Methamphetamine

Interagency

Task Force

Federal Advisory Committee

Final Report

January 2000

Foreword

The Methamphetamine Interagency Task Forcewas established in 1996 in response to a provi-sion of the Comprehensive MethamphetamineControl Act. The legislation directed theAttorney General to convene a group of Federaland non-Federal experts from the fields of lawenforcement, prevention, education, and treat-ment to conduct a review of existing efforts toconfront the problems caused by methampheta-mine and to make recommendations aboutwhat more should be done.

In assembling the MethamphetamineInteragency Task Force, the Attorney Generaldrew together national leaders with vast experi-ence in their fields. Joined by representatives offour members of the President's Cabinet, theseexperts have conducted a thorough analysis andreview of what is being done to respond to thethreat of methamphetamine, what we alreadyknow that can help guide future efforts, andwhat remains to be learned. This distinguishedpanel has focused considerable expertise andwisdom on the issue of synthetic stimulantssuch as methamphetamine. Their work carriesthe weight of experience that spans disciplinesand professions. We are confident that theresults of their work will serve as a solid founda-tion as we move forward on this issue.

This report represents the 2-year effort of theTask Force, presenting the principles that haveguided the Task Force in its deliberations; therecommendations of the Task Force in the areasof prevention, education, treatment, and lawenforcement; and the research needs discoveredby the Task Force through its deliberations.

In developing this report, the Task Force hassought input from a host of experts at the

Federal, State, and local levels. The Task Forcehas benefited from briefings and presentationsby officials from the Drug EnforcementAdministration, the National Institute on DrugAbuse, the National Institute of Justice, theU.S. Department of Education, and theSubstance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration. In addition, the Task Force hasattended two community forum meetings, onein Omaha, Nebraska, and one in San Diego,California. These meetings, organized by thelocal communities, have helped provide a realis-tic context for the discussions and deliberationsof the Task Force.

In November 1999, the Task Force hosted asummit at which national stakeholders repre-senting prevention, education, treatment, andlaw enforcement provided their feedback andrecommendations on how to implement theTask Force's recommendations. The themes thatparticipants generated during that meeting areincorporated into the final section of the report.

The Task Force is grateful to the many experts,agencies, and organizations representing health,education, law enforcement, and other disciplineswho have generously contributed their ideas tothis multidisciplinary effort. We hope that read-ers of this report who are involved in efforts toaddress methamphetamine as well as other drugswill benefit from this information.

Jeremy TravisDirectorNational Institute of Justice

Donald R. Vereen, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.Deputy DirectorOffice of National Drug Control Policy

Table of Contents

Forewordiii

PartiExecutive Summary. 1

Part IIPrevention and Education 5

Part IIITreatment 9

Part IVLaw Enforcement 13

PartVImplementation Themes 17

Part VIConclusion 19

Appendix ATask Force Members 21

Appendix BChronology 25

Appendix CFederal Register Announcement 29

Part IExecutive Summary

Methamphetamine is a synthetic psychostimu-lant that produces intoxication, dependence, andpsychosis. Methamphetamine has mood-alteringeffects, behavioral effects such as increased activi-ty and decreased appetite, and a high lasting 8 to24 hours. Although there is an initial generalsense of well-being, methamphetamine use hasbeen associated with both long- and short-termproblems such as brain damage, cognitiveimpairment and memory loss, stroke, paranoia,anorexia, hyperthermia, hepatitis, HIV trans-mission, and violence.

Methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug, avail-able only through a highly restricted prescrip-tion procedure. Medical uses include treatmentfor narcolepsy, attention deficit disorder, andobesity.

A number of indicators—including metham-phetamine laboratory seizure data and arrest datafrom the U.S. Department of Justice and datafrom the National Institute on Drug Abuse'sCommunity Epidemiology Work Group andMulti-Site Assessment of MethamphetamineUse—clearly show that methamphetamine useis spreading throughout the United States.Historically, its use has been concentrated pri-marily in the West and Southwest. However,since the early 1990s, methamphetamine gradu-ally has been moving into the Midwest andSouth. The drug is manufactured and distributedby Mexican sources using established drug traf-ficking routes; domestic clandestine laboratoriesare another significant source. Now, metham-

phetamine is used throughout most major met-ropolitan areas, less in the Northeast.

Of particular concern, methamphetamineuse is emerging in cities and rural settingspreviously thought to be largely unaffected byillicit drug use and is increasing among popula-tions not previously known to use this drug.Methamphetamine use is a particularly seriousproblem in some rural areas, many of which lackthe infrastructures necessary to deal with a majordrug problem. For example, many rural jurisdic-tions do not have local treatment providers orthe expertise to respond to methamphetamineabusers. Similarly, law enforcement officials inrural areas lack the training and financialresources to deal with laboratory cleanup costsassociated with the methamphetamine manufac-turing in their communities.

The Methamphetamine Interagency TaskForce was authorized by the ComprehensiveMethamphetamine Control Act of 1996 inresponse to the emergence of widespreadmethamphetamine use. (The Act addressedthree major areas: strengthening law enforce-ment initiatives; tightening regulatory powers,particularly those addressing the precursorchemicals used to produce methamphetamine;and mandating research and education initia-tives.) Cochaired by the Attorney General andthe Director of the Office of National DrugControl Policy, the Task Force's purpose is toexamine the impact of methamphetamine andother synthetic stimulants in the United States

and to evaluate, design, and implement Federalstrategies for methamphetamine treatment,prevention, and education and for law enforce-ment. The Task Force recognizes that metham-phetamine differs from other drugs of abuseand intends that its work serve as a model foran improved and faster response to future drugepidemics.

Methamphetamine poses a particular problembecause it can be produced in clandestine labo-ratories using over-the-counter drugs, house-hold products, and other readily availablechemicals. These laboratories are subject to ahigh risk of explosion, causing fires and releas-ing toxic gases. For this reason, methampheta-mine presents major fire and public safetythreats, in addition to health threats to users.

During the course of its work, the Task Forceexplored the history, the current state, and thefuture of the methamphetamine problem in theUnited States, ultimately providing guidancefor a national plan to combat it. The group metfour times. The first meeting was held in May1998 in Washington, D.C., and the agenda wascomposed of reviews of current methampheta-mine-related issues to provide a baseline ofknowledge about the methamphetamine prob-lem. The event featured presentations byresearchers, practitioners, and others. The sec-ond meeting, at which members looked at theperspectives of people confronting metham-phetamine locally, was held in October 1998 inOmaha, Nebraska. The third meeting, held inMay 1999 in San Diego, California, focused onreviewing the Task Force's official report toensure that it reflected the substance as well asthe nuances of the principles Task Force mem-bers believed should guide discussions on deal-ing with methamphetamine use. In addition,the Task Force developed a set of workingpapers on Federal activities dealing withmethamphetamine. (All materials produced bythe Task Force are part of the public record and

are available for review.) The final meeting,held in Washington, D.C., in November 1999,convened national, State, and local stakeholdersfrom a variety of disciplines to provide inputto the Task Force on how to implement itsrecommendations.

While much more must be learned aboutmethamphetamine, the Task Force has exam-ined available data and information; unfortu-nately, much of what exists is anecdotal andpreliminary in scope. The findings derived fromthis examination have, in turn, provided thefoundation for this report. Some of the keyconcepts the Task Force used to guide its pro-ceedings include the following!

• Methamphetamine is a dangerous, addictivedrug, and the population of users is not welldefined and is expanding.

• There is a lack of data about the prevalenceof methamphetamine use and abuse.

• There is no single source country orsingle specific trafficking route formethamphetamine.

• The clandestine laboratories where metham-phetamine is produced domestically posesignificant hazards to law enforcement offi-cials, nearby residents, and, through environ-mental hazards, the general public.

• Methamphetamine can be destructive to thehuman body, affecting neurological, behav-ioral, and psychological functioning longafter use has stopped.

• The precursor chemicals used to producemethamphetamine are relatively inexpensive,widely available, easy to transport, and diffi-cult to regulate.

• Episodes of violent behavior have been asso-ciated with methamphetamine use.

• There is a general lack of public understand-ing about methamphetamine, including itsrisks and consequences, requiring publiceducation efforts.

• Information for treatment providers oneffective strategies has not been disseminatedas widely as necessary and has not been dis-seminated effectively to all of the variousproviders involved with methamphetamineabusers.

• Methamphetamine abuse in rural and subur-ban areas presents a challenge for treatmentproviders in terms of resources and training.

Using its study of the methamphetamine phe-nomenon and such key concepts as these as astarting point, the Task Force has developed a setof principles, needs and recommendations, andresearch priorities to inform future efforts toimplement a national strategy for methampheta-mine prevention, education, treatment, and lawenforcement. Intentionally excluded from thisreport is an indepth consideration of strategies tocontrol precursor chemicals. The Task Force wasinformed that the U.S. Department of Justice isreviewing precursor chemicals, and the TaskForce opted to exclude this from its deliberationsto avoid redundancy.

An opportunity now exists to make a significantimpact on methamphetamine activity in theUnited States. Immediate action is necessary to

prevent the damaging effects of methampheta-mine by stopping the spread of its use.

For additional information on methampheta-mine and the resources to address its use, visitthe Web sites listed below:

White House Office of National DrugControl Policyhttp://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Programhttp;//www.adam-nij .net/adam

Center for Substance Abuse Treatmenthttp ://www. samhsa.gov/csat

Center for Substance Abuse Preventionhttp ://www. samhsa.gov/csap

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programhttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Drug-Free Communities Programhttp://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/drugfree.html

National Institute on Drug Abusehttp://www.nida.nih.gov

National Clearinghouse on Alcoholand Drug Informationhttp ://www. health. org

Drug Enforcement Administrationhttp ://www. usdoj .gov/dea

Part IIPrevention and Education

Effective drug prevention programs are longterm, comprehensive, and designed to preventuse of any category of illicit drugs. Theyinclude a wide array of components rather thana single strategy or curriculum. For example, acomprehensive, community-based preventionprogram includes components for individuals,families, schools, the media, health careproviders, law enforcement officials, and othercommunity agencies and organizations.

Prevention programs should be geared to spe-cific audiences and should recognize the specif-ic needs, resource levels, and infrastructure ofeach community. In the case of methampheta-mine, demographic data collection is incom-plete, but current information shows thatmethamphetamine users include more whitesand females and on average are older than otherdrug users. The Task Force recognizes thatmethamphetamine is changing the populationof drug users; as the demographics of userschange, prevention and education effortsshould be tailored accordingly.

The most effective school and communityprevention programs are comprehensive andinvolve a broad range of components, includingteaching social competence and drug resistanceskills, promoting positive peer influences andantidrug social norms, emphasizing skills-training teaching methods, and providingmultiple years of intervention.

In addition, research-based approaches forimplementing drug prevention programsinclude targeting salient risk and protective fac-tors in the specific community, using principlesof prevention research, and using a provenprevention program. Research has shown thatmethamphetamine users are generally exposedto elevated levels of risk factors. Programs tar-geting risk and protective factors seek to reducerisk factors and enhance protective factors. Riskfactors include, but are not limited to, the avail-ability of drugs, low neighborhood attachmentand community disorganization, family conflictand management problems, favorable parentalattitudes toward and involvement in substanceabuse, early and antisocial behavior, academicfailure beginning in late elementary school,friends who engage in substance abuse, andearly initiation in substance abuse. Protectivefactors include, but are not limited to, familyand school bonds, healthy beliefs and expecta-tions, and social and academic competence.

In order to target the average age of onset ofdrug use, a comprehensive, school-based pre-vention program should engage children fromkindergarten through high school, or at leastthrough the middle school or junior highschool years. School-based programs should notonly involve parents, but should also collabo-rate with community organizations and pro-grams. Similarly, a comprehensive communityprevention program is long term, involves

different segments of the community in devel-opment and implementation, and is accessibleto various audiences. Ideally, community pre-vention programs should include cross-discipli-nary training so that prevention and education,treatment, and law enforcement officials canshare their knowledge and build stronger programs.

If the initiation of any drug use, includingmethamphetamine use, can be prevented byusing a proven prevention program, how dopractitioners, policymakers, and communitymembers develop such a program? Moremethamphetamine research is needed, includ-ing research on the initiation to and progres-sion of use. Although research exists on whatworks with respect to primary drug preventionprograms, more information is needed aboutprograms that include methamphetamine in thetargeted drug categories. Identification of suchprograms and evaluation of the extent to whichthey have had a specific impact on metham-phetamine use are also needed. Researchers alsoneed more data on methamphetamine users,including demographics and ethnography, theirmotivations, and the risk factors that lead touse of methamphetamine and other drugs. Inparticular, specific data on methamphetamineuse among adolescents are needed, such as theirmotivations, risk factors, and attitudes towardmethamphetamine use.

Meeting methamphetamine research needspresents the opportunity to develop better sys-tems for data collection. Researchers can usewhat has been and will be learned from thisexperience to continue to modify existing sys-tems and incorporate new tools for gatheringinformation.

Following are the guiding principles related toprevention and education.

Guiding Principles

Effective drug prevention requires theinvolvement of many segments of the com-munity—e.g., educators, youths, parents,law enforcement officials, business leaders,members of the faith community, socialservices providers, and representatives ofother community agencies and organizations.Effective prevention programs are comprehen-sive—e.g., involving the individual, families,schools, the media, law enforcement officials,health care providers, other professionals whodirectly serve youths, and community agenciesand organizations. The program componentsshould be well integrated in theme and contentso they reinforce one another.

Methamphetamine prevention and educationefforts should follow established preventionprinciples and should be part of broaderprevention and education efforts that targetall forms of drug use.Basic drug use prevention principles derivedfrom research can be applied by schools andcommunities to successfully prevent drug use.Prevention activities should target all forms ofdrug use, including the use of tobacco, alcohol,marijuana, and inhalants.

It is important to clearly identify targetpopulations, motivations, risk factors, anddemographics to design prevention and edu-cation strategies that are tailored to addressthe specific needs of local communities,recognizing the multigenerational character-istics associated with methamphetaminemanufacturing.Prevention programs should be age-specific,developm en tally appropriate, and culturallysensitive. Also, they need to be tailored to meetthe needs of specific subpopulations at risk fordrug use and designed to address the specificnature of the drug use problem in any given

community, including workplace programs thatincorporate awareness, testing, and treatmentcomponents. The higher the target population'slevel of risk, the more intensive the preventioneffort must be and the earlier it must begin.

Prevention and education programs should beguided by research and evaluation findings.More than 20 years of prevention research hashelped identify factors that put young peopleat risk for or protect them from drug use.Researchers have studied the effectiveness of var-ious prevention approaches by using rigorousresearch designs and testing and implementingeffective drug use prevention interventions in"real-world" settings. By applying prior research,local school officials and community leaders canincrease the probability that their preventionefforts will be successful.

Prevention and education programs shouldbe evaluated to determine effectiveness.Prevention programs should follow structuredorganizational plans that progress from needsassessment to the establishment of measurableobjectives; periodic evaluation of progresstoward meeting the objectives; and, finally, theuse of evaluation results to refine, improve, andstrengthen the programs.

Parents and other adults should participatein any prevention or education programsdesigned for youths.Prevention programs that focus on youthsshould include a parents' or caregivers' compo-nent that reinforces what the youths are learn-ing—such as what they perceive to be thepersonal consequences of drug use (one charac-teristic of methamphetamine seems to be thelack of perceived negative effects)—and thatopens opportunities for family discussionsabout the use of legal and illegal substances andfamily policies about their use. Prevention pro-grams can enhance protective factors amongyoung children by teaching parents about betterfamily communication, discipline, rulemaking,

and other parenting skills. Research has shownthat parents should take an active role in theirchildren's lives: talking with them about drugs,monitoring their activities, knowing theirfriends, and understanding their problems andpersonal concerns.

Community methamphetamine effortsshould target both youths and new adultusers.Community prevention programs shouldinclude both youths and adults in a compre-hensive strategy that involves the whole com-munity. Youths should be involved in designingprograms.

Needs and Recommendations

Following are needs and recommendationsrelated to prevention and education programs,based on the previous guiding principles:

• Address methamphetamine through broad-based drug prevention and education effortsthat target all forms of drug use and that arebased on research and established preventionprinciples.

• Develop science-based prevention programplanning and intervention guidelines incommunities where methamphetamine isalready a problem.

• Involve the entire community in preventionefforts, including educators, youths, parents,vendors of the materials used in the manu-facture of methamphetamine, law enforce-ment officials, business leaders, members

of the faith community, social servicesproviders, and representatives of other gov-ernment agencies and organizations.

• Identify the changing population characteris-tics of users, their motivations, risk factors,and demographics.

• Involve parents and other adults in preven-tion and education programs for youths,particularly in the areas of monitoring forlatchkey status children, enhancing parent-child communication skills, and providingconsistent family/home rules for youths'behavior and leisure time activities.

• Ensure that media campaigns proceed withcaution, focusing on raising awareness ofmethamphetamine using messages designedto minimize unintended effects, such asarousing curiosity about methamphetamine.

• Develop or augment programs aimed at edu-cating those communities in which metham-phetamine is an emerging or chronicproblem.

Research Priorities

Following are the priorities for research initia-tives to raise knowledge about prevention andeducation strategies:

• Examine existing methamphetamine preven-tion and education strategies that are includ-ed in broad prevention programs targetingall forms of drug use and determine theextent to which they have been effective.

• Support research on the initiation to metham-phetamine use as well as the progression ofuse leading to addiction.

• Collect additional data on the extent ofmethamphetamine use, focusing on a num-ber of areas (e.g., adolescent use, prevalencein rural and tribal areas) and continue todevelop and build on existing databases, mak-ing them more sensitive to local communities.

Part IIITreatment

Effective and readily available treatment is rec-ognized as a necessary tool in reducing sub-stance abuse. However, a number of obstaclesexist in treating methamphetamine abusers—inparticular, limited access, funding, professionaltraining, and research. For example, many ofthe rural areas affected by methamphetaminedo not have any local substance abuse treat-ment providers, and those that exist generallydo not have adequate funding or expertise.

In addition, simply engaging methampheta-mine abusers into treatment is a problem, aspreliminary information reports that they mayabuse the drug for a much longer period beforeentering treatment than persons abusing mostother drugs. Methamphetamine abusers may beslower to enter treatment because the healthcare systems in communities affected bymethamphetamine are often ill suited to prop-erly diagnose and meet the treatment needs ofmethamphetamine abusers. For example, inmany rural communities, medical and mentalhealth staff may be inadequately trained to rec-ognize and deliver effective methamphetamine-relevant treatment interventions.

When methamphetamine abusers do entertreatment, they encounter a variety of physicaland mental health issues, many related to thebiological effects of methamphetamine on thebrain. Withdrawal symptoms, lasting between2 days and 2 weeks, include depression, fatigue,anxiety, anergia, drug craving, and severe cogni-

tive impairment. Also, research shows that pro-tracted brain dysfunction persists for monthsafter methamphetamine use stops. Other clinicalissues include continuing paranoia, hypersexu-ality, irritability, drug craving in response toconditioned cues, and violence.

While methamphetamine-specific approachesto treatment are rare, some successes have beenseen. For instance, science-based behavioral andpsychological approaches have shown greatpromise—many of these were developed totreat cocaine abusers but have been adapted tomethamphetamine abusers. In addition, a pro-gram of medication discovery and developmentis being conducted to produce pharmacothera-pies treating methamphetamine abusers.Following are the guiding principles related totreatment recommended by the Task Force.

Guiding Principles

Treatment must be guided by research.Treatment of methamphetamine abusers shouldbe guided by research findings. For circum-stances in which there is no existing researchevidence, treatment recommendations shouldbe developed through a consensus processcombining the opinions of professionals fromresearch and clinical domains.

Research must be disseminated to treatmentproviders in a manner that ensures that effect-ive or evaluated best practices are adopted.

While the United States has made greatprogress in drug treatment research, thisresearch has not been consistently disseminatedto and implemented by providers.

Methamphetamine treatment should be con-ducted by individuals with knowledge ofmethamphetamine, its use, and its abuse.Treatment of methamphetamine abusers shouldbe conducted by individuals who have accurateknowledge of the effects of methamphetamineabuse and how these effects impact treatmentand recovery.

Treatment of methamphetamine abusersshould address their specific needs.Treatment strategies should incorporate andreflect the unique problems facing metham-phetamine abusers during their recovery,including the mental health issues oftenproduced by methamphetamine abuse.

Treatment should be provided as part of acomprehensive continuum of care.To ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiencyof treatment, methamphetamine abusers musthave access to a full continuum of care. In addi-tion, treatment should include case manage-ment and links to primary care and mentalhealth services, as appropriate. Treatmentshould also be culturally appropriate andencourage the participation of family membersand others close to the abuser.

With proper resources and appropriatelytrained providers, treatment provided withinthe criminal justice system is effective.Scientific studies demonstrate that appropriate-ly treating incarcerated addicts reduces theirlater drug abuse by between 50 and 70 percentand their later criminality and resulting re-arrests by between 50 and 60 percent.

Treatment for parents is a form of preventionfor children.Research has shown that parental influence is amajor factor in children's drug abuse patterns.Treatment programs for parents enhance pro-

tective factors among young children by remov-ing them from a drug-taking environment andby teaching parents skills for avoiding drugabuse.

Treatment for methamphetamine abusersshould address the needs of groups that areparticularly at risk.Methamphetamine has impacted a number ofspecific population groups to a disproportionatedegree according to anecdotal reports; therefore,treatment for methamphetamine abusers shouldconsider the needs of severely impacted groups.

Treatment in rural areas of the country posesparticular problems.In rural areas, access to and availability ofhealth care in general and substance abusetreatment in particular are problematic. Forexample, geographical distances betweenproviders and those in need of services, the lackof continuing training for providers, and theneed for residential treatment all contribute tothe problem.

Needs and Recommendations

Following are needs and recommendations foraction based on the previous guiding principles!

• Increase the methamphetamine treatmentcapacity in the community and in correc-tional facilities.

• Increase treatment access by providinghealth insurance parity for substance abusetreatment.

• Increase treatment resources to address suffi-ciently the protracted recovery period ofmethamphetamine abusers in treatment.(Research suggests that methamphetaminetreatment must be of a sufficient duration toaddress adequately the extended timetable ofmethamphetamine recovery.)

• Provide effective outreach services to individ-uals in need of treatment.

• Train and encourage mental health andmedical professionals to identify and refermethamphetamine abusers to appropriatetreatment settings.

• Ensure that the service delivery systemincludes a comprehensive continuum of carethat meets the specific needs of metham-phetamine abusers.

• Increase the ability of publicly funded treat-ment systems to respond rapidly to emergingdrug problems, particularly in underservedrural areas.

• Develop methamphetamine treatmentguidelines.

• Facilitate the adoption of effective research-based approaches to the treatment ofmethamphetamine abuse through such meth-ods as disseminating existing research find-ings and training clinicians and supervisors.

• Fund and evaluate models of methampheta-mine treatment that employ empiricallysupported treatment strategies adapted forspecific high-priority target populations.

• Ensure followup services for abusers who arereleased from prisons and jails.

• Increase resources for drug court participa-tion by methamphetamine abusers.

Research Priorities

Following are the priorities for research initia-tives to increase the volume and quality ofknowledge about methamphetamine treatment:

• Support research that helps tailor establishedscience-based behavioral and psychological

treatment strategies to methamphetamineabusers and the development and testingof new, innovative models of treatmentfor methamphetamine addiction anddependence.

• Support further research in medica-tions development to address suchissues as methamphetamine overdose,methamphetamine-induced psychosis,withdrawal dysphoria, protracted symptomsthat contribute to relapse, and neurologicaland neurocognitive damage.

• Conduct research that advances the under-standing of methamphetamine, particularlyits effects on pregnant women, treatment ofexposed infants, reasons why abusers tend touse for long periods (in some cases, 5 to 7years) before entering treatment, strategies forengaging abusers in treatment earlier, and thecognitive disability manifested in abusers.

• Conduct research on and evaluations of treat-ment programs for children and adolescents.

• Conduct research that contributes to anunderstanding of how methamphetamineacts on individual nerve cells, neurotransmit-ters, and brain structures.

• Conduct research on which models of drugcourts work best and which models of prisonand followup treatment programs are mostcost effective for methamphetamine abusers.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of methampheta-mine treatment programs on an ongoingbasis.

Part IVLaw Enforcement

Because the law enforcement response is an inte-gral part of any drug use prevention and educa-tion strategy, it must be interwoven with theoverall response to methamphetamine. Also, justas usage of methamphetamine and other syn-thetic drugs varies significantly from communityto community (e.g., one community is in anintroductory stage while another is in a maturestage where use is prevalent), the law enforce-ment response must vary accordingly to be effec-tive. Strong law enforcement responses can helpcurb markets and supply: They can restrict usageand compel users to seek treatment.

Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories area serious threat to community safety. The labo-ratories that produce methamphetamine poseparticular dangers to law enforcement staff,requiring special training, equipment, andaid from agencies accustomed to dealing withchemical hazards, such as the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency or hazardous materi-als teams. Data from the Drug EnforcementAdministration show that most seized laborato-ries produce only small amounts of the drug.Only 4 percent of laboratories produce morethan 80 percent of methamphetamine. Most ofthese "superlabs"—those that are able to pro-duce 10 pounds of methamphetamine in 24hours—are located in California. However, thesmaller laboratories, which are often in ruralareas, also pose many safety and health hazards.

Another area of concern is the environmentaldangers to children who have either beenexposed to clandestine laboratories or metham-phetamine dealers. When children are found ata clandestine laboratory scene, law enforcementofficers must consider issues such as the needfor physical examinations, involvement of childprotection agencies, and documentation ofchild endangerment. Law enforcement officialsshould recognize that their work may createnew demands on social services agencies.

Stronger laws to provide for control of precur-sor chemicals are a prime ingredient to curbingproduction. Research that includes furthercommunity-level ethnographic studies is neededto answer questions on the effectiveness of spe-cific strategies and to build databases for inter-vention analysis. Evaluations of tactics andsupport for replicating best practices are alsoneeded.

Perhaps the most critical role of law enforce-ment in the fight against methamphetamineproduction and use is that of gatekeepers of thecriminal justice processes of arrest, prosecution,incarceration, and court-mandated conditions ofprobation and parole, used to distinguish usersand addicts from dealers and producers. As anintegral part of these systems, law enforcementmust function in a comprehensive response tomethamphetamine use. Law enforcement and

criminal justice must be linked to community-wide drug prevention efforts targeting youthsand families in rural as well as urban communi-ties. They must be attentive to issues of access totreatment (both community-based and correc-tions-based) , and they must provide the meas-ured criminal justice sanctions that will helpdrug abusers seek treatment, achieve successfultreatment outcomes, and maintain abstinencefollowing treatment and reentry. Following arethe guiding principles for law enforcementresponses to methamphetamine.

Guiding Principles

Law enforcement measures must be part ofthe overall response to methamphetamine.Law enforcement agencies must be a centralcomponent in a community's comprehensive,coordinated, and integrated response tomethamphetamine. In addition to its otherimportant social functions, law enforcement is acritical part of both the prevention and educa-tion and the treatment components of an inte-grated strategy to address methamphetamine.Rural communities, in which methampheta-mine manufacture and use are growing prob-lems, pose special challenges. Limited lawenforcement resources tend to be stretched thinalready. As a result, rural law enforcement agen-cies often have difficulties dealing with arresteesrequiring detoxification and other services, aswell as with the environmental and safety prob-lems associated with clandestine laboratories.

Communities have different kinds ofmethamphetamine problems, requiringdifferent solutions.Communities vary in how methamphetamineproblems manifest themselves. These variationsmake necessary locally based responses in whichlaw enforcement, criminal justice, and otherefforts are sensitive to the unique and shiftingtraits of the local community and the metham-phetamine problem. Some communities have

serious methamphetamine problems, while inothers the problem is less prominent. Lawenforcement agencies' focus for communities"on the verge" of a serious problem must bedifferent from those already "in the grip" ofmethamphetamine use. In addition, communi-ties differ in how methamphetamine is intro-duced and popularized and in how it isproduced and distributed.

Law enforcement agencies can help prevent amethamphetamine problem that is just arriv-ing or has not yet arrived.In communities on the verge of incurring a sig-nificant methamphetamine problem, the mosteffective community response will incorporatepreemptive activities by law enforcement agen-cies. These activities, undertaken early in theemergence of a community's methamphetamineproblems, will greatly increase the community'sresistence to the drug and can help it delay,reduce, or altogether avoid threats to safety andhealth, which would otherwise be imperiled bymore pervasive methamphetamine use. In thisway, swift law enforcement activities are part ofprevention and education efforts for communi-ties on the verge.

Strong law enforcement supervision coercesmethamphetamine users into treatment.In communities in the grip of a serious andwidespread methamphetamine problem, themost effective community response will incor-porate criminal justice sanctions and contingen-cies, enforced by police and the courts, thatcompel methamphetamine users to stop theirdrug use and seek treatment. Using coercivecontingencies linked to treatment is an effectivelaw enforcement strategy and holds great prom-ise for sustainable reductions in methampheta-mine use in communities where use of the drugis pervasive or well established.

Traditional law enforcement policies shouldbe pursued; the constant threat of arrestdisrupts methamphetamine markets.

Traditional law enforcement strategies, frominterventions at the street level to disruption ofmajor trafficking organizations, are also impor-tant in limiting supply. Directing efforts atmajor organizations focuses limited Federal lawenforcement resources at supply chokepointsand entails investigations and coordination withother countries and within the United Statesbetween all levels and components of lawenforcement agencies. Vigilance against low-level traffickers can deter some persons fromentering or continuing in the drug market, canreduce street-level violence, and responds tocommunities' legitimate expectation that themore visible elements of drug trafficking becurtailed.

Police must have the resources to complywith mandates on training and equipmentfor seizing and dismantling clandestinelaboratories.Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories cre-ate special problems for law enforcement becausecapturing and destroying them is more complexand hazardous than for other drug-productionfacilities. The chemicals used to make metham-phetamine are volatile, flammable, and toxic,and are often stored and used in a makeshift,haphazard fashion. Methamphetamine laborato-ries literally can explode without warning,endangering anyone in the vicinity. Because ofthese dangers, the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration has mandated that policeofficers and other responders receive training andwear special equipment before entering a situa-tion involving a clandestine laboratory. Lawenforcement agencies must receive resources tosupport the mandated special training andequipment to handle, contain, and dispose ofdangerous substances while still performingtraditional law enforcement functions.

Laws and regulations to control the supplyof the chemicals used to manufacturemethamphetamine should be implementedand enforced.

Control of precursor chemicals—domesticallyand internationally—continues to be a proac-tive, cost-effective law enforcement strategy.Wherever possible, preventing the manufactureof methamphetamine through effective controlof precursor chemicals helps free law enforce-ment and other resources that can be used toaddress a more comprehensive strategy ofcommunity safety.

Needs and Recommendations

Following are needs and recommendations formethamphetamine-related law enforcementefforts based on the previous guiding principles:

• Improve information sharing across jurisdic-tions (e.g., develop existing intelligence sys-tems that encompass Federal, State, and localpartners; fix responsibility for data collec-tion; standardize definitions; enhance dis-semination efforts).

• Increase information sharing among agencies(e.g., involve treatment providers, educators,law enforcement officers).

• Expand collaborations with social servicesagencies and public health officials, particu-larly in situations involving clandestinelaboratories.

• Facilitate law enforcement and otherresearch-based interventions by promotingearly detection and warning systems thatidentify emerging methamphetamine andother synthetic drug problems.

• Establish ongoing drug monitoring systemsat the local, regional, and national levels.

• Link law enforcement activities to othercriminal justice efforts, especially the judicialsystem. Use sanctions to combat existing andpervasive methamphetamine use throughsuch mechanisms as comprehensive drugtesting, the diversion into treatment of

arrestees who test positive, the implementa-tion of drug courts, and the use of graduatedsanctions and enforced abstinence to com-plement treatment efforts.

• Invest resources in law enforcement training,such as expanding existing efforts in policetraining on how to seize methamphetaminelaboratories and further developing laborato-ry cleanup hazard education programs forboth law enforcement agencies and entirecommunities.

• Increase outreach efforts (e.g., training ven-dors of products used to produce metham-phetamine, neighborhood residents, andlandlords; developing problem-solving andcommunity policing activities; and collabo-rating with community- and school-basedprevention and education activities).

Research Priorities

Following are the priorities for research initiativeson law enforcement and methamphetamine:

• Conduct comparative evaluation studies toassess the relative efficacy of enforcement,treatment, and hybrid strategies.

• Support long-term studies of methampheta-mine use that have a national scope.

• Build sensitive local data systems that pro-vide a means of measuring, tracking, andassessing the impact of specific law enforce-ment efforts and other interventions.

• Conduct community-level ethnographicstudies to reveal the nature and characteris-tics of local drug markets and drug use pat-terns, particularly in rural and suburbanareas.

• Conduct evaluation studies of preemptive lawenforcement efforts early in the developmentof methamphetamine markets to determinethe methods that merit replication.

• Study further the safety hazards of metham-phetamine production, particularly hazardsto children who are exposed to methamphet-amine laboratories.

Part VImplementation Themes

The statute creating the Task Force charged thegroup with implementing a national strategy toaddress methamphetamine; however, there wereno appropriations to implement such a strategy.The Task Force therefore offers the implemen-tation themes contained in this advisory reportto the Attorney General and the Director of theOffice of National Drug Control Policy, whomay then charge executive branch agencies withexecuting the themes as they see fit.

The Task Force's final meeting in November1999 was dedicated to discussing implementa-tion issues. The Task Force convened a group ofnational stakeholders representing each of thedisciplines covered in this report. Consistentwith the Task Force's guiding principle that aneffective strategy must include all levels of gov-ernment working together, the 1 -day discussionwas structured to focus on how to implement anational response rather than merely a Federalresponse. Participants voiced a wide array ofideas regarding the role of the FederalGovernment in a national strategy to addressmethamphetamine. In most cases, neither thestakeholders nor the Task Force members madeany attempt to delineate specific executivebranch organizations to execute the recommen-dations contained in this section.

To ensure a consistent Federal response tomethamphetamine across the country andover time, it is essential to clearly define theadministrative responsibility for coordinating

resources. Each year, ONDCP publishes aNational Drug Control Strategy (NationalStrategy), a long-term plan to change Americanattitudes and behavior with regard to illegaldrugs. ONDCP should integrate the Task Forcerecommendations into the National Strategyand evaluate them within the framework of thecurrent performance measure of effectivenesslogic model. Including the recommendationsin the National Strategy will support an intera-gency planning process and ensure that sufficientresources are allocated to efforts to addressmethamphetamine.

During the final Task Force meeting, a numberof themes emerged regarding promising ways inwhich Federal agencies could provide servicesto communities to assist them in addressingmethamphetamine. Implementation themesincluded the following:

• Encourage U.S. Attorneys or other locallybased Federal officials to take a leadershiprole in forming local task forces or initiatinglocal discussions or calls to action, particu-larly in the area of enforcement.

• Promote multidisciplinary approaches andpartnerships among prevention, education,treatment, and law enforcement agencies atthe Federal, State, and local levels.

• Fund research directly relevant to communi-ty needs.

• Use Federal funding to leverage partnershipsat the local level or to provide direct supportto existing community-based coalitions.

• Disseminate information about effectivestrategies being implemented across thecountry as well as the most current research.

• Facilitate "lateral learning" among commu-nities grappling with similar methampheta-mine problems by sponsoring mentor sites.

A second set of implementation themes thatemerged dealt specifically with how Federalagencies should respond to emerging drugcrises in a timely manner. Recommendationsincluded the following!

• Provide direct assistance to communitiesduring a crisis in the form of money,expertise, or technical assistance. Discussionparticipants suggested creating a FederalEmergency Management Agency-like, "one-stop shopping" model that would enable acommunity to access prevention, education,treatment, and law enforcement resources onshort notice during a crisis.

• Establish early warning systems to identifyemerging drug trends during the initialstages of their development and to guidestrategic resource allocation.

• Develop and disseminate to communities aresource guide containing comprehensiveinformation on prevention, education,treatment, and law enforcement resourcesavailable.

A final set of implementation themes specifical-ly addressed the challenges associated withaddressing methamphetamine and other illicitdrugs in rural America. Recommendationsincluded the following:

• Create data-collection methods that are sen-sitive to drug trends in rural jurisdictions.

• Close the treatment gap in rural jurisdictionsby funding additional treatment slots.

• Encourage Federal agencies to explore cre-ative ways to use current technology such astelemedicine to disseminate information oneducation, prevention, and treatment pro-grams to rural areas.

Part VIConclusion

The findings presented here represent the firststeps toward a comprehensive national actionplan for limiting future methamphetamine useand dealing with the effects of current use. Thisreport provides a blueprint for expanding currentknowledge to develop an informed scientificallybased strategy for dealing with methamphetamineuse in the United States. Implementation of theTask Force's recommendations will test theprinciples contained in this document and will

provide additional opportunities for learning.As communities proceed with implementation,they should refine their strategies based on theirown experiences and on the experiences ofother communities facing methamphetamineproblems. Lessons learned from addressingmethamphetamine may apply to other illicitdrugs or more broadly to other safety issuesconfronting communities.

Appendix ATask Force Members

Jeremy Travis, CochairDirectorNational Institute of JusticeU.S. Department of Justice810 Seventh Street N.W.Room 7422Washington, DC 20531Phone: 202-307-2942Fax: 202-307-6394

Donald R. Vereen, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., Cochaii1

Deputy DirectorOffice of National Drug Control Policy750 17th Street N.W.Room 856Washington, DC 20503Phone: 202-395-6645Fax: 202-395-5663

Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D.Professor/Associate DirectorSocial Development Research GroupSchool of Social WorkUniversity of Washington9725 Third Avenue N.E.Suite 401Seattle, WA 98115Phone: 206-543-6742Fax: 206-543-4507

Nelba Chavez, Ph.D.2

AdministratorSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services

AdministrationU.S. Department of Health and Human

Services5600 Fishers LaneRoom 12-105Rockville, MD 20857Phone: 301-443-4795Fax: 301-443-0284

Joseph P. D'AlessandroState Attorney20th Judicial Circuit of FloridaP.O. Box 399Fort Myers, FL 33902Phone: 941-335-2703Fax: 941-335-2787

Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D.3

DirectorNational Institute on Drug AbuseU.S. Department of Health and Human

Services6001 Executive BoulevardRoom 5274, MSC 9851Bethesda, MD 20892-9851Phone: 301-443-6480Fax: 301-443-9127

William Modzeleski4

DirectorSafe and Drug-Free Schools ProgramU.S. Department of Education400 Maryland Avenue S.W.Room 3E 314Washington, DC 20202Phone: 202-260-1856Fax: 202-260-7767

Thomas J. MonaghanU.S. AttorneyU.S. Attorney's OfficeDistrict of NebraskaU.S. Department of JusticeP.O. Box 1228DTSOmaha, NE 68101-1228Phone: 402-221-4774Fax: 402-221-4757

James A. O'Hara, IIPDeputy Assistant Secretary for HealthOffice of Public Health and ScienceU.S. Department of Health and Human

Services200 Independence Avenue S.W.Room 716GWashington, DC 20201Phone: 202-690-7694Fax: 202-690-6960

Mary Ann Pentz, Ph.D.ProfessorDepartment of Preventive Medicine NOR,

MS-44Institute for Prevention ResearchUniversity of Southern California1441 Eastlake AvenueP.O. Box 33800Los Angeles, CA 90033-0800Phone: 323-865-0327Fax: 323-865-0134

Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D.President and Chair of the BoardMatrix Center10350 Santa Monica BoulevardSuite 330Los Angeles, CA 90025Phone: 310-785-9666Fax: 310-785-9165

Peter Reuter, Ph.D.ProfessorSchool of Public Affairs and Department of

Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of Maryland1117 Van Munching HallCollege Park, MD 20742Phone: 301-405-6367Fax: 301-403-4675

Joseph Samuels, Jr.Chief of Police

Richmond Police Department

401 27th Street

Richmond, CA 94804

Phone: 510-620-6655Fax: 510-620-6880

Catherine H. Shaw6

Chief

Office of Congressional and Public Affairs

Drug Enforcement Administration

700 Army-Navy Drive

Room 12238

Arlington, VA 22202

Phone: 202-307-7363Fax: 202-307-4778

William A. Vega, Ph.D.Professor of Psychiatry

Associate Director, Institute for Quality,

Research, and Training

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

University of Medicine and Dentistry of

New Jersey

335 George Street, Liberty Plaza

Third Floor

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Phone: 732-235-9281Fax: 732-235-9293

1. Dr. Hoover Adger, Jr., former Deputy Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, was cochair at the time ofthe May 1998 Task Force meeting.

2. Dr. Camille Barry, Acting Director, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, served as an alternate for Dr. Chavez atthe May 1998 Task Force meeting and the October 1998 meeting; H.R. Sampson, Director, Division of State andCommunity Assistance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was an alternate at the May 1999 meet-ing; and Stephen Wing, Policy Analyst, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, was an alter-nate at the November 1999 meeting.

3. Dr. Richard Millstein, Deputy Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), served as an alternate for Dr.Leshner at the May 1998 Task Force meeting; Dr. Timothy Condon, Associate Director, NIDA, was an alternate atthe October 1998, May 1999, and November 1999 meetings.

4. Dr. Stephen England, White House Fellow, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education,served as an alternate for Mr. Modzeleski at the May 1999 Task Force meeting.

5. Christine Cichetti, Drug Policy Advisor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, served as an alternate forMr. O'Hara at the May 1999 meeting and later replaced Mr. O'Hara as a Task Force member.

6. Robert Dey, Chief, Demand Reduction Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, served as an alternate forMs. Shaw at the October 1998 and May 1999 meetings.

Appendix BChronology

May 4-5, 1998

Task Force meeting is held in Washington, D.C.

Speakers:Janet Reno, Attorney General, U.S.

Department of JusticeBarry McCaffrey, Director, Office of National

Drug Control Policy

Jeremy Travis, Director, National Institute ofJustice

Hoover Adger, Jr., Deputy Director, Office ofNational Drug Control Policy

Camille Barry, Acting Director, Center forSubstance Abuse Treatment

Andrea Baruchin, Chief of Science Policy,National Institute on Drug Abuse

Nelson Cooney, President, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America

Guy Hargreaves, Special Agent, DrugEnforcement Administration

Karol Kumpfer, Director, Center for SubstanceAbuse Prevention

Alan Levitt, Senior Advisor, Office of NationalDrug Control Policy

Harry Matz, Trial Attorney, U.S. Departmentof Justice

Richard Millstein, Deputy Director, NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse

William Modzeleski, Director, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program

Mary Ann Pentz, Professor, University ofSouthern California

Joseph Samuels, Jr., Chief, Oakland(California) Police Department

Frank Vocci, Medications DevelopmentDirector, National Institute on Drug Abuse

Topics:Federal Advisory Committee ActComprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act

of 1996Purposes of the Methamphetamine Interagency

Task ForcePharmacology of MethamphetamineDemographics and EpidemiologyLaw Enforcement: Trafficking, Clandestine

Laboratories, and Precursor ControlPrevention and EducationTreatmentTask Force Process and Objectives

October 5, 1998

Staff Report on the May 1998 meeting of theTask Force is released.

October 5, 1998

Omaha Community Forum on Metham-phetamine is held independently from theTask Force meeting to allow local constituentgroups to comment on the methamphetamineproblem in the Midwest.

October 5-6, 1998

Task Force meeting is held in Omaha,Nebraska.

Speakers:Bob Kerrey, U.S. Senator

Jeremy Travis, Director, National Institute ofJustice

Donald Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director, Office ofNational Drug Control Policy

Ken Carter, Chairperson of the ExecutiveBoard, Midwest High Intensity DrugTrafficking Area

Allen Curtis, Executive Director, NebraskaCommission on Law Enforcement andCriminal Justice

James O'Hara III, Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Health, U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services

John Pankonin, Supervisory Special Agent,Federal Bureau of Investigation

Richard Rawson, President, Matrix CenterJack Riley, Director, Arrestee Drug Abuse

Monitoring Program, National Institute ofJustice

Joseph Samuels, Jr., Chief, Oakland(California) Police Department

Judith Tymeson-Barnes, Program ServicesDirector, Douglas County (Nebraska) DrugCourt

William Vega, Director, Metropolitan Researchand Policy Institute, University of Texas atSan Antonio

Topics:Review of Proceedings From the May MeetingPresentations on the Local SituationThe National Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring

(ADAM) Program Report and the NebraskaADAM Project: Methamphetamine UseAmong Arrestees

Review of Past Recommendations and CurrentActivities for the Prevention and EducationCategory

Review of Past Recommendations and CurrentActivities for the Treatment Category

Review of Past Recommendations and CurrentActivities for the Research Category

Review of Past Recommendations and CurrentActivities for the Law Enforcement Category

Summary and Review of Meeting Accomplish-ments, Development of Plans for Next Steps,and Concluding Remarks

January 1999

Staff Report on the October 1998 meeting ofthe Task Force is released.

May 4, 1999

Town Hall Meeting: A Focus on Methamphet-amine, sponsored by the County of San DiegoMethamphetamine Strike Force in cooperationwith the National Institute of Justice, is heldindependently from the Task Force meeting toallow local constituent groups to comment onthe methamphetamine problem in the Midwest.

May 4-5, 1999

Task Force meeting is held in San Diego,California.

Speakers:Jeremy Travis, Director, National Institute of

JusticeDonald Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director, Office of

National Drug Control Policy

Gail Beaumont, Senior Education ProgramSpecialist, Safe and Drug-Free SchoolsProgram

Veh Bezdikian, Social Science Analyst, Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services

Jack Drown, Undersheriff, San Diego CountySheriff's Department

Thomas Feucht, Director, Crime Control andPrevention Division, National Institute ofJustice

Robert K. Ross, Director, San Diego CountyHealth and Human Services Agency

Greg Vega, U.S. Attorney, Southern District ofCalifornia

Stephen Wing, Policy Analyst, Substance Abuseand Mental Health Services Administration

Topics:Overview of the Draft Task Force Report to the

Attorney GeneralReview of the Introduction Section, Draft

ReportReview of the Treatment Section, Draft ReportReview of the Prevention and Education

Section, Draft ReportReview of the Law Enforcement Section, Draft

ReportReview of Proposed Appendixes, Draft ReportReview of the Conclusions/Implementation

Section, Draft ReportNext Steps

Topics:Role of the Federal Government in Helping

Communities Forge PartnershipsRole of the Federal Government in Responding

to Drug CrisesAddressing Methamphetamine in Rural

America

November 30, 1999

Meeting Report on the May 1999 meeting ofthe Task Force is released.

November 30, 1999

Task Force meeting and National Town HallMeeting on Methamphetamine is held inWashington, D.C.

Speakers:Brent Coles, Mayor, Boise, IdahoBarry McCaffrey, Director, Office of National

Drug Control PolicyJanet Reno, Attorney General, U.S.

Department of Justice

Appendix CFederal Register Announcement

1978 Federal Register / Vol. 63. No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 199 / Notices

at the Presidio. Copies of the policy canbe obtained from: General Manager,Presidio Project Office. Golden GateNational Recreation Area, Building 102.Montgomery Street, Presidio of SanFrancisco, San Francisco. CA 94129-0022. Telephone: (415) 561-4482.

Dated; December 19. 1997.B.J. Griffin (Ms),General Manager, Presidio of San Francisco,Golden Gate National Recreation Area.[FR Doc. 98-718 Filed 1-12-98; 8:45 amiBILLING CODE 4310-70-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[OJP(NIJM14G]

Methamphetamine Interagency TaskForce

AGENCY: Justice.ACTION: Notice of establishment of theMethamphetamine Interagency TaskForce.

SUMMARY: In accordance with theprovisions of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act. and section 501 of theComprehensive MethamphetamineControl Act of 1996, the AttorneyGeneral is establishing theMethamphetamine Interagency TaskForce ("Task Force").FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cherise Fanno. National Institute ofJustice. 810 7th St., N.W.. Washington.D.C. 20004. Telephone (202) 616-9021.Facsimile: (202) 307-6394. E-mail:fanno@ojp.Lisdoj.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheMethamphetamine Interagency TaskForce is responsible for "designing,implementing, and evaluating theeducation, prevention, and treatmentpractices and strategies of the Federalgovernment with respect tomethamphetamine and other syntheticstimulants."

The Task Farce will have fourteenmembers. The Attorney General and theDirector of the Office of National DrugControl Policy will serve as honoraryco-chairpersons. In her absence, theAttorney General will designate achairperson of the Task Force. Othermembers include the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) (or adesignee); the Secretary of Education (ora designee); two members selected bythe Secretary of HHS; two membersfrom state and local enforcementagencies: two members from theDepartment of Justice: and fivenongovernmental experts, all selectedby the Attorney General.

The following charter has beenapproved by the Attorney General:

Chapter for the MethamphetamineInteragency Task Force

A. Official Designation

The comprehensiveMethamphetamine Control Act of 1996("the Act") requires the AttorneyGeneral or her designee to chair aMethamphetamine Interagency TaskForce ("theTask Force").

6. Objectives and Scope of Activity

The Task Force is responsible fordesigning, implementing and evaluatingthe education, prevention and treatmentpractices and strategies of the FederalGovernment with respect tomethamphetamine and other syntheticstimulants. More specifically, the TaskForce shall have the following generalduties:

1. Evaluate current practices andstrategies of the Federal Government ineducation, prevention and treatment formethamphetamine and other syntheticstimulants.

2. If it is deemed appropriate andbeneficial to modify current methods,recommend improved models foreducation, prevention and treatment.

3. Identify appropriate governmentcomponents and resources to implementTask Force recommendations.

The Task Force shall consider, whereappropriate, strategies and practices ofstate and local governments and non-governmental entities as well as of theFederal Government.

C. Reporting

The Task Force shall report to theAttorney General of the United States orthe Attorney Generals designee. Copiesof such reports shall be supplied to theSecretary of Health and HumanServices, or the Secretary's designee,and to the Secretary of Education, or theSecretary's designees.

D. Support Services

The National Institute of Justice of theOffice of Justice Programs in theDepartment of Justice will provide allnecessary support services for the TaskForce.

£. Duties

The Task Force, as appointed by theAttorney Ceneral. the Secretary ofEducation and the Secretary of Healthand Human Services, shall have dutiesthat are advisory only.

The Task Force will carry out theobjectives listed in Item B, and report inthe manner set forth in Item D, theresults of all deliberations andrecommendations.

F. Annual Operating CosesThe annual operating cost for the Task

Force shall be paid out of existingDepartment of Justice funds. Theexpenses shall include airfare, lodging,meals, space and equipment rental,printing, mailing, transcription services,and other miscellaneous and incidentalexpenses. The estimated work years istwo FTE at an annual cost of $ 100.000.

G. MeetingsThe Task Force shall meet at least

twice a year. Meetings and otherprocedures shall be subject to applicableprovisions of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, including section 10 of5 U.S.C. App. §2.

H. Termination DateThe Task Force and Charter will

expire in four years from the date ofenactment of the Act.

/. Dare of CharterThe date of this Charter is October 8.

1997.Jeremy Travis,Director. National Institute of Justice.[FR Doc. 98-723 Filed 1-12-98; 8:45 amiBILJJNG CODE 441O-1»-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Robert A. Pfluger, D.D.S.; Revocationof Registration

On October 23. 1997, the DeputyAssistant Administrator, Office ofDiversion Control. Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA). issued an Orderto Show Cause to Robert A. Pfluger,D.D.S.. of Rockford, Illinois, notifyinghim of an opportunity to show cause asto why DEA should not revoke his DEACertificate of Registration BP4333477.under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). and deny anypending applications for renewal ofsuch registration as a practitionerpursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823{f), for reasonthat he is not currently authorized tohandle controlled substances in theState of Illinois. The order also notifiedDr. Pfluger that should no request for ahearing be filed within 30 days, hishearing right would be deemed waived.

The DEA received a signed receiptindicating that the order was receivedon November 4. 1997. No request for ahearing or any other reply was receivedby the DEA from Dr. Pfluger or anyonepurporting to represent him in thismatter. Therefore, the Acting DeputyAdministrator, finding that (1) 30 dayshave passed since the receipt of theOrder to Show Cause, and (2) no request