9806 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

Note: If the grant project manager or other

member of the professional staff is to be hired

later as part of the grant, or should there be

any change in professional staff during the

grant period, hiring is subject to review and

approval by OSC at that time.

4. Previous Experience (20 points)

The proposals will be evaluated on

the degree to which the applicant

demonstrates that it has successfully

carried out programs or work of a

similar nature in the past.

Eligible Applicants

This grant competition is open to

nonprofit organizations that serve

potential victims of discrimination and/

or employers.

Grant Period and Award Amount

It is anticipated that several grants

will be awarded and will range in size

from $50,000 to $150,000.

During evaluation, the panel will

closely examine those proposals that

guarantee maximum exposure and

penetration in the employer or potential

victims target populations. All things

being equal, a campaign designed to

reach a very large number of employers

(or potential victims) in the state of

Texas might score higher than a

campaign designed to reach a more

limited number of employers (or

potential victims) nationwide.

Publication of this announcement

does not require OSC to award any

specific number of grants, or to obligate

all or any part of available funds. The

period of performance will be twelve

months from the date of the grant

award, in most cases beginning October

1, 1997.

Application Deadline

All applications must be received by

6:00 p.m. EDT, May 5, 1997, at the

Office of Special Counsel for

Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, 1425 New York

Ave., NW., Suite 9000, P.O. Box 27728,

Washington, DC 20038–7728.

Applications submitted via facsimile

machine will not be accepted or

considered.

Application Requirements

Applicants should submit an original

and two (2) copies of their completed

proposal by the deadline established

above. All submissions must contain the

following items in the order listed

below:

1. A completed and signed

Application for Federal Assistance

(Standard Form 424) and Budget

Information (Standard Form 424A).

2. OJP Form 4061/6 (Certification

Regarding Lobbying; Debarment,

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements).

3. A Standard Form LLL (Disclosure

Form to Report Lobbying).

4. An abstract of the full proposal, not

to exceed one page.

5. A program narrative of not more

than fifteen (15) double-spaced typed

pages which include the following:

a. A clear statement describing the

approach and strategy to be utilized to

complete the tasks identified in the

program description;

b. A clear statement of the proposed

goals and objectives, including a listing

of the major events, activities, products

and timetables for completion;

c. The proposed staffing plan (NOTE:

If the grant project manager or other

professional staff member is to be hired

later as part of the grant, or should there

be a change in professional staff during

the grant period, hiring is subject to

review and approval by OSC at that

time); and

d. Description of how the project will

be evaluated.

6. A proposed budget outlining all

direct and indirect costs for personnel,

fringe benefits, travel, equipment,

supplies, subcontracts, and a short

narrative justification of each budgeted

line item cost. If an indirect cost rate is

used in the budget, then a copy of a

current fully executed agreement

between the applicant and the cognizant

Federal agency must accompany the

budget.

Note: Program budgets must include the

travel, lodging and other expenses necessary

for at least one, but not more than two,

program staff members to attend the

mandatory OSC grantee training (2 days) held

in Washington, DC at the beginning of the

grant period (late Autumn).

7. OJP Form 7120/1 (Accounting

System and Financial Capability

Questionnaire).

8. Copies of resumes for the

professional staff proposed in the

budget.

9. Detailed technical materials that

support or supplement the description

of the proposed effort should be

included in the appendix.

In order to facilitate handling, please

do not use covers, binders or tabs.

Application forms may be obtained by

writing or telephoning: Office of Special

Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair

Employment Practices, 1425 New York

Ave., NW., Suite 9000, P.O. Box 27728,

Washington, DC 20038–7728. Tel (202)

616–5594, or (202) 616–5525 (TDD for

the hearing impaired).

Dated: February 27, 1997.

James S. Angus,

Acting Special Counsel, Office of Special

Counsel for Immigration, Related Unfair

Employment Practices.

[FR Doc. 97–5304 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, and 42 U.S.C.

§ 9622(d)(2), notice is hereby given that

on February 12, 1997, a Consent Decree

was lodged in United States v. James

Maxwell, et al., Civil Action No. 97–

WY–286–AJ with the United States

District Court for the District of

Colorado.

The Complaint in this case was filed

under Sections 106 and 107 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’),

42 U.S.C. §§ 9606 and 9607, with

respect to Clear Creek Superfund Site

located in Gilpin and Clear Creek

Counties, Colorado against James

Maxwell, Argo Town, U.S.A., Inc., and

Argo Tunnel Recovery Co. Pursuant to

the terms of the Consent Decree, which

resolves claims under the abovementioned statute and under Section

7003 of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6973,

the settling defendants will provide the

United States with property upon which

a wastewater treatment facility will be

built.

The Department of Justice will receive

comments relating to the proposed

Consent Decree for a period of thirty

days from the date of publication of this

notice. Comments should be addressed

to the Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530, and should

refer to United States v. James Maxwell,

et al., DOJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–1553.

Commenters may request an

opportunity for a public meeting in the

affected area, in accordance with

Section 7003(d) of RCRA.

The proposed Consent Decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney, District of Colorado,

1961 Stout Street, Suite 1100, Denver,

Colorado. Copies of the Consent Decree

may also be examined and obtained by

mail at the Consent Decree Library, 1120

G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington,

D.C. 20005 (202–624–0892) and the

offices of the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9807

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202.

