Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25345

Table 2 provides State totals for

proposed targeted assistance allocations.

TABLE 2.—TARGETED ASSISTANCE

PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS BY STATE:

FY 2000

State FY 2000

Arizona .................................. $1,214,851

California ............................... 7,073,745

Colorado ............................... 365,959

District of Columbia .............. 432,734

Florida ................................... 9,824,651

Georgia ................................. 1,588,505

Illinois .................................... 1,948,189

Iowa ...................................... 428,116

Kentucky ............................... 685,152

Massachusetts ...................... 792,418

Michigan ............................... 687,519

Minnesota ............................. 1,023,998

Missouri ................................ 1,019,144

Nebraska .............................. 289,002

Nevada ................................. 437,351

New Jersey ........................... 333,519

New Mexico .......................... 341,570

New York .............................. 6,174,890

North Carolina ...................... 289,831

North Dakota ........................ 212,637

Ohio ...................................... 427,998

Oregon .................................. 1,479,819

Pennsylvania ........................ 809,348

South Dakota ........................ 188,485

Tennesee .............................. 395,913

Texas .................................... 2,518,025

Utah ...................................... 608,432

Virginia .................................. 669,406

Washington ........................... 2,268,093

Total ............................... $44,529,300

VIII. Application and Implementation

Process

States that are currently operating

under approved management plans for

their FY 1999 targeted assistance

program and wish to continue to do so

for their FY 2000 grants may provide the

following in lieu of resubmitting the full

currently approved plan:

The State’s application for FY 2000

funding shall provide:

• Assurance that the State’s current

management plan for the administration

of the targeted assistance program, as

approved by ORR in FY 1999, will

continue to be in full force and effect for

the FY 2000 targeted assistance

program, subject to any additional

assurances or revisions required by this

notice which are not reflected in the

current plan. Any proposed

modifications to the approved plan will

be identified in the application and are

subject to ORR review and approval,

e.g., if the State assumes local

administration of the program or if the

State chooses to determine county

allocations differently. Any proposed

changes must address and reference all

appropriate portions of the FY 1999

application content requirements to

ensure complete incorporation in the

State’s management plan.

• A line item budget and justification

for State administrative costs limited to

a maximum of five percent of the total

award to the State. Each total budget

period funding amount requested must

be necessary, reasonable, and allocable

to the project.

• All applicants must submit targeted

assistance performance goals as

described under Section IX.

IX. Results or Benefits Expected

All applicants must establish targeted

assistance proposed performance goals

for each of the six ORR performance

outcome measures for each targeted

assistance county’s proposed service

contract(s) or sub-grants for the next

contracting cycle. Proposed

performance goals must be included in

the application for each performance

measure. The six ORR performance

measures are: entered employments,

cash assistance reductions due to

employment, cash assistance

terminations due to employment, 90-

day employment retentions, average

wage at placement, and job placements

with available health benefits. Targeted

assistance program activity and progress

achieved toward meeting performance

outcome goals are to be reported

quarterly on the ORR–6, the ‘‘Quarterly

Performance Report.’’

X. Reporting Requirements

States will be required to submit

quarterly reports on the outcomes of the

targeted assistance program, using the

same form which States use for

reporting on refugee social services

formula grants. This is Schedule A and

Schedule C, pages 1 and 2 of the ORR–

6 Quarterly Performance Report form

(OMB #0970–0036).

XI. The Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (Pub. L. 104–13)

This notice does not create any

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

requiring OMB clearance.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA) Number: 93.584

Dated: April 25, 2000.

Lavinia Limo ́n

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 00–10782 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and

Families

Refugee Resettlement Program:

Proposed Notice of Allocations to

States of FY 2000 Funds for Refugee

Social Services

AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed notice of allocations to

States of FY 2000 funds for refugee

social services.

SUMMARY: This notice establishes the

proposed allocations to States of FY

2000 funds for social services under the

Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). In

the final notice, allocation amounts

could be adjusted slightly based on final

adjustments in FY 1999 arrivals in some

States.

This notice includes a $15.5 million

set-aside to: (1) Provide outreach and

referral services to ensure that eligible

refugees access the State Children’s

Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)and

other programs for low income working

populations; and (2) provide specialized

interpreter training and the hiring of

interpreters to enable refugees to have

equal access to medical and legal

services.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by May 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address written comments,

in duplicate, to: Barbara R. Chesnik,

Office of Refugee Resettlement,

Administration for Children and

Families, 370 L’Enfant Promenade,

S.W., Washington, DC 20447.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara R. Chesnik, Division of Refugee

Self-Sufficiency, (202) 401–4558.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Amounts for Allocation

The Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR) has available $143,953,000 in FY

2000 refugee social service funds as part

of the FY 2000 appropriation for the

Department of Health and Human

Services (Pub. L. No. 106–113).

The FY 2000 House Appropriations

Committee Report (H.R. Rept. No. 106–

370) reads as follows with respect to

social services funds:

The bill provides $140,000,000 for social

services, about the same as the fiscal year

1999 appropriation and $7,990,000 below the

budget request. Funds are distributed by

formula as well as through the discretionary

grant making process for special projects. The

Committee agrees that $19,000,000 is

available for assistance to serve communities

affected by the Cuban and Haitian entrants

and refugees whose arrivals in recent years

have increased. The Committee has set aside

25346 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

$26,000,000 for increased support to

communities with large concentrations of

refugees whose cultural differences make

assimilation especially difficult justifying a

more intense level and longer duration of

Federal assistance. Finally, the Committee

has set aside $14,000,000 to address the

needs of refugees and communities impacted

by recent changes in Federal assistance

programs relating to welfare reform. The

Committee urges ORR to assist refugees at

risk of losing, or who have lost benefits,

including SSI, TANF and Medicaid, in

obtaining citizenship.

In addition, the House report provides:

It is estimated that approximately

$20,000,000 will be available in FY 2000

from carryover funds, and the Committee

intends that these funds be used under social

services to increase educational support to

schools with a significant proportion of

refugee children and for the development of

alternative cash assistance programs that

involve case management approaches to

improve resettlement outcomes. Such

support should include intensive English

language training and cultural assimilation

programs.

The FY 2000 Senate Appropriations

Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 106–

166) recommended $147,990,00 for

social services in the FY 2000 budget:

The Committee provides $19,000,000 to

serve communities affected by the Cuban and

Haitian entrants and refugees, the same as the

amount contained in last year’s

appropriation. The Committee also includes

$14,000,000 to address the needs of refugees

and communities affected by recent changes

in Federal assistance programs, and

$16,000,000 to assist communities with large

concentrations of refugees whose cultural

differences make assimilation difficult. These

funds are included in the social services line

item.

The FY 2000 Conference Report on

Appropriations (H.R. Conf. 106–479)

reads as follows concerning social

services:

The conference agreement includes

$20,000,000 from carryover funds that are to

be used under social services to increase

educational support to schools with a

significant proportion of refugee children and

for the development of alternative cash

assistance programs that involve case

management approaches to improve

resettlement outcomes. Such support should

include intensive English language training

and cultural assimilation programs.

The agreement also includes $26,000,000

for increased support to communities with

large concentrations of refugees whose

cultural differences make assimilation

especially difficult justifying a more intense

level and longer duration of Federal

assistance.

The Conference report provided

$143,995,000 in social services funds.

The Departments of Labor, Health,

and Human Services, and Education,

and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act (Pub L. No. 106–113, appendix E,

section 301) rescinded discretionary

budget authority government-wide by

.38 percent. Agencies, however, were

provided flexibility regarding how the

recission would be applied.

Accordingly, ORR’s total social services

appropriation was reduced from

$143,995,000 to $143,953,000. In

accordance with Congressional report

language, the Director of the Office of

Refugee Resettlement (ORR) proposes to

use the $143,953,000 appropriated for

FY 2000 social services as follows:

• $72,203,750 will be allocated under

the 3-year population formula, as set

forth in this notice for the purpose of

providing employment services and

other needed services to refugees.

• $12,749,250 will be awarded as

social service discretionary grants

through competitive grant

announcements that will be issued

separately from this notice.

• $19,000,000 will be awarded to

serve communities most heavily

affected by recent Cuban and Haitian

entrant and refugee arrivals. These

funds would be awarded through a

discretionary grant announcement that

will be issued separately from this

notice.

• $26,000,000 will be awarded

through discretionary grants for

communities with large concentrations

of refugees whose cultural differences

make assimilation especially difficult

justifying a more intense level and

longer duration of Federal assistance.

Awards will be made through

announcements issued separately from

this notice.

• $14,000,000 will be awarded to

address the needs of refugees and

communities impacted by recent

changes in Federal assistance programs

relating to welfare reform. Awards will

be made through announcements issued

separately from this notice.

• $20,000,000 will be awarded in

prior year funds to increase educational

support to schools with a significant

proportion of refugee children and for

the development of alternative cash

assistance programs that involve case

management approaches to improve

resettlement outcomes. This support

will include intensive English language

training and cultural assimilation

programs. Awards will be made through

an announcement issued separately

from this notice.

In addition, we are proposing to add

$15,500,000 in prior year funds to the

FY 2000 formula social services

allocation as a set-aside for referral and

interpreter services, increasing the total

amount available for the formula social

services program in FY 2000 to

$87,703,750.

Congress provided ORR with broad

carry-over authority in the FY 2000 HHS

appropriations law to use unexpended

FY 1998 and FY 1999 CMA funds for

assistance and other activities in the

refugee program provided through

September 30, 2001. The appropriations

law states:

That funds appropriated pursuant to

section 414(a) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act under Public Law 105–78 for

fiscal year 1998 and under Public Law 105–

227 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for

the costs of assistance provided and other

activities through September 30, 2001.

Refugee Social Service Funds

The population figures for the social

services allocation include refugees,

Cuban/Haitian entrants, Amerasians

from Vietnam, and Kurdish asylees

since these populations may be served

through funds addressed in this notice.

(A State must, however, have an

approved State plan for the Cuban/

Haitian Entrant Program or indicate in

its refugee program State plan that

Cuban/Haitian entrants will be served in

order to use funds on behalf of entrants

as well as refugees.) The Director is proposing to allocate

$72,203,750 to States on the basis of

each State’s proportion of the national

population of refugees who had been in

the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1,

1999 (including a floor amount for

States which have small refugee

populations). The use of the 3-year population base

in the allocation formula is required by

section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (INA) which states

that the ‘‘funds available for a fiscal year

for grants and contracts [for social

services] * * * shall be allocated among

the States based on the total number of

refugees (including children and adults)

who arrived in the United States not

more than 36 months before the

beginning of such fiscal year and who

are actually residing in each State

(taking into account secondary

migration) as of the beginning of the

fiscal year.’’ As established in the FY 1991 social

services notice published in the Federal

Register of August 29, 1991, section I,

‘‘Allocation Amounts’’ (56 FR 42745), a

variable floor amount for States which

have small refugee populations is

calculated as follows: If the application

of the regular allocation formula yields

less than $100,000, then—

(1) A base amount of $75,000 is

provided for a State with a population

of 50 or fewer refugees who have been

in the U.S. 3 years or less; and (2) For a State with more than 50

refugees who have been in the U.S. 3

years or less: (a) A floor has been

calculated consisting of $50,000 plus

the regular per capita allocation for

refugees above 50 up to a total of

$100,000 (in other words, the maximum

under the floor formula is $100,000); (b)

if this calculation has yielded less than

$75,000, a base amount of $75,000 is

provided for the State.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25347

The Director is also proposing to

allocate an additional $15.5 million

from prior year carry-over funds as a setaside to: (1) Provide referral services,

including outreach, to ensure that

refugees are able to access the State

Children’s Health Insurance Program

(SCHIP) and other programs for low

income populations; and (2) provide for

the hiring of interpreters and special

interpreter training to enable refugees to

have equal access to medical and certain

legal services. Depending upon the

existing capacity and need in the

community, we encourage States to use

the funds equally for both activities.

Both types of services are not subject to

the 5-year limitation and may be

provided to refugees regardless of their

length of time in the U.S. See 45 CFR

400.152(b).

Eligible refugee families often are not

aware of, or do not know how to access,

other Federal support programs

available to low income working

families in the community. We believe

that these programs, including SCHIP,

Food Stamps, Low Income Home Energy

Assistance Program (LIHEAP),

Medicaid, Head Start, low-income

housing, the Special Supplemental

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC), child care

assistance, adult day care for aged

dependents, and other support programs

for low-income families, are important

for the well-being of working refugees,

particularly refugee families, and are

necessary to help these refugees

maintain employment and move toward

full self-sufficiency.

The organizations funded by the setaside amount are expected to conduct

outreach into the community to identify

low-income refugees and to help these

refugees enroll in and to be familiar

with the services available and the

participation requirements of these

programs. We expect States to fund

community-based organizations, to the

maximum extent possible, to provide

hands-on assistance, which means

having the application forms available

and helping refugees to fill out the

application, accompanying the refugee

to the eligibility office, assisting in the

communication between the family and

the eligibility worker, closely following

the application process until the family

has been found eligible, and then

helping the family effectively use the

service or support program in which

they have been enrolled. For example,

there may be different levels of medical

coverage available to a family,

depending on the ages of the children

and the income level of the family, each

with different requirements. It is

important for the caseworkers/advocates

funded through this initiative to

understand the program requirements

(such as a co-payment structure) in

order to help the family make decisions

and fully participate.

The organizations funded under this

set-aside should develop effective ways

to provide an on-going link between

these services, the population they

serve, and the targeted low income

programs. Methods might include:

partnering with schools to identify

refugee children who may be eligible for

SCHIP by virtue of their eligibility for

the school lunch program; connecting

with local Head Start programs to help

identify refugee children who are

eligible for SCHIP and other health care

programs; arranging to have Medicaid

eligibility workers visit the Mutual

Assistance Association (MAA) or other

participating organization on a

scheduled basis; and working with other

groups serving low income families,

such as hospitals, WIC programs, lowincome housing programs, and food

assistance programs to make these

services widely known to the refugee

community being served.

It is also important that States provide

as high a standard as possible in

interpretation to non-English speaking

and to Limited-English-Proficient (LEP)

refugees, particularly in regard to

medical and legal issues. As mentioned

earlier, we are therefore including

funding in the set-aside for States to

improve the availability and quality of

interpreter services for refugees in their

communities. The set-aside funds are to

be used by States: (1) To fund

specialized interpreter training for

medical and legal services; and (2) to

pay for the hiring and employment of

these trained interpreters by MAAs,

voluntary agencies, and other

community-based organizations serving

refugees, to the maximum extent

possible, in order to increase the

number of skilled interpreters in the

community.

Interpretation requires a great deal of

skill—interpreters need to be fluent in

English and the language spoken by the

refugee. They must have the ability to

quickly understand the message and

terminology, if technical, in one

language and to express it as quickly

and correctly in another language. In

addition to fluency in two languages,

interpreters must have the skills to

handle confidential client information

and to deal with a variety of

professionals in the medical, legal, law

enforcement, social services, and other

fields.

States should use qualified training

programs or trainers to provide the

interpreter training. Several strategies

may be employed, e.g., the direct

training of interpreters in a group

setting, paying the course tuition and

associated expenses for individuals at a

community college or university, and

the training of trainers in order to

establish and maintain an efficient

training capacity in the community. To

the extent possible, we would expect

States to use an established curriculum

rather than incurring costs to develop a

new one. Funding of interpreter services

should be directed to areas of greatest

need and to the most linguistically

isolated communities.

States must determine a community’s

capacity to ensure refugee access to

medical and other services, and then

examine how best to fund and maintain

interpreter services for refugees based

upon the need and size of refugee

population. For example, an interpreter

bank with dedicated interpreters may be

a preferred option if the needs of the

community can justify full-time

interpreters. However, because the

provision of interpreter services may not

fully occupy funded staff in some

locations or in certain languages, States

may choose to train bilingual

caseworkers at voluntary resettlement

agencies, MAAs and refugee service

providers. States may also consider

cross-training of interpreters so that they

may also assist, for example, in

enrolling clients in SCHIP, Medicaid, or

other services for low-income clients,

and/or serve as case managers or in

other staff positions. Staff with both

bilingual interpreter skills and

knowledge of the family services

network, such as child protective

services and the domestic violence

system, are also highly desirable.

We also encourage States to set up

creative ways to maintain and expand

the availability of interpreter services in

the community, such as seeking

reimbursement for services from the

courts, hospitals, and agencies which

may be able to pay for interpreter

services but have been otherwise

hindered in providing these services by

the lack of available and appropriately

trained individuals. Fees from lowincome refugee clients, however, may

not be sought.

In light of the unique position that

refugee MAAs have in the communities

where refugees reside, we are asking

that States give special consideration to

MAAs in using the set-aside amount,

where possible, to provide these

services to refugee families. However,

qualified community based

organizations with refugee experience,

voluntary resettlement agencies, or

refugee service providers may be funded

as well.

25348 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

A State that can demonstrate that the

total amount of set-aside funds awarded

is not needed to provide the services

described above may submit a written

request to the Director to use a portion

of the funds for another nonemployment service. This request must

fully describe how the need for the

specified set-aside services is already

being met in the State, as well as a

description of the additional service

proposed, why it is needed, and how it

will be provided.

Population To Be Served and Allowable

Services

Eligibility for refugee social services

includes persons who meet all

requirements of 45 CFR 400.43 (as

amended by 65 FR 15409 (March

22,2000)) and 45 CFR 401.2 (Cuban and

Haitian entrants).

Services to refugees must be provided

in accordance with the rules of 45 CFR

Part 400 Subpart I—Refugee Social

Services. Although the allocation

formula is based on the 3-year refugee

population, States are not required to

limit social service programs to refugees

who have been in the U.S. only 3 years.

However, under 45 CFR 400.152, States

may not provide services funded by this

notice, except for referral and

interpreter services and citizenship and

naturalization preparation services, to

refugees who have been in the United

States for more than 60 months (5

years).

Allowable social services are those

indicated in 45 CFR 400.154 and

400.155. Additional services not

included in these sections which the

State may wish to provide must be

submitted to and approved by the

Director of ORR (§ 400.155(h)).

Service Priorities

In the past, a number of States have

focused primarily on serving refugee

cash assistance (RCA) recipients

because of the need to help these

refugees become employed and selfsufficient within the 8-month RCA

eligibility period. Now, with the passage

of welfare reform, refugee recipients of

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) also face a time limit

for cash assistance and need appropriate

services as quickly as possible to

become employed and self-sufficient. In

order for refugees to move quickly off

TANF, we believe it is crucial for these

refugees to receive refugee-specific

services that are designed to address the

employment barriers that refugees

typically face.

Some States are doing remarkably

well in helping refugees achieve selfsufficiency. For this reason, this may be

a good time for these States to reexamine the range of services they

currently offer to refugees and expand

the range of services beyond

employment services to address the

broader needs that refugees have in

order to successfully integrate into the

community.

States should also expect that these

funds will be made available to pay for

social services which are provided to

refugees who participate in Wilson/Fish

projects. Section 412(e)(7)(A) of the INA

provides that:

The Secretary [of HHS] shall develop and

implement alternative projects for refugees

who have been in the United States less than

thirty-six months, under which refugees are

provided interim support, medical services,

support [social] services, and case

management, as needed, in a manner that

encourages self-sufficiency, reduces welfare

dependency, and fosters greater coordination

among the resettlement agencies and service

providers.

This provision is generally known as

the Wilson/Fish Amendment. The

Department has already issued a

separate notice in the Federal Register

with respect to applications for such

projects (64 FR 19793, April 22, 1999).

II. (Reserved for Discussion of

Comments in Final Notice)

III. Allocation Formulas

Of the funds available for FY 2000 for

social services, $72,203,750 is allocated

to States in accordance with the formula

specified below. In addition, $15.5

million in set-aside funds are allocated

in accordance with the formula

specified below. A State’s allowable

allocation is calculated as follows:

1. The total amount of funds

determined by the Director to be

available for this purpose; divided by—

2. The total number of refugees,

Cuban/Haitian entrants, Amerasians

from Vietnam, and Kurdish asylees who

arrived in the United States not more

than 3 years prior to the beginning of

the fiscal year for which the funds are

appropriated, as shown by the ORR

Refugee Data System. The resulting per

capita amount is multiplied by—

3. The number of persons in item 2,

above, in the State as of October 1, 1999,

adjusted for estimated secondary

migration.

The calculation above yields the

formula allocation for each State.

Minimum allocations for small States

are taken into account.

IV. Basis of Population Estimates

The population estimates for the

allocation of funds in FY 2000 are based

on data on refugee arrivals from the

ORR Refugee Data System, adjusted as

of October 1, 1999, for estimated

secondary migration. The data base

includes refugees of all nationalities,

Amerasians from Vietnam, Cuban and

Haitian entrants, and Kurdish asylees.

For fiscal year 2000, ORR’s proposed

formula allocations for the States for

social services are based on the numbers

of refugees, Amerasians, Kurdish

asylees, and entrants who arrived

during the preceding three fiscal years:

1997, 1998, and 1999, based on arrival

data by State. Therefore, estimates have

been developed of the numbers of

refugees and entrants with arrival or

resettlement dates between October 1,

1996, and September 30, 1999, who are

thought to be living in each State as of

October 1, 1999.

The estimates of secondary migration

were based on data submitted by all

participating States on Form ORR–11 on

secondary migrants who have resided in

the U.S. for 36 months or less, as of

September 30, 1999. The total migration

reported by each State was summed,

yielding in-and out-migration figures

and a net migration figure for each State.

The net migration figure was applied to

the State’s total arrival figure, resulting

in a revised population estimate.

Estimates were developed separately

for refugees and entrants and then

combined into a total estimated 3-year

refugee/entrant population for each

State. Eligible Amerasians and Kurdish

asylees are included in the refugee

figures.

Havana parolees (HP’s) are

enumerated in a separate column in

Table 1, below because they are

tabulated separately from other entrants.

For FY 1999, Havana parolee arrivals for

all States are based on actual data. For

FY 1998, Florida’s HP’s (10,183) are

based on actual data, while HP’s in

other States (3,258) are prorated

according to the States proportion of the

three-year ((FY 1996–FY 1998) entrant

populations. For FY 1997, Florida’s

HP’s (3,957) are based on actual data,

while HP’s in other States (2,035) were

prorated according to their proportions

of the three-year entrant population.

If a State does not agree with ORR’s

population estimate and wishes ORR to

reconsider its population estimate, it

should submit written evidence to ORR,

including a list of refugees identified by

name, alien number, date of birth, and

date of arrival. Listings of refugees who

are not identified by their alien number

will not be considered. Such evidence

should be submitted separately from

comments on the proposed allocation

formula no later than 30 days from the

date of publication of this notice and

should be addressed to: Loren Bussert,

Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25349

Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370

L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington,

DC 20447, Telephone: (202) 401–4732.

Table 1, below, shows the estimated

3-year populations, as of October 1,

1999, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col.

2), Havana parolees (col. 3); total

refugee/entrant population, (col. 4); the

proposed formula amounts which the

population estimates yield (col. 5); the

proposed allocation amounts after

allowing for the minimum amounts (col.

6); the proposed set-aside amount (col.

7); and the proposed total allocation

(col. 8).

V. Proposed Allocation Amounts

Funding subsequent to the

publication of this notice will be

contingent upon the submittal and

approval of a State annual services plan

that is developed on the basis of a local

consultative process, as required by 45

CFR 400.11(b)(2) in the ORR

regulations.

The following amounts are for

allocation for refugee social services in

FY 2000:

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED THREE-YEAR REFUGEE/ENTRANT POPULATIONS OF STATES PARTICIPATING IN THE REFUGEE

PROGRAM AND PROPOSED SOCIAL SERVICE FORMULA AMOUNT AND PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 2000—

State Refugees 1

(1)

Entrants

(2)

Havana

parolees 2

(3)

Total

population

(4)

Proposed formula amount

(5)

Proposed

allocation

(6)

Set-aside Total proposed

allocation

Alabama ........... 570 4 69 643 $162,891 $162,891 $35,145 $198,036

Alaska 3 ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arizona ............. 7,141 367 292 7,800 1,975,977 1,975,977 426,326 2,402,303

Arkansas .......... 64 0 10 74 18,746 75,000 4,045 79,045

California .......... 30,770 41 476 31,287 7,925,949 7,925,949 1,710,058 9,636,007

Colorado ........... 3,402 3 6 3,411 864,110 864,110 186,435 1,050,545

Connecticut ...... 3,084 19 150 3,253 824,084 824,084 177,800 1,001,884

Delaware .......... 74 7 2 83 21,026 75,000 4,537 79,537

Dist. of Columbia ................. 1,666 1 10 1,677 424,835 424,835 91,660 516,495

Florida .............. 12,854 7,288 27,085 47,227 11,964,036 11,964,036 2,581,293 14,545,329

Georgia ............ 10,578 18 129 10,725 2,716,969 2,716,969 586,198 3,303,167

Hawaii .............. 100 0 0 100 25,333 75,000 5,466 80,466

Idaho 4 .............. 2,045 0 0 2,045 518,061 518,061 111,774 629,835

Illinois ............... 12,003 7 239 12,249 3,103,044 3,103,044 669,495 3,772,539

Indiana ............. 1,750 0 11 1,761 446,115 446,115 96,251 542,366

Iowa .................. 6,075 0 4 6,079 1,539,996 1,539,996 332,261 1,872,257

Kansas ............. 868 0 8 876 221,917 221,917 47,880 269,797

Kentucky 5 ........ 3,675 918 503 5,096 1,290,972 1,290,972 278,533 1,569,505

Louisiana .......... 1,495 57 93 1,645 416,729 416,729 89,911 506,640

Maine ............... 638 0 0 638 161,625 161,625 34,871 196,496

Maryland .......... 2,755 6 61 2,822 714,898 714,898 154,242 869,140

Massachusetts 6,711 67 99 6,877 1,742,153 1,742,153 375,877 2,118,030

Michigan ........... 8,433 432 263 9,128 2,312,400 2,312,400 498,910 2,811,310

Minnesota ......... 8,362 0 10 8,372 2,120,882 2,120,882 457,590 2,578,472

Mississippi ........ 116 2 11 129 32,680 75,000 7,051 82,051

Missouri ............ 7,553 2 16 7,571 1,917,965 1,917,965 413,809 2,331,774

Montana ........... 59 0 0 59 14,946 75,000 3,225 78,225

Nebraska .......... 2,338 4 30 2,372 600,900 600,900 129,647 730,547

Nevada 5 ........... 1,077 520 479 2,076 525,914 525,914 113,468 639,382

New Hampshire 1,496 0 0 1,496 378,982 378,982 81,767 460,749

New Jersey ...... 3,327 167 801 4,295 1,088,054 1,088,054 234,752 1,322,806

New Mexico ..... 460 256 375 1,091 276,383 276,383 59,631 336,014

New York ......... 26,881 818 692 28,391 7,192,304 7,192,304 1,551,771 8,744,075

North Carolina .. 3,860 3 39 3,902 988,495 988,495 213,272 1,201,767

North Dakota .... 1,509 0 1 1,510 382,529 382,529 82,532 465,061

Ohio .................. 4,285 5 36 4,326 1,095,907 1,095,907 236,447 1,332,354

Oklahoma ......... 501 0 9 510 129,199 129,199 27,875 157,074

Oregon ............. 4,881 285 266 5,432 1,376,091 1,376,091 296,898 1,672,989

Pennsylvania .... 7,532 62 201 7,795 1,974,711 1,974,711 426,052 2,400,763

Rhode Island .... 397 1 6 404 102,345 102,345 22,081 124,426

South Carolina 268 1 9 278 70,426 100,000 15,195 115,195

South Dakota 5 1,037 0 0 1,037 262,704 262,704 56,679 319,383

Tennessee ....... 3,767 4 140 3,911 990,775 990,775 213,764 1,204,539

Texas ............... 12,944 637 622 14,203 3,598,052 3,598,052 776,295 4,374,347

Utah .................. 3,526 0 2 3,528 893,750 893,750 192,830 1,086,580

Vermont ............ 1,048 0 0 1,048 265,490 265,490 57,281 322,771

Virginia ............. 4,538 101 111 4,750 1,203,320 1,203,320 259,621 1,462,941

Washington ...... 17,779 4 41 17,824 4,515,362 4,515,362 974,209 5,489,571

West Virginia .... 16 0 0 16 4,053 75,000 875 75,875

Wisconsin ......... 1,755 2 7 1,764 446,875 446,875 96,415 543,290

Wyoming 3 ........ 0 0 0 0 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .......... 238,063 12,109 33,414 283,586 71,840,960 72,203,750 15,500,000 87,703,750

1 Includes: refugees, Kurdish asylees, and Amerasian immigrants from Vietnam adjusted for secondary migration.

25350 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

2For FY 1999, Havana Parolee arrivals for all States are based on actual data. For FY 1998, Florida’s HP’s (10,183) are based on actual data,

while HP’s in other States (3,258) are prorated according to the State’s proportion of the three-year (FY 1996-FY 1998) entrant population. For

FY 1997, Florida’s HP’s (3,957) are based on actual data, while HP’s in other States (2,035) were prorated according to their proportions of the

three-year entrant population. 3Alaska and Wyoming no longer participate in the Refugee Program.

4The allocation for Idaho is expected to be awarded to the State replacement designee.

5The allocations for South Dakota, Kentucky, and Nevada are expected to be awarded to Wilson/Fish projects.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice does not create any

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

requiring OMB clearance.

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

93.566 Refugee Assistance—State

Administered Programs]

Dated: April 25, 2000.

Lavinia Limo ́n,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 00–10783 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration

Current List of Laboratories Which

Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in

Urine Drug Testing for Federal

Agencies, and Laboratories That Have

Withdrawn From the Program

AGENCY: Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and

Human Services notifies Federal

agencies of the laboratories currently

certified to meet standards of Subpart C

of Mandatory Guidelines for Federal

Workplace Drug Testing Programs (59

FR 29916, 29925). A similar notice

listing all currently certified laboratories

will be published during the first week

of each month, and updated to include

laboratories which subsequently apply

for and complete the certification

process. If any listed laboratory’s

certification is totally suspended or

revoked, the laboratory will be omitted

from updated lists until such time as it

is restored to full certification under the

Guidelines.

If any laboratory has withdrawn from

the National Laboratory Certification

Program during the past month, it will

be listed at the end, and will be omitted

from the monthly listing thereafter.

This Notice is available on the

internet at the following website:

http://wmcare.samhsa.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.

Giselle Hersh or Dr. Walter Vogl,

Division of Workplace Programs, 5600

Fishers Lane, Rockwall 2 Building,

Room 815, Rockville, Maryland 20857;

Tel.: (301) 443–6014, Fax: (301) 443–

3031.

Special Note: Please use the above address

for all surface mail and correspondence. For

all overnight mail service use the following

address: Division of Workplace Programs,

5515 Security Lane, Room 815, Rockville,

Maryland 20852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Mandatory Guidelines for Federal

Workplace Drug Testing were developed

in accordance with Executive Order

12564 and section 503 of Pub. L. 100–

71. Subpart C of the Guidelines,

‘‘Certification of Laboratories Engaged

in Urine Drug Testing for Federal

Agencies,’’ sets strict standards which

laboratories must meet in order to

conduct urine drug testing for Federal

agencies. To become certified an

applicant laboratory must undergo three

rounds of performance testing plus an

on-site inspection. To maintain that

certification a laboratory must

participate in a quarterly performance

testing program plus periodic, on-site

inspections.

Laboratories which claim to be in the

applicant stage of certification are not to

be considered as meeting the minimum

requirements expressed in the HHS

Guidelines. A laboratory must have its

letter of certification from SAMHSA,

HHS (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which

attests that it has met minimum

standards.

In accordance with Subpart C of the

Guidelines, the following laboratories

meet the minimum standards set forth

in the Guidelines:

ACL Laboratories, 8901 W. Lincoln Ave.,

West Allis, WI 53227, 414–328–7840/800–

877–7016, (Formerly: Bayshore Clinical

Laboratory)

Advanced Toxicology Network, 3560 Air

Center Cove, Suite 101, Memphis, TN

38118, 901–794–5770/888–290–1150

Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., 345 Hill

Ave., Nashville, TN 37210, 615–255–2400

Alabama Reference Laboratories, Inc., 543

South Hull St., Montgomery, AL 36103,

800–541–4931/334–263–5745

Alliance Laboratory Services, 3200 Burnet

Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45229, 513–585–

9000, (Formerly: Jewish Hospital of

Cincinnati, Inc.)

American Medical Laboratories, Inc., 14225

Newbrook Dr., Chantilly, VA 20151, 703–

802–6900

Associated Pathologists Laboratories, Inc.,

4230 South Burnham Ave., Suite 250, Las

Vegas, NV 89119–5412, 702–733–7866/

800–433–2750

Baptist Medical Center—Toxicology

Laboratory, 9601 I–630, Exit 7, Little Rock,

AR 72205–7299, 501–202–2783, (Formerly:

Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist

Medical Center)

Clinical Reference Lab, 8433 Quivira Rd.,

Lenexa, KS 66215–2802, 800–445–6917

Cox Health Systems, Department of

Toxicology, 1423 North Jefferson Ave.,

Springfield, MO 65802, 800–876–3652/

417–269–3093, (Formerly: Cox Medical

Centers)

Dept. of the Navy, Navy Drug Screening

Laboratory, Great Lakes, IL, P. O. Box 88–

6819, Great Lakes, IL 60088–6819, 847–

688–2045/847–688–4171

Diagnostic Services Inc., dba DSI, 12700

Westlinks Drive, Fort Myers, FL 33913,

941–561–8200/800–735–5416

Doctors Laboratory, Inc., P.O. Box 2658, 2906

Julia Dr., Valdosta, GA 31604, 912–244–

4468

DrugProof, Division of Dynacare/Laboratory

of Pathology, LLC, 1229 Madison St., Suite

500, Nordstrom Medical Tower, Seattle,

WA 98104, 206–386–2672/800–898–0180,

(Formerly: Laboratory of Pathology of

Seattle, Inc., DrugProof, Division of

Laboratory of Pathology of Seattle, Inc.)

DrugScan, Inc., P.O. Box 2969, 1119 Mearns

Rd., Warminster, PA 18974, 215–674–9310

Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories *,

14940–123 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada T5V 1B4, 80–451–3702/800–661–

9876

ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park

Dr., Oxford, MS 38655, 601–236–2609

Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories *, A

Division of the Gamma-Dynacare

Laboratory Partnership, 245 Pall Mall St.,

London, ON Canada N6A 1P4, 519–679–

1630

General Medical Laboratories, 36 South

Brooks St., Madison, WI 53715, 608–267–

6267

Hartford Hospital Toxicology Laboratory, 80

Seymour St., Hartford, CT 06102–5037,

860–545–6023

Integrated Regional Laboratories, 5361 NW

33rd Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309,

954–777–0018, 800–522–0232, (Formerly:

Cedars Medical Center, Department of

Pathology)

Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., 1111

Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504–361–

8989/800–433–3823, (Formerly: Laboratory

Specialists, Inc.)

LabOne, Inc., 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa,

KS 66219, 913–888–3927/800–728–4064,

(Formerly: Center for Laboratory Services,

a Division of LabOne, Inc.)

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,

1904 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle

Park, NC 27709, 919–572–6900/800–833–

3984, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational

Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem

Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem

Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche