63742 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated September 13, 1995,

as amended on November 27, 1995,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, William Madison Randall

Library, 601 S. College Road,

Wilmington, North Carolina 28403–

3297.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David C. Trimble,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–30175 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[IA 95–058]

Five Star Products, Inc. and

Construction Products Research,

Fairfield, CT and H. Nash Babcock,

Order

I

Five Star Products, Inc. (FSP), is a

company located in Fairfield,

Connecticut, and was formerly known

as U.S. Grout Corporation. FSP

manufactures and sells grout and

concrete products to the nuclear

industry and has done so for about 20

years. Through a holding company, Mr.

Babcock owns FSP and several related

businesses, including Construction

Products Research, Inc. (CPR), which

performs laboratory tests of FSP

products. Mr. Babcock is Vice-President

of FSP and President of CPR.

II

FSP submitted its grout and concrete

products to CPR for testing. Following

the tests, CPR issued certifications that

it tested FSP products in conformance

with certain specifications of the

American Society for Testing and

Materials. FSP subsequently utilized

those certifications as the basis for

certifying that its products satisfied

Appendix B and customer Purchase

Order (PO) requirements. At various

times since 1980, FSP has advertised

and represented to NRC licensees that

its products are manufactured in

accordance with the requirements of

Appendix B. It has supplied products

pursuant to purchase orders requiring

FSP to meet the requirements of

Appendix B, and 10 CFR Part 21.

Licensees who have purchased material

from FSP under FSP’s certification of

quality have used the grout and concrete

in safety-related applications and as

basic components.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC or Commission) issued 10 CFR

Part 21 (Part 21) to implement Section

206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of

1974. Part 21 imposes, inter alia,

evaluation and reporting requirements

on directors and responsible officers of

firms which supply basic components of

any facility or activity which is licensed

or otherwise regulated pursuant to the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

or the Energy Reorganization Act of

1974. Basic components are structures,

systems, or parts in which a defect or

failure to comply with applicable

requirements could create a substantial

safety hazard. 10 CFR 21.3(a). Part 21 is

implemented in conjunction with

Appendix B, which contains the quality

assurance (QA) criteria applicable to

design, fabrication, construction, and

testing of safety-related structures,

systems, and components in commercial

nuclear power plants. Together, these

requirements are intended to assure the

safety of safety-related components,

materials, and services for nuclear

power plants.

Section 206 of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974 requires

directors and responsible officers of

firms constructing, owning, operating or

supplying the basic components of a

facility or activity licensed or regulated

by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, who obtain information

regarding defects in those basic

components, or failures of basic

components, or of the facility to comply

with NRC requirements, to notify the

NRC of those defects and failures to

comply. Section 206(d) authorizes the

Commission to conduct inspections and

other enforcement activities necessary

to insure compliance with that section.

10 CFR 21.41 and 21.51 implement

Section 206(d).

III

The NRC conducts inspections of

vendors who supply safety-related

components pursuant to Appendix B

and who supply basic components

pursuant to Part 21. On August 18,

1992, the NRC began an unannounced

inspection of FSP, and of its laboratory

contractor, CPR, to determine the extent

to which FSP supplied basic

components to NRC licensees, the

adequacy of FSP’s QA Program, the

adequacy of CPR’s testing of FSP

products, and the adequacy of FSP

products.

Shortly after the inspection began, Mr.

Babcock met with the inspection team

and questioned the NRC’s authority to

conduct the inspection. Mr. Babcock

was presented with two identical letters

from the NRC staff, dated August 13,

1992, each addressed separately to FSP

and CPR. The letters outlined the NRC’s

inspection authority under 10 CFR Part

21, Section 161o of the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and

Section 206(d) of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended

(ERA). Despite this, Mr. Babcock

continued to question the NRC’s

authority and, throughout the

inspection, denied the inspectors access

to inspect CPR’s testing laboratory,

which was located in the basement of

FSP’s Fairfield, Connecticut,

headquarters, and access to inspect

CPR’s laboratory records.

During the inspection of August 18

and 19, 1992, the inspection team

reviewed NRC power reactor licensee

POs submitted to Five Star in order to

determine the scope of FSP’s nuclear

involvement. The team was provided

with POs for the period 1988 to 1992.

Those POs demonstrate that at least

seven NRC reactor licensees and one

licensee contractor had issued POs to

FSP for safety-related grout and concrete

mix products, and had specified

compliance with Appendix B and Part

21.

The inspection team reviewed copies

of several NRC licensee audit reports of

FSP and CPR. These reports

documented that NRC licensee requests

to audit CPR’s test laboratory and

records were consistently denied by

FSP. Further, several NRC licensee audit

reports found that FSP’s QA program

was not acceptable and did not meet

certain requirements of Appendix B.

The NRC inspection team requested

copies of all audits performed by FSP of

CPR to determine CPR’s compliance

with the quality assurance criteria of

Appendix B and Part 21. Only one FSP

audit of CPR was performed, by the FSP

QA Manager, and it was provided to the

NRC inspection team by the FSP QA

Manager. The July 31, 1992 audit report

concluded that CPR’s June 10, 1992 QA

program was satisfactory. The format

and most of the language of this report

were identical to a report of an audit

conducted by Toledo Edison, an NRC
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63743

Part 50 reactor licensee, of FSP’s QA

program in February 1991. The FSP QA

Manager later admitted that he had not

in fact conducted an audit of CPR, and

that he had used the Toledo Edison

audit report to fabricate the July 31,

1992 audit report of CPR.

On August 19, 1992, the second day

of the inspection, Mr. Babcock told the

inspectors to leave at the end of that day

and not return until after Labor Day. At

4:45 p.m. that day, Mr. Babcock was

presented with another letter from the

NRC staff which was witnessed by

members of the inspection team and Mr.

Henry Allen of FSP. This letter

reiterated the legal authority of the NRC

to conduct the inspection, and notified

Mr. Babcock that continued refusals to

permit inspection of FSP or CPR would

be treated as a violation of 10 CFR

21.41, could result in enforcement

action, and could be subject to treatment

as a criminal violation in accordance

with Sections 161o and 223 of the AEA.

Notwithstanding this second letter, Mr.

Babcock continued to deny the NRC

inspectors access to the CPR laboratory

and to records of the CPR laboratory.

The inspectors left the site at 5:00 pm

as Mr. Babcock had requested.

The inspection team also requested

copies of QA manuals for both FSP and

CPR which would provide the basis to

support FSP’s certifications to licensees

that its products were manufactured

under an appendix B Quality Assurance

(QA) program. Copies of these

documents were not furnished by FSP

due to Mr. Babcock’s suspension of

further inspection activities.

As a result of FSP’s and Mr. Babcock’s

curtailing the inspection, the inspection

team was unable to review the

implementation of FSP’s QA Program

against licensee PO’s or to inspect CPR’s

testing of FSP’s grout and concrete mix

products, and thus was unable to

determine whether those products were

produced, tested and provided in

compliance with appendix B and part

21. Therefore, the NRC staff could not

determine whether there was reasonable

assurance that those FSP grout and

concrete mix products were acceptable

for use in safety-related applications in

nuclear power plants.

Shortly thereafter, the NRC obtained a

federal criminal search warrant, which

was executed on September 1, 1992.

Certain documents and testimonial

evidence were taken.

Additionally, the NRC Office of

Investigations conducted an

investigation of the allegations leading

to and the events surrounding the

inspection. (OI Case No. 1–92–037).

During the course of the OI

investigation, Mr. Babcock instructed

his attorney to forward to the NRC a

letter dated February 18, 1994, which

Mr. Babcock had composed and signed.

The attorney forwarded the letter, in

which Mr. Babcock stated: ‘‘We did not

deny the NRC inspectors access to the

laboratory in August 1992. Mr. John S.

Ma, a civil engineer on the NRC

inspection team, was escorted to the lab

where he conducted an inspection of

the test laboratory.’’ As indicated above,

and as known to Mr. Babcock, no NRC

inspectors were allowed in the

laboratory at any time during the August

1992 inspection and, therefore, the

statement concerning Mr. Ma’s access to

and inspection of the CPR laboratory is

deliberately false. The letter was

material because it provided incorrect

information to the NRC on a matter that

was under investigation.

IV

Based on the facts discussed above,

the NRC concludes that the following

violations of NRC requirements

occurred:

A. 10 CFR 50.5, ‘‘Deliberate

misconduct’’ prohibits any contractor

(including a supplier or consultant),

subcontractor, or any employee of a

contractor or subcontractor who

knowingly provides to any licensee,

contractor, or subcontractor,

components, equipment, materials, or

other goods or services, that relate to a

licensee’s activities subject to this part,

from deliberately submitting to the NRC,

a licensee, or a licensee’s contractor or

subcontractor, information that the

person submitting the information

knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in

some respect material to the NRC.

Contrary to the above, the Quality

Assurance Manager of Five Star

Products, and Five Star Products

through its Quality Assurance Manager,

prepared an audit report for Five Star

Products of the Construction Products

Research QA Program, dated July 31,

1992, without conducting an audit of

Construction Products Research, and

provided that audit report to NRC

inspectors during an inspection of Five

Star Products on August 18–19, 1992,

knowing that no such audit had been

conducted. This audit report was

material to the NRC because it was

capable of influencing its determination

of whether the Construction Products

Research QA Program complied with

appendix B, and 10 CFR part 21

requirements.

B. Contrary to 10 CFR 50.5, Mr. H.

Nash Babcock, the Vice President of

Five Star Products, Inc. and the

President of Construction Products

Research, prepared and caused to be

sent to the NRC a letter, in which Mr.

Babcock stated that one NRC inspector

had been allowed to and did in fact

inspect the laboratory test facility of

Construction Products Research on

August 19, 1992. In fact, as Mr. Babcock

knew, no NRC inspector was permitted

to inspect the laboratory facilities of

Construction Products Research during

the August 18–19, 1992 inspection. The

letter was material to the NRC because

it provided information directly related

to a matter under investigation by the

NRC, specifically, whether Mr. Babcock

had deliberately denied NRC inspectors

access to the Construction Products

Research test facility in violation of NRC

requirements.

C. 10 CFR 21.41 requires that each

individual, corporation, partnership or

other entity subject to the regulations in

part 21 shall permit duly authorized

representatives of the Commission to

inspect its records, premises, activities,

and basic components as necessary to

effectuate the purposes of part 21.

10 CFR 21.51(b) requires, in part, that

each individual, corporation,

partnership or other entity subject to the

regulations in part 21 must afford the

Commission, at all reasonable times, the

opportunity to inspect records

pertaining to basic components.

Contrary to the above, on August 18

and 19, 1992, Five Star Products, Inc.,

through H. Nash Babcock, Vice

President of Five Star Products, and

Construction Products Research, Inc.,

through H. Nash Babcock, President of

Construction Products Research, denied

NRC inspectors access necessary to

conduct an inspection of Five Star

Products’ contracted laboratory test

facility, Construction Products

Research, for, and of Construction

Products Research records of test data

associated with, safety-related grout and

concrete mix products sold by Five Star

Products to nuclear power plants

licensed under 10 CFR part 50, pursuant

to purchase orders specifying

compliance with appendix B and 10

CFR part 21. Mr. Babcock also refused

to allow NRC inspectors reasonable

access to CPR laboratory personnel. By

terminating the inspection, Mr. Babcock

also prevented NRC inspectors from

completing their examination of Five

Star records.

V

The NRC and its licensees must be

able to rely on licensee contractors and

officers of licensee contractors,

including providers of safety-related

basic components such as Five Star

Products, Inc., and suppliers of services

associated with basic components, such

as Construction Products Research, Inc.,

to comply with NRC requirements,
63744 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

1This does not prohibit FSP from supplying

commercial grade materials to NRC licensees, or

CPR from testing and certifying commercial grade

materials to NRC licensees, provided that no

representations are made with regard to FSP

products being qualified for safety-related

applications in nuclear power plants based on

compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, or

that 10 CFR Part 21 requirements have been met.

including the requirements to provide

accurate and complete information in

all material respects and the

requirements to permit inspection of

their records, premises, activities and

components. Five Star Products’ and

Mr. H. Nash Babcock’s violations of 10

CFR 21.41, 21.51(b), and 50.5

demonstrate that Five Star Products and

its Vice President, Mr. Babcock, are

unable or unwilling to comply with

NRC requirements to permit inspections

and to provide complete and accurate

information to the NRC in all material

respects. In addition, they did not

permit NRC licensees access to CPR’s

facilities in order to conduct necessary

audits. Construction Products

Research’s and Mr. Babcock’s violation

of 10 CFR 21.41, 21.51(b), and 50.5

demonstrate that Construction Products

Research and its President, Mr. Babcock,

are unable or unwilling to comply with

NRC requirements to permit inspections

by the NRC or its licensees and to

provide complete and accurate

information to the NRC in all material

respects. Consequently, I lack the

requisite reasonable assurance that the

NRC and NRC licensees can rely on the

statements or certifications of Five Star

Products, Inc., Construction Products

Research, Inc., or Mr. H. Nash Babcock,

that basic components of Five Star

Products, Inc. or associated services of

Construction Products Research, Inc.

meet NRC requirements necessary to

protect public health and safety.

Therefore, I find that the public health,

safety, and interest require that Five Star

Products, Inc., Construction Products

Research, Inc. and Mr. Babcock (1) be

prohibited from providing structures,

systems, and components subject to a

procurement contract specifying

compliance with Appendix B, or basic

components subject to a procurement

contract specifying compliance with 10

CFR Part 21, and (2) must respond to

this Order and take certain other actions

if they desire to provide such products

to NRC licensees who specify that they

must meet the requirements of

Appendix B, or 10 CFR Part 21 1.

VI

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, Section 206 of the Energy

Reorganization Act, as amended, and

the Commission’s regulations at 10 CFR

2.202, 10 CFR Parts 21 and 50, and 10

CFR 50.5, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

THAT:

1. Until Five Star Products, Inc.,

Construction Products Research, Inc., H.

Nash Babcock, and any concern which

is owned, controlled, operated or

managed by H. Nash Babcock, satisfy

the provisions of paragraph 2., below,

they are prohibited from:

A. providing or supplying structures,

systems, or components, including grout

and concrete, subject to a procurement

contract specifying compliance with

Appendix B; and

B. providing or supplying basic

components, including grout and

concrete, subject to a procurement

contract specifying that the contract is

subject to the requirements of 10 CFR

Part 21;

2.A. If Five Star Products, Inc.,

Construction Products Research Inc., or

any concern owned, controlled,

operated or managed by H. Nash

Babcock, desires to lift the prohibition

specified in paragraph 1, above, then

Five Star Products, Inc., Construction

Products Research, Inc., H. Nash

Babcock or the concern owned,

controlled, operated, or managed by H.

Nash Babcock, shall, at least 90 days

prior to the date it desires to have the

prohibition lifted:

(1) Advise the NRC of that intent in

writing;

(2) Respond in writing under oath or

affirmation specifically as to each of the

violations listed in Section IV,

including: (a) An admission or denial of

the alleged violation, (b) the reasons for

the violation if admitted, and if denied,

the reasons why, (c) the corrective steps

that have been taken and the results

achieved, (d) the corrective steps that

will be taken to avoid further violations,

and (e) the date when full compliance

will be achieved;

(3) Agree in writing, under oath or

affirmation, and in fact, to permit the

NRC, NRC licensees, and contractors

performing QA functions for such

licensees, to inspect the records,

premises, basic components and

activities of Five Star Products, Inc., of

Construction Products Research, Inc., or

of any concern owned, controlled,

operated or managed by H. Nash

Babcock that desires to provide safety

related products or basic components,

or to perform tests to support claims

that those products or components and

those testing services meet the standards

of Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21, and

to signify in writing a willingness to do

so in the future;

(4) Agree in writing under oath or

affirmation to demonstrate and in fact to

demonstrate that those basic

components and services associated

with basic components meet the

standards of Appendix B by having tests

performed by an independent third

party and having that third party

provide copies of the results of those

tests directly to the NRC; and

(5) The officers, managers, and

supervisors of Five Star Products, Inc.

and Construction Products Research,

Inc. provide statements that they

understand that the activities and

records of the organization are subject to

NRC inspection, that communications

with the NRC must be complete and

accurate, and that any employee may

provide information to the NRC at any

time without fear of retribution; and

B. When all conditions of paragraph

2.A. above have been satisfied, and the

NRC has conducted inspections of the

QA program and Part 21 program of

Five Star Products, Inc., Constructions

Products Research, Inc., and any

concern owned, controlled, operated, or

managed by H. Nash Babcock, and any

necessary corrective action has been

completed, the prohibition of paragraph

1, above, will be lifted in writing.

The Director, Office of Enforcement,

may, in writing, relax or rescind any of

the above conditions upon

demonstration by Five Star Products,

Inc., Construction Products Research,

Inc., and Mr. H. Nash Babcock of good

cause.

VII

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202,

Five Star Products, Inc., Construction

Products Research, Inc., and H. Nash

Babcock, or any other person adversely

affected by the Order, may submit an

answer to this Order, and may request

a hearing on this Order, within 20 days

of the date of this Order. The answer

may consent to this Order. Unless the

answer consents to this Order, the

answer shall, in writing and under oath

or affirmation, specifically admit or

deny each allegation or charge made in

this Order and shall set forth the matters

of fact and law on which Five Star

Products, Inc., Construction Products

Research, Inc., and H. Nash Babcock,

and any other person adversely affected

relies and the reasons as to why the

Order should not have been issued. Any

answer or request for a hearing shall be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Attn: Chief,

Docketing and Service Section,

Washington, DC 20555. Copies also

shall be sent to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington DC 20555, to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63745

the Assistant General Counsel for

Hearings and Enforcement and the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, both at the same address. If

a person other than Five Star Products,

Inc., Construction Products Research,

Inc., or H. Nash Babcock requests a

hearing, that person shall set forth with

particularity the manner in which his or

her interest is adversely affected by this

Order and shall address the criteria set

forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by Five Star

Products, Inc., Construction Products

Research, Inc., H. Nash Babcock, or any

other person whose interest is adversely

affected, the Commission will issue an

Order designating the time and place of

any hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Order should be

sustained. In the absence of any request

for hearing, the provisions specified in

Section VI above shall be effective and

final 20 days from the date of this Order

without further order or proceedings.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day

of December 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James L. Milhoan,

Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, Regional Operations and

Research.

[FR Doc. 95–30174 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL POLICY

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas;

Availability of Funds

AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control

Policy.

ACTION: Notice of funds availability.

SUMMARY: Public Law 102–393 directs

the Office of National Drug Control

Policy (ONDCP) to transfer certain funds

to Federal, State and local drug control

entities in connection with the High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)

program. The purpose of this

announcement is to communicate to

potential applicants the policies and

procedures that are used in

administering the program. This

announcement parallels requirements of

the HIDTA Program Guidance which is

issued annually to the HIDTA Directors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

HIDTA Director in your area as follows:

Houston (and a surrounding area that

includes Harris County, Galveston

County, and all municipalities

therein). Stan Furce (713) 567–9331.

Miami (and a surrounding area that

includes Broward County, Dade

County, Monroe County, and all

municipalities therein). Doug Hughes

(305) 597–2091.

New York City (and a surrounding area

that includes Nassau County, Suffolk

County, and Westchester County,

New York and all municipalities

therein; and Union County, Hudson

County, Essex County, Bergen County,

and Passaic County, New Jersey, and

all the municipalities therein). Harry

Brady (212) 385–6980.

Los Angeles (and a surrounding area

that includes Los Angeles County,

Orange County, Riverside County, and

San Bernardino County, and all

municipalities therein). Roger Bass

(213) 894–1868.

Washington D.C./Baltimore (and a

surrounding area that includes

Baltimore County, Howard County,

Anne Arundel County, Prince Georges

County, Montgomery County, and

Charles County, Maryland and all the

municipalities therein; and

Washington, D.C.; and Arlington

County, Alexandria County, Fairfax

County, Prince William County, and

Loudoun County, Virginia, and all the

municipalities therein). Tom Carr

(301) 489–1777.

Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands, Bill Lindley

(809) 766–5656.

The Southwest Border (and adjacent

areas that include:

San Diego County and Imperial County,

California, and all the municipalities

therein;

Yuma County, Marcopia County, Pinal

County, Pima County, Santa Cruz

County, and Cochise County, Arizona,

and all the municipalities therein;

Bernalillo County, Hidalgo County,

Grant County, Luna County, Dona

Ana County, Eddy County, Lea

County, and Otero County, New

Mexico, and all the municipalities

therein;

El Paso County, Hudspeth County,

Culberson County, Jeff Davis County,

Presidio County, Brewster County,

Pecos County, Terrell County, and

Crockett County, Texas, and all the

municipalities therein;

Bexar County, Val Verde County,

Kinney County, Maverick County,

Zavala County, Dimmit County, La

Salle County, Webb County, Zapata

County, Jim Hogg County, Starr

County, Hildago County, Willacy

County, and Cameron County, Texas,

and all the municipalities therein).

Dennis Usrey (619) 557–6850.

Chicago, Illinois—Mark Prosperi (312)

886–7855.

Atlanta, Georgia—Zenford Mitchell

(404) 730–9359.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and

Camden, New Jersey—Dave Webb

(215) 451–5450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ONDCP

hereby announces its policies and

application procedures for funds

available under Public Law 102–393 to

state and local drug control entities for

drug control activities consistent with

the approved strategy for each HIDTA.

Eligible Applicants

Public Law 100–690, Nov. 18, 1988,

authorized the Director of ONDCP to

designate areas meeting certain criteria

as HIDTAs. Houston, Los Angeles,

Miami, New York and the Southwest

Border were so designated as part of the

1990 National Drug Control Strategy. In

1994 Washington/Baltimore and Puerto

Rico/Virgin Islands were also

designated. Chicago, Atlanta and

Philadelphia/Camden were designated

Empowerment HIDTAs in 1995.

Federal, State and local law

enforcement agencies located within the

specific geographical areas outlined in

the National Drug Control Strategy are

eligible to apply for funds under this

notice.

Program Objective

The goal of the HIDTA program is to

reduce drug trafficking. The primary

objective is to severely disrupt and

dismantle drug and money laundering

organizations operating in and through

the HIDTAs. In concert with Federally

led HIDTA initiatives, State and local

proposals focus on joint local, State and

Federal law enforcement efforts that

target major drug organizations that

support the international organizations

and cartels. Funds must be used strictly

for implementing an approved joint

HIDTA strategy. The funds cannot be

used to supplant existing support for

ongoing State or local drug control

operations, which should be funded out

of the agencies’ normal operating

budgets.

Available Funds

At least $55.0 million is available for

State and local participation in the

HIDTAs.

Application Procedures

Each applicant must submit a written

joint proposal and cooperative

agreement application to the HIDTA

Director in the respective HIDTA. A

majority, if not all, of the transfers may

be in the form of cooperative

agreements. The proposals must include

a written statement of the purpose,

scope and measurable objective of the

initiative; a narrative of the

implementation plan; administrative