Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34625

in whole or in part when, in his

judgment, continued protection in the

interest of national security is no longer

required. If the DAS determined that the

information no longer requires

classification, it shall be declassified

and, unless it is otherwise exempt from

disclosure under the Freedom of

Information Act, released to the

requester. The DAS shall advise the

original reviewing Commerce office or

unit of his decision.

§ 4a.8 Access to classified information by

individuals outside the Government.

(a) Industrial, Educational, and

Commercial Entities. Certain bidders,

contractors, grantees, educational,

scientific, or industrial organizations

may receive classified information

under the procedures prescribed by the

National Industrial Security Program

Operating Manual.

(b) Access by historical researchers

and former Presidential appointees. An

individual engaged in historical

research projects or who has previously

occupied a policy-making position to

which he or she was appointed by the

President may be authorized access to

classified information for a limited

period, provided that the head of the

component with jurisdiction over the

information:

(1) Determines in writing that:

(i) Access is consistent with national

security,

(ii) The individual has a compelling

need for access, and

(iii) The Department’s best interest is

served by providing access;

(2) Obtains in writing from the

individual:

(i) Consent to a review by the

Department of their resultant notes and

manuscripts for the purpose of

determining that no classified

information is contained in them, and

(ii) Agreement to safeguard classified

information in accordance with

applicable requirements; and

(iii) A detailed description of the

individual’s research;

(3) Ensures that custody of classified

information is maintained at a

Department facility;

(4) Limits access granted to former

Presidential appointees to items that the

individual originated, reviewed, signed,

or received while serving as a

Presidential appointee; and

(5) Receives from the DAS:

(i) A determination that the

individual is trustworthy; and

(ii) Approval to grant access to the

individual.

(c) An individual seeking access

should describe the information with

sufficient specificity to locate and

compile it with a reasonable amount of

effort. If the access requested by a

historical researcher or former

Presidential appointee requires

rendering services for which fair and

equitable fees may be charged, the

responsible component shall notify the

individual in advance.

(d) This section applies only to

classified information originated by the

Department, or to information in the

sole custody of the Department.

Otherwise, the individual shall be

referred to the classifying agency.

PART 4b—PRIVACY ACT [REMOVED]

3. Remove Part 4b.

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Susan Sutherland,

Acting Director for Executive Budgeting and

Assistance Management.

[FR Doc. 00–13161 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–BW–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[KY–225–FOR]

Kentucky Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

a proposed amendment to the Kentucky

regulatory program (Kentucky program)

under the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

proposed amendment consists of

revisions to the Kentucky regulations

pertaining to permitting, abating

violations, and constructing roads above

highwalls. The amendment is intended

to revise the Kentucky program to be

consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations.

DATES: If you submit written comments,

they must be received by 4 p.m., (e.d.t.)

on June 30, 2000. If requested, a public

hearing on the proposed amendment

will be held on June 26, 2000. Requests

to speak at the hearing must be received

by 4 p.m. (e.d.t.) on June 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-deliver your

written comments and requests to speak

at the hearing to William J. Kovacic,

Field Office Director, at the address

listed below.

You may review copies of the

Kentucky program, the proposed

amendment, a listing of any scheduled

public hearings, and all written

comments received in response to this

document at the addresses listed below

during normal business hours, Monday

through Friday, excluding holidays. You

may receive one free copy of the

proposed amendment by contacting

OSM’s Lexington Field Office.

William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675

Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky

40503; telephone: (859) 260–8400. EMail: bkovacic@osmre.gov.

Department of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 2

Hudson Hollow Complex, Frankfort,

Kentucky 40601; telephone: (502)

564–6940.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington

Field Office, Telephone: (859) 260–

8400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kentucky

Program

On May 18, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Kentucky program. You can find

background information on the

Kentucky program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval in the May 18, 1982, Federal

Register (47 FR 21404). You can find

subsequent actions concerning the

conditions of approval and program

amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.13,

917.15, 917.16, and 917.17.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated May 9, 2000

(Administrative Record No. KY–1473),

Kentucky submitted a proposed

amendment to its program consisting of

enacted House Bills (HB) 502 (partial),

599, and 792.

HB 502 is a budget bill and only Part

IX, Item 36(b), which pertains to surface

coal mining permits, was submitted. It

provides that the permit block

provisions of KRS 350.085(6) apply to

either the applicant or any person who

owns or controls the applicant who is

currently in violation. It requires the

cabinet to continue in effect the current

administrative regulations on ownership

and control, provided that a due process

hearing is afforded at the time the

cabinet makes a preliminary

determination to impose a permit block.

It requires the cabinet to conditionally

issue a permit, permit renewal, or

34626 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules

authorization to conduct surface coal

mining and reclamation operations, if it

finds that a direct administrative or

judicial appeal is presently being

pursued in good faith to contest the

validity of the determination of

ownership and control linkage. It

requires the cabinet to conditionally

issue permits if the applicant submits

proof, including a settlement agreement,

that the violation is being abated to the

satisfaction of the issuing State or

Federal agency. If the initial judicial

appeal affirms the ownership and

control linkage, the applicant has 30

days to submit proof that the violation

has been or is in the process of being

corrected. The applicant is not

precluded from seeking further judicial

relief.

HB 599 creates a new section of KRS

Chapter 350. Subsection (1) recognizes

an easement of necessity on behalf of

the permittee or operator for the limited

purposes of abating a violation if the

permittee or operator has been issued a

notice or order directing abatement of

the violation on the basis of an

imminent danger to health and safety of

the public or significant imminent

environmental harm. The notice or

order must also require access to

property for which the permittee or

operator does not have legal right of

entry and the landowner or legal

occupant has refused access for this

provision to apply.

Subsection (2) establishes conditions

under which the cabinet shall terminate

a notice of noncompliance or cessation

order for a violation (other than a

violation described in Subsection (1)), if

the permittee or operator responsible for

abatement of the violation has been

denied access to the land necessary to

allow abatement of the violation.

Subsection (3) prohibits the cabinet

from terminating a notice or order under

this section if it determines that the

denial of access has been procured

through collusion between the permittee

or operator and the landowner or legal

occupant who is refusing access. It

defines ‘‘collusion’’ and provides that

any such act shall subject the permittee

or operator to penalties under KRS

Chapter 350 for willful and knowing

refusal to correct the violation.

Subsection (4) prohibits termination

of a notice or order under this section

if there is any common ownership or

control between the permittee or

operator and the landowner or legal

occupant. It also prohibits termination if

there is any other legal relationship

between the permittee or operator and

the landowner or legal occupant except

where a court of competent jurisdiction

has determined that the legal

relationship does not provide for a right

of access.

Subsection (5) requires the cabinet to

direct abatement measures to be taken

by the permittee or operator to prevent

damage to lands for which access has

not been denied.

Subsection (6) provides that

termination of a notice or order under

this section shall not affect the

assessment of a civil penalty for the

violation and provides that nothing in

this section affects a person’s right for

damages or injunctive relief.

HB 792 amends KRS 350.445(3). It

provides that the land above the

highwall may be disturbed for

construction of a permanent road only

if the applicant affirmatively

demonstrates, and the cabinet makes a

detailed written determination, that the

proposed disturbance facilitates

compliance with KRS Chapter 350. It

also requires that the land disturbed be

limited to that amount necessary to

facilitate compliance. The cabinet’s

determination must be made upon the

applicant’s demonstration that certain

specific requirements will be met.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with the provisions of

30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is seeking

comments on whether the proposed

amendment satisfies the applicable

program approval criteria of 30 CFR

732.15. If the amendment is deemed

adequate, it will become part of the

Kentucky program.

Written Comments: If you submit

written or electronic comments on the

proposed rule during the 30-day

comment period, they should be

specific, be confined to issues pertinent

to the notice, and explain the reason for

your recommendation(s). We may not be

able to consider or include in the

Administrative Record comments

delivered to an address other than the

one listed above (see ADDRESSES).

Electronic Comments: Please submit

Internet comments as an ASCII,

WordPerfect, or Word file and avoid

using special characters and any form of

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn:

SPATS No. KY–225–FOR’’ and your

name and return address in your

Internet message. If you do not receive

a confirmation that we have received

your Internet message, contact the

Lexington Field Office at (859) 260–

8400.

Availability of Comments: Our

practice is to make comments, including

names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours at the

OSM Administrative Record Room (see

ADDRESSES). Individual respondents

may request that we withhold their

home address from the rulemaking

record, which we will honor to the

extent allowable by law. There may also

be circumstances in which we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you want us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this prominently at the beginning of

your comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Public Hearing: If you want to speak

at the public hearing, you should

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00

p.m. (local time), on June 15, 2000. The

location and time of the hearing will be

arranged with those persons requesting

the hearing. If no one requests an

opportunity to speak at the public

hearing, the hearing will not be held.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an

accurate record, we request, if possible,

that each person who testifies at a

public hearing provide us with a written

copy of his or her testimony. The public

hearing will continue on the specified

date until all persons scheduled to

speak have been heard. If you are in the

audience and have not been scheduled

to speak, and who wish to do so, you

will be allowed to speak after those who

have been scheduled. We will end the

hearing after all persons scheduled to

speak and persons present in the

audience who wish to speak have been

heard.

Any disabled individual who has

need for a special accommodation to

attend a public hearing should contact

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Public Meeting: If only one person

requests an opportunity to speak at a

hearing, a public meeting, rather than a

public hearing, may be held. If you wish

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment, you

may request a meeting by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings

will be open to the public and, if

possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

Administrative Record.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34627

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866 .

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart federal regulation.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the Federal and State

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that State laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that State programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

State regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the States

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

Federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed State regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, Federal, State, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the State submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart Federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 917

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 19, 2000.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 00–13551 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 199

RIN 0720–AA57

Civilian Health and Medical Program of

the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS);

Methodology for Coverage of NIHSponsored Clinical Trials

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule modifies

the general prohibition against

CHAMPUS cost-sharing of unproven

drugs, devices, and medical treatments

or procedures by adding a provision

allowing a waiver of the prohibition in

connection with clinical trials

sponsored or approved by the National

Institutes of Health, if it is determined

that such a waiver will promote access

by covered beneficiaries to promising

new treatments, and contribute to the

development of such treatments.

DATES: Public comments must be

received by July 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: TRICARE Management

Activity (TMA), Program Development

Branch, Aurora, CO 80045–6900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Larkin, Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/

TRICARE Management Activity,

telephone (703) 681–3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Proposed Changes

Introduction and Background

On January 24, 1996, the Department

provided notice in the Federal Register

(61 FR 1899) of an expansion of an

existing demonstration to provide

coverage for all cancer treatment clinical

trials under approved National Cancer

Institute (NCI) clinical trials. The

demonstration’s purpose was to

improve beneficiary access to promising

new therapies, assist in meeting the

National Cancer Institute’s clinical trial