Issuance of Final Policy Directive, 11181-11183 [2010-4843]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices
Address: Cargo Bldg. 80, JFK Int’l
Airport, Room 242/244, Jamaica, NY
11430.
Date Revoked: February 16, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
License Number: 003486F.
Name: Mozart Forwarding, Inc.
Address: 535 Seaview Avenue,
Bridgeport, CT 06607.
Date Revoked: February 13, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
License Number: 012142NF.
Name: Seaborne International, Inc.
dba Seaborne Express Line.
Address: 8901 South La Cienega
Blvd., Suite 101, Inglewood, CA 90301.
Date Revoked: February 6, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain valid
bonds.
License Number: 015847N.
Name: Straightline Logistics, Inc.
Address: One Cross Island Plaza,
Suite 203–G, Rosedale, NY 11422.
Date Revoked: February 13, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
License Number: 015917N.
Name: Golden Jet-L.A., Inc. dba
Golden Jet Freight Forwarders dba
Golden Jet USA, Inc.
Address: 12333 S. Van Ness Avenue,
Suite 201, Hawthorne, CA 90250.≤
Date Revoked: February 18, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
License Number: 16886N.
Name: Maritrans Shipping, Ltd.
Address: 170 East Sunrise Highway,
Valley Stream, NY 11581.
Date Revoked: February 15, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
License Number: 017017NF.
Name: American Global Logistics, Inc.
dba American Global Shipping.
Address: 388 2nd Avenue, Suite 160,
New York, NY 10010.
Date Revoked: January 28, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain valid
bonds.
License Number: 018033N.
Name: Adrienne Shipping Line, Inc.
Address: 525 South Douglas Street,
Suite 100, El Segundo, CA 90245.
Date Revoked: February 14, 2010.
Reason: Surrendered license
voluntarily.
License Number: 018281N.
Name: Sun Ocean Logistics Corp.
Address: 5250 West Century Blvd.,
Suite 530, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
Date Revoked: February 11, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
License Number: 020479F.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:07 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Name: Karon Jones dba Keene
Machinery and Export.
Address: 2810 Goodnight Trail,
Corinth, TX 76210.
Date Revoked: February 11, 2010.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid
bond.
Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and
Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2010–5102 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Issuance of Final Policy Directive
AGENCY: Administration for Children
and Families.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Administration for
Native Americans (ANA) is issuing final
interpretive rules, general statements of
policy and rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice relating to the
following Funding Opportunity
Announcements (FOAs): Social and
Economic Development Strategies
(hereinafter referred to as SEDS), Social
and Economic Development Strategies—
Special Initiative (hereinafter referred to
as SEDS—SI), Native Language
Preservation and Maintenance
(hereinafter referred to as Language
Preservation), Native Language
Preservation and Maintenance—Esther
Martinez Initiative (hereinafter referred
to as Language—EMI), and
Environmental Regulatory Enhancement
(hereinafter referred to as ERE). This
notice also provides information about
how ANA will administer these
programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caroline Gary, Deputy Commissioner,
(877) 922–9262, 370 L’Enfant
Promenade, SW., 2nd Floor West,
Washington, DC 20447.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 814 of the Native American
Programs Act of 1974, as amended,
requires ANA to provide members of the
public an opportunity to comment on
proposed changes in interpretive rules,
general statements of policy and rules of
agency organization, procedure, or
practice and to give notice of the final
adoption of such changes at least 30
days before the changes become
effective.
ANA published a Notice of Public
Comment (NOPC) in the Federal
Register (74 FR 68849) on December 29,
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11181
2009, with proposed policy and
program clarifications, modifications,
and activities for the fiscal year (FY)
2010 FOAs. The public comment period
was open for 30 days.
ANA received 12 comments from
eight different entities: (1) Three from a
Federally recognized Tribe; (2) one from
an Alaska Native Village Corporation;
(3) one from a Tribally controlled
college; (4) one from a Hawaiian nonprofit organization; (5) two from a
Hawaiian University; (6) one from an
individual language educator; (7) one
from an Alaskan non-profit
organization; and (8) two from a
national non-profit for Native languages.
ANA considered all of the comments
received and provided responses,
clarifications, and modifications in this
final directive. The following
paragraphs summarize the comments
and our responses. The comments are
grouped by the portion of the NOPC to
which they apply.
II. Comments and Responses
A. Comments on SEDS and SEDS—SI
FOAs
Comments: ANA received three
comments in reference to the SEDS—SI
FOA and the former SEDS—Alaska
program announcement. One
commenter said that the description of
the SEDS—SI funding opportunity was
insufficient to determine whether the
commenter’s Tribe would be eligible to
apply under this new FOA. A second
commenter stated that the
discontinuation of SEDS—Alaska will
have a detrimental impact on Alaska
Native communities, and a third stated
the same concerns and encouraged ANA
to consider keeping that program area
with an increased ceiling amount.
Responses: In response to the first
comment about SEDS—SI, ANA
provided this clarification: The
forthcoming SEDS—SI FOA will
address the same program areas of
interest as SEDS and have the same
eligibility criteria; the only difference
between SEDS and SEDS—SI will be the
funding floor and ceiling amounts.
In response to the second and third
comments, ANA offered no changes.
ANA acknowledges that there are many
Tribes and organizations with limited
capacity throughout all of the United
States and its Territories. The SEDS—
Alaska initiative was established in
1984 and for more than 20 years assisted
Alaska Native Villages and Alaskan
organizations with capacity-building
projects and activities. ANA has limited
funding available with which to impact
its target communities, and ANA is
continuously seeking ways to best
E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM
10MRN1
11182
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
address the needs of all communities.
To ensure that competition for funds is
equitable, ANA must ensure an even
regional distribution of funds.
including no less than $4,000,000 for
language immersion programs as proposed in
Senate Report 111–66. The House included
similar language.
B. Comments on Language Preservation
and Language—EMI FOAs
Comments: ANA received three
comments on the Native Language
programs. One commenter expressed
concern about the lack of emphasis on
teacher training for the language nests in
the Language—EMI FOA. One
commenter said that the separation of
Esther Martinez Native American
Languages Preservation Act of 2006
(Esther Martinez Act) programs from
other language programs will ensure
that the Congressional appropriations
allocated to programs identified in the
Esther Martinez Act will be honored.
Specifically, the commenter stated that
$12 million was appropriated for the
Esther Martinez Act programs with $4
million of that set aside for immersion
programs. One commenter suggested
that an absolute priority should be
identified for language immersion
schools to align with the Congressional
appropriation.
Responses: In response to the first
comment, ANA agrees in part. Teacher
training is undoubtedly a critical
component to language programs, and to
address this both Native Language FOAs
provide opportunities for teacher
training for all types of schools and
programs dedicated to preserving and
maintaining Native languages. The
purpose of Language—EMI is to award
funds to language survival schools,
language nests, and language restoration
programs; however, the type of project,
which could include teacher training, is
open to what the applicant determines
is most beneficial to the program, as
long as it fulfills the three-year time
requirement. For shorter term teacher
training projects, applicants can apply
for projects to include teacher training
under the Language Preservation FOA.
The second and third comments
directly relate to the Esther Martinez
Act and ANA’s FY 2010 appropriation.
With respect to these comments, ANA
agrees in part and offers clarification but
no change. The appropriation language
for the FY 2010 ANA budget does not
specify that the entire $12 million for
language programs should be allocated
to Esther Martinez Act programs.
Instead, the House and Senate
Conference Report 111–366 to
accompany P.L. 111–117 (page 1040)
included the following statements:
The FY 2010 appropriation and the
instructions for Native language
programs do not specify what funds
should be allocated to the specific
programs under the Esther Martinez
Act. Rather, the recommendation is that
$12 million be spent on all language
programs with $4 million of that used
to fund immersion programs. Immersion
activities can be funded under the
Language Preservation FOA or the
Language—EMI FOA. The FY 2010
appropriation is not only for new
awards, but also for projects that are
continuing into a second or a third year.
ANA has determined that suitable
tracking will be completed to ensure
funds are spent as appropriated by
Congress.
In FY 2010, ANA identified the
Language—EMI FOA as separate from
the Language Preservation FOA to
address the specific differences in time
frames and eligibility requirements, as
outlined in the Esther Martinez Act. The
Esther Martinez Act program areas fund
three-year projects in one of the
following three categories:
Within the amount provided for Native
American programs, the conference
agreement includes $12,000,000 for Native
American language preservation activities
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:07 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Language Nest Projects: providing
instruction and child care through the use of
a Native American language and ensuring a
Native American language is the dominant
medium of instruction.
Language Survival School Projects:
working toward a goal of all students
achieving fluency in a Native American
language and academic proficiency.
Language Restoration Programs: providing
instruction in at least one Native American
language and working towards the goal of
increasing proficiency and fluency in that
language.
C. Comment on Award Information
Comment: ANA received one
comment suggesting that ANA elevate
the funding range for language nest and
survival schools from $100,000–
$300,000 to $150,000–$500,000, which
have limited funds for teacher training,
curriculum development, repository
building, and other activities.
Response: In response to this
comment, ANA offers no change to the
funding floor and ceiling for language
nests and survival schools. In FY 2010,
ANA increased the funding ceilings
from $200,000 per budget period for
implementation grants and $250,000 per
budget period for immersion grants in
FY 2009 to $300,000 per budget period
for all language projects in FY 2010.
Further increases in the funding ceiling
will restrict ANA’s ability to support
many deserving programs. If ANA
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increases the funding floor and ceiling,
fewer projects will be funded. For
example, if ANA has $2 million for new
projects in FY 2010, only four projects
at $500,000 each could be funded versus
more than six projects with a $300,000
ceiling.
D. Comment on Disqualification Factors
Comment: ANA received one
comment requesting that ANA identify
Tribally controlled colleges as separate
entities from the associated Tribes.
Response: In response to this
comment, ANA offers no change. In
accordance with 45 CFR 1336.33,
‘‘applications from tribal components
which are tribally-authorized divisions
of a larger tribe must be approved by the
governing body of the Tribe,’’ thereby
recognizing them as one entity.
E. Comment on Definitions
Comment: One commenter stated that
the Language—EMI FOA should include
definitions for ‘‘language survival
schools’’ and ‘‘language nests’’ in
addition to ‘‘language restoration
programs.’’
Response: ANA offers no change in
response to this comment. The NOPC
identified only changes from 2009 to
2010. Definitions for both ‘‘language
survival schools’’ and ‘‘language nests’’
were included in the FY 2009 program
announcements; therefore, the
definitions were not included as new
definitions in the NOPC. All three
definitions will be included in the FY
2010 Language—EMI FOA.
F. Comment on Application Evaluation
Criteria
Comment: One commenter stated that
tracking an impact indicator for three
years after the end of the project period
is difficult because there would be no
grant funding to support these data
collection efforts.
Response: ANA agrees in part and
offers clarification but no change. The
best use of ANA resources is to fund
projects that are sustainable and have
the potential to impact and provide
benefits to the community beyond the
project period. In addition, applicants
should propose projects that have a
clearly identified goal of what the
project will achieve and how the
proposed project will impact the
community well into the future.
Therefore, ANA is requesting that a
target be set for three years after the
project period; however, ANA is not
requiring that data be collected or
reported for the period after the project
ends. It will be the grantee’s decision
whether to track the third indicator after
the end of the project period.
E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM
10MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices
G. Other Comments
Comments: One commenter suggested
that a Tribe should be able to have a
Family Preservation grant concurrent
with a SEDS grant and another
commenter stated that the proposed
changes will improve the ANA program
and its effectiveness in the target
communities.
Responses: The first comment was not
addressed by any changes identified in
the NOPC; therefore, ANA declines to
respond to the comment. ANA agrees
with the second comment. ANA’s
program mission is to promote selfsufficiency and cultural preservation for
Native Americans by providing social
and economic development
opportunities through financial
assistance, training, and technical
assistance to eligible Tribes and Native
American communities, including
American Indian, Alaska Native, Native
Hawaiian, and other Native Pacific
Islander organizations. ANA recognizes
that to better address its mission, a
simplified funding structure that
reaches more of ANA’s target
communities is needed. The changes to
the FY 2010 FOAs were developed to
that end.
The 2010 FOAs will be published on
the ANA Web site at
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana//
programs/
program_announcements.html and at
https://www.grants.gov.
Dated: March 2, 2010.
Caroline Gary,
Deputy Commissioner, Administration for
Native Americans.
[FR Doc. 2010–4843 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[60Day–10–10BU]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Data Collections Submitted
for Public Comment and
Recommendations
In compliance with the requirement
of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for
opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects, the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic
summaries of proposed projects. To
request more information on the
proposed projects or to obtain a copy of
the data collection plans and
instruments, call 404–639–5960 or send
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:07 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, CDC
Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600
Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA
30333 or send an e-mail to
omb@cdc.gov.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology. Written comments should
be received within 60 days of this
notice.
Proposed Project
Case Studies of Communities and
States Funded under Community
Activities under the Communities
Putting Prevention to Work Initiative—
New—National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) is the primary Federal
agency for protecting health and
promoting quality of life through the
prevention and control of disease,
injury, and disability. CDC is committed
to programs that reduce the health and
economic consequences of the leading
causes of death and disability, thereby
ensuring a long, productive, healthy life
for all people.
Chronic diseases such as cancer, heart
disease, and diabetes are among the
leading causes of death and disability in
the United States. Chronic diseases
account for 70% of all deaths in the
U.S., and cause major limitations in
daily living for almost one out of 10
Americans. Although chronic diseases
are among the most common and costly
health problems, they are also among
the most preventable. Adopting healthy
behaviors such as eating nutritious
foods, being physically active and
avoiding tobacco use can prevent or
control the devastating effects of these
diseases.
The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the
‘‘Recovery Act’’) allotted $650 million to
the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to support evidencebased prevention and wellness
strategies. The cornerstone of the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11183
initiative is the Communities Putting
Prevention to Work (CPPW) Community
Program, administered by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). Through this program, all states
and territories, and approximately 35–
45 communities, will receive
cooperative agreement funding to
implement evidence-based community
approaches to chronic disease
prevention over a 24-month period.
Funded recipients will work with
partners such as local and state health
departments and other governmental
agencies, health centers, schools,
businesses, community and faith-based
organizations, academic institutions,
health care, mental health/substance
abuse organizations, health plans, and
others to create policies, systems, and
environments that promote: (1)
increased levels of physical activity,
improved nutrition, and decreased
prevalence of overweight/obesity; and
(2) decreased tobacco use and decreased
exposure to secondhand smoke. Each
CPPW-funded state or community will
choose to emphasize prevention
objectives related to physical activity
and nutrition, or tobacco. Toward that
end, each funded recipient has selected
strategies for implementing change from
each of five categories involving media,
access, price, point of purchase
decision, and support services
(MAPPS). Applicants for CPPW funding
selected their approaches from a
reference set of evidence-based
strategies provided by CDC.
CDC proposes to collect information
from a subset of CPPW awardees to gain
insight into the factors and variables
that facilitate or hinder the successful
implementation of these strategies and
the effective creation of the desired
policy, system, and environmental
changes. CDC plans to conduct
intensive case studies of six CPPWfunded states and 15 CPPW-funded
communities. The case study sites will
be selected to include a mix of state or
community characteristics related to
population density, geographic region,
and targeted population. Case study
information will be collected by
conducting personal interviews with
approximately 20 key informants at
each of the 21 CPPW-funded sites.
Respondents at each site will include
project management (5), project staff (5),
community partners (5), and policy
makers/community decision makers (5).
Information will be collected at the
beginning of the CPPW funding period
and again approximately 18 months
post-award. OMB approval is requested
for two years.
The proposed information collection
is one component of a larger evaluation
E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM
10MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11181-11183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4843]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Issuance of Final Policy Directive
AGENCY: Administration for Children and Families.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is issuing final
interpretive rules, general statements of policy and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice relating to the following Funding
Opportunity Announcements (FOAs): Social and Economic Development
Strategies (hereinafter referred to as SEDS), Social and Economic
Development Strategies--Special Initiative (hereinafter referred to as
SEDS--SI), Native Language Preservation and Maintenance (hereinafter
referred to as Language Preservation), Native Language Preservation and
Maintenance--Esther Martinez Initiative (hereinafter referred to as
Language--EMI), and Environmental Regulatory Enhancement (hereinafter
referred to as ERE). This notice also provides information about how
ANA will administer these programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Gary, Deputy Commissioner,
(877) 922-9262, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 2nd Floor West,
Washington, DC 20447.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as
amended, requires ANA to provide members of the public an opportunity
to comment on proposed changes in interpretive rules, general
statements of policy and rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice and to give notice of the final adoption of such changes at
least 30 days before the changes become effective.
ANA published a Notice of Public Comment (NOPC) in the Federal
Register (74 FR 68849) on December 29, 2009, with proposed policy and
program clarifications, modifications, and activities for the fiscal
year (FY) 2010 FOAs. The public comment period was open for 30 days.
ANA received 12 comments from eight different entities: (1) Three
from a Federally recognized Tribe; (2) one from an Alaska Native
Village Corporation; (3) one from a Tribally controlled college; (4)
one from a Hawaiian non-profit organization; (5) two from a Hawaiian
University; (6) one from an individual language educator; (7) one from
an Alaskan non-profit organization; and (8) two from a national non-
profit for Native languages. ANA considered all of the comments
received and provided responses, clarifications, and modifications in
this final directive. The following paragraphs summarize the comments
and our responses. The comments are grouped by the portion of the NOPC
to which they apply.
II. Comments and Responses
A. Comments on SEDS and SEDS--SI FOAs
Comments: ANA received three comments in reference to the SEDS--SI
FOA and the former SEDS--Alaska program announcement. One commenter
said that the description of the SEDS--SI funding opportunity was
insufficient to determine whether the commenter's Tribe would be
eligible to apply under this new FOA. A second commenter stated that
the discontinuation of SEDS--Alaska will have a detrimental impact on
Alaska Native communities, and a third stated the same concerns and
encouraged ANA to consider keeping that program area with an increased
ceiling amount.
Responses: In response to the first comment about SEDS--SI, ANA
provided this clarification: The forthcoming SEDS--SI FOA will address
the same program areas of interest as SEDS and have the same
eligibility criteria; the only difference between SEDS and SEDS--SI
will be the funding floor and ceiling amounts.
In response to the second and third comments, ANA offered no
changes. ANA acknowledges that there are many Tribes and organizations
with limited capacity throughout all of the United States and its
Territories. The SEDS--Alaska initiative was established in 1984 and
for more than 20 years assisted Alaska Native Villages and Alaskan
organizations with capacity-building projects and activities. ANA has
limited funding available with which to impact its target communities,
and ANA is continuously seeking ways to best
[[Page 11182]]
address the needs of all communities. To ensure that competition for
funds is equitable, ANA must ensure an even regional distribution of
funds.
B. Comments on Language Preservation and Language--EMI FOAs
Comments: ANA received three comments on the Native Language
programs. One commenter expressed concern about the lack of emphasis on
teacher training for the language nests in the Language--EMI FOA. One
commenter said that the separation of Esther Martinez Native American
Languages Preservation Act of 2006 (Esther Martinez Act) programs from
other language programs will ensure that the Congressional
appropriations allocated to programs identified in the Esther Martinez
Act will be honored. Specifically, the commenter stated that $12
million was appropriated for the Esther Martinez Act programs with $4
million of that set aside for immersion programs. One commenter
suggested that an absolute priority should be identified for language
immersion schools to align with the Congressional appropriation.
Responses: In response to the first comment, ANA agrees in part.
Teacher training is undoubtedly a critical component to language
programs, and to address this both Native Language FOAs provide
opportunities for teacher training for all types of schools and
programs dedicated to preserving and maintaining Native languages. The
purpose of Language--EMI is to award funds to language survival
schools, language nests, and language restoration programs; however,
the type of project, which could include teacher training, is open to
what the applicant determines is most beneficial to the program, as
long as it fulfills the three-year time requirement. For shorter term
teacher training projects, applicants can apply for projects to include
teacher training under the Language Preservation FOA.
The second and third comments directly relate to the Esther
Martinez Act and ANA's FY 2010 appropriation. With respect to these
comments, ANA agrees in part and offers clarification but no change.
The appropriation language for the FY 2010 ANA budget does not specify
that the entire $12 million for language programs should be allocated
to Esther Martinez Act programs. Instead, the House and Senate
Conference Report 111-366 to accompany P.L. 111-117 (page 1040)
included the following statements:
Within the amount provided for Native American programs, the
conference agreement includes $12,000,000 for Native American
language preservation activities including no less than $4,000,000
for language immersion programs as proposed in Senate Report 111-66.
The House included similar language.
The FY 2010 appropriation and the instructions for Native language
programs do not specify what funds should be allocated to the specific
programs under the Esther Martinez Act. Rather, the recommendation is
that $12 million be spent on all language programs with $4 million of
that used to fund immersion programs. Immersion activities can be
funded under the Language Preservation FOA or the Language--EMI FOA.
The FY 2010 appropriation is not only for new awards, but also for
projects that are continuing into a second or a third year. ANA has
determined that suitable tracking will be completed to ensure funds are
spent as appropriated by Congress.
In FY 2010, ANA identified the Language--EMI FOA as separate from
the Language Preservation FOA to address the specific differences in
time frames and eligibility requirements, as outlined in the Esther
Martinez Act. The Esther Martinez Act program areas fund three-year
projects in one of the following three categories:
Language Nest Projects: providing instruction and child care
through the use of a Native American language and ensuring a Native
American language is the dominant medium of instruction.
Language Survival School Projects: working toward a goal of all
students achieving fluency in a Native American language and
academic proficiency.
Language Restoration Programs: providing instruction in at least
one Native American language and working towards the goal of
increasing proficiency and fluency in that language.
C. Comment on Award Information
Comment: ANA received one comment suggesting that ANA elevate the
funding range for language nest and survival schools from $100,000-
$300,000 to $150,000-$500,000, which have limited funds for teacher
training, curriculum development, repository building, and other
activities.
Response: In response to this comment, ANA offers no change to the
funding floor and ceiling for language nests and survival schools. In
FY 2010, ANA increased the funding ceilings from $200,000 per budget
period for implementation grants and $250,000 per budget period for
immersion grants in FY 2009 to $300,000 per budget period for all
language projects in FY 2010. Further increases in the funding ceiling
will restrict ANA's ability to support many deserving programs. If ANA
increases the funding floor and ceiling, fewer projects will be funded.
For example, if ANA has $2 million for new projects in FY 2010, only
four projects at $500,000 each could be funded versus more than six
projects with a $300,000 ceiling.
D. Comment on Disqualification Factors
Comment: ANA received one comment requesting that ANA identify
Tribally controlled colleges as separate entities from the associated
Tribes.
Response: In response to this comment, ANA offers no change. In
accordance with 45 CFR 1336.33, ``applications from tribal components
which are tribally-authorized divisions of a larger tribe must be
approved by the governing body of the Tribe,'' thereby recognizing them
as one entity.
E. Comment on Definitions
Comment: One commenter stated that the Language--EMI FOA should
include definitions for ``language survival schools'' and ``language
nests'' in addition to ``language restoration programs.''
Response: ANA offers no change in response to this comment. The
NOPC identified only changes from 2009 to 2010. Definitions for both
``language survival schools'' and ``language nests'' were included in
the FY 2009 program announcements; therefore, the definitions were not
included as new definitions in the NOPC. All three definitions will be
included in the FY 2010 Language--EMI FOA.
F. Comment on Application Evaluation Criteria
Comment: One commenter stated that tracking an impact indicator for
three years after the end of the project period is difficult because
there would be no grant funding to support these data collection
efforts.
Response: ANA agrees in part and offers clarification but no
change. The best use of ANA resources is to fund projects that are
sustainable and have the potential to impact and provide benefits to
the community beyond the project period. In addition, applicants should
propose projects that have a clearly identified goal of what the
project will achieve and how the proposed project will impact the
community well into the future. Therefore, ANA is requesting that a
target be set for three years after the project period; however, ANA is
not requiring that data be collected or reported for the period after
the project ends. It will be the grantee's decision whether to track
the third indicator after the end of the project period.
[[Page 11183]]
G. Other Comments
Comments: One commenter suggested that a Tribe should be able to
have a Family Preservation grant concurrent with a SEDS grant and
another commenter stated that the proposed changes will improve the ANA
program and its effectiveness in the target communities.
Responses: The first comment was not addressed by any changes
identified in the NOPC; therefore, ANA declines to respond to the
comment. ANA agrees with the second comment. ANA's program mission is
to promote self-sufficiency and cultural preservation for Native
Americans by providing social and economic development opportunities
through financial assistance, training, and technical assistance to
eligible Tribes and Native American communities, including American
Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Native Pacific
Islander organizations. ANA recognizes that to better address its
mission, a simplified funding structure that reaches more of ANA's
target communities is needed. The changes to the FY 2010 FOAs were
developed to that end.
The 2010 FOAs will be published on the ANA Web site at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana//programs/program_announcements.html and
at https://www.grants.gov.
Dated: March 2, 2010.
Caroline Gary,
Deputy Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans.
[FR Doc. 2010-4843 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
