Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
258225355
label
Regional Councils
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
258225355
contentType
document
title
Regional Councils
citationUrl
collections
White House Staff Member and Office Files (Nixon Administration)
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.'s Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
258225355
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8e0b48c9eb459e81
ocrText
PRAFT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRMEN, FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCILS
SUBJECT:
Closer Regional Council Links with Indian Representatives
There are 800, 000 Indian and Alaska Native people in the United States,
28% of whom reside on the 115 major federally recognized reservations. The
1970 Census reported that 40% of all Indian people were below the poverty level
and that over 300, 000 Indian people live in urban areas.
Besides the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a number of Federal agencies HEW,
HUD, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, Justice, Small Business) operate programs
directly for the benefit of Indian people, but under either existing policy or pro-
posed statutes, most of such direct help is or will be limited to Indian people
who reside on reservations under "recognized tribal governments."
Only a few federal programs (HEW: ONAP and Office of Education, Commerce:
OMBE; SBA; Justice: Civil Rights) are or will be in a position to provide any
direct assistance to urban Indian people. Housing, general revenue-sharing,
ESEA Act, and manpower assistance funds, for instance, will reach urban Indians
only via State and city governments.
Four Urban Indian Centers are now being assisted with significant funds by
HEW/ONAP; fifteen others are being aided by small grants; there are, however,
some forty urban Indian centers in
cities.
There are two questions which Regional Councils face as a result of these facts:
1. With respect to Indian people within their Regions who reside on federally
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-2-
recognized Reservations, how can the non-BIA agencies coordinate their Indian
programs to ensure maximum effectiveness for all the federal funds being com-
mitted and also to ensure conformity with Tribal priorities?
2. With respect to Indian people who reside in urban areas, within the res-
pective Regions, how can they be given information as to
(a) federal programs of direct assistance for which they are eligible?
(b) where to go at State and city government levels to ensure that their needs
are fairly taken into consideration in the local allocation processes for federally
assisted programs?
Federal Regional Councils have responsibilities in handling both these questions.
It is our understanding that those Councils in Regions having significant numbers
of Reservation or urban Indian people have by now formed Indian Task Forces.
This should be done if it has not been accomplished already and each of the
representatives on these Task Forces should be, in turn, a focal point of intra-
agency coordination on Indian programming at the regional level.
1. Reservation Programs
It is the policy of this Administration to strengthen elected tribal governments
and in fact to encourage them to take over and manage any and all BIA or HEW
programs on their respective Reservations, but the take-over is to proceed at
a pace of each tribal government's own choosing. A corollary to this policy is
that a single, central office within each Tribal Government should also be con-
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-3- -
sulted in advance, not only by BIA but by any other federal agency planning
or operating assistance programs on that Reservation.
Up to now it is our impression that when federal agencies other than BIA
plan programs on Indian Reservations, such consultation as they may engage in
among each other is minimal, and that with Indian officials tends to be with
certain diverse, specialized counterpart offices on the Indian tribal government
staff. Both federal coordination and effective tribal government are thus impeded
rather than strengthened. Regional Council agencies are therefore requested
to work closely with each other (through the respective Indian Task Forces) and
in every case to consult in advance with the same single, central office within
each Tribal Government, to ensure that federal assistance programs on each
Reservation are mutually supporting and are in accord with the Tribal Govern-
ment's own priorities for Reservation development. Federal Regional Council
Chairmen are instructed to monitor this coordination by appropriate means.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and HEW/ONAP will, for their part, be committing
increased attention and resources to the strengthening of Tribal Government
machinery SO that this federal coordination will be complemented by coordination
within the Tribal Government structure itself.
2. Urban Indian Programs
It is the policy of this Administration to avoid subdividing off-reservation
assistance programs into ethnic "slices": black, Spanish-speaking, Indian,
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-4-
Polish, Asiatic, or whatever. On the other hand, it is Administration policy to
build, or encourage responsible groups to build links to economically and
culturally disadvantaged people regardless of their ethnic origins, and to use
these links to acquaint disadvantaged people with both direct and indirect
federally assisted programs which can help them.
For urban Indian people this means that those of them who are below poverty
levels need to be sought out and advised about their rights and eligibilities for
sharing in federally assisted programs, including those programs actually
managed by city government agencies. Indian Centers and other organizations
of urban Indian people are probably the best means of building these links and
ensuring outreach and information.
It is therefore requested that each Federal Regional Council Chairman
assume the following responsibilities (which will normally be discharged by
the Council's Indian Task Force):
a) With respect to federal agencies which are authorized to provide direct
assistance to urban Indian people, the Chairman of the Indian Task Force is to
seek out the leaders of urban Indian Centers or similar organizations in the
respective Region and make clear to them that he or she is their primary contact
point for information about available direct federal assistance. The Task Force
Chairman is to refer urban Indian leaders! queries and proposals promptly to
the appropriate federal agency or agencies in the Region, make sure that the
urban Indian leaders and the federal officials are in direct contact and that the
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-5-
proposals of urban Indian leaders are being given fair consideration. The Task
Force Chairman should use the Indian Task Force as a tracking mechanism to
keep all members informed of the status of action on the proposals and specifically
to ensure that the plans which agencies do decide to implement are mutually
reinforcing rather than duplicatory.
b) With respect to federal agencies whose programs of assistance will reach
urban Indian people only via State and local governments, the Chairman of each
Regional Council's Indian Task Force is to seek out the leaders of urban Indian
Centers or similar organizations in the respective Region and make clear to
them that he or she is their primary point of contact to get queries answered as
to where, in the Region's State and local governments, urban Indian leaders may
go to propose and substantiate their eligibility for federally assisted programs.
The Task Force Chairman is to refer such queries promptly to the appropriate
federal agency and make sure that the Indian leaders and the federal officials
are in direct contact. The respective federal officials in turn should play a
supporting role, making sure that the proposals of urban Indian leaders are given
fair consideration by the State and local authorities themselves.
The success of these efforts will depend on close collaboration between the
Chairmen of the Indian Task Forces and the Task Force Members and other federal
agencies, and the Regional Council Chairman are instructed to monitor this
coordination by appropriate means.
This memorandum in no way is intended to address a further, and separate
subject: the future field structure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs itself, and its
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-6- -
relationship to the Federal Regional Councils. That subject is explicitly
reserved for future discussions within the Executive Branch and for prior con-
sultation with Indian leaders themselves.
Roy Ash
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE House
WASHINGTON
Helenpterson
303
837-4139
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
Phone
WASHINGTON
Julia Vadala HEW
T.W.Taylor BIA 245-6461 343-8297
Dave Page OMB 395-4933
BOB ROBERTSON NCIO 395-3412
Cecil Holimann Dol 343-8254
name Bhitchell OMB 395-4554
George clark D01 343 - 7606 HEW 426-4055
Charle 5. Hugher OMB 395-4543
Syd Freeman
Morris Thompson BIA-343-5116
ave OMB
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
11 TC, aided by
taken grantsrum shy nutrative
2. fars directly to Fed
agrees at full or DC
3' Condination awareg
feds 4, Achaus: Ch do vat Fad
wherever in local prous to
officials bate
"ace Indian who lacal gauts,
air pacteripate in dealagie,
as stuck behind carrot.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
American Indian Information
and Action Group, Incorporated
1414 North 27 Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53208
November 5, 1973
Mr. Bradley Patterson
Special Council to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Patterson:
This letter is in response to the conversation I and
several other Indians had with you about the need for
some kind of vehicle for Indian Region V organizations
to take better advantage of the Federal Regional Council
in Chicago.
The enclosed proposal is the result of a request from
Governor Erbe, Chairman of the Region V Council. At a
meeting in early June, 1973, he asked for assistance in
solving some of the problems he had been having in trying
to communicate with the Indian people in the six states
of Region V. Although a small proposal, the planning
committee that worked on it felt it was the most important
first step towards getting a decision out of the Region V
Indian community on how they could more effectively use
the Federal Regional Council.
After talking to you at the NCAI Conference about this,
I was glad to hear that you were also concerned about
this, and would assist in following up on this proposal.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
Mr. Bradley Patterson
November 5, 1973
Page Two
The person that this proposal was sent to is:
Governor N. Erbe, Chairman
Region V Council
Department of Transportation
300 South Wacker Drive, Room 1702
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Any help you can give us would be appreciated.
Stanly Sincerely, stubites
Stanley Webster
414 933 4100
Coordinator
SW:mac
CC: Governor N. Erbe
Enclosure
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
AMERICAN INDIAN INFORMATION
AND ACTION GROUP, INC.
1414 N. 27th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53208
November 5, 1973
PRESERVATION COPY
Governor N. Erbe
300 South Wacker Drive
Department of Transportation
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Dear Governor Erbe,
The enclosed proposal was written and given to you on Tuesday,
July 10, 1973, by a PLANNING COMMITTEE of Region V Indian people, who
had developed the proposal at your request. The Planning Committee
has worked somewhat independently from the American Indian Information
and Action Board on the proposal, and I have recently become con-
cerned that because we have not taken an active advocacy role for
this proposal that it has hampered the proposal's funding.
The American Indian Information and Action Group, Inc. has
accepted the sponsorship of this project, and along with that accep-
tance goes our support.
Please let me know what is the status of the proposal. If there
are questions that you think I could answer, please let me know. I
look forward to hearing from you, and will continue to follow the
direction of this proposal along with Stanley Webster, who has been
chosen as Coordinator from the Planning Committee.
Sincerely,
Josephine Bigler
Josephine Bigler, Executive Director
cc: Stanley Webster
JB/1d
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP AN INDIAN TASK FORCE FOR REGION V.
Adom I
Submitted by: The Advisory Planning Committee
The Regional Council concept was established by Executive Order 11647
signed by President Nixon on February 13, 1973 in order to develop closer
working relationships between major Federal grantmaking agencies and State
and local government and improved coordination of the categorical grant system.
An Urban Indian Task Force was instituted in April, 1972 and established
a formal report that pointed out many of the problem areas that face Indian
communities in their relationships with government agencies. These included
generally: lack of contact with employable Indians; lack of Indian input;
lack of communication with Indian communities; and lack of pertinent data to
Indian communities.
This Urban Indian Task Force has since not functioned, but in the light
of these defined problem areas and to insure the implementation of the concept
of improved coordination between government agencies and Indian communities of
the six-state area of Region V, it is proposed that the Planning Committee set
up on June 4, 1973 be authorized to canvass the six state area with seminars
within a 180 day period to create a Regional Indian Task Force which will be
charged with the following duties:
(1) to gather information from government agencies as relates to
grantsmaking and disburse it to the Indian communities in
Region V;
(2) to evaluate the collected information as to its effectiveness
as relates to the Indian communities; and
(3) to disseminate pertinent information to Indian communities.
The Planning Committee presently consists of the following members:
This Planning Committee will act as workshop leaders in their respective
areas with an attempt to recruit additional members from Ohio and Indiana and
under the sponsorship of the American Indian Information and Action Group,
1414 N. 27th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin will begin to develop the Regional
Indian Task Force within the following guidelines:
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
1. The task force shall be no less than 12 members, and shall be
no more than 18 members;
COPY
2. To the extent possible, the Task Force will consist of one (1)
rural Indian representative, and one (1) urban Indian representative
from each of the six (6) states of Region V; (in some instances,
circumstances may dictate varied representation since Illinois,
Ohio and Indianan have no reservations and Minnesota has two
legally chartered Indian reservation groups)
The project will begin July 15, 1973, under the direction of Stanley Web-
ster, Ad Hoc Director, and the first order of business will be to mail out
letters to stimulate interest and to establish communication contacts.
The Planning Committee will meet in the first week in August to:
(1) plan composition of the Task Force
(2) plan method of Task Force selection
(3) plan work shop design
(4) plan and develop workshop presentation materials
(5) establish workshop locations ( 2 to 4 locations in each state)
Upon completion of workshops and with the accumulation of data, a Planning
Committee meeting will be held in mid-December to evaluate results and make
recommendations.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
BUDGET (6 months)
(
24 Seminars: over a 3-6 month period of time
$200 (consulting fees) plus $25 (per diem)
$4800.00
Salary for a fulltime person (6 mos.)
7500.00
with the possibility that this person
could stay on 6 more months at the
request of the new task force members
Printing Costs and Mailings
600.00
Telephone
1000.00
Travel
$500.00
Planning Committee Meetings
9 members X $]25 X 2 days= $2250 X 2 meetings
4500.00
Secretarial help - part-time
@ $5.00/hour X 8 hrs X 12 days
480.00
TOTAL
$20,980.00
Copy
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
REGION V INDIAN PLANNING COMMITTEE
CO-ORDINATOR:
The Co-Ordinator is directly responsible to the Indian
Planning committee.
TO:
1.) Locate and catologue by state all interesed Indian
organizations and persons.
2.) Inform these groups and persons of the general purpose
of the Indian Planning Committee.
3.) Present to the Indian Planning Committee a tentative
agenda for the individual workshops and their locations.
4.) Assist the Indian Planning Committee in the overall
planning of the workshops.
5.) Develope materials and resources for the workshops.
6.) Inform federal, state, and local agencies of the work-
shops that pertinent to them.
7.) Aid in the completion of the actual workshops.
8.) Collect and organize the resulting reports and data
from all the workshops.
Copy PRESENVATION
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
TIMETABLE
In order to accomplish these goals the CoOrdinator shall by:
Aug. 13, 1973
Obtain a complete list of interested Indian
organizations and people.
Aug. 31, 1973
Have informed all interested parties concerning
the nature of the Indian Planning Committee.
Sept. 15, 1973
Present to the Indian Planning Committee the
general format of the workshops.
Oct. 1, 1973
Present to the Indian Planning Committee a
tentative schedule of the workshops. This would
include Indian Planning Committee members responsible
for the individual meetings.
Oct. 13, 1973
Contacted and:informed local Indian organizations
concerning their particular workshops. Also
complete three workshops.
Oct. 31, 1973
Finished contacting and informing local Indian
groups concerning their workshops and completed
six workshops.
Nov. 15, 1973
Completed twelve workshops.
Dec. 1, 1973
Completed all workshops.
Dec. 20, 1973
Have ready for the Indian Planning Committee all
the necessary reports and data from all the
workshops. This will enable the committee to
finalize its recommendations and present its final
plan.
PRESENTION CORN
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
AL. COBE
1046 W. WILSON
CHICAGO, 60640
(352 275-1173?
Home- 784-4214
Indians for Indians, Inc.
Jan
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
The WHITE House
WASHINGTON
Vince Piratono
3775
OMB
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
DEC 1 0 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Office of Management and Budget
From:
Assistant Secretary - Management
Subject:
Federal Regional Councils and Indian Programs
This is in response to your memorandum of November 26, 1973,
requesting comments on a draft paper calling for further action
by the Federal Regional Councils.
We concur in the overall purpose of your paper. We are
concerned, however, that the primary thrust is to exhort the
Federal Regional Councils to continue to do what they are
already trying to do; 1.0., establish Indian task forces to
serve as a primary focel point for information and coordination
of federal assistance programs. Instead of moving this concept
further, it is suggested that wa address two current problems
that seem to be symptomatic of the Indian/FRC issues or
deficiencies:
1. Program Access
A recent study conducted by NCIO and NTCA, now
being documented, disclosed that only 43 federal
assistance programs were currently being utilized
by two or more tribes, out of a total of about
600 programs potentially available. An additional
43 were identified that were each being utilized by
only one tribe. This is an appalling situation and,
even if the figures are not precise, it certainly
points out the need for emphasis on making better
information available to the tribes regarding program
availability and assistance in gaining access to them.
This problem has another dimension in that federal
assistance programs are generally limited to fulfilling
prior commitments or ongoing progrems. Providing
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
additional Indian participation would therefore
require redirecting funds from other areas, which
is a painful process. This is a major factor in
the reluctance of Regional Councils to move very far
in Indian affairs.
2. Program Coordination
As the Regional Councils have evolved, they have moved
cautiously in taking on specific coordination efforts
to avoid overextending their capacity or ability.
Consequently, much of their activity is special
purpose one time efforts that can be projectized and
measured. Integrated Grant Applications (IGA at
Zuni and Standing Rock), the Reservation Acceleration
Program (RAP), and the OMB Circular A-95 Process
are examples of this kind of effort. Neither the
Regional Councils nor their Indian task forces have
the capacity to provide this kind of a coordination
mechanism for each Indian reservation or urban Indian
program, and each one needs coordination. Current
examples of this lack of coordination are:
8. Homes built by one agency, utilities provided by
another agency, and no funds to put the two
together, such as we now have with Standing Rock
and the Oklahoma Seminole.
b. Funds provided for industrial parks by one
agency for which there are no tenants, such
as we now have at a number of locations.
C. Funds provided through states or discretionary
LEAA grants for facilities and equipment for
which BIA has not programmed funds for operation
and maintenance.
It is inconceivable that Federal Regional Councils can, using their
present approach, establish a separate machanism for each of the
hundreds of such cases needing coordination. Unless and until
we find some way of providing coordination among program officials
as a routine way of life 50 that coordination is a part of the
ongoing system, we cannot hope to make much improvement through
Regional Councils.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
In summary, it is suggested that we discuss these issues in a
workshop or seminar fashion with CMB and Regional Council Chairmen
at their January meeting for the purpose of developing an action
plan for the coming year.
(sgd) James T. Clarke
CC:
Secretary's surname
Secretary's reading file (2)
(AM - Subject file
AM $ Reading file
AM - Review Management Team surname
AM - Review Management Team chron
at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
DEC 1 0 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Office of Management and Budget
From:
Assistant Secretary - Management
Subject:
Federal Regional Councils and Indian Programs
This is in response to your memorandum of November 26, 1973,
requesting comments on a draft paper calling for further action
by the Federal Regional Councils.
We concur in the overall purpose of your paper. We are
concerned, however, that the primary thrust is to exhort the
Federal Regional Councils to continue to do what they are
already trying to do; i.e., establish Indian task forces to
serve as a primary focel point for information and coordination
of federal assistance programs. Instead of moving this concept
further, it is suggested that wa address two current problems
that seem to be symptomatic of the Indian/FRC issues or
deficiencies:
1. Program Access
A recent study conducted by NCIO and NTCA, now
being documented, disclosed that only 43 federal
assistance programs were currently being utilized
by two or more tribes, out of a total of about
600 programs potentially available. An additional
43 were identified that were each being utilized by
only one tribe. This is an appalling situation and,
even if the figures are not precise, it certainly
points out the need for emphasis on making better
information available to the tribes regarding program
availability and assistance in gaining access to them.
This problem has another dimension in that federal
assistance programs are generally limited to fulfilling
prior commitments or ongoing progrems. Providing
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
additional Indian participation would therefore
require redirecting funds from other areas, which
is a painful process. This is a major factor in
the reluctance of Regional Councils to move very far
in Indian affairs.
2. Program Coordination
As the Regional Councils have evolved, they have moved
cautiously in taking on specific coordination efforts
to avoid overextending their capacity or ability.
Consequently, much of their activity is special
purpose one time efforts that can be projectized and
measured. Integrated Grant Applications (IGA at
Zuni and Standing Rock), the Reservation Acceleration
Program (RAP), and the ONB Circular A-95 Process
are examples of this kind of effort. Neither the
Regional Councils nor their Indian task forces have
the capacity to provide this kind of a coordination
mechanism for each Indian reservation or urban Indian
program, and each one needs coordination. Current
examples of this lack of coordination are:
So Homes built by one agency, utilities provided by
another agency, and no funds to put the two
together, such as we now have with Standing Rock
and the Oklahoma Seminole.
b. Funds provided for industrial parks by one
agency for which there are no tenants, such
as we now have at a number of locations.
Co Funds provided through states or discretionary
LEAA grants for facilities and equipment for
which BIA has not programmed funds for operation
and maintenance.
It is inconceivable that Federal Regional Councils can, using their
present approach, establish a separate mechanism for each of the
hundreds of such cases needing coordination. Unless and until
we find some way of providing coordination among program officials
as a routine way of life 50 that coordination is a part of the
ongoing system, we cannot hope to make much improvement through
Regional Councils.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
In summary, it is suggested that we discuss these issues in a
workshop or seminar fashion with ONE and Regional Council Chairman
at their January meeting for the purpose of developing an action
plan for the coming year.
(sgd) James T. Clarke
$
CC:
Secretary's surname
Secretary's reading file (2)
(AM - Subject file
AM - Reading file
AM - Review Management Team surname
AM - Review Management Team chron
AM/SFreeman/n1 12/4/73
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
DEC 1 0 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Office of Management and Budget
From:
Assistant Secretary - Management
Subject:
Federal Regional Councils and Indian Programs
This is in response to your memorandum of November 26, 1973,
requesting comments on a draft paper calling for further action
by the Federal Regional Councils.
We concur in the overall purpose of your paper. We are
concerned, however, that the primary thrust is to exhort the
Federal Regional Councils to continue to do what they are
already trying to do; i.e., establish Indian task forces to
serve as a primary focel point for information and coordination
of federal assistance programs. Instead of moving this concept
further, it is suggested that wa address two current problems
that seem to be symptomatic of the Indian/FRC issues or
deficiencies:
1. Program Access
A recent study conducted by NCIO and NTCA, now
being documented, disclosed that only 43 federal
assistance programs were currently being utilized
by two or more tribes, out of a total of about
600 programs potentially available. An additional
43 were identified that were each being utilized by
only one tribe. This is an appalling situation and,
even 1£ the figures are not precise, it certainly
points out the need for emphasis on making better
information available to the tribes regarding program
availability and assistance in gaining access to them.
This problem has another dimension in that federal
assistance programs are generally limited to fulfilling
prior commitments or ongoing progrems. Providing
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
additional Indian participation would therefore
require redirecting funds from other areas, which
is a painful process. This is a major factor in
the reluctance of Regional Councils to move very far
in Indian affairs.
2. Program Coordination
As the Regional Councils have evolved, they have moved
cautiously in taking on specific coordination efforts
to avoid overextending their capacity or ability.
Consequently, much of their activity is special
purpose one time efforts that can be projectized and
measured. Integrated Grant Applications (IGA at
Zuni and Standing Rock), the Reservation Acceleration
Program (RAP), and the ONB Circular A-95 Process
are examples of this kind of effort. Neither the
Regional Councils nor their Indian task forces have
the capacity to provide this kind of a coordination
mechanism for each Indian reservation or urban Indian
program, and each one needs coordination. Current
examples of this lack of coordination are:
8. Homes built by one agency, utilities provided by
another agency, and no funds to put the two
together, such as we now have with Standing Rock
and the Oklahoma Seminole.
b. Funds provided for industrial parks by one
agency for which there are no tenants, such
as we now have at a number of locations.
C. Funds provided through states or discretionary
LEAA grants for facilities and equipment for
which BLA has not programmed funds for operation
and maintenance.
It is inconceivable that Federal Regional Councils can, using their
present approach, establish a separate mechanism for each of the
hundreds of such cases needing coordination. Unless and until
we find some way of providing coordination among program officials
as a routine way of life 50 that coordination is a part of the
ongoing system, we cannot hope to make much improvement through
Regional Councils.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
In summary, it is suggested that we discuss these issues in a
workshop or seminar fashion with CHS and Regional Council Chairman
at their January meeting for the purpose of developing an action
plan for the coming year.
(sgd) James T. Clarke
CC:
Secretary's surname
Secretary's reading file (2)
(AM - Subject file
AM - Reading file
AM - Review Management Team surname
AM - Review Management Team chron
AM/SFreeman/nhequi2/4/77e
Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE :
WASHINGTON
December 27
Morrie -
There are four issues I am wrastling
with here and am anxious to get them wrapped up
during January.
l. "Bill of "articulars" for the Sioux
dissidents. I gave you that memo
today, and the earlier part of the
file was sent to "Marvin Frankling
and Morris Thompson" on November 19.
2. Indian Educatiom -- especially the
future of funding under HEW's Indian
Education Act. I wrote a note about
this to you and others on November
26 and hope to have an early session
among the persons mentioned. The Domestic
Council is looking into this, also.
3. Regional Councils and Links with Indian
Representatives. I sent you a memo
on this dated November 26, and have
one response back from Sid Freeman.
I'll probably be calling a meeting on
this with HEW and you and Sid. I
attach here a copy of Sid's response;
as you can see, there is much to discuss
here.
4. Future of NCIO. You got a copy of the
Garment memo of December 17. I have
no idea whether the VP is going to meet
with NCAI people.
To sum upL need to hear from you or your
staff on items I and 3.
Resume read
Brad
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
STATEM OF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
3,
DEC 1 0 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Office of Management and Budget
From:
Assistant Secretary - Management
Subject:
Federal Regional Councils and Indian Programs
This is in response to your memorandum of November 26, 1973,
requesting comments on a draft paper calling for further action
by the Federal Regional Councils.
We concur in the overall purpose of your paper. We are
concerned, however, that the primary thrust is to exhort the
Federal Regional Councils to continue to do what they are
already trying to do; i.e., establish Indian task forces to
serve as a primary focal point for information and coordination
of federal assistance programs. Instead of moving this concept
further, it is suggested that we address two current problems
that seem to be symptomatic of the Indian/FRC issues or
deficiencies:
1. Program Access
A recent study conducted by NCIO and NTCA, now
being documented, disclosed that only 43 federal
assistance programs were currently being utilized
by two or more tribes, out of a total of about
600 programs potentially available. An additional
43 were identified that were each being utilized by
only one tribe. This is an appalling situation and,
even if the figures are not precise, it certainly
points out the need for emphasis on making better
information available to the tribes regarding program
availability and assistance in gaining access to them.
This problem has another dimension in that federal
assistance programs are generally limited to fulfilling
prior commitments or ongoing programs. Providing
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
additional Indian participation would therefore
require redirecting funds from other areas, which
is a painful process. This is a major factor in
the reluctance of Regional Councils to move very far
in Indian affairs.
2. Program Coordination
As the Regional Councils have evolved, they have moved
cautiously in taking on specific coordination efforts
to avoid overextending their capacity or ability.
Consequently, much of their activity is special
purpose one time efforts that can be projectized and
measured. Integrated Grant Applications (IGA at
Zuni and Standing Rock), the Reservation Acceleration
Program (RAP), and the OMB Circular A-95 Process
are examples of this kind of effort. Neither the
Regional Councils nor their Indian task forces have
the capacity to provide this kind of a coordination
mechanism for each Indian reservation or urban Indian
program, and each one needs coordination. Current
examples of this lack of coordination are:
a.
Homes built by one agency, utilities provided by
another agency, and no funds to put the two
together, such as we now have with Standing Rock
and the Oklahoma Seminole.
b.
Funds provided for industrial parks by one
agency for which there are no tenants, such
as we now have at a number of locations.
C. Funds provided through states or discretionary
LEAA grants for facilities and equipment for
which BIA has not programmed funds for operation
and maintenance.
It is inconceivable that Federal Regional Councils can, using their
present approach, establish a separate mechanism for each of the
hundreds of such cases needing coordination. Unless and until
we find some way of providing coordination among program officials
as a routine way of life SO that coordination is a part of the
ongoing system, we cannot hope to make much improvement through
Regional Councils.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
In summary, it is suggested that we discuss these issues in a
workshop or seminar fashion with OMB and Regional Council Chairmen
at their January meeting for the purpose of developing an action
plan for the coming year.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
INTERIM REPORT
TO
STAFF OF MOUNTAIN PLAINS FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
by Helen L. Peterson, Chairman, Interagency
Indian Committee, and Phyllis Pearson, HEW
December 27, 1973
IMPORTANCE OF FULL TIME CHAIRMAN
Chairman Robert Rosenheim, both by reason of his fulltime chairmanship
of the Regional Council and his own superior sensitivity and under-
standing of the issues involved, has already proved effective in im-
proving the credibility of FRC with Indian Tribes in Region VIII, and
in accomplishing some concrete results.
In terms of communication and credibility, Chairman Rosenheim's presen-
tation to 23 of the 24 tribes in Region VIII at the regional meeting
sponsored by ACTION overcame a deteriorated situation in the region
due to the disappointments and cancellation of the Standing Rock Sioux
IGA in summer, 1973. Because of the renewed confidence generated by
Chairman Rosenheim, several tribes are requesting consideration by MPFRC
for selection for consolidated funding, or integrated technical assis-
tance programs, namely Rocky Boys Reservation, Southern Ute (which has
submitted impressive documentation), and Cheyenne River Sioux.
SCOPE OF PURPOSE
Besides the MPFRC Chairman's presentation and discussion during
the ACTION conference November 16-17 in Denver, some of the efforts to
improve communications --at the same time that the Interagency Indian
Committee is evaluating these activities in order to recommend continuing
methods-- the Chairman of the IIC met during two days, November 29-30,
in Billings, Montana with seven of the eight Montana and Wyoming tribes
to discuss MPFRC goals and IIC assignments.
The IIC Chairman and Phyllis Pearson, member of the IIC committee attended
and informally discussed MPFRC during the NTCA, December 6-7 in Phoenix.
The Chairman organized and chaired a panel on FRC activity in relation to
Indian tribes during the NCAI meeting, Tulsa, October 29-November 2.
The Chairman at least, and hopefully also the Chairman and Vice-Chairman
of the MPFRC and one or two staff members will meet with the Dakota
tribes in Aberdeen, January 22-23 (along with BIA agency and area of-
ficials).
William Hallett and a committee are in process of completing a report
on the several topics under SCOPE OF PURPOSE in the Mission Assignment.
It is due to the IIC at its January 8-9 meeting.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
INTERIM REPORT TO MPFRC
December 27-1973
Page 2
II-A-1. Tribal Presence with the MPFRC.
Hallett will have this
recommendation finished for consideration of the IIC on
January 8-9. Moreover the means for selecting such per-
son (s) have been discussed with tribal chairman on two
ocaasions (Denver, November 16-17 and Billings, Nov. 29-30);
The Crow Creek Tribal Chairwoman, Mrs. Elnita Rank, asked
that a job description be circulated to the tribes, candidates
invited to apply, and then that the Tribal Chairmen in Reg. VIII
be brought to Denver to make the selection.
NEEDED: Information from MPFRC as to how and when such a
position could be funded.
II-A-2. Formal meetings have been held between Tribal officials and
MPFRC, as above mentioned, the most effective being the
FRC Chairman's presentation at ACTION meeting, Nov. 16-17
in Denver; and IIC Chairman's presentations to Billings Area
Tribal officials, in Billings, Nov. 29-30. Next scheduled
formal meeting is with Dakota tribes, January 22-23. BIA
will provide charter plane service on return to Denver if
MPFRC Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and two or three IIC members
can go.
II-A-3. IIC member (and former chairman) William Hallett, has pro-
posed an occasional newsletter which will be tried after
the January 8-9 meeting of the IIC.
II-A-4. IIC members Wetzel (DOL) and Petit (LEAA) will make their
report to IIC on January 8-9. Meantime, Phyllis Pearson
has been meeting with Denver's DNAU organization, and the
IIC is in communication with Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board.
I. B. Situation Reports on all tribal governments: A subcommittee
1 and 2 of the IIC is in process of preparing these reports. Probably
three-fourths of the material has been assembled on all the
tribes in the region to prepare this report. That subcommittee,
composed of BIA Area Office officials, developed a format in two
parts: one for the tribes to describe their own planning and
management capabilities, and to indicate their interest (accom-
panied by tribal resolution) in consideration by MPFRC for con-
solidated or integrated funding; and the second format to be
completed by BIA officials to summarize statistical data on
the tribes. These questionnaires have been distributed to
the tribes, and the tribes have been asked to return them by
January 2, in time for consideration by the IIC on Jan. 8-9.
II-C
A subcommittee of IIC is working on development of an FRC
mechanism to integrate the delivery of federal technical
assistance to tribes. It, also, will bring its report
to the IIC meeting January 8-9.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
INTERIM REPORT TO MPFRC
December 27, 1973
Page 3
II-D
A subcommittee of IIC will have a sample memorandum of
agreement that can be used by Tribes for consideration of
IIC on January 8-9.
II-E
Based on the Tribes' own indications of interest, the IIC
verbally recommended a number of Tribes to the MPFRC on
December 4, for consideration for selection, namely:
THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES, FT. BERTHOLD RESERVATION
UINTAH AND OURAY UTE TRIBE
SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE
SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE
The IIC Chairman further reported that as other tribes
submit proposals, or requests, or otherwise indicate
their interest, their names will be forwarded to MPFRC
SPECIAL PROJECTS or PROGRAMS FOR MPFRC CONSIDERATION
In addition to the Tribes named above, the IIC has been working with,
and upon, some special projects or programs, namely:
DEVIL'S LAKE SIOUX DAY CARE CENTER
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX WATER LINE PROJECT
COORDINATION OF MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS
COORDINATION OF INDIAN INTERESTS IN THE
ENERGY CRISIS
IMPROVING INDIAN INPUT IN THE NORTHERN
GREAT PLAINS RESOURCES PROJECT
PREPARATION LIST OF RESOURCE PEOPLE (INDIAN)
IN REGION VIII EMPLOYED IN FEDERAL
AGENCIES IN GS-9 AND ABOVE POSITIONS
PROGRESS ON OBSTACLES TO FRC CONSOLIDATED FUNDING: The Department
of Transportation secured amendatory legislation in respect to HTS
funds by which the 244 Indian tribes will be treated as the 51st state,
with the Secretary of Interior acting in the role of a state's governor,
and funds flowing to tribes through BIA Area offices. This might be
a model for HEW or LEAA whose major funds flow through states.
Also, BIA has legislation pending to enable it to make grants to tribes.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
INTERIM REPORT TO MPFRC
December 27, 1973
Page 4
NEEDS:
MPFRC chairmen and other officials can do better about making themselves
available to tribal chairmen. The officers and staff of MPFRC should
remember (or learn, if necessary) that Indian Tribes have some sovereignty
equal to that of the States. The elected heads of Tribes should be ac-
corded fully as much time and courtesy as any mayor or governor.
The IIC chairman needs much improved office facilities and constant
follow-up has gone on to get DOI and BIA to provide these, which will
include a "tribal headquarters" office.
The Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and some IIC members should attend the
Aberdeen Area office meeting of tribal officials, BIA personnel, congres-
sional aides meeting in Aberdeen, January 22-23.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
INTERAGENCY INDIAN COMMITTEE
MOUNTAIN PLAINS FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL
Meeting - November 7, 1973
ATTENDING:
Jeff Muskrat - BIA-ITAC - Denver
A1 Ulibarri - Dept. of Justice - Bureau of Prisons
Robert Wilson - EDA
John Isham - HEW
Phyllis Pearson - FRC
George Rold - HEW
Darrel Dillon - CSC
Robert Walker - BIA Albuquerque Area Office
Jim Abeita - BIA Billings Area Office
Helen Peterson - BIA Denver Field Office - Chairman
The Chairman, Mrs. Helen L. Peterson, opened the meeting with discussion of
Item 1 on the agenda (copy attached). Robert Walker, chairman of the sub-
committee reported his sub-committee had developed formats for two kinds
of information (copies attached) :
1. Statistical information on tribes that is
readily available at BIA.
2. Planning and management capability information
which will have to be obtained from the Tribes
(BIA can assist them, if requested).
The sub-committee proposed an application type of format for the tribes,
not only to provide planning and management capability information, but
also to serve as an indication of the Tribe's interest in being considered
for selection by MPFRC as a pilot program for FY 74 consolidated funding.
Since some tribes have no staff or fulltime tribal officers, it may be
impossible to gather the information from every tribe, but an attempt should
be made because the information will be valuable to MPFRC in reaching deci-
sions concerning consolidated funding. Mr. Walker advised that his committee
did not feel comfortable with the wording of B-1, "level of competence"
and they would prefer the Tribes furnish the information requested by
MPFRC in B 1 and 2. The sub-committee will complete the statistical reports
by the end of the year. The two formats were approved by the Interagency
Indian Committee; they will be discussed with the MPFRC staff then dupli-
cated for mailing to committee members.
Mrs. Phyllis Pearson reported PMFRC is trying to improve communications
and eliminate red tape while trying to help implement planning and manage-
ment systems.
George Rold (HEW) estimated that 85 to 100 per cent of HEW funds flow through
state agencies and that at some point in time, we need to take on that issue
to see that the proper share of those dollars go to Tribes.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
Interagency Indian Committee Minutes
November 7, 1973
Page 2
Darrel Dillon indicated that in most meetings he had attended, federal
agencies always talked about tribal "management capabilities, but when
they fund a tribe, in effect the agency administers the program through
its regulations. However, if and when the program fails, the Tribe is
blamed for the failure.
Mr. Rold expressed concern that indications and evaluations of "planning
and management capabilities" will come only from the more sophisticated,
whereas the Interagency Indian Committee and MPFRC should be concerned
perhaps even more about those Tribes which do not respond because they
probably have greatest need.
Mr. Robert Wilson advised that EDA had made twenty-two planning grants in
the region, and the agency plans to spend its remaining funds to update
Overall Economic Development Programs (OEDP's). He reported that 80 per
cent of FY 74 money will be spent according to tribal priorities.
Mr. Rold discussed the Youth Development and Delinquency Services program
and said HEW would attempt to do something at Rosebud for the Junior Tribal
Council if the new tribal government gives support to the idea. HEW has a
collection of socio-demographic data on a county basis.
Helen L. Peterson reported she understood, on accepting the chairmanship
of the ICC, it had been agreed the ICC would not recommend, and MPFRC would
not "select" just one tribe in the region for special attention. She said
her position on this had consistently been that it would be presumptious
to make subjective judgments of Tribes' "planning and management capabilities. "
She said she plans to draft a careful letter of comment and concern, which
will be combined with her acceptance of the committee chairmanship, to MPFRC
Chairman, Robert Rosenheim. The letter will be submitted to the Committee
for review before it is forwarded.
Robert Wilson suggested that in lieu of "recommending" tribes to MPFRC, we
should propose some alternatives in our letter to Mr. Rosenheim. Mrs. Peter-
son and Mrs. Pearson emphasized that federal agencies, as well as FRC,
need to understand that tribes must be involved when decisions are made
concerning them. Perhaps some sensitivity training is needed.
Darrel Dillon stated he has come to believe BIA is the best agency to deal
with tribes because, even with its failures and shortcomings, BIA maintains
best communication with tribes, has statutory responsibility to serve tribes,
and its total and only purpose is to serve Indians.
Luncheon Recess
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
Interagency Indian Committee Minutes
November 7, 1973
Page 3
The Office of Native American Projects (ONAP-HEW) will hold a meeting on
November 8 at the Southern Ute Reservation, Ignacio, in regard to the absorp-
tion of OEO by HEW (Mrs. Pearson will attend). ONAP will continue at the
same funding level as OEO. Both OEO and EDA are funded only through June.
OEO will continue non-reservation Indian programs in this region. A rep-
resentative from OEO should be added to the ICC.
The list of ICC working sub-committees was reviewed; some new members were
assigned. FRC staff will prepare letters for the MPFRC Chairman to request
that Clarence Johnson of DOT, George Rold of HEW, and John Hempel of HUD
serve on ICC sub-committees. IHS representatives from Aberdeen and Billings
area offices have not yet been named by when they are, they will be added
to Mr. Walker's sub-committee. Revised sub-committee assignments list is
attached.
The next ICC meeting was set for Monday, December 3, in the FRC conference
room. Members should study the staff paper by Morris Lewis before the next
meeting. William Hallett will be contacted for a briefing of the activities
of his committee; also, Wayman Cooper of the Interagency Funding Mechanisms
Committee of the MPFRC will be asked to come to the next meeting with a
report from his committee. Jeff Muskrat's committee will meet next week.
The ICC Chairman will request new milestones (target dates) from MPFRC Chair-
man, Mr. Rosenheim.
Mrs. Pearson urged the Council to make certain that tribes are fully informed
on revenue sharing and suggested that Mr. Ed Deckard of OMB be asked to begin
to prepare for this.
The Northern Great Plains study is proceeding with very little representation
even though it affects, especially Northern Cheyenne, Crow and Fort Berthold.
This illustrates the need for the "Tribal Presence" in the MPFRC.
William Hallett was asked to begin work on a position paper for MPFRC, em-
phasizing the land and water resources and sovereignty of Indian tribes.
The MPFRC will meet on December 4, at which time the ICC should report and
seek to clear up questions and bring up issues.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
OF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
March
1849
DEC 10 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Office of Management and Budget
From:
Assistant Secretary - Management
Subject:
Federal Regional Councils and Indian Programs
This is in response to your memorandum of November 26, 1973,
requesting comments on a draft paper calling for further action
by the Federal Regional Councils.
We concur in the overall purpose of your paper. We are
concerned, however, that the primary thrust is to exhort the
Federal Regional Councils to continue to do what they are
already trying to do; 1.e., establish Indian task forces to
serve as a primary focal point for information and coordination
of federal assistance programs. Instead of moving this concept
further, it is suggested that we address two current problems
that seem to be symptomatic of the Indian/FRC issues or
deficiencies:
1. Program Access
A recent study conducted by NCIO and NTCA, now
being documented, disclosed that only 43 federal
assistance programs were currently being utilized
by two or more tribes, out of a total of about
600 programs potentially available. An additional
43 were identified that were each being utilized by
only one tribe. This is an appalling situation and,
even if the figures are not precise, it certainly
points out the need for emphasis on making better
information available to the tribes regarding program
availability and assistance in gaining access to them.
This problem has another dimension in that federal
assistance programs are generally limited to fulfilling
prior commitments or ongoing programs. Providing
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
additional Indian participation would therefore
require redirecting funds from other areas, which
is a painful process. This is a major factor in
the reluctance of Regional Councils to move very far
in Indian affairs.
2. Program Coordination
As the Regional Councils have evolved, they have moved
cautiously in taking on specific coordination efforts
to avoid overextending their capacity or ability.
Consequently, much of their activity is special
purpose one time efforts that can be projectized and
measured. Integrated Grant Applications (IGA at
Zuni and Standing Rock), the Reservation Acceleration
Program (RAP), and the OMB Circular A-95 Process
are examples of this kind of effort. Neither the
Regional Councils nor their Indian task forces have
the capacity to provide this kind of a coordination
mechanism for each Indian reservation or urban Indian
program, and each one needs coordination. Current
examples of this lack of coordination are:
a. Homes built by one agency, utilities provided by
another agency, and no funds to put the two
together, such as we now have with Standing Rock
and the Oklahoma Seminole.
b. Funds provided for industrial parks by one
agency for which there are no tenants, such
as we now have at a number of locations.
C. Funds provided through states or discretionary
LEAA grants for facilities and equipment for
which BIA has not programmed funds for operation
and maintenance.
It is inconceivable that Federal Regional Councils can, using their
present approach, establish a separate mechanism for each of the
hundreds of such cases needing coordination. Unless and until
we find some way of providing coordination among program officials
as a routine way of life so that coordination is a part of the
ongoing system, we cannot hope to make much improvement through
Regional Councils.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
In summary, it is suggested that we discuss these issues in a
workshop or seminar fashion with OMB and Regional Council Chairmen
at their January meeting for the purpose of developing an action
plan for the coming year.
(sgd) James T. Clarke
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND budget
CIRCULAR NO.
A-95
WHAT IT IS
HOW IT WORKS
OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-95
WHAT IT IS--HOW IT WORKS
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-95 is a
procedure for coordinating Federal and federally assisted
programs and projects with each other and with State,
regional, and local plans and programs.
The Circular has four major parts:
- Part I, "The Project Notification and Review System,"
deals with State and local review of applications
for Federal assistance.
- Part II, "Direct Federal Development," provides for
consultation by Federal agencies with State and
local government on direct Federal development.
- Part III, "State Plans and Multisource Programs, "
requires gubernatorial review of federally required
State plans and clearinghouse review of plans for
activities being funded from several program sources.
- Part IV, "Coordination of Planning in Multijurisdic-
tional Areas, " promotes coordination of federally
assisted planning at the substate regional level.
1. Statutory background.
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-95 was first
issued July 24, 1969, in partial implementation of the
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. A major revision
was issued on February 9, 1971. Certain other substantive
amendments were promulgated as a separate issuance March 8,
1972. The current revision of November 13, 1973, incor-
porates past revisions and amendments, adds certain clari-
fications and refinements, and expands the coverage of the
"Project Notification and Review System" (Part I, Attachment
A) to cover a substantial number of human resources programs.
The "Project Notification and Review Process" is based in
large measure on an earlier law, Section 204 of the Demon-
stration Cities and the Metropolitan Development Act of
1966. Section 204 requires that application for Federal
assistance to a wide variety of public facilities type
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
projects (highways, hospitals, etc.) in metropolitan areas
must be accompanied by the comments of an areawide compre-
hensive planning agency as to the relationship of the
proposed project to the planned development of the area.
However, Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
is the broad policy base on which A-95 rests. It is
fundamentally a statement of national policy which asserts
the cooperative, intergovernmental nature of Federalism and
directs the close coordination of Federal and federally
assisted plans and programs for the development of the
Nation's physical, natural, economic, and human resources
with State, areawide, and local plans and programs.
Title IV directs the President to "establish rules and
regulations governing the formulation, evaluation, and
review of Federal programs and projects having a signifi-
cant impact on area and community development." The basic
objectives of this mandate center about the importance of
sound and orderly development of urban and rural areas for
the economic and social development of the Nation. Section
401(b) of the Act requires that "all viewpoints--national,
State, regional, and local--shall, to the extent possible,
be taken into account in planning Federal or federally
assisted development programs and projects." Section 401 (c)
states, moreover, that "to the maximum extent possible,
consistent with national objectives, all Federal aid for
development purposes shall be consistent with and further
the objectives of State, regional and local planning. "
The following paragraphs are aimed at clarifying the
regulations promulgated by Circular No. A-95.
2. The approach.
The "philosophy" that lies behind the current formulation of
the requirements called for in the statutes on which A-95 is
based centers on the following views:
a. The statutes themselves represent a response to the
need for coordination of planning and development activities
ment: within and among Federal, State, and local levels of govern-
- At the Federal level, there are a myriad of
programs of assistance to State and local
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
government that were developed piecemeal and are
not coherent as to policy and administration.
They are often duplicative and sometimes even
in conflict with each other;
- At the State level, Governors' abilities to
manage are not only often constitutionally
circumscribed but administratively frustrated,
with respect to Federal programs, by functional
bureaucracies;
-
Local government is heavily fragmented both
within and among jurisdictions; and
- Many federally assisted programs and projects
cannot be planned by (or within) individual
jurisdictions or without reference to programs
and projects within other functional or
jurisdictional areas.
A-95 is the instrument for facilitating the needed coordination
without encroaching on the constitutional domain of the States
or the statutory responsibilities of Federal program adminis-
trators.
b. A-95 is based on the following premises:
- Fundamental to coordination is communication;
therefore,
- If people who should be talking to each other
are put in a position of having to talk to
each other, then
- They may come to identify and understand their
communities of interest and areas of conflict, and,
if they do, then
- They may cooperate in pursuit of their common
interests and try to negotiate their differences;
- To the extent that they do, federally assisted
programs and projects are more likely to be better
coordinated, resulting in dollar savings, better
projects and more value for public investment.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
4
In short, A-95 cannot assure coordination, but it is designed
to create a climate for intergovernmental cooperation in which
such coordination is more likely to come about.
c. A-95 should clearly state the objectives of Title IV,
but it should not be prescriptive as to the means by which
the objectives are achieved. All of the requirements of A-95
go to Federal agencies and applicants for Federal assistance.
That is, A-95 sets forth a system under which Federal agencies
and applicants for Federal assistance must give State and local
governments, through areawide and State clearinghouses, an
opportunity to assess the relationship of their proposals to
State, areawide, and local plans and programs. Federal agen-
cies must consider these assessments in the light of the
mandates of Title IV (specifically Section 401 (c)) in deciding
whether or not to approve the project. However, recognizing
the great diversity among States, regions, and localities in
the manner in which the public business is conducted, A-95
puts few constraints on clearinghouses in the way they carry
out the review. They are limited as to the time allowable
for review and are obligated to identify individual juris-
dictions and agencies upon whose plans and programs any
proposal may impact and give them an opportunity to participate
in the review. However, A-95 does not prescribe:
- The existence of clearinghouses as such;
- The organization of clearinghouses;
- The procedures and techniques by which
clearinghouses carry out reviews; or
- Whether or not clearinghouses even carry
out reviews for any categories of projects
or programs covered by the Circular.
In short, A-95 is designed to provde an opportunity for
governors, mayors, and county officials and other State and
local officials, through clearinghouses, to influence Federal
and federally assisted programs and projects that may affect
their own plans and programs.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
5
It should be stressed, however, that the comments made by
the clearinghouses are advisory only. A supportive review
will not assure Federal approval of an application, nor will
a negative review constitute a veto.
Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 states that areawide agencies
(clearinghouses) should be comprised to the greatest
extent practicable of local elected officials, and most
are. Althouth OMB encourages this approach, neither the
Act nor A-95 sets it out as a requirement in order to
accommodate State law and to provide local governments
with maximum flexibility.
d. The primary value of A-95 reviews is not to second
guess the experts in any program area but to disclose
external impacts of proposed projects. For instance, a
proposed hospital may be very well designed, but an applica-
tion will not disclose the fact that it, in conjunction with
other proposed projects in an area, will overload the sewer
system. If the toilets back up, it will not be a good
hospital. A-95 can bring such considerations to light and
set in motion actions to adjust: re-site hospital, expand
the sewer capacity, etc. Thus, functional expertise is
not as critical to clearinghouses as is the generalist
capability of comprehensive planning to identify linkages
among functions and programs. Moreover, the referral (to
potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies) system of
the clearinghouse will tend to involve functional experts
to a greater extent.
e. A-95 should not be considered a "license to manufacture
red tape. " The review process is a service to clientele
governments of clearinghouses to enable them to get the best
possible project to meet their needs. Many clearinghouses
have developed quick screening processes so they can spend
their review resources on projects most likely to have an
intergovernmental impact. Although at least 60 days (two
30-day periods may be involved) are permitted for review,
most are consummated in half the time.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
6
PART I: PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
1. The process in brief.
The Projection Notification and Review System (PNRS) may be
thought of as an "early warning system" to facilitate
coordination of State, regional, and local planning and
development activities that are assisted under various
Federal programs. Coordination is sought through review
of applications for Federal assistance by or through State
and areawide clearinghouses. The clearinghouses are generally
comprehensive planning agencies and, at the areawide level,
are usually organizations predominantly comprised of elected
officials of general purpose units of government.
The PNRS is referred to as "an early warning system, as it
is a two-step process. The "early warning" step occurs
when an applicant-to-be decides he will seek Federal
assistance. At this point, he notifies both the State
and the areawide clearinghouse, signaling his intent and
describing in summary fashion the project or activity for
which he will be seeking assistance.
The idea at this stage is to identify possible issues or
problems SO that the applicant will be saved the trouble
and expense of preparing an application for which a
clearinghouse may subsequently identify serious problems.
The clearinghouses will examine the notification to determine
if there are any actual or potential problems with the appli-
cation in terms of State or areawide plans and programs.
They will also try to identify any individual agencies or
jurisdictions having plans or programs that may be affected
by the proposed project. The clearinghouses will assure
that such agencies or jurisdictions are given an opportunity
to review the proposal.
Within 30 days of receiving the notification, the clearing-
houses must indicate to the applicant whether or not there
are any actual or potential issues with the proposal. If
there are none, the applicant has fulfilled his obligation
and may complete and submit his application to the funding
agency, unless the clearinghouse specifies that it wishes
to review the completed application. If so, it may have
an additional 30 days.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
7
At any time during the initial 30 days that identified issues
are resolved, the clearinghouse may "sign off," concluding
the review. At any time after the initial 30-day period,
if there are still unresolved issues pending, the applicant
may submit a copy of his completed application for final
review, and any comments of the clearinghouse (or others)
must be submitted to the applicant within 30 days. The
applicant must include all comments with his application,
when he submits it to the funding agency. The funding
agency will utilize such comments in evaluating the
application.
2. Clearinghouses.
There are two types of clearinghouses: State and areawide.
State clearinghouses are designated by the Governor and are
usually State comprehensive planning agencies. Areawide
clearinghouses are substate in scale although there are a
number of interstate clearinghouses covering bi- or tri-
State metropolitan areas. Areawide clearinghouses are
also usually comprehensive planning agencies.
The Office of Management and Budget normally designates
areawide clearinghouses covering metropolitan areas.
Governors designate all others. However, it is OMB
policy to seek the concurrence of the Governor before
making a designation, so it is a distinction with little
significant difference. In practice, since the original
metropolitan designations were made pursuant to Section 204
of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development
Act of 1966, many or most recommendations for designations
of new clearinghouses or changes in existing ones have
come from the Governors (or State clearinghouses) and
OMB has concurred. This, of course, is consistent with
Part IV of OMB Circular No. A-95.
The main reason that OMB has reserved the final word on
metropolitan areawide clearinghouses to itself is to assure
that interstate metropolitan areas are treated as a whole
and that the urbanized core of any metropolitan area is
not fragmented. This is not to say, however, that OMB
holds to any doctrinaire approach to arrangements for
carrying on areawide planning and intergovernmental
coordination. For any metropolitan area, OMB will
recognize any arrangements for which there is general
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
8
consensus among the local governments in the area for
carrying out the requirements of Circular No. A-95. As
noted above, concurrence of the State in those arrangements
will be an important factor in the OMB determination.
3. Elements of the process.
a. Notification. Paragraph 2 of Part I describes
the type of information to be included in the
notification and indicates certain exemptions.
It is critical that notifications be sent at the very earliest
possible time, even if all of the summary information is not
available or is sketchy. If necessary information is not
available, it can be fed in as it is developed. The main
thing is that the stage is set as early as possible for
issue identification, negotiation, and resolution. By
following this rule the review process will be expedited
so that by the time the applicant completes his application,
any issues will have been resolved or, if not, clearinghouse
comments can be readily prepared.
Notifications must be sent to both the State and the areawide
clearinghouses. However, if the project is of a type - as
for certain kinds of research - where no specific areawide
or local impact can be identified, the notification need
be sent only to the State clearinghouse. If the State clear-
inghouse discerns potential interest on the part of any or
all areawide clearinghouses, it can then involve them in
the review. If the applicant is uncertain as to whether his
proposal falls into this category, he may consult the State
clearinghouse or the areawide clearinghouse from the juris-
diction of which the application will emanate.
This paragraph also notes that federally recognized Indian
Tribes are exempt from the review requirements. Because of
certain treaty rights, the Tribes have a unique status
vis-a-vis the Federal Government and deal with them directly,
and do not "go through" State or local governments in such
dealings. However, because tribal projects may affect State
or local plans and programs, Federal funding agencies are
required to inform State and local clearinghouses of any
application received from a Tribe. If a clearinghouse sees
any problem, it can take it up with the Tribe or register
its concern with the funding agency.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
9
However, Tribes are urged to participate voluntarily in the
review process as there are substantial benefits to be
derived. These might include technical assistance from
clearinghouses in planning better or more economical tribal
projects or receiving timely information about and opportunity
to influence other proposed projects that might affect tribal
interests or land. Of course, direct participation would
also obviate any delays in application processing that might
derive from Federal information referencing of tribal
projects to clearinghouses.
While the primary purpose of the PNRS is to coordinate
federally supported programs with State, areawide, and
local plans and programs, it should be remembered that the
purpose of Federal programs is to help the applicant in the
solution of a problem. Therefore, the PNRS emphasis should
be on helping the applicant to develop the best possible
project to achieve his objectives in a manner that will not
do violence to the plans and programs of other jurisdictions
and agencies.
b. Clearinghouse functions. (Paragraph 3 of Part I.)
The term "clearinghouse" is meant to fully reflect the
functions of these agencies:
- To identify the relationship of any project
to statewide or areawide comprehensive plans, and
- To identify the relationship of any project to the
plans or programs of particular State agencies or
individual local governments.
While clearinghouses are expected to have comprehensive
planning capabilities or direct access to such capabilities
in order to identify the compatibility of proposed projects
to statewide or areawide plans, the "clearinghouse" aspect
is equally important. It can happen that a project which is
not inconsistent with State or areawide comprehensive planning
may be in conflict with the plans or programs of a particular
State or local agency.
Thus, when an applicant sends a notification to the State
clearinghouse, the clearinghouse will not only examine the
project from the standpoint of State comprehensive planning
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
10
but will forward a copy of the notification to any State
agencies having plans or programs that might be affected to
ascertain their interest in participating in any follow-up
conferences with the applicant, The areawide clearinghouse
to which the applicant also sends the notification will,
similarly, contact specific local governments and agencies
which might be affected.
Identification of jurisdictions and agencies with related
programs and their involvement in the review process is a
critical feature of PNRS, in view of its role of dealing
with the external impacts of projects. Thus, community
action or model cities agencies should be drawn into
reviews of projects affecting the poor; school boards
should participate in reviews of projects relating to
child and youth development. Any governmental jurisdic-
tion or agency that may be affected by a proposed project
should be given an opportunity to participate in its review,
whether or not that jurisdiction is a member of the clear-
inghouse.
Paragraph 3 identifies two types of agencies where review
involvement is specifically obligatory: State and local
environmental agencies on projects for which an environmental
impact statement may be required; and State and local public
agencies responsible for the enforcement of civil rights laws
or for the furtherance of their objectives (e.g., human rela-
tions commissions).
Questions have frequently been raised about the involvement
of citizens' organizations in the review process. Because
A-95 is based specifically on legislation aimed at intergovern-
mental cooperation, it does not make such involvement obliga-
tory. Also, from a practical standpoint, a clearinghouse,
except in more rural areas, will probably not be aware of
all of the myriad citizen groups in a region. However, to
the extent that such groups can be identified, their involve-
ment in A-95 reviews can be beneficial. Therefore, OMB
encourages clearinghouses to seek appropriate private
citizens' and community organization inputs to their reviews.
Frequently the local jurisdictions and agencies to which
notifications are referred by a clearinghouse will have a
better idea of which citizen groups should be involved and
may bring them into the review process. Good examples are
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
11
the civil rights agencies which will know the proper minority
group organizations to bring in to consider the civil rights
implications of a project.
Relationships established with State and local agencies -
including quasi-governmental and private agencies - through
conscientious application of the "clearinghouse" aspect of
the PNRS can enhance the status of the individual clear-
inghouse as a focal point for planning coordination and can
lend popular and private sector support to clearinghouse
activities. In addition, the expert inputs of these agencies
to the review process represent a useful supplement to the
clearinghouse's own review resources and capabilities.
C. Consultation and review.
Paragraph 4 sets forth the review process itself, as
described above. Of particular additional note are the
following:
(1) Areawide clearinghouses are required to include
any written comments of individual jursidictions, agencies,
or organizations submitted to the clearinghouse as part of
the review of any proposal. However, only comments that
are at variance with those of the clearinghouse need be
included as attachments to the clearinghouse comments.
The reason for this rule is twofold:
- To assure that the funding agency gets the full
range of local views on any project; and
- To assure all those who do present views on
a
given project that those views will be con-
sidered by the funding agency in the final
evaluation of the proposal.
While this is already the practice of many or most areawide
clearinghouses, there have been instances where individual
jurisdictions, agencies, or organizations have expressed
discouragement at participating in the review process because
they felt that their views were not reflected - adequately or
at all - in the comments of their clearinghouses. This new
provision should promote higher level confidence in the
process on the part of those making inputs to it.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
12
(2) One important thrust of both statutes on which
A-95 is based is to promote the primacy of general purpose
over special purpose units of local government. Therefore,
in the case of applications from special purpose units,
clearinghouses must involve any general purpose unit in
the jurisdiction of which the project will be located in
the review to assure that functions of the latter are not
being preempted. If the general purpose unit is contemplating
a similar project, as indicated by the review, the Federal
agency must give it preference. If it cannot, it must
justify the award to the special purpose unit.
(3) No matter how jurisdictional lines are drawn for
areawide clearinghouses, there will always be some spillover
of impact between adjacent clearinghouses. This is particu-
larly true for heavily urbanized areas, especially in the
great "megalopoles" such as the Boston to Washington urban
strip where SMSAs are contiguous for hundreds of miles.
Therefore, it is important that adjacent areawide clearing-
houses establish arrangements to coordinate joint planning
and review for spillover activities.
d. Subject matter of comments and recommendations.
Paragraph 5 indicates some of the aspects of project proposals
to which clearinghouses may want to address their comments.
Most of these are taken verbatim from Title IV of the Inter-
governmental Cooperation Act and Section 102 (2) (c) of the
National Environmental Quality Act.
However, the list of items or considerations under Paragraph 5
are suggestions only. The clearinghouse need not address each
question, nor is it constrained by Paragraph 5 from discussing
any aspect of a proposal, whether or not listed. And, of course,
as noted above, the clearinghouse need not comment at all on any
given proposal. In fact, clearinghouses should try to develop
a screening process to weed out projects with no areawide or
interjurisdictional. spillover, so that they may devote their
review resources to projects with potential intergovernmental
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
13
impact. However, individual Mayors or County Boards of
Supervisors may wish to look at all projects proposed in
their jurisdictions. When such requests are made of clear-
inghouses by individual jurisdictions, the clearinghouses
will assure them such opportunity and make sure their
comments are transmitted to the applicant.
e. Federal agency procedures.
Paragraph 6 notes the obligations of Federal agencies to
assure that applicants are informed of A-95 requirements
and that they understand that applications that have
neglected these requirments will not be considered. They
are also required to inform the reviewing clearinghouses
of any major substantive action taken on each application.
A new provision would oblige the funding agency to provide
the clearinghouse with a written explanation, when it has
approved an application that the clearinghouse has
recommended be disapproved or approved only with substan-
tial modification.
The reason for these feedback provisions (information of
action taken and explanation of contrary action on negative
recommendations) centers on the role of the clearinghouse as
a comprehensive planning agency. Timely information on what
or what is not going to happen and an understanding of why
something that may be contrary to State, regional, or local
plans is going to happen is critical to the comprehensive
planning process. Depending on Federal action, adjustments
in planning assumptions and projections and of various
elements in the plan may have to be made, if it is to be a
useful guide to development in the area.
f. OMB Circular No. A-102.
Paragraph 7 deals with the relationship between A-95 and
Attachment M of Circular No. A-102. Attachment M establishes
a standard preapplication for certain categories of Federal
grants, primarily for construction. Its purpose is to
expedite reviews of these proposed projects and to save
applicants the cost of preparing detailed plans for projects
that may not be fundable. To require applicants to go
through the A-95 review prior to the preapplication would
defeat, in some measure, the objectives of A-102. On the
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
14
other hand, a major objective of A-95 is coordination. The
need to expedite and the need to coordinate are always at
war. Thus, if the applicant is told by the funding agency
that it has a potentially fundable project and later on, in
the course of A-95 review, it turns out that the project has
serious problems
adverse comment from the clearing-
house, the applicant will feel thwarted, even though a
positive response on a preapplication is no guarantee
that the project will, in fact, be funded. Neither the
applicant, the clearinghouse, nor the Federal agency
wants to be put in such a position.
The answer, under Paragraph 7, is to send a copy of the
preapplication to the clearinghouses at the same time that
it is submitted to the funding agency. Then, if a clearing-
house sees possible problems with the project, it will signal
the funding agency and the applicant. If the project is
otherwise deemed fundable, the Federal agency may then respond
conditionally (if it deems the clearinghouse concern well-
founded) to the effect that the project appears fundable to
the extent that no substantive problems are disclosed in
the subsequent A-95 review. The applicant himself may
decide, also, on the basis of clearinghouse comments to
pull back the preapplication for modification.
After the funding agency responds to the preapplication, the
regular A-95 review process is undertaken. However, due to
the earlier exposure of the clearinghouse to the proposal,
identification and resolution of issues should be facilitated
and the review expedited or even obviated.
The A-102 preapplication form contains much the same kind of
information as does the A-95 notification. .As experience is
gained with the A-102 preapplication process, it may be
desirable to utilize that form for A-95 purposes. While
many clearinghouses have developed their own forms, use of a
standard form may offer advantages for information tracking
and transfer purposes. It may also be possible to meld the
process for delivering information on grant awards under
Treasury Circular No. 1082, formerly OMB Circular No. A-98,
into a coordinated process with A-95 and A-102. Current
pilot studies on regional grant information systems under the
auspices of the New England and Southwest Federal Regional
Councils may contribute to fulfilling this potential.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
15
so
Housing programs.
Paragraph 8 describes the specialized review process devised
to cover Federal housing assistance programs of HUD, USDA,
and VA. The review process is shortened for these programs,
and the formal relationship is between the Federal agency
and the clearinghouses rather than between applicant and
clearinghouses. A minimum size is set for housing projects
subject to review, and the requirement applies only to new
construction, but it does cover loans, loan guarantees,
mortgage insurance or other housing assistance.
Basically, the process works like this: a developer will
submit an application to the Federal agency, that is
preliminary in nature, the purpose of which is to estab-
lish the feasibility and/or eligibility of the proposed
project for the type of assistance sought. The application
contains a description of the project, detailed enough for
evaluation purposes but lacking detailed construction plans.
The Federal agency will send copies to the clearinghouses
which have 30 (formerly 15) days to review it and to submit
any comments back to the agency. The 30-day period is a
floor, and agencies will generally accept comments up until
the time (beyond 30 days) when their own evaluation is
complete.
Some HUD offices have been urging developers to contact the
clearinghouses - particularly the areawide clearinghouses -
prior to submittal of applications. This enables the
developer to acquaint himself with the review process and,
in the case of any particular project, to identify any major
potential difficulties that could cause delay or even
rejection of the project.
The size of proposed housing projects subject to review has
been lowered substantially. Moreover, since the relative
impact of project size may vary with the size of the com-
munity, a distinction has been made between urbanized and
other areas. "Urbanized" is described as a city of 50,000
or more plus contiguous areas having a population of 100 or
more per square mile. For urbanized areas, the floor is
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
16
subdivisions of 25 lots or multifamily projects of 50 units.
Comparable figures for other areas are 10 and 25. Mobile
home courts (50/25 spaces) and college housing (200/100
students) follow the same pattern.
When housing programs were first put under A-95, it was
expected that the main interest of the clearinghouses would
be in their utility in indicating the scale and direction of
urban growth. As it developed, areawide clearinghouses were
not content to simply receive and digest information about
probable housing starts. Housing reviews have tended to
focus on the impact of proposed projects, individually and
collectively, on the supply of facilities and services in
place or needed to serve the new inhabitants of these
developments. Many of the clearinghouses conscientiously
developed checklists and canvassed area and local agencies
on the sufficiency or adequacy of:
Water and waste disposal facilities and
services,
Transportation,
Schools,
Police and fire services,
Hospitals and health services, and
Recreational facilities and services.
Moreover, fundamental environmental questions were considered:
adequacy of soils to support proposed development and tree
cutting, grading, and runoff problems. Similarly economic
impacts - especially on the local tax base - were considered
by many in evaluating housing developments.
h. Exceptions.
Paragraph 9 provides a means by which Federal agencies may
seek to except certain categories of projects from A-95
review. Various criteria are set forth by which OMB will
evaluate requests for exceptions. These include (1) lack
of geographic identity, (2) smallness of scale, (3) purely
local impact, or (4) other characteristics that would make
review impractical. OMB as a matter of policy consults
with major public interest groups representing State and
local government before granting any exception.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
17
Where exceptions are granted the applicant is still required
to file a copy of the application with the appropriate clear-
inghouse. If the clearinghouses should see any problem with
the proposal, these can be communicated directly to the
funding agency.
Individual clearinghouses may, themselves, also except
programs or categories of projects from applicants within
their jurisdictions, under such circumstances as may seem
practical.
Although OMB has granted few exceptions, and the same may
be true for clearinghouses, the inclusion of a greater
number of social programs under PNRS coverage may disclose
more situations where exceptions are practical and feasible
than the construction programs have in the past. This is
because small scale, more sharply focussed projects will
tend to be more frequent under various of the social
programs. Clearinghouses without previous experience with
social programs will need to exercise considerable caution
and may need to rely much more on the expertise of its
member jurisdictions and other agencies and organizations
in the area.
A question related to exceptions but not dealt with in the
Circular involves the end of the fiscal year syndrome and
other emergency situations where applications must be
submitted by a previously unknown date which does not
allow time for a full A-95 review. When an agency informs
OMB of this situation, it has been OMB practice to instruct
the agency to tell the applicants that they must inform the
clearinghouses of the situation and provide as much time as
possible for review. Further, a copy of the application must
go to the clearinghouses at the same time (or earlier) as it
is submitted to the funding agency with notice that the
funding agency will consider any comments sent to it until
such time as it has completed its own review of the applica-
tion. This may not be entirely satisfactory, but it is a fact
of life, given erratic funding and appropriations timing under
various programs. Most clearinghouses have attempted to
accommodate to this circumstance in providing service to
their clienteles.
4. Coverage under Part I.
The revision of November 1, 1973, expands the coverage of
PNRS to a wider array of human resource programs in the
areas of health, education, and manpower. While there
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
18
have been a number of human resources programs (Community
Action, law enforcement, juvenile delinquency, etc.) under
earlier coverage, many or even most areawide clearinghouses
have been primarily oriented to physical development.
Nevertheless, in dealing with these problems, they have,
inevitably, had to deal with human resource questions. The
interfaces between transportation and employment, for instance,
or health and the environment has led many to develop con-
siderable sensitivity to these relationships. Moreover, a
good many of the areawide clearinghouses, are also, variously,
law enforcement planning agencies, comprehensive health or
manpower planning agencies, as well as comprehensive land
use and physical development planning agencies and conse-
quently have developed some expertise in those areas.
However, the most important capability for a clearinghouse
in undertaking review responsibility for a variety of new
programs in areas in which they may have relatively little
staff expertise is the ability, first, to identify the rela-
tionships between any proposed project and other functional
areas; and, second, to identify the agencies in the area
that can provide critical and/or expert inputs into the
review. Few clearinghouses have the resources to employ all
of the expertise they need to carry on the A-95 review for
all programs covered, even before expansion. Inevitably,
most clearinghouses have to turn to other agencies, public
and private, to supply expert analysis to supplement their
own.
As a general guide to coverage, reference should be made
either to Attachment D or to the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance, whichever bears the latest date. Because of
some confusion in funding status, the June, 1973, Catalog
does not reference a number of programs that have been
subsequently funded. It also does not reference a number of
newly established programs. These are referenced in Attachment
D of the November 13, 1973, revision of A-95. As a general
principle, programs which may not be funded at the time of
issuance of the November 13 revision and are therefore not
referenced but are funded subsequently will become covered
if they have been previously covered. Clearinghouses will
be specifically informed, when and if such circumstances
occur, by A-95 transmittal memoranda or the Catalog, whichever
is more expeditious.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
19
A further element of coverage may be provided under State
law. A number of States have, in effect, built A-95 into
State law and have provided for a broadened coverage, such
as for all applications for Federal grants emanating from
State agencies. Paragraph 3.a. of the main body of the
Circular provides that in such States the pertinent Federal
program agencies will respect the additional State require-
ment, unless it is determined that to do so would be in-
consistent with the Federal program statute and the
objectives of A-95.
5. Additional questions on Part I.
a. Financial support for A-95 reviews. There is no
specific financial support provided by the Federal Govern-
ment to assist clearinghouses bear the costs of the A-95
review. The HUD "701" program recognizes A-95 as an
eligible work item on the annual programs of 701-assisted
agencies that are also A-95 clearinghouses. Other agencies
are encouraged, where their program legislation would
permit, to assist clearinghouses in shouldering A-95 costs.
A closely related question is that of fees for clearinghouse
review. OMB does not feel that it can prevent clearinghouses
from trying to charge applicants fees for reviewing their
applications pursuant to A-95. At the same time, OMB does
point out to applicants that they are under no obligation
to pay a fee for such a review. The only obligation of the
applicant is to give the clearinghouse an opportunity to
review his application. If the clearinghouse does not take
advantage of that opportunity within the allotted time, the
applicant is free to submit his application to the funding
agency with a statement to the effect that he has followed
the requirements of A-95 and has received no comment from
the clearinghouse.
Aside from this, it is the OMB view that fees are undesirable,
as they are conducive to log-rolling and other practices not
in keeping with the objectives of A-95. Support for A-95
reviews from whatever source preferably should not be on a
per project basis, but should be generalized, SO that there
can be no suspicion that any individual project is endorsed
because of the review payment attached to it.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
20
b. Relationship of A-95 and Environmental Impact Statements
There has been considerable confusion as to the role of the
clearinghouses in implementing Section 102(2) (c) of the
National Environmental Quality Act which deals with
environmental impact statements (EIS). Section 102 (2) (c)
calls, in effect, for inputs into the development and evalua-
tion of EISs by State and local agencies authorized to develop
and enforce environmental standards. The A-95 clearinghouses
provide a vehicle for securing these inputs, and the review
process specifically represents the means by which such
inputs into the development of the EIS can be achieved.
These relationships are spelled out in detail in "Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines, Federal
Register, Vol. 38, No. 147 - Wednesday, August 1, 1973,
Appendix IV, p. 20562.
C. Part I coverage of formula grants.
Many formula grant programs require State plans which are
covered under Part III of A-95. However, many of these
State plans are quite generalized in nature and give little
information about the specific projects that will be funded
under them. In some cases, therefore, these programs will
also be listed under Part I SO that clearinghouses and
their clienteles may have an opportunity to react to specific
project proposals. Thus, when a formula grant program is
listed under Part I, it is not the State plan or the State
application for its allotments that is to be reviewed but
applications for funding of specific projects or subgrants.
It should be noted that, for some of the formula grant programs
that require PNRS review of specific project applications, the
State agency which administers the formula grant has final
signoff authority over such applications. In other words; it
approves or disapproves the subgrant with no requirement to
get Federal agency concurrence. Examples are law enforcement
assistance subgrants and library construction subgrants.
This does not obviate the need for clearinghouse review. If
the advice and recommendations of clearinghouses can be useful
to Federal administrators in evaluating project applications,
they should be equally useful to State program adminsitrators.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
21
d. The Federal interest in PNRS.
While it should be obvious enough, Federal agencies admin-
istering the Federal taxpayers' dollars have an obligation
to see that program funds are used as effectively as
possible. Therefore, the potentialities under PNRS for
revealing possible conflicts that could cancel out the
beneficial effects among Federal programs or between
jurisdictions can help the Federal administrator fulfill
this obligation. Or, put more positively, PNRS can reveal
opportunities for improving projects by making them more
complementary or combining them, thus reducing, not only
conflict, but expensive duplication. As noted earlier,
Federal internal review procedures may be effective in
evaluating a proposed project in its own terms, but they
will not generally reveal the external impacts of a
project that can make or break it. However, positive
clearinghouse comments - or even "no comment" - can give
reassurance to the Federal administrator that external
effects of a project are either beneficial or minimal.
PART II: DIRECT FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT
Part II requires that Federal agencies engaged in direct
development of Federal projects such as Federal civil works,
military or scientific installations, public building, etc.,
must consult with State and local governments that might be
affected by those projects. Where projects are not in con-
formity with State, regional, or local plans the Federal
agency will be required to justify any departures. The re-
quirement applies not only to construction but to the acquisi-
tion, use, and disposal of Federal real property.
Of particular note is the definition of "direct Federal
development" in the definitions section of A-95 (Part V).
The definition includes not only development undertaken by
Federal agencies but development undertaken for the use of
the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Thus,
Federal lease-purchase developments or developments under-
taken specifically for lease or sale to the Federal
Government would be included.
In addition, in the preparation of environmental impact
statements pursuant to Section 102 (2) (c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act, these Federal development agencies
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
22
are required to seek the views and comments of State and
local environmental agencies. Regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality indicate the clearinghouses as the
appropriate channel through which to secure the required
State and local views and comments.
The clearinghouses designated pursuant to Part I of the
Circular provide the most effective vehicle available to
Federal development agencies to assure that all appropriate
State and local agencies are consulted on proposed projects.
The clearinghouses are generally the State, metropolitan, or
regional comprehensive planning agencies; and in conducting
the PNRS reviews they have occasion to identify the interests
of all development agencies at State and local levels. Thus,
Federal agencies will generally need to touch base with clear-
inghouses in any event. And while the nature of Federal
development with its variable congressional and executive
constraints may not always lend itself to the project
notification and review system procedures per se, the clear-
inghouses can greatly facilitate the consultation required
under Part II of revised Circular No. A-95.
One element that has been somewhat confusing to clearing-
houses and others is a transplant from another OMB Circular -
A-57 - that has been rescinded. This requirement applies to
Federal medical facilities such as VA or military hospitals.
It requires Federal agencies contemplating development or
expansion of such facilities costing over $200,000 to have
their proposals reviewed by State and areawide comprehensive
health planning agencies (314a and 314b). These reviews are
to assist OMB in evaluating the proposals for Federal
budgetary purposes. Since the A-95 clearinghouses will
also review many or most such proposals under Part II,
provision is made for the clearinghouses as the point of
entry into the review system through which the reviews of
the required health planning agencies will be secured.
PART III: STATE PLANS AND MULTISOURCE PROGRAMS
Numerous Federal assistance programs require, as a condition
of assistance, submission of State plans (or "operational
plans, " "plans of work, etc.). These are highly variable
in nature and content. While some are plans in the normal
sense - "What do I want to do and how I am going to do it"
-- others only indicate the basic administrative apparatus
through which the program will be carried out. However,
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
23
associated documentation required to be prepared or submitted
on a periodic basis will generally provide information as to
the specific activities for which program funds will be spent,
even though this information does not appear in the "plan"
itself.
A guide to programs requiring State plans may be found in
Appendix II of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
At any given time, however, this may not be all inclusive.
Part III requires that Governors be given an opportunity to
review such plans or associated documents indicating proposed
program activities. This will permit the Governor to relate
development strategies among the various federally supported
State programs to each other and to any overall strategies
developed through the State comprehensive planning process.
Because many of these State plans will have strong implica-
tions for areawide or local plans and programs, Governors
are encouraged to involve areawide clearinghouses in Part III
reviews, wherever appropriate.
Analagous to State plans as a precondition for Federal
assistance are the plans or annual work programs that provide
the basis for funding of related projects from various pro-
gram sources. The prime example is the Integrated Grant
application. Others listed under Part III are areawide
manpower plans, the DOT unified work programs, and EPA's
consolidated program grants. Others may be added to the
list as they are developed.
Unlike the State plans, the multisource programs are reviewed
by State and areawide clearinghouses. However, 45 days are
also provided for the review. Reviews of multisource pro-
grams can obviate review of the individual projects that
may be under programs covered by Part I and are included in
the multisource program. At the very least, such reviews,
where deemed necessary, should be substantially expedited.
PART IV: COORDINATION OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN
MULTIJURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Part IV of the Regulations was originally developed to
offset a growing tendency among Federal programs to promote
the establishment of areawide planning activities that were
uncoordinated geographically, functionally, or organiza-
tionally. In nonmetropolitan areas this has meant a serious
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
24
drain on already limited planning resources. In metropolitan
areas it has intensified confusion and general duplication
of effort.
Part IV of the Regulations is closely related to Part I. By
encouraging the States to develop systems of substate plan-
ning areas, it sets the stage for a more complete geographic
coverage of the Project Notification and Review System.
Similarly, the PNRS, by requiring clearinghouse review of
projected planning and development activities under various
Federal programs, sets the stage for the more systematic
and continuing planning coordination envisioned under
Part IV.
Originally, the primary thrust of Part IV was to bring a
measure of conformity, or at least consistency, in the
geography of planning areas. This is an important precon-
dition of effective coordination arrangements among various
areawide planning activities. As States have developed
substate district systems - most have, and a majority are
fully operational - and as progress has been made in con-
forming federally designated planning areas with them, the
thrust and emphasis has moved to improving arrangements
for fully coordinating areawide functional planning with
the comprehensive planning carried on by the substate
district organizations.
In 1972, OMB asked the major public interest groups repre-
senting State and local government* to evaluate Federal
agency implementation of Part IV. A major recommendation
of that study was that Federal agencies utilize, to the
greatest degree possible, the substate district organiza-
tions (called "umbrella multijurisdictional organizations" -
"UMJOs" - in the study) to meet areawide planning require-
ments. The UMJOs were described as being predominantly
composed of elected officials of general local government.
Where responsibility for carrying out areawide functional
planning is vested in an agency other than the UMJO, the
study recommended that policy control be vested in the
UMJO. A policy statement embodying these general ideas has
been adopted by most of the public interest groups partici-
pating in the study.
Council of State Governments, National Governors'
Conference, National Legislative Conference, National
League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National
Association of Counties, and International City
Management Association.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
25
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, *
in a massive study of substate regionalism, adopted similar
recommendations, although substantially stronger.
The current revision of Part IV moves in the direction of
the general thrust of the public interest group and ACIR
recommendations. It does this in two ways:
- It encourages, but does not require, Federal
agencies administering programs assisting or
requiring areawide planning to utilize the
substate district organizations (almost always
A-95 clearinghouses) to carry out such planning.
- It requires that the regulations of programs
supporting areawide planning provide for a
memorandum of agreement, when the organization
being funded for areawide planning is not the
district organization, between that organization
and the district organization. In the case of
interstate metropolitan areas, the required
agreement would be between the interstate A-95
areawide clearinghouse and the applicant agency.
The memorandum of agreement would identify the
means by which the two would coordinate their
related planning activities.
The agreement would cover any provisions for joint studies
and utilization of resources, organizational arrangements,
and utilization of common and consistent statistics, pro-
jections, and assumptions about the area and its future.
The latter is extremely important, both in terms of resource
savings and in eliminating one of the basic sources of plan
conflicts.
The achievement of these coordinative arrangements, then,
is a necessary concomitant effort with conforming boundaries;
for a common territorial base by itself does not assure
coordination. There must be contact, communication, and
cooperation between organizations planning for various
aspects of area development for that to occur.
The ACIR is a statutorily established intergovernmental
research organization, the membership of which represents
Federal and State executive and legislative branches,
counties, municipalities, and the public.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
26
While Part IV indicates the various subject matter to be
covered in the agreement, it does not prescribe the form
or substance of the agreement. Those are matters to be
negotiated between the two organizations. Where an
agreement cannot be consummated, Part IV provides that
the organization applying for assistance must indicate in
the application the issues which have prevented agreement.
The funding agency, in cooperation with the Federal Regional
Council and the State clearinghouse, would assist the two
organizations to resolve the issues and conclude an agree-
ment. If no resolution is possible after 30 days the
funding agency could award the grant, if the application
is otherwise in good order. Of course, it could also
refuse to award the grant unless an agreement were
concluded.
If the applicant organization is applying for areawide
planning assistance for an area less than or not
coterminous with that of the substate district (or the
A-95 areawide clearinghouse jurisdiction in the case of
interstate metropolitan areas), it would have to develop
memoranda of agreement with each substate district (or
interstate areawide clearinghouse) into which that
area extends.
The major programs assisting areawide planning (not
necessarily exclusively) are:
- HUD: Comprehensive planning (701) program.
- DOT: Urban highway planning; mass transportation
planning; airport systems planning.
-
EPA: Water quality management planning; air pollution
control planning; solid waste planning.
-
HEW : Comprehensive health planning (314b) planning
for the aged.
- DOL:
Areawide manpower planning.
- USDA: Resource conservation and development planning.
- OEO: Community action planning.
- EDA: Economic development district planning.
- ARC: Local development district planning.
- LEAA: Law enforcement planning.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
27
SUMMARY
OMB Circular No. A-95 is fundamentally an effort to create
a climate where intergovernmental. cooperation can take root
and flourish. It does this by creating opportunities for
contact and communication within and among the several
levels of government. This contact and communication is
a necessary precondition for coordination.
In order to take full advantage of those opportunities, it
is important that the various actors think of the require-
ments as opportunities, rather than as administrative
obstacles:
- The applicant should recognize the opportunity to
develop a better project through avoidance of
conflict and the discovery of means for getting
the most value for its investment.
- The Federal agency should recognize the opportunity
for increasing program effectiveness through the
same means and through applicant awareness of the
need for sound planning and coordination.
- The clearinghouses should recognize the opportunities
for providing real service to applicants which will
enhance clearinghouse credibility and status as a
constructive force in the area or in the management
of the State government.
In sum, the regulations promulgated under Office of Management
and Budget Circular No. A-95 are aimed at promoting more
effective coordination of planning and development activities
carried on or assisted by the Federal Government. The major
device of A-95 is encouragement of systematic communications
between the Federal Government and State and local govern-
ments carrying out related planning and development activi-
ties. Used judiciously by State and local governments and
regional bodies, the processes set forth in A-95 can result
in more expeditious, more effective, and more economical
development of physical, economic, and human resources.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
EXHIBIT 1.
PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
The following outlines the process of the "Project Notifi-
cation System" developed to implement, in part, Title IV
of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act.
Step 1.
Potential applicant desiring Federal
assistance makes inquiries of Federal
agency.
Step 2.
Funding agency informs applicant that, among
other things, it must notify both State and
areawide clearinghouses about the project
for which it intends to apply for assistance.
Step 3.
Applicant notifies clearinghouses.
Step 4.a.
State clearinghouse notifies State agencies
which might have programs affected by proposed
project, including where appropriate, en-
vironmental agencies and State agencies
responsible for enforcing or furthering the
objectives of civil rights laws.
4.b.
Areawide clearinghouse notifies local govern-
ment agencies whose interests might be affected
by the proposed project including, where
appropriate, local and regional environmental
agencies and public agencies responsible for
enforcing or furthering the objectives of
civil rights laws.
Step 5.
State agencies or local governments inform
clearinghouse of interest, if any.
Step 6.
Clearinghouse arranges conferences with
applicant within 30 days of notification
pursuant to its own or other State or
local interest.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
Step 7.
Conferences are held to:
a. Explore project in greater detail.
b. Identify possible conflicts or mutuality
of interest.
Step 8.
If continuing interest, applicant and
clearinghouses (with any State or local
interest), cooperate in developing
application to:
a. Resolve conflicts.
b. Strengthen project.
Step 9.
If conflicts are not resolved, clearinghouse
notifies applicant that it will have comments
to accompany the application. (Note: Conflicts
may arise as between clearinghouses or particular
local governments as to the merit of a project,
SO such comments may be variously supportive
or critical.)
Step 10.
Applicant submits final application (or
adequate project description) to clearinghouse (s)
for comment, providing 30 days therefore.
Step 11.
Clearinghouse (s) submits any formal comments of
its own or of particular State agencies or
local governments to applicant.
Step 12.
Applicant submits application to funding agency,
including comments, if any, or, if none, a
statement that requirement has been followed.
Step 13.
Funding agency considers application and
comments and informs clearinghouses of action
taken thereon.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
It is possible for the process to come to a satisfactory
conclusion at the completion of Steps 5, 7, or 8, as well
as of course, Step 13. At either of the earlier Steps,
clearinghouses can inform applicant of general satisfaction
with the project and that they will have no (or supportive)
comment. In such case, the applicant completes the applica-
tion and submits it to the funding agency with a statement
that the requirement has been followed (or with any sup-
portive comment).
Step 13.
Information to clearinghouses on action
taken on the application by the funding
agency is, of course, always required.
In cases where the funding agency approves an application on
which a clearinghouse has recommended disapproval, the
funding agency must supply the clearinghouse, in writing,
its reasons therefor.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
CH
Applicant Completes and Submits Application
not
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
Interested
A
NO
Applicant Completes and Submits Application
NOTIFY
ISSUES
Applicant Completes and Submits Application
CH
ISSUES
Interested
CONFER
RESOLVED
ISSUES
COOPERATE
A
CH
Completes
CH
ISSUES
Notifies
Application
Comments
NOT
A
CH
A
RESOLVED
A it will
and Submits
Comment
to CH
30 Days
WWWW
Indeterminate Period
30 Days
Total Period for Preparation, Coordination and Submission of Application
KEY
A
Applicant
Exhibit 2
CH
State or Areawide Planning and Development Clearinghouse
EXHIBIT 3.
TWENTY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-95
In connection with the review of the proposed revision of OMB
Circular No. A-95 by State and local governments, a number of
questions about A-95 were directed to OMB. In the hope that
it will help clarify OMB policy on A-95, twenty of the more
frequently asked questions are addressed below. Some of
these have been touched upon in the preceding text.
1. Q. Does OMB Circular A-95 authorize regional clearing-
houses to approve applications for Federal funding
from local government?
A. No. Comments made by clearinghouses (or others) on
applications for Federal assistance are advisory
only. They, along with other information in or
accompanying an application, assist the funding
agency in evaluating the project for which
assistance is sought.
2. Q. Are negative comments by regional clearinghouses to
be utilized by Federal agencies as a local veto of
proposed applications?
A. No. See above. However, A-95 does require that, if
the funding agency approves a project for which a
clearinghouse has recommended disapproval, the
funding agency must provide the clearinghouse with
an explanation as a matter of courtesy, information,
and accountability.
3. Q. Does OMB Circular A-95 require regional clearinghouses
to transmit their comments on proposed applications
directly to the Federal agency?
A. As a general rule, no. The comments are transmitted
to the applicant and must accompany the application.
Exceptions center on housing programs where the
Federal agency sends the preliminary application to
the clearinghouses which transmit any comments back
to the agency.
4. Q. If the regional clearinghouse fails to comment on a
proposed application within the 30-day limit, or the
additional 30 days granted for extenuating circum-
stances, does it lose its opportunity to comment if
the applicant files the application with the
Federal agency anyway?
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
A.
Not exactly. During the first 30 days, it is not so
much a question of the clearinghouse submitting
comments as of contacting the applicant and letting
him know that the clearinghouse is examining the
project or of any potential problems uncovered.
The second 30 days may follow immediately on the
first, if the application has been completed.
However, often appreciable time - sometimes months
-
will pass before application is completed and the
second 30 days begins. All during the intervening
time, the applicant and the clearinghouse may be
working together to resolve any issues that may
have surfaced. To recapitulate, the applicant is
only off the hook during the first 30 days, if he
has received no word from the clearinghouse, or at
the end of the second 30 days if he has received no
written comments from the clearinghouse. Of course,
the clearinghouse may provide comments or otherwise
sign off on an application at any time from receipt of
the notification to the end of the second 30 days. An
ACIR survey shows that most reviews are concluded
during the first 30 days.
5. Q. What is the Federal agency's responsibility to the
applicant when negative comments by a regional clear-
inghouse are forwarded with the application?
A. The Federal agency's responsibility to the applicant,
whether clearinghouse comments are supportive or
critical, is the same: to provide a fair assessment
of the quality of the proposed project in the light
of available information, including clearinghouse
comments.
6. Q. Must regional clearinghouse comments be cleared through
a voting procedure by the clearinghouse membership?
If so, may the clearinghouse limit those members who
vote on a particular application to those jurisdictions
who provide a service common to the subject matter
of the application project?
A. A-95 does not prescribe voting procedures nor the manner
in which clearinghouses conduct reviews. That is
strictly a local determination. A-95 requires only
that time constraints (see Q.4.) be observed and that
clearinghouses make a conscientious effort to identify
jurisdictions and agencies whose plans or programs
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
might be affected by a proposed project and give them
an opportunity to participate in the review. In short,
A-95 clearance procedures are determined by the board
of the clearinghouse. They may not limit participation
in the review to jurisdictions which provide a service
common to the subject matter of the application project,
but should involve any jurisdiction the plans or pro-
grams of which may be affected by the project. Thus,
a jurisdiction having no drug abuse programs may have
law enforcement programs that give it a legitimate
interest in a proposed drug abuse project.
7. Q. May regional clearinghouse members file their own
comments in addition to those forwarded by the
clearinghouse itself? If so, how can they be sure
that their comments are forwarded by the applicant
to the Federal agency?
A. Yes. Individual member jurisdictions of clearinghouses
and others may file separate comments. A-95 provides
that, if they are at variance with clearinghouse
comments, they must be attached to the clearinghouse
comments.
8. Q. What is the Federal agency's responsibility if
dissenting comments are filed by individual clearing-
house member agencies which do not agree with the
comments of the clearinghouse itself?
A. All comments received through the A-95 review are for
the purpose of assisting the funding agency in deciding
whether or not to approve a project. To know that a
proposal is the subject of local controversy is useful
information that may lead the funding agency to in-
vestigate more thoroughly before taking action pro
or con on an application.
9. Q. Must the staff review for a clearinghouse be undertaken
only by clearinghouse staff or may local governments
participate with their own staff?
A. Any local government involved in an A-95 review (as
a clearinghouse member or by referral) may choose to
have its own staff do an independent review. Many
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
4
areawide clearinghouses do have formal arrangements
through technical committees, A-95 review committees,
consultation arrangements, etc., for involving staffs
of local governments and agencies in the review process.
10. Q. If the clearinghouse does not have qualified staff to
review social services applications and it refuses to
use the capabilities of member agency staff, how
can the applicant be assured of a fair and just
analysis of his proposal?
A. There is no way, under any programs, social or other,
that the applicant can be assured of a fair and just
analysis of his proposal. There are some obvious, if
limited safeguards. First, the applicant can tender a
rebuttal to the comments he receives from the clearing-
house and which he must submit with his application.
Second, OMB and the funding agencies do want to be
apprised of flagrant abuses of A-95 from whatever quarter.
Also, see answers to questions 6, 7, 8, and 9. However,
in the last analysis, as in many intergovernmental
matters, there has to be some reliance on good
judgment and good will.
11. Q. If the applicant is the sole or major provider of social
services to the entire clearinghouse region, how can it
be safeguarded from irresponsible comments developed
by the clearinghouse for political or other purposes;
especially, if the majority of the membership does not
have its own technical staff capability to judge the
quality of proposed clearinghouse comments?
A. There is no absolute protection against irresponsibility.
However, see answers to questions 6, 7, 8, and 9. The
question also indicates an unawareness of a quality or
aspect of the A-95 review that is frequently missed:
that is, the major contribution of A-95 review is the
disclosure of the external impacts of a proposed
project. Not only may the review disclose relation-
ships of the project with projects of similar type
that overlap, duplicate, or offer opportunity for
cooperation but to activities planned or proposed in
other functional areas that might impact upon or be
impacted by the proposed project. There are, for
instance strong, although not always obvious, con-
nections between employment and transportation or
between health and housing. One of the most
important capabilities a clearinghouse can have is
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
5
the ability to identify these potential linkages in
connection with a project under review. Then, the
experts can be brought together to consider positive
or negative aspects of such linkages.
12. Q. In clearinghouse regions where a local general purpose
government has political jurisdiction over the entire
area, must the areawide clearinghouse membership
consist of other local general purpose governmental
units? Does OMB Circular No. A-95 preclude a single
local government from being designated as an areawide
clearinghouse?
A.
Not necessarily. There are clearinghouses whose only
formal members are counties, although municipalities
may participate. There are single county metropolitan
areas where the county planning agency is the clear-
inghouse. However, this is usually a matter of State
law or precedent or of local option. A-95 does not
specify clearinghouse organizational format. It should
be remembered, however, that A-95 is a tool for foster-
ing and assisting intergovernmental cooperation and
coordination; therefore, consensus on clearinghouse
arrangements and participation of all jurisdictions
in an area in the review process is highly desirable.
13. Q. What are the Federal requirements for the designation
of institutions for clearinghouse purposes, or for
their redesignation.
A. OMB has not laid down hard rules on designation. The
clearinghouse should have or be developing a compre-
hensive planning capability. Section 204 of the
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development
Act of 1966 requires that metropolitan areawide clear-
inghouses should be composed to the greatest extent
practicable of local elected officials. The area of
jurisdiction of a metropolitan clearinghouse should
cover the whole of the urbanized area, although there
are a few cases, in interstate areas, where a marginal
element of the urbanized area is across the State line
and the clearinghouse jurisdiction is wholly in one
State. There are other cases where the urbanized area
extends into two or more SMSAs and the clearinghouse
jurisdiction includes more than a single SMSA. Most
redesignations involve mergers of COGs and regional
planning commissions or redefinitions of jurisdic-
tional coverage--usually expansions. Most requests
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
6
for redesignation arise locally or from the State.
Where requests are local in origin, OMB will seek the
concurrence of the Governor through the State clear-
inghouse before making the change. Governors, of
course, have sole responsibility for designating
nonmetropolitan areawide clearinghouses.
14. Q. Is there a process within OMB for the periodic review
of designated clearinghouses and their changing roles
in the region?
A. No.
15. Q. Does OMB Circular A-95 permit governmental units
within a single SMSA to form their own clearinghouse
when they are located in a large metropolitan area
consisting of several SMSAs?
A. OMB will recognize, generally, only one clearinghouse
in an area, although some State designated clearing-
houses covering large nonmetropolitan areas will
sometimes include a small metropolitan area which
has its own clearinghouse. However, in large metro-
politan areas, there are sometimes subregional
comprehensive planning agencies of the COG-type (or
other) which may serve, by agreement with the areawide
clearinghouse, as the lead review agencies for projects
within the subregion. Such arrangements are a matter
of local determination. The OMB Directory of Clearing-
houses, however, would only list the areawide clearing-
house.
16. Q. How do localities request a redesignation of clearing-
house responsibilities for their area?
A. In the case of nonmetropolitan areas, such requests
are directed to the Governor, for metropolitan areas
to the Office of Management and Budget.
17. Q. Why doesn't A-95 provide that Governor's designate
metropolitan areawide clearinghouses as well as State
and nonmetropolitan areawide clearinghouses?
A. OMB has retained the right to have "the last word" on
metropolitan clearinghouses primarily to assure that
heavily urbanized areas are not fragmented juris-
dictionally for areawide planning purposes. This is
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
7
a principal thrust of Section 204 of the Demonstration
Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 on
which A-95 is partially based and is of special
significance in interstate metropolitan areas.
However, as a matter of policy, OMB has always
sought the concurrence of the Governor prior to
making any new or amended designations. In point
of fact, måny or most recommendations for clearing-
house designations in new SMSAs or changes in metro-
politan clearinghouse jurisdictions originate in the
Governors' offices.
18. Q. The New Federalism is supposed to favor units of
general local government, but A-95 seems to place
areawide clearinghouses over cities and counties.
How do you reconcile this contradiction?
A. A-95 does not put clearinghouses "over" local general
purpose units of government. Areawide clearinghouses
are generally--unless otherwise provided by State
law--associations predominantly composed of units
of general local government. They are also compre-
hensive planning agencies whose primary business is
"putting it all together" in terms of reconciling
the plans and programs of individual local jurisdic-
tions to create areawide physical, social, and
economic development strategies. A-95 provides--
insofar as federally assisted planning and projects
are concerned--that the development proposals of any
individual jurisdiction are subject to an evaluation
by the peers of that jurisdiction (i.e., other units
of general local government) for their relationships
to areawide development strategies and to the plans
and programs of its neighbors. Since Section 401 (c)
provides that, "(To) the maximum extent possible,
consistent with national objectives, all Federal aid
for development purposes shall be consistent with and
further the objectives of State, regional, and local
comprehensive planning, " A-95 clearinghouse (especially
of the COG-type) reviews seem to provide the best and
most equitable mechanism for implementing that
congressional mandate. That law as well as Section 204
of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development
Act of 1966 simply recognizes that the actions of one
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
8
jurisdiction or functional agency may have significant
impact on neighboring jurisdictions or on other functions
and calls for some mechanism to identify and moderate
these "spillover" effects. OMB is willing to consider
other mechanisms that can achieve this statutory
objective.
19. Q. What provision is there for citizen participation in
the A-95 review process?
A. Directly, none. A-95 was set up, by law, as an
intergovernmental cooperation mechanism, so review
authority extends only to State and local government
and agencies. However, OMB encourages clearinghouses
to involve citizen organizations and private sector
agencies in the review process as such involvement
can bring different and highly significant perspec-
tives to the review. Moreover, private sector
organizations can often add additional levels of
expertise to project evaluations. Of course, many
clearinghouses do have citizen representation on
their governing boards.
20. Q. How does OMB assure Federal agency compliance with
A-95?
A. Because of the sheer number of Federal assistance
applications and other Federal programs and activities
covered by A-95, OMB has to operate on a complaint
basis. Moreover, there are over 500 State and areawide
clearinghouses. Thus, when a clearinghouse discovers
that a Federal agency has not fóllowed A-95 require-
ments, it may complain to that agency and/or to the
Federal Regional Council. If it can get no satisfac-
tion or reassurance that the noncompliance will not
continue, generally the clearinghouse will send its
complaint to OMB. OMB will inform the Federal agency
of A-95 requirements and put it in touch with the
clearinghouse to try to see how the situation can be
rectified. OMB will ask to be informed as to what
steps have been taken to correct the noncompliance.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
Dicberd Niven I ibrery and
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON INDIAN OPPORTUNITY
4
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON 20506
January 14, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR
Brad Patterson
SUBJECT: Indian Tribes and the A-95 Process
As you will recall, we talked about the change OMB
effected in the relationship of tribes to the A-95 process:
from exempting them totally to allowing them to submit pro-
posals for Federal programs but holding the Federal agencies
responsible for notifying the state clearing houses of any
and all proposals SO received.
I have enclosed the OMB circular on this subject.
In talking with Bill Brussat of OMB, he said they had
been under considerable pressure from the Arizona Municipal
League and other such groups to have the tribes go through the
state clearing houses. He indicated that the enclosed language
was a compromise which satisfied the states and other political
subdivisions making up the clearing houses. Personally I have
no arguments SO long as the requirement is not a mechanism which
would allow the states to hold up Indian proposals. Brussat
said that quick and equitable communications with an affected
tribe is intended in the event a state clearing house has a pro-
blem with the Indian proposal.
Robert Robertson
Executive Director
Attachment
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
ARCHIVES
OF
THE
Volume 38
Number 228
PART II
NATIONAL THE * STATES UNITED
1934
OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
FEDERAL AND
FEDERALLY ASSISTED
PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS
Evaluation, review, and coordination
No. 228-Pt. II-1
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
32874
NOTICES
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
shall most effectively serve these basis
objectives.
ATTACHMENT A-REGULATIONS UNDER SEC-
BUDGET
In addition, I expect the Bureau of the
TION 204 OF THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES
[Rev. Circular A-95]
Budget to generally coordinate the actions
AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT ACT
of the departments and agencies in exercising
OF 1966, TITLE IV OF THE INTERGOVERN-
FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED
the new authorizations provided by the In-
MENTAL COOPERATION ACT OF 1968, AND
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
tergovernmental Cooperation Act, with the
SECTION 102(2) (C) OF THE NATIONAL
Evaluation, Review, and Coordination
objective of consistent and uniform action
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AcT OF 1969
by the Federal Government.
NOVEMBER 13, 1973.
b. Title IV, section 403, of the Inter-
PART I-PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW
1. Purpose. This Circular furnishes
SYSTEMS
governmental Cooperation Act of 1968
guidance to Federal agencies for added
which provides that:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Part is
cooperation with State and local govern-
to:
ments in the evaluation, review, and co-
The Bureau of the Budget or such other
ordination of Federal assistance pro-
agency as may be designated by the Presi-
a. Further the policies and directives
dent, is hereby authorized to prescribe such
of title IV of the Intergovernmental Co-
grams and projects. The Circular pro-
rules and regulations as are deemed appro-
operation Act of 1968 by encouraging the
mulgates regulations (Attachment A)
priate for the effective administration of
establishment of a network of State and
which provide, in part, for:
this Title.
areawide planning and development
a. Encouraging the establishment of a
c. Section 204(c) of the Demonstration
clearinghouses which will aid in the co-
project notification and review system
Cities and Metropolitan Development
ordination of Federal or federally as-
to facilitate coordinated planning on an
Act of 1966 which provides that:
sisted projects and programs with State,
intergovernmental basis for certain Fed-
eral assistance programs in furtherance
The Bureau of the Budget, or such other
areawide, and local planning for orderly
of section 204 of the Demonstration
agency as may be designated by the Presi-
growth and development.
dent, shall prescribe such rules and regula-
b. Implement the requirements of sec-
Cities and Metropolitan Development
tions as are deemed appropriate for the ef-
tion 204 of the Demonstration Cities and
Act of 1966 and Title IV of the Intergov-
fective administration of this section.
Metropolitan Development Act of 1966
ernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (At-
tachment B).
and
for metropolitan areas within that net-
work.
b. Coordination of direct Federal de-
d. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970
velopment programs and projects with
and Executive Order No. 11541 of July 1,
c. Implement, in part, requirements of
State, areawide, and local planning and
1970, which vest all functions of the
section 102(2) (C) of the National En-
programs pursuant to title IV of the In-
Bureau of the Budget or the Director
vironmental Policy Act of 1969, which
tergovernmental Cooperation Act of
of the Bureau of the Budget in the Direc-
require that State, areawide, and local
tor of the Office of Management and
agencies which are authorized to develop
1968.
Budget.
and enforce environmental standards be
c. Securing the comments and views of
3. Coverage. The regulations promul-
given an opportunity to comment on the
State and local agencies which are au-
gated by this Circular (Attachment A)
environmental impact of Federal or fed-
thorized to develop and enforce environ-
will have applicability to:
erally assisted projects.
mental standards on certain Federal or
a. Under Part I, all projects and ac-
d. Provide public agencies charged
Federally assisted projects affecting the
tivities (or significant changes thereto)
with enforcing or furthering the objec-
environment pursuant to section 102(2)
for which Federal assistance is being
tives of State and local civil rights laws
(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Attachment (C)) and
sought under the programs listed in At-
with opportunity to participate in the
tachment D or Appendix I of the Catalog
review process established under this
regulations of the Council on Environ-
of Federal Domestic Assistance which-
Part.
mental Quality.
ever bears the later date. Limitations
e. Encourage, by means of early con-
d. Furthering the objectives of title
and provisions for exceptions are noted
tact between applicants for Federal as-
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
therein.
sistance and State, and local govern-
This Circular supersedes Circular No.
Projects and activities under other
ments, and agencies, an expeditious
A-95 (Revised), dated February 9, 1971
Federal programs in certain States,
process of intergovernmental coordina-
as amended by Transmittal Memoranda
where State law (or administrative reg-
tion and review of proposed projects.
No. 1, dated July 26, 1971, and No. 2,
ulations developed pursuant thereto) so
2. Notification. a. Any agency of State
dated March 8, 1972. It will become ef-
require, unless the head of the Federal
or local government or any organiza-
fective January 1, 1974.
program agency determines that such
tion or individual undertaking to apply
2. Basis. This Circular has been pre-
requirements would be inconsistent with
for assistance to a project (or a re-
pared pursuant to:
the Federal law on which the program
newal or major modification thereto)
a. Section 401(a) of the Intergovern-
is based and the objectives of this
under a Federal program covered by this
mental Cooperation Act of 1968 which
Circular.
Part will be required to notify the State
provides, in part, that
b. Under Part II, all direct Federal
and areawide planning and development
The President shall establish rules
development activities, including the ac-
clearinghouse in the jurisdiction of
and regulations governing the formulation,
quisition, use, and disposal of Federal
which the project is to be located, of its
evaluation, and review of Federal programs
real property.
intent to apply for assistance.
and projects having a significant impact on
c. Under Part III, all Federal programs
In the case of applications for an ac-
area and community development * *
as listed in Appendix II of the Catalog
tivity that is State wide or broader in
and the President's Memorandum of No-
of Federal Domestic Assistance requir-
nature (such as for various types of re-
vember 8, 1968, to the Director of the
ing, by statute or administrative regula-
search) and does not have specific ap-
Bureau of the Budget (33 FR 16487, No-
tion, a State plan as a condition
plicability to nor affects areawide or local
vember 13, 1968) which follows:
of assistance and certain multi-source
planning and programs, the notification
programs.
By virtue of the authority vested in me by
need be sent only to the State clearing-
section 301 of title 3 of the United States
d. Under Part IV, all Federal programs
house. Involvement of areawide clear-
Code and section (a) of the Intergovern-
providing assistance to State, local, and
inghouses in the review in such cases
mental Cooperation Act of 1968 (Public Law
areawide projects and activities that are
will be at the initiative of the State
90-577), I hereby delegate to you the author-
planned on a multijurisdictional basis.
clearinghouse.
ity vested in the President to establish the
4. Inquiries. Inquiries concerning this
rules and regulations provided for in that
Notification will include a summary
section governing the formulation, evalua-
Circular may be addressed to the Office
description of the project for which
tion, and review of Federal programs and
of Management and Budget, Washing-
assistance will be sought. The summary
projects having a significant impact on area
ton, D.C. 20503, telephone (202) 395-
description will contain the following in-
and community development, including
3031.
formation, as appropriate and available:
programs providing Federal assistance to the
ROY L. ASH,
(1) Identity of the applicant agency,
States and localities, to the end that they
Director.
organization, or individual.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
NOTICES
32875
(2) The geographic location of the
ment on the civil rights aspects of the
5. Subject matter of comments and
project to be assisted. A map should be
project for which assistance is sought.
recommendations. Comments and rec-
provided, if appropriate.
e. Providing, pursuant to Part II of
ommendations made by or through clear-
(3) A brief description of the proposed
these regulations, liaison between Fed-
inghouses with respect to any project are
project by type, purpose, general size
eral agencies contemplating direct Fed-
for the purpose of assuring maximum
or scale, estimated cost, beneficiaries, or
eral development projects and the State,
consistency of such project with State,
other characteristics which will enable
or areawide agencies, or local govern-
areawide, and local comprehensive plans.
the clearinghouses to identify agencies of
ments having plans or programs that
They are also intended to assist the Fed-
State or local government having plans,
might be affected by the proposed
eral agency (or State agency, in the case
programs, or projects that might be af-
project.
of projects for which the State under cer-
fected by the proposed projects.
4. Consultation and review. a. State
tain Federal grants has final project ap-
(4) A statement as to whether or not
and areawide clearinghouses may have a
proval) administering such a program in
the applicant has been advised by the
period of 30 days after receipt of a project
determining whether the project is in
funding agency from which assistance is
notification in which to inform State
accord with applicable Federal law. Com-
being sought that he will be required to
agencies and local or regional govern-
ments or recommendations, as may be
submit environmental impact informa-
ments or agencies (including agencies au-
appropriate, may include, but need not be
tion in connection with the proposed
thorized to develop and enforce environ-
limited to, information about:
project.
mental standards and public agencies
a. The extent to which the project is
(5) The Federal program title and
charged with enforcing or furthering the
consistent with or contributes to the ful-
number and agency under which assist-
objectives of State and local civil rights
fillment of comprehensive planning for
ance will be sought as indicated in At-
laws) that may be affected by the pro-
the State, area, or locality.
tachment D or the latest Catalog of Fed-
posed project and arrange, as may be
b. The extent to which the proposed
eral Domestic Assistance. (The Catalog
necessary, to consult with the applicant
project:
is issued annually in the spring and is
thereon.
(1) Duplicates, runs counter to, or
updated periodically during the year.)
b. During this period and during the
needs to be coordinated with other proj-
(6) The estimated date the applicant
period in which the application is being
ects or activities being carried out in or
expects to formally file an application.
completed, the clearinghouse may work
affecting the area; or
Many clearinghouses have developed
with the applicant in the resolution of
(2) Might be revised to increase its ef-
notification forms and instructions. Ap-
any problems raised by the proposed
fectiveness or efficiency.
plicants are urged to contact their clear-
project.
c. The extent to which the project con-
inghouses for such information in order
c. Clearinghouses may have, if neces-
tributes to the achievement of State,
to expedite clearinghouse review.
sary, an additional 30 days to review the
areawide, and local objectives and prior-
b. In order to assure maximum time
completed application and to transmit to
ities relating to natural and human re-
for effective coordination and SO as not
the applicant any comments or recom-
sources and economic and community
to delay the timely submission of the
mendations the clearinghouse (or others)
development as specified in section 401 of
completed application to the funding
may have. Written comments submitted
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
agency, notifications containing the pre-
to the areawide clearinghouse by other
of 1968, including:
liminary information indicated above
jurisdictions, agencies, or parties will be
(1) Appropriate land uses for housing,
should be sent at the earliest feasible
included as attachments to the comments
commercial, industrial, governmental, in-
time.
of areawide clearinghouses, when they
stitutional, and other purposes;
c. Applications from federally recog-
are at variance with the clearinghouse
(2) Wise development and conserva-
nized Indian tribes are not subject to the
comments; and others from whom com-
tion of natural resources, including land,
requirements of this part. However, In-
ments were solicited should be listed.
water, mineral, wildlife, and others;
dian tribes may voluntarily participate
d. In the case of a project for which
(3) Balanced transportation systems,
in the Project Notification and Review
Federal assistance is sought by a special
including highway, air, water, pedes-
System and are encouraged to do so.
purpose unit of government, clearing-
trian, mass transit, and other modes for
Federal agencies will notify the appro-
houses will assure that any unit of gen-
the movement of people and goods;
priate State and areawide clearinghouses
eral local government having jurisdic-
(4) Adequate outdoor recreation and
of any applications from federally rec-
tion over the area in which the project is
open space;
ognized Indian tribes upon their receipt.
to be located has opportunity to confer,
(5) Protection of areas of unique
3. Clearinghouse functions. Clearing-
consult, and comment upon the project
natural beauty, historical and scientific
house functions include:
and the application.
interest;
a. Evaluating the significance of pro-
e. Applicants will include with the
(6) Properly planned community facil-
posed Federal or federally assisted proj-
completed application as submitted to
ities, including utilities for the supply of
ects to State, areawide, or local plans and
the Federal agency (or to the State
power, water, and communications, for
programs, as appropriate.
agency in the case of projects for which
the safe disposal of wastes, and for other
b. Receiving and disseminating proj-
the State, under certain programs, has
purposes; and
ect notifications to appropriate State
final project approval)
(7) Concern for high standards of
agencies in the case of the State clear-
(1) Any comments and recommenda-
design.
inghouse and to appropriate local gov-
tions made by or through clearinghouses,
d. As provided under section 102(2)
ernments and agencies and regional or-
along with a statement that such com-
(C) of the National Environmental
ganizations in the case of areawide clear-
ments have been considered prior to sub-
Policy Act of 1969, the extent to which
inghouses; and providing liaison, as may
mission of the application; or
the project significantly affects the en-
be necessary, between such agencies or
(2) A statement that the procedures
vironment including consideration of
bodies and the applicant.
outlined in this section have been fol-
(1) The environmental impact of the
c. Assuring, pursuant to section 102
lowed and that no comments or recom-
proposed project;
(2) (c) of the National Environmental
mendations have been received.
(2) Any adverse environmental effects
Policy Act of 1969, that appropriate
f. Where areawide clearinghouse juris-
which cannot be avoided should the pro-
State, areawide, or local agencies which
dictions are contiguous, coordinative ar-
posed project be implemented;
are authorized to develop and enforce
rangements should be established be-
(3) Alternatives to the proposed
environmental standards are informed
tween the clearinghouses in such areas
project;
of and are given opportunity to review
to assure that projects in one area which
(4) The relationship between local
and comment on the environmental sig-
may have an impact on the development
short term uses of man's environment
nificance of proposed projects for which
of a contiguous area are jointly studied.
and the maintenance and enhancement
Federal assistance 1s sought.
Any comments and recommendations
of long term productivity; and
d. Providing public agencies charged
made by or through a clearinghouse in
(5) Any irreversible and irretrievable
with enforcing or furthering the objec-
one area on a project in a contiguous
commitments of resources which would
tives of State and local civil rights laws
area will accompany the application for
be involved in the proposed project or
with opportunity to review and com-
assistance to that project.
action, should it be implemented.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
32876
NOTICES
e. The extent to which the project
7. OMB Circular No. A-102. OMB Cir-
contributes to more balanced patterns
and will apply to applications for loans,
cular No. A-102 (Attachment M) pro-
of settlement and delivery of services to
loan guarantees, mortgage insurance, or
vides standard application forms for all
all sectors of the area population, in-
other housing assistance:
Federal grant programs to State and
cluding minority groups.
(1) In cities over 50,000 population
local governments except those Federal
f. In the case of a project for which
and contiguous urbanized areas having a
formula grant programs which do not
assistance is being sought by a special
population density of over 100 persons
require grantees to apply for Federal
per square mile, to:
purpose unit of government, whether the
funds on a project basis. The Circular
(a) Subdivisions having 25 or more
unit of general local government having
promulgates a Preapplication Form for
lots.
jurisdiction over the area in which the
all construction, land acquisition, and
(b) Multifamily projects having 50 or
project is to be located has applied, or
land development projects or programs
more dwelling units.
plans to apply for assistance for the
for which the need for Federal funding
(c) Mobile home courts with 50 or
same or a similar type project. This in-
exceeds $100,000.
more spaces.
formation is necessary to enable the
a. Any applicant using the A-102 Pre-
(d) College housing provided under the
Federal (or State) agency to make the
application Form for a project under a
judgments required under section 402 of
debt service or direct loan programs for
program covered by this Part will trans-
200 or more students.
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
mit copies of the preapplication to the
(2) In all other areas, to:
of 1968.
appropriate State and areawide clear-
(a) Subdivisions having 10 or more
6. Federal agency procedures. Federal
inghouses at the time it is submitted to
lots.
agencies having programs covered under
the Federal agency from which assistance
(b) Multifamily projects having 25 or
this Part will develop appropriate pro-
is being sought.
more dwelling units.
cedures for:
b. Circular No. A-102 requires the Fed-
(c) Mobile home courts with 25 or
a. Informing potential applicants for
eral agency to respond to a preapplica-
more spaces.
assistance under such programs of the
tion within 45 days of its receipt. Where
(d) College housing provided under the
requirements of this Part (1) in program
a clearinghouse wishes to make any com-
debt service or direct loan programs for
information materials, (2) in response
ments on the project, it may submit such
100 or more students.
to inquiries respecting application pro-
comments directly to the Federal agency
9. Exceptions. a. Heads of Federal de-
cedures, (3) in pre-application confer-
and the applicant. The Federal agency
partments and agencies may, with the
ences, or (4) by other means which will
will consider any such comments received
concurrence of the Office of Management
assure earliest contact between applicant
prior to completion of its own review of
and Budget, exclude certain categories of
and clearinghouses.
the preapplication and notify the clear-
projects or activities under listed pro-
b. Assuring that all applications for
inghouse of its action on the preapplica-
grams from the requirements of Attach-
assistance under programs covered by
tion. Clearinghouses should also notify
ment A, Part I. OMB concurrence will be
this part have been submitted to ap-
the Federal agency if they have no com-
based on the following criteria:
ment.
propriate clearinghouses for review prior
(1) Lack of geographic identifiability
to their submission to the funding
C. Any comment by a clearinghouse en-
with respect to location or impact (e.g.,
agency.
dorsing or withholding endorsement of
certain types of technical studies)
c. Notifying clearinghouses within
the project during the preapplication
(2) Small scale or size;
seven days of any action, (approvals,
stage will not be considered a substitute
(3) Essentially local impact (within
disapprovals, return for amendment,
for review under this Part unless the
the applicant jurisdiction) ; and
etc.) taken on applications that have
clearinghouse so indicates. All consulta-
(4) Other characteristics that make
been reviewed by such clearinghouses.
tions and conferences between applicants
review impractical. OMB will notify
Where a State or areawide clearing-
and clearinghouses subsequent to sub-
clearinghouses of such exclusions.
house has assigned an identification
mission of the preapplication or review
b. In the case of any exception, appli-
number to an application, the Federal
of completed final applications will be
cants are, nevertheless, required to send
agency will refer to such identification
carried out as described under paragraph
copies of the application to the clearing-
4 of this Part.
numbers in notifying clearinghouses of
houses at the time it is submitted to the
actions taken on the application.
8. Housing programs. Because of the
Federal agency. The Federal agency will
d. Where a clearinghouse has recom-
unique nature of housing programs of
consider any clearinghouse comments
mended against approval of an applica-
the Department of Housing and Urban
up until the time the application has
tion or approval only with specific and
Development, the Veterans Administra-
been processed. Comments should be
major substantive changes, and the
tion, and the Farmers Home Administra-
sent directly to the Federal agency.
funding agency having the power to ap-
tion of the Department of Agriculture a
C. Exceptions will be reviewed periodi-
prove or disapprove the application sub-
variation of the review procedure is nec-
cally by the Office of Management and
stantially as submitted, the funding
essary. For such programs, the following
Budget.
agency will provide the clearinghouse,
procedure for review will be followed:
d. Individual clearinghouses may ex-
in writing, with an explanation
a. The appropriate HUD, VA, or USDA/
cept certain types of projects from re-
therefor.
FHA office will transmit to the appro-
view for reasons indicated above or for
priate State and areawide clearinghouses
other reasons appropriate to the State
e. Assuring, in the case of an applica-
or area.
tion submitted by a special purpose unit
a copy of the initial application for proj-
ect approval.
10. Reports and directories. a. The Di-
of government, where accompanying
comments indicate that the unit of gen-
b. Clearinghouses will have 30 days
Director of the Office of Management and
eral local government having jurisdic-
from receipt to review the applications
Budget may require reports, from time to
and to forward to the HUD, VA, or
time, on the implementation of this Part.
tion over the area in which the project is
to be located has submitted or plans to
USDA/FHA office any comments which
b. The Office of Management and
submit an application for assistance for
they may have, including observations
Budget will maintain and distribute to
the same or a similar type project, that
concerning the consistency of the pro-
appropriate Federal agencies a directory
posed project with State and areawide
of State and areawide clearinghouses.
appropriate considerations and prefer-
development plans, the extent to which
c. The Office of Management and
ences as specified in section 402 of the
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of
the proposed project will provide hous-
Budget will notify clearinghouses and
1968, are accorded the unit of general
ing opportunities for all segments of the
Federal agencies of any excepted cate-
local government. Where such preference
community, and identification of major
gories of projects under covered pro-
cannot be SO accorded, the agency shall
environmental concerns. Processing of
grams.
supply, in writing, to the unit of general
applications in the HUD, VA, or USDA/
PART II-DIRECT FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT
FHA office will proceed concurrently with
local government and the Office of
the clearinghouse review.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Part is
Management and Budget its reasons
to:
c. This procedure will include only
therefor.
a. Provide State and local government
applications involving new construction
with information on projected Federal
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
NOTICES
32877
development SO as to facilitate coordina-
clearinghouses established pursuant to
grams as the Office of Management and
tion with State, areawide, and local plans
Part I will be utilized to the greatest
Budget shall specify from time to time:
and programs.
extent practicable to effectuate the re-
(1) Integrated Grant Administration
b. Provide Federal agencies with in-
quirements of this Part. Agencies are
(IGA).
formation on the relationship of proposed
urged to establish early contact with
(2) Unified Work Program (DOT
direct Federal development projects and
clearinghouses to work out arrange-
1130.2).
activities to State, areawide, and local
ments for carrying out the consultation
(3) Environmental Protection-Con-
plans and programs; and to assure maxi-
and review required under this Part, in-
solidated Program Grants (EPA).
mum feasible consistency of Federal de-
cluding identification of types of projects
(4) Areawide Manpower Plans (DOL).
velopments with State, areawide, and lo-
considered appropriate for consultation
PART IV-COORDINATION OF PLANNING IN
cal plans and programs.
and review.
MULTIJURISDICTIONAL AREAS
c. Provide Federal agencies with in-
PART III-STATE PLANS AND MULTISOURCE
formation on the possible impact on the
1. Policies and objectives. The purposes
PROGRAMS
environment of proposed Federal devel-
of this Part are:
opment.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Part
a. To encourage and facilitate State
2. Coordination of direct Federal de-
is to provide Federal agencies with in-
and local initiative and responsibility in
velopment projects with State, areawide,
formation about the relationship to
developing organizational and proce-
and local development. a. Federal agen-
State or areawide comprehensive plan-
dural arrangements for coordinating
cies having responsibility for the plan-
ning of State plans or multisource pro-
comprehensive and functional planning
ning and construction of Federal build-
grams which are required or form the
activities.
ings and installations or other Federal
basis for funding under various Federal
b. To eliminate overlap, duplication,
public works or development or for the
programs.
and competition in State and local plan-
acquisition, use, and disposal of Federal
2. State plans. To the extent not pres-
ning activities assisted or required under
land and real property will establish pro-
ently required by statute or adminis-
Federal programs and to encourage the
cedures for:
trative regulation, Federal agencies ad-
most effective use of State and local
(1) Consulting with Governors, State
ministering programs requiring by stat-
resources available for development
and areawide clearinghouses, and local
ute or regulation a State plan as a con-
planning.
elected officials at the earliest practicable
dition of assistance under such programs
c. To minimize inconsistency among
stage in project or development planning
will require that the Governor, or his
Federal administrative and approval re-
on the relationship of any plan or proj-
delegated agency, be given the opportu-
quirements placed on State and areawide
ect to the development plans and pro-
nity to comment on the relationship of
development planning activities.
grams of the State, area, or locality in
such State plan to comprehensive and
d. To encourage the States to exercise
which the project is to be located.
other State plans and programs and to
leadership in delineating and establish-
(2) Assuring that any such Federal
those of affected areawide or local juris-
ing a system of planning and develop-
plan or project is consistent or compati-
dictions. To the extent practical, the
ment districts or regions in each State,
ble with State, areawide, and local de-
Governor is encouraged to involve area-
which can provide a consistent geogra-
velopment plans and programs identified
wide clearinghouses in the review of
phic base for the coordination of Fed-
in the course of such consultations. Ex-
State plans.
eral, State, and local development pro-
ceptions will be made only where there
a. The Governor will be afforded a
grams.
is clear justification.
period of 45 days in which to make such
e. To encourage Federal agencies ad-
(3) Providing State, areawide, and
comments, and any such comments will
ministering programs assisting or re-
local agencies which are authorized to
be transmitted with the plan.
quiring areawide planning to utilize
develop and enforce environmental
b. A "State plan" under this Part is
agencies that have been designated to
standards with adequate opportunity to
defined to include any required support-
perform areawide comprehensive plan-
review such Federal plans and projects
ing planning reports or documentation
ning in planning and development dis-
pursuant to section 102(2) (C) of the Na-
that indicate the programs, projects, and
tricts or regions established pursuant
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
activities for which Federal funds will
to subparagraph d above and that have
Any comments of such agencies will ac-
be utilized. Such reports or documen-
been designated areawide clearinghouses
company the environmental impact
tation will also be submitted for review
pursuant to Part I of Attachment A of
statement submitted by the Federal
at the request of the Governor or the
this Circular to carry out or coordinate
agency.
agency he has designated to perform
planning under such programs. In the
(4) Through the appropriate clear-
review under this Part.
inghouses providing State and areawide
case of interstate metropolitan areas,
C. Programs requiring State plans are
agencies designated as metropolitan
agencies which are authorized to per-
listed in Appendix II of the Catalog of
areawide clearinghouses should be uti-
form comprehensive health planning
Federal Domestic Assistance.
(under Sections 314a and 314b of the
lized to the extent possible to carry out
3. Multisource programs. A "multi-
or coordinate Federally assisted or re-
Public Health Service Act) with adequate
source program" under this Part is a
quired areawide planning.
opportunity to review Federal projects
for construction and/or equipment in-
program or programs of related activi-
2. Common or consistent planning and
volving capital expenditures exceeding
ties for which assistance is sought, on a
development districts or regions. a. Prior
$200,000 for modernization, conversion,
combined or coordinated basis, involv-
to the designation or redesignation (or
and expansion of Federal inpatient care
ing two or more Federal programs or
approval thereof) of any planning and
facilities, which alter the bed capacity
funding authorities.
development district or region under any
or modify the primary function of the
a. Federal agencies administering or
Federal program, Federal agency proce-
facility, as well as plans for provision
participating in the administration of
dures will provide a period of 30 days for
of major new medical care services. (Ex-
multisource programs will require that
the Governor(s) of the State(s) in
cluded are projects to renovate or install
appropriate State and areawide clear-
which the district or region will be lo-
mechanical systems, air conditioning
inghouses be given the opportunity to
cated to review the boundaries thereof
systems, or other similar internal sys-
comment on the relationship of any pro-
and comment upon its relationship to
tem modifications.) The comments of
posed multisource program to State or
planning and development districts or
such agencies will accompany the plan
areawide comprehensive plans and pro-
regions established by the State. Where
and budget requests submitted by the
grams. Clearinghouses will be afforded a
the State has established such planning
Federal agency to the Office of Man-
period of 45 days in which to make such
and development districts, the bounda-
agement and Budget or a certification
comments, and any comments will be
ries of areas designated under Federal
that the agencies had been provided a
transmitted with the application for as-
programs will conform to them unless
reasonable time to comment and had
sistance under such multisource pro-
there is clear justification for not doing
failed to do SO.
gram.
SO.
3. Use of clearinghouses. The State
b. Multisource programs include the
b. Where the State has not established
and areawide planning and development
following programs, plus such other pro-
planning and development districts or
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
32878
NOTICES
regions which provide a basis for evalua-
tional areas, Federal agencies will, to the
c. Programming of capital improve-
tion of the boundaries of the area pro-
extent practicable, provide for joint fund-
ments and other major expenditures,
posed for designation, major units of
ing of planning activities being carried
based on a determination of related
general local government and the appro-
on therein.
urgency, together with definitive fi-
priate Federal Regional Council in such
5. Coordination of agency procedures
nancing plans for such expenditures in
areas will also be consulted prior to des-
and requirements. With respect to the
the earlier years of the program.
ignation of the area to assure consistency
steps called for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of
d. Coordination of all related plans
with districts established under inter-
this Part, departments and agencies will
and activities of the State and local
local agreement and under related Fed-
develop for relevant programs appro-
governments and agencies concerned.
eral programs.
priate draft procedures and requirements.
e. Preparation of regulatory and ad-
c. The Office of Management and Bud-
Copies of such drafts will be furnished to
ministrative measures in support of the
get will be notified through the appro-
the Director of the Office of Management
foregoing.
priate Federal Regional Council by Fed-
and Budget and to the heads of depart-
8. Metropolitan area. A standard met-
eral agencies of any proposed designa-
ments and agencies administering related
ropolitan statistical area as established
tion and will be informed of such desig-
programs. The Office, in consultation
by the Office of Management and Budget,
nation when it is made.
with the agencies, will review the draft
subject, however, to such modifications
3. Common and consistent planning
procedures to assure the maximum ob-
and extensions as the Office of Manage-
bases and coordination of related activi-
tainable consistency among them.
ment and Budget may determine to be
ties in multijurisdictional areas. Each
PART V-DEFINITIONS
appropriate for the purposes of section
agency will develop procedures and re-
204 of the Demonstration Cities and Met-
quirements for applications for areawide
Terms used in this circular will have
ropolitan Development Act of 1966, and
planning and development assistance
the following meanings:
these Regulations.
under appropriate programs to assure the
1. Federal agency. Any department,
9. Areawide. Comprising, in metro-
fullest consistency and coordination with
agency, or instrumentality in the execu-
politan areas, the whole of contiguous
related planning and development being
tive branch of the Government and any
urban and urbanizing areas; and in non-
carried on by the areawide clearing-
wholly owned Government corporation.
metropolitan areas, contiguous counties
house designated under Part I of this
2. State. Any of the several States of
or other multijurisdictional areas having
Circular in the multijurisdictional area.
the United States, the District of Colum-
common or related social, economic, or
Such procedures shall include provi-
bia, Puerto Rico, any territory or posses-
physical characteristics indicating a
sion for submission to the funding agency
sion of the United States, or any agency
community of developmental interest;
by any applicant for areawide planning
or instrumentality of a State, but does
or, in either, the area included in a sub-
assistance, if the applicant is other than
not include the governments of the politi-
state district designated pursuant to
an areawide comprehensive planning
cal subdivisions of the State.
paragraph 1d, Part IV, Attachment A of
agency referred to in paragraph 1e of
3. Unit of general local government.
this Circular.
this Part, of a memorandum of agree-
Any city, county, town, parish, village, or
10. Planning and development clear-
ment between the applicant and such
other general purpose political subdivi-
inghouse or clearinghouse includes:
areawide comprehensive planning agency
sions of a State.
a. State clearinghouse. An agency of
covering the means by which their plan-
4. Special purpose unit of local govern-
the State Government designated by the
ning activities will be coordinated. The
ment. Any special, district, public purpose
Governor or by State law to carry out
agreement will cover but need not be
corporation, or other strictly limited pur-
the requirements of Part I of Attach-
limited to the following matters:
pose political subdivision of a State, but
ment A of this Circular.
shall not include a school district.
a. Identification of relationships be-
b. Areawide clearinghouse. (1) In non-
tween the planning proposed by the ap-
5. Federal assistance, Federal financial
metropolitan areas a comprehensive
plicant and that of the areawide agency
assistance, Federal assistance programs,
planning agency designated by the Gov-
and of similar or related activities that
or federally assisted program. Programs
ernor (or Governors in the case of re-
that provide assistance through grant or
will require coordination;
gions extending into more than one
b. The organizational and procedural
contractual arrangements. They include
State) or by State law to carry out re-
arrangements for coordinating such ac-
technical assistance programs, or pro-
quirements of this Circular; or
tivities, such as: Overlapping board
grams providing assistance in the form of
loans, loan guarantees, or insurance. The
(2) In metropolitan areas an areawide
membership, procedures for joint re-
term does not include any annual pay-
agency that has been recognized by the
views of projected activities and poli-
ment by the United States to the District
Office of Management and Budget as an
cies, information exchange, etc.;
of Columbia authorized by article VI of
appropriate agency to perform review
c. Cooperative arrangements for shar-
the District of Columbia Revenue Act of
functions under section 204 of the
ing, planning resources (funds, person-
1947 (D.C. Code sec. 47-2501a and 47-
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
nel, facilities, and services)
2501b).
Development Act of 1966, Title IV of the
d. Agreed upon base data, statistics,
6. Funding agency. The Federal agency
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of
and projections (social, economic, demo-
or, in the case of certain formula grant
1968, and this Circular.
graphic) on the basis of which planning
programs, the State agency which is re-
11. Multijurisdictional area. Any geo-
in the area will proceed.
sponsible for final approval of applica-
graphical area comprising, encompass-
Where an applicant has been unable to
tions for assistance.
ing, or extending into more than one
effectuate such an agreement, he will sub-
7. Comprehensive planning. To the ex-
unit of general local government.
mit a statement indicating the efforts he
tent directly related to area needs or
12. Planning and development district
has made to secure agreement and the
needs of a unit of general local govern-
or region. A multijurisdictional area that
issues that have prevented it. In such
ment, including the following:
has been formally designated or recog-
case, the funding agency, in consultation
a. Preparation, as a guide for govern-
nized as an appropriate area for plan-
with the Federal Regional Council and
mental policies and action, of general
ning under State law or Federal program
the State clearinghouse designated under
plans with respect to:
requirements.
Part I, will undertake, within a 30 day
(1) Pattern and intensity of land use.
13. Direct Federal development. Plan-
period after receipt of the application,
(2) Provision of public facilities (in-
ning and construction of public works,
resolution of the issues before approving
cluding transportation facilities) and
physical facilities and installations or
the application, if it is otherwise in good
other government services.
land and real property development (in-
order.
(3) Effect development and utilization
cluding the acquisition, use, and dis-
4. Joint funding. Where it will enhance
of human and natural resources.
posal of real property) undertaken by
the quality, comprehensive scope, and co-
b. Preparation of long range physical
or for the use of the Federal Govern-
ordination of planning in multijurisdic-
and fiscal plans for such action.
ment or any of its agencies.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
NOTICES
32879
ATTACHMENT B
TITLE IV OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL co-
newal, and open space) shall be coordinated
OPERATION ACT OF 1968 (82 STAT. 1103)
with and, to the extent authorized by law,
SECTION 204 OF THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES
made part of comprehensive local and area-
AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
TITLE IV-COORDINATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL
wide development planning.
