69046 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

MARYLAND

Baltimore Independent City

Standard Oil Building, 501 St. Paul

St., Baltimore (Independent City),

00001461

Washington County

Hills, Dales, and the Vineyard, 16

Dogstreet Rd., Keedysville,

00001460

MASSACHUSETTS

Berkshire County

Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, George

Carter Rd., Becket, 00001458

MISSISSIPPI

Hinds County

Evers, Medgar, House, 2332 Margaret

Walker Alexander Dr., Jackson,

00001459

Hinds County Armory, 1012

Mississippi St., Jackson, 00001462

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Coos County

Weeks, William Dennis, Memorial

Library, 128 Main St., Lancaster,

00001464

Merrimack County

Durgin, Gershom, House, 391

Franklin Hwy.,

Rockingham County

Danville Town House, 210 Main St.,

NH 111A, Danville, 00001465

NEW JERSEY

Somerset County

Relief Home Company No. 2 Engine

House, 16 Anderson St., Raritan

Borough, 00001466

NEW YORK

Niagara County

District #10 Schoolhouse,

(Cobblestone Architecture of New

York State MPS) 9713 Seaman Rd.,

Hartland, 00001467

Oswego County

Oswego West Pierhead Lighthouse,

Lake Ontario, 0.5 mi. N of Oswego

R., Oswego, 00001468

WASHINGTON

Whatcom County

Nuxwt’iqw’em, Address Restricted,

Upper Middle Fork, 00001472

WISCONSIN

Vernon County

Masonic Temple Building, 116 S.

Main St., Viroquoa, 00001469

WYOMING

Converse County

North Douglas Historic District,

Roughly bounded by Second St.,

Clay St., Sixth St., and Center St.,

Douglas, 00001470

A Request for a MOVE has been made

for the following resource:

CONNECTICUT

Litchfield County

Sloan-Raymond-Fitch House, 249

Danbury Rd., Wilton, 82004344

[FR Doc. 00–29120 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Justice Statistics

[OJP (BJS)–1307]

Hate Crime Statistics Data Collection

in Selected Police and Sheriffs’

Departments

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for award

of cooperative agreement.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to announce a public solicitation for

services related to understanding why

police and sheriff’s departments do not

report hate crimes to the FBI that are

known to officers in their jurisdiction.

DATES: Proposals must arrive at the

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on or

before 5 p.m. ET, Sunday, December 31,

2000, or be postmarked on or before

December 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Proposals should be mailed

to: Application Coordinator, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh St. NW.,

Washington, DC 20531; (202) 616–3497.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles R. Kindermann, Ph.D., Senior

Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

(202) 616–3489 or Carol Kaplan, Chief,

National Criminal History Improvement

Program (202) 307–0759.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Hate Crime Statistics Act,

reauthorized in June 1996, mandates

that the Attorney General collect

statistics and publish an annual report

on hate crimes. During hearing

testimony and in subsequent letters,

members of Congress expressed an

interest in a study that will facilitate

better participation by police agencies.

BJS, consistent with its role as the

statistical arm of the Justice Department

and its longstanding interest in hate

crime statistics, developed this

solicitation to learn more about the

impediments to local jurisdictions’

participation in the collection of hate

crime statistics and transmission of the

statistics to the FBI for compilation at

the national level.

BJS funded a project that resulted in

the report Improving the Quality and

Accuracy of Bias Crime Statistics

Nationally: An Assessment of the First

Ten Years of Bias Crime Data

Collection. The project included a

review of national hate crime trends, a

summary of results from a national law

enforcement survey regarding officer

attitudes about hate crime, and several

other sources. The compilation of these

data sources gives key insight into how

hate crime reporting can be improved

and how hate crime data should be

interpreted. Electronic copies of the full

report and an executive summary can be

found at <www.dac.neu.edu/cj/>.

A survey of 2,657 law enforcement

agencies was conducted to document

impressions from law enforcement

departments about the factors which

impede or encourage accurate hate

crime reporting. The findings from the

report are as follows:

• There are serious disparities

between what officers believed about

the prevalence of bias crime and their

agencies’ official hate crime statistics.

• One of the major reasons cited for

the disparity involves the break down in

the two-step process of a local agency

reporting to a state agency, which then

compiles the hate crime reports. Many

respondents felt that the indication of

bias was occasionally lost within the

departmental bureaucracy or process of

transmitting data.

• Although it has been recommended

by the International Association of

Chiefs of Police, as well as advocacy

groups, that police agencies develop and

approve a formal policy for dealing with

hate crime incidents, still only a

minority of police agencies from across

the country state that they had an

official policy regarding hate crime.

The impetus for this solicitation is the

report’s recommendation that ‘‘the data

indicate that in some number of cases

an information disconnect occurs

between the investigating officer and

UCR reporting. Many officers stated that

they knew of hate crimes that occurred

in their jurisdiction but were not

reflected in the official report. It is

possible that officers note bias

motivation in incident report narratives,

but the information from such narrative

is never documented into the UCR

records. A more detailed analysis of the

breakdown between hate crimes that are

investigated locally and those that are

reported nationally should be

undertaken.’’

There are a number of possible

explanations why an agency’s numbers

reported to the FBI might not reflect

hate crimes that are known to officers

on the street. Among the possibilities

are these:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69047

• The definition of hate crime

provided by the FBI may be inconsistent

with the State’s definition (or local

definition), and officers follow their

state law in classifying events as

incidents of hate crime. If this

hypothesis is true, it is particularly

troublesome in states that do not have

any hate crime statute.

• The incident forms used by some

departments contain so many

information elements (checks/boxes/

narrative) that a specific item indicating

bias is not checked off although other

information on the form clearly

indicates that the offense was bias

motivated.

• During the review process (postincident report), a decision is made that

the incident was bias motivated. Yet the

crime report as sent to the FBI is not

categorized as a hate crime. For

example, the original officer doesn’t put

an indication of hate crime, the

responding detective identifies it as a

hate crime, but the crime report as

entered into UCR data remains the same

as the first officer noted.

• There may be very little revising of

the data sent to the FBI regardless of

changes in determination and

circumstance. The reversal of a decision

that an incident is a hate crime (e.g., by

a community review group) may also

not be reflected in the database.

• Because the vast majority of the

crime report forms do not have the ‘‘bias

motivated’’ box checked off, it is a

natural instinct to skip it.

• The transfer of information and data

forms from local, state, and federal

agencies creates additional ‘‘slippage’’

points where the ‘‘bias crime’’ indicator

may be omitted in the data files.

The work to be carried out under this

solicitation will be closely coordinated

with the FBI, which assembles

information provided by state and local

agencies and publishes national hate

crime statistics.

Objectives

This solicitation is being issued to

address the following recommendation:

‘‘The study identified several problem

areas in the reporting process where

bias crime information may be

overlooked or misclassified. Further

research should look in more depth at

the areas of disconnect to better improve

the quality of the data.’’

Up to $150,000 will be made available

for this project.

The organization that is awarded the

grant will select specific law

enforcement agencies as hosts for the

study, and must include both agencies

believed to have ‘‘good’’ hate crime

reporting, and agencies that have not

reported hate crime statistics at all to

the FBI or are believed to report only a

small fraction of the hate crimes that do

occur. The purpose of selecting host

agencies will be to assist them in

improving their hate crime reporting

and also to develop recommendations

for improving hate crime reporting by

law enforcement agencies nationwide.

The law enforcement agencies must

agree in writing to participate in the

study and will become partners with the

FBI and BJS to address and recommend

solutions to the impediments to

accurate hate crime reporting. A steering

committee will be appointed that will

direct the introduction of new

procedures and practices to improve the

reporting of hate crimes in law

enforcement agencies that agree to

participate in the study.

Funding provided under this

solicitation will support a data

collection program which will follow

the sequence of events from a crime

report which is known or presumed to

be a hate crime by the officer

completing the report through the crime

reporting procedures to ascertain

whether the crimes were reported to the

FBI as hate crimes, and if not, whether

the failure to report accurately reflects

the nature of the event or is the result

of gaps in the transmission of

information to the FBI’s UCR data files.

The project, in addition to helping the

participating departments improve their

practices, will result in

recommendations for other agencies’

practices and a more detailed statistical

analysis of hate crimes that are

investigated locally as compared to

those that are reported nationally to the

FBI.

Type of Assistance

Assistance will be made available

under a cooperative agreement

Statutory Authority

The cooperative agreement to be

awarded pursuant to this solicitation

will be funded by the Bureau of Justice

Statistics consistent with its mandate as

set forth in 42 U.S.C. 3732.

Eligibility Requirements

Both profit making and nonprofit

organizations may apply for funds.

Consistent with OJP fiscal requirements,

however, no fees may be charged against

the project by profit-making

organizations.

Scope of Work

The recipient of funds will perform

the following tasks in pursuit of the

objectives stated above:

1. Develop a detailed timetable for

each task involved in the project. After

the BJS grant monitor has agreed to the

timetable, all work must be completed

as scheduled.

2. Collect data about hate crime

incidents in the participating agencies’

jurisdictions and prepare a statistical

summary showing the status of ‘‘bias

crime indicators’’ in each of the stages

through which the data are transmitted

until included or not included in the

FBI’s hate crimes report.

3. Develop recommendations for

improving hate crime reporting by law

enforcement agencies, both those with

‘‘good’’ hate crime reporting practices

and those who have not reported hate

crime statistics to the FBI, to develop

recommendations for improving hate

crime reporting by police departments.

4. Prepare a final report summarizing

the results in a way that will help BJS,

the FBI, and law enforcement agencies

improve hate crime reporting.

5. Archive the data that are collected

in the study.

Award Procedures

Proposals should describe in

appropriate detail the procedures to be

undertaken in furtherance of each of the

activities described under Scope of

Work. Information on staffing levels and

qualifications should be included for

each task and descriptions of experience

relevant to the project should be

included. Resumes of the proposed

project director and key staff should be

enclosed with the proposal.

Applications will be reviewed

competitively by a panel comprised of

members selected by BJS. The panel

will make recommendations to the

Director, BJS. Final authority to enter

into a cooperative agreement is reserved

for the Director, BJS, or his designee.

Applications will be evaluated on the

overall extent to which they respond to

the priorities and technical complexities

of the scope of work, conform to

standards of high data collection

quality, and appear to be fiscally

feasible and efficient. Applicants will be

evaluated on the basis of:

1. Familiarity with both the full report

and executive summary of the report,

Improving the Quality and Accuracy of

Bias Crime Statistics Nationally: An

Assessment of the First Ten Years of

Bias Crime Data Collection.

2. Familiarity with FBI annual

reports, Crime in the United States and

Hate Crime Statistics.

3. Knowledge of issues related to hate

crime data collection.

4. Knowledge of issues related to the

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the

69048 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

National Incident Based Reporting

System (NIBRS).

5. Experience in organizing meetings

of Federal, state, or local professionals

related to criminal justice issues.

6. Research expertise and experience

in data gathering and report writing.

7. Availability of qualified

professional and support staff and

suitable equipment for project activities.

8. Demonstrated fiscal, management

and organizational capability and

experience suitable for providing sound

data within budget and time constraints.

9. Reasonableness of estimated costs

for the total project and for individual

cost categories.

Application and Awards Process

An original and five (5) copies of a

full proposal must be submitted with SF

424 (Rev. 1988), Application for Federal

Assistance, as the cover sheet. Proposals

must be accompanied by OJP Form

7150/1, Budget Detail Worksheet; OJP

Form 4000/3 (Rev. 1–93), Assurances;

OJP Form 4061/6, Certifications

Regarding Lobbying; Debarment,

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements; and OJP Form 7120–1

(Rev. 1–93), Accounting System and

Financial Capability Questionnaire (to

be submitted by applicants who have

not previously received Federal funds

from the Office of Justice Programs). If

appropriate, applicants must complete

and submit Standard Form LLL,

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. All

applicants must sign Certified

Assurances that they are in compliance

with the Federal laws and regulations

which prohibit discrimination in any

program or activity that receives Federal

funds. To obtain appropriate forms,

contact Joyce Stanford, BJS

Administrative Assistant, at (202) 616–

3497 or go to the BJS web site at

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

apply.htm>.

The application should cover a 1-year

period with information provided for

completion of the entire project.

Proposals must include a program

narrative, detailed budget, and budget

narrative. The program narrative shall

describe activities as stated in the scope

of work and address the evaluation

criteria. The detailed budget must

provide costs including salaries of staff

involved in the project and portion of

those salaries to be paid from the award;

fringe benefits paid to each staff person;

travel costs, and supplies required to

complete the project. The budget

narrative closely follows the content of

the detailed budget. The narrative

should relate the items budgeted to the

project activities and should provide a

justification and explanation for the

budgeted items. Refer to the

aforementioned timetable when

developing the program narrative and

budget information. This award will not

be used to procure equipment for the

conduct of the study.

Dated: November 8, 2000.

Jan M. Chaiken,

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[FR Doc. 00–29090 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–37,600 and NAFTA 3998]

Trinity Industries, Incorporated, Mt.

Orab, OH; Notice of Negative

Determination on Reconsideration

On October 4, 2000, the Department

issued an Affirmative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration for the workers and

former workers of the subject firm. The

notice was published in the Federal

Register on October 18, 2000 (65 FR

62369).

The Department initially denied TAA

to workers of Trinity Industries,

Incorporated because the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ group eligibility

requirement of section 222(3) of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not

met. The Department denied NAFTA–

TAA because the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ group eligibility

requirement of section 250 was not met

and because there was no shift in

production to either Mexico or Canada.

The workers at the subject firm were

engaged in employment related to the

production of aluminum rail cars.

The petitioner asserted that imports of

rail cars contributed importantly to the

worker separations and provided

additional information which should

have been considered by the

Department in its survey of customers.

On reconsideration, the Department

surveyed additional customers of the

subject firm. The survey revealed that

no customers were purchasing imported

aluminum rail cars.

Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the

original notice of negative

determination of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance and

NAFTA–TAA for workers and former

workers of Trinity Industries,

Incorporated, Mt. Orab, Ohio.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day of

November, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–29158 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–37,906]

Automation Technology Corp., Santa

Cruz, CA; Notice of Termination of

Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on July 24, 2000, in response

to a petition filed by a company official

on behalf of workers at Automation

Technology Corp., Santa Cruz,

California.

The company official who filed the

original petition has requested that the

petition be withdrawn. Consequently,

further investigation in this case would

serve no purpose, and the investigation

has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 31th day

of October 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–29157 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–35,434]

Baker Atlas, A/K/A Western Atlas, Inc.,

A/K/A Wedge Dia-Log, Inc., Houston,

TX; Amended Notice of Revised

Determination on Remand

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a Notice of

Revised Determination on Remand on

January 4, 2000, applicable to workers

of Baker Atlas, Houston, Texas. The

notice was published in the Federal

Register on January 14, 2000 (65 FR

2434).

At the request of the State agency, the

Department reviewed the determination

for workers of the subject firm. The

workers are engaged in the exploration

and drilling of crude oil. Information

shows that in August 1998, Baker Atlas

merged with Western Atlas, Inc. which

owned Wedge Dia-Log, Inc. Information