The practice known as “soring” causes a horse to suffer pain in any of its limbs for the purpose of affecting its performance in the show ring. In 1970, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1821-1831), referred to below as the Act, to eliminate the practice of soring by prohibiting the showing, selling, or transporting of sored horses. Exercising its rulemaking authority under the Act, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces regulations in 9 CFR part 11, referred to below as the regulations, that prohibit devices and methods that might sore horses.

In 1979, in response to an amendment to the Act, we established regulations under which show management must, to avoid liability for any sore horses that are shown, appoint individuals trained to conduct preshow inspections to detect or diagnose sored horses. These individuals, referred to as designated qualified persons (DQP's), are trained and licensed under industry-sponsored DQP programs that we certify and monitor. The requirements for DQP programs and licensing of DQP's are set forth in § 11.7 of the regulations.

Section 11.7 also requires that we publish a current list of horse industry organizations that have certified DQP programs and a list of licensed DQP's in the Federal Register at least once each year. The list reads as follows:

The NACMCF was established in April 1988, as a result of a recommendation by a 1985 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Food Protection, Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, “An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods.” The current Charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing on the FSIS homepage at www.fsis.usda.gov.

The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services concerning the development of microbiological criteria by which the safety and wholesomeness of food can be assessed. For example, the Committee assists in the development of criteria for microorganisms that indicate whether food has been processed using good manufacturing practices.

Appointments to the Committee will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. To ensure that recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Departments, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

Because of the complexity of the issues to be addressed, it is anticipated that the full Committee will meet more than once each year, and the subcommittees will meet as deemed necessary by the chairperson. There is a minimum two-year commitment to the advisory committee. Participation may require members to work outside of scheduled committee and subcommittee meetings and may require written documents to be prepared. Committee members serve without payment, however, they are reimbursed for travel and receive per deim.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this Federal Register publication in the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly FSIS Constituent Update, which is communicated via fax to over 300 organizations and individuals. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent fax list consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through these various channels, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. For more information and to be added to the constituent fax list, fax your request to the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-5704.

On May 5, 2000, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a notice (65 FR 26178) of proposed addition to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the service.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is hereby added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department Policy Bulletin 98:3— Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“ Sunset Policy Bulletin ”).

On December 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on aramid fiber formed of polypara-phenylene terephthalamide (“Aramid Fiber”) from the Netherlands (65 FR 67247), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On December 16, 1999, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (“DuPont”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. DuPont claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a U.S. producer of aramid fiber. In its notice of intent to participate, Du Pont stated that it is related to two foreign producers of aramid fiber: DuPont (UK) Ltd., Maydown Works, United Kingdom, and DuPont Toray Company, Ltd., Japan. 6

On January 3, 2000, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i), the Department received complete substantive response from the domestic interested-party, DuPont, and respondent interested parties (Twaron Products V.o.F. and Twaron Products Inc. (collectively “Twaron”)). Twaron Products V.o.F claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act, as foreign manufacturer/producer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States. Twaron Products Inc., claimed interested-party status as a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise. In its January 3, 2000, substantive response, Twaron asserts that it has participated in all prior phases of this antidumping duty order. The effective date of this order is June 27, 1994.

The regulations provide, at section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), that the Secretary normally will conclude that respondent interested-parties have provided adequate response to a notice of initiation where it receives complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, by volume, or value basis if appropriate, of the total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation. See also Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 Fed. Reg. 13516 (March 20, 1998). On January 21, 2000, the Department determined that Twaron response constituted an adequate response to the notice of initiation. As a result, the Department determined, in accordance with section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulations, to conduct a full (240 day) sunset review.

On January 10, 2000, the Department received rebuttal comments on behalf of the domestic and respondent interested parties, within the deadline as specified under section 351.218(d)(4). 7

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order ( i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 1995). On March 20, 2000 the Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on aramid fiber from the Netherlands is extraordinarily complicated pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, and extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this review until not later than June 19, 2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 8

The products covered by this review are all forms of aramid fiber formed of polypara-phenylene terephthalamide from the Netherlands. These consist of polypara-phenylene terephthalamide aramid in the form of filament yarn (including single and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or dry), spun-laced and spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber, and floc. Tire cord is excluded from the class or kind of merchandise under review. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040, 5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000, 5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and 5603.00.9000. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 19, 2000, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the attached Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

The Department preliminary determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on a on aramid fiber formed of polypara-phenylene terephthalamide from the Netherlands would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The Department, therefore, will report to the Commission the company-specific and “all other” rates from the original investigation listed below.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held on August 16, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs, no later than August 7, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than August 14, 2000. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than October 26, 2000.

This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751 (c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department Policy Bulletin 98:3— Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) ( Sunset Policy Bulletin ).

On December 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on GOES from Italy (64 FR 67247), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (“Allegheny Ludlum”), AK Steel Corporation (“AK Steel”), Butler Armco Independent Union, the United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO/CLC, and the Zanesville Armco Independent Union (collectively, “domestic interested parties”), within the applicable deadline (December 16, 1999) specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations . Allegheny Ludlum and AK Steel claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. producers of a domestic like product. The unions listed above are interested parties pursuant to section 771(9)(D) of the Act, because they are certified or recognized unions or groups of workers representative of the industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the United States of the domestic like product.

Domestic interested parties state that Alleghney Ludlum, Armco Inc. (“Armco”), United Steel Workers of America, Butler Armco Independent Union, and Zanesville Armco Independent Union were the petitioners in the initial investigation ( see January 3, 2000, substantive response of domestic interested parties at 5). Domestic interested parties note that, on September 30, 1999, AK Steel acquired Armco, and assumed control of Armco's production of GOES. Id . Accordingly, AK Steel is the successor of petitioner Armco, and has replaced Armco as domestic interested party for purposes of this sunset review and all other administrative reviews. Id . Additionally, domestic interested parties state that they are participants in the ongoing administrative review. Id .

On December 20, 1999, we received a response from the European Union Delegation of the European Commission (“EC”) expressing its willingness to participate in this review as the authority responsible for defending the interest of the Member States of the European Union (“EU”) ( see December 20, 1999, response of the EC at 1-2). On December 29, 1999, we received a response from the Government of Italy (“GOI”) expressing its willingness to participate in this review, as the government of a country in which subject merchandise is produced and exported. The EC and GOI note that they have in the past participated in this proceeding ( see December 20, 1999, response of the EC at 2, and the December 29, 1999, response of the GOI at 1).

On January 3, 2000, we received a complete substantive response from domestic interested parties, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i), and a complete substantive responses from Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (“AST”) and Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. (“AST-USA”), respondent interested parties under section 771(9)(A) of the Act because AST is a foreign producer and exporter of the subject merchandise and AST-USA is an importer of subject merchandise.

On January 10, 2000, we received rebuttal comments from domestic interested parties. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218 (e)(2)(i), the Department determined to conduct a full (240-day) sunset review of this order. 1

On January 12, 2000, we requested from the GOI and AST clarification of the data submitted in their responses of December 29, 1999, and January 3, 2000, respectively, to be submitted by January 22, 2000. 2 On January 21, 2000, we received a response from AST in response to the Department's request for additional information concerning the volume of company shipments; we also received a request from the GOI, which we granted, for an extension of the deadline to submit a response until February 1, 2000. Subsequently, on February 1, 2000, we received a response from the GOI to our above request.

On February 11, 2000, the Department received the public version of a document from domestic interested parties in which they state that, despite the new information from the GOI, their research indicates that there have been significant volumes of GOES shipped by AST to the United States ( see February 11, 2000, comments of domestic interested parties at 2-3). Further, domestic interested parties requested that the Department require AST to provide specific information in a supplemental response concerning the disposition of each shipment listed in the domestic interested parties' exhibit ( id. at 3); however, the Department did not comply with this request.

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order ( i.e. , an order in effect on January 1, 1995). This review concerns a transition order within the meaning of section 751(c)(6)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, on January 20, 2000, the Department determined that the sunset review of GOES from Italy is extraordinarily complicated, and extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this review until not later than June 19, 2000 (65 FR 3206), in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.

The merchandise subject to this review is Italian GOES, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than 0.56 millimeter, in coils of any width, or in straight lengths which are of a width measuring at least ten times the thickness. The merchandise is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) under item numbers 7225.10.0030, 7226.10.1030, 7226.10.5015, and 7226.10.5065. Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

All issues raised in substantive responses by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memo”) from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 19, 2000, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in B-099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memo are identical in content.

We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of the subsidy at the following net countervailable subsidy.

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin (63 FR 18876), the Department states that, consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the subsidy, and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. Although the programs at issue do not fall within Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement, some or all of them could be found to be inconsistent with Article 6.1. For example, the net countervailable subsidy may exceed five percent. The Department, however, has no information with which to make such a calculation; nor do we believe it appropriate to attempt such a calculation in the course of a sunset review. Moreover, we note that, as of January 1, 2000, Article 6.1 has ceased to apply ( see Article 31 of the Subsidies Agreement). As such, we are providing the Commission with program descriptions in our Decision Memo.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held on August 16, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than August 7, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than August 14, 2000. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than October 26, 2000.

This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

NAFO has established and maintains conservation measures in its Regulatory Area that include one effort limitation fishery as well as fisheries with total allowable catches (TACs) and member nation allocations. The principal species managed are cod, flounder, redfish, American plaice, halibut, capelin, shrimp, and squid. At the 1999 NAFO Annual Meeting, the United States received fish quota allocations for three NAFO stocks to be fished during 2000. These U.S. fish quota allocations for 2000 have been made available to U.S. fishermen under authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act. The species, amounts, locations, and rules governing these NAFO fish quota allocations were published in the Federal Register on December 23, 1999 (64 FR 72035). No U.S. fishermen have thus far expressed interest in the 2000 U.S. fish quota allocations from NAFO.

In addition to fish quota allocations, the United States received an effort allocation of 100 fishing days for the fishing year 2000 available to one vessel for harvesting shrimp in Division 3M of the NAFO Regulatory Area. Although no U.S. fishermen have recently expressed interest in the U.S. 3M shrimp effort allocation, NMFS has received inquiries regarding the possibility of making U.S. fishing opportunities available to U.S. fishing interests using foreign vessels under chartering arrangements.

Under a NAFO Pilot Project in effect for 2000, a vessel registered to another NAFO Contracting Party may be chartered to fish the U.S. allocation provided that consent for the charter is obtained from the vessel's flag State and the U.S. effort allocation is transferred to that flag State. Such a transfer must be adopted by NAFO Parties through a mail voting process. More details on U.S. and NAFO requirements for chartering operations are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

Due to the lack of interest expressed thus far by U.S. fishermen in harvesting 2000 NAFO fish quota allocations, and recent information indicating that NAFO may adopt a TAC based system for the 3M shrimp fishery for 2001, expressions of interest from U.S. fishing interests intending to make use of foreign vessels under chartering arrangements to fish the U.S. 2000 3M shrimp effort allocation will be considered (see DATES ). Such expressions of interest should be directed to the Director, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries (see ADDRESSES ).

All expressions of interest should include the following information required by NAFO regarding the proposed chartering operation: the name, registration and flag of the intended vessel; a copy of the charter; the fishing opportunities granted; the date from which the vessel is authorized to commence fishing on these opportunities; and the duration of the charter.

In addition, expressions of interest should be accompanied by a detailed description of anticipated benefits to the United States. Such benefits might include (but are not limited to): the use of U.S. processing facilities/personnel; the use of U.S. fishing personnel; other specific positive effects on U.S. employment; evidence that fishing by the chartered vessel would actually take place; and a willingness to document the physical characteristics and economics of the fishery for future use by the U.S. fishing industry.

In the event that multiple expressions of interest are made by U.S. fishing interests proposing the use of chartering operations from more than one NAFO Contracting Party, the information submitted regarding benefits to the United States will be used in determining which, if any, NAFO Contracting Party will receive the transfer of the U.S. 3M shrimp effort allocation.

If multiple proposals are submitted by U.S. fishing interests expressing interest in chartering operations with the same NAFO Contracting Party, the United States may transfer its 3M shrimp effort allocation to that Party for distribution as that Party sees fit (pending approval by NAFO).

All individuals/companies submitting expressions of interest to NMFS will be contacted within seven business days of the end of the comment period and apprised of the status of their proposal. Should an expression of interest be made on behalf of a U.S. registered vessel or vessels, such proposal will be given first consideration. If more than one expression of interest is made on behalf of a U.S. registered vessel or vessels, however, it may be necessary to promulgate regulations to determine how applicants would be chosen. It is unlikely that such regulations could be promulgated in time for the 2000 effort allocation of 3M shrimp to be used by a U.S. registered vessel. In the case that no interest is expressed on behalf of U.S. vessels, NMFS will determine whether to initiate the necessary steps to transfer the U.S. 3M shrimp effort allocation to another NAFO Contracting Party for use in a chartering operation.

9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.—Convene the Stone Crab Management Committee to discuss Stone Crab Amendment 7. The Stone Crab amendment proposes to extend the trap certificate program for the commercial stone crab fishery adopted by the state of Florida into the federal waters off west Florida. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, after working with the stone crab industry and the Council over the past 4 years, has adopted by rule a trap certificate program that will gradually reduce the number of traps over a 30-year period. The Florida legislature has approved the portion of this program pertaining to licenses and fees. The committee will make recommendations for the full Council to take final action on Thursday morning.

1 p.m.-3:30 p.m.—Convene the Shrimp Management Committee to review an options paper for an amendment to require vessel and operator permits, and receive a National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) report on the status of the shrimp stocks.

3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.—Convene the Sustainable Fisheries Committee to discuss resubmission of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Amendment Bycatch Reporting Measures.

4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.—Convene the Budget Committee to review the status of the CY2000 budget and CY1999 budget extension.

8 a.m.-12 noon—Convene the Reef Fish Management Committee to receive a report on the status of the jewfish stock, to review and discuss red snapper and grouper stock restoration scenarios, and to select stock assessments to be completed by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center in FY 2001.

1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.—Convene the Joint Marine Reserves/Reef Fish Management Committees to discuss a Generic Amendment Addressing the Establishment of Tortugas Marine Reserves, which proposes to establish the Tortugas South marine reserve that will encompass the Riley's Hump mutton snapper spawning aggregation site established by the Council in 1994. The total area of the proposed Tortugas South marine reserve is 60 square nautical miles. The amendment also proposes to create the Tortugas North marine reserve cooperatively with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary program, the state of Florida, and the National Park system, which will encompass an area of 120 square nautical miles. The portion proposed to be established by the Council is 13 square nautical miles. The Committees' recommendations on this amendment will be considered by the full Council on Thursday morning.

3:30 p.m.-5 p.m.—Convene the Habitat Protection Committee to hear a presentation on the Williams Gas Pipeline Project and the Gulfstream Gas Pipeline Project.

9 a.m.-11:30 a.m.—Convene the Mackerel Management Committee to approve a letter to the states and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC)on the sale of fish, and to approve the Dolphin/Wahoo Fishery Management Plan for public hearings.

1 p.m.-The Council will convene.

1:15 p.m.-5 p.m.—Receive public testimony on Stone Crab Amendment 7, Resubmission of the Section on Bycatch Reporting in the SFA Amendment, and the Generic Amendment Addressing Establishment of the Tortugas 2000 Marine Reserve.

8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m.—Continue public testimony if necessary.

9:30 a.m.-10 a.m.—Receive a report of the Stone Crab Management Committee.

10 a.m.-10:30 a.m.—Receive a report of the Joint Marine Reserves and Reef Fish Management Committees.

10:30 a.m.-12 noon—Receive a report of the Reef Fish Management Committee.

1:30 p.m.-2 p.m.—Receive a report of the Mackerel Management Committee.

2 p.m.-2:30 p.m.—Receive a report of the Shrimp Management Committee.

2:30 p.m.-3 p.m.—Receive a report of the Sustainable Fisheries Management Committee.

3 p.m.-3:15 p.m.—Receive a report of the Habitat Protection Committee.

3:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m.—Receive a report of the Budget Committee.

3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m.—Receive a report of the Council Chairman's Meeting.

3:45 p.m.-4 p.m.—Receive the SAFMC Liaison report.

4 p.m.-4:15 p.m.—Receive a report on the Marine Recreational Symposium.

4:15 p.m.-4:30 p.m.—Receive a report on the Joint U.S./Canadian Observer Workshop.

4:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m.—Receive enforcement reports.

4:45 p.m.-5 p.m.—Receive the NMFS Regional Administrator's Report.

5 p.m.-5:15 p.m.—Receive Director's Reports.

5:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m.—Other Business.

5:30 p.m.-5:45 p.m.—Election of Temporary Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final actions to address such emergencies. A copy of the Committee schedule and agenda can be obtained by calling (813) 228-2815.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Location : Trade Winds Motor Inn, 2 Park View Drive, Rockland, Maine 04841; telephone (207) 596-6661.

The committee and advisors will conduct a joint meeting to continue development of management options for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). These groups will continue their discussion of alternatives within the framework of the status quo management measures currently in the FMP. They also may review information on the current four, year-round area closures and develop preliminary options for changes to those areas. The committee will receive the report of the June 27 Groundfish Advisory Panel meeting; review, and possibly act on, suggestions from the advisors, including identification of an additional approach to management that should be considered for Amendment 13. If time permits, the committee may continue development of area management and sector allocation alternatives.

Location : Holiday Inn, Mansfield, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone (508) 339-2200.

The Capacity Committee will review analyses of proposals to allow more flexible transfer of fishing permits among fisheries and effort allocations in the multispecies fishery. One proposal would allow multispecies permit holders to acquire additional days-at-sea (DAS) from other permit holders with different rates of reduction of DAS on the transfer of active and inactive DAS. Two other proposals would allow the transfer of fishing permits among different fisheries but not allow vessels in the monkfish, scallop and multispecies to acquire additional DAS. A fourth proposal would reduce unused DAS by a small percentage each year unless the DAS were put under a freeze until groundfish stocks were rebuilt. The committee will make recommendations on these proposals at the Groundfish Committee meeting on July 19, 2000 and at the New England Council meeting on July 25-27, 2000.

Location : Comfort Inn Airport, 1940 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 732-0470.

The committee will review scientific information and analyses in the draft Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for 1999-2000 prepared by the Herring Plan Development Team (PDT). The committee also will review and comment on the annual specifications recommendations of the PDT for the 2001 fishing year.

Location : Comfort Inn Airport, 1940 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 732-0470.

The committee will review the draft annual Herring SAFE Report prepared by the Herring PDT, including the comments of the Scientific and Statistical Committee meeting developed on July 11. The committee also will review the annual specifications recommendations of the PDT on optimum yield from the fishery (OY) and total allowable catch (TACs) for each management area for the 2001 fishing year, and develop recommendations to the Council.

Location : Comfort Inn Airport, 1940 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone (401) 732-0470.

The committee and advisors will conduct a joint meeting to continue development of management options for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. If not completed at the July 6 meeting, they will continue to refine the alternatives developed within the context of the status quo measures. They will also develop area management and sector allocation alternatives.

Location : Holiday Inn Express, Harborfront Center, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone (508) 997-1281.

The committee and advisors will conduct a joint meeting to continue development of management options for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. They will receive a report from the Council's Capacity Committee that may suggest approaches for addressing excess capacity and latent effort issues in the groundfish fishery. They will review these proposals and determine which should be analyzed for inclusion in Amendment 13. These groups also may receive reports from the Overfishing Definition Panel. The committee and advisors will complete development of alternatives for Amendment 13 that will be presented for Council consideration. Subject to Council approval of the alternatives, these will be further analyzed and developed into a document for public hearings.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids, or other special accommodations, should be directed to the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least five days prior to the meeting dates.

In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4345) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508), and in accordance with the Hawaii Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Law (Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes), ONR has prepared and filed with the EPA a joint state-federal DEIS for the reuse of the sound source and cable previously installed for use in ATOC research for NPAL.

A Notice of Intent for this EIS was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 1999. Public scoping meetings were held in Hanalei, Kauai, HI, on June 29, 1999; in Lihue, Kauai, HI, on June 30, 1999; and in Honolulu, HI, on July 1, 1999.

The proposed action is reuse of the ATOC sound source and cable for NPAL, an ONR basic research project, which would combine: a second phase of research on the feasibility and value of large-scale acoustic thermometry; long-range underwater sound transmission studies; and marine mammal monitoring and studies.

Under the proposed action, the seabed power cable and sound source would remain in their present locations, and transmissions would continue for a period of five years with approximately the same signal parameters and transmission schedule used in the ATOC project. The action would be carried out by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, which is the applicant for necessary state and federal permits, and by the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington.

The DEIS addresses the potential effects of the transmissions on the marine environment, including potential auditory, behavioral, and physiological effects on marine mammals and other marine creatures. Alternatives developed and analyzed in the DEIS include: the Preferred Alternative, in which the Kauai sound source would be used as described above; the No Action Alternative, in which no further activity with the Kauai source would occur; and the Midway Alternative, in which a sound source and cable would be located off Midway Island. The proposed action is the preferred alternative because it best meets the project's purpose and need.

The DEIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and public libraries. The document is available for public review at the following libraries:

Navy will conduct three public hearings to receive oral and written comments concerning the DEIS. A brief presentation will precede a request for public information and comments. Navy representatives will be available at the hearings to receive information and comments from agencies and the public regarding issues of concern. Federal, state, and local agencies, and interested parties are invited and urged to be present or represented at the hearing. Those who intend to speak will be asked to submit a speaker card (available at the door). Oral comments will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer.

To assure accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become part of the public record in the study. Equal weight will be given to both oral and written comments. In the interest of available time, each speaker will be asked to limit oral comments to three minutes. Longer comments should be summarized at the public hearings and submitted in writing either at the hearings or mailed to Office of Naval Research, Marine Acoustics, Inc., 809 Aquidneck Avenue, Middletown, RI 02842 (Attn. Ms. Kathleen Vigness Raposa, telephone (401) 847-7508, facsimile (401) 847-7864). Written comments are requested not later than July 24, 2000.

On August 21, 1998, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-187 authorizing MEGA to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer using the international electric transmission facilities owned and operated by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Citizens Utilities, Detroit Edison, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power and Light Co., Inc., Minnkota Power, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. That two-year authorization will expire on August 21, 2000.

On May 31, 2000, MEGA filed an application with FE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-187. In that application, MEGA also requested that the international transmission facilities of Long Sault, Inc. be added to the list of authorized export points.

Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the MEGA request to export to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-187-A. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Mr. Joseph P. Limone, Esq., General Counsel, Merchant Energy, Group of the Americas, Inc., 151 West Street, Suite 300, Annapolis, MD 21401.

DOE notes that the circumstances described in this application are virtually identical to those for which export authority had previously been granted in FE Order No. EA-187. Consequently, DOE believes that it has adequately satisfied its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 through the documentation of a categorical exclusion in the FE Docket EA-187 proceeding.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity,” from the Regulatory Info menu, and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus.

Title II of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), provides that no new baseload electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. In order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify, pursuant to FUA section 201(d), to the Secretary of Energy prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with section 201(a) as of the date filed with the Department of Energy. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register that a certification has been filed. The following owners/operators of the proposed new baseload powerplants have filed a self-certification in acccordance with section 201(d).

Affected entities: Entities affected by this action are those which generate and treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste.

Title: 2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), 976.08, OMB Control Number 2050-0024, expiration date November 30, 2000.

Abstract: Generators of hazardous waste and owners/operators of hazardous waste facilities must complete, under the authority of RCRA sections 3002 and 3004, a biennial report on the amount of waste generated in the United States, a description of the waste, and how it was managed.

EPA uses this information to understand the population of the regulated community, to expand its database of information for rulemakings, and for monitoring compliance with regulatory requirements.

Title: Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, 262.12, OMB Control Number 2050-0028, expires 12/31/02.

Abstract: Persons who generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and all persons who store recyclable materials prior to recycling them are required to notify EPA of their hazardous waste activities using this form.

EPA uses this information to understand the population of the regulated community and to obtain the information necessary to provide facilities with a RCRA ID.

Title: RCRA Part A Permit Application, 262.09, OMB Control Number 2050-0034, expires 10/31/02.

Abstract: RCRA requires anyone who owns or operates a facility where hazardous waste is treated, stored or disposed to have a RCRA hazardous waste permit issued by EPA. The part A is the first of two parts of the permit application.

EPA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. OMB control numbers for EPA are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

EPA would like comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of EPA;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the our estimate of the burden the proposed collection of information will impose;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) See how we can minimize the burden the proposed collection of information will impose, such as through electronic collection techniques.

In response to the concerns raised over the years about a lack of a comprehensive strategy in the way EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) collects hazardous waste information, the WIN/Informed Initiative was created by the states and OSW to develop and implement a solution. WIN stands for Waste Information Needs, and is the OSW portion of the project. Informed stands for Information Needed for Making Environmental Decisions, and is the state portion of the project.

The objective of this Initiative is to assess the information needs of the hazardous waste program, assess the way information is managed, and make recommendations for improvement. WIN/Informed also has been tasked with making the changes that will improve the collection, quality, use, and management of hazardous waste information, and to make that information more available to states, EPA, Tribes, and the public.

Today's Federal Register notice presents a set of recommendations from WIN/Informed. These recommendations affect the Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity (Notification), and the RCRA Part A Permit Application (part A). These ICRs are being modified at the same time because the changes we are recommending complement each other. The changes to the Biennial Report will be implemented (with the one exception discussed below) in 2001. The changes in the Notification and part A forms will be implemented the next time their ICRs are renewed (in 2002).

Today's notice summarizes the WIN/Informed recommendations. They are presented fully in a background document available on the Internet. The Internet site addresses is: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm

Background: Information about a site and the hazardous waste activities taking place there is used by regulators for waste activity and compliance monitoring, for program planning, to provide technical assistance, and to analyze waste minimization activities.

This information is currently being collected on three different forms, each with its own instructions and definitions. This sometimes gives regulators conflicting information about the same site, and is burdensome for respondents.

Basic site information is collected from all RCRA-regulated facilities on the Notification form. Generators and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities(TSDFs) report site information on the Biennial Report Identification and Certification (IC) form. Facilities that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste submit site information on the part A.

Recommendation: We plan to standardize the RCRA site identification information that is collected on the three forms. This means that the site identification information prepared for one form will be the exact same site identification information asked for on the other two forms. Once a facility has submitted this information once, the facility can just attach a copy of the previous submittal (with any changes) when facility identification information is requested again.

We plan to include as part of the site identification data elements the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes, which have replaced the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. Additionally, we will also ask about mixed waste and universal waste activity at the facility, and whether the facility imports waste.

A chart showing the information we will ask for as part of the standardized RCRA site identification is available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm.

The chart is in the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendations 7, 8, and 9 of the Internet document.

Background: The following discussion concerns how states will report data, and does not change respondents' reporting obligations. The federal rules in 40 CFR parts 261 and 262 establish three categories of hazardous waste generator: Large Quantity Generators (LQGs), Small Quantity Generators (SQGs), and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs). A site's RCRA generator status is based on the volume of hazardous waste generated, and/or accumulated during any month of the year. Both LQGs and SQGs must notify the implementing agency of their activities and obtain an EPA identification number. CESGQs are exempt from these two requirements, as well as many of the other hazardous waste requirements. RCRA section 3009 requires state hazardous waste rules to be at least as stringent as federal rules, but it also allows state rules to be broader in scope and more stringent than the federal rules. For example, a state:

• May impose regulatory obligations for LQGs on facilities generating less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a month, (this is more stringent than the federal rules).

• May regulate wastes not regulated by the federal rules (this is broader in scope).

• May require CESQGs to obtain an EPA identification number (this is broader in scope).

States need to know the regulatory status of a generator as defined by their rules. However, since states have different definitions of generators, it is more useful for EPA to use the federal definition when performing analyses of data from multiple states.

Recommendation: States will report to EPA their total generator universe, as defined by their state rules. They will also, to the best of their abilities, report to EPA their total generator universe as defined by RCRA. This will provide the following benefits:

• Including the state-defined generators in the RCRA national database will provide a more complete picture of the number of waste generators in the country being regulated.

• With both sets of generators in the national database, the concerns regarding different generator universe numbers (EPA versus state numbers) will be resolved.

• EPA inspectors will be able to better determine which regulations (state or EPA) apply to a generator they are inspecting.

There will be no changes to the part A or Biennial Report forms.

Planned Biennial Report instructions revisions are on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm.

See the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendation 6 of the Internet document.

Background: Generators exporting hazardous waste must notify EPA of their intent to export their waste and submit an annual report about the waste they exported. EPA maintains a separate database for this information, called the Hazardous Waste Export Data System.

Recommendation: We plan to integrate data in the Hazardous Waste Export Data System into the national RCRA information system. This would eliminate the need to collect export data through the Biennial Report. The Biennial Report instructions will be changed to tell respondents that they should not be reporting exports as part of their Biennial Report submissions, reducing duplication and confusion.

Planned Biennial Report instructions revisions are on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm. See the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendation 13 of the Internet document.

Background: A person who imports hazardous waste from a foreign country into the United States is, for regulatory purposes, the generator of the waste. Currently, there is no way to differentiate imported waste from waste generated in the receiving state. This makes waste generation totals for the state artificially high.

EPA and the states need to be able to determine whether hazardous waste is generated domestically or from a foreign source to obtain accurate generation totals and accurate import totals.

Recommendation: We plan to revise the Biennial Report instructions so that importers of hazardous waste will use a specific code to identify imported wastes.

Planned Biennial Report instructions revisions are on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm. See the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendation 14 of the Internet document.

Background: Interim status and permitted treatment, storage and disposal facilities report hazardous waste received from off-site, wastes accumulated onsite, wastes managed on-site, and shipments of hazardous waste off-site.

Large quantity generators report the hazardous waste that are generated, accumulated, and subsequently managed on-site or shipped off-site.

One complication to this reporting system is that 40 CFR parts 260 to 273 exempt specific hazardous wastes and distinct hazardous waste management processes from regulation. When these exemptions were crafted, the issue of whether the wastes involved should be reported in the Biennial Report was not addressed. This created uncertainty as to whether the wastes should be reported. EPA has provided guidance, but there has still been confusion about the issue. We are providing clarification in today's notice. We will consider comments on our position, and will issue more definitive guidance in the instructions for the 2001 Biennial Report.

Recommendation: The exemptions in 40 CFR parts 260 to 273 have their own regulatory histories and backgrounds, and as mentioned above, EPA often did not clarify whether the waste should be reported in the Biennial Report when the exemption was created. EPA, in consultation with a number of states and other stakeholders, considered various approaches to defining which wastes should be reported. We concluded that the simplest approach is to change the Biennial Report instructions to clarify that generators should report only the hazardous wastes which count toward the determination of their generator status. See 40 CFR 261.5(c) and (d).

A list of the specific exemptions is on the Internet site listed below. Examples include hazardous waste that is a specified recyclable material such as ethyl alcohol or scrap metal and hazardous wastes that are recycled on-site without prior storage or accumulation. If you are not sure whether your waste is exempt, check with your state. (Individual states may require reporting of items that the EPA has considered exempt, so it is important to check with your state.)

TSDFs should report hazardous waste received from off-site, the management of the hazardous waste while on-site, and the shipments of hazardous waste off-site. In general, if a waste comes in to the TSDF accompanied by the Hazardous Waste Manifest, it is subject to the Biennial Report.

Planned Biennial Report instructions revisions are on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm. See the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendation 15 of the Internet document.

Background: A review of the information needs identified by WIN/Informed suggests that the existing Biennial Report Source, Origin, Form and Management codes could be streamlined to improve the usefulness of the information we receive. We plan to:

• Consolidate, regroup, and merge current Source codes with the current Origin codes.

• Revise Form codes so that there would be 47 codes instead of 89.

• Eliminate overlap between Management Method and Form codes. Each is discussed below.

There is significant complexity in the way the existing Biennial Report Source and Origin codes are defined. This is a result of the overlap in the coverage of the two coding structures, and it has led to data quality and consistency problems.

Recommendation: The current Source codes will be consolidated, regrouped, and merged with the Origin codes to provide a simpler coding structure. This approach should allow for more meaningful and consistent responses and reduce some of the reporting burden. This scheme will reduce the number of choices from 60 to 30 and the groups from 7 to 6. The planned coding structure is available on the Internet site listed below.

The physical form of a generated waste is collected on the Biennial Report using 89 specific codes in 9 high-level groups. This is the most elaborate of the Biennial Reporting coding structures, and the most difficult for respondents to use, and for information users to analyze.

Recommendation: The new Form codes we are considering combine similar existing codes, using the information included in the waste code descriptions to reduce the complexity and overlap of information between the two. This new coding system maintains the level of information needed by EPA and the states. Wastes will be better described and categorized. This will decrease confusion for the reporters.

The table providing the planned coding structure is available on the Internet site listed below. The number of Form codes is reduced from 89 to 47, with 7 high level groups. In some cases, there is not an exact translation from the old Form codes to the new ones, but for most, there is a path to ensure continuity for trend analysis.

The current Management Method coding structure both duplicates and conflicts with the current Form codes. For example, there are five distinct Management Method codes for waste incineration, depending on the physical form of the waste being incinerated. This leads to such reporting anomalies as a waste of the physical form B201 (concentrated solvent-water solution) being managed by system M043 (incineration—solids).

Recommendation: The existing Management Method coding structure will be revised to eliminate overlap with the Form codes. This revised coding structure is based in part on analysis of the frequency and perceived accuracy with which different Management method codes were reported in the 1995 BRS data. The impact of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment codes was also considered in establishing this list. This reduces the detailed list from 65 to 28 and the high-level groups from 14 to 4. We believe this recommendation will result in increased data accuracy and quality through reduced variation in response, and will decrease burden. A table with revised codes is available on the Internet site listed below.

Planned Biennial Report instructions revisions are on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm. See the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendation 16 of the Internet document.

WIN/Informed recommended the elimination of a number of Biennial Report data elements. They are: Point of Measurement, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), and Off-site availability, and for the 2003 cycle, Radioactive Mixed Waste.

The Point of Measurement on the Generation and Management (GM) form consists of four codes showing whether the waste being reported was mixed with other wastes prior to being measured. WIN/Informed identified no significant need for this information. Additionally, because the Point of Measurement is confusing to respondents, the data we receive is often of questionable quality. Thus, we plan to eliminate it.

Since we are proposing to add the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes (the replacement for the SIC codes) to the new RCRA Site Identification form, we plan to remove the SIC from the GM form.

This code shows whether an off-site facility is a commercially-available TSDF, or if it is only permitted to accept wastes from firms owned by the same company. WIN/Informed did not find any need for this information, so we plan on eliminating it.

The Biennial Report asks whether the waste being reported is a RCRA Radioactive Mixed Waste. WIN/Informed did not find a significant national need for this information. However, we learned that some existing EPA compliance agreements with federal facilities require this data for compliance monitoring. We determined that it would be disruptive to drop the requirement since it was being used in these limited areas. So, it will continue to be collected for the 2001 Biennial Report cycle. At this time, however, we are planning to remove it starting with the 2003 Biennial Report, as long as the compliance agreement information needs are able to be satisfied by another source of information.

Planned Biennial Report instructions revisions are on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm.

See the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendation 17 of the Internet document.

Currently, the Source Code is a data element on the Biennial Report that is voluntary to complete. We plan to make it mandatory to complete.

WIN/Informed identified a number of information needs that are met by the Source Code. Regulators need to be able to distinguish among the following types of hazardous wastes:

Within each of the categories, participants in WIN/Informed identified a need for detailed information on the specific industrial or waste management processes generating the wastes. With this recommendation, regulators will be dbetter able to target inspections.

Planned Biennial Report instructions revisions are on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/icr.htm . See the file: “2001 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), Part A Permit Application, and Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Information Collection Request.” Detailed discussion of this recommendation is found in Recommendation 25 of the Internet document.

The following is an estimate of the total annual cost and hour burden to the regulated community for the changes described in this notice:

• Biennial Report currently: 164,303 hours and $24,723. Biennial Report with proposed changes: 158,027 hours and $24,671.

• Notification currently: 100,137 hours and $130,725. New RCRA Site ID form: 83,298 hours and $130,725.

• Part A currently: 945 hours and $424. Part A with changes: 893 hours and $424.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal or implementing agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. EPA estimates that the changes discussed today, when implemented, will reduce burden by 23,000 hours and an insignificant number of dollars.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture or formulate pesticides. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this notice affects certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, the science policy documents, and certain other related documents that might be available from the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. On the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page select “FQPA” and then look up the entry for this document under “Science Policies.” You can also go directly to the listings at the EPA Home Page at http://www.epa.gov. On the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations” and then look up the entry to this document under “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. Fax-on-Demand . You may request a faxed copy of the science policy documents, as well as supporting information, by using a faxphone to call (202) 401-0527. Select item 6063 for the document entitled “Guidance for Refining Anticipated Residue Estimates For Use in Acute Dietary Probabilistic Risk Assessment.” Select item 6064 for the document entitled “EPA's Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Policy Documents: Data for Refining Anticipated Residue Estimates Used in Dietary Risk Assessments; Guidance for the Conduct of Bridging Studies for Use in Acute Dietary Probabilistic Risk Assessment; and Guidance for the Conduct of Residue Decline Studies for Use in Acute Dietary Probabilistic Risk Assessment.” You may also follow the automated menu.

3. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00591A. In addition, the documents referenced in the framework notice, which published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58038) (FRL-6041-5) have also been inserted in the docket under docket control number OPP-00557. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

On August 3, 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) was signed into law. Effective upon signature, the FQPA significantly amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Among other changes, FQPA established a stringent health-based standard (“a reasonable certainty of no harm”) for pesticide residues in foods to assure protection from unacceptable pesticide exposure; provided heightened health protections for infants and children from pesticide risks; required expedited review of new, safer pesticides; created incentives for the development and maintenance of effective crop protection tools for farmers; required reassessment of existing tolerances over a 10-year period; and required periodic re-evaluation of pesticide registrations and tolerances to ensure that scientific data supporting pesticide registrations will remain up-to-date in the future.

Subsequently, the Agency established the Food Safety Advisory Committee (FSAC) as a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) to assist in soliciting input from stakeholders and to provide input to EPA on some of the broad policy choices facing the Agency and on strategic direction for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). The Agency has used the interim approaches developed through discussions with FSAC to make regulatory decisions that met FQPA's standard, but that could be revisited if additional information became available or as the science evolved. As EPA's approach to implementing the scientific provisions of FQPA has evolved, the Agency has sought independent review and public participation, often through presentation of the science policy issues to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), a group of independent, outside experts who provide peer review and scientific advice to OPP.

In addition, as directed by Vice President Albert Gore, EPA has been working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and another subcommittee of NACEPT, the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), chaired by the EPA Deputy Administrator and the USDA Deputy Secretary, to address FQPA issues and implementation. TRAC comprised more than 50 representatives of affected user, producer, consumer, public health, environmental, states, and other interested groups. The TRAC met seven times as a full committee from May 27, 1998, through April 29, 1999.

The Agency worked with the TRAC to ensure that its science policies, risk assessments of individual pesticides, and process for decision making are transparent and open to public participation. An important product of these consultations with TRAC was the development of a framework for addressing key science policy issues. The Agency decided that the FQPA implementation process and related policies would benefit from initiating notice and comment on the major science policy issues.

The TRAC identified nine science policy issue areas they believed were key to implementation of FQPA and tolerance reassessment. The framework calls for EPA to provide one or more documents for comment on each of the nine issues by announcing their availability in the Federal Register . In accordance with the framework described in a separate notice published in the Federal Register of October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58038), EPA has been issuing a series of draft science policy documents concerning nine science policy issues identified by the TRAC related to the implementation of FQPA. This notice announces the availability of the revised version of the science policy document identified in the “SUMMARY.”

This science policy document provides guidance to registrants, other test sponsors and interested parties, and data reviewers on the extent and quality of pesticide residue and ancillary data needed to support the use of more refined “anticipated residues” in acute dietary probabilistic exposure assessments. The purpose of this guidance document is to outline the types of data OPP can use to refine residue estimates for pesticides and explain when and how EPA may use these data. Such data can include (as is further discussed in the science policy document) information from cooking studies, processing studies, and market basket surveys conducted on individual produce items. In addition, such data can include information from “bridging” studies used to support the use of typical application rates in probabilistic risk assessments or residue decline data used to support the use of typical preharvest intervals (PHI) in probabilistic risk assessments. This guidance also provides information on how risk-mitigation activities (e.g., increasing PHIs and lowering maximum label rates) can be considered in OPP risk assessments and used to adjust tolerance levels.

It should be noted that the guidance in this science policy document is not intended to limit or restrict the type of data that may be submitted in support of risk-mitigation measures, and that OPP will consider other data or information as long as they would provide a scientifically sound basis for determining residues at typical application rates for risk mitigation purposes.

EPA published a draft version of this science policy document on April 7, 1999 (64 FR 16967) (FRL-6071-1) and comments were filed in docket control number OPP-00591. In addition, EPA issued two related draft science policy documents entitled, “Guidance for the Conduct of Bridging Studies for Use in Acute Dietary Probabilistic Risk Assessment” and “Guidance for the Conduct of Residue Decline Studies for Use in Acute Dietary Probabilistic Risk Assessment,” on August 4, 1999 (64 FR 42371) (FRL-6093-2). Comments for these documents were filed in docket control number OPP-00616. The Agency received comments from several organizations and interested individuals. All comments on these three draft science policy documents were considered by the Agency in producing the revised version of the science policy document and the response-to-comments document described in this notice.

Many of the comments were similar in content, and pertained to general issues concerning the proposed policy or specific sections within the draft science policy document. The Agency grouped the comments according to the nature of the comment and the issue or section of the document which they addressed. The Agency's response to the comments is available as described in Units I.B.1. and I.B.2.

The policy document discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel and decision-makers, and to the public. As a guidance document and not a rule, the policy in this guidance is not binding on either EPA or any outside parties. Although this guidance provides a starting point for EPA risk assessments, EPA will depart from its policy where the facts or circumstances warrant. In such cases, EPA will explain why a different course was taken. Similarly, outside parties remain free to assert that a policy is not appropriate for a specific pesticide or that the circumstances surrounding a specific risk assessment demonstrate that a policy should be abandoned.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Sections 502(a), 519, 701, and 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 352(a), 360(i), 371, and 374) establish the statutory authority to collect information under this regulation. Section 519 of the act describes recordkeeping, section 502(a) misbranding, section 704 authority for inspections, and section 701 general administrative procedures and regulations and hearings.

To protect the public health and minimize the risk of device failure, latex condoms are required to be labeled with an expiration date, which must be supported by data from quality control tests demonstrating physical and mechanical integrity of three random lots of the same product that were stored under accelerated and real time conditions (§ 801.435 (21 CFR 801.435)).

The recording of shelf life testing by condom manufacturers is used to support the expiration dating on the labeling of latex condoms. Information concerning latex shelf life is necessary to allow lay users to use these products safely by avoiding use of products that may have degraded. Degradation of latex film products like latex condoms occurs when latex is exposed to various types of environmental conditions normally experienced in product use, shipment, or storage situations. The effectiveness of latex condoms as a barrier to the transmission of infectious agents is dependent upon the integrity of the latex material. The information and records generated by condom manufacturers under this regulation will be used to establish an expiration date that will inform consumers when the product should no longer be used.

Section 510(h) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(h)) requires that condom manufacturers as device manufacturers be inspected at least once in a 2-year period. During that inspection, FDA inspectors will review the test records used to support the expiration date in order to ensure that the expiration date is accurate.

The respondents to this collection of information are domestic and foreign condom manufacturers.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The number of domestic establishments was estimated by reviewing the FDA data base of registered medical device manufacturers to arrive at 5 domestic and 40 foreign condom manufacturers. Based upon conversations with condom manufacturers, FDA field personnel, and comments received from the public during this collections initial approval, FDA determined the number hours to complete labeling and testing of condoms to be 96 hours per respondent.

The NCI has established the anti-tumor effects of protein-based immunologic anti-idiotype antibodies for lymphoma-specific vaccination in both animal studies and human clinical trials evaluating idiotype vaccines against B-cell lymphomas. B-cell tumors are composed of clonally-expanded cells synthesizing a single antibody molecule containing unique variable regions in the heavy and light chains known as idiotypic determinants. B-cell lymphomas consist of mature resting and reactive lymphocytes, which typically synthesize and express immunoglobulin on the cell surface. Idiotypic determinants of the surface immunoglobulin of B-cell malignancies therefore, comprise tumor-specific antigens that can be used to elicit a specific immune response against B-cell lymphoma. Immunization against idiotypic determinants on malignant B cells prevents tumor growth and antagonizes the growth of established tumors in several syngeneic tumor models. Studies conducted at the NCI have also demonstrated that idiotype specific immune responses against an autologous antigen could be induced in patients with B-cell lymphoma (New Engl. J. of Med. 327:1209-1215, 1992).

In a recent clinical study, NCI investigators demonstrated that an idiotypic protein vaccine against B-cell lymphoma administered in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), exerts an anti-tumor effect in patients with B-cell lymphoma as measured by the eradication of residual tumor cells bearing a t(14:18) translocation detectable by PCR. The clearance of residual tumor cells from the blood and the presence of tumor specific cytotoxic T-cells correlated with long-term disease free survival in these patients. Based on the results of these studies, the NCI is currently conducting a definitive multi-center Phase III clinical trial of idiotype vaccines against follicular B-cell lymphoma. In addition, results of Phase I/II clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of protein-based immnoglobulin idiotype vaccines in the treatment of multiple myeloma have also provided support for the use of idiotypic vaccines as a cancer therapeutic. The NCI is currently seeking partners to collaborate in extending the development of idiotype tumor vaccines to additional tumor types specifically, low-grade and intermediate B-cell lymphomas, mantle cell lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In addition, the NCI is interested in evaluating novel formulations, adjuvants or delivery systems for idiotypic vaccines against any of the indicated diseases, including B-cell lymphoma and myeloma.

The NCI specifically seeks corporate partner(s) with the ability to collaborate in the development of any of these therapeutic applications. Since idiotypic determinants are tumor-specific, the vaccines must be custom-made for each patient. Collaborators will be selected based upon the scientific merit and intellectual contributions brought to each individual project(s) as well as their demonstrated expertise in vaccine production and clinical monitoring. Potential collaborators should have experience in preclinical and clinical drug development; experience in the monitoring, evaluation and interpretation of data from investigational agent clinical studies; or experience in areas that represent an extention of these studies to include new formulations, or approaches to vaccine delivery, such as the development of DNA-based idiotype vaccines.

The role of the National Cancer Institute in the CRADA(s) may include but is not limited to the following:

1. The NCI will provide intellectual, scientific, and technical expertise and experience related to the development of idiotype vaccines.

2. The NCI will continue preclinical and clinical development of these vaccines and will make data available to the collaborator as appropriate.

3. NCI will collaborate in the design of experiments and the evaluation of results.

4. Agents developed under a pre-clinical CRADA may proceed to clinical development under NCI-sponsored clinical trials if warranted.

The role of the CRADA Collaborator may include, but is not limited to the following:

1. Providing scientific development strategy and financial and other support for the collaborative preclinical development of vaccines for new disease indications or for development of novel methodologies.

2. Providing significant intellectual, scientific, and technical expertise or experience to the development of processes required for GMP vaccine production of selected vaccine candidates.

3. Participating in clinical development leading to FDA approval and marketing through participation on a Steering Committee established to guide the commercialization of successful vaccines.

Selection criteria for choosing the CRADA Collaborator may include, but not be limited to:

1. The scientific merit and intellectual contribution of the Collaborator as outlined in the project proposal. Potential collaborators are urged to submit proposals which focus on particular areas of expertise and which clearly outline a development and commercialization plan.

2. The ability to collaborate with NCI on the research and development of this technology. This ability can be demonstrated through experience and expertise in this or related areas that indicate the ability to contribute intellectually to the ongoing research and development of idiotype vaccines.

3. The demonstration of adequate resources to perform the research and development of this technology (e.g. facilities, personnel and expertise) and accomplish objectives according to an appropriate timetable to be outlined in the CRADA Collaborator's proposal.

4. The willingness to commit best effort and demonstrated resources to the research and development of this technology, as outlined in the CRADA Collaborator's proposal.

5. The demonstration of expertise in the commercial development and production of products related to this area of technology.

6. The willingness to cooperate with the National Cancer Institute in the timely publication of research results.

7. The agreement to be bound by the appropriate DHHS regulations relating to human subjects, and all PHS policies relating to the use and care of laboratory animals.

All urine specimens must be collected using chain of custody procedures to document the integrity and security of the specimen from the time of collection until receipt by the laboratory. To ensure uniformity among all Federal agency and federally regulated workplace drug testing programs, the use of an OMB approved Federal CCF is required. Based on the experiences of using the current Federal CCF for the past several years, SAMHSA and DOT initiated a joint effort to develop a new Federal CCF that was easier to use and more accurately reflected both the collection process and how results were reported by the drug testing laboratories. This effort included scheduling two public meetings attended by over 35 industry representatives who recommended most of the changes to the current Federal CCF. As a result of these two meetings, SAMHSA published a proposed revised Federal CCF in a Federal Register notice (64 FR 61916) on November 15, 1999. A sample of the proposed form was included in that notice.

The first major proposed change was to make the revised Federal CCF a six-part form by eliminating the split specimen copy. Since the split specimen copy is used only when the split specimen is tested ( i.e., less than approximately 5 percent of split specimens are tested), it would be more efficient to have the split specimen test result reported on the original laboratory copy (Copy 1). When the split specimen is tested, the primary laboratory would need to make a photocopy of Copy 1 of the Federal CCF and send it along with the split specimen to the second laboratory. Although this procedure requires the primary laboratory to make a photocopy, SAMHSA and DOT believe the cost saving associated with not including a separate split specimen copy with each Federal CCF outweighs the cost associated with the few times that Copy 1 will need to be photocopied by the primary laboratory. Additionally, eliminating the split specimen copy will help make any handwritten information appear more legible on the later copies.

The second major proposed change was to move the specimen bottle seal(s)/ label(s) from the right side of the form to the bottom of Copy 1. This change would permit overprinting information on the form using standard width tractor feed printers rather than requiring more expensive wide carriage printers. In addition, the storage and handling requirements would be similar to other documents since the overall size of the new Federal CCF (including the tractor feed strips) is essentially the same as a standard sheet of paper.

The third major proposed change involved simplifying the chain of custody step by requiring the collector to only sign the form once. SAMHSA and DOT believe the current requirement for the collector to sign the form three times can be replaced with one signature because the certification statement signed by the collector clearly describes that the collector has possession of the specimen from the time the collector receives the specimen from the donor until the collector releases the specimen for shipment to the laboratory.

The fourth major proposed change was to provide a wider choice of terms that a laboratory can use to report specimen test results. The current form uses the term “Test Not Performed” to report any result other than a negative or positive result. In fact, this term does not always reflect the actual handling of the specimen. SAMHSA and DOT believe it is more appropriate to provide a variety of terms on the Federal CCF that accurately reflect the different specimen test results that a laboratory may report, such as, invalid result, adulterated, substituted, or rejected for testing.

The fifth major proposed change was to include a new step on the original laboratory copy (Copy 1) for reporting the result for the split specimen (Bottle B) since the split specimen copy was eliminated. This change ensures that the primary specimen and split specimen laboratory test results are recorded on the same copy that is provided to the Medical Review Officer if the split specimen is tested.

The sixth major proposed change was to place the Medical Review Officer (MRO) steps for both the primary and split specimens on the MRO copy. This change permits the MRO to record the determination for both the primary specimen and the split specimen (if tested) on the same copy and to use this copy to report results to the employer.

Other changes were considered to be minor changes and were discussed as each part of the proposed new form was described in the November 15, 1999, Federal Register notice.

SAMHSA received thirty comments on the proposed changes from laboratories, printing firms, employers, organizations, and individuals. The majority of comments supported the proposed changes. All comments were reviewed and taken into consideration in preparing the new Federal CCF. The substantive comments submitted and SAMHSA's and DOT's response to those comments are discussed below as each step of the new Federal CCF is described.

Appendix A is a sample of the new Federal CCF.

The new Federal CCF has the following 5 copies: Copy 1—Laboratory Copy, Copy 2—Medical Review Officer Copy, Copy 3—Collector Copy, Copy 4—Employer Copy, and Copy 5—Donor Copy. The reverse side of each copy ( i.e., Copy 1, Copy 2, Copy 3, Copy 4, and Copy 5) must have the “Paperwork Reduction Act Notice” statement. The reverse side of Copy 5 must also have the “Privacy Act Statement (for Federal employees only)” and the “Instructions for Completing the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form.” The required statements and instructions for completing the Federal CCF are provided below.

The second laboratory copy was eliminated from the proposed six-part form when SAMHSA and DOT agreed to permit a certified laboratory to transmit a negative result to the Medical Review Officer (MRO) electronically ( e.g., facsimile, computer). The only time that a hard copy of the Federal CCF must be sent to the MRO is when the laboratory is reporting either a positive for a specific drug, adulterated, substituted, rejected for testing, or invalid result. For these relatively few non-negative results, the laboratory is required to make and send a photocopy of Copy 1 to the MRO even if an electronic report was sent. SAMHSA and DOT believe the additional cost saving associated with not including the second laboratory copy with each Federal CCF outweighs the cost associated with the few times that Copy 1 will need to be photocopied by the primary laboratory.

Each copy of the new Federal CCF will be on white paper. The proposed changes had required using paper with a different color border for the MRO, collector, employer, and donor copies as opposed to using a different color paper for each of these copies as used for the old form. Two comments supported using paper with different color borders while two comments opposed using color borders. SAMHSA and DOT have reevaluated the need to use either different color paper or paper with different color borders and believe that using white paper for each copy is sufficient to ensure that the copies will be distributed as required. Additionally, using white paper for all copies will reduce the cost to assemble the form and will make handwritten information more legible on all copies.

The sequence of the copies for the new Federal CCF was changed to laboratory, MRO, collector, employer, and donor. Three comments suggested changing the sequence of the copies for the proposed revised form because of the concern with the legibility of the information on the latter copies, especially if a latter copy is needed to replace a lost copy. SAMHSA and DOT concur that legibility is a concern and the best copies, beside the laboratory copy, should be the MRO and collector copies. If the employer and donor copies are not entirely legible, the information can be obtained from the MRO or collector copies. In addition, placing the donor copy last, gives the donor the instructions for collecting the urine specimen and completing the Federal CCF. This may be useful if, at a later time, the donor claims that the collector did not follow the collection procedure.

Copy 1 has a one inch space at the top of the page reserved for the following items: the title “Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form” must be printed along the top edge, the OMB Number must appear in the right hand corner, name and street address of the certified laboratory that will test the specimen, a unique preprinted specimen identification number, an accession number after the specimen is received by the laboratory, and any other information ( e.g., accounting code) the laboratory or user of the form may want to print on the form.

Step 1 is completed by the collector or employer representative. A space is provided for the name, address, and identification number (if applicable) of the employer and the name and address of the MRO. The collector records the donor's social security number or other employee identification number after verifying the donor's identity. The collector marks the appropriate box to indicate the reason for the test and the appropriate box for the drug tests to be performed. The collector records the collection site address and the phone and fax numbers where the collector can be contacted.

Four comments recommended that the we retain the same sequence for the reasons for the test as on the current CCF. SAMHSA and DOT concur with that recommendation and changed the sequence to coincide with that on the current CCF. Three comments were opposed to requiring the collector to indicate the acronym of the Federal agency for which the specimen was being collected because the collector did not always have that information. We agree that that information is not always known by the collector and deleted the acronym from the new Federal CCF.

Step 2 is completed by the collector after receiving the specimen from the donor and measuring the temperature of the specimen. This step requires the collector to mark the appropriate box to indicate if the temperature of the specimen was within the required temperature range, whether it is a split or single specimen collection, if no specimen was collected, and if it was an observed collection. A “Remarks” line is provided when the collector is required to provide a comment. One comment suggested placing the box for the split specimen collection before the box for the single specimen collection. SAMHSA and DOT agree with the comment because the vast majority of collections are split specimen collections rather than single specimen collections.

Step 3 directs the collector to affix the seal(s)/label(s) to the specimen bottle(s), to date the seal(s) after being placed on the specimen bottle(s), to have the donor initial the seal(s) after being placed on the specimen bottle(s), and to instruct the donor to complete step 5 on the MRO copy (Copy 2). This is essentially the same instruction that appears on the current form.

Step 4 is a revised chain of custody step that is initiated by the collector and completed by the laboratory after the specimen is accessioned by the laboratory. This step requires the collector to only sign the form once to certify that the specimen was collected, labeled, sealed, and released for shipment to the laboratory in accordance with Federal requirements. SAMHSA and DOT believe that one collector signature is sufficient to document chain of custody from this procedure. The collector is also required to note the time of the collection, the date of collection, and the specific name of the delivery service to whom the specimen is released for shipment to the laboratory. This is the same information that is required on the current Federal CCF. Since there is no requirement for delivery service personnel to document chain of custody during transit because they do not have access to the specimen bottle(s) or the Federal CCF, chain of custody annotations resume when the shipping container/package is opened and an individual at the laboratory has access to the specimen bottle(s) and the Federal CCF. We consider this individual to be the accessioner, and he or she is required to document the condition of the primary specimen bottle seal, sign the Federal CCF, print his/her name, the date the specimen was accessioned, and then to whom the specimen was released. The entry for the “Specimen Bottle(s) Released To” may include transfer to temporary storage or transfer to another individual. After this transfer, chain of custody for the specimen bottle(s) is documented by the laboratory using an internal chain of custody form. Two comments suggested deleting the requirement to record the delivery service since it was mentioned in the certification statement signed by the collector and one commenter suggested allowing preprinting a generic term for the delivery service. SAMHSA and DOT believe it is extremely important to document that the collector transferred the shipping container/package to a specific delivery service. It ensures that the collector knows that the specimen must be directly transferred to a specific delivery service rather than to another individual or to temporary storage.

Step 5(a) is completed by a certifying scientist at the laboratory to document the test result for the primary specimen. The certifying scientist is required to provide a signature, print his or her name, and the date. This step has boxes to allow the certifying scientist to easily check whether the result is negative, positive for a specific drug, rejected for testing, adulterated, substituted, invalid result, and/or dilute. One comment suggested adding a box to check when a specimen was dilute rather than requiring a comment to written on the “Remarks” line. SAMHSA and DOT concur with that recommendation and added a box to check when a specimen was dilute.

Step 5(b) is used by a certifying scientist at the second certified laboratory to document the test result for the split specimen, if the split specimen is tested. This step has a space for the name and address of the second laboratory, a certification statement, appropriate boxes for the certifying scientist to report the test result for the split specimen, a signature line, a line to print his or her name, and the date. There were no comments submitted regarding this step.

There must be two tamper-evident specimen bottle seal(s)/label(s) located in the bottom one and three-quarter inch space of Copy 1. One label must have the letter “A” on it to designate its use for sealing and labeling the primary specimen bottle and the other has the letter “B” on it to designate its use for sealing and labeling the split specimen bottle. Each seal/label must have the same specimen identification number (either preprinted or overprinted before use) that appears at the top of the form, a place for the collector to annotate the date of the collection, and a place for the donor to initial each label after it is placed on the specimen bottle. If a single specimen collection procedure is used, the “B” label is discarded by the collector.

It is also the responsibility of the supplier of the seals/labels to ensure that they are tamper-evident. Tamper-evident is defined as a seal/label that cannot be removed from the specimen bottle after 5 minutes contact with the specimen bottle.

Three comments supported locating the seals/labels at the bottom of the form and three comments were opposed and recommended leaving the seals/labels attached to the side of the form. They were concerned that placement of the seals/labels at the bottom of the form would jam the printers because of the thickness of the form. SAMHSA and DOT believe that reducing the number of copies to 5 from 7 and ensuring that a good quality tamper-evident seal/label is properly placed on the form that the seals/labels will not interfere with the printing or overprinting process. There are numerous examples of forms used with labels placed directly onto the forms that do not cause printing problems and we fully expect that to be the case when the new Federal CCF is printed and used.

The Medical Review Officer copy is the same format as Copy 1 except that step 5(a) has been replace with step 5. This step 5 on Copy 2 is completed by the donor after the specimen bottle(s) are sealed, initialed by the donor, and dated. The donor is required to read the certification statement, provide a signature, printed name, date of collection, daytime phone number, evening phone number, and date of birth. This information will be used by the Medical Review Officer to contact the donor for results that require donor contact before making a determination.

Exactly the same as Copy 2.

Exactly the same as Copy 2.

Exactly the same as Copy 2.

The following Paperwork Reduction Act Notice must appear on the back of each copy ( i.e, Copy 1, Copy 2, Copy 3, Copy 4, and Copy5) of the Federal CCF:

There were no comments submitted regarding this Paperwork Reduction Act Notice statement.

The following Privacy Act Statement must appear on the back of the donor copy (Copy 5):

There were no comments submitted regarding this Privacy Act statement.

The following instructions must appear on the back of the donor copy (Copy 5):

SAMHSA recognizes that different hardware and software are used to prepare and print forms and this will create minor differences in the appearance between forms. The following is a list of acceptable differences and modifications when printing the Federal CCF:

(1) The OMB number may appear either vertically or horizontally in the upper right hand corner of the form.

(2) The name and address of the testing laboratory and the unique specimen identification number at the top of the form and on the specimen bottle seal(s)/label(s) may be printed during the original printing and form assembly process or added by “overprinting” after the form is assembled.

(3) Preprinting and/or overprinting the employer name and address, MRO name and address, and collection site information is permitted.

(4) The spaces for the employer name and address, MRO name and address, and the collection site address may have lines.

(5) The unique specimen identification number at the top of the form and on the tamper-evident seal(s)/label(s) may be either a bar code with an associated human readable number or only a human readable number.

(6) A laboratory does not need to assign and record a separate laboratory accession number in the one inch space at the top of the form if it uses the unique specimen identification number to track the specimen after receipt. When this is the case, the form may be printed without the words “LAB ACCESSION NO.” appearing on the top of the form.

(7) The size of each “check” box may vary slightly.

(8) The font size and style used for letters may vary to enhance readability.

(9) The “exact” location for each item on the printed form may vary slightly from the location indicated on the sample form provided in Appendix A.

(10) The data entry/information fields may be highlighted using different colors to show where the collector, donor, and laboratory would be providing information. The colors used to highlight the fields may be different for different fields, but must not prevent making clear facsimiles and photocopies of the information that is printed or handwritten in these fields.

(11) The space for the donor's SSN or Employee I.D. No. may have combs, boxes, or a single line.

(12) The legend at the bottom of copies 2 through 5 may be printed using different colors or a different color stripe may be printed at the bottom of copies 2 through 5. To ensure consistency and correct distribution of the copies, if different color stripes or legends are used at the bottom of each copy, the following colors must be used: MRO copy—pink, Collector copy—yellow, Employer copy—blue, Donor copy—green.

(13) A reference mark(s) may be used to position the form in a printer to overprint information in the correct location or to optically scan the information in the various fields.

(14) The size of the two tamper-evident seals/labels may vary, but must be placed within the space provided at the bottom of Copy 1.

(15) The color of the preprinted information on the “A” specimen bottle tamper-evident seal/label may be different than the color of the preprinted information on the “B” specimen bottle tamper-evident seal/label.

The new Federal CCF is available on the SAMHSA website (www.health.org/workpl.htm) as an electronic “.pdf” file that can be opened, saved, and printed.

SAMHSA and DOT recognize that there may be a large supply of old forms at collection sites after the August 1, 2000, implementation date for the new Federal CCF. To avoid discarding these forms, OMB is permitting the use of the old Federal CCF until supplies are exhausted, but not to be used beyond July 31, 2001. After that date, remaining copies of the old Federal CCF should be destroyed.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use as assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Brian Rooney, Division of property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: DOT: Mr. Rugene Spruill, Space Management, SVC-140, Transportation Administrative Service Center, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 2310, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4146; GSA: Mr. Brian K. Polly, Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Contract & Property Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501-0052; ENERGY: Mr. Tom Knox, Department of Energy, Office of Contract & Resource Management, MA-52, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-8715); INTERIOR: Mr. Al Barth, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 5512-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; (202) 208-7283; NAVY: Mr. Charles C. Cocks, Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Policy Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065; (202) 685-9200; (These are not toll-free numbers).

Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act (added by Section 142 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-235, approved December 15, 1989), requires that HUD “publish a description of and the cause for administrative actions against a HUD-approved mortgagee” by the Department's Mortgagee Review Board. In compliance with the requirements of Section 202(c)(5), notice is hereby given of administrative actions that have been taken by the Mortgagee Review Board from October 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000.

1. Title I Lenders and Title II Mortgagees that failed to comply with HUD/FHA requirements for the submission of an audited annual financial statement and/or payment of the annual recertification fee.

Action: Withdrawal of HUD/FHA Title I lender approval and Title II mortgagee approval.

Cause: Failure to submit to the Department the required annual audited financial statement, an acceptable annual audited financial statement, and/or remit the required annual recertification fee.

By Federal law, all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an approved CCP. The purpose of a CCP is to describe the desired future conditions of the refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the Refuge System and meet other relevant mandates. Several other goals of the CCP process include: (1) Conducting refuge planning in accordance with an ecosystem approach, (2) providing a public forum for the public to comment on the type, extent and compatibility of wildlife-dependent recreational uses within the refuge area, and (3) ensuring public involvement in refuge management decisions by providing a process for effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with affected parties.

The CCP will address habitat and wildlife management, habitat protection and possible restoration, wildlife-dependent recreational uses, and adjacency issues that could affect the Refuge goals and management objectives that will be developed during this process. Public input into this planning process is essential. The Service will solicit comments from the public via noticed meetings, open houses, and written comments. Special mailings, newspaper articles, and announcements will inform people in the general area of the time and place of such opportunities for public input into the CCP.

The South San Diego Unit of the San Diego NWR, located at the southern end of San Diego Bay, supports tens of thousands of migrating shorebirds, nesting seabirds, wintering sea ducks and other migratory waterfowl. Included within the refuge boundaries is a salt production operation that maintains about 1,050 acres of salt ponds. These ponds provide large amounts of food in the form of fish, brine shrimp and brine flies, all of which are particularly important for shorebirds and seabirds. This refuge provides nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for six endangered bird species, and feeding habitat for one listed sea turtle species.

The Sweetwater Marsh NWR, located in the southeast end of San Diego Bay, includes 316 acres of salt marsh and coastal uplands. This refuge provides habitat for two federally endangered species of bird (California Least Tern and Light-footed Clapper Rail), one federally endangered plant species (salt marsh bird's beak), the Belding's Savannah Sparrow (a State of California endangered bird species), and the Western Snowy Plover, a federally threatened species of bird. Sweetwater Marsh functions as an essential link between Multiple Species Conservation Program wildlands, the South San Diego Bay Unit, and the Tijuana Slough NWR in Imperial Beach.

Review of the CCP and associated environmental document will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), NEPA Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509), other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvements Act of 1997, Executive Order 12996, and Service policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations. It is estimated that a draft CCP and NEPA document will be made available for public review in October 2001.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published in the Federal Register of April 14, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 73), that comments to the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision draft Environmental Impact Statement were to be received on or before June 12, 2000. In response to public interest, the Service has granted two separate 30 day extensions to the public comment period.

The Atlantic Coast piping plover was listed as a threatened species on January 10, 1986. Because of its listing as threatened, the piping plover is protected by the Act's prohibitions against “take”. However, the Service may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. For threatened species, such permits are available for scientific purposes, incidental take, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.

The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has applied to the Service for an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. This permit would authorize the incidental take of piping plovers through otherwise lawful activities occurring on plover breeding beaches. Included in the application is a conservation plan prepared by the Division detailing the activities that would result in incidental take and describing measures that mitigate, minimize and monitor the amount of take.

The purpose of the proposed incidental take permit is to provide increased flexibility in managing Massachusetts beaches for use by recreationists and homeowners, while assuring continued progress toward the recovery of the Massachusetts and Atlantic Coast populations of the piping plover. The additional flexibility in managing beaches will prevent a disproportionate expenditure of resources directed at the protection of a few nests or broods in areas where they may significantly disrupt beach access by large numbers of people and be highly vulnerable to disturbance and/or mortality. Management flexibility also will create incentives for the continued participation by beach management agencies and organizations involved in protecting piping plovers.

On May 18, 2000, the Service published a notice of availability of the draft EA and receipt of an application for an incidental take permit for the Atlantic coast piping plover in Massachusetts. The public comment period originally was announced to close on June 19, 2000. Because of several requests for additional time, the Service is extending the public comment period to July 3, 2000.

PFS intends to transport spent nuclear fuel (SNF) by rail from commercial power reactor sites to an existing rail line north of Skull Valley. To transport the SNF from the existing rail line to the proposed facility, PFS proposes the construction and operation of a rail siding and rail line from Skunk Ridge (near Low, Utah) to the site of the ISFSI on the Reservation. This DEIS discusses the purpose and need for the PFS proposal and describes the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives. The PFS proposal requires approval from four federal agencies, NRC, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Surface Transportation Board (STB), and BLM. The BLM decision to grant a right-of-way to PFS would be dependent upon the decisions made by the NRC and BIA. If the NRC issues a license to PFS for the proposed facility and BIA approves the lease, then BLM's preferred alternative would be to amend the Pony Express RMP and issue a right-of-way for the Skunk Ridge rail siding and rail line.

An internet web page describes in detail the scope of the proposed plan and provides background information on the Headwaters Forest Reserve. The web page contains instructions for submitting scoping comments, and coding of comments by subject is requested. The internet address of the web site of www.ca.blm.gov/arcata/headwaters.html. The deadline for submitting comments is amended to Friday, August 4, 2000.

The meeting begins at 10 a.m. Wednesday, July 13, at the parking area of the Eureka Inn, 518 G St., in Eureka, California. Members will join staff from the BLM's Arcata Field Office and depart immediately for a guided hike into the southern part of the Headwaters Forest Reserve. On Friday, July 14, the council will convene a business meeting in the Eureka Inn. Agenda items include discussion of the BLM's proposed development of a national strategy for management of off-highway vehicles on public lands. The council will accept public comments on this topic, and others, beginning at 11 a.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, a time limit could be established. The council will also discuss emerging issues for the BLM, review a proposed publication series, and hear reports from the managers of the BLM's Arcata, Redding and Ukiah field offices.

The proposed plan amendment is in the area of the community of Golden Valley. The BLM is considering a land exchange where approximately 15,000 acres of public lands that were classified for disposal would be conveyed into private ownership in the Golden Valley area north west of Kingman, AZ. The public would acquire approximately 18,000 acres to be managed by BLM, southeast of Kingman, AZ.

The proponent for the land exchange expressed interest in acquiring section 31 of Township 22N, Range 18 West (636.36 acres) that was classified for Recreation and Public Purposes. This section is adjacent to lands that are classified as available for disposal and are being considered in the land exchange. It is proposed to change 478.11 acres of land classified as available for Recreation and Public Purpose uses to a classification of available for disposal; that is conveyance out of public ownership through exchange. The remainder of the section, 158.25 acres, the Lots 3, 4, E25W of Section 31 T22N, R18W, would remain classified for Recreation and Public Purposes.

This proposed modification to the Kingman Resource Management Plan will be integrated with the proposed Cane Springs land exchange, and the impact thereof will be presented in a single EA-level analysis. The EA currently is being prepared and a fact sheet on the Cane Springs land exchange has been mailed to approximately 160 persons or agencies. The fact sheet is available upon request.

The issues that will be addressed by the plan amendment include the following; is 158.25 acres enough land for Recreation and Public Purpose uses in this area of Golden Valley and what is the proposed use of the land that would be conveyed into private ownership?

The following criteria are proposed to guide the resolution of the issues: actions must comply with laws, executive orders, and regulations; consider the long term benefits to the public in relation to short term benefits; be reasonable and achievable; use an interdisciplinary approach to land management.

Public Input Requested: Comments should address issues to be considered, if the planning criteria are adequate for the issues, feasible and reasonable alternatives to examine, and relevant information on the EA-level plan amendment.

Reclamation is proposing modifications to previous CAP water allocations. The purpose and need for the Federal action is to allocate remaining available CAP water in a manner that would facilitate the resolution of outstanding Indian water rights claims in the State of Arizona. Authority for this action is pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-537).

The proposed allocation is taking place in the context of settlement negotiations concerning operation and repayment of the CAP and Indian water rights. These negotiations are being conducted by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Justice, with representatives of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (which operates the CAP), several Indian Tribes, Arizona Department of Water Resources, non-Indian agricultural districts, and several municipalities. The proposed action (or Settlement Alternative) identified in the draft EIS is an allocation of CAP water consistent with terms of the negotiated settlements currently under discussion with these entities. The draft EIS also analyzes three alternative allocations of remaining available CAP water. The Secretary of the Interior could implement any one of these four action alternatives to achieve the purpose and need for the proposed action. A No Action Alternative is also described, which provides a baseline for comparing the impacts of the four action alternatives.

A final allocation of remaining available CAP water, and execution of contracts for delivery of that water, would provide a level of certainty to all entities regarding available future water supplies. This, in turn, would enable Arizona water users, Indian and non-Indian alike, to develop and implement the systems and infrastructure necessary to utilize those water supplies to meet future water demands and serve Tribal and community needs.

• Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.

• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Denver, CO 80225

• Arizona Department of Library Archives and Public Records, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007

• Phoenix Public Library (Burton Barr Central), 1221 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004

• Arizona Collection, Hayden Library, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287

• Government Document Service, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287

• Arizona State University—West Library, 4701 W. Thunderbird Rd., Glendale, AZ 85306

• University of Arizona, Main Library, 1510 E. University Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721

• Library, City Hall Annex, 111 E. Pennington, Tucson, AZ 85701

• Law Library, County Courthouse (Lower Level), Tucson, AZ 85701

• Government Reference Library, City Hall, 9th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701

• Globe Public Library, 339 S. Broad St., Globe, AZ 85501

• Casa Grande Public Library, Casa Grande, AZ 85222

• Coolidge Public Library, 160 W. Central Ave., Coolidge, AZ 85228

• Coconino County Public Library, 300 W. Aspen Ave., Flagstaff, AZ 86001

• Cline Library, PO Box 6022, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-6022

• Tuba City Public Library Bldg., 45 W Maple St., Tuba City, AZ 86045

• Payson Public Library, 510 W. Main, Payson, AZ 85541

• Sierra Vista Public Library, 2600 E. Tacoma, Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

• Cottonwood Public Library, 100 S. 6th St., Cottonwood, AZ 86326

• Parker Public Library, 1001 Navajo Ave., Parker AZ 85344

• Green Valley Public Library, 601 N. LaCan ada, Green Valley, AZ 85614

• Octavia Fellin Public Library, 115 W. Hill Ave., Gallup, NM 87301

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted three requests to OMB to renew its approval for the collections of information found at 30 CFR parts 733, 785 and 876. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for these information collection activities.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for these collections of information are 1029-0025 for part 733, 1029-0040 for part 785, and 1029-0104 for part 876, and may be found in OSM's regulations at 733.10, 785.10 and 876.10.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on the collections of information for parts 733 and 875 was published on March 10, 2000 (65 FR 13015), and on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17900), for part 785. No comments were received from either notice. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activities:

Title: Maintenance of State programs and procedures for substituting Federal enforcement of State programs and withdrawing approval of State programs, 30 CFR 733.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0025.

Summary: This part provides that any interested person may request the Director of OSM to evaluate a State program by setting forth in the request a concise statement of facts which the person believes establishes the need for the evaluation.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: Any interested person (individuals, businesses, institutions, organizations).

Total Annual Responses: 2.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 200 hours.

Title: Requirements for permits for special categories of mining, 30 CFR 785.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0040.

Summary: The information is being collected to meet the requirements of sections 507, 508, 510, 515, 701 and 711 of Pub. L. 95-87, which requires applicants for special types of mining activities to provide descriptions, maps, plans and data of the proposed activity. This information will be used by the regulatory authority in determining if the applicant can meet the applicable performance standards for the special type of mining activity.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: Applicants for coal mine permits.

Total Annual Responses: 347.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,372.

Title: Acid mine drainage treatment and abatement program, 30 CFR 876.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0104.

Summary: This part establishes the requirements and procedures allowing State and Indian Tribes to establish acid mine drainage abatement and treatment programs under the Abandoned Mine Land fund as directed through Public Law 101-508.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: State governments and Indian Tribes.

Total Annual Responses: 1.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 350.

Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the following address. Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.

The petition was submitted to OSM on July 14, 1995, by Save Our Cumberland Mountains and Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning to designate 85,588 acres of land lying in the watershed and viewshed of the Fall Creek Falls State Park and Natural Area, Bledsoe and Van Buren Counties, Tennessee, as unsuitable for all types of surface coal mining operations. OSM determined the petition to be complete on October 5, 1995, and initiated evaluation of the petition allegations.

The petition was filed in accordance with Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and the implementing regulations at 30 CFR 942.764. The petitioners had five primary allegations: (1) Reclamation is not technologically and economically feasible; (2) mining the area would affect fragile or historic lands which could result in significant damage to important historic, cultural, scientific, or esthetic values; (3) mining the area would affect renewable resource lands which could result in a substantial loss or reduction in long-range productivity of water supply or of food or fiber products; (4) mining would affect natural hazard lands which could substantially endanger life and property; and (5) mining the area would be incompatible with existing State or local and use plans or programs.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 942.764, OSM analyzed the allegations of the petition and on June 18, 1998, held a public hearing. OSM filed the final petition evaluation document/environmental impact statement (PED/EIS) for the Fall Creek Falls petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on February 24, 2000. The EPA subsequently published the notice of availability on March 3, 2000 (5 FR 11575).

A copy of the decision signed by the Secretary of Interior appears as an appendix to this notice. Additional copies of the decision are available at no cost from the offices listed above under ADDRESSES OSM has sent copies of this document to all interested parties of record.

Prior Federal Register notices on the Fall Creek Falls unsuitability petition were the notice of intent to prepare an EIS published in the Federal Register dated November 3, 1995 (60 FR 55815) and the notice of availability of the draft combined PED/EIS dated May 1, 1998 (63 FR 24192).

Pursuant to Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) [30 U.S.C. 1272], the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) was petitioned by 49 citizens, Save Our Cumberland Mountains, and Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning to designate the watershed and viewshed of Fall Creek Falls State Park and Natural Area in Van Buren and Bledsoe Counties, Tennessee, as unsuitable for all types of surface coal mining operations.

In accordance with Section 522(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1272(d)] and Section 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4332(2))(C)], the OSM's Knoxville Field Office (KFO) prepared a detailed Petition Evaluation Document/Environmental Impact Statement (PED/EIS). The PED/EIS analyzed the petitioners' allegations, the potential coal resources of the petition area, the demand for coal resources, the impacts of such designation on the environment, and the economy, and alternative actions available to the decision maker.

I have considered the information in the Fall Creek Falls administrative record, including but not limited to the petition and exhibits, information obtained by KFO, analysis of the petitioners' allegations and the environmental impacts of the alternative actions contained in the final PED/EIS, written comments received on the draft and final PED/EIS's and oral comments received at the public hearing. Based on the analysis of the information contained in the Fall Creek Falls administrative record and presented in the final PED/EIS, I have reached the following decision, as set out in the Record of Decision and Statement of Reasons.

(1) I am exercising my discretion to designate Fall Creek Falls State Park and Natural Area and the Cane Creek, Falls Creek, and Meadow Creek watersheds as unsuitable for all types of surface coal mining operations in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 1272(a)(3)(A) and (B) and 30 CFR 762.11(b)(1) and (b)(2).

(2) I am exercising my discretion to designate the Piney Creek watershed as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations; provided, that a surface coal mining operation may be permitted only in the upper portions of the watershed if a portion of the proposed operation includes previously mined areas and the permit applicant demonstrates that water quality in receiving streams will not be degraded.

(3) I am not designating any lands within the Dry Fork watershed as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.

Copies of this decision will be sent to all parties involved in this proceeding. The decision will become effective on the date of the signing of the Record of Decision and Statement of Reasons. An appeal of this decision must be filed within 60 days from the date below in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, as required by Section 526(a)(1) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(1)].

In response to a petition filed by 49 citizens, Save Our Cumberland Mountains, and Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning, I have decided to designate Fall Creek Falls State Park and selected watersheds within the petition area, in Van Buren and Bledsoe Counties, Tennessee, as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, with one limited exception as discussed below. The following is a discussion of the reasons supporting my decision.

Section 522(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) allows any person having an interest that is or may be adversely affected to petition to have an area designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations. Under Section 504 of SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for designating lands in Tennessee as unsuitable. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the Director of the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) the authority to make a final decision on lands unsuitable petitions except for noncoal mining [216 DM.1.1].

The SMCRA regulatory program for Tennessee is set out at 30 CFR Part 942. Under that program, OSM is the regulatory authority for Tennessee. Specific criteria and procedures for processing a petition to designate non-Federal lands in Tennessee are incorporated by reference in 30 CFR 942.762 and 942.764. Those sections incorporate the criteria set out in 30 CFR Part 762 and the procedures set out in 30 CFR Part 764. OSM has complied with these provisions in reaching its decision on the Fall Creek Falls petition.

SMCRA provides that the regulatory authority shall designate an area unsuitable if it determines that reclamation pursuant to the requirements of SMCRA is not technologically and economically feasible [Section 522(a)(2)]. The regulatory authority may designate any area unsuitable if such operations will (1) be incompatible with existing State or local land use plans or programs [Section 522(a)(3)(A)]; (2) affect fragile or historic lands in which such operations could result in significant damage to important historic, cultural, scientific, and esthetic values and natural systems [Section 522(a)(3)(B)]; (3) affect renewable resource lands in which such operations could result in a substantial loss or reduction of long-range productivity of water supply or of food or fiber products [Section 522(a)(3)(C)]; or (4) affect natural hazard lands in which such operations could substantially endanger life and property [Section 522(a)(3)(D)].

The petition in this case proposes that designation of the Fall Creek Falls petition area be made on the basis of the criteria of Sections 522(a)(2) and 522(a)(3)(A), (B), (C) and (D). The petition contains numerous factual allegations and documentation to support the petitioners' claims that the area should be designated under the mandatory and discretionary criteria.

The petition area encompasses the watersheds of Piney Creek, Falls Creek, and Meadow Creek, and portions of Cane Creek and Dry Fork watersheds. The petition area is approximately 85,588 acres, located in Bledsoe and Van Buren Counties, Tennessee.

The Fall Creek Falls unsuitability petition was submitted to OSM's Knoxville Field Office (KFO) on July 14, 1995, by 49 citizens and two organizations, Save Our Cumberland Mountains and Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning. KFO determined the petition to be complete on October 5, 1995, and initiated evaluation of the petition allegations.

Because the decision on this petition may have a major effect on the quality of the human environment, KFO decided to prepare a combined petition evaluation document (PED) and environmental impact statement (EIS). A notice of intent to prepare a draft PED/EIS, including a request for public participation in determining the scope of the issues to be addressed, was published in the November 3, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 55815) and in the November 15, 1995, Tennessee Administrative Record. It was also mailed to all persons with an identifiable ownership interest in the petition area and interested State and Federal agencies. A scoping meeting was held on December 5, 1995, at Fall Creek Falls State Park. Approximately 180 persons attended the scoping meeting, 25 of whom presented oral comments.

By the close of the scoping comment period, on January 26, 1996, KFO had received 49 scoping comment letters. In determining the scope of the PED/EIS, KFO considered all comments contained in the public record for the petition and the proposed PED/EIS.

KFO announced the availability of the draft PED/EIS and requested public comments in the May 1, 1998 Federal Register (63 FR 24192) and in local newspapers. In these notices and newspaper advertisements, KFO also gave notice of the June 18, 1998, public hearing. KFO provided three public comment periods on the draft: May 1 to July 30, 1998; August 21 to September 16, 1998; and January 29 to April 29, 1999.

Approximately 350 persons attended the June 18, 1998 hearing, and 45 persons presented oral comments. During the comment period, 606 letters provided written comments on the draft PED/EIS. All comments were considered in the final PED/EIS.

The notice of availability of the final PED/EIS was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2000 (65 FR 11575 and 11604); in the Tennessee Administrative Record on March 15, 2000; and in seven local or major newspapers across the State. Governing regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2) require that no decision on the petition be made until 30 days after the PED/EIS is made available to the public. This prescribed wait period was extended to May 3, 2000 (65 FR 15921, March 24, 2000).

The Fall Creek Falls Lands Unsuitable for Mining petition contained five primary allegations, with numerous factual allegations and suballegations. The petition is printed in Appendix B of the final PED/EIS. The five primary allegations in the petition are summarized as follows: (1) Mining the area would affect fragile or historic lands which could result in significant damage to important historic, cultural, scientific, or esthetic values; (2) mining the area would affect renewable resource lands which could result in a substantial loss or reduction in long-range productivity of water supply or of food or fiber products; (3) mining would affect natural hazard lands which could substantially endanger life and property; (4) mining the area would be incompatible with existing State or local land use plans or programs; and (5) reclamation is not technologically and economically feasible.

KFO evaluated several decision alternatives ranging from designating all lands in the petition area unsuitable for all surface coal mining operations (the proposed action in the Petition) to not designating any of the lands in the area as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations (alternative 1). Other alternatives considered included not designating any of the lands in the area as unsuitable, but requiring an environmental impact statement for any surface coal mining operation proposed in the area (alternative 2), the “No Action” alternative (alternative 4), and various options for designating only parts of the area as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining operations (alternative 3). The options considered under alternative 3 included designating portions of the area as unsuitable for certain types of coal mining operations based on the presence of acid-forming materials or based on mining method (alternative 3a), designating selected coal resources within the area as unsuitable for certain types of surface coal mining operations (alternative 3b), and designating selected watersheds within the area as unsuitable for certain types of surface coal mining operations (alternative 3c, the preferred alternative). The full text discussion of the petition decision alternatives and their environmental impacts is found in Chapter V of the final PED/EIS. The rationale for selection of alternative 3c as the preferred alternative is discussed at length in Section VII of this document.

Arguably, the environmentally preferable alternative is the proposed action, which is to designate all lands within the petition area as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations. This would provide the maximum level of environmental protection for the petition area, because no mining activities could occur within the petition area, regardless of the likelihood of environmental impacts. However, as outlined in this Record of Decision and Statement of Reasons, I have determined that there would be significant benefits from remining in the headwaters of the Piney Creek watershed, and that remining operations would be unlikely to affect the natural resources of the Park. I have also determined that surface coal mining operations in Dry Fork watershed would be unlikely to have any significant effect on the Park's surface resources.

I have also considered the purposes set out in SMCRA Section 102. I have concluded that this decision best balances all of these purposes, including those set out in Sections 102(a), (d), (f), (h), and (m). These sections state that “it is the purpose of this Act to—(a) establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations; * * * (d) assure that surface coal mining operations are so conducted as to protect the environment; * * * (f) assure that the coal supply essential to the Nation's energy requirements, and to its economic and social well-being is provided and strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy; * * * (h) promote the reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to the enactment of this Act and which continue, in their unreclaimed condition, to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, prevent or damage the beneficial use of land or water resources, or endanger the health or safety of the public; * * * and (m) wherever necessary, exercise the full reach of Federal constitutional powers to insure the protection of the public interest through effective control of surface coal mining operations.” Further, this decision best implements the requirements of Section 522(a), for the reasons set out below. The preferred alternative provides for designation of the Falls Creek, Meadow Creek and Cane Creek watersheds, the lower reaches of the Piney Creek watershed, and the Park as unsuitable for mining. This alternative provides the environmental protections needed for the fragile resources of the Fall Creek Falls State Park and for the Park's land use plans and program.

The preferred alternative allows mining in the headwaters of the Piney Creek watershed, which has been extensively impacted by unreclaimed or unregulated surface coal mining operations. A mining operation would be required to include remining of previously mining-impacted areas. This alternative would provide significant potential benefits to Piney Creek watershed through reclamation of mining-impacted lands, restoration of stream biological communities and over-all improvements to water quality in the Piney Creek watershed. Allowing mining in the Dry Fork watershed is not predicted to have any significant impacts on the Park's fragile surface resources or land use plans and programs because Dry Fork subsides underground during low flow six miles before it reaches the Park boundaries and reemerges approximately six miles north of the Park. Mining in the Dry Fork watershed also is predicted to have little or no impact on the ground water systems of Dry Fork and the Park. This is because the waters of Dry Fork undergo beneficial chemical changes as the creek flows underground into the karst system. That system neutralizes any acidic changes that might have occurred from contact with any mining-impacted waters of the upper reaches of the Dry Fork watershed, where the coal reserves are located. Thus, allowing mining and remining of the upper reaches of the Dry Fork watershed would have similar beneficial effects on the environment as in the upper reaches of the Piney Creek watershed, i.e., restoration of stream biological communities, over-all improvements to water quality in the Dry Fork watershed, etc. Thus, the preferred alternative provides protection to the Park's fragile resources and land use plans and program and allows restoration of mine-impacted areas in the upper reaches of the Piney Creek and Dry Fork watersheds. Approximately 6.58 million tons of coal in the Dry Fork watershed and 8 million tons in the Piney Creek watershed would be available for extraction to help meet energy demands with no significant risk to the Park's resources. Under the preferred alternative, no mining could occur in the lower portions of the Piney Creek watershed closer to the Park where risk of impact on the Park is greater. In the headwaters of the Piney Creek watershed, mining would be allowed only on a case-by-case basis when the operation includes areas previously disturbed by mining and the applicant demonstrates the water quality will not be degraded, and that impacts from previous mining will be mitigated.

The analyses in the PED/EIS predict that should there be a failure of a mining operation in the headwaters of Piney Creek, degraded stream conditions are likely to dissipate before reaching Park boundaries, causing no significant impact on the Park's water quality. Thus, the preferred alternative protects the fragile resources of the Park, minimizes the likelihood of conflict with the State's land use plans for the Park, and provides for restoration and reclamation of the mining-impacted lands and waters of the watersheds.

The petitioners presented five primary allegations which mirror the five designation criteria of SMCRA Sections 552(a)(2) and (a)(3) and 30 CFR 762.11(a) and (b)(1) through (b)(4).

The petitioners also presented numerous allegations of fact and sub-allegations of fact in support of the five primary allegations. The intervenors presented allegations in rebuttal to the petitioners' five primary allegations, the allegations of fact, and the sub-allegations of fact. A summary of the petitioners' and the intervenors' allegations follows, along with my findings relative to each allegation. The primary allegations are presented in the order in which they appear in the petition. These findings are based upon all the information contained in the public record for this petition.

1. Petition allegation —The petition area should be designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations because mining the area would affect fragile or historic lands in which such operations could result in significant damage to important historic, cultural, scientific, or esthetic values or natural systems.

a. The petitioners allege that mining within the petition area would affect the hydrologic balance of the watersheds which drain into the Fall Creek Falls State Park and affect the Park's unique hydrologic resources. They further allege that the primary reason the Park was set aside was because of its waters and water-formed features and that the watershed areas outside of the Park are critical to the existence of the Park. The petitioners also allege that streams, aquatic life and the falls are at risk when mining occurs in the Sewanee coal seam.

The intervenors allege that the petition area does not meet the regulatory definition of “fragile lands” and that the petition does not provide any supportive evidence that mining in accordance with SMCRA would significantly affect the alleged factors identified or cause any identified significant damage to these values.

b. The petitioners allege that changes in water chemistry, changes in pH, increases in siltation, and changes in stream flow would result in significant damage to the wildlife which depend on the streams as habitat and/or sources of drinking water. The petitioners state that Cane Creek, which is the principal watercourse through Fall Creek Falls State Park, has been designated an environmentally sensitive stream by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and, therefore, the petition area qualifies as fragile lands.

The intervenors allege that the designation of a specified portion of Cane Creek as an environmentally sensitive stream by the State does not equate to the surrounding host landscape as fragile lands.

c. The petitioners allege that the presence of endangered species qualifies the petition area as fragile lands.

The intervenors allege that the presence of threatened and endangered species in the petition area does not qualify the area as fragile lands.

d. The petitioners allege that Cane Creek, downstream of the Park boundary, is a stocked trout stream and cite a letter written by the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that Cane Creek is considered the best stocked trout stream on the Cumberland Plateau. Further, the petitioners allege that untreated water discharging from surface coal mining operations would seriously degrade the water quality of Cane Creek and would be toxic to stream biota in the vicinity of the outfall and for an unknown distance downstream.

The intervenors allege that: (a) Trout stocking activities occur approximately 13 miles downstream from the petition area proper, (b) historic water quality data collected from Cane Creek does not support the allegation of water degradation as stemming from past surface coal mining operations, and (c) advanced mining and reclamation technologies are being implemented to significantly minimize and/or prevent off-site damage to receiving steams. The intervenors also allege that trout stocking in Cane Creek below the Park does not qualify the petition area as fragile lands.

e. The petitioners allege that the presence of caves and cave-inhabiting species makes the petition area a fragile land. The petitioners further allege that mining-induced degradation of Cane Creek could also adversely affect the aquatic life in the caves located in the Cane Creek gorge as well as the Indiana bat, a Federally-listed endangered species, that inhabits caves in the area. The petitioners also allege that underground mining usually results in subsidence, either planned or unplanned, and that subsidence could alter the flow of the groundwater, resulting in the dewatering of streams and, consequently, diverting flows from the caves.

The intervenors allege that the presence of caves, cave-inhabiting species, and the occurrence of endangered cave species does not qualify the petition area as fragile lands.

f. The petitioners allege that the presence of rare floral species in the petition area qualifies the area as fragile lands. The petitioners further allege that off-site effects of surface coal mining operations within the petition area could have a severe adverse impact on a number of rare floral species.

The intervenors allege that the presence of threatened and endangered species in the petition area does not qualify the area as fragile lands.

g. The petitioners allege that surface coal mining operations would access areas that are currently remote and thereby cause adverse effects on habitats and wildlife from foot and vehicle travel, pollution, and other factors relating to more human contact in the area. The petitioners also allege that surface coal mining operations in the Cane Creek watershed could have a direct and negative impact on TWRA's long-term plans to use the area as turkey and otter habitat.

The intervenors allege that, for the most part, the entire petition area proper is already “honey-combed” with multiple access avenues and that access requirements stemming from any future mine development can utilize the majority of existing roads, power lines, water lines, etc., without causing any further significant disturbances to the area. The intervenors further allege that SMCRA provides flexibility to develop reclaimed areas that are suited to turkey and otter habitats.

h. The petitioners allege that esthetics are essential to the Park's land use plans and that surface coal mining operations outside the Park are incompatible with the Fall Creek Falls Strategic Management Plan. They allege that surface coal mining operations in the petition area would adversely alter the views from Park overlooks and adversely affect the visitor's experience.

The intervenors allege that the existing tree line, undulating topography, and the buffer zone around the Park itself provide a natural shield for the overlook areas referenced by the petitioners, and that surface coal mining operations in the petition area could not be seen from the natural overlooks in the Park.

i. The petitioners allege that surface coal mining operations would have an adverse impact on historic lands ( i.e., the Trail of Tears) in which such operations could result in significant damage to important historic lands. The petitioners also allege that there are burial mounds and cemeteries within the Park and the petition area that require the special protections of designation.

The intervenors allege that the presence of the Trail of Tears within the petition area does not qualify the area as fragile (historic) lands because: (1) The location of the Trail of Tears comprises an extremely small portion, less than three percent, of the petition area and is located in the southern portion of the area; and (2) the Trail of Tears does not meet the definition of fragile lands because a majority of the Trail parallels or overlies existing roadways in the petition area.

j. The petitioners allege that Park visitors use various sections of Cane Creek for swimming and church baptisms and that mining impacts on water quantity and quality would adversely affect the cultural values of these areas.

The intervenors allege that Cane Creek water quality is expected to at least maintain status quo despite future mining initiatives.

k. The petitioners allege that noise and dust would affect Park visitation, local residents, and users of the Trail of Tears.

The intervenors allege that the petitioners' comments are not supported by fact and only reflect biased opinions in favor of selected individual beliefs.

l. The petitioners allege that the Park is a “fragile land” as defined in 30 CFR 762.5 and the watersheds of the Park are the “essence” of the term fragile lands. Therefore, the petitioners assert that the entire petition area which makes up the watershed of the Park should be designated under the “fragile” criterion.

The intervenors allege that a designation of the entire watershed of the Park as “fragile lands” is not supported by fact.

2. Findings —Fragile and historic lands. Based on the record, and for the reasons set out below, I find that surface coal mining operations in the Park or in certain watersheds outside the Park would affect the fragile lands of the Park and certain other fragile lands in the petition area, and could result in significant damage to important petition area natural systems and cultural and esthetic values.

• Park fragile lands. I find that the Park is fragile land because it has important natural, ecologic, and esthetic resources that could be significantly damaged by surface coal mining operations.

The natural and ecologic resources of the Park include the following:

• The Park provides valuable habitat for threatened and endangered species of fish and wildlife as described in Chapter II, Section H of the PED/EIS.

• Cane Creek inside the Park has numerous occurrences of stream-dependent threatened and endangered species and esthetic resources of high scenic value, forming an environmental corridor within the Park which has a concentration of ecologic and esthetic features as indicated in Chapter V.B.22 of the PED/EIS.

• The Park is a valuable habitat for rare floral species as described in Chapter II, Section H of the PED/EIS.

The esthetic resources of the Park include Fall Creek Falls, Cane Creek Falls, Cane Creek Cascades, Piney Falls, and various viewsheds and gorges throughout the Park.

The Park is an area of high recreational and cultural value due to high environmental quality, and is used for recreational, educational and religious activities.

• Fragile lands in the petition area outside the Park. I find that certain watersheds in the petition area outside the Park are fragile lands because of the existence of natural systems within these watersheds consisting of streams with high water quality and water quantity (Cane, Meadow, and Falls Creek watersheds, and the lower reaches of the Piney Creek watershed).

B. Whether surface coal mining operations will affect fragile lands. I find that surface coal mining operations in the Park or in certain watersheds outside the Park, would affect the fragile lands of the petition area, because of the inherent environmental impacts of surface coal mining operations, as addressed in Chapter V, Section F of the final PED/EIS. These impacts could potentially damage natural systems and cultural and esthetic values within and outside the Park during the mining and reclamation phases of surface coal mining operations. I find that SMCRA does provide significant environmental protection from inherent impacts through its permitting requirements and performance standards. Nonetheless, although these impacts might be relatively unlikely to cause significant damage, if such damage did occur the risk to park resources would be unacceptable.

Among those inherent impact which may occur in a surface coal mining operation in compliance with SMCRA are:

• Removal of wildlife habitat within the mining area,

• Alterations of the soil and geologic structure,

• Elevated levels of total dissolved solids in surface and ground water,

• Noise, dust, and vibration, and

• Increased sedimentation to the receiving stream from construction of drainage control structures and roads.

In addition, surface coal mining operations in the Park and certain other parts of the petition area could have other impacts on fragile lands, as discussed below.

c. Damage to important natural systems and cultural and esthetic values of fragile lands. I find that surface coal mining operations in the Park and in certain watersheds of the petition area outside the Park would affect these fragile lands and could result in significant damage to the important natural systems, cultural values and esthetic values of these fragile lands, as described below.

• Important natural systems. Surface coal mining operations in the Park or in certain parts of the petition area outside the Park could cause significant damage to important natural systems of the Park, including:

• Threatened and endangered species of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the park.

• The environmental corridor along Cane Creek inside the Park, and its ecological and esthetic features.

• The rare floral species and their habitats in the Park.

• Important esthetic values. Surface coal mining operations in the Park or in the petition area outside the Park could result in significant damage to the important esthetic values of the Park's esthetic resources, including Fall Creek Falls, Cane Creek Falls, Cane Creek Cascades, Piney Falls, and various overlooks, viewsheds, and gorges. Significant damage to these important esthetic resources could adversely affect the Park visitors' experience.

• Important cultural values. Surface coal mining operations in the Park or in the petition area outside the Park could cause significant damage to the important cultural values of the Park, including recreational, educational and religious activities.

The streams of certain watersheds in the petition area outside the Park (Cane, Meadow, and Falls Creek watersheds, and the lower reaches of the Piney Creek watershed) are important natural systems because they are the primary water sources for the unique waters and water-formed features of the Park and its stream-dependent ecologic resources. Surface coal mining operations in these watersheds could cause significant long-term damage to these waters and features and dependent ecologic resources.

• Threatened and endangered species outside the Park. I find that the record does not demonstrate that the petition area outside the Park is a fragile land because of the existence of threatened and endangered species of fish and wildlife. Few occurrences of these threatened and endangered species have been identified in the petition area outside the Park, and those occurrences are scattered throughout the watersheds. Only one occurrence has been identified in a location of known recoverable coal reserves. Rare floral threatened and endangered species have been identified in areas of known coal reserves at only two locations in the petition area outside the Park. These two locations are in the upper Piney Creek watershed. However, the presence of rare floral species at these two locations in the upper Piney Creek watershed outside the Park is not sufficient to classify either the entire petition area outside the Park or the Piney Creek watershed where they are located as an important ecologic system of the petition area and as a fragile land. This is in part because SMCRA includes protection measures which should, in this case, provide any necessary protections for the species at these two locations. Other rare floral threatened and endangered species are scattered throughout the remaining four watersheds, with few occurrences in the areas in which they have been identified. These few occurrences are not in areas of known recoverable coal reserves. Concerning the caves and cave habitats for threatened and endangered species, I find that the presence of caves and potential cave habitats for threatened and endangered species in the petition area outside the Park does not justify a determination that they are an important natural system. While these caves may be a potentially valuable habitat for cave-inhabiting species, there are no identified occurrences of cave-inhabiting threatened and endangered species in the petition area. Therefore, I find that the recorded does not justify a determination that the presence of caves and potential cave habitats in the petition area is sufficient to classify the petition area as an important ecologic system or as fragile lands.

• Trout fishery. I find that neither the Park nor the petition area outside the Park is fragile land because of the existence of a trout fisher, located on a section of Cane Creek that is outside the petition area and the Park.

• Esthetic values outside the Park. I find that the record does not identify esthetic values in the petition area lands outside the Park that justify considering them fragile lands. The petition area outside the Park does not possess either overlooks, gorges and falls like those in Fall Creek Falls State Park, or other significant esthetic values that support designation under the fragile lands criterion.

• Cultural values outside the Park.

I find that the record does not demonstrate that the petition area outside the Park is fragile land because of cultural values. Cultural activities in the petition area outside the Park are limited, because the area consists of private land holdings. Typical activities are hunting, fishing, camping, swimming, seed gathering, berrying, etc., by local residents living in the area. There are no developed recreational resources in the petition area outside the Park, and recreation is not a primary land use in any of the watersheds outside the Park. Although the cultural activities referenced above are no doubt important to those living in and near the petition area outside the Park, these activities are not unique to these areas, they do not have uncommon importance in the region, and they are not due to high environmental quality of the lands. Thus, the record does not identify important cultural values in the petition area outside the Park that would support designation under the fragile lands criterion.

• Terrestrial wildlife. I find that the record does not show the presence of terrestrial wildlife that would justify considering the Park or the petition area outside the Park to be fragile land. I find that the existence in the petition area of habitats for wild turkey and otters does not support considering the petition area to be fragile lands, for the following reasons. The wild turkey is not a threatened or endangered species. Nor has the Park been designated a valuable or a critical habitat for turkeys. The State of Tennessee's wild turkey stocking program is very successful in the Park, and the turkey population is now expanding into the petition area. The turkey stocking by the State is for hunting. Concerning otters, I find that otters are on the State's threatened and endangered list. However, the record shows there have been no occurrences of otters in the Park or in the petition area outside the Park. Further, the record documents no other valuable habitats for other terrestrial wildlife, and indicates that impacts on other terrestrial wildlife from potential surface coal mining operations in the petition area would be minor for the following reasons. Mobile species typically seek food and shelter elsewhere during active mining. Although less mobile species would suffer losses during the land clearing phase of an operation, the contemporaneous reclamation requirements of SMCRA would mitigate impacts on terrestrial wildlife.

• Environmentally sensitive stream. I find that the designation of a portion of Cane Creek, and most recently a portion of Dry Fork, as tier II (environmentally sensitive) streams is a State designation relevant only to the quality of discharge allowed to enter these streams. Although some of the criteria evaluated by the State in making its stream evaluations are similar to those considered in the “unsuitability” review process, any designation of a resource as “fragile land” must be based on whether surface coal mining operations could affect important historic, cultural, scientific or esthetic values or natural systems (regardless of any stream classification for other purposes) and could cause significant damage. As indicated above, I have determined that Cane Creek within the Park and in the petition area outside the Park is an important natural system which may be affected by surface coal mining operations, and that such operations could cause significant damage to this system. As indicated below, mining in the Dry Fork watershed is not predicted to affect important natural systems or esthetic and cultural values in the petition area. The record does not demonstrate that surface coal mining operations in the Dry Fork watershed would affect the fragile lands of the Park or could cause significant damage to important values or systems. The record also does not demonstrate that surface coal mining operations in the Dry Fork watershed would be incompatible with the State's land use plans and programs. Therefore, the designation of these streams as “environmentally sensitive” is not germane to the determination of whether Cane Creek or Dry Fork, either in the Park or in the petition area outside the Park, should be considered as “fragile land”.

• Resources and values in Dry Fork. I find that the record does not justify designation of Dry Fork under the criterion for fragile and historic lands.

The cave system through which Dry Fork flows may provide valuable habitat for cave-inhabiting species which are considered to be important ecological resources. However, water quality and quantity changes originating in the coal resource areas of the petition area would have little effect in the cave areas of the petition area and the Park because of the beneficial chemical changes that take place when the water enters the cave system. Also, as the areas of major coal reserves in this watershed are several miles from the identified cave habitats, I find that there is little likelihood that surface activities associated with surface coal mining operations, such as blasting and clearing vegetative cover, would have a significant adverse impact on the habitat of cave species in the petition area.

There is no evidence in the record that the Dry Fork area contains uncommon geologic formations or paleontologic sites. Nor does it contain any National Natural Landmarks or areas meeting the definition of historic lands based on 30 CFR 762.5. Nor is there any evidence on the record relative to it being an environmental corridor containing a concentration of ecologic and esthetic features or an area of recreational value due to high environmental quality.

The Dry Fork watershed is the second largest watershed in the petition area but it does not provide any surface water to the Park except during an extremely heavy precipitation event. Dry Fork subsides and flows through the cave systems after it enters Dry Fork Gorge. Dry Fork then resurfaces outside the Park and petition area directly into Cane Creek. As a result of Dry Fork flowing underground beneath the Park, the stream does not have a significant impact on the important natural systems and esthetic and cultural values of the Park. Therefore, I find that surface coal mining operations in Dry Fork watershed would not affect fragile lands in the Park.

d. Factors in evaluating the risk of significant damage. I find that the risks and uncertainties associated with surface coal mining operations conducted in the Park and in certain watersheds outside the Park could result in adverse impacts causing damage to the fragile lands of the Park and those watersheds. When evaluating the risk of damage to the Park from a surface coal mining operation, I considered the probability that a surface coal mining operation will cause damage and the impacts that could result. I find that the record demonstrates that there are a number of uncertainties in evaluating the impacts of surface coal mining operations in such a large petition area, as follows.

• Recoverable coal reserve locations. I find that complete information is not available on the location and character of recoverable coal reserves, and therefore the nature and degree of risks from surface coal mining operations cannot be calculated with certainty. The PED/EIS analysis of recoverable coal resource information was based on the limited available information. the PED/EIS was unable to determine if all coal reserves had been identified. Thus, additional coal resources may be present within the Park and petition area outside the Park, and any such additional coal resources could result in additional uncertainties or risks to the Park. The PED/EIS could not determine any such additional uncertainties or risks, and thus did not calculate with certainty the level of risk to the Park or other protected resources under this designation criterion.

• Location fo acid- and toxic-forming materials. The occurrence of potentially acid- and toxic-forming material associated with the coal seams of the petition area is generally uncertain, nonuniform and discontinuous throughout the petition area. Thus, the PED/EIS could not predict with certainty the locations of such materials, or the levels of risks to the Park resources under the designation criteria.

• Long-term success of AMD predictive and preventive techniques. Since the passage of SMCRA in 1977, approximately 205 permits have been issued in the southern coal fields of Tennessee. The majority of these sites have been successfully reclaimed. Eight mines or approximately 3.9 percent of the sites permitted have been identified as perpetual acid mine drainage (AMD) producers requiring long-term treatment. Four of these permits were issued during the Interim Program when minimal environmental controls were in place. The remaining four were issued between 1984 and 1992, when regulatory authorities were making significant changes to enhance prediction and prevention techniques for potential AMD production. Regulatory authorities, including OSM, are now using improved prediction and prevention techniques, and OSM now requires more and better base-line data from operators as a basis for analyses. Since 1992, KFO has issued nine permits in the southern coal fields, seven of which have developed acid/toxic drainage. The permittee(s) contend that these sites will not produce toxic drainage once reclamation is complete. These seven sites may or may not be long-term producers of AMD. Thus, uncertainties exist even with those more recent permits where enhanced prediction techniques were used; and several more years of experience with these methodologies will be required to verify long-term efficacy in the petition area.

• Water quality impacts of non-acid or non-toxic materials. Some water quality alterations can result from surface coal mining operations in parts of the petition area that do not have acid or toxic materials. Alterations can include significant increases in alkalinity, total dissolved solids, pH, resuspension of iron from previously weathered overburdens or spoils, and generation of manganese. These alterations are associated with large-scale disruptions of strata interacting with ground and surface waters. Available information is not sufficient to predict whether any particular alterations could kill, injure, or impair biota in the areas of discharges, or how far downstream the impacts would be. However, SMCRA does provide permitting requirements and performance standards which should significantly mitigate such impacts.

• Operator error. The success of a toxic material handling plan (TMHP) is contingent on successful implementation of several steps, including: (1) Adequate sampling of the overburden, (2) accurate analysis of the overburden materials, (3) adequate design for handling the acid- or toxic-material, and (4) effective implementation of the TMHP. At any point in these steps, operator error can occur and potentially result in the formation of AMD, which could significantly impact the water resources of the receiving stream.

Although some of the impacts listed above may have low probabilities of occurring, as discussed in Chapter V of the PED/EIS, I find that, if they did occur, the impacts on the Park would be significant and possibly severe.

e. Historic lands—Trail of Tears. I find that the existence of segments of the Trail of Tears within the petition area outside the Park does not make either the Park or the petition area outside the Park a historic land. I find that there are no identified areas that have been certified by the National Park Service, nor does the record demonstrate that there are any areas that retain enough historic character to warrant the additional protection provided by designation either in the Park or in the petition area outside the Park. I also find that there are no readily identifiable burial mounts or Native American artifacts in the Park or in the petition area outside the Park. If burial mounds or Native American artifacts were identified in the vicinity of a surface coal mining operation, there are a series of statutes and rules (Federal and State) that would provide special protections for their preservation.

f. Fragile and historic lands—Summary. In summary, I find that the Park is fragile land because of the existence of its important natural systems, its ecologic resources (threatened and endangered species and their habitats), its cultural values and its esthetic values. I find that Cane, Meadow, and Falls Creek watersheds, and the lower reaches of the Piney Creek watershed in the petition area outside the Park are also fragile lands because these streams of high water quality and water quantity are the primary water sources for the waters and water-formed features of the Park and its stream-dependent ecologic resources. I find that surface coal mining operations in the Park or these portions of the petition area outside the Park will affect these fragile lands.

I find that surface coal mining operations in the Park or these portions of the petition area outside the Park pose an unacceptable risk of causing significant damage to the important natural systems and cultural and esthetic values of the fragile lands in the Park and the petition area outside the Park. Although some risks may have low probabilities of occurring, if they did occur the impacts on these fragile lands could be significant and long-term.

I find that the water quality and quantity of the streams entering the Park from the Cane Creek, Meadow Creek, and Falls Creek watersheds collectively, have a significant influence on the Park's natural systems, its ecologic resources, and its cultural and esthetic values. I find that the water quality and quantity in the Dry Fork watershed have no effect on the Park's surface resources except during high flow periods, because the water subsides underground prior to entering the Park and re-emerges north of the Park's boundaries.

I also find that surface coal mining operations in the Crane Creek, Meadow Creek, and Falls Creek watersheds, and the lower reaches of the Piney Creek watershed, could potentially impact the water quality and/or quantity of these streams which are essential to the continued existence of the unique waters and water-formed features of the Park, the natural values of the stream biota in the Park, the threatened and endangered species of the Park, and the esthetic values of the Park.

I find that the fragile lands of the Park would be a risk if an operator failed to mitigate unanticipated acid or toxic mine drainage from a surface coal mining operation within the Park or within one of these watersheds outside the Park, and then abandoned the site without an adequate performance bond to threat the acid or toxic mine drainage. Although this may be a relatively unlikely occurrence, due to the preventive and mitigative requirements of SMCRA, it is an unacceptable risk because of the potential impact that untreated acid or toxic mine drainage could have on the important natural systems of the petition area outside the Park and the important natural systems and esthetic and cultural values of the park. Park resources influenced by the Cane Creek, Meadow Creek, and Falls Creek watersheds and the lower reaches of the Piney Creek watershed, could potentially be damaged. The degree of damage would depend on the character, intensity, and duration of the untreated acid or toxic mine drainage.

In addition, the limited drill hole data available to OSM and the variability in the occurrence of acid/toxic-forming material in the watersheds increases the risk that a permitted surface coal mining operation might produce significant amounts of acid/toxic material. And even with state-of-the-art-predictive and preventive techniques, a permittee may misapply the mining operations or reclamation plan, and create AMD. That AMD could impact the important natural systems and cultural and esthetic values of the Park as referenced above.

1. Petition allegation —The petition area should be designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations because mining the area would affect renewable resource lands in which the operations could result in a substantial loss or reduction in long-range productivity of water supply or of food or fiber products.

a. The petitioners allege that ground water in the petition area is unpredictable and that the inconsistent quality and quantity of ground water are natural hazards.

The intervenors allege that conducting surface coal mining operations in the petition area will not result in a substantial loss or reduction in long-range productivity of water supply. The intervenors also state that the ground waster resources in the petition area are predictable and manageable. The intervenors state that a site-specific determination must be made on current information.

b. The petitioners allege that pollution from surface coal mining operations could make Cane Creek unpotable to hikers because contaminants entering the stream from surface coal mining operations would result in unacceptable degradation, making it potentially unusable as a drinking water supply.

The intervenors allege that the petitioners have not provided documentation which suggests or demonstrates that surface coal mining operations will result in a substantial loss or reduction of long-range productivity of water supply. The intervenors also allege that historical water quality from Cane Creek, based on USGS records, show that water quality has not been affected in the watershed despite significant previous surface coal mining operations.

c. The petitioners allege that the petition area is used for hunting, fishing, and farming, all of which could be adversely affected by changes in water quality or quantity due to surface coal mining operations. The petitioners also assert that the area is used by local residents for the gathering of berries, seeds for horticultural projects, etc., which could be adversely affected by surface coal mining operations.

The intervenors allege that surface coal mining operations in the petition area will not result in a substantial loss or reduction in long-range productivity of food or fiber products.

2. Findings —Renewable resource lands. I find that there are renewable resource lands in the petition area outside the Park. Also, I find that the record demonstrates that surface coal mining operations could affect renewable resource lands. However, for the following reasons, I find that the record does not demonstrate that surface coal mining operations could result in a substantial loss or reduction of long-range productivity of water supply or of food or fiber products.

a. Food and fiber productivity. I find that there are lands in the petition area outside the Park that contribute significantly to the long-range productivity of food and fiber products. Therefore, I find that these lands are renewable resource lands. However, I find that the record does not demonstrate that water quality impacts of surface coal mining operations on these renewable resource lands would result in a substantial loss or reduction of long-range productivity of food or fiber products. I find that there have been significant impacts to water quality in Dry Fork and in Piney Creek as a result of pre-SMCRA mining activities. However, silvicultural property owners have stated that fiber production in this area has not been affected by any mining impacts to the water. Similarly, the record does not demonstrate that agriculture has been affected by the pre-SMCRA mining that occurred in the petition area. Both silviculture and agriculture in the petition area rely on precipitation as a water source, rather than ground or surface water. Therefore, there is little likelihood that production of food or fiber products would be significantly damaged by water quality impacts of surface coal mining operations.

b. Water supply productivity. I find that the record does not demonstrate that the petition area is renewable resource land because of ground water, as ground water in the petition area does not contribute significantly to the long-range productivity of water supply. Water supplies in the petition area are provided by public utilities with water sources outside the petition area. There are a few well users scattered throughout the petition area, but those well users would have access to public utility water in the event their wells no longer produced water acceptably. Likewise, hikers and campers occasionally use Cane Creek in the Park as a water source, but the incidental or occasional use of a stream as a water supply, does not demonstrate that the area contributes significantly to long-range productivity of the water supply.

1, Petition allegation —The area should be designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations because mining would affect natural hazard lands in which such operations could substantially endanger life and property.

The petitioners allege that mining can increase flooding. They allege that a greater than 100-year flood has occurred at Cane Creek in the petition area and that construction activities changed the flood-flow characteristics. They allege that these events demonstrate that the petition area is prone to flooding, and that mining could increase the danger to life, property, and the environment.

The intervenors allege that flooding is not a significant issue in the petition area. Skyline references the flood hazard mapping of Van Buren County prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Skyline emphasizes that HUD mapping does not show flood hazard areas along streams where surface coal mining operations would most likely occur in the petition area.

2. Findings —Natural hazard lands. I find that there are natural hazard lands in the petition area as evidenced by the flood prone areas shown in the flood hazard maps of HUD for the Cane Creek watershed. Also, I find that the record demonstrates that surface coal mining operations could affect natural hazard lands, as evidenced by the analysis in the PED/EIS that surface coal mining operations could cause a five percent increase in previously identified flood levels. However, I find that the record does not demonstrate that surface coal mining operations could substantially endanger life and property from flooding, for the following reasons. The HUD flood hazard maps and other available information do not indicate that any structures would be substantially endangered by flooding in the Cane Creek watershed during a 100-year event as a result of surface coal mining operations. All identified structures in the other watersheds are located significant distances from the respective creeks. The record does not indicate any other respect in which life and property on natural hazard lands could be substantially endangered by flooding because of surface coal mining operations.

1. Petition allegation —The petition area should be designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations because mining the area would be incompatible with existing State or local land use plans or programs.

a. The petitioners allege that the petition area forms the watershed of the Park. State regulations provide for the establishment of buffer areas to protect Natural Resource Areas, including Natural Areas. The Strategic Management Plan for the Park indicates that State plans include the purchase of land both upstream and downstream of the Park “to provide adequate protection of Park resources and to give defensible boundaries.” Petitioners allege that allowing mining in the watershed would directly under-cut the ability of the State to create or maintain a buffer area or to make decisions about appropriate activities or land for Park protection.

The intervenors allege that SMCRA requirements, including the 300 foot buffer zone [under Section 522(e)(5)] around the Park, provide adequate protection to the special features in the Park. The intervenors further state that under the Park's original land acquisition agreement, sufficient land acreage was incorporated to provide a natural, built-in “buffering” capacity for its scenic landscape and waterfalls. The intervenors conclude that the combined acreage of the Park's natural “buffer” and the 300 foot buffer zone prohibition to mining around the Park's entire boundary is sufficient to ensure protection of its natural resources. Therefore, mining in the watershed would not directly undercut the State's ability to create or maintain a buffer area.

b. The Petitioners allege that coal truck traffic would affect tourist traffic to the Park.

The intervenors allege that the petitioners provide no proof that coal trucks cause damage to the roads and thus constitute a conflict with land use plans. The intervenors further allege that coal haulage offers an opportunity for jobs which fits into the land use plan and that taxes (local, State, and Federal) provide important resources for maintenance of the road systems in the land use plans of the petition area.

c. The Petitioners allege that mining would affect the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail.

The intervenors allege that the presence of the Trail of Tears within the petition area does not qualify the area as fragile lands because: (1) The location of the Trail of Tears comprises an extremely small portion, less than 3 percent of the petition area, and is located in the southern portion of the area; and (2) the Trail of Tears does not meet the definition of fragile land because a majority of the Trail parallels or overlies existing roadways in the petition area.

d. The petitioners allege that the Park is a prime tourist attraction in the State of Tennessee and that the State has made significant investments in the Park to construct facilities to make Fall Creek a resort park.

The intervenors allege that the petitioners' assertion that mining in the area could damage the Park's attractiveness and economic viability is merely an opinion and is not supported by facts. Therefore, there is no support for the allegation that mining is incompatible with existing State or local land use plans or programs.

e. The Petitioners allege that feature-length films have been made in and out of the petition area, and that mining would cause this industry not to return.

The intervenors made no response to this allegation.

2. Findings —Incompatibility with land use plans. I find that surface coal mining operations in the Park or in certain portions of the petition area outside the Park would be incompatible with State or local land use plans and programs, for the following reasons.

The existing land use plans and programs do not call for surface coal mining operations in the Park. The impacts of fugitive dust and noise from surface coal mining operations in or near the Park on the recreational values of the Park would impair the recreational use of Park land. The visual impacts of surface coal mining operations in the Park or in certain parts of the petition area near the Park could have a negative impact on Park visitation, thus affecting the economic viability of the Park and the surrounding area. The natural systems, ecologic resources, cultural resources, and esthetic values of the park could be moderately to significantly impacted by surface coal mining operations in the Park and in the petition area outside the Park as described in the mining scenarios in Chapter V of the PED/EIS.

These impacts would be in direct conflict with the mission of Fall Creek Falls State Park: To preserve and protect the Park and Natural Area's unique resources—most importantly its water and water-formed features, and to provide visitors with well managed and maintained stay use and day use facilities. This mission is the basis for the Park's current land use plans and programs. In order to enhance these programs, the State has invested significant amounts of State funds in the Park to preserve its natural resources and to make it more attractive to Park visitors. In turn, the Park has generated revenue for the State and the surrounding counties because of its high visitation rates and its attractiveness as a feature film location.

However, for the reasons given below, I find that the record does not support the following allegations raised by the petitioners with respect to incompatibility of surface coal mining operations with State or local land use plans or programs: (1) Mining of the area would undercut the ability of the State to maintain a buffer zone around the Park. [I find the State has been successful in acquiring additional lands around the Park to enhance its protection of the Park resources, although the petition area outside the Park has been significantly affected by various land uses such as agriculture, silviculture and, to a limited degree, by mining. There has been no mining in the petition area outside the Park since 1984]. (2) Coal trucks damaging roads is inconsistent with land use plans. [I find that there is or can be sufficient road maintenance by the State and local government to address impacts on roads from coal trucks in surface coal mining operations.] (3) Mining near the Trail of Tears is inconsistent with land use plans. [I find that since there are no certified segments of the Trail of Tears in the petition area, mining near the Trail of Tears would not be inconsistent with local land use plans or programs.]

Similarly, surface coal mining operations in the Dry Fork watershed would not be incompatible with the existing land use plans or programs for the Park. The largest block of coal reserves in Dry Fork is located in the headwater areas of the watershed. This part of the watershed is adjacent to the northern portion of the Park where visitation is prohibited. Any surface coal mining operations in this area would be outside the viewshed of Park visitors and would go undetected by tourists entering and leaving the Park because of its distance from either the northern or southern entrances of the Park. Therefore, because of the lack of demonstrated likely significant damage to Park natural systems and esthetic and cultural values, or impact on Park visitation, the record does not demonstrate that surface coal mining operations in this watershed would be incompatible with existing State or local land use plans or programs.

1. Petition allegation —The petition area must be designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations because reclamation is not technologically and economically feasible.

a. The petitioners allege that reclamation of the petition area is not technologically and economically feasible because mining the Sewanee coal seam consistently leads to acid and toxic drainage despite the efforts of OSM and the most diligent mining companies to avoid such degradation.

The intervenors allege that the Sewanee coal seam in and of itself is not toxic. They contend that the coal seam and its related overburden has variable acid-producing potential and that potential does not automatically equate to toxicity. They further contend that such materials only become acid-producing under prolonged exposure to atmospheric oxidizing conditions and other processes. They further allege that mining at the Skyline Coal Company site has demonstrated that the Sewanee coal seam and its overburden materials can be handled properly to avoid or significantly minimize the production of undesired acid conditions. They also contend that the violation history provided by the petitioners misrepresents the facts and is often inaccurate.

b. The petitioners allege that the methods used by the coal industry and OSM do not accurately predict acid or toxic mine drainage, and that there is no foolproof method for handling acid-forming materials. Therefore, the petitioners allege that any mining in the watershed would place the streams in the Park at risk of acid mine drainage and would conflict with OSM regulations and objectives to prevent such occurrences.

The intervenors allege that reclamation associated with the mining of the Sewanee coal seam is technologically and economically feasible as demonstrated by the operations at its Big Brush Creek Mine. Skyline states that the company has been successful in mining the Sewanee coal seam without creating toxic mine drainage as alleged by the petitioners. The lack of an adequate technological understanding of the geochemical make-up of the overburden associated with the Sewanee coal seam and the subsequent deficit of technological know-how in the proper handling of the spoil material had led to past mining operations causing undesirable acid mine drainage. Intervenors assert that this is not the case with more recent technological breakthroughs and experiences gained in working with the coal seam. With improved acid-base accounting techniques that take into account siderite-masking, the acid-producing potential of the overburden can be properly characterized in advance of mining. Skyline asserts that, with an accurate acid-base bank, the combination of mining and reclamation technologies has been implemented by Skyline at its Big Brush Creek Mine to avoid and/or significantly minimize the generation of acidic conditions. Skyline further states that the company has successfully mined and reclaimed the disturbed areas economically and at a profit.

c. The petitioners allege that reclamation is not technologically and economically feasible within the petition area because even fully regulated mining results in unavoidable impacts.

The intervenors allege that these types of risks and events pose minimal risks to the Fall Creek Falls State Park. They reference storm events well over the 10-year, 24-hour interval which have occurred within the petition area without having unalterable, long-term impacts to the Park.

They also contend that the environmental protection performance standards can and will provide the necessary protection for the Park and the petition area.

2. Findings —Feasibility of reclamation. I find that the record does not clearly demonstrate that reclamation of surface coal mining operations in the petition area is technologically and economically infeasible, as required for designation under the mandatory criterion. I find that the presence of the Sewanee coal seam in the petition area does not clearly demonstrate that reclamation is technologically and economically infeasible. Although the Sewanee coal seam may contain acid-and toxic-forming materials, I find that this does not support a determination that reclamation of those surface coal mining operations involving coal extraction from the Sewanee coal seam is infeasible. The history of mining in the southern coal fields where the Sewanee coal seam dominates demonstrates that the majority of sites have been successfully reclaimed. Only 8 permits out of 205 permits issued since 1977 when SMCRA was enacted are confirmed AMD producers. Four of these permits were issued between 1977 and 1982 when minimal environmental controls were in place. The remaining 4 were issued between 1984 and 1992, when Tennessee and other states were developing ways to enhance their predictive techniques in order to accurately identify potential AMD producers. Since 1992, enhanced methodologies have been utilized on most permits. These predictive and preventive methodologies continue to evolve and improve. However, uncertainties exist with some of the more recent permits where water quality problems have developed. Several more years of experience will be required to determine the overall success of the newer methodologies for AMD prediction and prevention that were incorporated into these permits, because the success or failure of these newer methodologies cannot be verified until these sites are in reclamation. Nonetheless, I have determined that the record does not clearly demonstrate that reclamation is technologically or economically infeasible, as required for designation under the mandatory criterion.

However, as discussed above, the record does demonstrate that surface coal mining operations would pose an unacceptable risk to the fragile lands of the Park, and that such risks are incompatible with Park land use plans and programs. Because the adverse impacts could be significant, the risk to the Park is unacceptable.

I am designating the Park and the Cane Creek, Meadow Creek, and Falls Creek watersheds as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, including surface activities in connection with underground mining operations. I am designating the Piney Creek watershed unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, subject to a proviso that remining may be permitted in the upper reaches, as described below. The selection of the preferred alternative assures that all reasonable and practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted.

I have determined that designation is appropriate under the following discretionary criteria.

• That surface coal mining operations would affect fragile lands in which the operations could result in significant damage to important esthetic values and natural systems in accordance with SMCRA Section 522(a)(3)(B); and

• That surface coal mining operations would be incompatible with existing Park land use plans or programs in accordance with SMCRA Section 522(a)(3)(A).

In summary, my decision to designate portions of the petition areas as unsuitable for mining operations is based on (1) the inherent risks of surface coal mining operations to fragile lands and (2) the uncertainties associated with predicting and preventing impacts of surface coal mining operations in such a large area as that of the petition area. These risks and uncertainties could result in significant adverse and irreversible impacts to the Park's esthetic and cultural values, its natural systems, and its ecologic resources, and with both its short-term and long-term land use plans and programs.

I have determined that, if surface coal mining operations were to occur on these lands, such operations would pose a significant and unacceptable risk to the unique ecological resources, esthetic and cultural values, and natural systems of Tennessee's most prestigious park and to the natural systems of the Cane Creek, Falls Creek, Meadow Creek, and lower reaches of the Piney Creek watersheds. I have also determined that such risks and uncertainties are incompatible with the Park's land use plans and programs.

These decisions are based on consideration of the PED/EIS, and of the entire administrative record before me [including all comments received during the period prescribed by regulation before a decision can be made on the final PED/EIS]. That information includes the petition; the draft and final petition evaluation documents/environmental impact statements (PED/EIS); information provided by the petitioners; comments in the form of oral testimony at the public hearing; and written submissions received during the public comment periods which ended April 29, 1999, and the prescribed wait period which ended on May 3, 2000, from Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies, and members of the public and industry. The public record also includes information from meetings with the petitioners, land owners, lease holders, and intervenors, and comments received during the prescribed period after publication of the final PED/EIS.

1. Designation of Park. In the event that the State, as the mineral owner of lands within the Fall Creek Falls State Park successfully asserted valid existing rights (VER) in accordance with 30 CFR 761.11, the State would be able to engage in surface coal mining operations and SMCRA Section 522(e), regarding protection of publicly owned parks would not prohibit these operations. Therefore, I am exercising my discretion to designate Fall Creek Falls State Park as unsuitable for mining in accordance with 30 CFR 762.11(b)(1) and (b)(2) along with Cane Creek, Falls Creek and Meadow Creek watersheds. Although the State has indicated that it has no intent to mine the Park coal reserves, such a statement is not legally binding. And theoretically, there may be circumstances in which the prohibitions of Section 522(e) would not protect all Park lands. Thus, in the vent that VER was demonstrated for surface coal mining operations on Park lands, the State would be able to engage in surface coal mining operations, and SMCRA Section 522(e), regarding protection of publicly owned parks, would not prohibit these operations. I also recognize that it may be theoretically possible that some portion of the Park's boundaries could be modified so as to remove areas from the Park. The conveyance from the United States to Tennessee of the core area of the Park required that the conveyed lands be used exclusively for public park, recreational and conservation purposes. The United States retained a revisionary interest if the State failed to comply with this limitation for more than 3 years. The Department has never addressed whether allowing coal mining on the conveyed lands would violate this condition. Because it might be possible that surface coal mining operations or some aspect of surface coal mining operations could be allowed, or that the mining could be completed in 3 years or less, I am exercising my discretion to designate the Fall Creek Falls State Park as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.

2. Designation of Piney Creek watershed allowing remining of upper reaches. I am designating the upper portions of the Piney Creek watershed unsuitable for surface coal mining operations; provided, that a surface coal mining operation may be permitted if a portion of the operation includes previously mined areas and the permit applicant demonstrates that water quality in receiving streams will not be degraded. I have determined that, because of where it enters the Park, Piney Creek has limited influence on the continued preservation of the Park's resources. However, Piney Creek does influence the esthetic values associated with Piney Falls within the Park and does contribute to some degree, to the continued existence of the unique natural values of the Park. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, designation is appropriate. However, I believe permitting remining in the upper reaches of this watershed can be appropriate, for the following reasons.

Although there are inherent and unavoidable impacts as well as unanticipated events that may occur during surface coal mining and reclamation operations, I have determined that potential remining of the headwaters of the Piney Creek watershed, which would include the reclamation of pre-SMCRA mined lands, could provide benefits that outweigh the risks.

Most of the upper portions of the Piney Creek watershed contain pre-SMCRA abandoned mine sites. Allowing surface coal mining operations only in those areas in which the water quality could improve as a result of remining operations would potentially benefit the Park as a fragile land. Due to the distance of any potential surface coal mining operations from the Park borders or the Park entrances, there would be no incompatibility with State or local land use plans or programs if remining operations were allowed in the headwaters of the Piney Creek watershed.

The water quality in these headwater reaches has been significantly impacted by the pre-SMCRA mining. Currently, Piney Creek proper and other headwater tributaries flow through pre-SMCRA mine pits and are impacted by acid mine drainage and by increased concentrations of total dissolved solids which result in mineralization to the waters of the receiving stream. Thus, remining of these abandoned mine lands has the potential to improve water quality and therefore, have a beneficial effect on resources both within and outside the Park. The remining could reclaim the pre-SMCRA mine pits and reconstruct the headwatere streams, including riparian habitat. Also, the previously mined and unreclaimed land would be returned to a productive use.

By allowing only remining of previously mined areas in the upper reaches of the Piney Creek watershed, I am minimizing any risk to Park resources. Water quality improves in the lower reaches of Piney Creek as it enters the Park, and should not be compromised by the possibility of a mining failure in the lower reaches. Such failure could potentially impact the Park's natural systems and cultural and esthetic values, and be incompatible with the Park's land use plans and programs.

I am not designating the Dry Fork watershed as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations. I am not designating any lands within the Dry Fork watershed as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations for the following reasons. Dry Fork watershed does not contain the natural, ecologic, scientific or esthetic resources that would make it a fragile land in accordance with 30 CFR 762.5. It is not a valuable habitat for fish or wildlife or for threatened and endangered species of animals or plants as demonstrated by the few documented occurrences within the watershed. Surface coal mining operations conducted in Dry Fork watershed would not affect fragile lands or be incompatible with existing State or local land use plans or programs.

For the reasons discussed above, I have decided that the record does not demonstrate that designation is appropriate for any part or all of the petition area under the criteria of SMCRA Section 522(a)(2) or (3)(C)(D).

In accordance with 30 CFR 736.15, OSM is responsible for approving or denying applications for proposed surface coal mining operations in Tennessee, including the Fall Creek Falls petition area. In accordance with these regulations, OSM also administers and maintains an enforcement program to assure compliance with SMCRA laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. Thus, OSM's permitting and enforcement programs mitigate any environmental impacts that might be associated with the selection of the preferred alternative. OSM would also require compliance with the restrictions placed on surface coal mining operations in the headwaters of the Piney Creek watershed and would preclude surface coal mining operations in those portions of the petition area designated as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.

Under this decision, OSM would not accept and process applications for proposed surface coal mining operations in the Park, in the Cane Creek, Meadow Creek and Falls Creek watersheds, and in the lower reaches of Piney Creek watershed within the Fall Creek Falls petition area outside the Park, except as provided in SMCRA Section 522(a)(6). That provision states that:

Concerning the upper reaches of the Piney Creek watershed within the Fall Creek Falls petition area, OSM would accept and process applications for proposed surface coal mining operations where the proposed mining plan includes areas disturbed by pre-SMCRA coal mining, and the applicant demonstrates that water quality in the receiving streams will not be degraded, and that impacts from the previous mining will be mitigated by the proposed surface coal mining operation. All other surface coal mining operations would be prohibited.

OSM's December 17, 1999, final rule on the applicability of Section 522(e) of SMCRA to subsidence concluded that SMCRA's definition of “surface coal mining operations” at Section 701(28) does not apply to subsidence. The rulemaking preamble discusses OSM's conclusions as to why the definition includes surface activities in connection with a surface coal mine; and surface activities in connection with surface operations and surface impacts incident to an underground mine; and areas affected by such activities. In brief, under this interpretation subsidence is not a surface activity in connection with an underground mine and is not an area affected by such surface activity, and therefore, is not a surface coal mining operation subject to the prohibitions of Section 522(e). OSM expects to act consistent with this interpretation in determining which aspects of an underground coal mine are prohibited under Section 522 as surface coal mining operations.

Consistent with this interpretation, I anticipate that OSM will interpret the definition of surface coal mining operations at SMCRA Section 701(28) to mean: Surface activities in connection with a surface coal mine and surface activities in connection with surface operations and surface impacts incident to an underground coal mine, and areas affected by such surface activities. Under this interpretation, designation would prohibit only surface activities and areas affected by surface activities as discussed above. Because subsidence is not a surface activity, and is not an area affected by such surface activity, subsidence would not be considered a “surface coal mining operation.” Thus, subsidence and other aspects of underground coal mining that are not surface activities or areas affected by surface activities would not be prohibited on any land designated unsuitable for surface coal mining operations pursuant to this petition.

OSM would accept and process applications for surface coal mining operations in the Dry Fork watershed of the Fall Creek Falls petition area outside the Park in accordance with OSM's conclusion that this watershed has no effect on the Park's surface resources.

A petitioner may seek termination of this designation with respect to Cane Creek, Falls Creek, Meadow Creek and Piney Creek watersheds, by providing new allegations of fact that support such a termination.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 942.764.19 and 40 CFR 1506.6, this “Record of Decision and Statement of Reasons” is being sent simultaneously by certified mail to the petitioners and intervenors and by regular mail to every other party to the petition process, including affected Indian tribe(s), Federal and State agencies, commenters who submitted substantive comments, and all others who have requested it. Notification of the availability of the document will be published in four local or regional newspapers, the Tennessee Administrative Record, and the Federal Register , and will be sent by regular mail to landowners in the petition area and to commenters who submitted general comments. The document will also be placed on OSM's web page. My decision becomes final upon the date of signing this statement. Any appeal from this decision must be filed within 60 days from this date in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, as required by Section 526(a)(1) of SMCRA.

The purpose of this program is to provide state/local grant assistance to detect, prevent, and suppress money laundering and related financial crimes.

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the U.S. Department of Justice (Justice) oversee the majority of the Federal Government's anti-money laundering enforcement and regulatory efforts. Together, Treasury and Justice produce the annual National Money Laundering Strategy. To strengthen Treasury's partnerships with State and local governments in the fight against money laundering, Congress established the Financial Crime-Free Communities Support (C-FIC) Anti-Money Laundering Grant Program.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) within Justice, supports innovative programs that strengthen the Nation's criminal justice system. BJA's primary mission is to provide leadership and a wide range of assistance to local criminal justice agencies to make America's communities safer. To accomplish this mission, BJA provides funding, training, technical assistance, and information to State and community criminal justice programs, emphasizing the coordination of Federal, State, and local efforts.

Treasury and Justice (BJA and OJP) will jointly implement the C-FIC Anti-Money Laundering Grant Program.

In the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-310 (Oct. 30, 1998), Congress directed Treasury to establish a program to provide funds to State and local law enforcement agencies to detect, prevent, and suppress money laundering and related financial crimes whether related to narcotics or other underlying offenses. State and local enforcement officials, including regulatory officials, and State and local prosecutors are aptly suited to identify potential money laundering activity and to adjust enforcement and prosecution efforts to local conditions.

Treasury, OJP, and BJA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to govern the administration of the C-FIC Program. C-FIC grants are to be used as seed money for State and local programs that seek to address money laundering systems within their jurisdictions. C-FIC grants will help State and local communities to marshal information and expertise to build innovative approaches to money laundering enforcement and prosecution. C-FIC can also provide State and local recipients with training and technical assistance to combat these crimes.

Through this competitive solicitation for applications, Treasury and Justice encourage State and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutor's offices to identify emerging or chronic money laundering issues within their jurisdictions and propose innovative strategies for addressing those issues.

Applications must adhere to the administrative requirements outlined in this document and follow the format prescribed in the Selection Criteria. Applications not adhering to the administrative requirements or the prescribed format will not be considered. Submissions will be reviewed by a panel of expert practitioners (peer review), who will make award recommendations to BJA; BJA in turn will review and forward recommendations to Treasury. Treasury will then select the applications to be awarded. BJA will award the C-FIC grants and monitor the individual projects.

Applicants are limited by statute to State and local law enforcement agencies or prosecutor's offices. State attorneys general, district attorneys, and law enforcement agencies may apply. Partnerships and interagency collaborations are encouraged; however, a State or local law enforcement agency or State or local prosecutor must be the applicant.

Applications must propose strategies to develop or enhance State and local programs that seek to address money laundering systems within their jurisdictions. The following criteria will be considered in the selection of the initial C-FIC grant awardees during FY 2000. Each submission must answer the following questions in the order presented below. List each question by number, followed by your answer. Papers not following this format will be removed from the review process.

1. What specific money laundering-related problem(s) in your jurisdiction does your proposal address? (20 points)

Describe and/or demonstrate that the jurisdiction is focusing on a significant money laundering problem or risk, in a manner consistent with the National Money Laundering Strategy. Each application is required to include a preliminary threat assessment that identifies the most significant money laundering risks to be addressed using C-FIC grant funds. The use of FinCEN's Gateway Program as a vehicle for two-way information exchange is strongly encouraged.

2. Specifically, how will the award of C-FIC grant funds be used to accomplish your proposal's objectives? (25 points)

Provide an overview of your initiative. Make certain that clear and strong links exist between what you are proposing and how it will address the problem(s) you described in Question 1. This criterion is seeking innovative approaches. Are you proposing a method to understand, investigate, disrupt, and prosecute those involved in money laundering systems?

3. How will you regularly measure outcomes for your program throughout its operation? (10 points)

Each applicant should submit an analysis of how it will target the problem that it seeks to address and how it will measure its success. The application must contain at least three (3) quantitative performance measures and discuss how the applicant (and program auditors) can assess those measures. Effectiveness need not be measured in terms of immediate arrests or cash seizures, although such statistics may be relevant. The applicant must also provide assurances that an entity conducting an evaluation of the applicant's performance under the grant, or from which the applicant receives information, has experience in gathering data related to money laundering and related financial crimes (31 U.S.C. 5352(a)(2)(C)).

4. How will agencies collaborate in the project? Include signed copies of all interagency agreements and memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Include a description of proposed or existing partnerships and how State and local prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and relevant regulatory officials will be incorporated. Also describe how information from appropriate academic or research disciplines will be integrated into your proposal. (25 points)

List your partners, what role they play in your strategy, and whether this is a new or existing collaboration.

5. What is the projected budget for the project? Use the appropriate worksheet included in the BJA Application Kit. (20 points)

The budget must describe not only the costs of the program, but the cost-benefits to the jurisdiction.

Applicants must submit 10 copies of their proposal. To be considered for funding, proposals must include the following:

The proposal must be submitted on 8 1/2 -by 11-inch paper in standard 12-point font. The narrative portions of the proposal must be double-spaced.

Up to 10 awards will be made for up to 18 months.

For FY 2000, applicants may request funding of up to $300,000, which is expected to be the maximum Federal contribution available for each award. Recipients of FY 2000 C-FIC grants will be eligible to apply for future C-FIC grants at the appropriate time.

Ten copies of the application must be mailed or delivered to: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Attention: BJA Control Desk, 5640 Nicholson Lane, Suite 300, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

The proposal must be RECEIVED at the address above no later than 5 p.m. eastern time, July 24, 2000. Proposals delivered after the deadline will not be considered. BJA will not grant extensions of the deadline or accept faxed submissions.

For further information, contact Charles M. (Bud) Hollis, Senior Program Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 202-616-3218, or send an e-mail inquiry to BUD@ojp.usdoj.gov.

To disseminate information and provide training and technical assistance on promising approaches to prevent and reduce incidents of hate crimes and hate-related behavior committed by youth.

Hate crime is a serious problem in the United States, not only because of the number of individual victims but also because of the devastating impact hate violence has on families, communities, and institutions. Over the past few years, the Nation has witnessed an alarming number of violent hate crimes motivated by the perpetrators' bias toward their victims' perceived racial or ethnic identity, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

Since the enactment of the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA), the Federal Government has worked to establish national statistics on hate crimes. In response to the 1990 law, the Attorney General directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to add hate crime as a category in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Although hate crime reporting by law enforcement agencies is voluntary under Federal law, the Justice Department has provided extensive training to State and local law enforcement agencies, resulting in increased reporting and improved programs for responding to hate crimes.

The 1990 HCSA defined hate crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 amended the HCSA to include crimes motivated by bias against persons with disabilities in the definition of hate crimes.

Analysts in the field have noted that reporting under the HCSA has increased public awareness of, and improved local law enforcement's response to, hate crime violence; however, the reporting records remain incomplete. Because hate crime reporting by law enforcement agencies is voluntary under Federal law, experts believe the data do not completely describe the number and nature of hate crimes that occur nationally. In spite of these irregularities, the Hate Crime Statistics data for 1998 indicated that 9,235 hate crimes were reported in that year.

To increase hate crime awareness and support hate crime prevention efforts, the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq. ), authorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to fund research, training, and program efforts in support of hate crime awareness, education, and prevention. Congress directed OJJDP to establish and/or support model educational programs designed to prevent or reduce incidents of hate crimes by juveniles, including (1) programs that address prejudicial attitudes of juveniles, develop awareness of the effect of hate crime on the victim, and educate the offender about the importance of tolerance in our society and (2) sentencing programs for juveniles who commit hate crimes (42 U.S.C. 5665 (a)(9)).

In 1994, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was reauthorized as part of the Improving America's Schools Act (Pub. L. 103-382). One of the most significant changes was the authorization of school violence prevention activities. The focus on school safety was based on a recognition that schools needed to expand the types of prevention and early intervention activities they were developing to ensure safe, healthy, disciplined, and drug-free students. In response to this broadened program authority, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to develop education and training programs, curriculums, instructional materials, and professional training to prevent and reduce the incidence of crimes and conflicts motivated by hate in localities most directly affected by hate crimes (20 U.S.C. 7131).

In general, hate crimes are “message” crimes intended to provoke fear, marginalize members of society, and disrupt the social order. In recent years, these crimes have incited fear and intimidation in many communities throughout the Nation. No community is immune. Hate crimes have been reported in all regions of the country. These crimes have a wrenching impact on their victims, who are often terrorized and tormented. They also have a devastating impact on all members of groups that are the target of hate crime and a corrosive impact on community and civil rights.

Although existing hate crime data do not present a complete picture, they are useful in providing important information about the extent of hate crime, its victims, and its perpetrators. Examination of such data enables policymakers and professionals to identify the groups that are most likely to be victimized or become perpetrators and provide support and guidance for programs, resources, and services.

While schools report that they have few, if any, hate crimes, educators agree that on a daily basis they deal with various forms of unacceptable bias-/hate-motivated and related behaviors that disrupt the learning environment. For the purpose of this program announcement, hate-related behaviors are defined to include (but are not limited to) the following: harassment, intimidation, bullying, taunting, graffiti, name calling, and fighting, when the victim of any of these behaviors is intentionally selected because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and/or physical appearance.

Until recently, scant information has been available on juvenile involvement as either perpetrators or victims of hate crime. However, current national, State, and local information sources document an increasing involvement of juveniles in hate crimes or hate-related behavior:

Additional studies (cited below) have examined the incidence of hate crimes and the role of juveniles as either the victims or perpetrators of such crimes. Student surveys also support the view that hate crime prevention efforts need to be focused on youth.

In a sample of 1,865 high school students attending 10th, 11th, and 12th grades in public, parochial, and private schools across the country, more than half of the students interviewed claimed that they had witnessed racial confrontations either “very often” or “once in a while.” One in four students said that they were prepared to intervene in, or even condemn, a confrontation based on racial hatred. However, almost half of the students interviewed either admitted that they would join in an attack or agreed that the group under attack was “getting what it deserved” (Harris, 1990).

A study of 1,570 elementary, middle, and secondary schools in Los Angeles County also supports the view that hatred among youth is a critical problem. Thirty-seven percent of these schools reported incidents of hate-motivated violence during a school year. Students in middle and high schools were particularly likely to have experienced hate violence, with a response rate of 47 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Thirty-four percent of the elementary schools also reported hate incidents (Los Angeles Commission on Human Relations, 1990).

A poll conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (1999) revealed that more than 90 percent of young people surveyed thought that hate crimes were a serious problem. Eighty-nine percent of the youth believed that the problem of hate crime affects all areas of the country, and 33 percent indicated that the problem of hate crime has become more severe.

Although most hate crimes are perpetrated by individuals acting on their own (Levin and McDevitt, 1993), there is a long history of organized hatred in the United States. Hate groups contribute to community unrest and the escalation of community violence. Developmentally, adolescents may also be more susceptible to hate ideology and propaganda. Some hate propaganda is particularly emotionally charged and can resonate with angry, alienated, and isolated teens who seek someone to blame for their unhappiness (Stanton, 1992). The individual juvenile who commits hate crimes, whether or not he or she is affiliated with an organized hate group, continues to pose a major challenge to youth-serving professionals. Another significant challenge is to conceptualize, fashion, and implement interventions that will modify a juvenile hate crime offender's prejudice, belief system, and violent behavior. These challenges require the collaboration of many disciplines to address the problem comprehensively.

In 1997, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) and the Leadership Conference Education Fund published a report entitled Cause for Concern: Hate Crimes in America, which noted an increasing trend in hate crime violence and the use of the Internet to spread messages of hate. This report also indicated that a large number of hate crime “perpetrators are youthful thrill-seekers, rather than hardcore haters,” suggesting that hate crime prevention and education programs could be effective in reducing hate crime violence committed by juveniles.

In the same year, the Anti-Defamation League's publication High Tech Hate: Extremist Use of the Internet discussed the impact of the Internet on individuals and groups of all ages, especially students from elementary to college levels. The growth of hate crimes through this medium challenges all persons working with youth to develop programs that will provide critical thinking skills and media literacy to teach youth to resist hate propaganda messages and affiliations that may be found on the Internet.

OJJDP and the Department of Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools (SDFS) Program have recognized the need to provide assistance to help prevent the commission of hate crimes by juveniles. Since 1997, this assistance has taken the form of joint funding to support training programs for policymakers working with communities and youth and technical assistance to several sites implementing innovative hate crime prevention initiatives.

In response to the growing demand by communities, law enforcement, and schools for additional hate crime and hate-related behavior information, training, and technical assistance, OJJDP and SDFS are pleased to announce a new competitive program: Hate Crime Prevention: A Comprehensive Approach. This jointly funded information and training and technical assistance program is designed to address the problem of juvenile hate crime and identify effective components of hate crime prevention programs. The program will focus on (1) disseminating information about promising practices and available resources; (2) providing training and technical assistance on effective school-based hate-related behavior prevention programs; and (3) promoting national and local level collaboration among youth and professionals from different disciplines who work with young people (e.g., educators, law enforcement officers, judges, representatives of community agencies and organizations, clergy) to support institutional change to prevent and reduce the incidence of hate crime.

The goals of this project are twofold:

• To enhance awareness of promising approaches to reduce and prevent incidents of hate crimes committed by youth.

• To assist communities, law enforcement, and schools in providing effective hate crime prevention programs and activities that prevent and reduce incidents of hate crime and promote greater tolerance among youth.

To accomplish these goals, the Hate Crime Prevention initiative will:

• Improve the knowledge of hate crimes and related issues among law enforcement, youth-serving professionals, and educators.

• Provide training and technical assistance to local youth-serving agencies, schools, and law enforcement in implementing promising hate crime and hate-related behavior prevention activities and programs.

• Disseminate information about emerging hate crime and hate-related behavior prevention issues, programs, and strategies.

• Promote collaboration among multidisciplinary organizations and agencies to prevent, reduce, and respond to hate crimes and hate-related behavior.

• Develop resource materials, publications, and guides to inform and assist practitioners, policymakers, and communities to address the problem of hate crimes and hate-related behavior.

The major clients to be served with the implementation of the Hate Crime Prevention: A Comprehensive Approach initiative include youth and professionals working in:

OJJDP will competitively select a single organization to implement the hate crime prevention training and technical assistance program, for an initial 12-month budget period, within a 3-year project period. Partnerships are encouraged, and when they are utilized, a single agency or organization must be identified as having lead responsibility for the project.

Applicants must clearly demonstrate experience in the delivery and management of national multifaceted training and technical assistance programs, expertise on the topic of hate crimes, and an understanding of the challenges that exist in the field of hate crime prevention programming. Applicants are encouraged to be creative in their approach to designing and delivering technical assistance and training, reflecting an understanding of the resources and constraints of the various disciplines involved in implementing a juvenile hate crime prevention and reduction program.

Applications must include detailed plans for implementing training and technical assistance, including measurable goals and objectives. Applicants should indicate how they will incorporate electronic mediums for providing training and technical assistance via teleconferencing and other Internet based modalities. Applicants must also provide timelines and a description of how the program will provide technical assistance and training, on the specific hate crime and hate-related behavior prevention program areas listed below, across diverse disciplines and jurisdictions.

Hate crime prevention topics to be addressed through training and technical assistance include the following:

Applicants' training and technical assistance design must reflect recent research on effective hate crime and hate-related behavior prevention programming; explain how the delivery and development of materials will occur, with consideration given to the diverse needs of the various disciplines involved in implementing hate crime and hate-related behavior prevention efforts; and provide a plan for producing program deliverables.

In addition to developing a training and technical assistance strategy based on the areas described above, the selected applicant will provide the following deliverables over the 36-month project period:

Applicants should be realistic in setting the cost of deliverables and in outlining the implementation schedule. Applicants are also encouraged to be innovative in their approach as OJJDP and ED will consider nontraditional training and technical assistance delivery approaches so long as the goals and objectives of the program are met. In addition, the principles listed below must be incorporated.

Technical assistance and training will be provided in a manner consistent with the following principles:

Applicants will be rated by a peer review panel on the extent to which they meet the criteria outlined below.

Applicants must clearly demonstrate an understanding of the problem(s) addressed by the project and the issues relevant to hate crime practices and their relation to the concept of a comprehensive hate crime prevention program.

Applicants must provide succinct statements that demonstrate how the goals and objectives associated with the project will be addressed. Technical assistance and training relating to the objectives must be clearly stated and measurable.

Applicants must present a project design that is specific and constitutes an effective approach to meeting the goals and objectives of this program. The design must include a detailed work plan with timelines that link the training and technical assistance deliverables to the hate crime program areas to be addressed. Applicants must demonstrate how these activities can be expected to achieve the program's overall goals. The design must provide protocols for assessment of technical assistance and training needs, as well as the protocols that will be used in the actual delivery of technical assistance. It must also describe the process and structure that will be used for curriculum development with demonstration of how adult learning theory will be employed in its design. The design must indicate how project objectives will be met. Proposals should include a cohesive, well-developed plan for meeting project objectives and translating research on promising hate crime prevention programs into practice.

Competitiveness will be enhanced by applicants who clearly discuss how the required training and technical assistance tasks will be delivered in a number of different community settings to persons of diverse cultural, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Competitiveness also will be enhanced by applicants whose program strategy clearly demonstrates broad outreach and collaboration with various constituency groups, including professional associations representing the education and juvenile justice fields and other organizations working to prevent, reduce, and respond to hate crimes. Demonstrable knowledge of current research on hate crime prevention and age-appropriate educational prevention strategies is essential. Applicants should show how these will support the implementation of the program, development of program materials, and delivery of services.

The application must include a discussion of how the grantee will coordinate and manage this program to achieve product development and meet training and technical assistance needs.

Key staff should have significant experience with the delivery of training and technical assistance, experience with hate crime prevention, and knowledge of development, education, diversity, prevention issues, and victim service programs.

Applicants must demonstrate production and computer capabilities or describe how they will meet the requirements for producing the required publications and materials.

Applicants must include rèsumès of key staff and identify how and for what percentage of time they will be used with respect to specific tasks. Applicants must demonstrate how they will manage onsite and offsite training and technical assistance delivery and describe their experience in planning conferences of varying sizes.

Applicants must provide a proposed budget that is detailed, reasonable, and cost effective for the activities undertaken and all of the deliverables to be produced.

Applicants should include the cost of hotel and meal expenses of participants in the training of trainers courses, technical assistance programs, and regional training and technical assistance program. Trainees will not be charged any fee for attendance or materials at any training conference sponsored by the grantee or for other training and technical assistance deliverables.

OJJDP invites applications from public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, or individuals. Private, for-profit organizations must agree to waive any profit or fees.

The narrative portion of the proposal must not exceed 50 pages in length. The narrative portion includes the abstract; problem statement; work plan/timelines; narrative; project goals, objectives, design, and staffing; detailed budget worksheets and budget narrative; description of products developed under this grant, if applicable; and proposed evaluation methods and strategy. The application should be submitted on 8 1/2 by 11-inch paper, double spaced on one side of the paper, in a standard 12-point font and with pages numbered sequentially. Appendixes combined may not exceed 30 pages in length. Appendixes must include letter(s) of commitment, résumés/job descriptions, and project evaluation, if the project has been evaluated. These requirements will ensure fair and uniform standards among all applicants. If the narrative does not conform to these standards, OJJDP will deem the application ineligible for consideration.

The project will be for a 3-year project period, funded in three 1-year budget periods. Funding after the first budget period depends on performance of the grantee, availability of funds, and other criteria established at the time of award.

Up to $1 million is available for the initial 1-year budget period.

For this program, the CFDA number, which is required on Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, is 16.542. This form is included in the OJJDP Application Kit, which can be obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or sending an e-mail request to puborder@ncjrs.org. The Application Kit is also available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org./grants/about.html#kit.

To encourage better coordination among Federal agencies in addressing State and local needs, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is requesting applicants to provide information on the following: (1) Active Federal grant award(s) supporting this or related efforts, including awards from DOJ; (2) any pending application(s) for Federal funds for this or related efforts; and (3) plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) or (2) with the funding sought by this application. For each Federal award, applicants must include the program or project title, the Federal grantor agency, the amount of the award, and a brief description of its purpose.

The term “related efforts” is defined for these purposes as one of the following:

All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301-519-5535. Faxed or e-mailed applications will not be accepted. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, you must clearly write “Hate Crime Prevention: A Comprehensive Approach.”

Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application are received no later than 5 p.m. ET on August 7, 2000.

For further information, call Frank Porpotage, Deputy Director, Training and Technical Assistance Division, at 202-616-3634, or send an e-mail inquiry to Frank@ojp.usdoj.gov.