27324 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Notices

which specifies to the grantee the

amount of money awarded, the

purposes of the grant, and terms and

conditions of the grant award.

Dated: May 17, 1995.

Felicia H. Stewart,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–12556 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–17–M

ADVISORY COMMISSION ON

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Proposed Criteria for Reviewing and

Making Recommendations on Federal

Mandates

ACTION: Notice of proposed criteria.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) is

soliciting public comments on its

proposed criteria for investigating and

reviewing existing federal mandates and

formulating recommendations to

modify, suspend, or terminate specific

mandates on State, local, or Tribal

governments.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Philip M. Dearborn, Director,

Government Finance Research, ACIR,

800 K Street NW., Suite 450 South,

Washington, DC 20575.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Dearborn at 202/653–5538.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR, 42

U.S.C. 4271) is charged in Sec. 302 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 67) with

investigating and reviewing the role of

Federal mandates in intergovernmental

relations and formulating

recommendations to modify, suspend,

or terminate specific mandates on State,

local, or Tribal governments.

Section 302 defines ‘‘Federal

mandate’’ very broadly for the purposes

of the ACIR review as ‘‘any provision in

statute or regulation or any Federal

court ruling that imposes an enforceable

duty on State, local, or Tribal

governments including a condition of

Federal assistance or a duty arising from

participation in a voluntary Federal

program.’’

ACIR will select for in-depth review

those Federal mandates generally

recognized as creating significant

concerns within the intergovernmental

system. In accordance with Public Law

104–4, ACIR will give review priority to

mandates that are subject to judicial

proceedings in Federal courts. To

formulate its recommendations, ACIR

will evaluate each mandate to determine

the specific conditions causing concern.

The Commission will make the final

decisions about which mandates it will

review based on two types of criteria:

(1) Those that provide a basis for

identifying mandates of significant

concern; and

(2) Those that provide a basis for

formulating recommendations to

modify, suspend, or terminate specific

mandates that are of concern.

Criteria for Identifying Mandates of

Significant Concern

In general, Federal mandates will be

selected for intensive review if they

have one or more of the following

characteristics:

1. The mandate requires State, local,

or Tribal governments to expend

substantial amounts to their own

resources in a manner that significantly

distorts their spending priorities. This

addresses mandates that require more

than incidental amounts of spending. It

will not include all Federal mandates

that require governments to spend

money.

2. The mandate establishes terms or

conditions for Federal assistance in a

program or activity in which State,

local, or Tribal governments have little

discretion over whether or not to

participate. This will include mandates

in entitlements and discretionary

programs. It will exclude conditions of

grants in small categorical programs that

are distributed on the basis of annual or

periodic applications and that are

received only by a limited number of

governments.

3. The mandates abridges historic

powers of State, local, or Tribal

governments, the exercise of which

would not adversely affect other

jurisdictions. This will include

mandates that have an impact on

internal State, local, and Tribal

government affairs related to issues not

widely acknowledged as being of

national concern and for which the

absence of the mandate would not

create adverse spillover effects.

4. The mandate imposes compliance

requirements that make it difficult or

impossible for State, local, and Tribal

governments to implement.

Implementation delays, issuance of

court orders, or assessment of fines may

be indicative of mandate requirements

that go beyond State, local, or Tribal

fiscal resources, or administrative or

technological capacity, after reasonable

efforts at compliance have been made.

5. The mandate has been the subject

of widespread objections and

complaints by State and local

governments and their representatives.

This will include mandates that are

based on problems of national scope,

but are not federally funded.

Criteria for Formulating

Recommendations

ACIR will investigate the specific

characteristics of each mandate causing

significant concern in order to formulate

a recommendation to modify, suspend,

or terminate the mandate. For purposes

of formulating such recommendations,

ACIR will focus on specific provisions

in laws, regulations, or court orders.

When a mandate affects a State or

local program that directly competes

with a comparable private sector

activity, ACIR will consider the effects

on both the government and private

sector in making its recommendation.

ACIR also will consider (1) impacts of

mandates on working men and women

and (2) mandates for utilization of

metric systems.

ACIR will investigate each mandate

selected for intensive review to

determine whether or not they have one

or more of the following characteristics:

1. Federal Intrusion

• Requirements are not based on

demonstrated national needs.

• Requirements are related to issues

not widely recognized as national

concerns or as being within the

appropriate scope of Federal activities.

• Requirements are based on

problems of national scope, but which

State, local, or Tribal governments have

been able or willing to solve effectively,

either independently or through

voluntary cooperation.

• Requirements are based on

problems of national scope, but are not

federally funded.

These mandates should be terminated

or modified to express non-binding

national guidelines. In some instances,

the basis provision could be retained in

Federal law, but compliance could be

made voluntary.

2. Unnecessarily Rigid

• Provisions do not permit

adjustments to the circumstances or

needs of individual jurisdictions.

• Provisions restrict flexibility to use

less costly or less onerous alternative

procedures to achieve the goal of the

mandate.

• Provisions do not allow

governments to set implementation or

compliance priorities and schedules,

taking into account risk analysis,

greatest benefit, or other factors.

These mandates should be modified

to provide options, waivers, or

exemptions, or be terminated.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Notices 27325

3. Unnecessarily Complex

• Requirements are unnecessarily

detailed and difficult to understand.

• Provisions are too process specific

rather than results oriented.

These mandates should be simplified,

clarified, or otherwise revised to

facilitate understanding and

implementation, or be terminated.

4. Unclear Goals or Standards

• Goals or standards are too vague,

confusing, or poorly written to permit

clear or consistent implementation of

requirements or measurement of results.

These goals or standards should be

rewritten or the mandate should be

terminated.

5. Contradictory or Inconsistent

• Provisions in one mandate may

make it difficult or impossible to

comply with other provisions in the

same or other Federal, State, local, or

Tribal laws.

• Requirements use conflicting and

confusing definitions and standards.

These mandates should be modified to

bring conflicting requirements into

conformance. In some instances, it may

be appropriate to terminate one or all of

the requirements. Where possible,

common definitions and standards

should be used, especially in planning

and reporting requirements.

6. Duplicative

• Provisions in two or more Federal

mandates may have the same general

goals but require different actions for

compliance.

These mandates could be terminated,

consolidated, to modified or facilitate

compliance.

7. Obsolete

• Provisions were enacted when

conditions or needs were different or

before existing technologies were

available.

• Provisions have been superseded by

later requirements.

These mandates should be modified

to reflect current conditions or existing

technology. If a mandate is no longer

necessary or has been superseded, it

should be terminated.

8. Inadequate Scientific Basis

• Provisions were enacted based on

inadequate or inconclusive scientific

research or knowledge.

• Provisions are not based on current,

peer-reviewed scientific research.

• Provisions are not justified by risk

assessment or cost-benefit.

These mandates should be terminated

or modified to reflect current science. In

some cases, suspension of the mandate

may be appropriate to provide time for

additional research.

9. Lacking in Practical Value

• Requirements do not achieve the

intended results.

• Requirements are perceived by

citizens as unnecessary, insignificant, or

ineffective, thereby producing

credibility problems for governments.

• Requirements have high costs

relative to the importance of the issue.

These mandates should be evaluated

to determine whether or not they are

effective. If they cannot be shown to be

effective and worthy of public support,

they should be terminated. If they are

effective, it still may be appropriate to

suspend the mandates to allow time for

public education and consensus

building on their value.

10. Resource Demands Exceed Capacity

• Requirements for compliance

exceed State, local, and Tribal

governments’ fiscal, administrative,

and/or technological capacity.

These mandates should be terminated

or modified to reduce compliance

problems, or assistance could be

provided to upgrade capacity. In some

instances, compliance schedule

extensions or exemptions may be

appropriate.

11. Compounds Fiscal Difficulties

• Compliance with the requirements

of any one mandate or with multiple

mandates compounds fiscal difficulties

of governmental jurisdictions that are

experiencing fiscal stress.

In these situations, certain of the

mandates affecting the jurisdictions—

exclusive of those that are vital to public

health or safety—should be considered

for partial or total suspension until the

government experiencing fiscal stress is

able to comply. The conditions

triggering consideration of such

suspensions should include:

a. Governments faced with costs

dramatically out of line with their

revenue bases, as determined by

comparisons with other similar

governments that are complying; or

b. Governments that are experiencing

severe fiscal distress for reasons not

immediately within their control. There

should be some definitive evidence of

severe problems, such as State

receivership, State declaration of

distress, Chapter 9 bankruptcy, or a debt

rating below investment grade. This

should not include annual budget

balancing problems.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

William E. Davis III,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–12591 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5500–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AK–962–1410–00–P; AA–10968]

Alaska Native Claims Selection

In accordance with Departmental

regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is

hereby given that a decision to issue

conveyance under the provisions of

Section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act of December 18,

1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(h), will be

issued to Chugach Alaska Corporation

for 0.10 acre. The land involved is in the

vicinity of Long Bay, Alaska.

U.S. Survey No. 6935, Alaska.

A notice of the decision will be

published once a week, for four (4)

consecutive weeks, in the Anchorage

Daily News. Copies of the decision may

be obtained by contacting the Alaska

State Office of the Bureau of Land

Management, 222 West Seventh

Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513–

7599 ((907) 271–5960).

Any party claiming a property interest

which is adversely affected by the

decision, an agency of the Federal

government or regional corporation,

shall have until June 22, 1995 to file an

appeal. However, parties receiving

service by certified mail shall have 30

days from the date of receipt to file an

appeal. Appeals must be filed in the

Bureau of Land Management at the

address identified above, where the

requirements for filing an appeal may be

obtained. Parties who do not file an

appeal in accordance with the

requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart

E, shall be deemed to have waived their

rights.

Margaret J. McDaniel,

Acting Chief, Branch of Gulf Rim

Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 95–12558 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P

National Park Service

Environmental Assessment for

Proposed M.J. Murdock Aviation

Center and Proposed Master Plan

Amendment for Fort Vancouver

National Historic Site, Washington

ACTION: Notice of availability of

environmental assessment.