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• Provisions have been superseded by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necessary or has been superseded, it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.