36210 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

Exchange believes that proposed new

Rule 757’s requirement that Exchange

members and organizations report

securities accounts to the Exchange

should provide the Exchange with the

capability to monitor and investigate

quickly the trading of securities by

personnel that trade on the equity,

options, and foreign currency floors of

the Exchange.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

section 6 of the Act 7 in general, and

furthers the objectives of section

6(b)(5) 8 in particular, in that it is

designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, and to

protect investors and the public interest

by requiring disclosure of securities

accounts in which Exchange members

have a financial interest or power to

make investment decisions.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

The Exchange did not solicit or

receive written comments on the

proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register or within such longer period (i)

as the Commission may designate up to

90 days of such date if it finds such

longer period to be appropriate and

publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii) as to which the Exchange consents,

the Commission will:

(A) By order approve such proposed

rule change, or

(B) Institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of

the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the Exchange. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–Phlx–00–07 and should be

submitted by June 28, 2000.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–14261 Filed 6–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3256]

State of Oklahoma

Creek County and the contiguous

counties of Lincoln, Okfuskee,

Okmulgee, Osage, Pawnee, Payne, and

Tulsa in the State of Oklahoma

constitute a disaster area as a result of

damages caused by severe

thunderstorms, rain, and flooding that

occurred May 5–8, 2000. Applications

for loans for physical damage as a result

of this disaster may be filed until the

close of business on July 24, 2000 and

for economic injury until the close of

business on February 26, 2001 at the

address listed below or other locally

announced locations: U.S. Small

Business Administration, Disaster Area

3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite

102, Ft. Worth, TX 76155.

The interest rates are:

(Percent)

For Physical Damage:

Homeowners with credit available elsewhere .................... 7.375

Homeowners without credit

available elsewhere ............. 3.687

Businesses with credit available elsewhere .................... 8.000

(Percent)

Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit

available elsewhere ............. 4.000

Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit

available elsewhere ............. 6.750

For Economic Injury:

Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without

credit available elsewhere ... 4.000

The numbers assigned to this disaster

are 325606 for physical damage and

9H4300 for economic injury.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008).

Dated: May 25, 2000.

Aida Alvarez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–14224 Filed 6–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Administrative Review Process, Test of

the Elimination of the Fourth Step of

Administrative Review in the Disability

Claim Process (Request for Review by

the Appeals Council) in Conjunction

With Testing of Modifications to the

Disability Determination Procedures;

Disability Claims Process Redesign

Prototype

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of a test.

SUMMARY: The Social Security

Administration (SSA) is announcing a

test of the elimination of the fourth step

of administrative review in the

disability claim process (Request for

Review by the Appeals Council) in

conjunction with the present disability

prototype test. Before making any

decisions on the merits of the

elimination of the request for review,

SSA must obtain valid and reliable data

on the effects of such elimination—

including the impact it may have on

agency operations, notices and other

procedures, rates of filing to Federal

District Courts, and quality and

timeliness of service to the public.

DATES: Cases to be included in the test

of the elimination of the Request for

Review will be selected from those

prototype case requests for hearing

which are received in servicing hearing

offices on or after June 1, 2000, or the

date of this notice—whichever is later;

and in which an initial application for

Social Security Disability Insurance or

Supplemental Security Income

Disability Benefits was filed effective

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36211

between and including January 1, 2000

and July 31, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Georgia E. Myers, Regulations Officer,

Office of Process and Innovation

Management, Social Security

Administration, L2109 West Low Rise,

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21235–6401, (410) 965–3632 or TTY

410–966–5609 for information about

this notice. For information on

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our

national toll-free number, 1–800–772–

1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Current

rules codified at 20 CFR 404.966 and

416.966 authorize us to test procedures

for eliminating the request for Appeals

Council Review (‘‘Request for Review

Eliminated’’—RRE) on randomly

selected cases. Additional rules codified

at 20 CFR 404.906 and 20 CFR 416.1406

authorize us to test other modifications

to the disability determination

procedures individually or in any

combination. One test has already been

conducted using the former authority

and several tests have already been

conducted using the latter. In fact, the

sole test using the authority for

elimination of request for Appeals

Council Review was combined with a

test using the authority to test

modifications to the disability

determination procedures individually

or in any combination that we termed

the full process model (FPM).

The FPM was an integrated test

(authorized in part under 404.906 and

416.1406) that we initiated on April 7,

1997 (published in the Federal Register

on April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16210)) that

combined several modifications to the

disability determination process

including enhanced decision making

authority for Disability Determination

Services (DDS) disability examiners and

a restructuring of the role of the DDS

medical consultant; provision for a

predecision interview conducted by the

decision maker if the evidence is

insufficient to support a fully favorable

disability determination; and

elimination of the reconsideration step

of review for initial disability claims. It

also included testing of the use of an

adjudication officer for cases in which

a request for hearing was filed. The test

of the adjudication officer is authorized

under rules at 20 CFR 404.943 and

416.1443.

As an adjunct to the FPM test, using

regulatory authority at 20 CFR 404.966

and 416.1466 (published in the Federal

Register on September 23, 1997 (62 FR

49598)) we tested the RRE in order to

assess the effects of this change, in

conjunction with the other FPM

modifications. We are now announcing

a retest of the RRE (‘‘RRE II’’) because

initial RRE study results failed to

produce sufficient data upon which to

base policy decisions and because

testing the RRE in conjunction with

recently implemented initiatives would

yield valuable data for assessing the

effects of the RRE upon claimant service

and administrative processes.

Initial Level Prototype Testing

The latest test using the regulatory

authority at 20 CFR 404.906 and 20 CFR

416.1406 was announced in the Federal

Register on August 30, 1999 (64 FR

47218). There we announced a

prototype that incorporates multiple

modifications to the disability

determination procedures employed by

State Disability Determination Services

(DDSs) which have been shown to be

effective in earlier tests. Specifically, the

prototype incorporates a series of

changes that improve the initial

disability determination process by:

providing greater decisional authority to

the disability examiner and more

effective use of the expertise of the

medical consultant; ensuring

development and explanation of key

issues; increasing opportunities for

claimant interaction with the decision

maker before a determination is made;

and simplifying the appeals process by

eliminating the reconsideration step.

The test is focused on 10 states to enable

us to further refine the process and learn

more about potential operational

impacts of the changes identified. This

strategy should allow us to put the

complete process together and ensure

that the changes meet our goal of

improved service to disability

applicants.

The prototype test is being conducted

in 10 states. Eight include all Social

Security and Supplemental Security

Income disability applications:

Alabama

—Department of Education, Disability

Determination Services, 2545 Rocky

Ridge Lane, Birmingham, AL 35216

—Department of Education, Disability

Determination Services, 2000 Old

Bayfont Drive, Mobile, AL 36652

Alaska

—Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,

Disability Determination Unit, 619

East Ship Creek Avenue, Suite 305,

Anchorage, AK 99501

Colorado

—Department of Human Services,

Division of Disability Determination,

2530 South Parker Road, Suite 500,

Aurora, CO 80014–1641

Louisiana

—Department of Social Services, Office

of Family Support, Disability

Determination Services, 5905 Florida

Blvd. Suite 3, Baton Rouge, LA 70806

—Department of Social Services, Office

of Family Support, Disability

Determination Services, 2920 Knight

Street, Suite 232, Shreveport, LA

71105

—Department of Social Services, Office

of Family Support, Disability

Determination Services, 3510 North

Causeway Blvd., Metairie, LA 70002

Michigan

—Family Independence Agency,

Disability Determination Services, 608

W. Allegan Street, Third Floor,

Lansing, MI 48933

—Family Independence Agency,

Disability Determination Services, MI

Plaza Building, Tenth Floor, 1200

Sixth Street, Detroit, MI 48226

—Family Independence Agency,

Disability Determination Services, 315

E. Front Street, Traverse City, MI

49684

—Family Independence Agency,

Disability Determination Services, 151

South Rose Street, Kalamazoo, MI

49007–4715

Missouri

—Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,

Section of Disability Determinations,

1500B Southridge Drive, Jefferson

City, MO 65109

—Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,

Section of Disability Determinations,

1845 Borman Court, Suite 200, St.

Louis, MO 63146

—Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,

Section of Disability Determinations,

4040 Seven Hills Drive, Florissant,

MO 63033

—Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,

Section of Disability Determinations,

8500 East Bannister Road, Kansas

City, MO 64134

—Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,

Section of Disability Determinations,

3014 Blattner Drive, Cape Girardeau,

MO 63701

—Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,

Section of Disability Determinations,

2530 I South Campbell, Springfield,

MO 65807

New Hampshire

—Division of Adult Learning and

Rehabilitation, Disability

Determination Services, State Dept. of

Education Building JB, 78 Regional

Drive, Concord, NH 03301

Pennsylvania

—Bureau of Disability Determination,

Room 200—Central Operations, 1171

36212 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

South Camerson Street, Harrisburg,

PA 17104–2594

—Bureau of Disability Determination,

264 Highland Park Blvd., WilkesBarre, PA 18702

—Bureau of Disability Determination,

351 Harvey Avenue, Greensburg, PA

15605

Two include only applicants whose

disability claims are processed in

designated Disability Determination

Services (DDS) branches:

California

—Los Angeles North and West—

Department of Social Services,

Disability and Adult Programs

Division, 3425 Wilshire Blvd., Suite

1500, Los Angeles, CA 90010

New York

—Brooklyn—New York State

Department of Social Services,

Division of Disability Determinations,

300 Cadman Plaza West, 13th floor,

Brooklyn, NY 11201–2701

—Albany—New York State Department

of Social Services, Division of

Disability Determinations, 99

Washington Avenue, Room 1239,

Albany, NY 12260.

Administrative Appeals Process

Improvements and Testing of the RRE

Paired With Prototype Test

Testing the use of an Adjudication

Officer (AO) authorized under 20 CFR

404.943 and 416.1443 is not included in

the prototype.

Along with the prototype changes, we

are incorporating several initiatives to

improve the hearings process, including

administrative efficiencies designed to

streamline case processing; structural

changes in the management

organization of hearings offices;

improvements in automation and data

collection; and implementation of a

‘‘national workflow model’’ that

combines pre-hearing activities, a

standardized pre-hearing conference,

and processing-time benchmarks for

various tasks. This initiative was

announced in the Federal Register on

August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47218) as the

Hearing Process Improvement (HPI)

initiative.

Additionally, since the announcement

of the HPI initiative, we have

undertaken an Appeals Council Process

Improvement (ACPI) initiative. ACPI

includes short range initiatives to

reduce pending workloads and

processing times and long-range

improvements in structure and

operations enabling high quality, timely,

and efficient case processing. The shortrange elements that already are being

implemented and will be in place

during this test include:

• ‘‘Differential case management’’—a

systematic technique of differentiating

cases for processing based on

substantive issues in the case.

• Processing of appeals by Office of

Appellate Operations managers and

supervisors without prior examination

by hearings and appeals analysts;

• Temporary use of attorneys from

the Office of the General Counsel to

augment staff in the Appeals Council;

• Expedited presentation of cases to

adjudicators; and

• Temporary use of Administrative

Law Judges as Acting Administrative

Appeals Judges to enhance the

adjudicatory and analytic strength of the

Appeals Council in the short term.

If appealed to the ALJ level, most, but

not all, of the cases from the prototype

sites will go to hearing offices (HOs) that

are in the first phase of the HPI. Thus,

they will be processed using the

efficiencies such as the ‘‘national

workflow model’’ mentioned above. The

prototype process is effective in

prototype sites for cases effectively filed

October 1, 1999 or after, with the

exception of Albany, New York which

became operational on April 1, 2000.

Under the existing regulatory

authority authorizing us to test RRE at

20 CFR 404.966 and 416.1466

(published in the Federal Register on

September 23, 1997 (62 FR 49598)) we

intend to add to the previously

announced prototypes a test of the

effects of the RRE on prototype cases

that could potentially reach the Appeals

Council level, following an unfavorable

ALJ decision, that meet the following

criteria:

• Effective date of initial filing is

between and including January 1 and

July 31, 2000.

• Request for an ALJ hearing has been

filed;

• Case is received in the servicing HO

on or after June 1, 2000 or the effective

date of this notice whichever is later;

and

The servicing HO has implemented

HPI (‘‘HPI Phase One’’). A case meeting

the other criteria but whose servicing

HO is not an HPI phase One Office will

not be included.

Cases meeting the criteria received at

the following HOs will be included:

DDSs HOs

Alabama .................... Burger-Phillips Centre, 1910 3rd Ave.

North, Suite 100,

Birmingham, AL

35203.

DDSs HOs

Walnut St. Executive

Center, 205 S.

Walnut St., Suite D,

Florence, AL

35630.

3605 Springhill Business Park, Mobile,

AL 36608.

3381 Atlanta Highway, Montgomery,

AL 36109.

Alaska ....................... 2101 4th Ave., Suite

900, Seattle, WA

98121.

California:

Los Angeles West/

North.

City National Bank

Bldg., 606 S. Olive

St., Suite 1200, Los

Angeles, CA

90014.

11000 Wilshire Blvd.,

Rm. 8200, Los Angeles, CA 90024.

Grosvenor Plaza, 150

S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 500,

Pasadena, CA

91101.

8345 Firestone Blvd.,

Second Floor,

Downey, CA

90241.

Colorado .................... 1244 Speer Blvd.,

Suite 752, Denver,

CO 80204.

Louisiana ................... 3403 Government St.,

Alexandria, LA

71302.

1515 Poydras St.,

Suite 1600, New

Orleans, LA 70112.

First Bank Center, 1

Galleria, Suite

2000, Metairie, LA

70001.

700 Louisiana Towers

401 Edwards St.,

Shreveport, LA

71101.

Michigan .................... Patrick J. McNamara

Federal Bldg., 477

Michigan Ave.,

Room 430, Detroit,

MI 48226.

605 N. Saginaw St.,

First Floor, Suite A,

Flint, MI 48502.

15 Ionia St. S.W.,

Third Floor, Grand

Rapids, MI 49503.

Everett Plaza, 3500

S. Cedar St, Suite

109, Lansing, MI

48910.

Crown Pointe, 25900

Greenfield Rd.,

Room 430, Oak

Park, MI 48237.

Missouri ..................... 11475 Olde Cabin

Rd., Creve Coeur,

MO 63141.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36213

DDSs HOs

Old Post Office Bldg.,

815 Olive St., Rm.

220, St. Louis, MO

63101.

901 E. St. Louis St.,

Suite 210, Springfield, MO 65806.

New Hampshire ........ Daniel Webster Hwy.

North, 207

Hooksett Rd., Manchester, NH 03104.

New York—Brooklyn * 111 Livingston Street,

18th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201.

Pennsylvania ............. 8380 Old York Rd.,

Suite 250, Elkins

Park, PA 19027.

Penn National Office

Bldg., 2 N. 2nd St.,

8th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101.

334 Washington St.,

Suite 200, Johnstown, PA 15901.

1601 Market St., 9th

Floor, Philadelphia,

PA 19103.

601 Grant St., Suite

500, Pittsburgh, PA

15219.

7 N. Wilkes-Barre

Blvd., Suite 210,

Wilkes-Barre, PA

18702.

* Prototype cases processed at New York—

Albany will not be included in the test

becasuse of Albany’s later start date.

As stated in the Federal Register of

August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47218) it is

estimated that annually on a national

level approximately 20 percent of

applicants for disability benefits would

potentially participate in the prototype.

Since those applications covered under

the provisions of this notice include just

over half a year, we estimate that

approximately 10–12% of applicants for

disability benefits (effective filings

between 1/1/00 and 7/31/00) would

potentially participate in at least one

aspect of the prototype. Based on past

case experience, those actually included

in the RRE II cohort would be well

below 1 percent of the national

applicant workload.

Selection of test and control cases will

be done on a random basis. For those

selected as test cases, the right to

request review by the Appeals Council

will be eliminated and the right of the

claimant to appeal, in the case of an

unfavorable ALJ decision, will be

directly to Federal District Court.

Claimants who could potentially be

included in this retest of the RRE will

be supplied notice of their appeal rights.

Case outcome and appeals

information about both Request for

Review Retained (RRR) (control) and

RRE II (test) cases will be collected and

analyzed. Before making any decisions

on the merits of the RRE, SSA must

obtain valid and reliable data on the

effects of such elimination—including

the impact it may have on agency

operations, notices and other

procedures, rates of filing to Federal

District Courts, and quality and

timeliness of service to the public.

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Rita S. Geier,

Associate Commissioner for Hearings and

Appeals.

[FR Doc. 00–14216 Filed 6–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3332]

Bureau of Educational and Cultural

Affairs; U.S.-China Youth Exchange

Initiative: Pilot Project; Notice:

Request for Proposals

SUMMARY: The Youth Programs Division,

Office of Citizen Exchanges, of the

Bureau of Educational and Cultural

Affairs announces an open competition

to award one grant for the U.S.-China

Youth Exchange Initiative: Pilot Project.

Public and private non-profit

organizations meeting the provisions

described in IRS regulation 26 CFR

1.501(c) may submit proposals for the

recruitment and screening of schools, an

assessment of communication

technology, and the implementation of

a pilot project of a reciprocal youth

exchange program between secondary

schools in the United States and in

China. This program will develop

linkages between schools and

communities in the U.S. and China for

the purpose of mutual education and

the development of student

participation in community affairs.

Program Information

Overview

During a June 1998 visit to China,

President Clinton announced a youth

exchange program that would link

schools and communities in China and

the United States. The program has been

projected to span three years and to

provide funding for the reciprocal

exchange of students and teachers from

the paired schools. It is in anticipation

of this program being enacted in fiscal

year 2001 that the Office of Citizen

Exchanges offers this opportunity for

organizations to apply for an assistance

award to pilot a modest school exchange

project this year. Expansion beyond the

pilot phase is subject to the availability

of funding in subsequent fiscal years, as

well as to assessments by the Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA)

and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing of the

desired pace of expansion. The goal is

to expand the program incrementally

over the next few years.

The focus of the principal program is

to link schools and communities in as

many provinces of China as possible

with schools and communities across

the United States and to foster

interaction and lasting relationships

between these partnered schools

through Internet connections and

reciprocal student and educator

exchanges with strong academic

content. Each one-to-one school

partnership will choose a theme

relevant to their communities; students

will work together to complete a joint

project related to this theme. Support

for Internet connectivity and computer

training is also an important component

of the program so that the paired

schools can communicate throughout

the school year and work on these joint

projects. The three-to four-week

exchange visits to the partner

community will involve studying at the

host school, working on the thematic

project, participating in cultural

activities, and spending time with host

families. The overarching goals of this

program are to support student

participation in community affairs and

to advance mutual understanding

between the youth and teachers of the

U.S. and China.

This competition is intended to allow

the Youth Programs Division to select

the organization that will best be able to

establish these linkages and facilitate

the joint projects and exchanges. The

objectives of this project are (1) to plan

for the principal program by recruiting

and screening schools, (2) to assess the

opportunities for establishing Internet

access in the schools, and (3) to develop

and implement a pilot partnership that

will serve as a model for future

development.

The components of the program are as

follows:

(1) Planning and Selection

(a) Announce the program to recruit a

strong pool of candidate schools and

communities in the U.S. and China.

Communities should represent the great

geographic diversity of each country.

(b) Conduct an open, merit-based

competition to screen secondary schools

for participation in the principal

program. Applicants should be prepared

to select approximately 50 schools, or

25 partnerships.

(c) Determine the capacity of the

schools to develop lines of