Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19283

The following applicant has applied

for permits to conduct certain activities

with endangered species. This notice is

provided pursuant to section 10(c) of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.):

Applicant: Assistant Regional

Director, Ecological Services, Region 3,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort

Snelling, Minnesota.

Permit No. PRT–697830

The applicant requests an amendment

to their current permit to take the

following species for scientific purposes

and the enhancement of propagation or

survival in accordance with recovery

outlines, recovery plans, listing, or other

Service work for those species.

1. Clubshell (Pleurobema clava)

2. Cracking pearly mussel (Hemistena

(=Lastena) lata)

3. Ring pink (=golf stick pearly) mussel

(Obovaria retusa)

4. Purple cat’s paw pearly mussel

(Epioblasma (=Dysnomia) obliquata

obliquata (=E. sulcata sulcata))

5. Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma

torulosa rangiana)

6. Hungerford’s crawling water beetle

(Brychius hungerfordi)

7. Hine’s emerald dragonfly

(Somatochlora hineana)

Documents and other information

submitted with these applications are

available to the public during normal

business hours (7:30 a.m.—4 p.m.) in

Room 650, Bishop Henry Whipple

Federal Building, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Division of Endangered

Species, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling,

Minnesota 55111–4056.

Interested persons may comment on

any of these applications within 30 days

of the date of this publication by

submitting written views, arguments, or

data to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Region 3, 1

Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

55111–4056. Please refer to PRT–697830

when submitting comments.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

William F. Hartwig,

Regional Director, Region 3, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

[FR Doc. 95–9339 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Record of Decision for a Final

Supplemental Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement

(SPEIS) on the Federal Aid in Sport

Fish Restoration and Federal Aid in

Wildlife Restoration Programs

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

has selected the No Change Alternative

for its operation of the Sport Fish

Restoration and Wildlife Restoration

Programs into the next century. This

decision was based on the Service

analysis of the program contained in a

SPEIS to augment the Program

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

published in 1978 and comments

received from the public regarding that

SPEIS.

ADDRESSES: Columbus H. Brown, Chief,

Division of Federal Aid, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Arlington Square

Building, Room 140, 4401 North Fairfax

Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Columbus H. Brown, Chief, Division of

Federal Aid, Telephone (703) 358–2156.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Federal Aid in Sport Fish and

Wildlife Restoration Program was

initiated with the passage of the Federal

Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16

U.S.C. 669 et seq.) in 1937. This Act has

been commonly referred to as the

Pittman-Robertson Act in honor of the

sponsors of the Act. The purpose of the

Act was to provide a stable and secure

source of funding to the States for the

management, conservation, and

enhancement of wildlife species. The

Act was passed in response to dramatic

declines in the populations of a number

of game species and was originally

intended as a mechanism to restore

those populations to healthy levels.

Funding for the Wildlife Restoration

Program is derived from Federal excise

taxes on sporting arms, ammunition,

and certain archery equipment.

The Wildlife Restoration Act

authorizes the Service to deduct a

maximum of 8 percent of the funds for

administration of the Act and for

carrying out the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act. After making

administrative deductions, the

remaining funds are apportioned to the

States based on the geographic area,

number of hunting license holders, and

State population. Guam, Puerto Rico,

the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,

and the Northern Mariana Islands,

receive a fixed percentage of the funds

apportioned. Funds apportioned under

the Wildlife Restoration Program for

fiscal year 1994 came to a total of

$182,081,117.

While the Wildlife Restoration Act

was specifically directed toward

developing funds for wildlife

management, it served as the pattern for

a similar funding mechanism directed at

fisheries management. In 1950, the

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration

Act (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.), commonly

called the Dingell-Johnson Act was

passed. The legislation was further

augmented by the Wallop-Breaux

amendment of 1984, providing

additional funds. The Sport Fish

Restoration Program provides stable

funding for restoration, conservation,

management and enhancement of sport

fish, and the provision of benefits from

these resources to the public; improved

boating access; and aquatic resource

education. Funds provided by this Act

are derived from Federal excise taxes on

fishing tackle and related equipment,

federal taxes on gasoline used in

motorboats, duties on imported boats,

and fishing tackle, and interest earned

on investment of these funds.

Sport Fish Restoration Program funds

are apportioned based on the number of

fishing license holders and the

geographic area of each State. Puerto

Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,

American Samoa, the Northern Mariana

Islands, and the District of Columbia

receive a fixed percentage of the funds

apportioned. The Service may deduct

up to 6 percent for administration of the

Act. State funds apportioned under the

Sport Fish Restoration program for fiscal

year 1994 came to a total of

$174,628,718.

The mentioned Act form the basis of

the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and

Wildlife Restoration Program, or the

Federal Aid Program (Program). The

Program is administered by the

Service’s Division of Federal Aid

(Division). The Division’s mission is to

strengthen the ability of State and

Territorial fish and wildlife agencies to

restore and manage fish and wildlife

resources to meet effectively the

consumptive and nonconsumptive

needs of the public for fish and wildlife

resources.

Alternatives Considered

Five alternatives, listed below, were

considered in the SPEIS. Each

alternative was developed by Service,

State, and public inputs and focuses on

the needs and direction of the Federal

Aid Program into the next century.

