Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices 28419

Date: July 10–11, 1995.

Time: 8:00 a.m.

Place: Crowne Plaza, Rockville, MD.

Contact Person: Dr. Nadarajen

Vydelingum, Scientific Review Admin., 6701

Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, Bethesda, MD

20892, (301) 435–1176.

Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.

Date: July 10–11, 1995.

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: Crowne Plaza, Rockville, MD.

Contact Person: Dr. Harish Chopra,

Scientific Review Administrator, 6701

Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, Bethesda, MD

20892, (301) 435–1169.

Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.

Date: July 12–14, 1995.

Time: 8:00 a.m.

Place: Crowne Plaza, Rockville, MD.

Contact Person: Dr. Bill Bunnag, Scientific

Review Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive,

Room 5212, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1177.

Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.

Date: July 17–18, 1995.

Time: 8:00 a.m.

Place: Ritz-Carlton, Tysons Corner, VA.

Contact Person: Dr. Eileen Bradley,

Scientific Review Admin., 6701 Rockledge

Drive, Room 5120, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301) 435–1179.

Name of SEP: Behavioral and

Neurosciences.

Date: July 21, 1995.

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: Hyatt Regency Hotel, Bethesda.

Contact Person: Dr. Peggy McCardle,

Scientific Review Admin., 6701 Rockledge

Drive, Room 5198, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301) 435–1258.

Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.

Date: July 24, 1995.

Time: 8:00 a.m.

Place: Embassy Suites, Washington, DC.

Contact Person: Dr. Eileen Bradley,

Scientific Review Admin., 6701 Rockledge

Drive, Room 5120, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301) 435–1179.

The meetings will be closed in accordance

with the provisions set forth in secs.

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C.

Applications and/or proposals and the

discussions could reveal confidential trade

secrets or commercial property such as

patentable material and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

applications and/or proposals, the disclosure

of which would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393–

93.396, 93.837–93.844, 93.846–93.878,

93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health,

HHS)

Dated: May 24, 1995.

Susan K. Feldman,

Committee Management Officer, NIH.

[FR Doc. 95–13278 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

Office of the Secretary

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation; Linking State

Administrative Data

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,

HHS.

ACTION: Request for applications for

grants to support State efforts to link

case-level administrative data across

multiple low-income assistance

programs.

SUMMARY: Recent state efforts to link

longitudinal, administrative data across

programs have proven extremely

successful. Linked databases have

provided a more thorough

understanding of many aspects of both

program participation and the

characteristics of individuals who

receive benefits from multiple antipoverty programs. State-supported

efforts have also provided valuable

insight into both inter- and intra-state

variations in program participation.

Much of this information would not

have been accessible through national

panel data.

While the efforts of individual states

have been extremely valuable, they have

been limited to relatively few states.

Factors such as prohibitive cost, lack of

necessary staff expertise, and

insufficient time and computational

resources have precluded many

interested states from linking their

administrative data. Total funding of up

to $200,000 is available to provide one

to two interested states with resources

needed to successfully link

administrative data and use it for

program management, research and

scholarly analysis. It is not expected

that the funding available in this grant

will be sufficient for any state to

complete a project that links micro-level

administrative data. Rather, this grant is

intended to assist those states which are

interested in linking their

administrative data, but currently lack

the resources to successfully complete

the project on their own.

Part I. Linking State Administrative

Data

A. Background:

In the last five years, several states

have begun assembling administrative

data from income-maintenance and

other programs targeted toward lowincome individuals and families for use

in policy research and program

evaluation. Most notably, administrative

data that has been linked from a variety

of anti-poverty programs has been used

to study characteristics of program

participation, multi-service usage, and

caseload dynamics. The results from

many of these research initiatives have

provided an extremely useful insight

into the characteristics of program

participants, the patterns of multiservice utilization, and the interactions

between multiple programs that provide

assistance to low-income families.

