Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices 7755

Category Obsolete

number New number

................. 6104.69.3034

and

6104.69.3038

6104.69.8038

................. 6117.90.0051 6117.90.9075

................. 6203.49.3040

and

6203.49.3045

6203.49.8045

................. 6204.69.3052 6204.69.6040

................. 6211.20.3040 6211.20.3830

................. 6211.20.6040 6211.20.6830

................. 6211.39.0040 6211.39.9030

................. 6211.49.0040 6211.49.9030

................. 6217.90.0070 6217.90.9070

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Rita D. Hayes,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 95–3304 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

AmeriCorps*USA State and National

Direct, Availability of Funds

AGENCY: Corporation for National and

Community Service

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds.

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National

Service announces the availability of

approximately $160 million to support

new and renewal grants to States, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,

through Corporation approved State

Commissions, Alternative

Administrative Entities (AAEs), or

Transitional Entities (TEs).

Approximately $80 million will support

new and renewal grants through a

population-based formula. Additionally,

up to $80 million in program funds are

available to States to support new and

renewal grants on a competitive basis.

The Corporation also announces the

availability of approximately $19

million to support new competitive

program grants to national nonprofits,

professional corps, Federal agencies,

and programs operating in more than

one state through the national direct

competition. Approximately $55 million

is also available through the national

direct competition to support renewal

and expansion grants.

The Corporation published in the

Federal Register on October 27, 1994,

and January 10, 1995, notices describing

proposed changes to Corporation grantmaking guidelines, policies and

priorities for 1995 and inviting

comments with regard to three of its

main programs: AmeriCorps*USA,

Learn & Serve America K–12, and Learn

& Serve America Higher Education. The

proposed changes applied to the FY

1995 grant cycle and were nonregulatory in nature. In response to

those notices, the Corporation received

comments from over 50 organizations

and agencies, including states, primary

and secondary schools, institutions of

higher education, community-based

organizations, federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. The second section

of this notice will address these

comments.

DATES: All AmeriCorps*USA State

applications must be received by 3:30

p.m., Daylight Savings Time, May 1,

1995, to be eligible. Applicants for new

AmeriCorps*USA National Direct grants

must be received by 3:30 p.m., Daylight

Savings Time, May 9, 1995, to be

eligible. Applications for renewal and

expansion of existing AmeriCorps*USA

National Direct grants must be received

by 3:30 p.m., Daylight Savings Time,

April 18, 1995, to be eligible.

ADDRESSES: Applications for

AmeriCorps*USA State should be

submitted to The Corporation for

National Service, AmeriCorps State, 9th

Floor, Box AS, 1201 New York Ave.

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20525.

Facsimiles will not be accepted.

Applications for AmeriCorps*USA

National Direct should be submitted to

The Corporation for National Service,

AmeriCorps Direct, 9th Floor, Box AD,

1201 New York Ave. N.W., Washington,

D.C., 20525. Facsimiles will not be

accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons who have questions about the

AmeriCorps*USA State application

process may call or write the State

Commission office in their state or the

Corporation for National Service,

AmeriCorps State, 1201 New York Ave.

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20525. Phone:

(202) 606–5000, ext. 474; TTD: (202)

565–2799. Persons who wish to receive

an AmeriCorps*USA State application

should contact the State Commission

office in their state.

Persons who have questions about the

AmeriCorps*USA National Direct

application process, or who wish to

receive a National Direct application,

may call or write the Corporation for

National Service, AmeriCorps Direct,

1201 New York Ave. N.W., Washington,

D.C., 20525. Phone: (202) 606–5000, ext.

474; TTD: (202) 565–2799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Availability of Funds

1. AmeriCorps*USA State

Approximately $80 million in

program funds are available for new and

renewal grants to States through the

population-based formula allotment and

approximately $80 million in program

funds are available to States on a

competitive basis for renewals and new

grants. The following chart details the

amount of funding that each State is

eligible to apply for under the

population-based formula allotment.

The chart also details the number of

programs that a State may submit under

the competitive funding:

State Formula

allotment

Small state

priority

New

competitive

submission 1

Total

competitive

submissions 2

Alabama ........................................................................................................... $1,263,352 ....................... 6 7

Alaska ............................................................................................................... 181,554 $118,446 4 5

Arkansas ........................................................................................................... 734,472 ....................... 6 6

Arizona ............................................................................................................. 1,220,307 ....................... 5 7

California .......................................................................................................... 9,412,178 ....................... 10 17

Colorado ........................................................................................................... 1,094,713 ....................... 5 6

Connecticut ....................................................................................................... 980,801 ....................... 5 6

Delaware .......................................................................................................... 211,523 88,477 5 5

D.C. .................................................................................................................. 170,744 129,256 4 5

Florida ............................................................................................................... 4,178,254 ....................... 8 10

Georgia ............................................................................................................. 2,112,778 ....................... 6 8

Hawaii ............................................................................................................... 352,931 ....................... 4 5

Idaho ................................................................................................................. 339,296 ....................... 5 5

Illinois ................................................................................................................ 3,519,164 ....................... 6 9
7756 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices

State Formula

allotment

Small state

priority

New

competitive

submission 1

Total

competitive

submissions 2

Indiana .............................................................................................................. 1,722,505 ....................... 7 7

Iowa .................................................................................................................. 847,243 ....................... 6 6

Kansas .............................................................................................................. 764,830 ....................... 2 6

Kentucky ........................................................................................................... 1,145,965 ....................... 4 6

Louisiana .......................................................................................................... 1,292,187 ....................... 6 7

Maine ................................................................................................................ 371,391 ....................... 5 5

Maryland ........................................................................................................... 1,499,167 ....................... 4 7

Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 1,809,063 ....................... 5 7

Michigan ........................................................................................................... 2,843,698 ....................... 8 9

Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 1,367,705 ....................... 4 7

Mississippi ........................................................................................................ 799,287 ....................... 6 6

Missouri ............................................................................................................ 1,580,432 ....................... 5 7

Montana ............................................................................................................ 256,350 43,650 4 5

Nebraska .......................................................................................................... 485,978 ....................... 6 6

Nevada ............................................................................................................. 436,319 ....................... 6 6

New Hampshire ................................................................................................ 340,430 ....................... 4 5

New Jersey ....................................................................................................... 2,366,895 ....................... 6 8

New Mexico ...................................................................................................... 495,160 ....................... 5 6

New York .......................................................................................................... 5,440,870 ....................... 9 12

North Carolina .................................................................................................. 2,117,120 ....................... 6 8

North Dakota .................................................................................................... 191,051 108,949 5 5

Ohio .................................................................................................................. 3,324,643 ....................... 7 9

Oklahoma ......................................................................................................... 975,655 ....................... 6 6

Oregon .............................................................................................................. 924,184 ....................... 5 6

Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 3,609,179 ....................... 7 10

Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................... 1,072,107 ....................... 6 6

Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 298,487 1,513 3 5

South Carolina .................................................................................................. 1,097,210 ....................... 5 6

South Dakota .................................................................................................... 215,958 84,042 5 5

Tennessee ........................................................................................................ 1,549,768 ....................... 5 7

Texas ................................................................................................................ 5,503,497 ....................... 7 12

Utah .................................................................................................................. 571,347 ....................... 6 6

Vermont ............................................................................................................ 173,748 126,252 4 5

Virginia .............................................................................................................. 1,961,907 ....................... 7 7

Washington ....................................................................................................... 1,600,032 ....................... 6 7

West Virginia .................................................................................................... 545,619 ....................... 6 3

Wisconsin ......................................................................................................... 1,521,744 ....................... 7 7

Wyoming ........................................................................................................... 142,536 157,464 4 5

1This column reflects the maximum number of new programs a State may submit in their competitive application and does not include requests for renewals. However, States may substitute a new program if they decide not to submit a currently funded program for renewal. 2This column reflects the total number of programs, both new and renewal, that a State may submit under the competitive funding.

The Corporation has limited the

number of programs a State may include

in its application for competitive

funding to five, plus an additional

program for each full percentage point

of the total State population (rounded to

the nearest full percentage point) that

State contains.

Approximately $4 million has been

set aside from the formula funds for

child care. This amount will be

allocated to States on a formula basis,

and paid directly as needed to the

National Association for Child Care

Resource and Referral Agencies

(NACCRRA), the Corporations national

grantee to cover child care costs, up to

the States designated formula amount.

Amounts from this fund which are not

needed by the State for child care will

be given to the State for other approved

program costs.

For 1995, the Corporation is

committed to renewing 1994 grants, if

those programs meet quality standards.

Renewal applications may request yeartwo funding to expand programs or to

continue the same program as in year

one. If an expansion request exceeds

25% of the year-one budget, the portion

that exceeds 25% must be submitted as

a new application following new

application instructions. Given this

commitment to renewals, the

Corporation expects that the majority of

the program funds available will be

used for renewal grants. Program funds

not committed for renewals will be

made available to States for new grants

in both the formula and competitive

funding streams.

The Corporation is committed to

supporting only high quality

AmeriCorps programs, and formula

allotments are not an entitlement for

States. Program quality will be the most

important criteria for considering both

renewal requests and support for new

programs. The Corporation’s

requirements for AmeriCorps are set

forth in the Corporation’s regulations

and in the applications. In addition to

being thoroughly familiar with the

regulations, prospective applicants

should read the application carefully

because, in some cases, more specific

information is provided there. The

requirements apply to all programs that

submit applications to States for

funding. The regulations for

AmeriCorps programs were published

in the Federal Register on March 23,

1994 (45 CFR Parts 2510, 2513, et al.)

and are available at your public library.

You may also refer to the Principles for

High Quality National Service Programs

which includes program examples. For

copies, contact the Corporation at (202)

606–5000, x474.

2. AmeriCorps*USA National Direct

Approximately $19 million is

available for new competitive program

grants and approximately $55 million is

available to support renewal and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices 7757

expansion grants, through the national

direct competition. National nonprofits,

Federal agencies, professional corps

programs, and multi-state programs are

eligible to apply directly to the

Corporation for these funds. This allows

the Corporation to fund multi-state and

multi-site programs that are national in

scope and build on existing networks of

youth and service programs. Eligible

applicants may apply for operating

funds to establish AmeriCorps*USA

programs, or for education awards only.

II. AmeriCorps*USA State and

National Direct Grant Applications

Guidelines

1. 1995 Issue Area Priorities

The Corporation received a number of

comments suggesting changes to the

1995 priorities. Specifically, several

comments expressed concern that an

‘‘urban bias’’ existed in the environment

priority. Because that was not the

Corporation’s intent, we have revised

the priority to read as follows:

‘‘Community/Neighborhood

Environment—Initiate innovative

programs in low-income areas that

promote sustainable communities by

reducing environmental risks and

conserving natural resources.’’ By

changing the phrase ‘‘low-income

neighborhoods’’ to ‘‘low-income areas’’

and by adding the word ‘‘community,’’

the priority has been broadened to

encompass rural environments and

communities.

Other comments suggested that the

Corporation include homelessness,

health care, and/or adult literacy as a

priority. The Corporation declined to

add these as priorities because these

issues were adequately addressed by

1994 programs, with many of these

programs expected to be funded in 1995

as renewal programs. In addition,

homelessness is an AmeriCorps*VISTA

priority for 1995, approximately 15% of

AmeriCorps*VISTA are doing health

care projects, and approximately 25% of

AmeriCorps*VISTA are doing adult

literacy projects. A number of comments

opposed the establishment of new

priorities for the 1995 grant cycle and

requested that the Corporation retain the

1994 priorities or allow programs to

apply under either the 1994 or the 1995

priorities. The Corporation considered

these comments but declined to make

changes. The 1995 priorities were

chosen because they address issues and

needs that the Corporation believes

were underrepresented in the 1994 grant

competition. Programs funded in 1994

may continue to address areas covered

by the 1994 priorities and need not

change their focus to meet new

priorities. However, new programs will

be required to apply using the new 1995

priorities.

2. Grant Timeline

The Corporation received a number of

comments suggesting that the

application deadlines were too short,

and that such short time lines would

adversely affect the quality of the

proposals submitted to the Corporation.

Accordingly, the Corporation has

extended the application due dates as

far as possible and published the new

dates in the January 23, 1995 Federal

Register. For purposes of the

AmeriCorps*USA State grant

competition, May 1, 1995 is the new

due date for the renewals and new

applications. For purposes of the

AmeriCorps*USA National Direct grant

competition, new applications are due

on May 9, 1995, and renewal and

expansion applications are due on April

18, 1995.

3. Program Expansion

The Corporation initially proposed

that an AmeriCorps*USA State program

requesting expansion exceeding 25% of

the year-one budget or expansion to

base the program in two different cities

would be considered a new program

and would not receive a priority. In

response to public comments, the

Corporation has amended its language

on this policy to clarify that if a program

wants to expand beyond 25% of their

year-one budget, only that portion that

exceeds 25% must be submitted as a

new application, following new

application instructions. The

Corporation’s desire to moderate

expansion remains for three reasons: (1)

to stress quality before quantity, (2) to

create a solid base for future replication,

and (3) to ensure, because of the limited

funds available to the Corporation, that

funds remain to support programs that

meet 1995 priorities.

The rule for AmeriCorps*USA Direct

is similar to rule for AmeriCorps*USA

State with one exception. Programs may

expand up to 25% of their year-one

budget or $500,000, which ever is

greater. Only that portion that exceeds

25% or $500,000 must be submitted as

a new application, following new

application instructions.

4. Conversion of Planning Grants to

Operating Grants

Several comments requested

clarification of the Corporations policy

on converting planning grants to

operating grants. The Corporation, in

the October 27, 1994 Federal Register,

had proposed the following language:

‘‘The Corporation is recommending that

State Commissions give priority to

converting formula-funded planning

grants to operational programs over new

applications, if the proposals meet

quality standards.’’ In order to give

greater clarity, the Corporation has

amended the language to read as

follows:

The Corporation recommends that

State Commissions give a priority for

funding to converting planning grants to

operating programs. As in all other

cases, this preference should apply only

if the programs meet quality standards.

The Corporation will consider these as

new applications, and they will be

evaluated by peer review panels. If they

meet quality standards, they will receive

preference over other new applications.

Because they were approved under 1994

priorities, those planning grants that the

state submits in the competitive pool

may choose to meet 1994 or 1995

priorities. However, the Corporation

strongly urges that both formula and

competitive proposals meet 1995

priorities.

The changes allow flexibility for

planning grants to apply under either

the 1994 or the 1995 priorities and gives

them preference over new applications.

5. Concentration

A number of comments recommended

that the Corporation revise its policy on

concentration, stating that the language

initially proposed in the Federal

Register discriminated against rural

areas and was overly prescriptive. The

preference for concentration is designed

to achieve significant impacts from

direct service activities, to create a

strong sense of national identity with

AmeriCorps, and to be cost-effective; it

was never intended to be discriminatory

or overly prescriptive. Accordingly, the

language has been clarified as follows:

‘‘The Corporation is seeking

applications that focus activities within

a limited number of priorities and have

a more narrow geographic focus or

placement strategy. * * * This

preference is not intended to discourage

comprehensive approaches to

community problem-solving or to

discourage programs in rural areas.

* * * In addition, programs can bring

AmeriCorps Members together for

training and service and can define

program size to be consistent with the

community.’’ In other words, the

Corporation has left it up to the

applicant to define ‘‘community.’’ For

example, if the community is a rural

one, then ‘‘concentration of Members’’

can be defined in proportion to the rural

area. In addition, while the Corporation

does not object to individual placement

per se, it funded a disproportionate
7758 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices

number of individual placement models

in 1994 and, for this grant cycle,

discourages programs that place

AmeriCorps Members individually

across many organizations without

providing opportunities for them to

meet, share experiences and reflection,

and learn from one another to better

understand the collective impact they

have on their community.

6. Localities for Concentration

A number of comments recommended

that the Corporation retain the policy of

providing special consideration for

projects in areas that are

environmentally distressed or adversely

affected by Federal actions related to the

management of Federal lands resulting

in significant regional job losses and

economic dislocation. Accordingly, the

Corporation has adopted language to

this end. ‘‘If empowerment zones and

enterprise communities have been

officially designated by HUD by

February 28, 1995, the Corporation will

give preference to applicants who

propose to sponsor AmeriCorps service

activities in those areas. The

Corporation will also give preference to

areas impacted by military downsizing.’’

HUD has officially designated

empowerment zones and enterprise

communities. Programs proposing to

operate in these areas will receive a

preference.

7. Special Consideration for Past

Corporation-Funded Programs

Several comments requested a change

in Corporation policy regarding special

consideration for past Corporation

funded programs. The comments

suggested that the Corporation allow the

programs to apply as renewals and not

new applicants, and that the

Corporation waive the 15% local match.

The Corporation has declined to make

these changes. Accordingly, the policy

reads as follows:

The following programs were funded

previously, but are no longer eligible to

apply directly to the Corporation. If

these programs apply through the state

process and if they are determined to be

high quality, they will receive

preference over other high quality

programs during the Corporation

selection process. Because their current

funding is based upon 1994 priorities,

they may apply under either 1994 or

1995 priorities, but are encouraged to

address those for 1995. They must apply

to the state using the application

instructions for new programs.

• Defense Conversion Assistance

Programs.

• Summer of Safety Continuation

Programs.

• Subtitle D programs originally

funded for two-year grants under the

National and Community Service Act of

1990. These programs did not compete

under the 1994 funding cycle.

• Subtitle H Programs of the National

and Community Service Act of 1993

renewed from Subtitle E programs

under the National and Community

Service Act of 1990.

By way of further explanation, the

requirement that Subtitle D programs

funded with two-year grants apply as

new applicants refers to those subtitle D

programs that were funded by the

former Commission on National and

Community Service for the 1993 and

1994 funding cycles.

8. Other

A number of other comments

concerned the following issues: Health

Care Eligibility—Request to allow

Members to include dependents on the

AmeriCorps health plan at the cost of

the Member. Child Care Eligibility—

Request for a more inclusive policy that

is not based on income levels, or prorating awards based on income.

Education Awards Only Requirements—

Request that the Corporation cover

health care and child care costs for

programs receiving Education Awards

Only. These comments concern

statutory provisions which cannot be

changed by regulations. They can only

be changed through amendments to the

legislation. The Corporation is currently

considering possible amendments to our

legislation, and the above comments

will be considered.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.

Dated: February 6, 1995.

Terry Russell,

General Counsel, Corporation for National

Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3301 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

USAF Scientific Advisory Board

Meeting

The Combat Mission Panel of the

USAF Scientific Advisory Board will

meet on 3 March 1995 at Langley AFB,

VA from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to

provide advice and guidance to the ACC

Commander on air combat operations.

The meeting will be closed to the

public in accordance with Section 552b

of Title 5, United States Code,

specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4)

thereof.

For further information, contact the

Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat at

(703) 697–8845.

Patsy J. Conner,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–3265 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3910–01–P

Department of the Army

Army Science Board; Notice of Open

Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is

made of the following Committee

Meeting:

Name of Committee: Army Science Board

(ASB).

Date of meeting: 9 March 1995.

Time of meeting: 0900–1600.

Place: Arlington, VA.

Agenda

The Army Science Board’s (ASB)

Independent Assessment Group on ‘‘Army

Family Housing’’ will meet to review current

AFH policies and issues and to examine new

business and privatization initiatives. This

meeting will be open to the public. Any

interested person may attend, appear before,

or file statements with the committee at the

time and in the manner permitted by the

committee. The ASB Administrative Officer,

Sally Warner, may be contacted for further

information at (703) 695–0781.

Sally A. Warner,

Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 95–3260 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

Name Change

AGENCY: U.S. Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The name of the U.S. Army

Tank-Automotive Command, Warren,

Michigan 48397–5000 has been changed

to U.S. Army-Automotive and

Armaments Command, Warren,

Michigan 48397–5000 .

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Federal Register

Liaison Officer, HQ USAPPC, Room

1050, Hoffman Building 1, Alexandria,

VA 22331–0302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth L. Denton, (703) 325–6277.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Name

change reflects the additional

armament/chemical materiel

management mission transferred from

AMCCOM to TACOM via the Armament

Research, Development and Engineering

Center (ARDEC), and the Armament and