1966 AS AMENDED (80 STAT. 1263, 82 STAT.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION OF DEVELOP-
208)
MENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
FAVORING UNITS OF GENERAL LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
SEC. 204. (a) All applications made after
DECLARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
June 30, 1967, for Federal loans or grants to
POLICY
SEC. 402. Where Federal law provides that
assist in carrying out open-space land proj-
both special-purpose units of local govern-
ects or for planning or construction of hos-
SEC. 401. (a) The economic and social de-
ment and units of general local government
pitals, airports, libraries, water supply and
velopment of the Nation and the achieve-
are eligible to receive loans or grants-in-aid,
distribution facilities, sewage facilities and
ment of satisfactory levels of living depend
heads of Federal departments and agencies
waste treatment works, highways, trans-
upon the sound and orderly development of
shall, in the absence of substantial reasons
portation facilities, law enforcement facili-
all areas, both urban and rural. Moreover,
to the contrary, make such loans or grants-
ties, and water development and land conser-
in a time of rapid urbanization, the sound
in-aid to units of general local government
vation projects within any metropolitan area
and orderly development of urban communi-
rather than to special-purpose units of local
shall be submitted for review-
ties depends to a large degree upon the
government.
(1) To any areawide agency which is des-
social and economic health and the sound
ignated to perform metropolitan or regional
development of small communities and rural
RULES AND REGULATIONS
planning for the area within which the as-
areas. The President shall, therefore, es-
SEC. 403. The Bureau of the Budget, or
sistance is to be used, and which is, to the
tablish rules and regulations governing the
such other agency as may be designated by
greatest practicable extent, composed of or
formulation, evaluation, and review of Fed-
the President, is hereby authorized to pre-
responsible to the elected officials of a unit
eral programs and projects having a signifi-
scribe such rules and regulations as are
of areawide government or of the units of
cant impact on area and community devel-
deemed appropriate for the effective admin-
general local government within whose juris-
opment, including programs providing Fed-
istration of this title.
diction such agency is authorized to engage
eral assistance to the States and localities,
in such planning, and
to the end that they shall most effectively
ATTACHMENT C-SECTION 102(2) (C) OF
serve these basic objectives. Such rules and
(2) If made by a special purpose unit of
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
regulations shall provide for full considera-
local government, to the unit or units of gen-
ACT OF 1969 (83 STAT. 853)
tion of the concurrent achievement of the
eral local government with authority to op-
following specific objectives and, to the ex-
SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and
erate in the area within which the project
tent authorized by law, reasoned choices
directs that, to the fullest extent possible; (1)
is to be located.
shall be made between such objectives when
the policies, regulations, and public laws of
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph
they conflict:
the United States shall be interpreted and
(2) of this subsection, each application shall
(1) Appropriate land uses for housing,
administered in accordance with the policies
be accompanied (A) by the comments and
commercial, industrial, governmental, insti-
set forth in this Act, and (2) all agencies of
recommendations with respect to the proj-
tutional, and other purposes;
the Federal Government shall-
ect involved by the areawide agency and
(2) Wise development and conservation of
governing bodies of the units of general local
natural resources, including land, water,
(C) include in every recommendation or
government to which the application has
minerals, wildlife, and others;
report on proposals for legislation and other
been submitted for review, and (B) by a
(3) Balanced transportation systems, in-
major Federal actions significantly affecting
statement by the applicant that such com-
cluding highway, air, water, pedestrian, mass
the quality of the human environment, a de-
ments and recommendations have been con-
transit, and other modes for the movement
tailed statement by the responsible official
sidered prior to formal submission of the
of people and goods;
on-
application. Such comments shall include
(4) Adequate outdoor recreation and open
(i) The environmental impact of the pro-
information concerning the extent to which
space;
posed action,
the project is consistent with comprehensive
(5) Protection of areas of unique natural
(ii) Any adverse environmental effects
planning developed or in the process of de-
beauty, historical and scientific interest;
which cannot be avoided should the proposal
velopment for the metropolitan area or the
(6) Properly planned community facilities,
be implemented,
unit of general local government, as the case
including utilities for the supply of power,
(iii) Alternatives to the proposed action,
may be, and the extent to which such proj-
water, and communications, for the safe dis-
(iv) The relationship between local short-
ect contributes to the fulfillment of such
posal of wastes, and for other purposes; and
term use of man's environment and the
planning. The comments and recommenda-
(7) Concern for high standards of design.
maintenance and enhancement of long-term
tions and the statement referred to in this
(b) All viewpoints-national, regional,
productivity, and
paragraph shall, except in the case referred
State, and local-shall, to the extent pos-
to in paragraph (2) of this subsection, be
(v) Any irreversible or irretrievable com-
sible, be fully considered and taken into
mitments of resources which would be in-
reviewed by the agency of the Federal Gov-
account in planning Federal or federally as-
volved in the proposed action should it be
ernment for which such application is sub-
sisted development programs and projects.
mitted for the sole purpose of assisting it
implemented.
State and local government objectives, to-
in determining whether the application is
gether with the objectives of regional organi-
Prior to making any detailed statement, the
in accordance with the provisions of Fed-
zations shall be considered and evaluated
responsible Federal official shall consult with
eral law which govern the making of the
within a framework of national public ob-
and obtain the comments of any Federal
loans or grants.
jectives, as expressed in Federal law, and
agency which has jurisdiction by law or
(2) An application for a Federal loan or
available projections of future national con-
special expertise with respect to any environ-
grant need not be accompanied by the com-
ditions and needs of regions, State, and lo-
mental impact involved. Copies of such state-
ments and recommendations and the state-
calities shall be considered in plan formula-
ment and the comments and views of the ap-
ments referred to in paragraph b(1) of this
tion, evaluation, and review.
propriate Federal, State, and local agencies,
subsection, if the applicant certifies that a
(c) To the maximum extent possible, con-
which are authorized to develop and enforce
plan or description of the project, meeting
sistent with national objectives, all Federal
environmental standards, shall be made
the requirements of such rules and regula-
aid for development purposes shall be con-
available to the President, the Council on
tions as may be prescribed under subsection
sistent with and further the objectives of
Environmental Quality and to the public as
(c), or such application, has lain before
State, regional, and local comprehensive
provided by section 552 of Title 5, United
an appropriate areawide agency or instru-
planning. Consideration shall be given to all
States Code, and shall accompany the pro-
mentality or unit of general local government
developmental aspects of our total national
posal through the existing agency review
for a period of sixty days without comments
community, including but not limited to
processes;
or recommendations thereon being made by
housing, transportation, economic develop-
ATTACHMENT D-COVERAGE OF PROGRAMS
such agency or instrumentality.
ment, natural and human resources develop-
ment, community facilities, and the general
UNDER ATTACHMENT A, PART I
(3) The requirements of paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall also apply to any amendment
improvement of living environments.
1. Programs listed below are referenced
of the application which, in light of the
(d) Each Federal department and agency
several ways, due to transitional phases
purposes of this title, involves a major
administering a development assistance pro-
in program development, special revenue
change in the project covered by the appli-
gram shall, to the maximum extent practi-
cation prior to such amendment.
cable, consult with and seek advice from all
sharing, etc. Generally, citations are to
(c) The Bureau of the Budget, or such
other significantly affected Federal depart-
programs as they are listed in the June,
other agency as may be designated by the
ments and agencies in an effort to assure
1973 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assis-
President, is hereby authorized to prescribe
fully coordinated programs.
tance. Asterisks indicate references to the
such rules and regulations as are deemed ap-
(e) Insofar as possible, systematic plan-
1972 Catalog. For certain new legislation,
propriate for the effective administration of
ning required by individual Federal programs
Catalog citations have not yet been
this section.
(such as highway construction, urban re-
developed. In such cases, references are
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
32880
NOTICES
32878
to Public Law number and section. When
13.256
Health
Maintenance
Organization
14.139
Mortgage Insurance-Rental Housing
no funding is available for a program, it
Service (HMOS).
in Urban Renewal Areas.
is not generally listed in the Catalog or
13.267
Urban Rat Control.
14.141
regions
Nonprofit Housing Sponsor Loans-
this Attachment. The Catalog is issued
13.340*
Health Professions. Teaching Facili-
tion of
Planning Projects for Low and
posed f
annually and revised periodically during
ties-Construction Grants.
Moderate Income Housing.
13.350
general
the year. Every effort will be made to
Medical Library Assistance-Regional
14.146
Public Housing-Acquisition (with or
Medical Libraries.
keep Appendix I and Attachment D cur-
without rehabilitation) and Con-
priate E
13.369
Nursing School Construction.
rent. Reference should always be made to
struction (new construction only)
13.378*
areas W
Health Professional. Teaching Facili-
14.149
the one bearing the latest issued date.
Rental Supplements-Rental Housing
ignation
ties-Loan Guarantees and Inter-
for Lower Income Families.
2. Heads of Federal departments and
est Subsidies.
with di
14.203
Comprehensive Planning Assistance.
agencies may, with the concurrence of
13.392
Cancer-Construction.
14.207
local as
New Communities-Loan Guarantees.
13.401
the Office of Management and Budget,
Adult Education-Special Projects.
14.214
Urban Systems Engineering Demon-
eral pro
13.408*
Construction of Public Libraries.
exclude certain categories of projects or
stration Grants.
c. Th
13.477
School Assistance in Federally Af-
14.307
get wil
activities under listed programs from the
Urban Renewal Projects.
fected Areas-Construction.
priate
requirements of Attachment A, Part I.
13.493
Vocational Education-Basic Grants
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
eral ag
See Part I, paragraph 9.
to States.
15.400
Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition and
tion ar
3. Covered programs.
13.494
Vocational
Education-Consumer
Development.
and Homemaking.
15.401
nation
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
13.495
Outdoor Recreation State Planning-
Vocational Education-Cooperative
Financial Assistance.
3. C
10.409 Irrigation, Drainage, and Other Soil
Education.
15.501
Irrigation Distribution System Loans.
bases c
and Water Conservation Loans.
13.499
Vocational
Education-Special
15.503
Small Reclamation Projects.
ties in
10.411
Rural Housing Site Loans.
Needs.
15.904
Historic Preservation.
agency
10.414
Resource Conservation and Develop-
13.501
Vocational Education-Work Study.
ment Loans.
13.502
quiren
Vocational Education-Innovation.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
planni
10.415
Rural Rental Housing Loans.
13.516
Preschool, Elementary and Second-
16.500
Law Enforcement Assistance-Com-
10.418
under
Water and Waste Disposal Systems
ary Education-Special Programs
prehensive Planning Grants.
for Rural Communities.
and Projects.
16.501
fullest
Law Enforcement Assistance-Discre-
10.419
Watershed Protection and Flood Pre-
13.519
Supplementary Education Centers
tionary Grants.
relate
vention Loans.
and Services, Guidance, Counsel-
16.502
Law Enforcement Assistance-Im-
carrie
10.901
Resources Conservation and Devel-
ing, and Testing (PACE).
13.600
proving and Strengthening Law
house
opment.
Child Development-Head Start.
Enforcement.
Circul
10.904
Watershed Protection and Flood Pre-
13.746
Rehabilitation Services and Facili-
Suc
vention (Exception: Small projects
ties-Basic Support.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
costing under $7500 for erosion
13.753
sion f
Development Disabilities-Basic Sup-
17.211
Job Corps.
and
port.
17.212
by an
Job Opportunities in the Business
sediment control and land stabili-
13.756
Aging-Special Support Programs.
assist
13.763
Sector (Excluding National Con-
zation and for rehabilitation and
Rehabilitation Services and Facili-
tracts).
an a
consolidation of existing irriga-
ties-Special Projects.
17.226
13.764
Work Incentive Program-Training
agenc
tion systems).
Youth Development and Delinquency
and Allowances.
this ]
Prevention.
17.230
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/EDA
Migrant Workers.
ment
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
17.232
Comprehensive Manpower Programs.
11.300* Economic Development-Grants and
areaw
DEVELOPMENT
Loans for Public Works and Devel-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
cover
opment Facilities.
14.103
Interest Reduction Payments-Rental
20.102
ning
Airport Development Aid Program.
11.302* Economic Development-Planning
and Cooperative Housing and
20.103
Airport Planning Grant Program.
agree
Assistance.
Lower Income Families.
20.201
Forest Highways.
limit
11.303* Economic Development-Technical
14.105
Interest Subsidy-Homes for Lower
20.204
Income Families.
Highway Beautification-Landscaping
a.
Assistance.
and Scenic Enhancement.
11.304 Economic Development-Public
14.112
twee:
Mortgage Insurance-Construction or
20.205
Highway Research, Planning, and
plica
Works Impact Projects.
Rehabilitation of Condominium
Construction.
Projects.
and
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
20.209
14.115
Public Lands Highways.
Mortgage Insurance-Development of
20.500
will
Urban Mass Transportation Capital
12.101
Beach Erosion Control Projects.
Sales-Type Cooperative Projects.
b.
12.106
14.116
Mortgage Insurance-Group Practice
Improvement Grants (Planning
Flood Control Projects.
and Construction only).
arra
12.107
Navigation Projects.
Facilities.
20.501
tivit
12.108
Snagging and Clearing for Flood
14:117
Mortgage Insurance-Homes.
Urban Mass Transportation Capital
men
Control.
14.118
Mortgage Insurance-Homes for Cer-
Improvement Loans (Planning
and construction only).
view
tified Veterans.
DEPARTMENTAL OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND
20.505
14.119
Urban Mass Transportation Techni-
Mortgage Insurance-Homes for Dis-
cies,
WELFARE
aster Victims.
cal Studies Grants (planning and
c.
Comprehensive Health Planning-
14.120
construction only).
13.206
Mortgage Insurance-Homes for Low
ing,
Areawide Grants.
and Moderate Income Families.
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION
nel,
13.210
Comprehensive Public Health Serv-
14.121
Mortgage Insurance-Homes in Out-
23.003
d.
lying Areas.
Appalachian Development Highway
ices-Formula Grants.
13.220 Health Facilities Construction-
14.122
System.
and
Mortgage Insurance-Homes in Urban
23.004
Grants.
Renewal Areas.
Appalachian Health Demonstration.
gra]
23.005
13.226*
Health Services Research and De-
14.124
Mortgage Insurance-Investor Spon-
Appalachian Housing Fund.
in
23.008
Appalachian Local Access Roads.
velopment Grants.
sored Cooperative Housing.
23.010
Wh
13.235
Mental Health-Community Assist-
14.125
Mortgage Insurance-Land Develop-
Appalachian Mine Area Restoration.
23.011
effe
ment and New Communities.
Appalachian State Research, Tech-
ance Grants for Narcotic Addiction
and Drug Abuse.
14.126
Mortgage Insurance-Management-
nical Assistance, and Demonstra-
mit
13.240
has
Mental Health-Community Mental
Type Cooperative Projects.
tion Projects.
23.012
Health Centers.
14.127
Mortgage Insurance-Mobile Home
Appalachian Vocational Education
issu
13.246
Migrant Health Grants.
Courts.
Facilities and Operations.
23.013
cas
13.249*
Regional Medical Programs.
14.128
Mortgage Insurance-Hospitals.
Appalachian Child Development.
wit
13.251
Mental Health-Community Assist-
14.129
Mortgage Insurance-Nursing Homes
23.016
Appalachian Vocational Education
the
ance Grants for Comprehensive Al-
and Intermediate Care Facilities.
and Technical Education Demon-
Pa
coholism Services.
14.134
Mortgage Insurance-Rental Housing.
stration Grants.
13.252
Mental Health-Direct Grants for
14.135
per
Mortgage Insurance-Rental Housing
COASTAL PLAINS REGIONAL COMMISSION
Projects (Alcoholism).
res
for Moderate Income Families.
13.253
Health Facilities Construction-
14.137
28.001 Coastal Plain Regional Economic De-
the
Mortgage Insurance-Rental Housing
Loans and Loan Guarantees.
velopment.
for Low and Moderate Income
or
13.254
Mental Health-Direct Grants for
Families, Market Interest Rate.
FOUR CORNERS REGIONAL COMMISSION
Special Projects (Narcotic Addic-
14.138
th
Mortgage Insurance-Rental Housing
38.001
tion and Drug Abuse).
Four Corners Regional Economic De-
for the Elderly.
velopment.
or
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
NOTICES
32881
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
P.L. 92-583. Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972. Grants for management, program devel-
47.036 Intergovernmental Science and Re-
64.004
Exchange of Medical Information
opment, and administration (Sections 305
search Utilization.
(EMI).
and 306).
64.005
Grants to States for Construction of
P.L. 92-500. Federal Water Pollution Control
NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COMMISSION
State Nursing Home Care Facili-
Act Amendments of 1972. Comprehensive Pro-
ties.
48.001 New England Regional Economic De-
Grants to States for Remodeling of
grams for Water Pollution Control (Sec. 102);
64.017
velopment.
Grants for areawide waste treatment plan-
State Home Hospital/Domiciliary
Facilities.
ning, management, and construction (Title
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY*
64.114
Veterans Housing-Guaranteed and
II); Water Quality Implementation Plans
49.002 Community Action (excluding ad-
Insured Loans (GI Home Loans).
(Sec. 303).
ministration, research, training
P.L. 92-424. Economic Opportunity Amend-
and technical assistance, and eval-
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
ments of 1972. Assistance under programs for
uation).
65.001
Water Resources Planning.
New Special Emphasis (Sec. 11). Design and
49.003 Comprehensive Health Services (To
Planning Assistance (Sec. 226), Youth Rec-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HEW).
reation and Sports (Sec. 227), Consumer Ac-
49.004
66.001 Air Pollution Control Program
tion and Cooperation (Sec. 228), and for
Drug Rehabilitation (To HEW).
49.006
Grants.
Community Economic Development (Title
Family Planning (To HEW).
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
66.005
Air Pollution Survey and Demonstra-
II).
49.009
tion Grants.
P.L. 92-419. Rural Development Act of 1972.
Assistance (To DOL).
66.015
Construction Grants for Wastewater
Assistance for Essential Rural Community
49.011
Community Economic Development
Treatment Works.
Facilities (Sec. 104); Rural Industrialization
(To OMBE/DOC).
66.017
Water Pollution Control-State and
Assistance (Sec. 118); Watershed Protection
Interstate Program Grants.
and Flood Prevention (Sec. 201 (e), (f), (g)
OZARKS REGIONAL COMMISSION
66.504
Solid Waste Research Grants.
water storage facilities (Sec. 301).
52.001 Ozarks Regional Economic Develop-
66.505
Water Pollution Control Demonstra-
P.L. 92-318. Education Amendments of 1972.
ment.
tions.
Grants for Programs and Projects Relating to
66.000
Environmental
Protection-Consoli-
National and Regional Problems (Sec. 102);
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
dated Program Grants.
for Construction of Academic Facilities (Sec.
161); and for Metropolitan Area Projects (Sec.
59.013 State and Local Development Com-
ACTION
709).
pany Loans (Construction only).
72.001 Foster Grandparents.
P.L. 92-541. Veterans' Administration Medi-
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COMMISSION
Other. The following covered programs
cal School Assistance and Health Manpower
have not yet been assigned Catalog num-
Training Act of 1972.
63.001 Upper Great Lakes Regional Eco-
nomic Development.
bers and descriptions.
[FR Doc.73-24859 Filed 11-27-73;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 228-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1973
No. 228-Pt. II-2
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum