[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15193]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 23, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement

 

Refugee Resettlement Program; Availability of Formula Allocation 
Funding for FY 1994 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to 
Refugees\1\ in Local Areas of High Need
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR 
400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,'' 
eligibility for targeted assistance includes Cuban and Haitian 
entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are admitted to the 
U.S. as immigrants, and certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S. 
citizens. (See section II of this notice on ``Authorization.'') The 
term ``refugee'', used in this notice for convenience, is intended 
to encompass such additional persons who are eligible to participate 
in refugee program services, including the targeted assistance 
program.
     Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set 
aside for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to 
be served under the targeted assistance program (or under other 
programs supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of 
coverage under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the 
Department of State--usually two years from their date of arrival, 
or until they obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever 
comes first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Final notice of availability of formula allocation funding for 
FY 1994 targeted assistance grants to States for services to refugees 
in local areas of high need.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of funds and award 
procedures for FY 1994 targeted assistance grants for services to 
refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). These grants are 
for service provision in localities with large refugee populations, 
high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, and 
where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available 
resources. In order to provide States increased flexibility, this 
notice has eliminated the specific requirement that at least 85% of 
targeted assistance funds must be used for services which directly 
enhance refugee employment potential and has replaced this requirement 
with a more general requirement that targeted assistance funds must be 
used primarily for employment-related services. In addition, this 
notice has eliminated the requirement that cash assistance recipients 
must make up a percentage of the targeted assistance caseload which is 
not less than the State's current welfare dependency rate among 
refugees. This notice also eliminates welfare dependency as a factor in 
the targeted assistance allocation formula in light of the 
unavailability of up-to-date national welfare dependency data since FY 
1989. In FY 1994, targeted assistance funds will be available only for 
a one-year grant project period.
    The formula has been updated to take into account FY 1993 arrivals. 
In addition, the metropolitan area consisting of Dallas and Tarrant 
counties, Texas, has been found to be eligible for targeted assistance 
funds, based on documentation provided by the State, and thus has been 
added to the list of qualified counties in Table 1. Adjustments in 
targeted assistance allocations in all States have been made 
accordingly.
    A notice of proposed qualification of counties and allocation of 
targeted assistance funds was published for public comment in the 
Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 12969).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications from States for 
grants under this notice is July 25, 1994.
    Applications from States for grants under this notice must be 
received on time. An application will be considered to be received on 
time under either of the following two circumstances: The application 
was sent via the U.S. Postal Service or by private commercial carrier 
not later than the closing date specified in the final notice or the 
application is hand-delivered on or before the closing date to the 
Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 6th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20447. Hand-delivered applications will be accepted 
during the normal working hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday (excluding Federal legal holidays) up to 4:30 p.m. of 
the closing date.
    To be considered complete an application package must include a 
signed original and two copies of Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B, 
dated April 1988. (We will provide copies of these materials to all 
targeted assistance States.) The application package should be 
addressed to the Division of Operations, Office of Refugee 
Resettlement, ACF, 6th Floor, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, 
DC 20447.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.584.
    For further information on application procedures, states should 
contact their state liaison in ORR.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

    This notice announces the availability of funds for grants for 
targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where, because 
of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high refugee 
concentrations, and high use of public assistance, there exists and can 
be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of resources for 
services to this population.
    The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $49,397,000 
in FY 1994 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of 
the FY 1994 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human 
Services (Pub. L. No. 103-112).
    The House Appropriations Committee Report reads as follows with 
respect to targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No. 103-156, p. 93):

    This program provides grants to States for counties which are 
impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency 
rates. The Committee intends that $19,000,000 of the total be 
provided to continue the current program of support to communities 
affected as a result of the massive influx of Cuban and Haitian 
entrants during the Mariel boatlift. The Committee also intends that 
10 percent of the total appropriated for targeted assistance be used 
for grants to localities most heavily impacted by the influx of 
refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostals, 
including secondary migrants who entered the United States after 
October 1, 1979. The Committee expects these grants to be awarded to 
communities not presently receiving targeted assistance because of 
previous concentration requirements and other factors in the grant 
formulas, as well as those who do currently receive targeted 
assistance grants. The Committee intends that the State of 
California shall be held harmless in the formula allocation of 
targeted assistance funds as a result of any reductions to the total 
amount appropriated for the targeted assistance program. 
California's total share of funding under the formula allocation in 
fiscal year 1994 should be no less than the percentage share of 
California's allotment under fiscal year 1993 appropriations. In 
determining the hold harmless allocation to California, the total 
amount appropriated for targeted assistance will be used.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103-143, 
p. 162) is less specific than, but consistent with, the above-quoted 
House Report.
    The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use 
the $49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1994 targeted assistance as 
follows:
     $25,457,300 will be allocated under the updated formula, 
as set forth in this notice.
     $19,000,000 will be awarded to Florida for the Dade County 
public schools and Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami.
     $4,939,700 (10% of the total) will be awarded under a 
discretionary grant announcement which has been issued separately 
setting forth application requirements and evaluation criteria.
    The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a 
process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended 
to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare 
dependency of refugees through job placements.
    The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of 
section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 
which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available 
``(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and 
achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not 
supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less 
than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to 
the county or other local entity.''

II. Authorization

    Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of 
section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as 
amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 
99-605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); section 501(a) of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, 
insofar as it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and 
Haitian entrants the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees 
established by section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section 
584(c) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 
Continuing Resolution (Pub. L. No. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates 
by reference with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the 
authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by 
section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above, including certain 
Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title 
II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. No. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-
167), and 1991 (Pub. L. No. 101-513).

III. Client and Service Priorities

    Targeted assistance funding should be used to assist refugee 
families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects 
States and counties to ensure that a coherent plan of services is 
developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs 
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. Each 
service plan should address a family's needs for both employment-
related services and other needed social services. In local 
jurisdictions that have both targeted assistance and refugee social 
services programs, one plan of services may be developed for a family 
that incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
    Services funded under the targeted assistance allocations are 
required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of 
their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing 
employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of 
resettlement. The targeted assistance program, however, is not intended 
to be limited to cash assistance recipients. TAP-funded services may 
also be provided to other refugees in need of services, regardless of 
whether the refugees are receiving cash assistance.
    In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used 
``primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment'' 
(section 412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under this program are 
intended to help fulfill the Congressional intent that ``employable 
refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible after their 
arrival in the United States'' (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA). 
Therefore targeted assistance funds must be used primarily for services 
which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have specific 
employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to obtain 
jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance 
program. Examples of these activities are: Job development; job 
placement; job-related and vocational English; short-term job training 
specifically related to opportunities in the local economy; on-the-job 
training; business and employer incentives (such as on-site employee 
orientation, vocational English training, or bilingual supervisor 
assistance); and business technical assistance. General or remedial 
educational activities--such as adult basic education (ABE) or 
preparation for a high school equivalency or general education diploma 
(GED)--may be provided within the context of an individual 
employability plan for a refugee which is intended to result in job 
placement in less than one year. ORR encourages the continued provision 
of services after a refugee has entered a job to help the refugee 
retain employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance funds 
cannot be used for long-term training programs such as vocational 
training that last for more than a year or educational programs that 
are not intended to lead to employment within a year. If TAP funds are 
used for the provision of English language training, such training 
should be provided concurrently, rather than sequentially, with 
employment or with other employment-related services, to the maximum 
extent possible.
    A portion of a local area's allocation may be used for services 
which are not directed toward the achievement of a specific employment 
objective in less than one year but which are essential to the 
adjustment of refugees in the community, provided such needs are 
clearly demonstrated and such use is approved by the State.
    Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director of ORR 
expects States to ``insure that women have the same opportunities as 
men to participate in training and instruction.'' In addition, States 
are expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that 
encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to 
ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate 
refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement 
strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of 
both male and female wage earners in a family unit. States and counties 
are expected to make every effort to assure availability of day care 
services in order to allow women with children the opportunity to 
participate in employment services or to accept or retain employment. 
To accomplish this, day care may be treated as a priority employment-
related service under the targeted assistance program. Refugees who are 
participating in TAP-funded or social services-funded employment 
services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care 
services. For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care must be limited 
to one year after the refugee becomes employed. States and counties, 
however, are expected to use day care funding from other publicly 
funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are encouraged to 
work with service providers to assure maximum access to other publicly 
funded resources for day care.
    Targeted assistance services should be provided in a manner that is 
culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and 
cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of 
refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies 
will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and 
linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. To 
the maximum extent possible, particularly during a refugee's initial 
years of resettlement, targeted assistance services should be provided 
through a refugee-specific service system rather than through a system 
in which refugees are only one of many client groups being served.
    ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for 
targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give 
consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract 
bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the 
capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and 
linguistically compatible with the background of the target population 
to be served. States may use a portion of their targeted assistance 
funds, either through contracts or through the use of State/county 
staff, to provide technical assistance and organizational training to 
strengthen the capability of MAAs to provide employment services, 
particularly in States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped. If 
a State chooses to use State employees to provide technical assistance 
to MAAs, this would be an administrative cost which must be included 
within the State administrative cost limit of 5% for the targeted 
assistance program.
    ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following 
qualifications:
    a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit 
organization; and
    b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors 
or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of 
refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
    Finally, in order to provide culturally and linguistically 
compatible services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time 
of limited resources, ORR strongly encourages States and counties to 
promote and give special consideration to the provision of services 
through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions 
of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service 
providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving 
organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services 
to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing 
refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is 
particularly important in communities with multiple service providers 
in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of 
funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple 
administrative overhead costs.
    The award of funds to States under this notice will be contingent 
upon the completeness of a State's application as described in section 
IX, below.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received

    Eight letters of comment were received in response to the notice of 
proposed availability of FY 1994 funds for targeted assistance. The 
comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the 
Department's response.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether language 
in the notice such as ``States are strongly encouraged,'' ``States are 
expected,'' and ``States should'' is advisory or is a mandatory 
requirement.
    Response: When ORR uses phrases such as ``States are strongly 
encouraged,'' ``States are expected,'' or ``States should,'' the 
language is advisory in nature and should not be interpreted as a 
mandatory requirement.
    Comment: Three commenters expressed their views regarding ORR's 
expectation that States should ensure that a coherent plan of services 
is developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs 
from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. One 
commenter recommended that ORR specify that one plan of services for 
each eligible family should be developed for social services and 
targeted assistance combined so that two plans are not developed for 
the same family. Another commenter felt that a State cannot ensure that 
a coherent plan of services is developed; a State can only ensure that 
services are made available. The commenter recommended that the notice 
be revised to emphasize the need for services to the entire family 
rather than requiring States to ensure the provision of a coherent 
plan. Another commenter questioned what is meant by ``a coherent plan 
of services from time of arrival until attainment of economic 
independence''.
    Response: We agree that one plan of services should be developed 
for each family instead of separate plans for the same family under 
social services and targeted assistance. We have included language in 
the final notice regarding this point. Our intent regarding a coherent 
plan of services is for such a plan to be developed for every family 
that applies for services or receives cash assistance. We believe that 
a State can ensure that this is carried out by requiring its providers 
to develop such plans. ``A coherent plan of services from time of 
arrival until attainment of economic independence'' means the 
development of a comprehensive service plan that includes the provision 
of employment-related and other services needed to help a newly arrived 
family move to a point of economic self-support.
    Comment: One commenter felt that the word ``primarily,'' as in the 
phrase ``targeted assistance funds must be used primarily for services 
which directly enhance refugee employment potential,'' and the word 
``portion,'' as in the phrase ``A portion of a local area's allocation 
may be used for services which are not directed toward the achievement 
of a specific employment objective,'' can be interpreted different 
ways. The commenter recommended that ORR indicate what minimum 
percentage is acceptable for employment services and non-employment-
related services.
    Response: We eliminated the 85/15 percentages in order to give 
States the flexibility to determine, based on local need, what would be 
the best mix of services to bring about effective resettlement. We 
believe States are in a position to best judge what proportion of 
refugee funding should be devoted to employment services versus non-
employment-related services in their respective States. Having recently 
removed the percentage requirements, we do not want to now impose 
minimum percentages.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether post-employment services may 
be provided to refugees beyond one year, if the employment plan is met 
within the one-year limitation. The commenter recommended that post-
employment services be allowed for one year after employment is 
obtained.
    Response: There is no restriction on how long post-employment 
services may be provided after employment is obtained. The duration 
should be determined according to the refugee's need.
    Comment: In regard to the concurrent provision of English language 
training with employment and employment-related services, one commenter 
recommended that the provision of English language training be tied to 
the provision of vocational training and that the notice reflect this 
emphasis.
    Response: We do not believe that English language training should 
be tied exclusively to one type of employment-related service such as 
vocational training. Our intent is to encourage the concurrent 
provision of English language training in concert with other 
employment-related services to speed the process of a refugee becoming 
employed and self-sufficient. At the same time, we want to discourage 
the provision of English language training in a sequential manner, as a 
prerequisite to receiving other employment-related services.
    Comment: In regard to ORR's expectation that services should be 
provided in a manner that is culturally and linguistically compatible, 
one commenter asked for a clear definition of what ``culturally and 
linguistically compatible'' means.
    Response: We mean that an agency providing refugee social services 
must employ or contract with staff who (1) speak the native language of 
and (2) are either from the same ethnic background as, or are 
culturally knowledgeable of, the refugee populations the agency serves, 
and must use these staff in the provision of services to refugee 
clients.
    Comment: Two commenters had concerns regarding the obligation and 
liquidation of targeted assistance funds. One commenter felt it was 
unclear whether funds must be liquidated within 2 years from the date 
of Federal obligation or from the date of State obligation. The 
commenter recommended that clarification be provided on whether a State 
would have one year to spend FY 1994 funds and one year to submit 
claims for these funds. Another commenter recommended removal of the 
obligation language and the provision of greater flexibility on time 
allowances. The commenter also recommended that rollovers be allowed 
regardless of time parameters.
    Response: Targeted assistance funds must be obligated no later than 
one year after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the 
Department awarded the grant. Funds must be liquidated within two years 
after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department 
awarded the grant. A State's final financial report on expenditures 
must be received no later than two years after the end of the Federal 
fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. If final reports 
are not received on time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended 
funds, including any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a 
State's last filed report. These time frames are described in the final 
notice. While we appreciate the States' need for flexible time frames, 
since targeted assistance funds will now be awarded as a formula grant 
to States, the time frames for obligation and liquidation will be the 
same as those for the social services formula grants to States. This 
means that for FY 1994 targeted assistance funds, States must obligate 
funds no later than September 30, 1995, and must liquidate funds before 
September 30, 1996, in order to submit a final financial expenditure 
report in time for receipt by September 30, 1996.
    Comment: Two commenters made comments regarding new reporting 
requirements for the targeted assistance program. One commenter 
recommended giving States at least 120 days to review new reporting 
forms and requirements and recommended that ORR allow for a testing 
period to evaluate the feasibility of the new reporting form. Two 
commenters recommended State and local input in the development of new 
reporting requirements. One commenter felt that States and counties 
should be given adequate time to make changes in data collection 
requirements at the State and local level.
    Response: There will be an opportunity for review and input on new 
reporting requirements. We plan to send to States for review a draft 
quarterly performance report (QPR) form that is combined for both the 
targeted assistance and social services programs. In setting a 
timetable, we will take into consideration the need for States to have 
adequate review time. We will also keep in mind that States and 
counties will need adequate time to prepare for any new requirements.
    Comment: One commenter recommended updating the county plan 
guidelines contained in the FY 1986 targeted assistance notice to 
reflect the new requirements that are contained in the FY 1994 notice.
    Response: The county plan guidelines contained in the FY 1986 
targeted assistance notice (51 FR 30546, 30551-52 (August 27, 1986)) 
will remain in effect this fiscal year with the exception of the 
following, in accordance with the revised requirements in the FY 1994 
notice: (1) Counties will no longer be required to provide assurance 
that cash assistance recipients will make up a percent of the targeted 
assistance clientele that is not less than the State's welfare 
dependency rate (item ``d'' of the guidelines requirements); and (2) 
the maximum limit of 15% of the allocation amount for non-employment-
related services is eliminated (item ``m'' of the guidelines). We will 
review the application content requirements contained in the FY 1986 
targeted assistance notice, including the county plan guidelines, to 
determine what further changes will need to be made. Any changes will 
be reflected in the FY 1995 notice of proposed targeted assistance 
allocations.
    Comment: One commenter noted that Table 3 in the notice incorrectly 
included Marin and San Mateo counties in the definition of San 
Francisco and incorrectly included a number of other counties in the 
definition section.
    Response: ORR has always included Marin and San Mateo counties in 
the definition of the San Francisco area for purposes of targeted 
assistance allocations. This definition was published in earlier 
targeted assistance notices. The inclusion of San Joaquin, Santa Clara, 
Stanilaus, and Tulare counties in the definition column, instead of the 
targeted assistance area column, was a printing error.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that although refugees admitted 
under the private sector initiative are not eligible for targeted 
assistance services, the State is prohibited from denying services to 
these persons. The commenter recommended that States be federally 
reimbursed for services to these private sector initiative clients.
    Response: Refugees admitted under the private sector initiative 
program are admitted with the understanding that private sector funding 
will be provided to cover the cost of resettlement of these refugees. 
Therefore, no Federal refugee program funding is provided on their 
behalf.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on what factor will 
replace welfare dependency in the allocation formula, now that welfare 
dependency has been eliminated as a factor in the formula.
    Response: Refugee arrivals are the only factor used in the ``new 
formula'' portion of the allocation formula.
    Comment: One commenter, noting that targeted assistance funds 
cannot be used for long-term programs such as vocational programs that 
are not intended to lead to employment within a year, recommended that 
greater flexibility be allowed in program duration. The commenter also 
recommended that ORR give detailed criteria for services beyond the 
one-year limit. Another commenter objected to the requirement that 
funds must be used for services designed to enable refugees to obtain a 
job in less than one year. This commenter felt that the one-year 
requirement is not supported by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    Response: We recognize that long-term training and services may be 
desirable for many refugees as they continue to build their lives in 
this country; however, we believe that such long-term activities are 
beyond the legislated intent, scope, and funding of the refugee 
program, whose purpose is to help refugees achieve self-sufficiency 
through employment as quickly as possible. We, therefore, have not 
changed the one-year requirement in the notice.
    The emphasis of the targeted assistance program is to provide 
services targeted to employment with the intent of placing as many 
refugees as possible in employment within a reasonable period of time. 
We do not support the use of TAP funds for the provision of services 
that are not intended or not designed to move a refugee into some level 
of employment within a year's time. While it is true that a time limit 
is not specified in the statute, we believe that the one-year policy 
complies with Congressional intent. Section 412(a)(1)(B) of the Act 
states that ``employable refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as 
possible after their arrival in the United States.'' We believe that an 
emphasis on providing services designed to help refugees become 
employed within one year is a reasonable interpretation of this 
provision.
    Comment: Two commenters felt that the provision of services through 
a refugee-specific system would not be financially practical. The 
commenters felt that it would be more cost-effective to fold refugee 
services into the existing mainstream system.
    Response: We believe that the investment of refugee program funds 
in a refugee-specific service system, particularly in the initial years 
after a refugee's arrival in the U.S., will prove to be more cost-
effective in the long run than serving refugees through a mainstream 
system. The provision of services through a service provider system 
whose only clientele is refugees is likely to result in more tailored 
and comprehensive services to refugees, resulting, we believe, in 
earlier employment and self-sufficiency than would occur when refugees 
are served through a mainstream system. Refugees often tend to receive 
minimal services or are the last to be served in mainstream systems 
where they are one of many client groups served. We wish to emphasize, 
however, that there is nothing to preclude, and in fact we encourage, 
the use of mainstream resources to augment the services provided 
through a refugee-specific service system.
    Comment: One commenter had concerns regarding ORR's encouragement 
to States and counties to give special consideration to coalitions of 
refugee service organizations. The commenter questioned how coalitions 
would work administratively and organizationally and whether coalitions 
would be more cost-effective. The commenter also wondered how ORR 
envisions special consideration for coalitions in relation to the 
competitive procurement process.
    Response: We envision a group of organizations forming a coalition 
with one agency serving as the lead agency and the other agencies 
serving as subcontractors to that agency. We believe that the formation 
of coalitions among refugee service agencies ought to lead to service 
delivery efficiencies and to a rational downsizing of existing systems 
that will be necessary to keep pace with the changing nature of the 
refugee population to be served. We believe the formation of coalitions 
will enable the pooling of varied talents and skills within the 
agencies to more efficiently serve the changing population of refugee 
arrivals that will occur over the next few years. We also believe that 
the formation of coalitions should result in the reduction of 
administrative costs such as accounting and reporting costs, making 
coalitions more competitive. In addition, we believe the formation of 
coalitions will result in better coordination of services to refugees.
    Encouragement of or special consideration for coalitions should not 
interfere with State procurement requirements. Coalitions will have to 
compete along with other applicants. However, States in their Requests 
for Proposals (RFPs) could choose to include language that encourages 
the formation of coalitions or could include bonus points for 
coalitions in the scoring criteria, as long as these actions do not 
violate State procurement rules.
    Comment: One commenter felt that clarification is needed as to how 
States are to make sure that services use bilingual women on staff.
    Response: One approach that a State could use is to include 
language in its refugee service contracts that would require contract 
agencies to include bilingual women on staff in a direct service 
capacity.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether ORR will 
continue to allow States to use targeted assistance administrative 
funds to provide technical assistance to MAAs as was allowed in last 
year's notice.
    Response: Yes, States may use targeted assistance administrative 
funds for technical assistance to MAAs. The language that appeared in 
the FY 1993 notice has been included in this final notice.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the notice clarify that 
targeted assistance funds may be used to serve unemployed refugees who 
are not receiving cash assistance as long as cash assistance recipients 
make up a percentage of the targeted assistance caseload which is at or 
above the State's welfare dependency rate. The commenter indicated that 
the State currently interprets the ORR notice to mean that only cash 
assistance clients may receive services.
    Response: We believe the notice is clear that targeted assistance 
funds may be used to serve non-cash-assistance recipients. The notice 
states that ``TAP-funded services may also be provided to other 
refugees in need of services, regardless of whether the refugees are 
receiving cash assistance.'' However, as the wording indicates, this is 
not a mandatory requirement. We have eliminated the requirement that 
cash assistance recipients must make up a percentage of the targeted 
assistance caseload that is not less than the State's welfare 
dependency rate.
    Comment: Three commenters raised questions about the amounts listed 
in the notice of proposed allocations. One commenter felt that his 
State should have received an increased allocation as a result of the 
number of arrivals during the past 3 years. Another commenter believed 
that the amounts published in the notice were based on different per 
capita amounts for different counties. The third commenter noted that 
the per capita amount for California targeted assistance counties 
differed from the per capita amount for the counties in other States.
    Response: The first commenter's targeted assistance counties 
comprised 4.5 percent of 1983-1993 arrivals in all targeted assistance 
counties, as compared with 4.4 percent of 1983-1992 arrivals. Although 
this percentage increased, the effect was offset by the removal of 
State dependency rates as a weighting factor in the FY 1994 formula.
    The second commenter calculated the per capita rates incorrectly, 
dividing the proposed total allocation by the figures for 1983-1993 
arrivals. The 1983-1993 arrivals relate only to the portion of the 
allocation under the new formula (column C of Table 1).
    The difference in the per capita rates between the California 
counties and the counties in other States, noted by the third 
commenter, reflects the Congressional intent contained in the report 
language quoted in the notice that California be held harmless in the 
allocation of targeted assistance funds.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the exclusion of secondary 
migration in the determination of population numbers in the targeted 
assistance formula. The commenter felt that a method needs to be 
developed to include secondary migration numbers, similar to the method 
used to account for secondary migration in the social services formula.
    Response: As we have noted in previous years, secondary migration 
data are not available at the county level. States report annually on 
in-migration at the State level using the form ORR-11. This reporting 
is based on the first three digits of a refugee's Social Security 
number (SSN). These digits identify the State in which the SSN was 
issued which, with a few exceptions, is the State of initial 
resettlement. This information enables ORR both to credit the State of 
in-migration and to debit the State of out-migration in developing 
State population estimates. Intercounty migration data--which would 
involve both interstate and intrastate movement--would appear to be 
much more difficult for States to provide since it would be necessary 
to determine both in-migration and out-migration for all targeted 
assistance counties in order to arrive at adjusted population 
estimates.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that targeted assistance 10% 
discretionary funding be included in the targeted assistance formula 
allocation to impacted States. The commenters felt that States and 
local governments are in a better position to determine the impact of 
certain groups of refugees on resources.
    Response: The TAP 10% discretionary program reflects Congressional 
intent as expressed in the House and Senate Appropriations Committee 
Reports, which specify that 10 percent of the targeted assistance funds 
be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by the influx of 
refugees such as Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostals. The 
Committee Report language specifies that grants are to be awarded to 
communities not currently receiving targeted assistance as well as 
communities that receive targeted assistance funds.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the 5% allowance for State 
administrative costs, arguing that States have minimal responsibility 
for the planning, implementation, monitoring, and administration of the 
targeted assistance program. The commenter recommended that the State 
allowance for administrative costs be reduced by half to 2.5% and the 
county administrative cost allowance increased accordingly to 12.5%.
    Response: The amount of responsibility that States exercise in 
overseeing the targeted assistance program varies among States. Section 
412(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA allows up to 5% of the TAP allocation to be 
retained by the State. If a county wishes to take issue with the 5% 
State administrative allowance, we would suggest that the county raise 
this issue with its State.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the allocation of $19 million in 
targeted assistance funds to the State of Florida for Jackson Memorial 
Hospital and Dade County Public Schools.
    Response: The allocation of these funds reflects Congressional 
intent expressed in the Appropriations Committee Reports.
    Comment: One commenter indicated support for allowing States with 
more than one eligible county to determine county allocations 
differently from those specified in the targeted assistance notice, 
while one commenter opposed giving States this flexibility.
    Response: We believe that States with more than one eligible county 
should be given the flexibility to determine county allocations 
differently from those specified in the notice, based on more complete 
and accurate data that a State may have on county population numbers 
and welfare dependency rates than what is available at the Federal 
level.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the fact that targeted 
assistance funds are not allocated to States until the end of the 
fiscal year. The commenter felt that the funds should be provided to 
States soon after the funds are appropriated each year.
    Response: Now that targeted assistance funds will be awarded to 
States as a formula grant instead of as a discretionary grant, we hope 
to issue targeted assistance awards earlier in the fiscal year than has 
been the case in previous years.

V. Eligible Grantees

    The following requirements, which have previously applied to TAP, 
will continue to apply with respect to FY 1994 awards:
    Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments which are 
responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States 
containing counties which qualify for FY 1994 targeted assistance 
awards. The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and 
Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan 
under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
    The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all 
county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent 
to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted 
assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other 
designated entity and submitted to the State.
    A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not 
required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county 
within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county 
allocations differently from those set forth in this notice, the FY 
1994 allocations proposed by the State must be included in the State's 
application.
    Applications submitted in response to this notice are not subject 
to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive Order 
12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

VI. Qualification and Allocation Formula

    In determining whether additional counties would be eligible to 
participate in this targeted assistance formula allocation, the 
Director has applied the same four criteria used previously, including 
the same cutoff points, to the updated information on refugee arrivals, 
concentrations, dependency rates, and receipt of cash assistance. In 
order to qualify for TAP funds, a county would have to meet three out 
of the four criteria. In applying these criteria, ORR has found that 
the metropolitan area consisting of Dallas and Tarrant counties, Texas, 
qualifies for targeted assistance, based on a review of documentation 
submitted by the county.
    Since current welfare dependency data on refugees are not available 
at the national level, the Director of ORR has eliminated welfare 
dependency rates as a factor in calculating targeted assistance formula 
allocations to States in FY 1994. In all other respects, the FY 1994 
TAP formula allocations are based on the same formula as in FY 1993, 
updated to reflect arrivals through September 30, 1993.
    Under this formula, one portion of the allocation is based on 
refugee and Cuban/Haitian entrant arrivals during FY 1980-1982; funds 
for this portion of the formula are allocated on the same proportionate 
basis among participating counties as in FY 1992. The second portion of 
the allocation is based on refugee and entrant placements in these 
counties during calendar year (CY) 1983--September 30, 1993.
    For the participating counties, the $25,457,300 which is allocated 
by formula is apportioned as follows:
    a. $8,400,909 or 33%, is allocated on the basis of the formula 
which has been used for all previous targeted assistance allocations 
(``old formula'') and which is based on initial placements during FY 
1980-1982 and other factors as described under ``Formula Used to Date'' 
in the FY 1989 TAP notice published in the Federal Register on July 3, 
1989 (54 F.R. 27944).
    b. $17,056,391 or 67%, is allocated on the basis of arrivals during 
CY 1983--September 30, 1993 (``new formula'').
    The above percentages are based on the proportion of initial 
placements in these counties during the two periods: 338,247 refugee 
arrivals, or 33% of the total number of placements, during the old-
formula period; and 683,065 or 67%, during the new-formula period.
    The old-formula allocation of $8,655,482 follows the same 
distribution among counties as in the past.
    The new-formula allocation of $16,801,818 is based on the number of 
initial placements in each county during CY 1983--September 30, 1993. 
Welfare dependency rates were not used as a factor in this portion of 
the formula.

VII. Allocations

    Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be 
contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State application in 
accordance with the requirements described in Section IX of this 
notice.
    Table 1 lists the participating counties, the number of placements 
in each county during FY 1983--September 30, 1993, the amount of each 
county's allocation which is based on the old formula, the amount of 
each county's allocation which is based on the new formula, and the 
county's total allocation.
    Although Table 1 shows an amount for each county, the Director has 
decided, in the case of a State which contains more than one qualified 
county, to continue to permit the State to determine (in accordance 
with the requirements set forth in this notice) the appropriate 
allocation of the State's targeted assistance award among the qualified 
counties in the State. If a State chooses to make allocations which are 
different from the notice, the State, as in the FY 1993 TAP, would be 
responsible for determining an appropriate and equitable basis for 
allocating the funds among the qualified counties in the State and for 
including in its application a description of this allocation basis, 
the data to be used, and the allocation proposed for each county.
    Table 2 provides State totals for the county allocations set forth 
in Table 1.
    Table 3 indicates the areas that each participating county 
represents.

                          Table 1.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1994                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Portion of FY   Portion of FY                  
                                                 Arrivals Jan.       1994            1994                       
               County                   State      1983-Sep.      allocation      allocation      Total FY 1994 
                                                    1993(A)        under old       under new    allocation\1\(D)
                                                                  formula(B)      formula(C)                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda.............................  CA......          14,333        $208,726        $566,130         $774,856 
Contra Costa........................  CA......           4,042          59,679         159,653          219,332 
Fresno..............................  CA......          12,854         115,258         507,712          622,970 
Los Angeles.........................  CA......          90,912       1,054,036       3,590,878        4,644,914 
Merced..............................  CA......           4,118         140,682         162,654          303,336 
Orange..............................  CA......          39,745         469,012       1,569,864        2,038,876 
Sacramento..........................  CA......          15,339         178,649         605,866          784,515 
San Diego...........................  CA......          22,382         349,569         884,053        1,233,622 
San Francisco.......................  CA......          22,850         271,279         902,538        1,173,817 
San Joaquin.........................  CA......           8,797         180,267         347,467          527,734 
Santa Clara.........................  CA......          30,856         349,150       1,218,762        1,567,912 
Stanislaus..........................  CA......           3,210          32,616         126,790          159,406 
Tulare..............................  CA......           5,207               0         205,668          205,668 
Denver..............................  CO......           8,741          70,414         132,871          203,285 
Broward.............................  FL......           2,709         116,637          41,179          157,816 
Dade................................  FL......          43,871       2,034,812         666,879    \2\21,701,691 
Hillsboro...........................  FL......           3,009          36,654          45,740           82,394 
Palm Beach..........................  FL......           3,058          48,454          46,484           94,938 
Honolulu............................  HI......           3,134          77,537          47,640          125,177 
Cook/Kane...........................  IL......          32,482         364,225         493,756          857,981 
Sedgwick............................  KS......           3,788          86,794          57,581          144,375 
Orleans.............................  LA......           3,678          59,293          55,909          115,202 
Montgomery/Prince Georges...........  MD......           8,100          72,132         123,127          195,259 
Middlesex...........................  MA......           5,727          56,983          87,056          144,039 
Suffolk.............................  MA......          14,877         130,779         226,144          356,923 
Hennepin............................  MN......           9,349          91,879         142,113          233,992 
Ramsey..............................  MN......           9,191         129,187         139,712          268,899 
Jackson.............................  MO......           3,795          33,729          57,687           91,416 
Essex...............................  NJ......           5,498          19,519          83,575          103,094 
Hudson..............................  NJ......           2,355         130,614          35,798          166,412 
Union...............................  NJ......           1,586          26,220          24,109           50,329 
New York............................  NY......         117,363         291,423       1,784,025        2,075,448 
Multnomah...........................  OR......          14,793         197,998         224,867          422,865 
Philadelphia........................  PA......          16,863         135,531         256,333          391,864 
Providence..........................  RI......           4,601          96,803          69,939          166,742 
Dallas/Tarrant......................  TX......          23,209               0         352,798          352,798 
Harris..............................  TX......          19,383         158,866         294,639          453,505 
Salt Lake...........................  UT......           6,632          48,295         100,812          149,107 
Arlington...........................  VA......           2,886          83,691          43,870          127,561 
Fairfax.............................  VA......           7,908         100,916         120,209          221,125 
King/Snohomish......................  WA......          25,694         241,080         390,572          631,652 
Pierce..............................  WA......           4,140          51,521          62,932          114,453 
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  ........         683,065       8,400,909      17,056,391      44,457,300  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1993.                                                                
\2\The allocation for Dade County, Florida, includes $19,000,000 for Jackson Memorial Hospital (Miami) and the  
  Dade County (Miami) public schools. This is referred to in the House and Senate Reports on the appropriation  
  ``to continue the current program of support to communities affected as a result of the massive influx of     
  Cuban and Haitian entrants during the Mariel boatlift.'' The amounts are $10,636,376 for Jackson Memorial and 
  $8,363,624 for the Dade County schools.                                                                       


                      Table 2.--Targeted Assistance                     
                      Allocations by State: FY 1994                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              FY 1994   
                         State                             Allocation\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California..............................................     $14,256,958
Colorado................................................         203,285
Florida.................................................   \2\22,036,839
Hawaii..................................................         125,177
Illinois................................................         857,981
Kansas..................................................         144,375
Louisiana...............................................         115,202
Maryland................................................         195,259
Massachusetts...........................................         500,962
Minnesota...............................................         502,891
Missouri................................................          91,416
New Jersey..............................................         319,835
New York................................................       2,075,448
Oregon..................................................         422,865
Pennsylvania............................................         391,864
Rhode Island............................................         166,742
Texas...................................................         806,303
Utah....................................................         149,107
Virginia................................................         348,686
Washington..............................................         746,105
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................     $44,457,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1993.                        
\2\The allocation for Florida includes $19,000,000 for Jackson Memorial 
  Hospital (Miami) and the Dade County (Miami) public schools. See      
  footnote 2 to Table 1.                                                


                                       Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Areas                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Targeted assistance area\1\                            Definition                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA..................  Alameda                                                                                   
                      Contra Costa                                                                              
                      Fresno                                                                                    
                      Los Angeles                                                                               
                      Merced                                                                                    
                      Orange                                                                                    
                      Sacramento                                                                                
                      San Diego                                                                                 
                      San Francisco............................  Marin, San Francisco, & San Mateo Counties.    
                      San Joaquin                                                                               
                      Santa Clara                                                                               
                      Stanislaus                                                                                
                      Tulare                                                                                    
CO..................  Denver...................................  Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, & Jefferson  
                                                                  Counties.                                     
FL..................  Broward                                                                                   
                      Dade                                                                                      
                      Hillsboro                                                                                 
                      Palm Beach                                                                                
HI..................  Honolulu                                                                                  
IL..................  Cook/Kane                                                                                 
KS..................  Sedgwick                                                                                  
LA..................  Orleans..................................  Jefferson & Orleans Parishes.                  
MD..................  Montgomery/Prince Georges                                                                 
MA..................  Middlesex                                                                                 
                      Suffolk                                                                                   
MN..................  Hennepin                                                                                  
                      Ramsey                                                                                    
MO..................  Jackson..................................  Jackson County, MO, & Wyandotte County, KS.    
NJ..................  Essex                                                                                     
                      Hudson                                                                                    
                      Union                                                                                     
NY..................  New York.................................  Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, & Richmond     
                                                                  Counties.                                     
OR..................  Multnomah................................  Clackamas, Multnomah, & Washington Counties,   
                                                                  OR, & Clark County, WA.                       
PA..................  Philadelphia                                                                              
RI..................  Providence                                                                                
TX..................  Dallas/Tarrant                                                                            
                      Harris                                                                                    
UT..................  Salt Lake................................  Davis, Salt Lake, & Utah Counties.             
VA..................  Arlington                                                                                 
                      Fairfax..................................  Fairfax County & Independent Cities of         
                                                                  Alexandria, Fairfax, & Falls Church.          
WA..................  King/Snohomish                                                                            
                      Pierce                                                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Consists of named county/counties unless otherwise defined.                                                  

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

    Under the FY 1994 targeted assistance program, States may apply for 
and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the State. 
A single allocation will be made to each State by ORR on the basis of 
an approved State application. The State agency will, in turn, receive, 
review, and determine the acceptability of individual county targeted 
assistance plans.
    Beginning in FY 1994, TAP funds will be awarded through a more 
streamlined grant process similar to that used for the ORR social 
services formula grant program. An application and assurances are still 
required of the States eligible to receive TAP funding. FY 1994 funds 
must be obligated by the State agency no later than one year after the 
end of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the 
grant. There will be no carryover of unobligated funds into the FY 1995 
grant award. Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of 
the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. A 
State's final financial report on targeted assistance expenditures must 
be received no later than two years after the end of the Federal fiscal 
year in which the Department awarded the grant. If final reports are 
not received on time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended 
funds, including any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a 
State's last filed report.
    Although funding for educational services in Dade County, FL, and 
for medical services at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, FL, is part 
of the appropriation amount for targeted assistance, the scope of 
activities for these special projects will be administratively 
determined. Applications for those funds are therefore not subject to 
provisions contained in this notice but to other requirements which 
have been conveyed separately. Similarly, the requirements regarding 
the 10% portion of the targeted assistance appropriation that will be 
awarded separately has been addressed in the grant announcement for 
those funds.

IX. Application Requirements

    The State application requirements for grants for the FY 1994 
targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:
    States that are currently operating under approved management plans 
for their FY 1993 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to 
do so for their FY 1994 grants may provide the following in lieu of 
resubmitting the full currently approved plan:
    The State's application for FY 1994 funding shall provide:
    A. Assurance that the State's current management plan for the 
administration of the targeted assistance program, as approved by ORR, 
will continue to be in full force and effect for the FY 1994 targeted 
assistance program, subject to any additional assurances or revisions 
required by this notice which are not reflected in the current plan. 
Any proposed modifications to the approved plan will be identified in 
the application and are subject to ORR review and approval. Any 
proposed changes must address and reference all appropriate portions of 
the FY 1993 application content requirements to ensure complete 
incorporation in the State's management plan.
    B. Assurance that, for each qualified local area, targeted 
assistance funds will be used primarily for, but not limited to, 
services to cash assistance recipients.
    C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily 
for the provision of services which directly enhance refugee employment 
potential, have specific employment objectives, and are designed to 
enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation 
in the targeted assistance program. States must indicate what 
percentage of FY 1994 targeted assistance formula allocation funds that 
are used for services will be allocated for employment services.
    D. A line item budget and justification for State administrative 
costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each 
total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary, 
reasonable, and allocable to the project.
    States administering the program locally: States that have 
administered the program locally or provide direct service to the 
refugee population (with the concurrence of the county) must submit a 
program summary to ORR for prior review and approval. The summary must 
include a description of the proposed services; a justification for the 
projected allocation for each component including relationship of funds 
allocated to numbers of clients served, characteristics of clients, 
duration of training and services, projected outcomes, and cost per 
placement. In addition, the program component summary must describe any 
ancillary services or subcomponents such as day care, transportation, 
or language training.
    States with two or more counties receiving targeted assistance 
funds: As in FY 1993, a State with two or more local areas which 
qualify for the program may choose to determine respective county 
allocations. If the State chooses to determine county allocations 
differently from those set forth in Table 1 of this notice, the State 
must provide a description of the State's proposed allocation plan and 
the basis for the proposed allocations. The application must contain a 
description of the allocation approach, data used in its determination, 
the calculated allocation amount for each county, and the rationale for 
the proposed allocations. States are encouraged to revise allocation 
formulas to assure appropriate funding among eligible counties for the 
duration of the grant such that targeted assistance activities within 
the State conclude simultaneously. Where the State chooses not to 
determine county allocation amounts, the State must provide the 
allocations which are specified in this notice.

X. Reporting Requirements

    States will be required to submit quarterly reports on the outcomes 
of the targeted assistance program, using the same form which States 
use for reporting on refugee social services formula grants. This is 
Schedule A and Schedule C of the ORR-6 Quarterly Performance Report 
form. ORR is no longer using the ORR-12 form which was originally used 
to report on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program. ORR is in 
the process of consolidating its reporting requirements. The new 
reporting form will consolidate social services and targeted assistance 
performance reporting in one format in order to simplify and coordinate 
reporting. ORR expects this new form to be available when reporting on 
FY 1994 grants begins, which would be at the end of the first quarter 
of FY 1995.

    Dated: June 14, 1994.
Lavinia Limon,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[FR Doc. 94-15193 Filed 6-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P