Administrative data also offer more

possibilities for in-depth analysis than

do other forms of data, such as national

panel data. Many national studies do

not give reliable state-level estimates,

particularly in smaller states with

relatively few sampling points. As a

result, it is generally quite difficult to

estimate the state-level effects of

national anti-poverty programs. State

administrative data offer the

opportunity to study inter- and intrastate comparisons of government

programs, and to examine the extent to

which variations in state anti-poverty

programs are successful in serving

various client populations.

Usefulness of Project

The research that has been conducted

to date has illustrated the efficacy in

using linked administrative data for

research and evaluation. In the vast

majority of states, however, the use of

linked data still remains either

untouched or far below what is

technically possible. A study funded by

the Department surveyed fifteen states

and determined that, for the majority of

the states surveyed, linked

administrative data is a potentially rich

source of information about programs

targeted toward low-income

populations.

Despite the potential of state

administrative data, the Department’s

previous findings indicate that linked,

state-level program data still remains a

vastly under-utilized source of

information. Many states have both the

interest and raw administrative data

necessary to produce longitudinallylinked files at the case or client level.

However, as the process of linking data

across programs and over time is an

expensive, iterative process that

requires significant time and expertise,

many states lack the capacity to link

their data. Some states lack the

computer hardware, software, disk

space, and memory necessary to

actually perform the process of linking

data. Other states lack the expertise and

staff-time to devote energy to a research

project. Many states face both of these

obstacles.

This grant will help the selected states

overcome the obstacles that hinder the

process of linking administrative data.

For example, states with limited data-
28420 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices

linking experience and capacity could

add the hardware and software needed

to link and store data. States with more

experience (such as those which

currently operate linked, research data

bases) could use the funds to add

administrative data from additional

anti-poverty programs.

Part II. Awardee Responsibilities

Due to the substantial variation

among states in the level of experience

and expertise in working with linked

administrative data, we fully expect a

wide range of proposals to be submitted.

Proposals from states which currently

have linked administrative databases

will obviously differ dramatically from

proposals submitted by states with

which have never worked with linked

data. Given this, the specific

responsibilities of the awardees may

vary. Each state will, however, be

expected to follow the following

guidelines:

1. Each applicant must develop the

computer systems and technical

capacity necessary to produce

longitudinal, linked administrative

micro-level data. The focus of the data

may be on cases, households, clients,

filing units, etc., or any combination

thereof. For those applicants which

currently have linked data bases, it is

expected that this grant will provide the

resources necessary to significantly

enhance their current data systems.

2. Each applicant must link

administrative data from at least two

programs that primarily benefit lowincome individuals or families. The

states that currently operate linked,

administrative research databases began

by focusing on data from the AFDC,

Medicaid and Food Stamps computer

systems, largely because these data

operating systems for these programs

were fairly compatible due to the

interactions between the programs.

States in the early stages of data linking

may choose to focus on these programs,

but links between other programs are

also strongly encouraged. Other

administrative data that states may

choose to link include: Child welfare

and foster care, child support

enforcement, unemployment insurance,

vital statistics, disability, SSI and

income tax data. Linkages between these

programs are especially encouraged, as

they will likely provide fresh insight

into the interactions over time among

these programs.

3. Each applicant must develop the

capacity and knowledge necessary to

prepare and standardize data for

program management and scholarly

analysis. The data resulting from this

grant should be able to support policy

research and program evaluation, and

should provide insight into a variety of

policy relevant concerns. Data-sets

should support research into questions

concerning (but not limited to) multiprogram participation and usage,

interactions between various antipoverty programs, caseload dynamics,

recidivism, fraud and abuse, and the

demographic, economic and social

characteristics of multi-program

participants.

4. In addition to preparing the data in

a manner suitable for program

administration and scholarly research,

applicants must demonstrate an ability

to actually utilize the data analytically.

Linked administrative data allow for a

great variety of analysis. For example,

files linked longitudinally can be

studied with event-history and survivor

analysis, methods which are used to

understand caseload dynamics and

determine how the sequence of service

events affects a client’s outcomes.

Additionally, since administrative data

typically have more complete and

detailed information than panel data,

administrative data analysis can more

accurately assess the demographic and

social characteristics of multi-service

users. Administrative data can also be

used to do detailed geographic analysis,

which is helpful in studying whether

there are significant variations in service

usage across different administrative

regions or across neighborhoods.

It is necessary for applicants to detail

exactly how their linked data can be

used for scholarly analysis. States with

larger social service departments may

have researchers on staff who possess

the skills necessary to fully explore the

data. Other states may wish to combine

their efforts with an academic or policy

research organization with expertise in

data analysis. Both of these alternatives,

as well as others, would be acceptable.

It is not our intent to limit the analytical

choices of applicants, but rather to

ensure that the data sets created under

this grant are used to their full potential.

5. Applicants must obtain written

agreements with all state or county

social service departments that will

supply the source data. The agreement

should clearly indicate the

responsibilities of both the applicants

and the state or county agency, and the

willingness of the parties to work

cooperatively. Applicants must also

include a plan which ensures that the

resulting linked Data ensure client

confidentiality.

6. Applicants must demonstrate an

ongoing commitment to the project. A

principal use of these data is to study

current policy relevant questions about

programs for low-income populations.

Data for answering current questions are

most useful when they capture current

effects of such programs. Consistent

with their on-going commitment to data

linking and analysis, applicants must

ensure that both recent historical data

and new case data will be added after

the Federal funding for this project

expires.

Part III. Prerequisites, Content of

Application, Review Process, and

Evaluation Criteria

A. Prerequisites

Who may apply? We will only accept

applications from state agencies, large

urban county agencies, or universities

working with them. This announcement

is aimed primarily at states that can link

statewide data bases. Applications will

also be considered from large urban

county governments that can clearly

demonstrate the ability to link

administrative databases in a way that

could provide data of national policy

relevance. University-based research

teams that are working with state

agencies to develop linked data bases

may apply but must provide assurances

from the state that they are intimately

involved in developing and utilizing the

data base for policy purposes.

What data bases? Applicants must

clearly demonstrate the ability to link at

least two micro (person, family, or case)

files and at least be in the midst of

analyzing data for policy research or

evaluation purposes. Examples of files

that have been linked in other situations

are: AFDC, Medicaid, Child Welfare and

Foster care, Unemployment Insurance,

Child Support, Individual Income Tax,

Vital Statistics, and Juvenile Courts. At

a minimum, linked data bases must

allow for at least three years of

longitudinal analysis.

On-going commitment? The state

agency responsible for establishing the

linked data system must provide

evidence of an on-going commitment to

developing the data base and using it to

understand poverty, program

utilization, caseload dynamics, program

effectiveness, and other important

aspects of administration of antipoverty, employment, and welfare

programs. Applicants that do not

provide assurances that all three of

these prerequisites will be fulfilled will

be unacceptable.

B. Applicant Content

The application shall include the

following elements:

1. Abstract

A one page abstract of the project and

its objectives.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices 28421

2. Goals and Justification for Project

This section will discuss why the

agency wishes to undertake the project

and what the short and long-term goals

of the project are. The applicant should

discuss the background of what it has

been doing to support linking

administrative data bases, the current

status of data base development, and

what it expects to accomplish with this

project. It should discuss what analysis

will be completed given completion of

the project, the analytical report that

will be produced, and what policy

relevance it will have. States should

also present their plans, if any, to

produce a public use dataset as a result

of this project.

Linking two or more administrative

data bases for analytical purposes is a

complicated and difficult endeavor. It

often can take several iterations of

refinement to produce a data base that

supports analysis of more than simple

descriptive statistics about the caseload.

This section should discuss where the

agency is in the evolution of the linking

and embedding policy analysis in the

administrative management of the

programs involved. It should contain a

discussion of how the agency will carry

on after this funding is exhausted. For

applicants who are not currently linking

databases, they should clearly

demonstrate their knowledge of the

process, as well as their plans to obtain

the necessary expertise to successfully

carry out their proposed project.

3. Project Design and Approach

In this section, the applicant will

discuss what, if any, data are currently

linked, what will be added through this

grant, and how it will be accomplished.

This section should describe what

variables are available and will be

added, what length of time period is

covered, what kind of data analysis

currently can be done, and what

analytical capability will be added by

this project. The discussion should

make it clear to the reader what is the

structure of the data, what are the

building blocks (individuals, families,

households, cases, filing units, etc.), the

universe of state population covered,

the types of variables (demographic,

program participation, program

dynamics, costs, etc.) that can be used

for analysis. The applicant should also

clearly specify how the micro-level data

will be linked and how the retrospective

case files will be assembled. Does a

unique identifier exist that will allow

data to be easily linked across

programs? If not, what variable or

record-matching technique will be

employed? It also should make clear

what information is not available, and

the limitations this poses for policyrelevant analysis.

If applicants are not currently linking

any administrative data, then they

should assure reviewers that they have

adequate access to at least three years of

recent historical administrative data.

Applicants should also convince

reviewers that they have the expertise

needed to complete the project, and also

have the commitment to continue

linking administrative data for research,

analysis, and program management

purposes.

The treatment of confidentiality and

proper disclosure is a very important

issue related to linking data and

analyzing it. The applicants will discuss

how they will protect data from

improper disclosure, and how they will

facilitate analytical use of sensitive data.

This section will discuss the time table

to accomplish this project. Who will do

what, when, and how? It also will

discuss what will be the end product of

this project. What sort of report will be

produced? What policy relevance will it

have to the state and to DHHS?

4. Organization and Staffing

The application will describe the

organization applying for the grant. If

the applicant is a state agency, where

does it fit in the state organization?

What are its responsibilities? What are

its capabilities and limitations? How

can it assure that this project will be

embedded in the state’s policy analysis

system?

The applicant will discuss the staffing

for the project. Who will be the project

leader? What are the qualifications of

the staff and who will be involved?

What are their time commitments to the

project and what other time

commitments do they have that might

interfere with successful completion of

the project? Personal vita and job

descriptions should be attached as an

appendix to the application.

If a university group is involved in the

project, the application will clearly

delineate what the responsibilities of

the group will be and how the state

agency will exercise control over their

work. It will describe the mechanism

(subcontract, etc.) used to procure the

university group services.

5. Budget

This section will include a budget

summary and narrative which describes

how the budget supports the research

plan. It should show the financial

contribution made or expected by other

funding sources, and the share of total

project costs covered by ASPE’s grant. It

will discuss how the overall funding

level and federal contribution relate to

the successful completion of the project.

The actual budget will be presented on

the forms and in accordance with the

requirements discussed in the section

entitled ‘‘Components of a Complete

Application.’’

6. Commitment of State

Applicants should use this section to

completely describe the resources the

state has already committed to the

project. If the state has not yet

established support for the project, then

applicants should discuss any future

involvement expected of the state.

Resources contributed by the state could

include any financial assistance (and

whether it is an outright cash grant or

is targeted for a specific purchase such

as computing equipment), allocation of

staff or computing time, technical

assistance, and any other relevant

contribution.

C. Review Process and Evaluation

Criteria

A technical panel of at least three

people will review and score those

applications which are submitted by the

deadline, and which meet the screening

and prerequisite requirements. The

review will be based on the criteria

listed below. The review of the

technical proposal and budget will be

used by the Assistant Secretary in

making funding decisions. ASPE

reserves the option to discuss the

application and the state agency record

of performance with other agencies,

Regional Office staff, and experts who

may have information that could assist

the selection process.

The evaluation criteria correspond to

the outline for the development of the

Program Narrative Statement of the

application. Although not mandatory, it

is strongly recommended that

applications be prepared with the

format indicated by this outline.

Selection of the successful

applicant(s) will be based on the

technical and financial criteria laid out

in this announcement. Reviewers will

determine the strengths and weaknesses

of each application in terms of the

evaluation criteria listed below, provide

comments and assign numerical scores.

The review panel will prepare a

summary of all applicant scores and

strengths/weaknesses and

recommendations and submit it to the

Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation for final decisions on the

award.

The point value following each

criterion heading indicates the

maximum numerical weight that each

section will be given in the review
28422 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices

process. An unacceptable rating on any

individual criterion may render the

application unacceptable. Consequently,

applicants should take care to ensure

that all criteria are fully addressed in

the applications. Applications will be

reviewed as follows:

(a) Quality of the goals and Project

Justification. (See Part B, Type of

Application Requested, Section 2.) (15

points) Applications will be judged on

whether they provide a thoughtful and

coherent discussion of the need for the

project and what it will accomplish.

Reviewers will judge applicant’s past,

current, and future commitment to

linking administrative data for policy

analysis, research, and evaluation.

Particular attention will be given to the

agency’s commitment to scholarly,

policy-relevant work, and their

commitment to producing a public use

dataset as a result of this project.

(b) Quality of the project design and

approach. (See Part B, Section 3.) (35

points) Reviewers will judge this section

on the basis of whether the research

agenda is scientifically sound and

policy relevant. They will also consider

whether the applicant is likely to make

a significant contribution to

understanding such important issues as

program utilization and effectiveness,

caseload dynamics, types of clients, and

multiple program participation.

Applications will be rated on their plans

to conduct policy relevant research and

interact with various levels of

government to research and evaluate

significant government initiatives and

policies.

Reviewers will assess the

completeness of the data bases linked,

population coverage, and the

extensiveness of the variables in the

data base. A proposal with more data

bases linked will be rated higher than

one with only two program databases,

all other factors being constant.

Evidence of data quality control and

validity is also extremely important.

Ratings will consider the thoroughness

of the discussion of the database

strengths and weaknesses. Reviewers

will assess whether there is appropriate

use and protection of sensitive or

confidential data. The type and quality

of end product anticipated from this

project will be considered and rated.

Finally, reviewers will rate the

feasibility of the workplan and time

schedule.

(c) Quality of the staffing proposal

and proposed organizational

arrangements. (See Part B, Section 4.)

(35 points) Reviewers will judge

applicant’s staff on research experience,

demonstrated research skills, public

administration experience, and relevant

policy-research and policy-making

skills. Ratings may consider references

on prior research projects. Staff time

commitments to the project also will be

a factor in the evaluation. Furthermore,

reviewers will rate the applicant’s

pledge and ability to produce a database

capable of supporting policy-relevant

analysis.

Reviewers will evaluate the track

record of the lead agency ability to

support scholarly, policy relevant

research that can meet the demands of

the academic, research, and policy

communities.

If a university group is involved in the

project, raters will judge the

administrative relationships between

the group and the state agency and

whether the administrative

arrangements can assure quality data

and analysis.

(d) Appropriateness of the budget to

carry out the planned staffing and

activities. (See Part B, Section 5.) (15

points) Ratings will consider whether:

(a) The budget assures an efficient and

effective allocation of funds to achieve

the objectives of this solicitation and (2)

the applicant has appropriate financial

commitment from the state and the

university, if one is involved.

State Single Point of Contact (E.O. No.

12372): The Department of Health and

Human Services has determined that

this program is not subject to Executive

Order No. 12372, Intergovernmental

Review of Federal Programs, because it

is a program that is national in scope

and the only impact on State and local

governments would be through

subgrants. Applicants are not required

to seek intergovernmental review of

their applications within the constraints

of E.O. No. 12372.

Deadline for Submission of

Applications: The closing date for

submission of applications under this

announcement is July 31, 1995.

Applications must be postmarked or

hand-delivered to the application

receipt point no later than 4:30 p.m. on

July 31, 1995.

Hand-delivered applications will be

accepted Monday through Friday prior

to and on July 31, 1995 during the hours

of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the lobby of the

Hubert H. Humphrey building located at

200 Independence Avenue, SW., in

Washington, DC. When hand-delivering

an application, call 690–8794 from the

lobby for pick-up. A staff person will be

available to receive applications.

An application will be considered as

meeting the deadline if it is either: (1)

Received at, or hand-delivered to, the

mailing address on or before July 31,

1995, or (2) postmarked before midnight

five days prior to the deadline date July

31, 1995, and received in time to be

considered during the competitive

review process (within two weeks of the

deadline date).

When mailing application packages,

applicants are strongly advised to obtain

a legibly dated receipt from a

commercial carrier (such as UPS,

Federal Express, etc.), or from the U.S.

Postal Service as proof of mailing by the

deadline date. If there is a question as

to when an application was mailed,

applicants will be asked to provide

proof of mailing by the deadline date.

When proof is not provided, an

application will not be considered for

funding. Private metered postmarks are

not acceptable as proof of timely

mailing.

Applications which do not meet the

July 31, 1995, deadline are considered

late applications and will not be

considered or reviewed in the current

competition. HHS will send a letter to

this effect to each late applicant.

HHS reserves the right to extend the

deadline for all applications due to acts

of God, such as floods, hurricanes or

earthquakes; due to acts of war; if there

is widespread disruption of the mail; or

if HHS determines a deadline extension

to be in the best of the Government.

However, HHS will not waive or extend

the deadline for any applicant unless

the deadline is waived or extended for

all applicants.

Applications forms. See section

entitled ‘‘Components of a Complete

Application.’’ All of these documents

must accompany the application

package.

Length of Application. Applications

should be brief and concise as possible,

but assure successful communication of

the applicant’s proposal to the

reviewers. In no case shall an applicant

(excluding the resume appendix and

other appropriate attachments) be longer

than 25 double-spaced pages; it should

neither be unduly elaborate not contain

voluminous supporting documentation.

Disposition of Applications.

1. Approval, disapproval, or deferral.

On the basis of the review of an

application, the ASPE will either (a)

approve the application in whole, as

revised, or in part for such amount of

funds and subject to such conditions as

are deemed necessary or desirable for

the initiation and operation of the data

linking project; (b) disapprove the

application; or (c) defer action on the

application for such reasons as lack of

funds or a need for further review.

2. Notification of disposition. The

ASPE will notify the applicants of the

disposition of their application. A

signed notification of award will be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Notices 28423

issued to notify the applicant of the

approved application.

Components of a Complete

Application. A complete application

consists of the following items in this

order:

1. Application for Federal Assistance

(Standard Form 424, Revised 4–88);

2. Budget Information—Nonconstruction Programs (Standard Form

424A, Revised 4–88);

3. Assurances—Non-construction

Programs (Standard Form 424B, Revised

4–88);

4. Table of Contents;

5. Budget Justification for Section B—

Budget Categories;

6. Proof of non-profit status, if

appropriate;

7. Copy of the applicant’s approved

indirect cost rate agreement if necessary;

8. Project Narrative Statement,

organized in five sections addressing the

following topics:

(a) Understanding of the Effort,

(b) Project Approach,

(c) Staffing Utilization, Staff

Background, and Experience,

(d) Organizational Experience, and

(e) Budget Narrative;

9. Any appendices/attachments;

10. Certification Regarding Drug-Free

Work place;

11. Certification Regarding

Debarment, Suspension and Other

Responsibility Matters; and

12. Certification and, if necessary,

Disclosure Regarding Lobbying;

13. Supplement to Section II—Key

Personnel; and

14. Application for Federal Assistance

Checklist.

Dated: May 22, 1995.

David T. Ellwood,

Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation.

[FR Doc. 95–13220 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4151–04–M

Public Health Service

National Toxicology Program; Board of

Scientific Counselors’ Meeting

Pursuant to Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given of a meeting of

the National Toxicology Program (NTP)

Board of Scientific Counselors, U. S.

Public Health Service, in the Conference

Center, Building 101, South Campus,

National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences (NIEHS), 111 Alexander

Drive, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina, on June 29, 1995.

The primary agenda topic will be

concerned with the report and

recommendations of the ad hoc working

group of the NTP Board from their

review of the criteria for listing

substances in the Biennial Report on

Carcinogens (BRC) (formerly Annual

Report on Carcinogens) on April 24 and

25, 1995. Specifically, the Board will:

(1) review the report and

recommendations of the ad hoc working

group;

(2) receive public comments on the

report; and

(3) develop Board recommendations

concerning the selection criteria.

The preliminary agenda topics with

approximate times are as follows:

8:30 a.m.–8:45 a.m.—Report of the

Director, NTP.

8:45 a.m.–9:15 a.m.—Report of the

Director, Environmental Toxicology

Program (ETP).

9:15 a.m.–9:45 a.m.—Report of the NTP

Workshop on ‘‘Mechanism-Based

Toxicology in Cancer Risk

Assessment: Implications for

Research, Regulation, and

Legislation,’’ held January 11–13,

1995.

10:00 a.m.–10:20 a.m.—Report on the

Meeting of the Ad Hoc Working

Group to Review Criteria for Listing

of Substances in the BRC.

10:20 a.m.–11:00 a.m.—Board

Discussion of the Working Group

Report.

11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.—Public

Comments on the Report.

1:15 p.m.–2:15 p.m.—Further

Discussion and Development of

Recommendations by the Board

Concerning the BRC Selection

Criteria.

2:15 p.m.–2:25 p.m.—Report on

Technical Reports Review

Subcommittee Activities.

2:25 p.m.–2:55 p.m.—Chemicals

Nominated and Recommended for

Study by the Interagency

Committee for Chemical Evaluation

and Coordination (ICCEC) on

December 14, 1994, will be

presented for discussion and time

will be allowed for public

comment. Chemicals evaluated by

the ICCEC were (with CAS Nos. in

parentheses): (1) Arsenic Trioxide

(1327–53–3); (2) Ethidium Bromide

(1239–45–8); (3) 5-

(Hydroxymethyl)furfural (67–47–0);

(4) Isoamyl Acetate (123–92–2); and

(5) MX [3-chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)

5-hydroxy-2-(5H)-furanone] (77439–

76–0). One chemical previously

evaluated was re-reviewed:

Hexamethyldisilazane (999–97–3).

3:15 p.m.–3:45 p.m.—Concept Review:

In Vitro and In Vivo Genetic

Toxicology Testing.

3:45 p.m.–4:30 p.m.—Alternative

Methods—Status and Plans:

—RFA for Research in ‘‘Mechanistically

Based Alternative Methods in

Toxicology.’’

—Proposed Workshop on ‘‘Alternative

Test Methods in Toxicology:

Validation and Regulatory

Acceptance.’’

Adjournment

Public Comments Encouraged

The meeting is open to the public,

and public input concerning the criteria

for listing a substance in the Biennial

Report on Carcinogens is encouraged. A

brief summary of the ad hoc working

group meeting, including the current

and proposed revised criteria, is

available on request from the NTP

Liaison Office, P.O. Box 12233, MD B3–

01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,

phone: (919) 541–0530, FAX: (919) 541–

0295. This summary also will be

published in the Federal Register in late

May or early June. Written comments

can be submitted to Dr. Larry G. Hart,

Executive Secretary. Formal oral

comments during the meeting will be

limited to five minutes to permit

maximum participation. Written

comments accompanying oral

statements are encouraged. To assure

consideration by the Board at the

meeting, written comments must be

received by June 23, 1995. Registration

to attend is not required; however, to

ensure adequate seating, we ask that

those planning to attend let us know. To

register, submit written comments or

announce intention to make oral

comments, receive information on the

agenda, or be put on the mailing list for

summary minutes subsequent to the

meeting, please contact: Dr. L. G. Hart,

P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park,

NC 27709; telephone: (919) 541–3971;

FAX: (919) 541–0719.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

Kenneth Olden,

Director, National Toxicology Program.

[FR Doc. 95–13284 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of Administration

[Docket No. N–95–3922]

Notice of Submission of Proposed

Information Collection to OMB

AGENCY: Office of Administration, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed information

collection requirement described below

has been submitted to the Office of