When requesting a copy by mail, please

enclose a check in the amount of $12.25

(twenty-five cents per page reproduction

costs) payable to the ‘‘Consent Decree

Library.’’

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environmental and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 97–5247 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

Antitrust Division

United States v. Delta Dental of Rhode

Island; Proposed Final Judgment and

Competitive Impact Statement

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. Section 16 (b) through (h), that

a proposed Final Judgment, a

Stipulation, and a Competitive Impact

Statement have been filed with the

United States District Court for the

District of Rhode Island in United States

of America v. Delta Dental of Rhode

Island, Civil Action No. 96–113P.

The Complaint in the case alleges that

Delta Dental of Rhode Island (‘‘Delta’’)

entered into so-called ‘‘most favored

nation’’ agreements with its panel

dentists in unreasonable restraint of

trade, in violation of Section 1 of the

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Delta, a

broad-panel plan contracting with over

90% of Rhode Island’s dentists, required

that participating dentists offer no lower

price to competing dental plans. The

agreements effectively restricted the

willingness of panel dentists to discount

fees for dental care and blocked

competition from narrow-panel, lower

cost dental plans.

The proposed Final Judgment

eliminates Delta’s most favored nation

clause and enjoins Delta from engaging

in other actions that would limit future

discounting by its participating dentists.

Public comment on the proposed

Final Judgment is invited within the

statutory 60-day comment period. Such

comments and responses thereto will be

published in the Federal Register and

filed with the Court. Comments should

be directed to Gail Kursh, Chief; Health

Care Task Force; United States

Department of Justice; Antitrust

Division; Liberty Place; 325 7th Street,

NW., Room 404, Washington, DC 20530

(202/307–5799).

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust

Division, United States Department of Justice.

United States District Court for the

District of Rhode Island

[Civil Action No. 96–113P]

United States of America, Plaintiff, vs.

Delta Dental of Rhode Island, Defendant.

Stipulation

It is stipulated by and between the

undersigned parties, their respective

attorneys, that:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and over

both of the parties, and venue of this

action is proper in the District of Rhode

Island.

2. The parties consent that a Final

Judgment in the form attached may be

filed and entered by the Court, upon the

motion of either party or upon the

Court’s own action, at any time after

compliance with the requirements of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act

(15 U.S.C. 16), and without further

notice to any party or other proceedings,

provided that Plaintiff has not

withdrawn its consent, which it may do

at any time before the entry of the

proposed Final Judgment by serving

notice thereof on Defendant any by

filing that notice with the Court.

3. If Plaintiff withdraws its consent, or

if the proposed Final Judgment is not

entered pursuant to the terms of this

Stipulation, this Stipulation shall be of

no effect whatsoever, and the making of

this Stipulation shall be without

prejudice to either party in this or in

any other proceeding.

4. Defendant agrees to be bound by

the provisions of the proposed Final

Judgment pending its approval by the

Court.

Dated: lll.

For Plaintiff

Joel I. Klein,

Acting Assistant Attorney General.

A. Douglas Melamed,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director, Office of Operations.

Gail Kursh,

Chief, Health Care Task Force.

David C. Jordan,

Assistant Chief, Health Care Task Force,

Antitrust Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530.

For Defendant

William R. Landry, #494,

Blish & Cavanagh, Commerce Center, 30

Exchange Terrace, Providence, R.I. 02903–

1765, (401) 831–8900.

Steven Kramer,

William E. Berlin,

Mark J. Botti,

Michael S. Spector,

Richard S. Martin,

Attorneys, Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice, 325 7th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20530, (202) 307–0997.

Sheldon Whitehouse,

United States Attorney, District of Rhode

Island.

By: Anthony DiGioia,

Ass’t. U.S. Attorney, 10 Dorrance Street,

Providence, R.I. 02903, (401) 528–5477.

William G. Kopit,

Espstein Becker & Green, 1227 25th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 861–

9000.

United States District Court for the

District of Rhode Island

[Civil Action No. 96–113P]

United States of America, Plaintiff, vs.

Delta Dental of Rhode Island, Defendant.

Final Judgment

Plaintiff, United States of America,

filed its Complaint on February 29,

1996. Plaintiff and Defendant, by their

respective attorneys, have consented to

the entry of this Final Judgment without

trial or final adjudication of any issue of

fact or law. This Final Judgment shall

not be evidence against or an admission

by any party of any issue of fact or law,

nor a determination that any violation of

law has occurred. Therefore, before the

taking of any trial testimony and

without trial of any issue of fact or law,

and upon consent of the parties, it is

Ordered, adjudged, and decreed, as

follows:

I. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action and over

each of the consenting parties. The

Complaint states a claim upon which

relief may be granted against Delta

under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15

U.S.C. 1.

II. Definitions

As used herein, the term:

(A) ‘‘Defendant’’ or ‘‘Delta’’ means

Delta Dental of Rhode Island.

(B) ‘‘Participating Dentist’s

Agreement’’ means Delta’s agreement

with dentists for the provision of dental

services to Delta’s subscribers, including

Delta’s Rules and Regulations

referenced in the agreement, and all

amendments and additions to any such

agreement.

(C) ‘‘Participating Dentist’’ means any

dentist who has agreed to comply with

the terms of the Participating Dentist’s

Agreement.

(D) ‘‘Most Favored Nation Clause’’

means: