah also believes that exclusion of all

resources based upon the level of

medical risk factors is less restrictive

than Title XVI, and is also reasonable.

However, HCFA believed that section

1902(a)(17) is explicitly meant to be

inclusive of whole eligibility groups and

not portions of groups. HCFA contended

it cannot authorize a State to single out

any part of an eligibility group for

preferential treatment. HCFA’s position

was, in order to drop the resource test

for high risk pregnant women, the State

must do so for the entire poverty level

group of pregnant women.

The notice to Utah announcing an

administrative hearing to reconsider the

disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:

Mr. Rod L. Betit,

Executive Director, Utah Department of

Health, 288 North 1460 West, P.O. Box

16700, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116–0700.

Dear Mr. Betit: I am responding to your

request for reconsideration of the decision to

disapprove Utah State Plan Amendment

(SPA) 93–033.

The State of Utah submitted SPA 93–33

which proposed changes in an asset test for

poverty level pregnant women. Specifically,

Utah proposed policy regarding a one-time

payment equal to 4 percent of the

individual’s total non-exempt resources if