Under each of these alternatives, the

basic core of Program activities would

continue as it is at present with gradual

changes in emphasis in response to

public interest and need.

Alternative 1—No Change to the

Existing Program Direction. Continue

current administration and activities.

Alternative 2—Emphasis on National

and Regional Priorities. Encourage

States to consider funding projects

contributing to national or regional
19284 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

priorities that are cooperatively

identified by the States and the Service

in consultation with the public.

Alternative 3—Emphasis on

Additional Funding for Biodiversity and

Watchable Wildlife Projects. States will

be provided an expanded funding base

for use on biodiversity and watchable

wildlife enhancement projects.

Alternative 4—Increase

Administrative Flexibility of States.

Increased responsiveness to State needs,

such as administrative flexibility,

aquatic education expansion, and adult

education for wildlife programs.

Alternative 5—Eliminate Most Service

Overview of States. Propose legislation

and policy changes to eliminate most

Service overview of State projects

including project approval. States

would be provided program rules,

general guidance, and apportionment of

funds. States would provide reports of

accomplishments and would be

periodically monitored by the Service.

Decision

Alternative 1, ‘‘No Change to the

Existing Program Direction’’ was

selected by the Service for future

administration of the Program. This

selection was made in response to

overwhelming support of the existing

program by respondents to the draft

document issued in November 1993.

The majority of comments received

during the comment period expressed

the opinions that the Program was

working well and urged the Service not

to make changes. Most persons

commented that States are in the best

position to assess the needs of citizens

for fish and wildlife resources and that

the Federal Government should not get

more involved in establishing priorities

for State projects. The Service is

convinced that the existing Program is

effectively meeting the needs of hunters,

anglers, boaters, and other users of the

nation’s fish and wildlife resources and

does not plan to change the way the

Program is administered.

Significant Issues Raised

After the final SPEIS was distributed

to the public in December 1994, several

parties asked that the Service adopt a

more flexible policy relating to projects

to educate State employees. Currently,

employees that are actively working on

Federally funded projects may be

trained using Program funds, but

training of employees not working on

active projects may not be funded. The

Service intends to explore the need for

this change with the States

independently of this Record of

Decision.

No other significant issues were

raised during review of the Final SPEIS.

Because the Final SPEIS adopted the

preferred alternative suggested by most

public comments, the few public

comments on the final draft were

supportive.

Copies Are Available

Copies of the Final SPEIS are

available from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Division of Federal

Aid, Arlington Square Building, MS–

140, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia, 22203, during

normal working hours. Telephone (703)

358–2156.

Dated: March 22, 1995.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9414 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

National Park Service

Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal

National Heritage Corridor

Commission; Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces an

upcoming meeting of the Delaware and

Lehigh Navigation Canal National

Heritage Corridor Commission. Notice

of this meeting is required under the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public

Law 92–463).

MEETING DATE AND TIME: Wednesday,

April 19, 1995; 1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Aldie Mansion, 85 Old

Dublin Pike, Doylestown, PA 18901.

The agenda for the meeting will focus

on implementation of the Management

Action Plan for the Delaware and

Lehigh Canal National Heritage Corridor

and State Heritage Park. The

Commission was established to assist

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and

its political subdivisions in planning

and implementing an integrated strategy

for protecting and promoting cultural,

historic and natural resources. The

Commission reports to the Secretary of

the Interior and to Congress.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal

National Heritage Corridor Commission

was established by Public Law 100–692,

November 18, 1988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Acting Executive Director, Delaware and

Lehigh Navigation Canal National

Heritage Corridor Commission, 10 E.

Church Street, Room P–208, Bethlehem,

PA 18018, (610) 861–9345.

Dated: April 6, 1995.

Donald M. Bernhard,

Chairman, Delaware and Lehigh Navigation

Canal NHC Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–9338 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

United States v. Motorola, Inc. and

Nextel Communications, Inc.; Public

Comments and Response on Proposed

Final Judgment

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h),

the United States publishes below the

comments received on the proposed

Final Judgment in United States of

America v. Motorola, Inc. and Nextel

Communications, Inc., Civil Action No.

1:94CV02331, filed in the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia, together with the response of

the United States to the comments.

Copies of the response and the public

comments are available on request for

inspection and copying in room 3233 of

the Antitrust Division, United States

Department of Justice, Tenth Street and

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530, and for

inspection at the Office of the Clerk of

the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, United States

Courthouse, Third Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20001.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

Response to Public Comments to the

Proposed Final Judgment

[Case No. 1:94CV02331]

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16 (b)–(h) (‘‘APPA’’), the

United States of America hereby files its

Response to Public Comments to the

proposed Final Judgment in this civil

antitrust proceeding. The United States

has reviewed the comments on the

proposed Final Judgment and remains

convinced that entry of the proposed

Final Judgment is in the public interest.

I. Summary of Proceedings

This proceeding relates to the

proposed consolidation of the trunked

specialized mobile radio (‘‘SMR’’)

businesses of Nextel Communications,

Inc. (‘‘Nextel’’) and Motorola, Inc.

(‘‘Motorola’’), the two largest providers

of those services in the United States.

This transaction is part of Nextel’s